New Hampshire resident William Kostric caused a national stir on August 11 when he appeared outside President Obama's town hall meeting in Portsmouth with a loaded semiautomatic handgun strapped to his leg. Kostric held a sign that read, "IT IS TIME TO WATER THE TREE OF LIBERTY!" This was a reference to the following quote by Founding Father Thomas Jefferson: "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
Asked to explain the message he was trying to send, Kostric stated, "I wanted people to remember the rights that we have and how quickly we're losing them in this country ... It doesn't take a genius to see we're traveling down a road at breakneck speed that's towards tyranny." While Kostric claimed he was not calling for violence, many viewed his actions as threatening and assumed that the "tyrant" he had in mind was the president.
It was certainly not the first time a gun rights activist had referred to Jefferson's "tree of liberty" quote. On the day he bombed the Murrah Building in Oklahoma City in 1995, Timothy McVeigh wore a t-shirt that bore Jefferson's words with an image of a tree with blood dripping from its branches. A Google search will reveal that the quote is cited on a myriad of pro-gun websites today, almost always with no context or source provided. But what was the context of Jefferson's remarks, and what exactly did he mean?
"What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure," Jefferson wrote in a letter to William S. Smith, a diplomatic official in London, on November 13, 1787. Jefferson was commenting on Shays' Rebellion, an armed uprising in Massachusetts that had been put down earlier that year by organized state militia forces. "God forbid we should ever be 20 years without such a rebellion," Jefferson remarked. "Let them take arms."
In the same letter, however, Jefferson stated that the rebellion was "founded in ignorance ... The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive." Jefferson also referred to the delegates who had finalized a draft of the U.S. Constitution in September 1787, stating, "Our Convention has been too much impressed by the insurrection of Massachusetts: and in the spur of the moment they are setting up a kite to keep the hen-yard in order."
The delegates to the Constitutional Convention had indeed taken Shays' Rebellion very seriously, viewing the lack of a strong institutional response to the incident as symptomatic of a weak central government that was struggling to preserve the liberties they had fought so hard for. The country could not be governed in a state of perpetual revolution, the delegates realized, and despite the fears of Anti-Federalists, the Constitution authorized Congress to raise a standing Army. Furthermore, Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution stated that one of the purposes of the Militia was to "suppress Insurrections"--not to foment them.
One of the delegates at the convention was James Madison, the man who would draft the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution in 1789. Jefferson exchanged letters frequently with Madison, sharing his view that Shays' Rebellion was "absolutely unjustifiable," but "did not appear to threaten serious consequences." We need "a little rebellion now and then," he told Madison. Madison disagreed, and supported Congressional enlistment of troops during the rebellion until "the spirit of insurrection was subdued." In a speech before Congress on February 19, 1787, he argued that Shays' rebels were "internal enemies" and constituted a threat to the "tranquility of the Union." To Madison, the rebellion was treason.
With the drafting of the Constitution, Jefferson became more tempered in his own views, and acknowledged that well ordered republican democratic political processes could make armed violence unnecessary. In a letter to Dutch diplomat Charles William Frederick Dumas, Jefferson observed, "Happy for us, that when we find our constitutions defective and insufficient to secure the happiness of our people, we can assemble with all the coolness of philosophers and set it to rights, while every other nation on earth must have recourse to arms to amend or to restore their constitutions."
Upon becoming President of the United States in 1801, Jefferson's views about executive power and private rebellion were further transformed. In contrast to his previous advocacy for a ban on standing armies, Jefferson proposed the creation of a national military academy, which was built in West Point, New York. In 1807, after Aaron Burr conspired with military officers to create an independent republic in the American Southwest, Jefferson declared him a traitor and had him arrested and prosecuted for treason. In 1808, Jefferson deployed U.S. Army troops inside the country to enforce a trade embargo against Great Britain and France. Historian Henry Adams observed about Jefferson's embargo policies: "Personal liberties and rights of property were more directly curtailed in the United States by embargo than in Great Britain by centuries of almost continuous foreign war." Jefferson's use of military personnel to enforce domestic laws remains unprecedented.
