In a November 3 Washington Post article about increased sale of guns and ammunition since the election of President Barack Obama, Wayne LaPierre, Chief Executive Officer of the National Rifle Association, said something curious. Asked to explain this buying spree, he stated, "I think it's Katrina. I think it's terrorism. I think it's crime. And I also think that it's people worrying about [whether] they'll be attacked by politicians. They're suspicious, and justifiably so."
Americans are stockpiling handguns, assault weapons and ammunition because they are going to be "attacked by politicians"? Attacked how? And exactly what kind of "defense" are these individuals planning?
LaPierre's quote would have been unfathomable not too long ago, but in the wake of a summer where gun-toters showed up regularly at political events across the country, it has an ominous resonance to it.
The American public got a clear view of this type of "activism" when William Kostric appeared outside of President Obama's town hall meeting in New Hampshire on August 11. With a loaded semiautomatic handgun strapped to his leg, Kostric held a placard that read, "IT IS TIME TO WATER THE TREE OF LIBERTY!" Six days later, Chris Broughton appeared outside a presidential speech in Phoenix openly carrying an AR-15 semiautomatic rifle and a semiautomatic handgun. In a video recorded at the event, he declared, "We will forcefully resist people imposing their will on us through the strength of the majority with a vote. Just because you sick a government on people doesn't make it morally OK to steal money from them."
Visitors at an online poll that accompanied the Washington Post article mentioned above made similar-sounding remarks. Asked "Does it worry you that guns and bullets are selling at a record pace?" one individual commented, "Maybe this is sending a message to Obama that people don't trust his policies and the direction of the United States?" Another stated, "I will argue that a population not trusting their government is not a bad thing. You are in good company: Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Madison, Franklin, etc. I will further argue that the guns and bullets are not meant for fellow citizens, but for an opperessive [sic] government." A third commenter explained that he joined the NRA and bought an assault rifle because Obama's "crazy ideas make me very wary."
The NRA leadership's constant dissemination of "insurrectionist" propaganda has been an inspiration for such statements. In his 1994 book, Guns, Crimes and Freedom, LaPierre writes that, "The people have the right, must have the right, to take whatever measures necessary, including force, to abolish oppressive government."
The NRA's thinking on insurrectionism was further expanded in their amicus brief in the District of Columbia v. Heller case: "In adopting the Second Amendment, the Framers guaranteed an individual right to keep and bear arms for private purposes, not a collective right to keep and bear arms only in connection with state militia service ... This individual right to keep and bear arms is a fundamental right; the Second Amendment on its face describes it as essential to a "free State"--a democratic state free from government tyranny ... The Framers sought to effectuate their purpose of guarding against federal overreaching by guaranteeing the right of the people to keep and bear arms ... As an initial matter, while an oppressive federal government might seek to raid militia depots as the British attempted at Lexington and Concord, arms dispersed among the people would prove far more difficult to confiscate."
Then there was LaPierre's oft-quoted quip from the 2009 Conservative Political Action Conference: "Our founding fathers understood that the guys with the guns make the rules."
When bandied about on private internet discussion boards, these ideas serve as a valuable recruiting and fundraising tool. When taken to the streets in a show of force, however, they are revealed as disturbing and radical. The notion that the Second Amendment provides an individual right to use firearms to take violent action against a "tyrannical" government is serious business, particularly when thousands of individuals on the right wing of American politics have made it patently clear that they consider the current Obama administration to be "tyrannical."
To clarify the record, we would therefore ask Wayne LaPierre the following questions:
Do you believe that the Second Amendment provides individuals like William Kostric and Chris Broughton with a right to shoot and kill government officials when they deem our government has become "tyrannical"?
If one or two individuals who believe our government is "tyrannical" are not enough, how many individuals does it take to make political violence against our government legitimate?
Finally, how would the NRA define government "tyranny"? Does having to live with health care reform that one disagrees with constitute being "attacked by politicians"?
