Left Says Gov’t Won’t Abuse Powers? What of Civil Rights Movement, 60s Riots?

The left is scoffing at the belief held by Second Amendment supporters that their right to bear arms is in part meant to act as a check on tyrannical government. Government turning tyrannical is ridiculous, many leftists say. But isn’t this the most absurd hypocrisy because didn’t they build their entire lefty edifice on the idea that government has been oppressing everyone?

Only the most recent person making this claim is CNN’s Piers Morgan, a foreigner and British citizen. He is grasping at any argument in his attempt to destroy our Constitution. On ABC’s This Week former Michigan Governor Jennifer Granholm also made this false claim.

From the Civil Rights movement, to the 60′s era hippies and yippies and their riots, to constant racebaiting, gay advocacy, university affirmative action, racial quotas, even all the way to the last few years when the childish Occupy Wall Street “movement” started, all of these movements arose because the left claimed that government had been oppressing any particular voting constituency to which they wanted to appeal.

How often have you heard the left claim that southern police forces are evil because they are racists that oppress blacks, gays, and women and do so because they have the power of the gun and the law behind them? And how many bad Hollyweird movies have been based on that premise?

So, the entirety of the left-wing movement is based on the single bedrock idea that only they can stop out of control governments from abusing people, but they do claim that government is oppressive nonetheless.

Yet, we have that same left-wing establishment now scoffing at Second Amendment supporters for saying they may someday need their firearms to protect themselves from an out of control government?

After they’ve spent 50 years–nay over 100 years–claiming that government is oppressing people right here, right now? After all that, now they are saying that assuming government can get out of hand is absurd?

Of course, we know why they are assuming this hypocritical position, right? It’s because they are in charge right now and they assume they could never be tyrants. Also because they desperately want some way to ridicule the right and they’ll use any means necessary to do it despite that it makes them hypocrites or not.

The left are just liars. Plain and simple.

Shortlink:

Posted by on January 20, 2013.
Filed under Asshats, Barack Obama, corruption, Culture Of Corruption, Democrats, Dumbasses, Gun control, Liberals, Media.
Warner Todd Huston is a Chicago-based freelance writer, has been writing opinion editorials and social criticism since early 2001 and is featured on many websites such as Andrew Breitbart's BigGovernment.com and BigJournalism.com, RightWingNews.com, CanadaFreePress.com, RightPundits.com, StoptheACLU.com, Human Events Magazine, among many, many others. Additionally, he has been a frequent guest on talk-radio programs to discuss his opinion editorials and current events. He has also written for several history magazines and appears in the new book "Americans on Politics, Policy and Pop Culture" which can be purchased on amazon.com. He is also the owner and operator of PubliusForum.com. Feel free to contact him with any comments or questions, EMAIL Warner Todd Huston: igcolonel .at. hotmail.com "The only end of writing is to enable the reader better to enjoy life, or better to endure it." --Samuel Johnson

You can leave a response or trackback to this entry
  • jim_m

    It could never happen here

    Rounding up people and sending them to concentration camps (whether called “reservations” or “relocation centers”). Check. (Treatment of Native Americans. Japanese-American “Relocation Centers” during World War II).

    Illegal medical experiments involving infecting people with diseases, not treating them, and observing the effects done on people without their knowledge or consent. Check. (Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment–and particularly interesting how that was “explained” to the victims as they were getting free health care from the US Government.)

    Arbitrary searches of American citizens’ households aimed at the seizure of
    property without either probable cause or any kind of warrant. Check. (post-Katrina gun Confiscation)

    Laws passed allowing the indefinite detention of American Citizens without due process of law. Check. (NDAA 2012)

    American citizens going about their daily business being stopped and searched
    again without probable cause or any kind of warrant (or even the “reasonably articulable suspicion” for a “Terry Stop”). Check. (TSA, not just at Airports, but at bus terminals, rail and subway terminals, highways, even High School Proms.)

    As I have said before. Fascist dictatorship could never happen here. At least not one that the leftist media would ever report.

    • herddog505

      Fascist dictatorships are great.

      If you’re a fascist, that is.

      • jim_m

        You know, it’s funny that a lot of those incidents occurred under the auspices of the dems. Tuskegee, a federal project under FDR. Japanese interment under FDR. NDAA 2012, under obama. Post Katrina gun confiscation , done by Mayor Nagen’s police.

        It seems the dems keep accusing the GOP of being dictators, but the dems actually keep implementing dictatorship.

    • Commander_Chico

      I don’t know why you ascribe this only to “the left.” The authoritarian right championed more abuses of the Constitution and human rights laws during the Bush administration than anyone at any time since the Civil War.

      Warrantless surveillance of Americans’ telecommunications – check
      Torture – check
      Indefinite detention of U.S. citizens without judicial process – check.

      There really aren’t too many more abuses you could support.

      • jim_m

        Warrantless surveillance of Americans’ telecommunications

        Those were foreign communications under Bush. Perhaps obama has expanded that to domestic spying as well.