Those who hold the belief that the Second Amendment gives them an individual right to take violent action against our government should it lapse into "tyranny" have isolated Jefferson's "tree of liberty" quote in order to justify a radical ideology. The truth is that Jefferson's views on private rebellion were far more thoughtful and nuanced. While scholars like Saul Cornell have acknowledged that Jefferson affirmed an individual right to keep arms for private purposes, he never described disorganized or spontaneous insurrection as a right. Jefferson instead envisioned "a universally armed citizenry organized into well-regulated militia units based on a system of 'ward republics'" as a deterrent against "usurpers" and a key guarantor of a healthy republic.
The anti-government protesters carrying semiautomatic handguns and assault weapons outside of contemporary town hall meetings would undoubtedly consider such detailed regulation of the Militia to be--for lack of a better word--"tyrannical."
Follow Josh Horwitz on Twitter: www.twitter.com/CSGV
Mr. Horowitz should condemn Mohandas Ghandi for he was not one to believe that non violence was the only form of resistance against a tyrant. When Ghandi was asked why he was recruiting soldiers for the British army he replied simply" Sometimes you have to fight evil." Horowitz has more insight into the use of non violence-only when the government has a conciense- then Ghandi, Nelson Mandela or the Founding Fathers.
To a minority like me, I would rather have a bunch of red necks around me that allow me to have a gun to defend my self then a bunch of gun banning liberals whose one branch of government, DHS, is already labeling people terrorist who don't believe in their ideology. Looks like the libs and the state it controls will only protect those that follow them but turn their backs on those they think are backwards. As an example, the New Black Panthers can get away with voter intimidation because their on the liberal side.
Why just condem Tim McVeigh and the Shays rebellion, why not the West Virginia coal miners uprising in Blair Mountain or the 1927 Colorado Columbine Massacre committed by the state National Guard and other violent acts by the state against workers?
Why doesn't Josh comdemn the Native Americans for taking up arms against the US government to stop the lost of their life, land and culture?
Why hasn't Josh comdemned the threat by Macolm X of armed insurrection, the Black Panthers and New Black Panthers demand the right of armed resistance?
The reason Josh points to the white man in New Hampshire and Tim McVeigh for his 1995 act and not the black open carry in Arizona during Obama's visit or the New Black Panther carrying semi-auto assualt weapons to the 2000 GOP texas convention is obvious. He wants to portray gun owners as a bunch of racist red necks who want to kill minorities. Sorry, if I offended any red necks!
Unless you're a day trader and engage in highly speculative quick buys and sells of stocks to make money--his claims of S&W share prices rising are laughable.
One can take any stock and pick a short time period and claim XYZ stock is going up some humongous percent. But the true test--as any sane investor understands--is long term trends. If one takes a look at the 5- and 10-year chart of S&W--one can easily see the price of the stock today is about what what it was in the summer of 2001.
I am giving the exact numbers from the SEC and investor filings. I gave the one year ranges of their stock prices for the last three years showing both short term and longer term variations.
If anyone is guilty of using short term numbers, it is DW's sources.
"If one takes a look at the 5- and 10-year chart of S&W--one can easily see the price of the stock today is about what what it was in the summer of 2001."
Thanks for agreeing with me.
Jades confusion I believe is based upon reading the post exactly backwords... You (like I do), provide a reference point for giving context to your remarks by quoting the language of the poster you are responding to and then providing your take on that comment which you have quoted.
Jade has taken the quotes of the other poster as yours and is attacking them and is thus supporting your actual statements, which he has mistaken as the comments of the other poster.
Jade gets many things backwards, LOL
Stan Goff. 9/11 truther,
Apparently, no gun show is complete without an appearance of a John Wayne impersonator and/or the presence of John Wayne memorabilia.
For sheer obfuscation, this has to take the prize:
." ignore the fact that most... of the scary books, patches, bumperstickers, etc can be had at gas stations across the country, flea markets, book stores and countless internet sites including Amazon.com."
What is ignored, of course, is the fact one of Amazon's main businesses is selling books. All kinds of books. Cookbooks, romance novels, biographies, religious texts, children's books...and, yes, "scary" books. Amazon's book business is designed to sell to all reading customers. Of course, gun show books customer base is much more narrow: gun enthusiasts and white supremacists.