In his Farewell Address, George Washington said, "This Government, the offspring of our own choice, uninfluenced and unawed, adopted upon full investigation and mature deliberation, completely free in its principles, in the distribution of its powers, uniting security with energy, and containing within itself a provision for its own amendment, has a just claim to your confidence and your support. Respect for its authority, compliance with its laws, acquiescence in its measures, are duties enjoined by the fundamental maxims of true Liberty. 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."
Well, Wayne...do you concur?
Follow Josh Horwitz on Twitter: www.twitter.com/CSGV
"On May 1, 1982 the city passed an ordinance [Sec 34-1a] requiring every head of household to maintain a firearm together with ammunition. It was passed partly in response to a 1981 handgun ban in Morton Grove, Illinois. Kennesaw's law was amended in 1983 to exempt those who conscientiously object to owning a firearm, convicted felons, those who cannot afford a firearm, and those with a mental or physical disability that would prevent them from owning a firearm. It mentions no penalty for its violation. According to the Kennesaw Historical Society, no one has ever been charged under the ordinance, but it has still had the effect of reducing crime by at least 50%"...
i have clearly demonstrated a direct action in opposition to a gun ban...a gun ban.which you say no one supports and only exists in the mind of the pro-rkba...now show me one new law or restriction that resulted as a re-action to the heller decision...i.e..."in response to scalia saying that restrictive gun laws are ok..the city of_____has banned the use of all guns except flintlocks"...my guess is you will give the kerry or biden answer...in other words you will be long on sound and fury but you won't say anything....
photo
mackbolan:
Already answered elsewhere on this thread. Further, the Heller decision left the door open for what the extent of rights may become or what the limitation of rights may be when the next cases are before the Court. No "absolutes."
_______________________________________________________________________________
what is it with the lefts inability to answer a simple question....no where have you named a state....county...city...or hamlet that has enacted tougher gun laws because according to your interpretation of heller scalia says its ok....i do not think the supreme court is going to go case by case through the 20,000 laws on the books to determine what is and is not constitutional....so again..name me one place where because of heller laws restricting guns have become more restrictive...keep it simple nancy...something like "i currently know of no place where laws have become more restrictive because of heller...thanks...
Scott: The rhetorical nonsense games of the pro-RKBA cult...
"If they can get you asking the wrong questions, the answers don't matter."
Thomas Pynchon
If your comment has any merit, answer it yourself. That could be a teachable moment. (?)
Meanwhile, we have some guidance but we don't how gun laws may look next year, or the year after, or even how current local gun laws will fare if tested by the Court. No "absolutes" is a word carefully chosen.
The Heller case involved the District of Columbia. It affects only D.C. The Court did not say whether the 2nd Amendment protections apply to state and city laws.
After Heller: new lawsuits filed to test gun laws including a Chicago case filed against that city's restrictive gun laws.
President Obama said at the time of the Heller decision that it "would provide much-needed guidance to local jurisdictions across the country." He noted that the right to gun ownership is "not absolute and subject to reasonable regulations enacted by local communities to keep their streets safe."
"I have always believed that the Second Amendment protects the right of individuals to bear arms, but I also identify with the need for crime-ravaged communities to save their children from the violence that plagues our streets through common-sense, effective safety measures."
What will the Second Amendment mean in our future? Does that depend on the Court?
Not quite. While the law in question was a DC law, the ruling sets federal precedent in any federal court anywhere in the US.
"The Court did not say whether the 2nd Amendment protections apply to state and city laws. "
Which is being addressed in the McDonald case.
""I have always believed that the Second Amendment protects the right of individuals to bear arms,"
And his nose grew six inches when he said that since prior to the Heller decision he has repeatedly stated that he supported the collective right reading.
It's the gun grabbers who want to committ insurrection through their friends in the media and gov. by passing unpopular gun control laws, using the states police powers to deny a right which an overwheming majority of Americans believe RKBA is a Constitutional right. A classic example of minority tyranny over the majority.
This does not pass the smell test. I am sorry. Words, just words .... empty words.
Just like "We are not a gun ban organization".
-------------
www.pollingreport.com/guns.htm
From wiki:
"Cult:" a group that tends to manipulate, exploit, and control its members. Specific factors in cult behavior are said to include manipulative, authoritarian, and totalistic organization, aggressive proselytizing, systematic programs of indoctrination...
