A law abiding citizen exercises his constitutional rights by openly carrying a firearm to speech by President Obama on August 17 in Phoenix, Arizona. Photo: Ernest Hancock.

In the 1920s, Swiss psychologist Hermann Rorschach developed the test now forever linked with his name. The idea behind the “Rorschach Test” is that a person’s interpretation of, or response to, a series of inkblots could help to reveal an underlying psychological disorder. As is the case for many areas of psychology, the efficacy of such testing may no doubt be debated, but the events of August 17 in Phoenix, Arizona offers observers of the American body politic the opportunity to study a similar phenomena.

According to ABC affiliate KVIA, “About a dozen people carrying guns, including one with a military-style rifle, milled among protesters outside the convention center where President Barack Obama was giving a speech Monday - the latest incident in which protesters have openly displayed firearms near the president. Gun-rights advocates say they're exercising their constitutional right to bear arms and protest, while those who argue for more gun control say it could be a disaster waiting to happen.” Other press accounts are filled with expressions of similar breathless wonderment. Palpable astonishment filled the headline of CNN’s report of the incident — “Man carries assault rifle to Obama protest – and it’s legal”— and went on to declare: “Gun-toting protesters have demonstrated around the president before. Last week, a man protesting outside Obama's town hall meeting in New Hampshire had a gun strapped to his thigh. That state also doesn't require a license for open carry.”

Paul Helmke of the “Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence” apparently went so far as to tell KVIA that, “people should not be allowed to bring guns to events where Obama is. ‘To me, this is craziness,’ he said. ‘When you bring a loaded gun, particularly a loaded assault rifle, to any political event, but particularly to one where the president is appearing, you're just making the situation dangerous for everyone.’" Of course, if Mr. Helmke were being honest, it’s not the presence of a privately-owned firearm in the same area code as the president that bothers him: it’s the presence of such privately-owned firearms within the territorial confines of the American Republic.

Perhaps we should call it Firearm Derangement Syndrome (FDS). The “Rorschach test” for FDS is quite simple: when presented with a picture of a man with a holstered weapon, what do you see? A potential terrorist? A dangerous extremist? A palpable and imminent threat to The Leader? Or do you see a citizen exercising his legal rights, behaving entirely within the spirit and letter of the law?

Undeniably, the visuals associated with this particular incident may have been initially perplexing to victims of FDS; the “gun-toting” individual whose presence at the protest has sparked the press’s histrionics is a young, African-American male — shouldn’t all “gun-toting” men be required to be middle-aged white men (preferably Iraq War veterans) whose neighbors describe them as “loners?” It’s a shame when the visuals confuse the narrative for the purveyors of American preprocessed political opinion.

It is pointless to ask victims of FDS to explain why they find the visual of American citizens exercising their constitutional rights so profoundly disturbing. The mental image of a gun in the possession of an American citizen is enough to cause them to break out in a sweat; to actually see a mere citizen with a holstered firearm is prima facie evidence of a dangerous enemy of the State. In the mindset of a victim of FDS, a gun in the holster of a citizen of the Republic is the real Weapon of Mass Destruction — if they believed in evil as a categorical moral concept, they might even call such a firearm a “tool of the devil.” No,  only in the hands of the ubiquitous black-appareled ranks of our increasingly militarized police forces does such a firearm suddenly— even mystically— transform into an instrument of Hope and Change.

Victims of FDS suffer an attendant puritanical hang-up about such displays of civil liberties. One might readily hear an anti-second amendment flack proclaim: “It’s one thing to talk about what ‘gun-toting’ citizens do in the privacy of their own home or gun range — but should we really allow such displays in public? That’s sick. The display of a firearm, like the expression of free speech, should be left to those who have been properly authorized by the government to do so. As for the rest, please have the decency to confine yourselves to a gun range or presidentially-authorized ‘Free Speech Zone.’”
 
Undoubtedly the media will be filled with the refrain in the coming days for eliminating such pesky rights to open carry in the various states of the Union. That’s the bothersome thing about constitutionally-guaranteed rights: some troublesome citizens keep running around exercising them — and certainly the recent incident demonstrates that not every use of a right is an intelligent use of that right. Americans concerned for defending their liberties from the delusions of the FDS crowd also need to keep that fact in mind.

Rev. James Heiser earned his B.A. in Political Science from George Washington University. Beginning in 1987, he worked as a Research Associate of the National Center for Public Policy Research in Washington D.C. and as a Media Analyst for the Media Research Center in Alexandria, Virginia. His publications include two books; The Office of the Ministry in N. Hunnius' Epitome Credendorum (1996) and A Shining City on a Higher Hill: Christianity and the Next New World (2006), as well as dozens of journal articles and book reviews.

TrackBack URI for this entry

Comments (14)

Subscribe to this comment's feed

Show/Hide comments

danwhitehead1 said:

As I said before - - - - - - if the fedgov were truly interested in one of its few legitimate responsibilities, that of protecting its citizens, it would be sponsoring classes to teach people how to use and maintain firearms, NOT trying to take them away from the citizens. A government that fears its citizens is a government out of control, a government that's lost its way. Also, as I've said before, the pointy-headed, limp-wristed, spineless, gutless, cowardly anti-gun crowd probably won't have to worry too much longer as it will be only criminal scum and fedgov thugs (now isn't that redundant?) will be the only holders of firearms.

report abuse vote down vote up

August 19, 2009
Votes: +8

John 31 said:

Do you trust the common citizen with a deadly weapon like a car? Most states have concealed carry laws. Is it "safer" if citizens conceal carry weapons to these rallies but not open carry? That's crazy reasoning that open carry is somehow going to incite violence. If anything, the sight of weapons in sane hands has a remarkable "chilling" effect on would-be wrong doers. It boils down to this: do you trust your fellow citizens with the power to carry weapons or not? If you do, there is no reason why you should be against open-carry. IF you are uncomfortable with the right to keep and bear arms (the second amendment) and feel that the common person in a country cannot be entrusted to responsibly keep and bear arms, then you should seek another country that has more draconian control over its citizens. Simple. THe more citizens that openly bear arms, the more scared perps become of committing a crime. And you don't seriously expect a perpetrator who is intent on harming someone of openly brandishing a weapon or following any "gun control" laws, do you? By disarming law abiding folks, all you are doing is creating more opportunities for bad guys to commit crimes.

report abuse vote down vote up

August 19, 2009
Votes: +7

still free said:

	And what about a common citizen with a deadly weapon like a knife? Great article; great comments. Let's hope the fair-minded Paul Helmke and KVIA will not forget to include knives in their comments and future discussions. Surely a knife could make "the situation dangerous for everyone." Apparently those afflicted with FDS are not as concerned about knives, at least for the moment.
	report abuse vote down vote up

August 19, 2009
Votes: +3

AndyL51 said:

	Obama Thugs Intimidated That is the reason the MSM cheerleaders have their panties in a bunch. I'll bet there were no reports of SEIU goons attacking and hospitalizing any black conservatives at this event.
	report abuse vote down vote up

August 19, 2009
Votes: +4

danwhitehead1 said:

	Thank you. still free - - - - - - and I'll go one step further and say this: if the citizens of this nation were armed both with firearms as well as the knowledge to porperly use them (as this nation was at one time), I'm willing to bet that crime and the criminal scum (who are actually nothing more than gutless, cowardly bullies) would decrease dramtically in very short order.
	report abuse vote down vote up

August 20, 2009
Votes: +4

JohnnyO8142 said:

	... After ACORN and SEIU have attacked protester at townhalls opposing this horrible healthcare. I would venture that the carrying one firearm would also provide the need for protection from Obama's thugs.
	report abuse vote down vote up

August 20, 2009
Votes: +1

JohnnyO8142 said:

... You know what bugs me is the term assault weapon. Any weapon that is used to harm someone unnecessarliy( not in self defense) could be termed an assault weapon. Do the gather information on what size bats are most often used in assaults. Then our Federal authorites would outlaw 36oz lousiville sluggers. The law makers are crazy. If your a whiteman in this country it might meet the legal standards of our recent Supreme Court Justice that your testicles can be cut off by members of minorities.

report abuse vote down vote up

August 20, 2009
Votes: +3

Peter Steele said:

Das was right and his guns were taken away by Ted Kennedy Dad had nothing to defend himself against angry Russians when Jimmy Carter's Useful Idiot film "The Day After" was shown. He felt that the Russians would shoot him to get him out of the way and they could have shot my mother and me. My DAR mother was not right psychologically after Dad died of cancer. The only thing that saved him and my family was Nobel Prize winner Aleksandr Isayevich Sohlsenetsyn and his works. Dad was right about propaganda, The Nazis, The Fascists, and The Communists.

report abuse vote down vote up

August 20, 2009
Votes: +2

FrankInFL said:

	Why is there government? No, 'protecting its citizens' is NOT a function of (our) government. Our government exists to protect its citizens' rights. If it did even a passable job of protecting our rights, we wouldn't need any other 'protection'.
	report abuse vote down vote up

August 20, 2009
Votes: +0

talgus said:

MSNBC manufactured crises One of the MSNBC shows took footage of the AR-15 carrier, chopped off his head in the video (they only showed his back and the gun carried by sling) and then the news was: this is racist!! bringing an assault weapon to an Obama speach. THis is intimidation, fear, hate-mongering, etc. etc. All without showing that the person carring the AR was a young black man. Shame on GE for employing such blood suckers.

report abuse vote down vote up

August 20, 2009
Votes: +0

danwhitehead1 said:

	I'm sorry, but I disagree with you, FranklnFL - - - - - -as the preamble of the Constitution says "...to provide for the common defense...". Also, aren't our elected officials sworn to defend (the Constitution) against enemies from within as well as without? Aren't the armed forces for our protection? Please correct me if I'm wrong.
	report abuse vote down vote up

August 20, 2009
Votes: +0

CAJUN said:

	... BETTER CHECK! THIS WEAPON CHRIS WAS CARRYING WAS A "SEMI AUTO"? DOES THIS FALL UNDER THE PROPER NAME....."ASSUALT WEAPON"???
	report abuse vote down vote up

August 21, 2009
Votes: +0

Stophel said:

	Right to bear arms It is moronic to say that you have the right to bear arms, but you shouldn't be allowed to actually bear arms...
	report abuse vote down vote up

August 21, 2009
Votes: +0

still free said:

Control is the key word The only person whose safety seemed to concern Paul Helmke and KVIA was that of the president. It's all about BANNING guns and all about CONTROL. If it was about safety there would be a lot more on the list (cars, knives, scissors, tasers, ice picks, brass knuckles, anthrax, bombs, dirty bombs, need I go on?) And let's put "bare hands" on the list too because strangulation is often deadly. Do the Insiders really care if demonstrations are peaceful? The more mayhem the better because it fuels their cause. True, they would prefer only their "yes men" to be in the audience and often they arrange it that way. And they are offended when anyone dares to object or disagree. After all, only they are entitled to an opinion because only they "know what's best for us." Remember Suzanne Gratia?* If she had been allowed to carry her legally licensed weapon into Luby's Cafeteria that day years ago, a lot of people might still be alive today. Leave our 2nd Amendment alone! *Not sure of the spelling, and she's married now.

report abuse vote down vote up

August 22, 2009
Votes: +0