The nation is transfixed this month on a series of tense, contentious town halls that are taking place in states across the country. Determined to derail President Obama's health care reform plans, right wing activists have stormed these meetings en masse to shout down speakers (including Democratic members of Congress) and derail all attempts at meaningful dialogue. Reports indicate that "Tea Partiers" are also carrying concealed handguns into these events -- yet few in the media have commented on the distorted view of the Second Amendment that is driving this call to arms.
The Tea Party "mobs" are not as spontaneous as they might appear. On July 24, an anti-health care reform group called Conservatives for Patients Rights (run by discredited hospital executive Rick Scott in conjunction with public relations professionals from the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth campaign) sent a database to the Tea Party Patriots Health Care Reform Committee list serve with information on over one hundred upcoming congressional town halls. Robert MacGuffie, a volunteer for FreedomWorks who runs the website Right Principles, also chipped in by providing a strategy memo for the Tea Partiers, instructing them to "rock-the-boat early in the Rep's presentation...yell out and challenge the Rep's statements early....rattle him, get him off his prepared script and agenda...stand up and shout and sit right back down."
His audience has taken those suggestions to heart. Raucous protesters disrupted several meetings last week, in many cases making it impossible to hear the speakers. On August 6, a town hall meeting in St. Louis was marred by a physical confrontation which resulted in multiple arrests. Hours later, the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) -- whose members were involved in the altercation -- received the following anonymous voicemail message: "I suggest you tell your people to calm down, act like American citizens, and stop trying to repress people's First Amendment rights. That, or you all are gonna' come up against the Second Amendment."
Then, on August 7, an anti-health care reform protester in New Mexico named Scott Oskay Tweeted to his hundreds of followers to bring their licensed concealed handguns to town hall meetings, adding, "If ACORN/SEIU attends these townhalls for disruption, stop being peaceful, and hurt them. Badly." The following day, it was reported that several Tea Partiers brought handguns into a town hall organized by Rep. Steve Cohen (D-TN) in Memphis, Tennessee. Additionally, an attendee at a meet and greet with Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-AZ) in a supermarket dropped a handgun, leading her staff to call the police. Most recently, a man was filmed openly carrying a handgun outside of President Obama's town hall meeting in New Hampshire. He held a sign that read, "IT IS TIME TO WATER THE TREE OF LIBERTY!" a reference to the following Thomas Jefferson quote: "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
Exhortations to the right wing base to take armed political action against the Obama administration are far from idle talk--but instead reflect a deeply developed ideology that has been actively promoted by the National Rifle Association and other gun lobby groups for the past 30 years. It holds that the Second Amendment provides individuals with the right to commit acts of violence against our government should it lapse into "tyranny," effectively making firearms "the tools of political dissent." Or as NRA CEO Wayne LaPierre put it at this year's Conservative Political Action Conference, "The guys with the guns make the rules."
The problem is that there are already a substantial number of well-armed Americans who believe our democratically-elected government has become oppressive. Indeed, last week Tea Partiers at a town hall meeting in Tampa, Florida, heckled Rep. Kathy Castor (D-FL) with repeated chants of "Tyranny!" Far from furthering democracy, however, these individuals have made important debate impossible, thereby limiting the political rights of all those who disagree with them.
A commitment to political equality is our most sacred American value, and one that should be protected against all attempts at intimidation or violence. This was well understood by our nation's early leaders, including Abraham Lincoln, who famously declared, "Among free men, there can be no successful appeal from the ballot to the bullet." Then there was George Washington, who in his farewell address to the nation said, "The basis of our political systems is the right of the people to make and to alter their Constitutions of Government. But the Constitution which at any time exists, till changed by an explicit and authentic act of the whole people, is sacredly obligatory upon all. The very idea of the power and the right of the people to establish Government presupposes the duty of every individual to obey the established Government." Put simply, once the Constitution was ratified, our Founding Fathers did not take kindly to insurrectionists.
