Update, August 17th, 3:05 pm — The following video and links were sent to me by… William Kostric (of all people). Two men were seen carrying AR-15 assault rifles (as well as a single pistol) outside an Obama event in Phoenix, Arizona. Here’s the first video that we have available—
A young man identified only as “Chris” was seen walking around the Phoenix Convention Center at the time that President Obama arrived there to give a speech. “Chris” was carrying an assault rifle and a pistol. When asked why he was carrying weapons, he replied: “Because I can do it. In Arizona, I still have some freedoms.”
CNN has reported that there was a second man carrying an assault rifle, but there is no other information about him at this time.
You can read more about this incident here, here, and here.
There seems to be no connection between this and prior gun-related incidents at town-hall meetings, which began last week when William Kostric brought a gun to a rally in New Hampshire — continued with a second man at the same event who had a firearm concealed in his car — and then continued after that with two different gun-related incidents at events featuring Democratic Senators…
There is no direct link between any of these events. However, two weeks ago, a New Mexico man Twittered that reform opponents should bring guns to town-halls, so that they could “badly hurt” Democratic counter-protesters.
Anyway. …Sorry about all of this. Weird, semi-horrifying things keep on happening. We now return you to your regularly-scheduled column...
_____
On August 11, 2009, William Kostric brought a loaded gun to a town-hall meeting featuring President Barack Obama. Live coverage of the event was immediately broadcast on MSNBC: showing a man, standing outside a high school in Portsmouth, New Hampshire, with a loaded pistol strapped to his leg. What happened next was an explosion… of media coverage; of heated debates on MSNBC and CBS and Fox News; and of debates between average Americans — between Democrats and Republicans, Tea-Partiers and East-Coast Liberals, Obamabots and Birthers.
…What did it all mean? Mr. Kostric quickly stated that he had no intention of shooting the President, and that he had only been protesting in defense of his Constitutional rights. …Still, the debate continued.
Just recently, William Kostric sat down with “The Faster Times” (as represented by, um, me) for a free-ranging discussion about… everything that’s happened so far. I gave him wide latitude in picking the topics of conversation, which seems only fair, since I mocked him relentlessly in a previous article. I also gave Mr. Kostric the opportunity to refute many of his critics’ claims; you can read his various replies to those critics right… here.
All in all, it was an interview that was so awesome (and so lengthy) that we had to split it up into two parts. Today’s section discusses the town-hall incident itself, and gun rights in general. Part Two (coming at the end of this week) will discuss Barack Obama, politics in general, what it’s like to be on Fox News, and plenty of other fun stuff as well…
___________________________________________________________
The Faster Times: Hey there, Mr. Kostric. So what’s going on? Are you at home? Has your phone been ringing off the hook?
William Kostric: Well, my only phone is my cell and it gets spotty reception where I live so I’ve actually been staying with friends in order to conduct phone interviews. So far there’s been Alan Colmes, Alex Jones, Ernie Hancock and Richard Hunter. I have a few more scheduled next week. When the on-site interviews were happening, I was asked by a few reporters for a phone number which I declined to give out so the contacts are coming via email. I guess maybe I could have gotten on a few more programs if I had circulated it but I do value privacy. Still, the phone has been ringing quite a bit just from family and friends wondering if I’m okay, offering advice or just congratulations.
TFT: Is this the weirdest thing that’s ever happened to you in your life?
WK: My whole journey has been pretty interesting. I’m always astounded at the surprises life throws our way. It’s like a game of chess, you try to plan ahead and think you’re in control but out of nowhere, your opponent makes a move you never saw coming and everything changes. Of course I’m no grandmaster but if everything went our way, think how boring life would be.
TFT: So you’ve said that you brought the gun along with you to the town-hall in defense of your 2nd Amendment right to bear arms. Was that your sole motivation?
WK: Not at all! It certainly is true that rights are like muscles, if not exercised, they wither and die. As proof I offer the fact that open carry is legal in over 40 states but in many of them, I wouldn’t dare. Currently, open carry is not a big deal here and we’d like to keep it that way. The only way to do that is to carry.
Part was self-defense. There have been incidents of fights and intimidation at other town-halls. A firearm serves to diffuse, not escalate, aggression. But most of it was simply the fact that I’m generally armed and saw no compelling reason to disarm.
TFT: Okay. You’re saying that firearms diffuse aggression. But that wasn’t necessarily the case there at the town-hall, was it?
