The rage from the right directed at the Obama Administration, and particularly the health care reform legislation, has long been ugly. It's now becoming poisonous, and dangerous. Threats of violence have been made against Congressional supporters of health care reform, most recently Washington State Senator Patty Murray. Bricks have been thrown through the windows of local Democratic Party headquarters from New York to Kansas to Arizona. We are seeing a resurgence of rightwing militia groups training for war against the government.
It is too easy for politicians and political commentators to treat our increasingly incendiary political atmosphere as a product merely of disparate extremist individuals and groups on the fringes of our political system. Treating the problem as the product of a relatively few misguided individuals with bizarre violent fantasies misses a far more troubling reality. What we are seeing is the acting out of an ideology of violence as a tool of political power that has long had a home on the American right - particularly in the "gun rights" movement dominated by the National Rifle Association.
The central theme of that ideology is that the meaning of the "right of the people to keep and bear arms" in the Second Amendment is not limited to private self-defense or hunting, but far more importantly includes the potential for an armed citizenry to resist the government. According to this view, the Second Amendment deters government overreaching by creating an ever-present threat of violent resistance. Some years ago, an NRA official put it this way, "the Second Amendment . . . is literally a loaded gun in the hands of the people held to the heads of government."
Echoes of the NRA's insurrectionist rhetoric can be heard from the leaders of the gun activists who plan to converge on Washington, D.C. on April 19, a date with great emotional resonance for the "gun rights" movement and, for different reasons, for the rest of us. It is both the anniversary of Lexington/Concord and of the tragic federal assault on the David Koresh compound in Waco, Texas in 1993. It also is the anniversary of what was, to that date, the worst terrorist attack in U.S. history - Timothy McVeigh's 1995 bombing of the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City. McVeigh, as we know now, saw himself as the embodiment of the Second Amendment right to use violence against government overreaching - for him, the Waco tragedy was evidence of government "tyranny" sufficient to justify insurrection. Consider now the words of Skip Coryell, the founder of the Second Amendment March set for April 19 in the Nation's Capital, as he justifies threats of armed force against elected officials:
"We the people have been exercising our First Amendment right to the hilt. We're screaming! We're protesting! We're faxing! We're phoning and marching and yelling....But still...they ignore us....There are a lot of people out there like me who will no longer tolerate the arrogance of politicians who ignore us....And here's the million-dollar question: What happens if the First Amendment fails?...When the government ignores the First Amendment, it is time to rattle the Second Amendment sabers...As long as our elected officials believe we will rise up and overthrow them under certain conditions, then they will not allow those conditions to occur. Their jobs and their very lives depend on it."
In other words, if we use the First Amendment to try to persuade our elected officials to our point of view, and we fail, then it's time to resort to the Second Amendment - that is, to threaten violence. And, ultimately, to use violence.
This is right out of the NRA's playbook. Last year, NRA Executive Director Wayne LaPierre explained it in chilling terms to the wild cheers of the Conservative Political Action Conference. According to LaPierre, when it comes down to it, the only freedom that really counts is the right to be armed - without it, "liberty is but an illusion." In the NRA's world, we are free only to the extent that our guns allow us to impose our will on others. Here are LaPierre's words:
"Our divine rights, they might have been endowed by a Creator, but they are preserved by mortals, if we mortals have the means and the will to make it stick....Freedom is nothing but dust in the wind till it's guarded by the blue steel and dry powder of a free and armed people....Our founding fathers understood that the guys with the guns make the rules."
It is worth pausing to reflect on that phrase: "The guys with the guns make the rules." In the NRA's distortion of democracy, the rules we live by are not ultimately the result of our collective decision-making, made through our elected representatives, after we have had a fair opportunity to exercise our First Amendment right to be heard. Ultimately, the rules are made by those who are more powerful than the rest of us because they are armed.
With manufactured outrage, the NRA will deny that it condones violence or that it is "responsible" for the violent acts of others. What it cannot deny is that it has long been the most powerful purveyor of an ideology that legitimizes violence, and the threat of violence, as a tool of political power. And, after Oklahoma City, none of us can hide from the foreseeable, and perhaps inevitable, consequences of that ideology.
For more information, see Dennis Henigan's new book, Lethal Logic: Exploding the Myths that Paralyze American Gun Policy.
"i CAN'T speak for them"
i am neither a gun owner, or NRA member
but even i know that the NRA doesn't think that
i can speak for them, but i would imagine their thinking would be more along the lines, that
"we are free only to the extent that the threat imposed by our ownership of guns allows us to protect ourselves from the possibility that others would unfairly impose their will on us"
"The views represented here are solely those of the contributor and do not represent the views of [News Agency name]"
Why, pray tell, does Huff Post not follow suit?
I'm fairly new to this site and wonder - Does Huff Post claim to be a news source or a collection of articles and opinion pieces perpetuating a point of view?
(Its obvious what it does, but whats not as obvious is what it claims to be...)
Just curious.
And as we have no idea who broke said windows to try and lay the blame at the feet of a perceived threat, how about we consider the possibility that this is just another attempt at doing EXACTLY that.
In fact, here is proof that someone on the left plead guilty to doing this last year in Denver.
http://www.denverpost.com/recommended/ci_14045675?source=pkg
[ Nunn v. State , 1 Ga. 243, 250, 251 (1846).] [emphasis in original]
I had a nice cup of black coffee and enjoyed the drive with my sunroof open...
Dr. Buddy Rydell: Dave, there are two kinds of angry people in this world: explosive and implosive. Explosive, which is the most common, is the type of individual you see screaming at a grocery store cashier for not taking his coupon. Implosive, the least common, is the cashier at the store who remains quiet at his job day after day until he then finally loses it and just shoots everyone in the store. You're the cashier.