"Cults are groups that often exploit members psychologically and/or financially, typically by making members comply with leadership's demands through certain types of psychological manipulation, and through the inculcation of deep-seated anxious dependency on the group and its leaders."
A similar definition is given by Louis Jolyon West:
A cult is a group or movement exhibiting a great or excessive devotion or dedication to some person, idea or thing and employing unethically manipulative techniques of persuasion and control (use of special methods to heighten suggestibility and subservience, powerful group pressures, information management, suspension of individuality or critical judgment, promotion of total dependency on the group and fear of [consequences of] leaving it, etc.) designed to advance the goals of the group's leaders to the actual or possible detriment of members, their families, or the community.
According to DOJ studies the density of guns per household is less in urban areas and is the highest in rural areas. Gun laws in rural areas are less strict then urban cities: Chicago, Washington DC.
No facts are available from even the Brady Campaign that NRA members, as a sub-group, are involved in an increase in the murder rate or statistically account for .1%. Yet Horwitz wants to attack the NRA as dangerous to the security of the US because of two guys non-violentely protesting while holding a gun. This can only be that if Horwitz asked the right sub-group about the increase in murder rate he would be branded making a politically incorrect statement by his liberal gun grabbing buddies.
photo
Godweiser's comment speaks precisely to a reality here.
More to the point, perhaps:
A person who is incapable of ever admitting he is wrong, is a liar.
Reply Favorite Flag as abusive Posted 03:57 PM on -------------------------------------------------------------
_________________________________________________________________________________
dreamweaver is credited on another post saying "the heller decision restricts gun rights".....i wonder how long we have to wait until she admits she is wrong....
Pro-RKBA groupies ask others to "read" Heller. When Heller is quoted, you deny. But that's the game pro-rkba plays.
Justice Scalia's statement in the Heller decision is that the Second Amendment right of armed self-defense is not absolute. He provided a "non-exhaustive" list of permissible regulations: restrictions on firearms possession by felons and mentally ill; restrictions on possession in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings; and conditions on sales. He indicated that there may be banned categories of weapons not in common use and suggested licensing laws.
Obviously, he considers Heller a step in Second Amendment considerations.
There will be additional changes with additional cases.
A person who is incapable of ever admitting he is wrong, is a liar. True.
Is limiting access of firearms to felons and the mentally ill justification to reinstitute the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban? Is restrictions to sensative places a definition to deny US citizens the arms in common use such as the AR15? I think it's a stretch to justify the assault weapons ban, but please explain.
Now more AR15's and semi-auto AK47 are in common use, does this justify banning them? In fact the AR15 is the number one selling firearm in 2009 according to the National Shooting Sports Foundation. Semi-auto high capacity pistols outsell revolvers 4 to 1 acording to most recent ATF data. There is about the same number of one caliber of high capacity semi-auto pistol (9mm) then all revolvers combined.
Denying firearms to the mentally ill and felons is not disputed by anyone even before Heller. It's been Federal and state law since the creation of the US Constitution and before its creation. The felon and mentally ill in several SCOTUS opinions have less rights then law abiding citizens such as felons register to every local law enforcement. The right of law abiding citizens to self defense is absolute even by dissenting opinion Justice Stevens in Heller.
The 9th circuit pointed out you have a right to a weapon issued to all infantry but not a nuclear missile being that it's not small arms issued to every infantry soldier but given the lowest level to divisions whose use is only authorized by the President of the US under authority of Congress, under Article One of the US Constitution.
And how many shootings were there at these events?
Why won't any of the fear mongers, ranting on about how all firearm owners want the shooting to start, answer this question?
Could it be because those rants have the same accuracy as all the cries of 'blood in the street' every time a CCW or Castle Doctrine bill is passed?
And when it comes to armed revolts, demagogues and the cycle of regimes, there is no good answer. This system is bad, but I would not like to replace it with a system at bayonet point as insisted upon by the likes of Wayne LaPierre and his movement; once you take up a weapon to enforce your will in politics, it's hard to put them down again. Regimes often wind up purging their enemies and then purging those that come to doubt their purpose and guard their power jealously, knowing that to lose power is death in the new climate that they established.