WK: Indeed it was. Had I not been armed, the odds of a physical violence would have been greater. Instead there was only a heated verbal exchange.
TFT: But that seems… a tad disingenuous. The gun was the thing that started a fight with a rival protester. I’m not saying that the guy who attacked you was right. But your argument here seems to be that having a gun ended a fight that having a gun started.
WK: I don’t know where you got that impression. He was foaming at the mouth (not quite, but he was certainly amped up as his face muscles were twitching and his hands were shaking) about Obamacare when someone behind me made a reference to “the Messiah” which seemed to really get him riled up. At any rate, he never made verbal reference to my firearm.
Your assertion that he saw a gun, and then went over and tried to pick a fight with the owner is kind of insulting to him, isn’t it? I mean, would you say that’s something a smart person would do?
TFT: Even if you acted totally calmly — and I think that you did — you must have had some sense that having a gun near the President would cause other people to get upset, right?
WK: No, I don’t think the firearm being there caused anyone to be distressed. Certainly no one from New Hampshire. Perhaps some of the people bussed in from Massachusetts or New York were (and I have no knowledge that even that’s true) but that would only be caused by brainwashing that only criminals and cops wear firearms.
TFT: But… c’mon. You know what this reminds me of? And maybe this is a terrible metaphor, and if it is, I apologize. But this reminds me of, say, when Britney Spears was a 16 year-old virgin, but she would appear almost naked on magazine covers. Or Miley Cyrus. Same deal. Virgin. Naked. Magazine. And then people predictably freak out about that. …And then Britney/Miley says, “What? I just don’t see what the big deal is!”
C’mon. Weren’t people obviously going to get upset? It’s the President. People are afraid he’s gonna get shot. And people did get freaked out. People at the event freaked out. People watching on TV freaked out. I freaked out.
WK: Look, I don’t want to be condescending or dismissive but… gimme a break. Assassins don’t open carry. It’s just common sense. They don’t announce that they are armed. Further, 9mm’s don’t go through armored cars. And no, I don’t see what the big deal is. The assertion that people at the event freaked out is flat out wrong. I was there. A few people watching on TV may have but most of that leads back to irresponsible reporting on the part of MSNBC along with rampant hoplophobia.
The left is always talking about cultural sensitivity, well here’s a culture that maybe it’s time for them to understand.
TFT: I was actually going to ask you about this anyway. But you said a second ago that you’re “generally armed.” As in, generally carrying a gun around with you. And you’ve said that in other interviews too. That you carry a gun with you to the store, for instance. Now, I’ve never been to Portsmouth, New Hampshire. But I have been to Durham, New Hampshire, which is only twelve miles away. And it was a sleepy little New England town. Ivy-covered. Brick buildings. Not very dangerous-seeming. …But whatever the town — wherein is the need to carry a gun with you to, say, the local store in the middle of the day? It can’t be for protection, can it? I mean, you don’t think that someone’s going to attack you in the local store, right? …So are you just trying to make a general political statement?
WK: Aside from the aforementioned need to exercise the right, I would ask “Why do cops carry guns in those sleepy little towns?” I mean, it can’t be for protection, right? Who’s going to attack them? They must be gun nuts or something.
TFT: I’ve lived in a lot of places. In the North, in the South. Apart from cops, I have never in my life seen someone walking around with a loaded weapon in plain view.
WK: I agree with you that in most places it’s an unusual sight, that’s one of the things that needs to be corrected. I’d like to ask though, why the differentiation between citizens and the cops? There are a few basic philosophical points here begging to be recognized. If we’re all created equal, when did we become unequal? What is the nature and source of power or authority?
Our society is based on the idea that the people are sovereign. All power resides with the people individually. Just government derives its authority from the consent of the governed. What does that mean? Think of it like power of attorney. Anything that I (or any other individual) am legally and morally able to do, I can designate someone else to do on my behalf. This grant of power can of course be revoked at any time. Why? Because it’s our power to delegate, or not. Here’s an example of how things came to be—
One guy had kids. He had a right, indeed a responsibility to teach his own children. So did a few other families in the area. They got together and said “Hey, instead of me teaching mine, you teaching yours and him teaching his, why don’t we pool our money and hire someone to do it for us?” This turned out to be more efficient and effective (then). What changed? The general population lost sight of their history. They started to think that somehow I (or society) had a responsibility to teach their children or that they have a “right” to free education. Both are completely false. Why? Because as an individual, I have no power to force my neighbor to educate my children and since you can’t delegate power you don’t have, and all government power is a delegation of individual power, well, you get the point. This is the beginning of illegitimate government.
