So I see where a group of conservatives are gonna git their guns and take symbolic potshots at the tyrannical liberal notions that are killing freedom.

This would be up in Manheim during LiveFreePA, a day to "celebrate the freedoms we enjoy and the ones that are coming under attack," according to a spokesman for the Commonwealth Foundation, which is sponsoring the May 8 event at Elstonville Sportsmen's Association.

SMART REMARKS: Teabags and immigrants

Several Republican candidates for state and federal office will be on hand to speak, then load up and take aim at junk cars scrawled with liberal ideas like "gun control" or "government-run health care."

Democratic candidates were invited to attend but declined. Can't imagine why.

"Participants should bring their own guns and ammunition or their own bows and arrows," read the article in Wednesday's paper. Bazookas? Flamethrowers? Dude, I have a Bangalore torpedo — let's see what that does to Obamacare!

Kidding aside, there's no harm in venting your ire this way. But I'm curious about the underlying theme of the event, this whole notion of "freedom" that has so animated conservatives in recent months.

At the tea party rallies and elsewhere we hear how liberty is being subjugated by big government. But this conservative notion of freedom seems relatively limited. Freedom of speech or the press, the right to free assembly, none of these liberties have been compromised.

Nor, for the record, has the right to bear arms.

The complaints, rather, relate to economic freedoms. Regulation and "socialism" must lead, conservatives say, to the infringement of personal liberties. The argument seems to be that if you allow socialized medicine today, shock troops will stop law-abiding citizens on the street tomorrow and demand to see their papers.

Which is really interesting, because out in Arizona something not unlike this dystopian scenario is unfolding. You have likely seen stories of Arizona's new immigration law, which requires police to check the immigration status of anyone encountered during "lawful contact" if the cops have a "reasonable suspicion" that the person is here illegally.

Proponents say the law is necessary because Arizona is virtually overrun with illegals and drug smuggling and crime has surged. But the vague wording of the law would seem to invite trouble. What constitutes "reasonable suspicion"?

Opponents say the law practically mandates racial profiling, that legal immigrants and even U.S. citizens will be stopped and ordered to produce their paperwork — or be taken into custody.

Is this not an issue of freedom?

I realize the folks who gather in Manheim next week may see it through a different prism. Illegal immigration is, well, illegal; the authorities must be given expansive new powers to enforce the law. And a majority of Arizonans seem to like the law.

But does this invalidate the Fourth Amendment?

You know, you can't yell about freedom but look away when laws are passed that may infringe upon others' freedom. For if you do this, what you are really saying is that you stand in favor of freedom ... as it pertains to me, or my particular tribe.

Yet freedom as a word or a concept is meaningless unless it applies equally to all.

It feels good to be on the "side" of freedom, doesn't it? It gets people all misty-eyed to think that they are standing up for timeless American values.

If the folks at LiveFreePA really want to do that — then perhaps they'll scrawl "Arizona immigration law" on the side of one of those clunkers.