Pictured is Joe Oltmann, who has suggested that President Joe Biden be executed. For "treason," of course. Oltmann is not (at least directly) suggesting that those concerned about treason should engage in some kind of "self-help" solution to remove President Biden from the land of the living. There should be a trial! Oltman's suggestion was made prior to President Biden's decision not to run for reelection. I'm pretty sure Oltman would transfer his recommendations to focus on Vice President Harris, however!
More generally, moving beyond the President (or Vice President), Oltmann is also, apparently, calling for a "line of gallows" to be built across the United States, "to hang those he identifies as traitors, including U.S. Senators." Oltmann defends his rhetoric by saying that "each person killed would first be tried for treason, including Biden."
I heard about Oltmann, and his suggestion about the need to build a "line of gallows" to execute "traitors," from a posting on the AlterNet website. Here's a link to the news story I read. Here is a link to another one.
Oltmann claims that support for a ban on automatic weapons is treasonous. According to CNN, a "59% majority of Americans favor a ban on the manufacture, sale and possession of rifles capable of semi-automatic fire, such as the AR-15." If supporting legislation like that is "treason," you can see why a "line" of gallows would be needed to deal with the "treasonous" instincts of so many Americans.
Our Constitution strongly protects the right of anyone and everyone to advocate anything. It is, in fact, our idea that there is a positive benefit in permitting people to advocate extreme and obnoxious propositions, because that can help the rest of us make up our own minds, and decide if that's where we actually want to go. Debate about what we should do is our methodology for making decisions. It has stood us in good stead over the years, at least in my estimation.
I am someone who is part of the 59% of the public that favors a ban on automatic weapons. I wrote about the topic just a few days ago. I realize that lots of people don't share my views, and the Congress has not seen fit to enact an automatic weapons ban since the passage of legislation sponsored by former Senator Dianne Feinstein in 1994 (I am referring to the "Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act," a subsection of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994. The law expired in 2004). If you would like to know more about that law, click right here. For an analysis of the impact of the 2004 law, you should click on this link.
No one was executed after the 2004 law was enacted, and I would like to submit that the passage of that law was not "treasonous." Letting Joe Oltmann make his outrageous statements, however, as ill-considered and as ill-informed as they are, is absolutely consistent with what the First Amendment contemplates.
I do want to suggest, however, that while Oltmann's suggestion for a "line of gallows" is well within the ambit of "protected speech," we all ought to think about whether calls to "kill people" to achieve a public policy result should be boosted and celebrated. Not everyone really understands how our Constitution is structured. Not everyone understands what is, and is not, "treason." Click here for a definition. Supporting, or voting for, a ban on automatic weapons just doesn't qualify.
Human solidarity, not internal warfare, is what can help us confront the challenges ahead, so let's not be afraid to disagree.
And let's not fool ourselves by thinking that killing other people, with whom we disagree, is a path to a better world. All that gets us is a "Line of Gallows."
No comments:
Post a Comment
Thanks for your comment!