Tonight is the night for the Occupy Broad Ripple with Guns event.

   I questioned the intentions of John Hallgarth, cited by a couple of local media outlets as originator of the event, in a November 23 blog. More facts have emerged about his past. He has expressed admiration for, even belief in the politics of, the National Alliance, a neo-Nazi organization founded by a former associate of George Lincoln Rockwell, head of the American Nazi Party. The NA founder also authored Timothy McVey’s favorite book, The Turner Diaries. I dropped reference to "neo-Nazi" in the title of this series of blogs because others who (1) advocate gun rights and (2) vehemently expressed their disgust with Nazis and their ilk, see merit in joining an event to educate people about gun rights (however ill-conceived some might think that to be as people at 11 on a Saturday night in Broad Ripple generally are drunk as they hit the bars for which Broad Ripple is known). I did not drop the "neo-Nazi" in the title in deference to Mr. Hallgarth. Check out fellow blogger Paul Ogden’s posts on Ogden on Politics. The documentation is there. Mr. Hallgarth’s has not been a youthful dalliance with an odd, silly belief. It dates back to 2003 or 2004 (odd how websites disappear) and has continued to at least a few days ago.

   An interesting dialogue has developed between me and a person who has referred to her self as a "gunny." She posted a reply to my blog of yesterday, and so I want to continue the give-and-take. And, btw, thank you for the advice on use of the computer.    

   1) Many might not connect the Saturday night gun event with the OWS movement. Some will. If anything negative happens, I am confident one "fair and balanced" network will hype it. Mr. Hallgarth attempts to take advantage of a political phenomenon that is at odds with what he has expressed as his beliefs.

   2) As for Buckley and Gore, they had nice exchanges. They also had one, during the 1968 Democratic Convention, in which Gore called Buckley a "crypto-Nazi" and Buckley said he would punch Gore in his "goddamn face." They were eloquent up to that point. I believe each accused the other of drunkenness, one of the nicer facets of a liberal arts education; the drunkenness, I mean. Otherwise it was a treat to hear their exchanges.

   Okay, about the anarcho-capitalist position you mention: I am a philosophical anarchist. You are right, that is a discussion for another time, but I at least had to address it.

   I will take issue with Paul’s level-headedness, especially when it comes to Theodore Roosevelt. He loses all objectivity then. Well, maybe he does not lose all objectivity. Thank you, you have been civil to me, as well, in the posts on this site. And I try to be reasonable. There are some matters about which I cannot be rational. (I am a Cubs fan; explain that.) On most matters political/philosophical, my goal is civil, reasoned discourse. Paul and I share some beliefs. (We both are fans of the National League.) But we can discuss/argue in civil manner. I hope you will watch past shows on the website.

   3) Fine, we are in agreement. But I really thought SoBro was trendy.

   4) Such matters as complete bans on guns should be discussed. The topic is not similar to chattel slavery. There are people who believe in complete bans. There are people who believe in some gun control (a position, incidentally, that was at the core of the founding of the NRA). It is interesting that when I Google variations on the term "ban guns" I come up with pro-gun websites, usually efforts at sarcasm, that block my attempt to find places where people advocate that guns should be banned. Those websites serve the purpose of blocking free speech. Self-defense might be an intrinsic right, but ownership of firearms does not fall into that category. Handguns, especially, are favorite items for burglars to seize. Burglars rarely hit houses where someone is home. As to self-defense on the street—I agree a handgun can enhance one’s ability to defend one’s self. But how many more people are shot/killed/wounded by accident, in domestic disputes, etc., than are saved by use of a handgun in self-defense? There are numbers bandied about—that is the purpose of discussion and debate. If we do not discuss Fourth Amendment rights, how many people will be ignorant of that Amendment’s virtual evisceration? If there had been open and healthy debate in the general public, would the Barnes case have been handed down? Some people think there are limits on the Bill of Rights. Let’s discuss the Second Amendment. By discussing a ban, people might be swayed to the opposite view and support your position. Open discussion and debate are healthy. Open discussion and debate usually are shut off before rights are taken away.

   And about the incense, I think all drugs should be legalized. And before you say it---I know, how can I square that with my opposition to firearms? Again, a discussion for another day.
   5) I did not use the term "neo-Nazi" lightly. I believe the evidence is sufficient for the claim that I made.

   Okay, we disagree about use of the word "sham." But about what I wrote on the Occupy movement and the use of ads—the ads were for corporate entities like State Farm Insurance. The ads were for corporate entities at the heart of what OWS opposes. As I said in that blog, I am not against making a buck. But ads for those entities, or running ads without any means of accounting to people for how the money is spent, is antithetical to the occupy movement. And that appears to have been only one of three groups. 

  Mr. Hallgarth would have had a more philosophically consistent name for his event if he had called it "Tea Party in Broad Ripple with Guns." There are more Second Amendment boosters in that crowd.