When Chris Matthews asked Phil Gingrey (R-GA) if he believed that people should bring guns to town hall meetings where health care is being discussed, Gingrey replied, "I would think that they should exercise their rights under the 2nd Amendment." Gingrey essentially is encouraging people to take guns to town meetings, to meetings where folks have already been worked up into hysterical fear by lying politicians and media faces. Folks who carry guns to those meetings didn't just casually strap on their weapons when they dressed in the morning; they deliberately holstered-up when they prepared to attend a meeting in which they disagreed with the speaker. They are visually communicating the idea that if the speaker says something they don't like, they have force on their side: a deadly weapon. Even if they don't intend to use that weapon, their message is clear. And it's clear to those who might be so fearful or so mentally unstable that they indeed might use deadly force.
People like Phil Gingrey are helping to establish an atmosphere of intimidation and potential violence in public discourse. In a country where four presidents and several popular leaders have been assassinated (and others have faced would-be assassins), it seems insane to me that people are encouraging gun-toting to political rallies. That Gingrey understands the potential violence is revealed in his own words when he laughs and says he has nothing to fear because he gets standing ovations at his town hall meetings:
I've already had five town hall meetings. I have six more planned. I don't plan on wearing a bullet proof vest. In fact, I usually get standing ovations when I come into these meetings, so I have no fear.
So my question for Phil Gingrey is this: If you didn't get standing ovations at your town hall meetings and if you were, instead, faced with people shouting angrily at you, would you then fear for your life if you saw those same folks toting guns?
Rachel Maddow addressed the issue of gun-toting at political events in an with interview Joseph Petro, who served for twenty-three years as a special agent and who authored the book, Standing Next to History: An Agent's Life Inside the Secret Service. She asked Petro how the Secret Service deals with ordinary citizens, not police or security officers, who show up armed at a political rally where the president is present. She referred to an AP report about how a dozen such armed folk showed up at a recent event with President Barack Obama. "Well, that's not something the Secret Service often encounters," Petro responded. He went on to say the following:
But I think this is less a Secret Service issue and more an issue for all of us. [What] you said a few days ago that the possibility of American politics turning to violence or to terrorism at the fringes is not all that theoretical. I would argue that the vitriolic political rhetoric we're hearing, some from seemingly responsible people, is stimulating a lot of these foolish stunts, and they're not very helpful. And I think they're dangerous, actually. And I think they're dangerous for two reasons. One is: it's hard enough to protect the president. The Secret Service and the local police are being distracted from that duty, to keep our president safe. And I think the second reason may be even more serious, is the fact that it could incite or encourage one of those individuals at the fringe that you mention from doing something really dangerous and perhaps violent against the president or some other person .... Maybe the politicians should look at lowering some of the rhetoric to try to create a more positive atmosphere. (Joseph Petro, Rachel Maddow Show)
Angry mobs, inflammatory political atmosphere, and gun-toting citizens....even at open events with President Barack Obama. If anything happens to my president, people like Phil Gingrey will have a lot to answer for.
See Also:
David Sirota, "What it Means to Wear a Gun in Public," posted in Salon, 22 Aug 2009.
No comments:
Post a Comment