It was surprising the first time it happened. Last week, Secret Service officials discovered a man carrying a concealed semiautomatic weapon at a town-hall meeting hosted by President Obama. "How could that happen?" was the question that followed, at one point from the lips of Chris Matthews, who scolded the flippant offender in a nationally televised interview. The whole episode would be worthy of a nervous head shake if it was the only instance. But over the weekend, a different protester attended an Obama rally in Arizona, this time with an assault rifle in plain view over his shoulder. What followed─a few wire stories and some Web video─was the equivalent of a truncated, national yawn. The reasoning that quelled any spark of alarm or display of concern, was that technically, it's legal. In a state like Arizona (and more than a dozen others) carrying a weapon is perfectly permissible. Our hands are tied, said local police, who had the arduous duty of explaining to reasonably alarmed demonstrators that no laws had actually been broken.
Indeed, it's hard to argue, or even keep track of, variations in states' gun-ownership laws. But the vitrol at play outside of Obama's events (and at congressional town halls) shines light on something far deeper than a debate over gun rights or a public option. The disturbing truth is that multiple people have unrepentantly brought loaded guns within a few hundred yards of the president of the United States.
It's the furthest thing from amusing to talk, even hypothetically, about the assassination of the U.S. head of state, let alone act on it. In 2006, a New York state official (who was a Democrat) joked stupidly that one of his colleague should "put a bullet between the president's eyes," referring to President Bush. Within hours, he profusely apologized, and not long after that, Republicans were calling for his resignation. It was a reasonable reaction to the suggestion that a sitting president be fatally removed from office. But when someone goes through actual motions─bringing a loaded gun within range of the president─the national reaction seems far more tepid.
At its core, the innuendo extends beyond partisanship or ideology. It's a dangerous path to embark to consider the president's life a referendum on his policies. Rather, it's an attack on a democratically elected leader who represents America's freedom and style of government to the rest of the world. It's easy to consider those who threaten his life as anomalistic crazies. But a collective lack of outrage ensures they'll only grow in number.