This year has already been marred by a series of horrific shootings involving individuals who hated our government and believed they had a constitutional right to strike against it: Richard Poplawski in Pittsburgh, James von Brunn in the District of Columbia, Scott Roeder in Wichita, Gilbert Ortez, Jr. in Texas, etc. With tensions escalating at town halls across the country, the overwhelming majority of Americans who wish to peacefully exercise their First Amendment rights must speak out against the violent, insurrectionist philosophy that has corrupted the Second Amendment.
Follow Josh Horwitz on Twitter: www.twitter.com/CSGV
more guns manufactured = more guns ultimately end up in the hands of kooks and criminals
"Citizens-with-guns" are not arresting criminals (that's police work) So how is it that *your* gun prevents crime? The answer is that it does not. When is the last time you were mugged, and you effectively disabled the crook (with your gun)?
A lot of the "carry" gun owners imagine themselves perfectly ready and able to "handle" a bad situation. In all probability, if held up, these self-styled Rambos would never even get their gun out of the holster. And while they were peeing in their pants, their gun would get stolen!
States with permissive CCW laws, and weak gun laws in general, are also the source of more crime guns in outside states than states with strong gun laws.
The result?
The U.S. a gun death rate that is exponentially higher than that of any other industrialized democracy. We also have higher overall homicide rates.
What are YOUR solutions to gun violence, all of you gun aficionados? What are YOU doing to help quell these tragedies? Or do you just not care?
Semper fi
http://www.startribune.com/lifestyle/health/53134782.html?elr=KArksLckD8EQDUoaEyqyP4O:DW3ckUiD3aPc:_Yyc:aUac8HEaDiaMDCinchO7DU
Semper fi
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/13/opinion/13collins.html?_r=2&th=&emc=th&pagewanted=print
Semper fi
“No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.” – Thomas Jefferson
"A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, WHICH WOULD INCLUDE THEIR OWN GOVERNMENT.” – George Washington (sure sounds like hew was speaking of an INDIVIDUAL right)
"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed."- Noah Webster
On the other side of the coin; a famous leader speaks on the merits of gun control:
"This year will go down in history. For the first time, a civilised 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. (Wow, he sounds a lot like Chuck Shumer!!)
The 2nd Amendment is the keystone that protects all other rights from would be tyrants.
"A free people ought not only to be armed but disciplined; to which end a uniform and well digested plan is requisite: And their safety and interest require that they should promote such manufactories, as tend to render them independent on others, for essential, particularly for military supplies."
Your Thomas Jefferson quote is also bogus. In his final draft of the Virginia Constitution, Jefferson simply stated the following:
"No freeman shall be debarred the use of arms [within his own lands or tenements]."
http://wiki.monticello.org/mediawiki/index.php/No_freeman_shall_be_debarred_the_use_of_arms
Webster was actually a strong federalist who had no objection to the vigorous requirements of the Militia Act. You've taken him completely out of context:
http://www.potowmack.org/thequotes.html#noah
And finally, your Hitler quote is also bogus and has been show to be a fraud:
http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/1791/did-hitler-ban-gun-ownership
http://guncite.com/gc2ndbog.html
"Webster was actually a strong federalist who had no objection to the vigorous requirements of the Militia Act."
Indeed, Webster was a strong Federalist, but that statement from Webster was not related to the Militia Act, as the Webster quote was dated October 10, 1787. The Constituion was not ratified until after that date. The first Militia Act was passed in 1792. The remainder of the paragraph from which the quote is derived follows in my following post because of the word count limitations.
"The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive. In spite of all the nominal powers, vested in Congress by the constitution, were the system once adopted in its fullest latitude, still the actual exercise of them would be frequently interrupted by popular jealousy. I am bold to say, that ten just and constitutional measures would be resisted, where one unjust or oppressive law would be enforced. The powers vested in Congress are little more thannominal; nay real power cannot be vested in them, nor in any body, but in the people. The source of power is in the people of this country, and cannot for ages, and probably never will, be removed.."
Unless, of course, the people do not have the right to keep and bear arms...
You're a loon -- this is NOT THE LAW --
“No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.” – Thomas Jefferson
_____
This, however, IS the law -- from the US Constitution:
Art. I., s. 8, c. 15: Congress shall have the Power To provide for calling forth the Militia to Execute the Laws of the Union, (and) suppress Insurrection".