        I’ll not that you are supportive of medical experimentation on blacks and other minorities dr Mengela. And that you support warrentless searches of American homes.

        You don’t come out against these, you justify them by attempting to say that the right does bad things too. The answer for someone who believes in liberty is to decry both. You don’t because you don’t believe in liberty, at least not for your ideological opposites.

        • Commander_Chico

          You have not been paying attention. They have always been surveilling Americans.

          That’s why they needed to pass a law absolving them of violating FISA during the Bush years.

      • jim_m

        Warrantless surveillance of Americans’ telecommunications

        Those were foreign communications under Bush. Perhaps obama has expanded that to domestic spying as well.

        I’ll not that you are supportive of medical experimentation on blacks and other minorities dr Mengela. And that you support warrentless searches of American homes.

        You don’t come out against these, you justify them by attempting to say that the right does bad things too. The answer for someone who believes in liberty is to decry both. You don’t because you don’t believe in liberty, at least not for your ideological opposites.

      • SteveCrickmore075

        In his candid disparagement of the civil rights movement in the 50′s and early 60′s, I suppose Huston believes that equal rights to “life, liberty and pursuit of happiness” should not have applied to blacks. Or was he favor of segregation, that is unequal civil rights in all forms of American life: public schools, the armed services, professional sports etc. which is pretty much the way the country worked before then?

        Evidently also, the wingnuts on this site believe that issuing an Executive Order banning torture and providing for treatment of individuals in U.S. custody consistent with Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions, the Federal Torture Statute, and the Convention Against Torture, is a sure sign that we are living under a ‘facist Obama dictatorship.’

        Are there any ‘sane wingnuts’ remaining, writing on this site, or is that a oxymoron?

        • jim_m

          Only in the twisted mind of a lefty is it wrong to torture enemy combatants that murder your civilians and captured soldiers, and OK for that same government to murder American civilians.

          Funny how everyone on the left seems to have forgotten how it was the democrats who were so very much in favor of segregation and how the dems kept a klansman in the Senate up to 2010. But the right is where the racists are. Sure.

          Again, I note that you, like Chico, don’t deny the abuses of the democrats, but excuse them. You have no problem with leftist fascism as it is done in your name. You have no problem with fascist tactics at all as long as they are done in the name of your ideology.

        • http://www.rustedsky.net JLawson

          The point that the ‘government’ in the South in the ’50s and ’60s was oppressive seems to be completely lost on you.

          A conviction that government is always right, wise, and benevolent in all things regardless of circumstances seems to be a hallmark of the left. (Or to be more precise, right, wise, and benevolent in all things as long as someone you ideologically support is in charge…)

          I’d question your sanity – but I think you’re reasonably sane – it’s just that your powers of logical reasoning are sadly deficient.

  • herddog505

    As I remarked with regard to Piers Morgan the other day, I doubt that lefties would be so sanguine about the forever benevolent intent of our government if a Republican was in the White House. Why, just a few short years ago, our government (I know you won’t believe it, but it’s TRUE! Ask any democrat) was throwing people into Gitmo without trial, torturing them, wiretapping without warrants, tracking bank transfers, bombing innocent civilians around the world, and even (yes, yes, even this!) FIRING US attorneys for no good reason. Incredible as it may seem, the US government even took the position that, “You’re either with us or you’re against us!” causing a chill wind of fear to blow through the land.*

    But all that’s changed. There’s a bright new ray of sunshine lighting the land, and its name is Barack Hussein Obama. Mmm-mmm-mmm…

    ===

    (*) http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0416-01.htm

  • 914

    Barry doesn’t abuse. He progresses toward utopia with an iron fist of freedom.

  • Commander_Chico

    I’m not sure what Warner is trying to say here, it’s a confusing piece.

    Is he trying to say the Civil Rights movement was about oppressing the White Man?

    Or is he saying “the left” should be down with gun rights because they have been fighting The Power, too?

    Of course we need guns to defend against The Power – thinking that either party is a defender of the Constitution or human rights is a delusion. Both parties serve the same insensate master – Mammon. Mammon seeks to enslave flesh-and-blood persons.

    • herddog505

      Tell that to Piers Morgan, Di-Fi, Uncle Choo-choo, Cuomo, Barry and the rest of the gun-grabbers who (at most) think that the Second Amendment is about shooting deer.

    • Brucehenry

      When, in the 60s and 70s, some on “the left” were actually fighting the tyranny of The Man with guns, many on “the right” were outraged, calling them traitors. Now that some folks on “the right” think they may have to use guns to fight “someday” against the government, we’re all supposed to think of THEM, not as traitors or rebels, but as metaphorical descendants of the heroes of Lexington and Concord.

      It would be funny if it wasn’t so scary.

      • Commander_Chico

        Correct. Let’s not forget that it was Ronald Reagan and “the right.” who rushed new gun control laws through the California legislature after the Black Panthers displayed their Second Amendment rights in Sacramento at the Cal State House.:

        • http://www.rustedsky.net JLawson

          So now the folks on the left are looking at the scary white people displaying their support of the 2nd Amendment – and feeling so scared that they’ll gladly take away the rights of the law abiding so they won’t be so frightened.

