Gun Control, Health Care Control, and Crowd Control

John Longenecker, who writes the LA Gun Rights Examiner, has been writing a series entitled Socialized Medicine and the Loss of the Second Amendment. Like most of Longenecker's writing, it is very centered on libertarian thought and its relationship to the Second Amendment. Like most of his writing, it is very provocative.

Now intertwined with the health care debate we have a debate about the Second Amendment. As I wrote about recently, a New Hampshire resident recently was at a peaceful political gathering (still protected by the First Amendment, I think) carrying his handgun holstered, but open. This is all legal in New Hampshire.

Chris Matthews of MSNBC "interviewed" the gentleman (really just swore, yelled at, berated and belittled, but you can do that if you have your own network program). That interview is available on my previous post.

Now Matthews is the same person who thought that the Navy Seals shooting of the Somali Pirates was just "luck".....3 "lucky" shots....

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Now comes Gail Collins writing in the New York Times "Gunning for Health Care" in which she not only vilifies gun owners, but feels that, perhaps New Hampshire law should be changed to her liking.

This is under the theory that as long as you know that the strange-looking guy waving the big protest sign is packing heat, you can take steps to protect yourself, perhaps such as purchasing a bulletproof vest from a nearby street vendor.

The Huffington Post, in reviewing the Matthews interview, refers to Kostric, the gentleman carrying the gun as "unrepentant". So I'm guessing that if we do or say something that Matthews or Huffington doesn't agree with we are now expected to "repent" -- to them? Does it not matter at all that, though they may not agree with it, Kostric did nothing illegal? No, not at all.

Joan Walsh in Salon.com has, in only 24 hours, has produced a number of pieces of "evidence" that portray Kostric as a right-wing revolutionary. Walsh opens her piece by saying that Kostric, "brought a loaded gun to the town hall meeting".

Accuracy is such an annoying thing. Kostric wasn't at the town hall meeting. I think we all would question the judgment of a mere citizen showing up to a meeting with the President armed. He was on the street some distance away from the meeting. Again, what he did was perfectly legal, but it is much more fun to pillory him.

So what's the point?

Simple. Portray anyone with a gun as a nut case. Make it look like they belong to some right-wing group of crazies. Marginalize them.

It is much easier to disarm people if we can spin them as crazy and, undoubtedly, dangerous.

Clearly, in the eyes of these media writers, the First Amendment only covers freedom of the press, but it is a little more expansive than that. (Caution - the following is revolutionary in tone -- children, leave the room)

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Yes, it covers freedom of the press, but it also addresses the right of the people (that's you and me) to peaceably assemble and petition the Government, exactly what Mr. Kostric was doing. He's allowed to have political opinions different from others. Sadly, most of the media has forgotten that. More sadly, if one reads the comments of people on the sites of the articles I've referenced, many of the readers have forgotten that, too.