ROFL: Random Outbursts From Lar! LarryNocella.com

14Aug/09Off

Guns are anti-Freedom and Blasphemy is Fun!

So while there's all this discussion about Healthcare lately, I keep thinking about the man who brought his gun to the town hall meeting in New Hampshire where President Obama was speaking. (Story here.) Sure it was Mister Kookypants' right to carry an unconcealed weapon, but I'm not convinced he did so for any reason other than making a not-very-subtle threat. Like a staple Hollywood mobster, he was saying, "Sure would be a shame, you know, if someone got shot."

Yeah, yeah, yeah, it was his right. But that's not why he brought it. Does he take that gun, unconcealed, everywhere? To the supermarket? To funerals? To dance recitals and/or little league games for any kids in his life? To get his pedicure? For his dress fittings? I don't think so. Did he simply want attention? If so, why not wear a clown suit? That's your right, too.

No. It had to be a gun. It was an action of attempted intimidation and he serves as an excellent example, in the opposite direction of his intent. Instead of "I'm here to defend freedom," his message is, "If I can't get what I want via a fair election, I can still pop a cap in your ass."

This wanna-be gangsta illustrates the reality of gun-based freedom babble. Guns function not as protectors of democracy, the will of most people, but rather to empower a small minority to attempt intimidation and entertain fantasies of a violent coup when that minority is fairly out-voted.

In other words, and I know this is sacrilege in the USA, so I'm savoring the run-up to openly saying it: guns reveal themselves as tools to defeat freedom, not defend it.

Whoa! That felt good! I should blaspheme more.

Wait! Am I just being yet another blogger who says something outrageous and generalized (and therefore inaccurate) just to get attention? Wouldn't it depend on how the gun is wielded?

Like all things second amendment, in the abstract, that sounds right. In reality, when would you need a gun to defend freedom if you're in the majority in a country run on democracy? And if you're in the majority, how could a minority possibly gain power, except via guns? Other than an occasional individual shooting at an individual attacker, how have guns improved democracy and/or freedom?

Hint: They haven't.

UPDATE Tuesday August 18, 2009: Looks like the blatant hypocrisy of claiming to defend freedom by threatening the majority of the people's will is catching on. From the Associated Press: Man carrying assault weapon attends Obama protest. (Link) Guys, threatening a man the majority of the people voted for isn't pro-freedom and it isn't democratic, it makes you at best a cog in the machinery of dictatorships, and at worst, a barbarian. In the vernacular, you're being assholes.

===
Larry Nocella writes The Semi-True Adventures of Lar blog at LarryNocella.com. He's the author of the novel Where Did This Come From? The world's first CarbonFree(R) novel according to Carbonfund.org. The book is available on Amazon.com as a paperback and Kindle eBook. It is also available for other eBook readers.