          Why not just admit it? Gun control isn’t about guns – it’s about controlling whether or not the people you don’t like have guns.

          • Brucehenry

            I’m actually not much of a gun-control advocate. While I think there may be some common sense to certain restrictions (you guys all seem to agree, pretty much, that civilians don’t need machine guns), I don’t think anybody should be forced to surrender their weapons or anything draconian like that.

            My criticism of gun-rights advocates is more about the apocalyptic, over-the-top rhetoric they use.

            You guys should watch it: This is already happening. Every time you disagree with President Obama, (and that’s EVERY time, ALL the time) words are bandied about; words like “unconstitutional,” “treasonous,” “tyranny,” “power grab,” and the like. You guys risk becoming the Boy Who Cried Wolf.

            As a matter of fact, that is how you are already regarded by a large percentage of the populace. A collection of Alex Joneses stewing in your own crazy

            .http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-january-17-2013/grand-theft-semi-auto—coming-for-your-guns?xrs=synd_facebook

          • http://www.rustedsky.net JLawson

            Bruce, if Obama or your governor or even your local legislature were proposing things that were going to directly affect you, wouldn’t you be inclined to be at least SLIGHTLY skeptical of their reasoning?

            Say your local city council or mayor suddenly decides that ALL buildings in your town will be painted in a gloss-white enamel – at the owner’s expense. No exceptions for brick or stucco, historic house, all roofing systems to be painted also. At the owner’s expense.

            Would you fight that? What if his reasoning was “It’ll save on energy costs, and help with global warming”? Again – would you fight it?

            How about if Obama were to announce a new tax – $5,000 annually on every employed person in the US. Full time, part time, student – doesn’t matter. Pay up. Don’t ask what it’s for, you don’t need to know. It’s your duty – pay up.

            Would you pay it if you were told it was for health care?

            We’ve gotten to the point we’re at BECAUSE of a blind faith in government – as well as a near-blind obstinate refusal to admit that the other side MIGHT have good-faith reasons for what they’re doing.

            You see us disagreeing with Obama re firearms as being laughable. But history has shown time and time again that a government that doesn’t trust its law-abiding citizens with firearms is not one to be trusted.

            And I might remind you that “Every time you disagree with President Obama, (and that’s EVERY time, ALL the time) words are bandied about; words like “unconstitutional,” “treasonous,” “tyranny,” “power grab,” and the like. You guys risk becoming the Boy Who Cried Wolf.” would be equally appropriate if you change “Obama” to “Bush”.

            But back then, dissent was patriotic.

            And then again, stuff like this REALLY doesn’t make folks think that the reflexive response to things like Sandy Hook is a rational one.

            http://moonbattery.com/?p=24248

            Frankly, I hope the parents sue.

          • Brucehenry

            I don’t think Bush Derangement Syndrome was ever anywhere near the level that ODS has reached.

            Ever since the guy was first inaugurated, his every move has been labeled as treasonous, tyrannical power grabs. Healthcare? “Tyranny! Socialism!”

            Cap-and-trade? “Communism! One-world government!”

            Special advisors? “Czars! Power madness!”

            Modest gun control initiatives? “Infinging on our sacred constitutional rights! FEMA camps! ZOMG!!”

            Shall I go on?

            This has been compounded by the deliberate winking at the birthers. Mainstream Republicans can disavow the craziest of the crazy while mumbling about Obama having “foreign” ideas and not understanding how “real” Americans think. Anti-colonial Kenyan roots, anyone? Polls show a majority of Republicans believe there is at least some doubt as to the President’s eligibility for the office he holds. It’s sure easier to contemplate taking up arms against a tyrannical federal government if you suspect that government may be headed up by someone “other” than a real, honest-to-God Amurrican, now ain’t it?

            Meanwhile, in increasing numbers, the public at large is holding the Tea Party in contempt as a lot of loonies. What may have started as a sincere protest against excessive taxation is now being seen as a movement full of Alex Joneses.

            Sorry, but it’s true. And the funny thing is, you guys have a better point NOW than at any time since Obama’s ascent. But you’ve over-used your apocalyptic rhetoric. Just as you claim cries of “RAAAACISM” have lost their effectiveness through overuse, cries of “Tyrannical unconstitutional power grabs!!” have lost theirs, just much quicker.

            EDIT: Now there’s even a growing conspiracy theory on the right that says the Obama administration STAGED Sandy Hook as part of their nefarious plot to take yer guns. People see shit like that and shake their heads, and tar all you guys with that brush.

          • jim_m

            Really? Where are all the people calling for obama’s assassination?

            Cap and trade was only ever a government boondoggle. No one ever called it one world government. It was unnecessary regulation and intrusion and reality is that we reduced carbon emissions faster than we would have if cap and trade were put in place. Such systems have been demonstrated to actually create a market for sustained pollution rather than reduction of pollution.

            obama’s czars were an effort to get around Senate confirmation of people who would make policy. The intent seemed to be that he would have them managing the executive branch and not the confirmed cabinet secretaries. The problem was that he could not get around the fact that the confirmed secretary wielded the power.