As a side note, the system has now become totally bloated and inefficient, which happens whenever government becomes involved (hello, health care objection), which is why we are seeing a revival of home and private schooling.
Back to the issue at hand. If you want to designate your right and your responsibility to protect your life, liberty and property to others, fine. You and others can hire cops to do that job for you. I choose not to burden society with the responsibility of my upkeep and protection. That means I provide my own food (no thanks, Welfare), I pay for my own health care (no thanks, Obama/Medicare), I provide value for others (no thanks, Unemployment), I plan for my own retirement (no thanks, Social Insecurity), I provide for my own defense (no thanks, cops). This would be the end of the story except that I’m forced to pay for services that I neither want nor need. Can you say protection racket?
TFT: It seems to me that 2nd Amendment rights are pretty solid in this country, even if wussy liberals like me might wish it to be otherwise. You can buy assault weapons, if you want. President Obama has so far proposed nothing in the way of any infringement on gun rights. So why is it necessary to carry a gun around all the time? What makes you feel that your way of life is being so threatened?
WK: The right is to “bear arms” which in this context means to carry them which is exactly what I’m being criticized for. Once the right to bear them goes, the right to keep them won’t be far behind…
___________________________________________________________
Coming next in Part Two: Obama. Politics, politics, politics. “Tyranny vs. Losing.” “Sh-t That’s Never Gonna Happen.” And lots of other stuff, too.
More on these topics:
2nd Amendment, Barack Obama, Birthers, Fox News, Health Care, MSNBC, Tea-Parties, William Kostric
.jpg)
JS says:
I can see how some people who are generally supportive of 2A rights would be of two minds about this. Hope you get to the issue of the "sign" in the second part...
NHTPC says:
Wow you still don't get it! In NH this is like saying, OMG, I looked up into the sky and I saw a STAR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
This is not unusual and we can't imagine why anyone freaked out over it.
I stood next to him and had no qualms about it.
Really you need to move on. What kind of man are you anyway?
www.nhteapartycoalition.org
Keith says:
This is New Hampshire baby. Some people will never understand it. Live Free or Die!
AnotherStrayCat says:
I think the two guys with assault rifles were in Arizona. But, yes, you're right. Some of us will never understand the need to wield weapons when they are clearly not helping the situation.
VinceP1974 says:
Well you never know when the Obama brownshirts from SEIU or ACORN or OFA or HCAN or who knows what other brownshirt group will randomly select you for a beating.
Conservatives should come to these things ready to defend themselves. From a few vidoes I saw where Union thugs beat up on people , the police just stand by and do nothing.
And not surpising not one of you pathetic Leftists condem the violence that Obama has initiated and the Unions/ACORN fullfill
Dado says:
"TFT: I’ve lived in a lot of places...Apart from cops, I have never in my life seen someone walking around with a loaded weapon in plain view."
Welcome to AZ! LOL! Although this is actually not all that common here, it is the way it is. It sounds like you'd be one of those retired snowbirds that calls 911 when someone is wearing their sidearm in the grocery store.
The States are different. This is good in that different people can choose different lifestyles. What ever happened to that shining house of cross cultural inclusion we wanted to build?
BTW, the statement that You can buy assault weapons, if you want... is disingenuous unless you're truly unaware of what they are. I suppose one could but this is extremely difficult to do. An assault weapon is, by definition, a fully automatic weapon.
I'm not sure from reading this piece whether or not you're one of those that does not understand this or does and pretends they don't. But believe it or not, there are very very few in private hands and, because of the process required to own one, they know where they are. (yeah, yeah I know you could actually sell yours to a Mexican drug lord).
Understanding this, the question now would be, was the guy in Phoenix running around with an assault rifle or, what many that do not understand these things believes, just one of those "ugly guns"?
julian says:
An otherwise excellent article is marred by the ( hopefully) unintentional furtherance of propagandist doublespeak / libtalk.
An assault weapon is a fireaem capable of selective single-shot, burst, or full auto fire. Period. if it cannot be fired in a full-auto mode, it is NOT an assault weapon. Anti-gunners insist on using the term in an intellectually dishonest manner to try to inspire fear among the unenlightened.
