For myself, without yet suggesting that others follow me in an open boycott, I will not personally travel in a state where civilians carry loaded weapons onto the sidewalks and as a means of political protest. I not only believe such practices are a threat to the future of our democracy, but I am firmly convinced that they would also endanger my own personal safety there. And therefore I will cancel any plans to vacation or otherwise visit in Arizona until I learn more. And I will begin thinking about whether tourists should safeguard themselves by avoiding stays in Arizona.
…
I would feel as I do regardless of the political identity of the speaker whom these thugs attempted to intimidate. The continued tolerance of extremists carrying guns is a frightening development which strikes at the heart of the political process and endangers the ability to carry out a reasoned debate. Is there any responsible citizen of the United States who believes that people should carry guns to a public debate or speech?
Arthur Frommer
August 19, 2009
Do Guns at Political Events Disturb You? Then Consider Skipping Arizona for Now
[This is about people exercising a specific enumerated right in a time, place, and manner in which no one was hurt, no laws were broken, and only the bigots were alarmed.
Let’s translate that into something more recognizable for what it is:
For myself, without yet suggesting that others follow me in an open boycott, I will not personally travel in a state where ni**ers gather in groups on the sidewalks as a means of political protest. I not only believe such practices are a threat to the future of our democracy, but I am firmly convinced that they would also endanger my own personal safety there. And therefore I will cancel any plans to vacation or otherwise visit in Arizona until I learn more. And I will begin thinking about whether tourists should safeguard themselves by avoiding stays in Arizona.
…
I would feel as I do regardless of the political identity of the speaker whom these monkeys attempted to intimidate. The continued tolerance of ni**ers is a frightening development which strikes at the heart of the political process and endangers the ability to carry out a reasoned debate. Is there any responsible citizen of the United States who believes that ni**ers should be at a public debate or speech?
Bigotry is an ugly thing.-Joe]
Well, keep your dumb ass out of Alabama too.
But wait; I thought dissent against a standing administration was the very definition of patriotism, and of all things good and right about America. Now all of a sudden, taking an active part in the discussion is a threat to democracy itself. Sorry Arthur; we’ve long ago figured out that a “reasoned debate” is one in which the Left has no effective opposition.
As for the guns; in Frommer’s locale, the criminals carry the guns any way, and any where, they please. Now he sees law abiding people doing it and he freaks out. I’ll call this “the politics of overreaction”– trying to stir up strong emotions against people you hate by overreacting to them, hoping it’s contagious.
Joe; maybe you’re more right than you imagine. It just occurred to me– maybe it was that dark-skinned man with the AR that really got Frommer’s hackles up. After all, the political party of the KKK is and always has been the Democratic Party.
If Arthur isn’t going to show up, who exactly is that going to inconvenience? I doubt anyone in AZ, or any of the majority of states that have open carry or concealed carry, would ever miss him. If he wants to hang around those places where only the criminals carry guns, that’s his choice, but he’s going to have a hard time writing about travel in the U.S. now that he’s pledged to avoid of most of it.
Heh.. IDIOT.
“.. for political protest”
How about assertion of right and free exercise thereof?
How about all men have the right to live and defend that life?
What a maroon….
Two points.
1. “I would feel as I do regardless of the political identity of the speaker whom these thugs attempted to intimidate.” I do not believe that those involved in the grassroots rallies who chose to exercise their right to bear arms did so to intimidate.
2. If this is Mr. Frommer’s position, shouldn’t he actually confine himself to Wisconsin and Illinois, since they are the only states that completely deny citizens their rights? Maybe Mr. Frommer should spend a week in Chicago and see how safe he feels.
Well. That’s it fer ‘im, then. His palpable disconnect from reality renders his principal product useless. See ya on the rubbish heap, pal.
M
Ahhhh. . .THAT Frommer. The travel guides.
“. . .I will not personally travel in a state where civilians carry loaded weapons onto the sidewalks and as a means of political protest.”
I guess if he were to follow THAT particular philosophy, he won’t be traveling ANYWHERE soon. Because there are more people carrying CONCEALED than he can see everywhere throughout these United States.
“I would feel as I do regardless of the political identity of the speaker whom these thugs attempted to intimidate”
Oh, that’s right. It was acdeptable when the SocLibs protested against Bush, becaust SocLibs don’t carry guns (at least, they didn’t USED to. Who knows now?).
“Is there any responsible citizen of the United States who believes that people should carry guns to a public debate or speech?”
I believe in carrying a gun anywhere I can. This is a natural RIGHT of self-defense, granted to man by God Himself, NOT a privilige sanctioned by government. It is codified in the Bill of Rights as a reminder to government to Keep Their Too Big Mitts OFF. Unfortunately, it has only been recently that gov’t has started to listen.
There are very few places I will not carry a gun: a hospital room with a patient using oxygen; a place with exposed explosives. You get the idea.
If this is Mr. Frommer’s position, shouldn’t he actually confine himself to Wisconsin and Illinois, since they are the only states that completely deny citizens their rights?
Actually, just Illinois. The only way to legally carry a gun in Wisconsin is open carry.