They Protest Too Much!

You gotta wonder about the gun-grabbers:

However, in recent years, the belief in widespread gun ownership as a defense against tyrannical government has become an alluring idea, gaining traction with members of Congress as well as fringe conspiracy theorists. As Senator Tom Coburn of Oklahoma put it just last week, “The Second Amendment wasn’t written so you can go hunting, it was to create a force to balance a tyrannical force here.” And if this is insufficiently incendiary, one only need look to the doctrine of the “Three Percenters,” with its ominous warning that “all politics in this country now is just dress rehearsal for civil war.”

It is easy to ridicule such rhetoric as just overindulgence in Red Dawn fantasies about resourceful and brave citizens resisting a modern army with nothing more than small arms and their wits. Even individual Americans armed with military-style assault rifles could hardly pose any serious resistance to any future tyrannical central government supported by overwhelmingly powerful military capabilities.

There are two primary pillars to this shaky intellectual edifice. The first is a cottage industry of academics and lawyers who have scoured ancient political tracts and common law to establish that in the distant English past that there was a constitutional right to bear arms as a defense against tyranny. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia has given some credence to this view: In his majority opinion for Heller, he asserted that “the Stuart Kings Charles II and James II succeeded in using select militias loyal to them to suppress political dissidents, in part by disarming their opponents.” This line of reasoning ignores the fact that, in 21st century America, the prospect of monarchs and their select militias oppressing the populace is reasonably remote. It also ignores the fact that the common law evolves and is subordinate to acts of the legislature. Other nations built on English common law have all enacted strict regulation of gun ownership, with no perceptible diminution of political liberties.

Odd, I think Red Dawn is nothing but a fun movie to watch, meanwhile this person seems to be fantasizing about being the Russians and the Cubans in that film. He seems pretty excited about the “no perceptible diminution of political liberties” of the English…a nation blanketed by closed-circuit cameras, a police force that doesn’t need to give cause to search your person or your effects, and a nation that essentially has eroded to zero use of self-defense against violence.

And of course that’s “no perceptible diminution of political liberties” from the days when we overthrew the tyrannical English Government! Its not like the upper house of Parliament has any recourse to their voters, and further the nobility aspect of the House of Lords, means that many ethnic and religious groups will NEVER get representation within the government.

The second pillar has fewer scholarly pretensions, but it employs even more historically dubious arguments. It suggests, for example, that the Holocaust could have been avoided if Germany’s miniscule Jewish population had been better armed. It also argues that Ukrainian peasants could have defeated the Stalinist regime, backed by the NKVD and the Red Army, if they had possessed individual firearms. But these counterfactual interpretations of history are wildly speculative — and downright implausible.

Just do some reading on the Warsaw Ghetto, I’ll give you a hint, the uprising was significant, otherwise you wouldn’t have read anything about it. And these were starving people with some of the crudest of weapons. Further they were in an isolated location with no opportunity to retreat and regroup, or ambush.

Also about the Ukrane…well let me ask you, how long was Finland part of the Soviet Union? Further, there are plenty of nations who have had genocidal dictators. Which of those nations who were crushed under the heel of tyranny were allowed access to modern defensive arms?

The article goes on with dubious bits of American history, and crass glorification of government oppression of the people. I don’t think all people who support the current gun control measures as future Pol Pots dreaming of their rein, but I do think that the majority of the people at the tip of the anti-rights spear have that defective mindset. Case and point:

The history of the postbellum South offers another cautionary story of unregulated and extra-legal political violence. The founders of the Ku Klux Klan purported to be defending the rights of the white community against the tyranny of illegitimate Reconstruction governments, black enfranchisement, and federal military occupation. And for several years, the Klan used this rationale to carry out a gruesome campaign of systematic violence, murder, and political intimidation.

And the governments of the southern states were trying so hard to stamp out the Klan, right? Hell the Northern Reconstructions were still so bitter about the events of the Southern Succession they really didn’t much care if the South were killing their own people. Its not like Blacks had the respect in the northern states after emancipation. They were still only allowed to haul our garbage and clean our floors in the north. The Civil Rights Movement in the US was in all the states, not just in the Jim Crow south. We were just find with not OWNING them, it was still taboo to have a dark-skinned family living on your block, or having a black man date your white daughter.

Further people who write crap like this seem to think that the South is some sort of haven for gun ownership. Its only in recent years that many of the Jim Crow gun laws (enforced by the Klan) were repealed. The Anti-Rights movement is really just the modern iteration of the KKK.

War, particularly civil war, is by its nature violent. Official state armies are not immune from the tendency to inflict unjustified violence on civilians. But in America today, this prospect is far more remote, and far less terrifying, than the notion of armed citizens striking out against a perceived enemy, answering to no authority other than their own individual prejudices and passions.

