General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsWhat Do Guns Say?
By PATRICK BLANCHFIELD
May 4, 2014, 6:00 pm
On one level, the affair in Bunkerville can be seen as a vestige of Old West range-war mentality, opportunistically remixed with overtones of the militia movements of the early 1990s and an identity-politics firestorm thats very 2014. But as a transaction between the state and citizens decided not by rule of law, nor by vote or debate, but rather by the simple presence of arms, Bunkerville is deeply troubling. Guns publicly brandished by private individuals decided the outcome. For all Bundys appeals to constitutional justification, what mattered at the end of the day was who was willing to take the threat of gunplay the furthest.
Bunkerville is simply the next step in a trend that has been ramping up for some time. Since the election of Barack Obama, guns have appeared in the public square in a way unprecedented since the turbulent 1960s and 70s carried alongside signs and on their own since before the Tea Party elections, in a growing phenomenon of open carry rallies organized by groups like the Modern American Revolution and OpenCarry.org, and in the efforts by gun rights activists to carry assault weapons into the Capitol buildings in New Mexico and Texas ... According to open carry advocates, their presence in public space represents more than just an expression of their Second Amendment rights, its a statement, an educational, communicative act in short, an exercise of their First Amendment freedom of speech ...
But what does it mean, in a democracy that enshrines freedom of speech, to publicly carry a gun as an expression of political dissent? Toting a weapon in a demonstration changes the stakes, transforming a protest from just another heated transaction in the marketplace of ideas into something else entirely. Its bringing a gun to an idea-fight, gesturing as close as possible to outright violence while still technically remaining within the domain of speech. Like a military show of force, this gesture stays on the near side of an actual declaration of war while remaining indisputably hostile. The commitment to civil disagreement is merely provisional: I feel so strongly about this issue, the gun says, that if I dont get my way, I am willing to kill for it. As Mao understood, the formal niceties of political persuasion are underwritten by the very real threat of harm. Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun ...
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/05/04/what-do-guns-say/?_php=true&_type=blogs&module=BlogPost-Title&version=Blog%20Main&contentCollection=The%20Stone&action=Click&pgtype=Blogs
Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)....as I use wimen folk for a human shield."
freshwest
(53,661 posts)The Straight Story
(48,121 posts)"But what does it mean, in a democracy that enshrines freedom of speech, to publicly carry a gun as an expression of political dissent?"
I find it interesting the author is not asking this about the government. We just accept them having arms at all times is normal. That we can't carry bottled onto a plane but armed government employees are just fine.
We fear our government and see their abuses of power from wars to corruption with police and politicians in general. But we are seen as the boogey man (and women of course). Carrying a trinket into an airport? Probably a terrorists. Let's read your emails, track your calls, wipe out your privacy. And let's do it while armed and when not armed have armed people around us protecting us.
But a few lowly citizens show up armed to something and suddenly now people are worried? Why, of course, because we have been conditioned to fear each other. Unless we are employed by the government. Then it magically changes. One minute you are beast who could snap at any second, flash a gov id and you become the handsome prince.
People will say 'but if you aren't a normal citizen and work for the government it means you are responsible and accountable' well, we are all accountable and I don't really see a lot of folks in government being responsible.
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)oneofthe99
(712 posts)appal_jack
(3,813 posts)Paladin
(28,262 posts)That may be the only positive thing to come out of the whole sorry incident.
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)Ghost in the Machine
(14,912 posts)B Calm
(28,762 posts)Cows, get any crazier than this?
kristopher
(29,798 posts)An important aspect of civil disobedience is the willingness to accept the consequences of your actions. It is those consequences and the public response to them that determines the actual impact of the disobedience. The judge and jury of those taking up weapons for this 'cause' will be the public.
If Fox News' lies and distortions carry the day through prosecution of those involved I think it's safe to say we're in for trouble.