Dave Buznik: No, no, no. I'm the guy in the frozen food section dialling 911. I swear.
So, what you are saying is that you know how the country should be run and if we don't do it your way, it's okay to kill us? Who gave you the right to decide how everyone should live? That's what elections are for. That's why the founders set up our government as a three branch elective democracy. So that the majority of the people could elect those who would run the government according to the wish of their constituents. A majority means more than half of the people. This government was elected by more than half of the people. They won the right to do it their way for a few years. If you don't like the way they do it, elect someone else next time. The second amendment doesn't give a minority the right to overthrow the government, just because they don't like what the government is doing. If Obama were usurping the function of the other branches and not allowing fair elections I might think you have a point, and I would rethink my position, but as it is, you just look like poor sports who can't stand losing and think that the game should be run your way or you'll knock down the house.
To answer your question about where to draw the line...
Read the Militia acts of 1792 and you will see that the Founding Farthers made a distinction between individual hand-held weapons and crew served weapons.
BTW, for most Americans, full-autos and tanks are legal to own. Outrageously expensive, but still legal. A few years back, a buddy of mine bought a tank and registered with the DMV as a recreational vehicle.
This year will go down in history. For the first time, a civilized nation has full gun registration! Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient, and the world will follow our lead into the future."
--Adolf Hitler, 1935
Back in the 90's right after President Clinton was elected Wayne was president of the NRA. During that time I received in the mail some of the most hateful literature against the Democrats I have ever received. I responded to the hate mail and then turned my response and the mail over to our local newspaper and told them if anything happened to me to please publish the mail and my response. Fortunately they never had too. I carry concealed, not because I fear my government nor everyday criminals. I carry to protect myself from the screaming right and the more radical members of the NRA.
From my point of view the Second Amendment applies to the right of states to form militias and the amendment clearly states that purpose. The gun lobby has distorted the meaning of the amendment since the nineteenth century through endless repetition of the latter phrase of the amendment. It is that phrase that most everyone recognizes and is most frequently quoted. Few gun rights’ advocates are aware of or can quote or even wish to acknowledge the existence of the first and defining phrase of the amendment. It too bears endless repeating for it provides that a “well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state†that states shall have the right to form militias from a public armed for that purpose.
That was already spelled out in the body of the Constitution. No need for a separate amendment.
"The gun lobby has distorted the meaning of the amendment since the nineteenth century through endless repetition of the latter phrase of the amendment. It is that phrase that most everyone recognizes and is most frequently quoted. "
The last 14 words are a clause. The first 13 words are a phrase. In grammatical terms it is what is known as an "absolute phrase". Such phrases exist outside the grammar of the main clause. They are not the subject of the sentence and they do not create, modify, or restrict the subject of the main clause.
- Thomas Jefferson
It seems very clear cut what he thought the 2nd Amendment was about. But then again what of value could he have to contribute?
A more clearly stated provision would have been:
"That each state respectively shall have the power to provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining its own militia, whensoever Congress shall omit or neglect to provide for the same."
In fact such an amendment was specifically proposed so as to clarify Article I, Sec 8, paragraphs 15-16 of the Constitution. They also proposed other amendments which were delineated as changes to the structure of the Constitution including such things as that the journals of the proceedings of the Senate and House of Representatives shall be published at least once in every year, That no person shall be capable of being President of the United States for more than eight years in any term of sixteen years... etc...
Within the same proposal but delineated in a completely different section was a series of proposed Amendments which were designed to secure what they described as "the essential and unalienable rights of the people." Included within this group were a right to be secure from all unreasonable searches and seizures , a right peaceably to assemble, a right to freedom of speech, and of writing and publishing their sentiments, freedom of the press.... and that the people have a right to keep and bear arms.
Speech that leads to criminal behavior is neither free nor protected. And prosecutions have resulted from speech that represents a threat much less a danger. Speech can be dangerous and the area is murky to be sure. But your point is well taken. In the case of speech, it is better to protect in uncertain circumstances than to prohibit.
But the issue does at least underscore the point that no right is absolute and that a community has a right to protect itself from threats regardless of the source.
The constitution doesn't grant you a right to terrorize your fellow citizens when they have the audacity to democratically elect a black man president or more politicians with a "D" following their name than a "R". After suffering 8 years of a man who received fewer votes than his democratic opponent in 2000, entered our country into two unfunded wars, oversaw the privatization of our military (Blackwater), etc, Democrats were given control of Congress and the Presidency by THE PEOPLE. Carrying guns to "protests" is infantile foot stomping and shows nothing more than your desire to terrorize "real" Americans. Grow up! You're not revolutionary generals preventing "socialism", you're spoiled terrorists subverting democracy! Timothy McVeigh didn't represent "the people", he murdered them.
Baggers, you don't have a 2nd Amendment right to overthrow our democratically elected government, and at the very least we need to well regulate your medications
Fanned!
Ya might want to crack open a history book. We live in a representative republic, not a democracy.
51% of the poulation can not infringe on the rights of the other 49%.
-------------------------------------------------
Whose rights are being "infringed" upon? And which rights are the 51% impeding? Specifics, please, with CREDIBLE links.
I did not, however, require your lame response.
If your rights are being abridged, that is another matter entirely.
------------------------------------------------------------
FYI, I understand that you were simply whining because you are a conservative, and conservatives are poor losers, and especially poor losers when they lost to a black man.
You lost power, and have spent nearly 2 years now trying to overcome that loss through various means, none of them successful. You seem unable to comprehend that the Democrats are now in charge, and wish to label everything they do as a violation of your rights, as unconstitutional, as un-American. The truth is that conservatives behave like the antithesis of Americans..
I simply felt like calling you on your poor loser bs/nonsense.