That ALSO means, loon, that the Second Amendmnet -- which is SOLELY about WELL-REGULATED-BY-LAW MILITIA -- DOES NOT authorize "revolution," or the stupidity of "defending against" Constitution and rule of law.
Read up on it.
That is NOT the law. That is merely your uneducated opinion.
http://www.splcenter.org/news/item.jsp?aid=392&splcnewsletter=newsgen-081209
This corroborates a Department of Homeland Security report issued earlier this year, "Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment":
http://www.fas.org/irp/eprint/rightwing.pdf
In the 18th Century--at the time of the American Revolution--every able-bodied man sided with those revolutionaries challenging Great Britain's tyranny, was militia. That is historical context.
Then we have intended purpose: Further, to defend Americans from the formation of a tyrannical government. Quite simply, if the government has all of the guns, they can herd us like sheep.
Gun control does nothing to further the aims the Liberals espouse. They say it lowers crime rates. Except that it doesn't. When guns are banned or tightly controlled, criminals are the only ones with the connections to smuggle in firearms or to build untraceable weapons themselves.
All those criminals without such resources turn to other methods, such as stabbing, a rag doused with poison inducing unconsciousness, beating and strangling, or just walloping the victim with a blunt object of sufficient mass.
There are plenty of ways for criminals to get their way. Guns are how we--the potential victims--stop the aggressors.
We all have the right to own and carry firearms in this country. I have no quarrel with individuals carrying guns wherever they choose. I feel safer knowing that if some thug pulls a gun, they've got a dozen equally-armed, law-abiding citizens to deal with.
Fear breeds complacency.
-Grizzly
I was proud of the stay-at-home Mom who spoke of the sleeping giant finally waking up. See: http://video.aol.com/video-detail/mom-strikes-nerve-at-town-hall/3765102155 or http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=cfb_1250040153 she and her husband aren't organized trouble makers. In fact, it seems that the government and organized labor are the ones ginning up muscle and support for the poorly thought-through medical package. When has the government ever done something well? Social security, IRS, the postal system - all of these would probably be done better by private enterprise . Don't let those dingbats in Washington destroy a very functional system for marginalized people who will only be led to be even more dependent and dysfunctional than they already are.
Too bad she was completely uninformed, and has no idea what she is talking about. She is afraid her small business taxes will go up, afraid Obama will take away the health care she has, afraid Obama will institute single payer. She doesn't know how she feels about existing single payer medicare, or socialist social security.
Nice lady, no doubt. But hardly the poster child for a serious discussion of serious issues.
By the way, it is private health insurance that doesn't work. VA works. Social Security works. Medicare works. The post office works (and they have not been funded by the government since the 70's). Let's quit spending hundreds of billions on insurance companies whose only interest is to deny coverage and increase profits. How is that a benefit to anyone?
However, SS and Medicare are going broke, through corruption and government ineptitude. How anyone can think that government health care will do any better is beyond me! As for private insurance, I've used it since I retired from the Marine Corps in '96, off and on. I've had absolutely no complaints. Now I am in a position to again use Tricare, and so am out of that system, but would go back in a minute if necessary.
Your comments about the intentions of insurance are way off the mark, and illustrate an ignorance of the subject.
Semper fi
The point is, Why can't right wingie-dingies just stay with the exact wording of the 2nd? Why all of this interpretation? The 2nd is about *militias* to defend against tyranny (which considering the times in which it was written, made perfect sense; that tyranny was *England.*)
As far as interpretations go, cons claim to be so-called "strict constructionists." HA! One cannot be both a constructionist whilst digging out implicit meanings of the document's wording at the same time. Choose one or the other please.
Read any of the founders other writings, and their intent is clear--the right to keep and bear is an individual right.
http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/live-from-sen.-cardins-healthcare-town-hall-2009-08-12.html
This begs the question: Just how does a democratically *elected* government become *oppressive?* If people don't like the government, then elect representatives you DO like.
The quote really means this:
"The problem is that there is a *minority* of well-armed Americans who believe our democratically-elected government has become oppressive."
The last time I checked, in a "democracy," the *majority* rules. The real problem is that we have a small group of *sore losers* in this country who cannot accept defeat.