On the night of April 14th, 1865, President Abraham Lincoln was shot in the back of the head by John Wilkes Booth. Lincoln would languish across the street at the boarding house of William Petersen before finally succumbing, becoming the first President in US history to be assassinated.

Since that incident, three other Presidents have been assassinated: James Garfield, William McKinley, and John Kennedy.

All of them were shot.

Beyond those four, there have been five unsuccessful attempts on the lives of sitting Presidents.

President Andrew Jackson escaped assassination in 1835 after both guns wielded by Richard Lawrence backfired. Franklin Roosevelt escaped being hit by six of the shots fired by Giuseppe Zangara in Miami in 1933, though the Mayor of Chicago at the time, Anton Cermak, was hit in the stomach. Harry Truman survived a siege on Blair House by two members of the Puerto Rican independence movement in November of 1950. President Gerald Ford was targeted twice, and Ronald Reagan was, of course, shot by John Hinckley, Jr. in March of 1981.

My point?

Every successful assassination of a Chief Executive Officer in US history was achieved with a gun. Not only that, but ever unsuccessful attempt also involved a gun or several guns.

Now, I don’t want to get into a Constitutional debate. I’ve studied it, am well aware that the conceptual basis of the Second Amendment is steeped in the English practice of a universal militia, which dates back to the around the reign of Henry the Second and was implemented so that citizens were armed in case they were pressed into military service. I’m also aware that prior to the creation of the Constitution the right to bear arms was, among a verity of other things, viewed as an effective way of controlling slaves in slave States.

We could obviously sit here for weeks and argue the merits of the Second Amendment, how its application should or should not be ratified to better suit modern society and so forth. When it comes to guns, I believe that, like most things, common sense is paramount. The problem, of course, is how many people out there actually possess it?

I fully understand that in the State of Arizona you’re allowed to openly carry a firearm. I even understand that you’re allowed to show up at a Presidential appearance with one. What I don’t understand is why someone would want to.

Do some Americans actually believe that whatever is transpiring in their country right now, and I don’t think you can even characterize it as just a debate about healthcare anymore, is somehow going to strip them of their Constitutional rights? And if some do, is showing up to an event at which the President is appearing with an AR-15 proving a point beyond that you’re a complete idiot? Because that’s precisely what happened today in Phoenix.

Yes, that’s an AR-15 semi-automatic rifle. For those of you that don’t know your guns, the AR-15 is the ‘civilian’ version of the M16 and M4, which are used by the US military. AR-15’s fire both .223 Remington and 5.56 NATO rounds and have a range up to 600 yards – that’s roughly six football fields.

Why would someone need an AR-15? I have absolutely no idea beyond suspicions of a very small penis being a major factor – or being married to a man with a very small penis and being equally attracted to his tricked out Hummer.

Why would someone show up at an event at which the President of the United States is appearing with an AR-15?

To be honest with you, I haven’t a clue. Perhaps they believe they are demonstrating their right to do so, and therefore reminding everyone of that right – how that has anything to do with healthcare is so beyond me that I’m at a total loss. Of course, common sense dictates that you don’t drive after you’ve been drinking, you don’t pour gasoline on your legs and then light a cigarette, and you don’t stand in a crowd of people with a semi-automatic weapon slung over your shoulder.

But who knows. Maybe I’m the one that lacks common sense.