            If you think that concerns are overblown, then what say you to the bill pending in MA that would require gun owners to store their weapons at state controlled armories? What say you to the bill introduced in NJ where all Firearm ID’s will be revoked and all owners must turn in their ID’s or be faced with felony charges. Owners must then reapply with tighter standards including home inspection, psychological evaluation, and providing a list of household members. So what say you to these? You don’t care. It isn’t a right you believe in.

            I have never heard of anyone credible saying that obama staged Sandy Hook. Sounds like more BS lefty speculation to me.

            The cry over tyranny has not lost its power. But then it never had any power for those like you who support it.

          • Brucehenry

            Au contraire, as Rodney might say. When I was a teenager, I had some romantic notions of being a revolutionary. I had adolescent ideas that the government was controlled by sinister forces trying to enslave the Third World and that maybe groups like Weather Underground might be onto something.

            I didn’t even have to reach 21 before I saw how silly that shit was. By the time the SLA kidnapped Patty Hearst the whole country could see how ludicrous that part of the movement had become. Even DESPITE the Liberal Media(TM).

          • jim_m

            The difference is that you may have grown out of your delusions but Bill Ayers and the MSM that adores him did not. (nor did his friend Barack obama who still holds the same junior high level understanding of international relations)

          • Brucehenry

            And many on the right have outgrown their cowboy/minuteman notions of defending their homes against jack-booted thugs, but many have not, and they are loud and getting louder.

            EDIT: BTW, I recommend Mark Rudd’s memoir. I forget the name of the book, it was published a few years ago. It makes one squirm to see the guy try to justify and renounce his actions simultaneously.

          • Vagabond661

            The second amendment is there to limit the government. Of course the government is going to do everything it can to marginalize it.

          • Brucehenry

            That’s one interpretation, which seems to be conventional wisdom on Wizbang. Others look at it more like David Robertson, below, does.

          • jim_m

            That’s one interpretation,

            “being necessary to the security of a free State…”

            Yep. The 2nd amendment has nothing to do with freedom. And, of course, the founders own documented concerns about a central governmental power infringing upon the people’s rights, mean nothing.

            I suppose you believe in a “living constitution” that means whatever the heck you want it to at any given moment. Which, of course, means that you believe in a constitution that means nothing but might makes right.

          • Brucehenry

            Did you read David’s comment? Doesn’t sound like it.

          • jim_m

            We had this discussion the other day and it was pointed out that the founders were not looking just at the danger of foreign attack, but also at the danger of a central government. I read his comment. David is a wishy washy conservative at best. He certainly did not read the comments from the other day.

          • Brucehenry

            Fine, if you say so, but I’m telling you that his is an argument that enjoys wide currency, and that Vagabond’s POV is not the only legitimate one.

          • jim_m

            When you look at the issue with no historical context or a false one I suppose you are correct.

            His argument is one that enjoys wide currency on the left that wants to ban guns. It is not the belief of the 60% of young Americans who want to own guns and is not the view of the courts, which have consistently ruled o the contrary.

          • Brucehenry

            Fair enough, but still it’s not out of the mainstream.

          • Brucehenry

            Silly proposals like those will not become law. Relax. Kooky lawmakers can introduce bills, but there is NO danger the bills you mention will be signed into law or upheld in court in the unlikely event they are.

          • jim_m

            I agree. They won’t become law. But not because they are stupid, or because the left opposes them. No the left supports gun confiscation and any step that can be taken toward it. They won’t become law because people stand up and expose them to the light of public scrutiny and refuse to let elected officials pass them without public censure.

            THere is no danger of them being passed because people will stand up against them. DO you honestly think that if no one said a word that all these outrageous laws would fail? You really are a useful idiot.

          • Brucehenry

            Why would anyone not say a word? This is democracy, supposedly anyway. These proposals are held up to public ridicule and get nowhere, just as various floatings of Articles of Impeachment because Obama appointed czars, or didn’t say the Oath correctly, or whatever, get nowhere. Because they’re ridiculous.

          • http://www.rustedsky.net JLawson

            I’ve seen one site that suggested Sandy Hook was staged. I can find via a brief google search many sites that have health claims for consuming your own urine. Neither do I find particularly credible.

            “I don’t think Bush Derangement Syndrome was ever anywhere near the level that ODS has reached.”

            Of course you don’t. To you, BDS was an appropriate response – hardly worth noticing. I’m sure you never had any real thought that someone else might think that the Chimpy McHitler name-calling, the sheer obstructionism of the left, the massive dissent were anything but normal Washington day-to-day foolishness.

            “What may have started as a sincere protest against excessive taxation is now being seen as a movement full of Alex Joneses.”

