Tuesday, August 11, 2009

Where Freedom of Speech and Common Sense Collide



William, a protester, carries a sign that reads, "It's time to water the tree of liberty." He's caught the attention of the mainstream media not for exercising his 1st amendment rights, but for exercising his 2nd amendment ones.

You see, in addition to his pithy sign, William is brandishing a hand gun. The non-concealed weapon is resting in a holster on his right leg.

Police were questioned as to why this man is being allowed to carry a weapon in a protest line, just yards from where the president will soon be holding a town hall meeting. The police have said the weapon is registered, it is not concealed, and it is being held on private property where the man has been given permission to be.

Taking a weapon to an event with the U.S. president is not only controversial, it's just plain stupid. Not to mention, the fact that the sign he holds can be taken as a threat to the president as it refers directly to this famous quote by Thomas Jefferson:

"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."


Clearly William is within his rights as an American citizen, but one still has to wonder where common sense comes into play.

3 comments:

Anonymous said...

The problem isn't common sense, he has the right to carry it, period.

The problem is that The People have become sheep. Seriously, quoting a founding father is now considered a threat?

Considering how the Dems have called out the union stormtroopers to intimidate opponents I think this man is using his 2nd amendment rights to protect his 1st Amendment rights.

Anonymous said...

I'm all for the 2nd Amendment, but this dude has got to go. People are paid to die for the President if need be, therefore we don't need situations like this to lead to a setup where one guy has his "licensed" gun strapped on his leg out in the open for all to see being the pawn. All the while, a high percentage of Secret Service Agents are keeping a close eye on him, then another person or two have less security to worry about and they look for their opening to take a shot at the President, whoever that may be at the time. From a security standpoint, a Presidential visit should supercede state/local/private property laws.

abbyful said...

Because he has it doesn't mean he has intent to shoot the president, sheesh! If I drive to the store and buy a bottle of wine, do I intend to drink and drive? No!

This person merely had a possession. If he had a concealed carry permit and if the gun out of site, nobody would have even known about it.

Why are people so fast to want to give up or put limitations on their rights? Would you say "you have the right to free speech, but only if you agree with the president"? Would you say "you have the right against unlawful search and seizure, but only if you're home at the time"? NO!