digital emunction | a multiauthor blog founded and edited by robert p. baird

Have Gun? Will Not Travel

Since I found it fit to make com­ment on the polit­i­cal state­ments made by one of the travel industry’s lead­ing lights, I think it only fair to be bipar­ti­san about things. This from the 80-year-old Arthur From­mer on the group blog at his company’s travel web site (blog­ging knows age limits!):

I am not yet cer­tain whether I would advo­cate a travel boy­cott by others of the state of Ari­zona; I want to learn more about Arizona’s gun laws and how they com­pare with those of other states. But I am shocked beyond mea­sure by reports that ear­lier this week, nearly a dozen per­sons, includ­ing one with an assault rifle strapped about his shoul­ders and others with pis­tols in their hands or hol­sters, were openly con­gre­gat­ing out­side a hall at which Pres­i­dent Obama was speak­ing to the Vet­er­ans of For­eign Wars.

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.

And:

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? If Ronald Reagan were deliv­er­ing a polit­i­cal talk in Phoenix, Ari­zona, would they have felt it was proper for pro­tes­tors with guns to mill about out­side the hall from which he would leave?

Judg­ing by the wacko remarks in the com­ments sec­tion, many read­ers did not take Frommer’s claims about his non-​partisanship at face value.
The “exercising rights” defense gets a lot of play to sup­port some dude’s right to strap on an assault rifle and walk around openly on Phoenix streets. But “exercising rights” is here an excuse for com­mu­ni­cat­ing a polit­i­cal threat. To “exercise one’s right” to own an assault rifle means to take it to a firing range and unload on a bale of hay. To carry it to a polit­i­cal rally is to exer­cise a non-​linguistic but obvi­ous threat.
From­mer cites Ari­zona law as the cul­prit, and indeed he might be right, but only inso­far as Ari­zona law allows this cit­i­zen to make a vague threat with a very real and dan­ger­ous weapon. Actu­ally, Frommer’s making a polit­i­cal state­ment of his own that he’s dis­guis­ing: and his is, “I do not advo­cate threats with guns made against the President.” Though he cites his own safety, this is his real intent, obviously.
But about that gun law. What is the citizen’s protest or com­plaint? If it’s about taxes, then the assault rifle is a bizarre and irrel­e­vant threat. If it’s about health care reform, ditto. The real ques­tion is: when would an assault rifle ever lodge a legit­i­mate threat that doesn’t go too far?

Leave a Reply

3174686811_d7f54518bb