Travel Icon Says He'll Avoid Arizona Because of Gun Laws

Travel Icon Says He'll Avoid Arizona Because of Gun Laws

Well-known travel icon Arthur Frommer said he'll avoid visiting Arizona because state laws permit "thugs" and "extremists" to openly tote guns. [emphasis in the original quote]

On his blog, Frommer says:

I am not yet certain whether I would advocate a travel boycott by others of the state of Arizona; I want to learn more about Arizona's gun laws and how they compare with those of other states. But I am shocked beyond measure by reports that earlier this week, nearly a dozen persons, including one with an assault rifle strapped about his shoulders and others with pistols in their hands [emphasis added] or holsters, were openly congregating outside a hall at which President Obama was speaking to the Veterans of Foreign Wars.

If people were carrying firearms "in their hands" at a political rally, I have no better understanding than does Mr. Frommer whether that is a legal manner in which firearms may be carried in public. Arizona firearms laws are probably similar to that of other states, which are generally not friendly to folks who wander about with a gun in their hand. However, there is no evidence to suggest that this was the case in Arizona, so I feel comfortable in assuming that this "in their hands" business was just a bit of hyperbole in which the author indulged.

Mr. Frommer goes on to say, in an ingratiating manner:

For myself, without yet suggesting that others follow me in an open boycott, I will not personally travel in a state where civilians carry loaded weapons onto the sidewalks and as a means of political protest. I not only believe such practices are a threat to the future of our democracy, but I am firmly convinced that they would also endanger my own personal safety there. And therefore I will cancel any plans to vacation or otherwise visit in Arizona until I learn more. And I will begin thinking about whether tourists should safeguard themselves by avoiding stays in Arizona.

If the author is uncomfortable, of course he should abjure states which recognize the Second Amendment rights of its citizens to the point (which Frommer seems to consider extreme) of allowing "... civilians [to] carry loaded weapons onto the sidewalks and as a means of political protest."

Frommer continues:

According to the Phoenix, Arizona, police, people with guns including assault rifles do not need permits in Arizona, but can simply carry such weapons with them, openly and brazenly[emphasis added] , when they gather to protest a speaker at a public event. The police also acknowledge that about a dozen people carrying guns, including one with an AR-15 assault rifle, milled about outside the event at which President Obama spoke.

I would feel as I do regardless of the political identity of the speaker whom these thugs [emphasis added] attempted to intimidate. The continued tolerance of extremists [emphasis added] carrying guns is a frightening development which strikes at the heart of the political process and endangers the ability to carry out a reasoned debate. Is there any responsible citizen of the United States who believes that people should carry guns to a public debate or speech? If Ronald Reagan were delivering a political talk in Phoenix, Arizona, would they have felt it was proper for protestors [sic] with guns to mill about outside the hall from which he would leave?

Frommer's reference to the late President Ronald Reagan suggests that, in his mind the situation smacks of the circumstances depicted fictitiously in the movie "Taxi Driver", the 1976 movie in which actor Robert DeNiro portrays the disturbed hackie Travis Bickle who wore army surplus clothing and a hide-out gun powered by kitchen-drawer hardware to a political rally ... for reasons which are not clear.

I wonder if Mr. Frommer considers the possibility that people who are bent on political assassination do not carry their weapons openly, nor do they station themselves outside the line-of-sight locality of the political speaker.

Let's re-visit Frommer's closing statements:

I would feel as I do regardless of the political identity of the speaker whom these thugs attempted to intimidate. The continued tolerance of extremists carrying guns is a frightening development which strikes at the heart of the political process and endangers the ability to carry out a reasoned debate.

Looking at that pair of sentences from another viewpoint, isn't it possible that the armed "protestors" [sic] are not thugs? Perhaps they are merely concerned citizens who have chosen this method to call attention to their message. The method of protest which these "extremists" is certainly dramatic, yet they abide by the letter of the law and are careful to position themselves outside of the main arena (not in sight of the "speaker") ... and thus do they not "intimidate" the speaker directly.

They have no intention toward political assassination, which is the thinly disguised charge which Frommer is to careful to avoid ... but which he obviously accuses.

The only viable conclusion to Frommer's objection, considering who he is and how he makes a living ... is that he is a man easily frightened, and he is willing to use the prominence engendered by his public persona to influence a similarly "uncommitted" audience to listen to their fears, rather than to acquaint themselves with the facts.

This (admittedly judgmental) conclusion is supported by his statement that " I want to learn more about Arizona's gun laws and how they compare with those of other states. "
There is no evidence that he has made an effort to do so, which suggests that while he accepts that this would be the responsible thing to do ... he has not yet made the effort. He would rather judge the actions of Arizonans based on his personal bias, and in doing so infer that the people he is talking about are "extremists" and otherwise acting outside the law, than to determine whether the people he calls "extremists" are, in fact, acting in a law-abiding manner.

Arizona Gun Laws

Ultimately, Frommer has fallen into the Neo-Liberal mode of frightening the casual reader, rather than t0 assure his readers that the "Extremists" have acted in a manner which is not only legal locally, but encouraged by the Constitution of the United States.

That last document is an embarrassment to the Liberals, because they don't want to accept that certain rights are not subject to abridgment to their personal bias. In fact, although they don't want to acknowledged that they are biased against Personal Rights they will use any argument (as we see here) to undermine our Constitutional Rights.