            And why would that be – seeing that the media is completely even-handed in its coverage of the issues? I’m SURE they wouldn’t misrepresent things. After all, isn’t the Daily Show defined as “Political Comedy and Fake News”? /sarc, somewhat.

            You see, that’s what happens when you get all your news from screaming heads on the TV. Comedians aren’t known for pushing both sides of any issue – they’re playing to their audience. Morgan’s an attention whore.

            “This has been compounded by the deliberate winking at the birthers.”

            Right. Why don’t we drag the Truthers in at the same time? Look, like it or not, wherever he was born he’s the President. He’s been the President for the last 4 years, he’s going to be the President for the NEXT 4 years. I, for one, don’t much give a damn where he was born, what I care about is what he DOES. It’s not an issue, except for comedians looking to get a laugh. Leave that out of the mix and we’ll dump the Truthers, ‘k? When something isn’t relevant, then it isn’t relevant.

            Re ‘Special Advisors’ /= ‘Czars’ – sorry, when the normal term used by the media is ‘Czar’ – that’s what ya gotta deal with.

            “Modest gun control initiatives?” When they’re things that wouldn’t have affected something like the Sandy Hook shooting, or simply memos about shit he should have done already like appoint a permanent head of the ATF – what’s the point aside from trying to play on a tragedy? As you’ve pointed out on another thread, regulatory crap that doesn’t have any effect isn’t sensible.

            Seems to me like you’re trying really hard to find a hook you can hang your dislike of folks who disagree with your ideology on. You don’t like guns, (apparently) so everyone who disagrees with your stance is like Alex Jones and ‘everybody’ is laughing at us.

            Man, that sort of ‘OMG, they’re laughing at me!’ social control crap usually doesn’t work aside from sitcoms and high schools. And maybe for politicians.

            But anyway – I really suggest you drop the Daily Show. I think it’s killing your IQ points.

          • Brucehenry

            Yes, the fact that GOP Congressmen feel the need to say stuff like “As far as I know he was born in America” or “I’m taking him at his word” is not winking at birtherism at all. Joe Arpaio is not a wingnut hero. Trump wasn’t the frontrunner for the nomination last year (briefly).

            And all the GOP’s troubles — like losing the popular vote in 4 of the last 5 presidential elections — can be blamed on that goshdarn Liberal Media(TM) which has everyone snookered but you guys. YOU guys are too smart fer ‘em, ya see.

            The “sheer obstructionism of the left” wasn’t able to prevent NCLB, the Iraq War, enhanced interrogation techniques, or Guantanamo. What was it that the left DID manage to obstruct, Lawson? As far as I can see, many on “the left” played right along with the Bush Administration for fear that the media – who you laughably accuse of being on their side — would call them “appeasers” or “soft on terror” or other meanie names. Like “partisan.” Lol.

            My only point here is — and I’m trying to help ya, see? — is that you guys have overdrawn your Tyranny Card. Boys Who Cried Wolf. Most Americans don’t see Obama as a tyrant and never will. Know why? Because he ain’t one.

            And jumping up and down insisting he IS just makes you look foolish.

            Take this gun thing. As soon as is decently possible, the proposed renewal of the Assault Weapons Ban will die a quiet death. Obama will implement these little executive thingies and be given credit for doing something — or even TRYING to do something — by his base. The Far Left will bitch about “betrayal.” You guys will still be sputtering about stolen liberties and everyone else in the country will be asking each other what these loonies are blathering about.

          • Vagabond661

            I remember how lefty apologists would scoff at the idea Obama would come after our guns in the second term. Every time I buckle my seat belt or don my motorcycle helmet, I am reminded of stolen liberties. Every time I think of 24 oz soft drinks I am reminded of stolen liberties. Every time I think that the government runs helathcare I think of stolen liberties. Every new tax, every new government regulation adds up to more liberties stolen.

            It’s like Ben Franklin said: They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.

          • Brucehenry

            See what I mean, guys? 24 ounce soft drinks and motorcycle helmets = TYRANNY ZOMG!!!

          • jim_m

            Laugh all you want but he’s correct. When the government starts mandating little behaviors they have already overstepped their bounds. If it can tell me how much soda I can buy, then why can’t it tell us what to drink and how much? Why can’t it tell us what to eat? After all, you are willing to agree to these because you think they are for our own good.

            You have surrendered the grounds for opposing most tyrannies. The Nazi’s imposed their anti-Semitic laws on the country because it was for their own good. You have just demonstrated complete willingness to accept the same argument in favor of a different tyranny.

            It isn’t whether a particular measure is that horrible. It is that each measure erodes the basis of liberty. If you accept that government can regulate what you eat and drink then you accept that government should be able to dictate most if not all of your life. You may not accept that today, but you won’t have any grounds to argue against the continued erosion of liberties to the point where they really do have that kind of control.

          • Brucehenry

            Well, I’m just like most folks, Jim. Telling me I drink too much soda doesn’t mean Nazi tyranny. It’s wolf-crying, dude.

          • jim_m

            Like a tone deaf lefty you miss the point. It isn’t the soda that is the issue. It is the attitude about the limits of government. You don’t recognize any limits and you don’t recognize any valid rationale for imposing any limits.

