National Media Goes Ballistic at Sight of Firearms
Normal open carry in Phoenix made international news because the President
was in the city at the time. Under any other conditions, it would not
have even been noticed, let alone mentioned for days on end.
August 31, 2009
Guns at the recent Obama rally in Phoenix made international news.
The Arizona Republic asked me to give the gun-rights side of the story, in a pro-and-con piece on Sunday (8/30/09) to 550,000 readers. If you missed this in the Sunday paper, here it is as written (they made changes of course).
Following the story is a reply to some of the letters I got, which are still coming in. There are some disjointed illogical brains out there let me tell you.
Black Man With Gun Harms No One
[The paper called it: "Bearing Arms Exemplifies Anger Over Big Government"]
by Alan Korwin, Author
The Arizona Gun Owner's Guide
August 30, 2009
Why are people showing up at political rallies armed? When Chris Broughton appeared at the Aug. 17 Obama health-care rally in Phoenix, his holstered sidearm and shouldered rifle made international news. What's happening?
More and more Americans fear their government is racing out of control, and they're speaking up peacefully but in no uncertain terms.
For instance, when this health-care bill was introduced, president Obama pressed for immediate passage, remember? Before we could read it he urged enactment. Is that proper? Should we the people tolerate that?
Fortunately, sign-before-reading didn't happen. Then when the contents emerged, even his own party revolted.
We faced wholesale takeover of medicine, inflexible doctor controls, massive bureaucracies, monopolies without redress -- and no money for it! They said it won't increase costs, but will cover 47 million uninsured while creating bunches of federal medical departments. That's flat-out impossible -- and it left many shaken.
People showing up armed at rallies aren't extremists or right wing. They are centrists -- people attached to The American Way -- limited government, delegated powers only, low taxation, free-market capitalism, right to arms, freedom to assemble -- central principles that made America great. They see this administration abandoning our inspired guidelines and are literally up in arms. This terrifies "progressive" leftists but the central core of America understands completely... and is cheering. It's overdue.
Let me put this metaphorically. When government gets this far out of control, the farmers show up with pitchforks. That's what's happening.
When government can take your money and simply give it to anyone (like floundering firms without enough bonus cash) or spend on anything regardless of constitutional limits, that's tyrannical -- government of unlimited powers. It is totally proper for common folk to rise up and object. The Framers put the Second Amendment in the Constitution for exactly this reason -- as a last recourse if government abandons its limits.
[This graf was omitted] Remember similar coercion over "stimulus"? Sign immediately or face doom. Our unrepresentatives caved and signed. Now, czars control the cash. You remember history -- czars are tyrants. Congress doesn't control them, only their proclaimer does. It's shadow government, an affront, a usurpation. The people must object.
Ernest Hancock, the libertarian from FreedomsPhoenix.com who organized that blackest of community demonstrations, said, "We're up against a tyrannical government that will rob the next generation as long as they can get away with it." His billboards with babies weeping "It's not my debt" says it all.
In the aftermath I did the usual interviews. NBC-TV's affiliate confessed (off-air) that including the armed man's race (Chris is black) would undermine "the whole redneck right-wing extremist thing."
AP's reporter kept asking, "Why wasn't he arrested? He had a gun!" I kept replying, "Because he didn't do anything wrong." She didn't get it.
WGN-AM Chicago asked, "Do you have shootouts on the streets?" They are so lost. We relish banquets with "Tasteful open-carry appreciated." It's incomprehensible to news-challenged masses.
Obama's forces thrust deep socialist hooks into the insurance business, home mortgages, automobile making, banking, and now they're after our doctors and medicine. They have zero constitutional authority. This must be stopped. The only surprise is pitchforks didn't appear sooner.
Two good things ensued. Reprehensible "news" coverage attempted to vilify it, hide the black guy, and failed, revealing those reporters' true colors. And morbid hoplophobic (gun-hatred) fears permeating America's innards were exposed.