I agree, so quit pushing bullshit, and you have nothing to fear. The LAST thing I want is the nation to be plunged into civil war, but if its the choice between that, and letting statist megalomaniacs have their way with us, which do you think I’d choose?

You can claim that somehow the people support you, but its hard to envision that if you’ve recently attempted to apply for a carry permit, or attempted to buy a gun or ammunition. Further I’m always amazed at people who don’t serve in the military claiming that somehow our government will get loyal troops who without question will follow orders to stomp out people who are simply requesting our government follow their oath to the US Constitution. We’ve already seen multiple police and state governments saying they will not comply with any oppressive federal laws. These aren’t bubba’s acting alone with simple semi-auto guns, but Police and National guard troops with armored vehicles and full-auto weaponry. A new civil war would be even bloodier than the previous one, but the losses will not be one-sided, and I question how many would be willing to fight for the Government against their own friends and neighbors.

Tread with caution!

This entry was posted in Freedom, Guns, Politics, Safety, Self Defense. Bookmark the permalink.

17 Responses to They Protest Too Much!

  1. Phssthpok says:

    “War, particularly civil war, is by its nature violent. Official state armies are not immune from the tendency to inflict unjustified violence on civilians. But in America today, far more remote, and far less terrifying, than the notion of armed citizens striking out against a perceived enemy, answering to no authority other than their own individual prejudices and passions. “

    Delusional ramblings. One need only search “Failed SWAT Raids” to see the truth of it.

    Official state armies (militarized police forces)…tendency to inflict unjustified violence on civilians (excessive force)…answering to no authority other than their own individual prejudices and passions (war on [some]drugs/perceived ‘only-one’ status).

    “…this prospect is far more remote, and far less terrifying…”?? It’s already happening, and I daresay you don’t know how terrifying it can be unless you’ve been on the receiving end.

    • Weerd Beard says:

      +1, SWAT teams are the standing armies our founding fathers warned us about. Hell Fort Hood shows that the standing armies of the US armed forces are essentially a non-entitiy until deployed. Meanwhile those crazy dog-shooting, wrong-address, high-speed-low-drag SWAT raids are happening on a near constant basis, and generally unchecked by any code for rules of engagement or impact study.

      SWAT teams are expensive, and they need to justify it, so every little party, and every small-time dealer needs a dynamic entry team with explosives, armor, and full-auto weapons!

  2. Rob Crawford says:

    Remember that just five years ago, the people diminishing the threat of government tyranny NOW were preaching about the tyrannical Bush administration.

    • Weerd Beard says:

      I never got that about “Progressives”, they are so quick to sign off on a Democrat President to getting overrearching powers…but never seem to think “What if a Republican gets elected?”

      Of course Republicans only seem to have issue with overreaching athority when they aren’t in power…

      What is nice is that the ACTUAL meaning of the 2nd Amendment (fighting back against an overreaching government…vs hunting, sporting, or self defense against individual crime) is getting a TON of play.

      10 years ago, pointing out that we need guns in the event we need to shoot soldiers, police, and politicians who have overstepped the rule of law would get you branded as a lunatic.

      Now people seem to get that it has some validity.

  3. TS says:

    What I find so laughable is how the antis will completely reverse their talking points when it suits them. We keep hearing how “assault weapons” are “weapons of war” that should not be in civilian hands, but we also hear how they would be utterly useless should the citizens find themselves at war. Well which is it?

    • Weerd Beard says:

      To be fair they actually went further to note SMALL ARMS, noting that toe-to-toe battle with the US Army and an opositional militia would be turned by the Military’s use of armor, artiliery, and air support.

      Still tell that to the Iraqi and Afghanni insurgencies….

      • Rob Crawford says:

        Had one guy go berserk after I raised the Afghan and Iraq examples. They have automatics, we only have semi-automatics. That “semi-” makes all the difference, in his estimation.

      • J says:

        This. Why do you think so many veterans of the last decade’s unpleasantness (and insurgencies before them) confidently stand ready to defend the Constitution. It’s because we’ve watched a relatively small, typically poorly organized and trained insurgency put paid to us over and over again. Ten years of counterinsurgency have, I daresay, made many of well acquainted with the most effective means of insurgencies. It would be a terrible thing indeed if that collective experience were leveraged here at home

        • Rob Crawford says:

          And isn’t there an area in the Carolinas where the locals have been helping the military simulate COIN campaigns for years? That knowledge isn’t just inside the military.

