smoking357
Banned
imported post
It's time someone besides Marchiafava understood that it's not about self defense or crime deterrence.
From Lewrockwell.com:
August 18, 2009 A Non-State Gun at Obama Event Posted by Butler Shaffer on August 18, 2009 07:57 AM Karen: Those who are getting their diapers in a knot over the appearance of a man with an assault rifle at an Obama event need a little perspective. To begin with, they might recall the day, back in the 1960s, when a contingent of Black Panthers walked into the California State Legislative chambers with rifles and shotguns – while the legislature was in session – to make a political statement. No shots were fired; no one was injured; but the incident was intended to remind government officials of the purpose of the Second Amendment. Ordinary people – not the state’s police and military – are to have the ultimate power in a free society. It is this reminder – not the gun – that most terrifies members of the media, academia, etc. I suspect there were numerous government agents at this event with weapons more powerful than what this one man carried: why was there no outrage over their armed presence? The political scientist who worried that the carrying of guns at such events “creates a chilling effect” on members of the public might ask, if he is sincere, whether armed functionaries of the state might produce the same effect.
The fear that the ultimate political authority may be decentralizing into the hands of private persons is more than the statist faithful can tolerate. To paraphrase the anti-war bumper-sticker from the 1960s: “what if they gave a democracy and EVERYBODY showed up?”
It's time someone besides Marchiafava understood that it's not about self defense or crime deterrence.
From Lewrockwell.com:
August 18, 2009 A Non-State Gun at Obama Event Posted by Butler Shaffer on August 18, 2009 07:57 AM Karen: Those who are getting their diapers in a knot over the appearance of a man with an assault rifle at an Obama event need a little perspective. To begin with, they might recall the day, back in the 1960s, when a contingent of Black Panthers walked into the California State Legislative chambers with rifles and shotguns – while the legislature was in session – to make a political statement. No shots were fired; no one was injured; but the incident was intended to remind government officials of the purpose of the Second Amendment. Ordinary people – not the state’s police and military – are to have the ultimate power in a free society. It is this reminder – not the gun – that most terrifies members of the media, academia, etc. I suspect there were numerous government agents at this event with weapons more powerful than what this one man carried: why was there no outrage over their armed presence? The political scientist who worried that the carrying of guns at such events “creates a chilling effect” on members of the public might ask, if he is sincere, whether armed functionaries of the state might produce the same effect.
The fear that the ultimate political authority may be decentralizing into the hands of private persons is more than the statist faithful can tolerate. To paraphrase the anti-war bumper-sticker from the 1960s: “what if they gave a democracy and EVERYBODY showed up?”