          • Brucehenry

            I’m telling you that you can raise your concerns about slippery slopes without sounding like nutjobs, man. Like I said, I’m TRYING TO HELP YOU, MAN!

            Tone it down a little and you’ll get further. Just as the radical, over-the-top rhetoric of the anti-war movement lost the Democrats a lot of support back in the day, radical WaterTheTreeOfLiberty talk will lose you support now.

            That’s all I’m trying to tell you.

            BTW, in the fable, there really WAS a wolf that eventually came.But the Boy had so inured the villagers to false alarm they didn’t believe him when it actually happened. Get it?

          • jim_m

            And I’m telling you that no one here is talking about armed insurrection.

            Bloomberg’s soda BS is obnoxious and petty, but petty tyranny is still tyranny and no one should let him think he should get away with it. THe significance of gun control is that it is important to understand that a defenseless public is a victimized public. Victimized by criminals and victimized by the government.

            Look at my comments about the CPD and how they have used their badges as licenses to steal, torture and murder. Do you honestly think that they would be so successful at vicitmizing a public if they thought that someone might have a gun and fight back?

          • herddog505

            Or, we can stop the tyranny BEFORE it gets to be too big, BEFORE we get to the need to water the tree.

            How much different history might have been had people in various times and places said, “Look, enough is enough. We’re not going to wait to see what you’ll do next: you’re out of here.”

          • jim_m

            Bruce recognizes no difference between conservative speech on standing up politically and armed violence.

          • Brucehenry

            Do what you want. I’m just telling you you are going to lose every fight if you keep making every little thing so dramatic.

          • jim_m

            I’ll just point out that the NRA has been winning.

          • Brucehenry

            Well, yes, that’s true. But you’ll lose the next presidential election if you seem like loonies. Which you do.

          • jim_m

            I’d rather lose an election than my freedom. And since Congress is much more sensitive to those freedoms, and since a growing majority of the American public agrees with my viewpoint on the second amendment, I don’t see much of a risk in defending it.

            Keep pushing for gun control and it won’t be the right that loses in 2016.

          • Vagabond661

            Like free birth control?

          • jim_m

            It’s only outrageous when it is a right he doesn’t believe in.

          • herddog505

            What else do you call it when the government is so powerful and intrusive that it can even tell you what sized Coke you can drink?

            “[T]hey are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. Unless it makes them fat. Or they smoke. Or ride a motorcycle or bike without a helmet. And guns are right out. Oh, hell: they’ve got those rights (and just what is this ‘Creator’ foolishness, anyway?) so long as it’s OK with us. Unalienable… pfft.”

          • Brucehenry

            Nothing stopping you from buying two, Herd. Helmets and seat belts and discouraging smoking are not only to protect the individual who may choose foolishly but also keep insurance premiums low — you know, for EVERYONE.

          • jim_m

            Dude. There is no reason to have to buy two except for the fascist desires of mayor Bloomberg. If you accommodate him then how do you oppose he next infringement?

          • Brucehenry

            Well, it depends on what it is. Is he going to discourage disposable diapers, or is he going to require circumcision for all? I would oppose the second and accommodate to the first. I wouldn’t lose my shit.

          • jim_m

            You realize that you are agreeing to the imposition of laws infringing upon your liberties simply because you find it easier to accommodate small tyrannies rather than oppose them? You realize that you are willing to encourage those who would impose those tyrannies to impose ever increasing infringements?

            “They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” — Benjamin Franklin

            Ben had you in mind.

          • Brucehenry

            In my examples, there is an arguable benefit to society at large with the diaper thing, but not to the circumcision thing. See?

          • jim_m

            Hitler had an argument that the country believed demonstrated a benefit too. Just saying.

            And I could drag up scientific studies suggesting otherwise on circumcision. In fact I could bring them up showing evidence both for and against it. When you say that tyranny imposed for the benefit of others is OK you have given yourself over to acceptance of tyranny.

            And Bruce, you have given yourself over to the acceptance of tyranny.

          • Brucehenry

            Yes, Bloomberg = Hitler. Hahaha you can’t see the irony can you? Can’t stop yourself.

          • jim_m

            I did not say that. I said that your blase attitude toward petty tyrannies is dangerous. I also said that you accept that if someone claims that it is for your own good then the tyranny is OK.

            You can believe that it will never lead to anything bad, but then neither did the German people. It isn’t that anyone is Hitler today. It is that you are willing to accept him when he comes.

          • Brucehenry

            I’m pretty sure I’ll recognize Hitler if he reappears. I’m not going to imagine that every inconvenience is His Coming.

          • jim_m

            Again, that is not what I said. But if you look at what happened in prewar Germany, no one expected what was coming. In fact most disagreed with his antisemitism and never thought that it would really come to anything. They were wrong.

            You look the other way at petty issue and you say, “It’s OK because they are doing it for our own good. It won’t amount to anything.” You really aren’t that much different than the German public. You say that you will know when the time comes. The German people didn’t. They weren’t all Nazi’s.