That is funny, 'cause I have been to many, many gun shows and have very rarely seen any John Wayne stuff.
"Of course, gun show books customer base is much more narrow: gun enthusiasts and white supremacists."
I have never ever seen any white supremist material at gun shows.
White supremacist materials are a staple at gun shows. The late leader of thewhite nationalist movement, William Pierce called gun shows "a natural recruiting ground."
Others have noted the white supremacist/gun show association. I could provide cite after cite, but here are just a few:
"Though big guns were the main attraction, a handful of retailers in Reno appealed to some visitors’ apparent enthusiasm for Nazi memorabilia. Swastika-emblazoned flags, photographs of Hitler and his henchmen, and anything related to the Third Reich were available at several booths. There was obviously no way to gauge the percentage of show attendees who adhered to the racist fringe, but the prominence of so much Nazi regalia suggested they maintained a significant presence. In fact, I learned about the gun shows I attended from a Web site that features a prominent banner ad for the Council of Conservative Citizens, America’s largest white-supremacist group."
"Gun shows also have a long history as recruiting grounds by white supremacist (and often) anti-Semitic right wing organizations who use (a complicated, but in many ways legitimate) fear and distrust of the federal government for their organizing purposes(see Ken Lawrence's piece on Gun Shows in the 80s). "
Results 1 - 10 of about 1,450 for jadegold gun show. (0.50 seconds)
Which apparently means you are venerated at gun shows also. LOL
Name one firearm law which does not apply at gun shows but does apply elsewhere.
First, they cite a "researcher" named Jesse Bengson as being critical of the study. I'm sure Bengson is a pretty smart person--he is, after all, a grad student--in Psychology. His CV indicates no experience in Dr. Wintemute's field or any, for that matter, concerning gun policies. Of course, Bengson's entitled to his opinion. And Bengson's opinions do not contradict the veracity of Wintemute's study.
Next up, we have a weird claim about John Wayne being venerated at gunshows. This is what is known as an observation. All studies employ observations. observations are the basis of all studies. Wintemute's observation concerning John Wayne and gun shows is contained in the "Culture" chapter of his study. In this chapter, Wintemute persuasively notes gun shows have distinct social aspect. That fact is demonstrated in this forum and gun blogs; many of the usual suspects base their their entire social lives around guns. Some have apparently sacrificed career and familial responsibilities in favor of guns.
I'd also add a very famous pro-gun blogger wrote a famous essay in which he bemoaned that US males needed to be much more like John Wayne. .
gun shows cater to certain customer base and audience. If John Wayne and white supremacist materials are anathema to gun shows--why does it keep turning up at gun shows? The answer is apparent: because it's what the customer wants.
Another personal opinion with no empirical evidence to support it. No wonder Jade likes Wintemute so much,
BWAHAHAHA!!!
You're full of cr@p Pilgrim.
This collection of anecdotes and personal inferences is just as funny as his original work.
Of course this whole report needs to ignore the fact that most... of the scary books, patches, bumperstickers, etc can be had at gas stations across the country, flea markets, book stores and countless internet sites including Amazon.com.
"None of that was presented," said Jesse Bengson.
Instead, he said he saw anecdotal inferences and personal opinion. He said you can't condemn flea markets for bad things that happen in them and that individuals are responsible for how guns are used.
Wintemute conceded that the data isn't there."
Uh oh.... Garen's hasn't got any data.
"But Wintemute defended his report saying it was not meant to be a scientific study. "
And yet you can be sure that it will be refered to as such by gun controllers.
"(Wintemute) showed a sequence of photographs showing how an illegal "straw purchase" was made. A man was given cash to fill out forms and undergo a background check by the dealer. An AK-47 assault rifle was then handed over to the man who actually initiated the buy."
If that were true, the BATFE would be very interested to see this "evidence" as it would be a an illegal transfer. But I bet the BATFE has seen his photos and probably concluded differently than Wintemute.
http://www.ucdmc.ucdavis.edu/vprp/
Are the usual suspects charging the photos contained in the study are phony and weren't taken at gunshows? Having been to many gun shows, I can attest the photos in the study are fairly benign--Wintemute could have easily obtained far more incendiary photos of anti-semitic, racist and misogynistic materials. In addition, many gun shows also feature various materials on how to avoid taxes through a variety of schemes that would land in you in trouble with the IRS.
