I could not care less if the Secret Service's job is made more difficult by circumstances. The purpose of law is not to make the job of government easier, it's to create an orthogonal framework from which commerce can be conducted, change effected in a peaceable fashion, and, in this country, basic rights upheld.

If the SS, in their wisdom, decide a venue is too dangerous because law-abiding citizens are armed, they can so advise the President. Perhaps he will not appear. Perhaps he'll make as a condition of entrance to the venue the checking of arms with law enforcement. I have no idea. But as long as the law says you can go about openly armed, criticizing people who exercise their rights is uncalled for, in my opinion.

Glenn: what other scenarios can you imagine where someone who is not engaging in any form of deception (as in the target of the article this thread has been jacked from ;]) can follow the law, peacefully protest, and be "stupid" and "worthy of criticism"? I have a hard time coming up with any. Maybe it's a basic lack of creativity on my part.

I did speak up against protesters being herded into zones in violation of their rights, as I have in the case of anti-globalization protesters at WTO meetings and other such situations. Not on Salon, IIRC, but the point is the same.

In your rush to pile on to any disagreement with the orthodoxy here, you appear to have missed the fact that I'm an implacable advocate of individual rights. The hundreds of letters I've written on Salon amply illustrate that fact. But go on spewing that vitriolic nonsense, it will certainly persuade others of your correctness.

I couldn't care less if people are treated better now than during the W disaster; I was addressing whether or not it's appropriate to diss people doing what they think is best when they're within the law, and most importantly they are fully honest about what they believe. Coming openly strapped to a presidential event and peacefully protesting is taking a real risk; I *respect* them for doing that.

I do happen to disagree with their politics, but that's neither here nor there.

I think you're right. We probably ought to have some reasoned public debate about whether people should allowed to be armed at protests, and totally bar arms of any kind. But we do need that debate.

Along with that, the legislation that limits such equipment needs to clearly and carefully delineate what riot control police and other law enforcement can and cannot do. Law enforcement ought to be allowed to keep people away from an area when "something is going wrong", but in general ought not to be allowed to use any kind of force on protesters, who by definition will be unarmed. It's law enforcement's job to deal with those tough problems, but they cannot use "it's hard" as an excuse to violate civil rights.

And yes, the whole TSA nonsense should go away.

It's important to address these issues completely and not piecemeal, or we end up with masterpieces like the USA PATRIOT act. An upgrade to these laws should contain a re-rationalization of all relevant law, not just some bandaid on a steaming turd.

You certainly changed your tone. Good for you.

1. There are laws against inciting to violence. The sign qualifies IMO. It's debatable. End of hypothetical.

2. See 1. Also, if I get assaulted by the police and survive, I have a pretty awesome lawsuit and get rich. No T-shirt can legally earn me a trip to the ICU.

Also, @ramoncreager:

I agree with much of the spirit of what you wrote, we just part company on the need to publicly shame people who believe they're standing up for themselves, legally and openly. I'm an equal opportunity advocate when it comes to the Bill of Rights. I sure wish they'd stuck a privacy right in there, one with teeth. Alas.

When it comes to the question of whether or not armed people have a chilling effect on those who choose not to go armed, well, that is their choice, no? I think there is some truth to the notion that an armed society is a polite society. I don't carry largely because I don't feel a need, and because it would be inconvenient a lot of the time. If there was a big cultural change in the US such that most everyone was armed, I believe things like school shootings and armed robberies would become much, much less common. We'd pick up some other problems, for sure. I think the net would be a benefit. It's a good topic to discuss over a few beers, not so much on the internet.

The human mind could never be the problem, since it is that which regards problems.

Also I was not inviting you to drink beer with me :]. That was a hypothetical as well.

I do think force, whether by weapons, personality, or any other type of threat is all that keeps civility (and civilization alive). This is not because the peaceniks need force to persuade them to play nice. It's because force is needed to persuade people like me to play nice. If there were no rule of law (an excellent example of applied force), I would be doing very different things today, as would many of the people who run our government. And indeed, to the extent they are not forced by the rule of law (and the guns that back it) to play nice.. they torture people, enact laws that effectively create serfdom in our supposed republican democracy, lie, steal, etc. They get away with it. The more force we can exert on them, either implied or actual, the more civility and sanity we'll get back.