          • Brucehenry

            Whatever you say. Mark my words, though.

          • Brucehenry

            Whatever you say. Mark my words, though.

          • jim_m

            Dude. There is no reason to have to buy two except for the fascist desires of mayor Bloomberg. If you accommodate him then how do you oppose he next infringement?

          • herddog505

            Yes, the usual excuse: “We’re doing this for the good of EVERYONE.”

            Tell me: what else can the government do to us (or make us do ourselves) for The Greater Good?

            Incidentally, the right to pursue happiness is not intended to require workarounds, nor is it intended to be dictated by people who know better than I how I ought to live my life.

          • Vagabond661

            Let’s look at that…the low insurance premiums. Now that the government is in charge of our healthcare, what else can they tell us to do “for the common good”?

          • jim_m

            Actually,helmets increase costs because more cyclists would die. If you have seen someone who slid over 100 feet of asphalt on their back and how they ooze from that wound for months requiring treatment like they were burned, you understand that not wearing a helmet would be a lot faster and cheaper.

            And once again you fall into the trap of saying that you should be able to determine someone else’s behavior because it is for their own good. Is there nothing you would NOT impose for someone’s own good? and if so on what basis would you not impose it?

          • Vagabond661

            This is the comeback I expect out of people who are comfortable with the idea of government telling the serfs what it can and can not do.

            However tell these same complacent serfs that they can’t have free birth control or a free Obamaphone or try restricting their ability in aborting a fetus then see who screams tyranny.

          • Brucehenry

            “Serfs” OK, Wolfie.

          • http://www.rustedsky.net JLawson

            I’ll agree with you. (Damn, two times in one night…) At least, somewhat.

            Obama’s not a capital “T” Tyrant – the sort who would happily see his enemies (Which are legion) slaughtered wholesale.

            Instead, he’s a small-t tyrant. A petty bureaucrat writ large, without the knowledge or talent needed to do the job he’s found himself in, who is liable to make bad decisions wasting billions through sheer ignorance… but feels no responsibility to attempt to avoid the wastage. Nobody will tell him ‘No – you shouldn’t duck out on negotiations when there’s a budget crisis to go surfing.’ or waste money on things he considers ‘good ideas’.

            His advisers, knowing a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity for graft, kickbacks, influence peddling and the like when they see it sure as hell aren’t going to tell him to moderate himself. They’ll give him all the advice he wants. And if a few dollars happen to fall into certain open pockets along the way… well, that’s how they’ve always done it – right?

            He’s got 4 more years. You don’t seem to be quite so supportive of him as when you first got here. I wonder what you’re going to be thinking two or four years from now?

          • Brucehenry
          • http://www.rustedsky.net JLawson

            Kos?

            Really?

            Maybe you can find whatever you referenced somewhere else.

          • Brucehenry
          • herddog505

            Call us back when somebody makes a movie about murdering Barry, or when we nasty ol’ reichwing Rethuglikkkans acclaim a movie “proving” that Barry was complicit in this or that disaster to be great filmmaking.

            Many of us don’t like Barry. Many of us suspect his motives. Many of us regret that he was reelected and long for the day when he leaves office.

            But you’ve forgotten your recent history if you think that the flak he’s getting from us is worse (or even as bad) as what Bush endured.

        • herddog505

          Reagan became a Republican in 1962, only five years before becoming governor of CA. No doubt he hadn’t lost all of the bad habits he picked up from being a democrat.

          At any rate, are you comparing armed members of the Black Panthers to law-abiding American gun owners?

          • jim_m

            Chico uses that example because in his racist mind he thinks that using an example with black people in it will cause 2nd amendment supporters to back off their support. What he doesn’t realize is that gun control has historically been used to oppress minorities.

            IIRC Chico is already on record saying that he believes in gun rights only for active and former military and the police. Once again rights for me but not for thee is his motto.

          • http://www.rustedsky.net JLawson

            I’m ex-military, and believe people should be allowed to get pretty much anything they want – if they can afford it.

            Ticket price for a .50 cal Browning M2 is about $28k. Rounds go for about $2 each. Keeping one fed is pretty expensive. Hand grenades are cheaper – probably about $15-20 if you buy in bulk.

            M1 tank? Figure about $10 mil retail.

            GETTING isn’t the problem. USING is. Use a hand grenade to settle a score with your neighbor? Use an M1 to break into your local bank at 2 AM? Use an M2 for random shootings?

            Automatic death sentence. Feet first into a wood chipper. Slowly. With no anesthetics. On TV. Live.

            Those things aren’t accidental, aren’t ‘inadvertent’, aren’t a case of “I didn’t know I was doing something wrong’.

            You can own – but you’d better have a DAMN good reason for using.

          • jim_m

            I’m not sure about having it on live TV. I would prefer pay per view with the proceeds going to pay down the debt.

