I deeply admire the Second Amendment guys in Arizona. Were it not for their love for, and knowledge of, our founding fathers (especially Thomas Jefferson, who had such a way with words), there wouldn’t be the safe open-carry law in Arizona. Why, that darn liberty tree Tom talked about would dry up and keel right over.
I don’t know about you, but I, for one, feel a hell of a lot freer to express my opinions whenever I stand next to a “gentleman” (the word CNN used to describe a man carrying a semi-automatic weapon across his shoulders at today’s health care rally near where Obama was speaking in Arizona) who’s openly packing. Just gives me that warm and cozy protected feel all over—so cozy a feeling, in fact, that I can barely stop myself from speaking up and saying exactly what I think about health-care reform.
What if something goes wrong, you say, and one of the gun-toting guys pumps a wad of lead into me? Listen, who cares if I keel over so long as the tree of liberty still stands? Or, as Tom so eloquently put it, “What signify a few lives lost in a century or two?” as long as the “tree of liberty” is “refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.”
If only Tom were alive today, instead of when men mucked about with all that messy powder and those silly balls at the health-care rallies of yore. Why, he’d be able to strut around with his nifty AR-15. Any money he would have moved his whole darn family (Sally Hemmings and brood included) from Virginia, where the law likes it to be easy for psychopaths to get hold of semi-automatics, to Arizona, where the law likes it to be easy for good citizens to openly carry semi-automatics? There the whole Jefferson family could have come to a health-care rally (each of them that’s of age toting a weapon, of course). What a wonderful family face they could have put on our participatory democracy at work.
I, for one, wish I could see loaded semi-automatics — lots of them — on the backs of good American citizens at health-care rallies. If one of the citizen-gentlemen decided to use his weapon (which would only happen if absolutely necessary, of course, since, like I’ve said, they’re citizen-gentlemen protecting the tree of liberty), not to worry. Another of the fine, upright citizen-gentlemen who’s toting a semi-automatic, or perhaps merely a pistol, would be ready to zap him. Wham, that’d be the end of the problem.
And if you’re still worrying about something wholly preposterous, like, say, taking one in the gut because you’re accidentally caught in some crossfire, or you opened your mouth to say you think there should be a government-run health option, relax. The only reason to worry will be if you’re one of the 40 million Americans without any health insurance — which you’re not, right?
Look, Second Amendment freaks have it all bass ackwards. They should strut their fat guns in public in order to demonstrate their support for socialized medicine. That way, should they slip and shoot one another up at a health-care rally, their hospital bills will be covered.
12 Responses to Gun Lovers Unite! Socialized Medicine Now!
11216278 - August 18, 2009 at 1:59 pm
“…toting a semi-automatic, or perhaps merely a pistol..”You really don’t know what a semi-automatic firearm actually is, do you? Or was the above phrase just a momentary lapse? Small wonder the public, especially in the Heartland, hold artsy-craftsy, humanities type effete littoral professors in such contempt.
goxewu - August 18, 2009 at 5:13 pm
It is not necessary, for instance, to know the differences among coupes, sedans, convertibles, with automatic or stick-shift transmissions in order to be aghast at a state having a law that allows anybody to drive on whichever side of the street to be dangerous and to say so via irony. Similarly, it is not necessary to know that “semi-automatic” can apply to a variety of guns to say much the same about open-carry laws.
11216278 - August 18, 2009 at 5:53 pm
It is if the notion _semi-automatic_ “freaks” you out.
myrin - August 18, 2009 at 7:36 pm
So what does it take to earn the respect of a “Heartlander”, according to you? Knowing proper gun terminology? Are you a fourteen-year-old boy with a stack of Soldier of Fortune magazines? If so, you’re excused. Otherwise, you can keep your “respect.” No one needs it.
11216278 - August 18, 2009 at 9:31 pm
Well, knowing something about what you propose to write a lame attempt at ridicule about would be a start. And we’ll not only keep our respect, we’ll keep our money, taxes, and votes and place them elsewhere. And hire somebody else’s products. And get shut of the NEH and NEA.
myrin - August 18, 2009 at 10:18 pm
Sorry, but I don’t think anyone on this thread is running for office. Legally, if you’re in the U.S., you don’t have the option of not paying taxes, though of course if you’re in the “heartland” you probably represent a net loss for the Treasury anyhow, so I doubt anyone would care. But whatever. All this because someone doesn’t know the right way to use the word “semiautomatic.” So what? I don’t suppose you have a substantive response to the concerns in the post.
11216278 - August 19, 2009 at 9:35 am
We can tell our elected representatives where to put — or not put — the tax money. And if they balk, you can recall em. Or enact referenda that restrict what kinds of things get subsidized.As to “substantive response”, a post that refers to “Second Ammendment “freaks”" and shows the postress doesn’t know the difference between an automatic firearm and a semi-automatic firearm is itself insubstantive. Gail Collins’ recent column in the NYT did a far better job of considering these matters.
goxewu - August 19, 2009 at 10:17 am
The reply of 11216278 (“It is if [of] semi-automatic ‘freaks’ you out”) is a non-answer. Moreover, 11216278 speaks as if–and, puzzlingly, has been replied to as if–he or she somehow speaks for a monolithic “Heartland” opinion about guns. I hold certain opinions and happen to live on one of the coasts, but I certainly can’t purport to be a spokesperson for littoral opinion on guns. The same goes for 11216278 in the “Heartland,” where there are many enclaves of liberal opinion and certainly any number of “artsy-crafty humanities types” professors in a great number of highly regarded university humanities departments. The “we” who can tell elected representatives where to put, or not to put, tax money and recall them if they balk* is not an unvariegated body sharing the opinions of 11216278. Which is to say, there’s hope for the “Heartland.” * I’d like to know the name and title of the elected official in the “Heartland” who’s been most recently recalled over a gun issue.
goxewu - August 19, 2009 at 10:18 am
Sorry: “It is if the notion [of] semi-automatic ‘freaks’ you out.”
unsound - August 19, 2009 at 1:53 pm
@11216278 If you’re having trouble, I think the substantive issue raised in the post — semi-automatic versus automatic aside — is that the wisdom bringing guns to a crowded public event where controversial public policy issues are going to be debated is at the very least debatable. What’s your feeling about that? Do you think it’s a good idea to bring a gun to a place where there will be lots of people, close together, arguing about a highly emotional issue? More to the point, do you think it helps the debate along, or do you think it intimidates and silences people, especially people who happen to be unarmed? Remember, these events were about healthcare, not gun control.
11216278 - August 19, 2009 at 4:07 pm
I’m not having trouble, unsound, but I take your “assistance” with the helpful spirit it was offerred in. However, I am not necessarily bound by your set of either-or’s. I don’t like hypotheticals and I have not learned what the facts and circumstances actually were at the one or two rallies in the Sovereign State of Arizona were. I certainly couldn’t learn them from the original post. Did most bring firearms? Were the arms bearers returning from gopher hunting? And so on? Did anyone actually brandish or threaten others with a firearm? Arizona does I believe permit open carry and concealed carry with a license. I might ask the same either..or’s about whether 280 lb left tackles ought to come to places where people are arguing about a highly emotional issue. Or men with deep voices? Or women with shrill ones? ….
jds2006 - August 19, 2009 at 10:45 pm
And with the gopher hunting comment, 11216278 wins the Internets.