If one reads the Plato and Thucydides and Tacitus and other ancient historians (as the founders did) they'd realize the threat of a popularly-supported overthrow of democracy and establishment of tyranny, and consider these questions more carefully. However, I am afraid that most people that are in on this insurrectionist attitude are more interested in the romanticized element of fighting tyranny, without, ironically, considering the capacity for it in the overthrow.
Like so much else, there's nothing simple and easy about it. And like so much else, lack of consideration of the nuances and details, the little things, add up into a great folly. It's just human nature, unfortunately.
If Wayn Lapierre had any designs on the overthrow of the US government the US military and current law enforcement officials don't appear to think so having not revoked their association and membership with the NRA. In contrast there are no card carrying members in law enforcement who are members of muslim extremist groups bent on overthrowing the US gov.
The only Americans visiting dictators, who oppose the US gov. like Hugo Chavez of Venezuala, are liberals like Shawn Penn and Harry Belafonte, not Lapierre.
The point stands and you illustrate the point; by refusing to even consider the responsibility inherent in being armed, you are merely another mindless contributory to the cycle of regimes, another over-armed, under-educated pawn of greater powers that rile you up for their own profit.
What's amusing is that the people most subject to human nature are the people who fervently deny that it could ever be them. By refusing to contemplate, you almost certainly condemn yourself. Ironically, as you tear off on a rant about "Islam" you have far more in common with the forces of fanaticism in this world than the forces for reason and logic, and thus are contributory to the entropy of civilization, rather than its maintenance or advancement.
I pity you people, somewhat, but that pity doesn't overcome my distaste; in the end, such ignorance is self-inflicted in this day and age.
I meant four of five NRA members are current and former military and law enforcement.
Do you really hope to convince half of the adult population that the other half wants to overthrow the government?
Your question isn't serious.
Josh already has GritsJr convinced. How many times has he referred to us as "traitors" and "insurrectionists"?
Republican John Boehner did not make a mistake reading the Declaration when he said he would be reading from the Constitution. It was part of the impression the right wing is promoting. When questioned about his saying one thing, and reading another, the explanation elevated the Declaration with the statement: "Both texts are vital to the liberty beloved by every American."
Boehner stated he would read a passage from the Constitution and declared:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal and that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights including life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness!"
The language we hear is of "revolution" -- the president as a "tyrant" -- threatening rights such as "gun rights" -- the government as "tyrannical" attempting for "force" health care reform on the people: all part of guerrilla politics by corporate sponsored groups and corporate sponsored right wing politicians.
1: Loaded Language. Words and phrases used in specialized ways, a jargon of thought-terminating clichés, which serve to alter the' thought processes to conform to a specific ideology.
2:Ideology is considered to be the ultimate Truth, beyond all questioning or dispute. Truth is not to be found outside the group. (i.e. "The debate is over!")
3:Doctrine over person. Personal experiences and opinions of those outside the group who object are subordinated and any contrary experiences must be denied or reinterpreted to fit the ideology of the group.
4:Erasing existence. Those in the group have a right to exist, others do not. Not literal, but rather implies that those outside the group are less than human, or unenlightened, or unconscious and must be rejected by the members -- erased as human beings from the groups reality -- loses all credibility.
WhenI read the Declaration of Independence in my freshman year I interpreted as a right that those who are oppressed have the right to take up arms. Reading the writings of the Founding Fathers they sadi there was a right to armed struggle.
The right of freedom of speech is exclusive to the democrates and their gun grabbing friends who can call gun owners any derogatory word and call former president Bush a nazi but when we call their great messiah a violator of out Constitutional right we should be silence by the state because of the paranoia by gun grabbers.
Ironic that gun grabbers they don't see Islamic extremist who make such statements of overthrowing the government of the US, are also carrying out attacks on government officials ( soldiers)not on their focus. Instead attack thier opposition who have not committed such acts. If McVeigh is a lightening rod for the gun grabbers, remember he left the NRA because he thought they were not radical enough.
