Gun Holding Protester vs. Cenk Uygur

I usually enjoy watching and reading what Cenk has to say-he can use common sense when describing a host of issues; however this is not one of those issues.

Cenk ignores common sense for the shallow fact that this man wielded a gun near the President's town hall meeting. I would remind Cenk that guns can be considered a threat to public order, but so can transferring funds to a Muslim charity (a "terrorist" organisation), so can speaking on the phone from a foreign country (may I remind you of wiretaps), and apparently checking out subversive books can be considered a threat to the United States of America. Cenk attacks this man just as Republicans under George Bush II attacked Muslims in the name of safety.

Yet, Cenk, you were right to criticise all these efforts on behalf of Republicans to demean and destroy our liberties, for the very sole purpose that these men had done no crime, and posed no threat to the United States. You should see this episode in the same light.

You say in your article,

"Is anyone stupid or disingenuous enough to believe that [they would allow this under Bush 43]? They would have taken his ass down in a flat second. They would have infiltrated whatever group he belonged to and monitored his ass for the rest of time."

Yet as Bush 43 tortured, started an illegal war, attacked civil liberties, and passed signing statements, doesn't mean we can or should do the same thing now.

Cenk, this man should not be disarmed because the specific gun he had, the way in which he carried it, and the place where he stood, made this man legally allowed to do these things. The laws of New Hampshire, and the inalienable rights of its citizens, should not be undermined because the President is in the vicinity of the protesters. Such logic could justify preemptive detention of any citizen who the President deems a danger to his public safety.

May I remind Cenk that this man was outside the town hall, may I remind him that he was legally allowed to be there, that for the President's protection the government employs special bodyguards, that police monitor protests, and that this man had no intention to harm, and did not harm anyone?

In a free society, its citizens must live in insecurity. It is the nature of a free society. Yet we each cannot infringe on the rights of others- to do that is illegal. We must behave in a manner that protects our liberty, and that is the why guns are used only in self-defense, that is why even if 20 or 30 protesters carried guns to a protest, no violence should ensue. If it does, it would be only in response to others taking away freedom of the individuals involved. If violence occurs and takes the liberty of another, it is illegal. If this violence is planned, it is premeditated and the police should take appropriate action to prevent it.

The truth remains that this man did not threaten the life and freedom of the President, and most surely did not threaten the life and freedom of others in the public.

Otherwise Cenk, all threats to the public safety, or perceived threats, should be dealt with on the paranoia of another, be it the police, the President, or the military corps. Threats should be eliminated whatever form they take, be it Muslims gathering for prayer, phone calls from relatives in Pakistan, or gun toting protesters. In such a world if the media report on civilian deaths in Afghanistan, President Obama should be obliged to insure its censorship, as that would foment terrorist acts against America. The release of photos that could harm Americans abroad should be prevented at all costs. Why have a second amendment, since surely the public peace should come first?

Such a model for society would ensure complete safety, and no liberty.

Do not travel down this road well traveled by authoritarians, Royalists, and Republicans Cenk-come back to the narrow path of liberty.