Dear Sir,
I read your piece
"Leave the Guns At Home" (Thursday, August 20, 2009) with some interest.
In the piece, you posed several good questions and observations on which I think I can enlighten you.
1. What would conservatives have said if a group of loud, scruffy leftists had brought guns to the public events of Ronald Reagan or George W. Bush?
Those loud scruffy leftists were known as the Black Panther Party which showed up with regularity at political events of all kinds armed with firearms. That was their right to do as long as they carried those firearms in a peaceful manner.
2. How would our friends on the right have reacted to someone at a Reagan or a Bush speech carrying a sign that read: "It is time to water the tree of liberty"?
Free speech is not always warm and fuzzy. Political free speech as defined in the Bill of Rights is specifically designed to protect speech which is not comfortable to everyone. See Cohen v. California 403 U.S. 15 (1971)
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=403&invol=15
3. Pardon me, but I don't think conservatives would have spoken out in defense of the right of every American Marxist to bear arms or to shed the blood of tyrants.
Conservatives, unlike Liberals, believe in the entire Constitution, not just the parts they like. Conservatives speak out for all persons to have the same rights as long as they remain peaceful and operate within the laws of the state, territory, or nation in which we live. Have you ever heard of the Pink Pistols?
http://www.pinkpistols.org/ They have chapters in nearly every state and are widely supported by the shooting community.
4. Recall the 2004 incident in which a distraught mother whose son was killed in Iraq was arrested for protesting at a rally in New Jersey for first lady Laura Bush.
Sue Niederer was not operating in a peaceful manner nor was she operating within the laws of the state, territory, or nation in which we live. Luke Montgomery aka Luke Sissyfag, was arrested for shouting down President Clinton at a speech in 1993. We could exchange these stories all day; but who would want to?
5. Gibbs made you think of the old line about the liberal who is so open-minded he can't even take his own side in an argument.
He simply knows the laws as written and respects them. We live in a nation of laws, not men. The law is either manifest or it is unenforceable.
6. It's not about an opposition that has every right to free expression. It's about an angry minority engaging in intimidation backed by the threat of violence.
There was no intimidation nor was there a threat of violence. If the mere presence of a firearm caused violence every police officer would be an offensive rather than defensive person. This from CNN
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/08/17/obama.protest.rifle/ Even the Secret Service disagrees with you.
U.S. Secret Service spokesman Ed Donovan acknowledged the incidents in New Hampshire and Arizona, but said he was not aware of any other recent events where protesters attended with open weapons. He said there was no indication that anyone had organized the incidents.
Asked whether the individuals carrying weapons jeopardized the safety of the president, Donovan said, "Of course not."
7. The simple fact is that an armed citizenry is not the basis for our freedoms.
True. However, it is the ability of the citizenry to
be armed that
keeps us free.
8. Guns were used on election days in the Deep South during and after Reconstruction to intimidate black voters and take control of state governments.
You have to reach back over one hundred years to make your point. How about we look at a more recent case in which firearms were used right here in America, August 1-2, 1946, to overthrow tyranny. Have you ever heard of the Battle of Athens Tennessee?
http://www.jpfo.org/filegen-a-m/athens.htm It makes an interesting read.
Also, it was members of the New Black Panther Party which stood outside polling places in Philadelphia wielding billy clubs on election day 2008.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=neGbKHyGuHU
9. ... it is profoundly troubling that firearms should begin to appear with some frequency at a president's public events only now, when the president is black.
Not all of the protesters were Caucasian. The Arizona man heralded in the press as carrying a semi automatic military pattern rifle was of African American heritage.
It might disturb you to know that MSNBC edited their footage of the Black man with the military pattern rifle so his race was not revealed. The panel, led by Contessa Brewer, then went on to discuss how "A man at a pro-health care reform rally ... wore a semiautomatic assault rifle on his shoulder and a pistol on his hip ... there are questions about whether this has racial overtones ....
white people showing up with guns." The video is here
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UYKQJ4-N7LI and the picture of the man of whom they are speaking of is here
http://www.abc15.com/media/lib/88/0/0/2/002dcac9-eb07-48d7-8135-ab42c9e06933/Original.jpg . They edited the film to make this about race and they did so deliberately. Of this there can be no doubt. The sad part is that these are
your colleagues.
I hope that I have answered your questions and observations you to your satisfaction. I am open to a dialogue as you may desire.
Sincerely,
Jim Peel
Longmont, CO