If you saw a man at a political event cleaning his fingernails with a small pen-knife, would you dutifully write of witnessing a man honing a razor-sharp machete? If you saw my nephew in the park here, making a PB & J sanwisch with a butter-knife, would you call Homeland Securoty and fill out a report stating that you had seen a child weilding a blood-stained samurai sword? If the answer is no, then you would also be much more credible in not referring to legal 'over the counter' semi-auto rifles as 'assault rifles'.
Paladin says:
Mr. Kostric is a patriot. Second Amendment advocates nationwide should be more courageous and start open carrying whenever possible. Guns are NOT ILLEGAL. Possession of Guns is NOT ILLEGAL (even by felons contrary to popular belief perpetrated by illegitimate exercise of gov't power). The more people we can get to exercising their 2A rights the sooner we can re-acclimate the general population to firearms and dispense with all the hoplophobic panty-wetting. I call on ALL SECOND AMENDMENT SUPPORTERS to begin exercising their bearing arms right at every opportunity.
Bill says:
Mr. Miller,
Thanks for the interview with Kostric. He is smart and articulate and thank God he is around to show that not all men are women of both sexes. Assault rifles are Class III weapons heavily regulated by the bumbling Federal government. The more appropriate term for what you saw in AZ is "cosmetically offensive" firearms that mimic military small arms, with a bayonet lug for instance.
I live in AZ and carry all the time and it is rather common to pull up to an intersection and see a big gnarly biker pull up next to you packing a pistol on his hip. You would be a fool to hike in the nountains of AZ without a weapon to protect yourself from the predations of both quadrupeds and bipeds.
I think your research will lead you to discover that the real divide in America is btween urban enclaves and rural holdings as far as the difference in the way these things are viewed. I also applaud Kostric for reminding us with his sign that the threat of imposed servitude has a price for the government.
Foo Bar says:
If the president isn't comfortable that almost all the states have far more liberal freedoms concerning guns and almost everything else than The District, maybe he should just stay in D.C.
Oliver Miller says:
I fully admit that I didn't know the difference between "assault weapons" and "assault rifles," although my friend did explain that one to me last night...
I'm not going to change that in the interview, because that would be me changing my own question to make myself look... smarter. And that's not cool.
Carry on...
dtayls says:
Thanks for a great article, Oliver. It's sure to open some eyes and change some hearts.
Luna says:
I wasn't disturbed so much by the gun, but by the sign + the gun. Together, they constituted a threat. Maybe not an intended one, but a threat none the less. I was looking at William Kostric's MySpace page, and he seems like a guy I would normally be friends with, but I think his actions were perhaps not fully thought through.
Put a different quote on the sign, maybe about the one about choosing between liberty and security, or something.. but not the one that basically calls for revolution and/or implies violence. sigh. You're just proving the point of liberals who already have a stereotype of gun owners that he just reinforced.
More here: http://cognitiveresurgence.com/2009/08/17/gun-nuts-give-free-ammunition-to-the-enemy/
Stozzel says:
Why does this article keep referring to "gun-related incidents"? As far as I can tell, there have been no incidents, unless the mere carrying of an object by a law-abiding citizen in no violation whatsoever of local, state, or federal laws is an "incident". If that's the case, how about some discussion on all the "shoe-related incidents" at these town hall? Most of the footage I've seen have almost everyone in attendance involved in two!
Kelly says:
I grew up with guns in my home. My father saw to it to teach me to hunt and survive off the land. A good portion of my blood traces back to this land before it was the United States.
I never really thought carrying a gun was something I needed to do. That's what police are for, right?
I believed that until one day I found my life at risk, and there was no officer near to protect me. I realized that day that with the mere decision to end my life by an individual who clearly was not in a solid state of mind - and I would have died.
I was at the mercy of a person who had recently been released from prison - a convicted felon who had beaten a man to death with a cinderblock (large brick). This man had armed himself again, and I was to be his next victim.
Whatever his reasoning, I was not killed that day (obviously). But, after all had settled - it was clear to me that I could have just as easily died that day.
I wasn't in a dangerous neighborhood. In fact, I was less then 200ft from the police station in a small town of less than five thousand people. I was in a business - on the main street - with a large window where the robber was clearly and openly visible.
