This past Tuesday, my good friend and colleague Alex Parker, penned an article about Sean Hannity and the armed protestors in Michigan. In it, he came down on the side of Hannity who claimed that the protestors by being armed, put the police at risk.
I generally agree with Sean Hannity, but this time, I respectfully but strongly dissent and for a number of reasons. First of all is Mr. Hannity’s specious reasoning that (legally) armed American Citizens somehow put the police at risk. How is that? Has he presented any instance in recent history that shows that folks merely exercising an enumerated constitutional right while defending liberty, to be a threat to the police or anyone else? Or is it merely possible that he doesn’t like “the look” of these patriotic Americans, the way they dress or their scary looking firearms? I would say the latter.
From Hannity, this
“This, with the militia-look here and these long guns — uhh, no.”
“That puts our police at risk, and by the way, your message will never be heard, whoever you people are.”
“No one should be attempting to intimidate officials with a show of force, and God forbid something happens, then they’re gonna go after all of us law abiding 2nd Amendment people.”
Here is where I differ from Hannity and my colleague
But maybe standing outside a state building dressed as if you’re going to violently enact a coup — particularly when your protest is unrelated to gun ownership — isn’t the best way to accomplish your goal. Or be heard by those who aren’t already on your side.
First of all, that’s a pretty big stretch, “dressed as if you’re going to violently enact a coup.” From the video embedded in the article, at least one of the armed protestors was wearing a Hawaiian shirt, surely not standard guerrilla attire. But on to the more serious points.
First of all, it’s a Bill of Rights, not a bill of “appropriate equipment for the day.” “Keep and Bear Arms.” Pretty simple. However, there’s another level to this.
Why would people carry guns to a protest not about guns? There is a school of thought that believes something along the lines of; The Second Amendment is there, so the politicians pay attention to the rest of them. When dealing with government, sometimes a politely worded letter to a public functionary will do the trick. I’ve never seen it actually work myself, but, but urban legend has it that it is indeed possible.
The steps after that depend on the seriousness of the outrage and the size of the population it’s inflicted on. There are political campaigns, public service commercials, street protests, the courts and the ballot box. Sometimes, our political ‘betters,” as they see themselves, need a little warning…a little growl, as it were.
“But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism…” bad things happen. When you have officials blithely denying men and women—American Citizens, their God given right and responsibility to feed their families, going to the extent of jailing one woman for attempting to do so, we have a serious problem.
Nobody at Red State, least of all Mike Ford, is advocating for violence. However, the armed citizens peacefully protesting unconstitutional acts by their Governor, were well within their rights. Hopefully, their Governor and any other politicians attempting to subjugate American Citizens, will hear that warning growl and refrain from further usurpations.I really don’t want us to end up here…again…
On a cool Massachusetts morning, April 19, 1775, a group of farmers, tradesmen, and other “Minutemen” led by Captain John Parker, gathered on Lexington Commons to…express umbrage, at the British Crown’s attempt to confiscate Colonial Weapons.
View original Post