Chilling Speech One Gun At A Time

In July 2004, a Wisconsin county supervisor was ejected from a Bush campaign speech for wearing a denim shirt over a “Kerry for President” t-shirt. That October three Oregon school teachers were threatened with arrest for showing up to a political rally featuring President Bush wearing t-shirts that read “Protect Our Civil Liberties.” In July 2008 a woman was arrested at a McCain campaign event in Denver for carrying a “McCain=Bush” sign. All peaceful, legitimate exercises of individual speech rights, quashed by law enforcement for “public safety” reasons.

Contrast those events to the recent images of protesters, from New Hampshire to Arizona, showing up at town hall meetings openly displaying loaded firearms. These armed protesters live in states with “must-issue” laws, and with some minor exceptions, these were all lawful displays of force. “Must issue” laws mandate that anyone who meets the requirement for a gun permit must be issued one. The increase in these “must-issue” laws, conceal-and-carry legislation, and the Supreme Court’s pronouncement in Heller that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to bear arms in some circumstances has led to a more confident, and more aggressive, display of force by gun-rights advocates.

Many of these protesters see displaying their gun as a symbolic speech act– a show of individual liberty. They insist that these images are the new normal, the face of “real” America–the individualists and patriots pushing back against tyrannical governmental overreach, just like the founding fathers.

But, one should ask, just what is the message conveyed by these protesters? Is it simply an honest exercise of a constitutionally protected right, or is it something else? What are their motives here? Gun-rights advocates insist these open displays of loaded weapons are not meant to intimidate public discourse. Then they announce their willingness to resist the Obama administration with force if necessary. So what is the real message here? A celebration of rights or a symbol of armed resistance to federal authority? More and more it looks like the later.

Gun-advocates would be wise to discourage this display of force, particularly if their goal is truly celebrating individual rights. The rhetoric displayed by these armed protesters is steeped in secessionist roots with unmistakable racial overtones. It’s only effect is to chill political speech– a constitutional wrong that, when righted, would have the effect of setting gun rights advances back, possibly to pre-Heller days.

However significant the Heller decision, and however popular conceal-and-carry legislation may be in certain parts of the country, individual rights are not absolute, and this includes the right to own a firearm. Individual rights always exist in a balance with other individual rights. When these individual rights, such as the right to own a firearm, collide with other individual rights, such as individual free speech rights, constitutional jurisprudence mandates a balancing of these rights so that one individual right does not unnecessarily infringe on the individual right of another. It’s time to use this balancing act.

There is no reason to show up armed to a health care reform debate if you intend to actually debate health care reform. There is no reason to purposefully display your armed weapon other than as a means of force and intimidation–just ask law enforcement. Make no mistake about it, these protesters are not interested in debating policy, they are interested in silencing debate. Whether from a mistaken understanding of the substance of reform efforts, or from a misunderstanding of the history or American political resistance, this is nothing more than an intimidation movement with a specific goal of silencing discourse. Thankfully though there’s a constitutional remedy for this overreach in the exercise of individual rights. Now it’s just time to use it.

Photo courtesy of Caveman 92223 via Flickr

Disclaimer: The views expressed above are solely those of the author and may not reflect those of
Care2, Inc., its employees or advertisers.

12:24AM PDT on Sep 21, 2009

We don't seem to learn much from anything, do we?

send a green star

Michael M.

9:06PM PDT on Sep 20, 2009

Last comment on this topic: people are no less dead for being stabbed, beaten, strangled, poisoned or killed by any other means. As long as we allow ourselves to be distracted by the instrument of crime, we will never solve the problem. Blame the criminal, not the weapon. I get so sick of the media bleating about 'gun violence' because they have no clue about how to solve the real problem of crime. For openers, legalize drugs. Half the crime in the country stems from this source. We learned nothing from Prohibition.

Gabi B.

6:04PM PDT on Sep 15, 2009

Well thanks Christine and Anne.
I give thanks everyday that there are Americans who love our country just as much. Many of us are even able to express that without feeling the need to compare our country to others or make attempts to demean others.