Sure, you are probably going to be safe your entire life. You will most likely never be robbed. Statistically speaking, America is safe and the odds are in your favor.
Until they're not. When that small chance comes that your life will be threatened, do you really want to find yourself in an indefensible position? Or do you think you should have the right to carry a firearm, so you can defend yourself?
JDubya says:
The term 'Assault Weapon' was coined by the Clinton administration to generate fear and support for their ban. Unless someone holds a Federal Firearms License they cannont possess a fully automatic weapon (and that's what the term Assaul eludes to...). It is either a semi-automatic rifle, or it operates by some other action, bolt (which was used to assasinate President Kennedy, BTW), or manual. Wake up people.
Jim Cocanon says:
Mr. Kostric gives an excellent, eloquent defense of his point of view.
My only "problem" (and granted it is a minor problem) is that despite what he says, there is still a cognitive dissonance between exercising the right to open carry and protesting Obama's health care initiative. From what I can tell there is no government coercion involved in the plan(s) being proposed. While Mr. Kostric brings a sound corrective about from whence government power is derived, in practical fact we delegate to government quite a lot of things we, as individuals, do not have the power to do ourselves. Sometimes this power is delegated to the private sector, sometimes to the public sector. There is great merit in Kostric's principles--the world would be a better place with more Kostrics, i.m.o., but to now begin to disentangle government from these aspects of our lives is a libertarian fantasy. The problem is not government itself, as Reagan famously put it; the problem is that the governed have abdicated their interest in their representatives. And this has led to both government and private interests acting independently, and sometimes against, public interest.
Oliver Miller says:
How about we take Sean Connery's quote from "The Untouchables" and apply it to this situation: "...Never bring a knife to a gun fight."
Sure, never bring a knife to a gun fight. Bad idea. But it seems here like people are bringing guns to what was supposed to be a word fight. What do 2nd Amendment rights have to do with Health Care Reform? Nothing, as far as I can tell.* So why bring out the guns? If this was a series of debates about GUN reform, then trust me, I would not be all surprised and hurt-acting that people were showing up at the town-halls with guns...
(*Unless you truly believe that Obama is an evil dictator who wants to take away all of your rights. And we'll have to wait until Part Two of the interview to really get into that one...)
Rick Lempke says:
WK is right, assassins would never show their intentions. they are a lot smarter than that. That's why assassins are what they are. I don't you wouldn't know if there is an assassination plot out there. These are simply just people who are saying that you need to participate in your liberties before they get taken away. Label them how you want, but if you don't support their insinuations, then you might as well forfeit them. How many law abiding citizens kill innocent innocent people every year? Fight for your RIGHTS before they disappear and the government has control over you. Thanks Oliver for insighting intelligent conversations, I'd like to meet you!
Rick
AnotherStrayCat says:
Will you be bringing your gun if you meet Oliver, Rick? I'd hate for you to feel unsafe meeting another law-abiding human unarmed.
Rick Lempke says:
Anotherstraycat, why do you have to go back to being an ass? Really, do I sound like someone who would really shoot another person unprovoked or even because of fear? There's a reason why I carry, because you don't bring a knife to a gunfight. Consider all of the variables! It's not Oliver that I'd worry about and I'm certain he wouldn't worry about me. I was in S. Chicago today, that's where people like me need to have one. My gosh, just when I thought you were going to be a little more rational you have to go and make an ignorant comment like that and prove me wrong. Thanks.
Oliver Miller says:
Um. Speaking of fights in the comment section, I try to avoid getting into fights on this one. But if you'd to see me get into an endless fight about this article on another website, then here's the link--
"The Columbia Journalism Review" on William Kostric, irresponsibility, etc...
AnotherStrayCat says:
Rick, did I stop being an ass? If I did I apologise.
As for my previous comment, it was a little crass. You see, what happened is that I was a little drunk and feeling benevolent. So I asked myself what I could say to help you regain your moral high ground after calling me straycatpussypants? So you see I made that comment to help you seem your rational self again. You're welcome.
Oliver, nice job at cjr.
Rick Lempke says:
Youtube: Steven Crowder!
AnotherStrayCat says:
Rick! That's Awesome! But I thought we were talking about gun rights? But now you want to make an argument against HealthCare? So, your friends need to bring guns to the healthcare debates to make your point? Why not bring Steven's videos? Or is it easier to make the point with a gun?