This fine country has guns, uses guns, buys and sells guns inside communities, understands that guns are good, guns save lives, guns protect you, guns are why America is still free. Totally natural, these facts our "news" omits, leaving many progressively uninformed.
New York City and Washington, D.C. are where most national media festers. Their gun rights are so violently repressed the mere sight of guns makes them wet their panties [the paper said, makes them shake]. Visit a shooting range? Puhleeze.
Pity them. It's sad. They're so far removed from these vital exemplars of freedom they blindly spew self-righteous anti-rights bigotry at the public. That's the message of the black gentleman with the black gun who harmed no one.
Alan Korwin, a nationally recognized expert on gun law, has written eight books on the subject and can be reached at gunlaws.com.
[Form letter reply to correspondants:]
Thank you all for the thoughtful and sometimes outrageous responses to my article.
Too many to answer all individually, but let me address at least the recurrent themes. For those with supportive views, thanks, below I'm mainly dealing with the gripes and upset.
First, my article was not entitled "Bearing Arms Exemplifies Anger Over Big Government," which set some people off. It was entitled "Black man with gun harms no one." The newspaper changed my title (I specifically asked them not to since it tied into the closing line.) They do that all the time, manipulate meaning with headlines, even though it's decidedly unethical (one of my main points -- news distortions).
For all the people (a lot!) who went on and on about Bush and Cheney, and abuses and stupidity of the republicans, I feel your pain and hear your angst, but your remarks are misplaced. OK, you're angry at the old boss, you wish there was more protest back then. Well, where were you? And why not deal with the topic of this article? Sorry if my staying focused got you so upset.
I dealt with facts and spelled them out, and I called a spade a spade. Why did so many people yell at me for not using facts? Read it again. There are a ton. We DO face anti-rights bigotry, and I quoted examples, and you can see Chris Mathews or Rick Sanchez or the rest get apoplectic on line -- sorry I couldn't quote them all, I had only 600 words to work with.
Not one of the complaints addressed the hardest fact -- Obama asked for immediate compliance with his 1,100-page health bill before it could be read. That IS outrageous. That IS improper. You SHOULD object to such a tyrannical approach to lawmaking. Signing without reading is malfeasance, it should be grounds for removal from office. No one should support such policy, even his most ardent supporters. And it was worse than you saw -- this was cut from the article:
"Remember similar coercion over "stimulus"? Sign immediately or face doom. Our unrepresentatives caved and signed. Now, czars control the cash. You remember history -- czars are tyrants. Congress doesn't control them, only their proclaimer does. It's shadow government, an affront, a usurpation. The people must object."
To people who created their own imagination of who I was appealing to, I wrote for the 550,000 readers of the state paper. Your projections of ignorant masses, uneducated dolts, angry miscreants -- that's pure projection. The piece was erudite, meticulously crafted, logic-and-reason based -- you apparently just didn't like the subject matter or conclusions. Your remarks say little for reasoned debate. "Deep socialist hooks" and "zero constitutional authority" are not mindless labeling, they are accurate descriptions.
And just a closing note on some errors in the counterpoint article. Chris was carrying a modern-style one-shot-at-a-time sport-utility rifle, not a machine gun. Mr. Obama was not standing a few hundred feet away, he was walled off in a security bubble more than a thousand feet away and was never seen. The symbols of totalitarianism were protests aimed at Obama's actions, not flags of the protesters. Chris was dressed in a white shirt and tie, not "like a commando on patrol." What flagrant vitriol that was. And the crack about armed drunkards was just abject silliness, totally off point.
[I'll post some of the inbound letters when I can, check back in a short while.]
"We publish the gun laws."
4848 E. Cactus #505-440
Scottsdale, AZ 85254
1-800-707-4020 Orders https://www.gunlaws.com firstname.lastname@example.org
Call, write, fax or click for a free full-color catalog
Encourage politicians to pass more laws...
with expiration dates.