Christine J.

5:21PM PDT on Sep 15, 2009

Anne Burns the Canadian..Thank you. To repeat you post.

I'm a proud Australian who is soooooo glad we have strict gun laws and health care. This is such a beautiful country with friendly, loving, peaceful people. I thank my lucky stars I live here most of the time. I can walk on the street at night in a city and not be scared. I can get care when I'm sick without worrying about how to pay for it (or get bancrupt trying to pay), I have freedom of speech and can debate without being afraid of some kook blowing my head to smithereens 'cause they've got a gun. I am a very proud Australian and I have these words for you all: GOD BLESS AUSTRALIA!!!!!

12:13PM PDT on Sep 15, 2009

Interesting point Kelly, maybe they should just buy some "Extenz" or Cialis.

And yes, I wonder where the "teabaggers" were when Halliburton reported that, how much was it.......I think 20 Billion of our tax dollars went "missing"?

Kelley H.

11:22AM PDT on Sep 15, 2009

The guys who wave their guns around to show how tough they are must feel very inadequate about their manhoods, and their guns are how they make up for that. Might as well be out there telling the world, "My ____ isn't big enough, so I have to compensate somehow."

11:16AM PDT on Sep 15, 2009

@Diane S:
Thank you for a thought-provoking post. Some people give gun-owners a bad name, namely those who are waving them around to intimidate others. However, you have given a voice to those who are responsible with their weapons, and I applaud your well-written post. I do not own a gun, for various reasons. One friend of mine was accidentally killed by his brother in high school when a gun that they did not know was loaded fired unexpectedly; another friend's six year old brother lost an eye and had his face horribly disfigured when he got a hold of his parent's gun - which had been left on the kitchen table, loaded. I do not have a problem with people legally owning guns - I have a problem with irresponsible, stupid people owning guns. And, I have a big problem with those who want to use their weapons as a form of intimidation or threat.
Thanks, Diane, for showing that there are perfectly reasonable, responsible gun-owners who understand that guns are our right - but they also require a great deal of personal responsibility.

9:36AM PDT on Sep 15, 2009

Taking guns to a debate on health care is nothing but intimidation, pure and simple, and everyone knows it. Having the right to bear arms is fine, but there is a time and a place - and a debate on health care isn't the time or the place to show up with a loaded weapon. I have a right to carry a gun, too - but I wouldn't carry one into a church, or a school, or a courthouse, or even a shopping mall... or a debate on health care. Every time there is a Dem in office, people start worrying about their "right" to carry guns, but none of those people made a peep about W illegally wiretapping American's phones, or doing away with due process if someone is considered an "enemy combatant". And, when it comes to money, those same individuals didn't protest when our government spent billions of dollars on the war in Iraq - yet they sure don't want one cent spent that would help people. The cognitive dissonance going on there is mind-boggling.

4:52PM PDT on Sep 8, 2009

I would agree with you completely Hannah, if the rally the man took his AR to was a rally about enacting more stringent gun laws, but the rally was about health care, not guns. It WAS indeed about intimidation.

Hannah T.

12:16PM PDT on Sep 6, 2009

The gentleman that came to the AZ debate w/his AR was a very brave, thoughtful and intelligent man and I would be very proud if he were my son. The point is NOT intimidation, it IS demanding our rights be recognized and taken seriously. Guns are not illegal, it is not a crime to own a gun, it is a responsibility to be able to defend yourself. Just the fact we are having this discussion indicates how little we the people even recognize our own rights, let alone take a stand for them. They don't need to take our rights if we continue to hand them over in our ignorance.
The purpose of individual rights to keep and bear arms is to protect ourselves against the very tyranny our forefathers tried to protect us from in the 1st place. Study history and it is all too clearly repeating itself.
We the people have more in common than we realize and more power in solidarity than allowing our differences to keep us divided! Don't fear the man with the gun, he may be the only one that can protect you!
The states w/the most stringent gun control laws have the highest crime rates because the people can't protect themselves. We never hear the stories of self defense, only the stories of victimization, to keep the people afraid!