  4. Archer says:

    I’m always amused by this part of their argument:

    It is easy to ridicule such rhetoric as just overindulgence in Red Dawn fantasies about resourceful and brave citizens resisting a modern army with nothing more than small arms and their wits. Even individual Americans armed with military-style assault rifles could hardly pose any serious resistance to any future tyrannical central government supported by overwhelmingly powerful military capabilities.

    To me, that sounds like, “You’ll probably lose if you try, so therefore you don’t have the right.” As if the probability of success is IN ANY WAY relevant to the existence of the right/duty to try.

    Spun around, it’s equivalent to saying, “You’re probably going to Hell anyway, therefore you’re not allowed to worship your God,” or, “They’ll never publish it, therefore you’re not allowed to write it,” or, “You’re going to lose this argument, therefore you’re not allowed to speak.”

    Not ironically, is exactly why they make every attempt to shut out pro-rights speakers at all of these townhall meetings on “gun violence”, and why Reasoned Discourse(TM) is the rule on the anti-rights blogs. Not because we’d lose if we try, but because THEY’D lose if we’re allowed to present our side.

  5. Stuart the Viking says:

    The writer obviously (to me) over-estimates the number of military personnel who would be willing to fire upon Americans, on American soil. As much as they would like to think of “Marine, US, 1 ea” as a piece of equipment, wholly owned by the government, Marines (and Army, Navy, & AF persons) are human beings who can, and will, think for themselves. We make our oaths to the Constitution, not to the President (and that means ANY President), and definitely not to some dumb writer who apparently doesn’t understand history (or is willfully ignorant of it because the truth would rather refute than make his point).

    s

  6. Bubblehead Les says:

    I see the Magic “33%” has decided to open it’s Yap. Ever notice than if there’s any kind of Polling on a “Left vs. Right” Issue, about 25-35% think that the Leftist Marxist Progressive Side is GOOD, while 50+% think the Right Side is Good.

    Now, add up the number of households that own Guns. Figure out the number of Healthy Adults per Household (95 year old Great Grand Ma doesn’t count, but 16 year old Junior does). Spread the number of Guns out there (100 Million? 200 Million?) to those Households. Think you’ll find that about 1/3rd do NOT, repeat NOT even have something as basic as a Marlin 60. While the rest of America has at least ONE Firearm, and many have a lot more. And the People who know how to use them and are Healthy and Able to do so.

    So, these Leftist Idjits who DON’T own a Firearm think that they can wave a Magic Wand and the Military and the LEO’s (MAYBE 5 Million COMBINED, and that’s if they ALL obey Orders) can Swoop in and take all those Guns away from a HUNDRED MILLION Lawful Gun Owners?

    Bottom Line: How in Hell did the Republic ever get to the point that 1/3rd of the Populace gained enough Political Power to tell the other 2/3rds what to do? And why in Hell does those Idjits think that just because a “Decree” is Issued by their Political Overlords that the rest of us are going to KowTow to their Demands?

    It’s Obvious that the Lunatics have taken over the Asylum.

    • Joe in PNG says:

      Because people who successfully do profitable productive things tend to continue doing those things, while useless but charismatic people run for office.

  7. Cargosquid says:

    “The Second Amendment wasn’t written so you can go hunting, it was to create a force to balance a tyrannical force here.”

    So, if this is true, where is this force? Its all well and good that there are 100 million gun owners. But 100 million individuals, that think as individuals, that have no coordination, and think that they are alone if “X” happens, are useless. The left does have a point. Johnny and his AR stand no chance. Johnny and his AR have no way coordinate Joe and his AK. Americans have lost the mindset of being responsible for their own security and upholding their rights.
    Ever since the “militia” was absorbed by the federal gov’t and turned into an arm of the standing army, there is no organized citizens’ militia. So, how do we get that back?

    Think of the advantage as a society if we reinstated the militia and, just for disasters, had a militia available, trained as first responders, first aid, basic security.

    An unorganized militia is a crowd. Actually, its a bunch of individuals doing their own thing.

    • Rob Crawford says:

      A couple of thoughts:

      “A pack, not a herd”

      Never underestimate the power of spontaneous organization.

      • Cargosquid says:

        I’ve seen enough of these “pack” members deriding other 2nd amendment supporters for their support of the original purpose of the amendment and THEIR support of gun control that I don’t have too much faith in them. Every spontaneous event needs a catalyst. I think for your spontaneous organization to happen, something horrific would have to happen. The anti’s will just keep heating the water until we’re boiled.

        For example, the KELO decision. No one got too upset over the total eradication of property rights.
        ObamaCare and Judge Roberts. Nothing.
        The NDAA signed by Obama stating that he can assassinate Americans at will.

        Nothing. The general populace doesn’t care.

Leave a Reply to Weerd Beard Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *