Earlier this week, we asked a question that, frankly, surprised us that we had to ask. After multiple people brought guns to events hosted by President Obama over the past two weeks, the story cycled around the internet and the cable-news stations, then seemed to just dissolve away. We wanted to know, considering the implications of loaded weapons around the president, why isn't this a bigger story? Where, we asked, was the outrage?

To be sure, we didn't intend this to be a debate over the Second Amendment and people's rights to carry guns in places the law allows. It was more a dissection of the raucousness of attitudes that have driven people to want to bring guns to presidential events. What we heard back was a range of emotions, some exhibiting the alarm we wondered about and others just plain angry that we brought it up. "The fact is these folks with guns are absolutely wasting police resources that should be used to safeguard the President," wrote commenter bob1812. Another reader, thehappyamerican, took a more bottom-line view: "No major crime was committed. No misdemeanor was committed. Yet listen to the gasping hyperbole!" But there was one comment that caught our attention, not because it agreed with our original sentiment (it didn't entirely), but because of how it parsed out the conflicts inherent in addressing gun rights while discussing the threats to other protesters and the president of the United States. From Adamdoubleyou (we'll go ahead and assume his first name is Adam) came the most thoughtful feedback on the matter. Here's Adam:

The simple fact is that the gun-toting protesters WERE within their rights. The 2nd Amendment, however dangerous in its vagueness it may be, protects them. Clearly, though, they were exercising those rights in some impressively irresponsible ways. In the case of the man in Arizona, the attitude was "because I can," the man in New Hampshire issued a flagrant suggestion of genuine violence. Instead of bringing their intellectual arguments to these town-hall meetings (if they had any to begin with,) they chose the dubious symbolism of carrying in a gun in a crowded public space. Their only objective, it seems, was to stir up the same fear and uneasiness over the health care debate that the Chuck Grassleys and Sarah Palins of the nation have been whipping into a frenzy. Though they have their rights, we cannot condone expressing them in such ways.

Agree or disagree, we here at the Gaggle appreciate thoughtful feedback, this time or in the future. Adam, thanks for the comment.