Funny, we didn't see any concern from anti-gun activists when well-known anti Father Michael Pfleger called for a gun shop owner in a Chjicago suburb to be "dragged out on the sidewalk and snuffed", twice. That leaves a lot less to the imagination than anything LaPierre said. And he said this in front of the media, Jesse Jackson and his armed body-guards, and a host of Brady Campaign members.
He also called for the same treatment of pro 2nd Amendment legislaotors.
You didn't see us getting hysterical, did you?
Unfortunately, the anti-gun organizations, and bloggers like Josh, just pretended it never happened.
He's right. But when LaPierre talks about being attacked by politicians, he means their 2nd Amendment rights may be attacked, and you know it.
Of course, that will harldy cause the sheep to stampede, so Josh wants to twist it into something else.
Perhaps you are unaware that gun sales have been on the rise for a couple of years now, but I think you are.
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0BTT/is_156_26/ai_82533215/
I don't know a single, solitary person who bought a gun to overthrow the government, and I'll bet I know more gun owners than Josh does.
The only time we ever get into this debate, is when a scaremongering anti-rights blogger tries to make the public think that we are all just counting the minutes until the revolution starts.
It's really absurd, but the antis are desperate, especially after Heller.
The cat's out of the bag, buddy.
And actually, a lot of gun owners being quoted in articles about increased gun sales are citing political reasons (fear of Obama) as the reason they're buying guns. I can't think of a single quote I've seen that indicates it is for sporting reasons.
You are letting your imagination run away with you. It seems you'd like everyone else to join in.
Does Josh Horwitz think Martin Luther King and the Civil Rights movement wrong to interpret the governments that oppressed them as tyrants and that King was wrong in his act of insurrection because all act of defying government is wrong, right?
The American Indian Movement in 1973 took up arms at Wounded Knee because they think the Federal government was oppressing them. Does Mr. Horwitz think these AIM people are wrong to think the US gov. was a tyrant and wrong to have taken up arms against a duly elected government.
What about Black Panthers led by Huey Newton who thought the duly elected government used it's police to oppress minorities so they took up arms. Does Horwitz want to condemn this members of the democratic party for bearing arms and calling duly elected governments tyrants?
Why doesn't Horwitz ask the AIM and Black Panthers how they interperet what is tyranny by a duly elected government? I suspect only when a gun hater such as Horwitz say the duly elected gov. of the US is a tyrant then it will be true.
Furthermore, he certainly did not embrace any insurrectionist view of the Second Amendment or our Constitution.
Try reading Martin Luther Kings guide, Ralph Waldo Emerson's " Civil Disobidience" where Emerson explains that civil disobidience is only possible with a government that has a Concience. This book was also used by Ghandi as his guide. As long as the belief that the government they were fighting against had a concience King continued to use the non-violent means of changing the government's policy. Like King, Ghandi explained in his autobiography " We only have soo much patients" when he also will use violence.
Your a pacifist yet your clueless to the process of non-violent protesters like Ghandi, King or Nelson Mandela which appears to be a pattern with those who like to insist that non-violent means is the only way. Ignorance is bliss.
1) Do you believe that the Second Amendment provides individuals like William Kostric and Chris Broughton with a right to shoot and kill government officials when they deem our government has become "tyrannical"?
Absolutely not. The Second Amendment provides no individual right to insurrection whatsoever (or any right to insurrection, for that matter).
The right to insurrection or revolution are in the Declaration of Independense and the writings of our Founding Fathers. It can be even seen in the 1st Amenmendment when the government doesn't give the people their free press or listen to their redress of grievances. The other Bill of Rights if denied by the government to the people gives them the right to insurrection. How else did Martin Luther King and the Civil rights movement in the 50's and 60's get their rights but committ an act of insurrection. In the 60's unrest, the National Guard was called in the many parts of the country under the authority of Article 1 of the the US Consitution giving the US Congress the power to supress insurrections because of the many riots occuring. This riots wether you support it or not are acts of insurrection.