Are the usual suspects charging comments made at gunshows didn't occur? Again, it's been well-documented that many gun sellers will sell firearms to buyers who admit to using the weapons for illegal purposes.
The reason the usual suspects object to Dr. Wintemute's study is because it shines a light on what transpires at gun shows. The usual suspects don't like this.
Horse feathers! The pro-rights folks here dislike Garen Wintemute & his “work” because Wintemute is a raving anti-gun loon and his “research” and “studies” are little more than a series of highly biased anecdotes. And, as any reasonably intelligent, honest person knows: “Anecdotes do not equal Evidence.” Wintemute’s work seldom, if ever survives critical evaluation.
Old SF MJT
The usual suspects do not care much for their fringe practices to be exposed.
http://www.ucdmc.ucdavis.edu/vprp/
So only studies done by Mary Rosh are valid.
That's fairly easy.
In the days of the Founders, basically the only people who enjoyed the full rights of the day were propertied, white Christian males--those who were considered to be of "good" character.
IOW, if you weren't white or Christian or male or poor or were considered to be poor or dubious character--you were out of luck.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
i think the people who were here first would have disagreed with you...
This is false on two levels. First, it's very questionable they support NICS checks. Second, they're against closing gun show loopholes which allow private sellers of firearms to sell weapons without any check or documentation whatsoever.
"Violent felons need to remain in jail until they are no longer a threat (I am sorry--but someone who has been convicted of multiple rapes/murders etc need to stay in prison until they need walkers or wheelchairs), and if people are convicted of armed robbery etc--the parole officers and police need to check on them on a multiple time a week basis (an if the parolees are found anywhere near a gun--they go back to prison)"
This is an oldie but goodie. Jail sentences have been increasing dramatically in recent years; example: the number of life sentences--without the possibility of parole--has increased nearly 90% in the last 20 years. The US has the highest incarceration rate per capita of any country in the world.
The demand to get tougher on criminals is a smokescreen. We're already very tough on criminals. The pro-gun types use this demand to mask the fact they don't want greater enforcement of gun laws. For example, when crooked FFLs are prosecuted--the pro-gun types will inevitably support FFLs who have broken the law.
Considering that the Pro-RKBA camp were the first to lobby Congress to fund a study to see if such a system were feasible and that the only reason the Brady Bill passed was because the Pro-RKBA side offered NICS as an alternative and desired end state to the original bill's demand for waiting periods, well, you'd be wrong.
"Second, they're against closing gun show loopholes "
There is no loop hole for gun shows. The same rules that apply anywhere else also apply at gun shows.
"the number of life sentences--without the possibility of parole--has increased nearly 90% in the last 20 years."
Source?
"The US has the highest incarceration rate per capita of any country in the world."
Which includes non-violent crimes and drug related offenses.
"We're already very tough on criminals. "
(sarcasm)As evidenced by the number of convicted felons who have been released early and have gone on to commit murder. (/sarcasm)
"For example, when crooked FFLs are prosecuted--the pro-gun types will inevitably support FFLs who have broken the law."
When FFLs have deliberately broken the law, usually we will not support them. When they are run out of business and have their inventories seized and destroyed without compensation for missing decimal points or an I that looks like an L, yeah, we will usually support the FFL.
And, yes, gun show loopholes exist. This is another NRA canard.
All five cops killed in the line of duty in Philadelphia last year were killed by, or in persuit of repeat, violent felons who had been released on parole in the name of prison overcrowding.
After all, why should Americans hold in reverence a man who penned flowery odes to freedom and liberty--while owning slaves and often using them as his sexual playthings? Here's a man who encouraged his countrymen to fight and die against the King--while he never took up arms in the revolution he advocated.
We also know Jefferon did not believe in equal rights for women and non-whites.
As time went by, it became apparent to most Americans that Jefferson's idea of defending the nation mainly with part-time soldiers just wasn't practical.
In the days of the Founders, basically the only people who enjoyed the full rights of the day were propertied, white Christian males--those who were considered to be of "good" character.
IOW, if you weren't white or Christian or male or poor or were considered to be poor or dubious character--you were out of luck.