          • http://www.rustedsky.net JLawson

            I likely wouldn’t watch – but I’m sure tired, as Herddog says, of the government going “You MIGHT do something wrong…”

          • herddog505

            I agree.

            Our legal system tends too often to take the tack of prior restraint: “You MIGHT do something wrong, so we’ll prevent you even having the opportunity.”

            I prefer to punish actual wrong-doing as that seems to me less likely to trample the rights of law-abiding citizens (do libs even understand or accept that term?).

          • http://www.rustedsky.net JLawson

            There are no law-abiding citizens. It’s just a case of writing the laws to insure all are guilty, and then it’ll be up to the prosecutor to decide who to go after.

            As Glenn Reynolds reposted from “Atlas Shrugged” –

            “Did you really think that we want those laws to be observed?” said Dr. Ferris. “We want them broken. You’d better get it straight that it’s nota bunch of boy scouts you’re up against – then you’ll know that this is not the age for beautiful gestures. We’re after power and we mean it. You fellows were pikers, but we know the real trick, and you’d better get wise to it. There’s no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren’t enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What’s there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced nor objectively interpreted – and you create a nation of law-breakers – and then you cash in on guilt. Now, that’s the system, Mr. Rearden, that’s the game, and once you understand it, you’ll be much easier to deal with.”

            Then there’s the fact that folks are buying firearms in record numbers – and the ammo shelves are pretty much stripped bare. Reloading supplies are HOT items. Even the online retailers like Luckygunner.com and Ammo.net are virtually empty of stock.

            http://chicagoboyz.net/archives/34519.html

            There’s a rather emphatic groundswell of people who want to be able to say “Enough, dammit. Leave us alone.” But the folks inside the Beltway who can’t think of ‘guns’ without ‘control’ aren’t listening.

          • jim_m

            We’ve already progressed to the second stage of that process where the laws are now enforced selectively based on ideological affiliation. People supportive of the regime are not prosecuted. People critical of or unimportant to the regime are.

          • herddog505

            I don’t think it’s a deliberate effort to make criminals out of otherwise law-abiding Americans. I think there are a few things going on:

            1. Going back to colonial times (especially in Puritan New England), there has been a fixed belief in the American psyche that society – Man – can be made perfect. For the Puritans, the key was religion: they would make a City on the Hill through prayer and rigorous – zealous – enforcement of God’s commandments (as they understood them).

            By the time of the Progressive Era, the key had switched from God to government: the City on the Hill would come into existence by passing the “right” laws and electing the “right” men. This impulse continues to exist today;

            2. At least since the New Deal, there is a strong impulse to think that “the government ought to do something about that”. When the government “does something”, it usually involves CRIMINALIZING something, ranging from tommy guns and illegal hooch to not paying one’s employees enough and putting too much CO2 into the air;

            3. Americans are, by and large, a very orderly and law-abiding people who naturally turn to our excellent police* and our courts to solve their problems. Unfortunately, when all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.

            ===

            (*) I often reflect how lucky we are in our country to be able to afford the well-equipped, professional and numerous emergency services that we have. Yes, there are certainly bad apples amongst the police, but I think that the majority of American police officers are brave and honest public servants: how different from the cops in so many other countries who are little more than hired muscle for the ruling party.

      • herddog505

        By the way: who were these brave heroes fighting “the tyranny of The Man”?

        This should be good…

        • Brucehenry

          Figure of speech. I didn’t say they were heroes. I said the lefties fighting the government with guns because they said it was tyrannical were considered traitors by the right. Is that not true?

          Now some on the right want us to believe if you take up arms against the government because you say it is tyrannical you are a hero.

          • herddog505

            Tyrants, patriots, resistance fighters and terrorists are all in the eye of the beholder.

            By the way, who are the people in arms against the government that we claim are heroes? We’re the ones who support torture, remember?

          • Brucehenry

            Herd, come on. read what I wrote, not what you WISH I wrote so you can snark on it.

            I said, originally, that those on the right who say they may have to take up arms against the government will want the rest of us to regard them as heroes if they ever get their wish. Even though many of those same folks think of 60s leftists like Weather Underground as traitors.

            Yes, eye of the beholder. I was just pointing out the irony, that’s all.

          • jim_m

            Who is talking about taking up arms? We are talking about taking political action. Standing up and raising our voices. It s a lie of the left that says conservatives are calling for violent overthrow of the government. It is lies like that which will be used to further curtail liberties.

          • Brucehenry

            Many are claiming that the government wants to confiscate their guns so that the populace will be helpless should the NEED to take up arms arise. Or had you missed that?

            And, should the need arise, these folks will tell you, they’ll be on the front lines. Of course, they’re on the lookout for slippery slopes and all, so never fear, Amurricans!

          • jim_m

            I had not missed that.

            SO your point is that people should be allowed to have guns only if they are not willing to use them to protect their liberties in any way. Excuse me if I find you an apologist for tyranny.

            “Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty.” – Wendell Phillips.

            “There is no safety for honest men except by believing all possible evil of evil men.” — Edmund Burke

          • Brucehenry

            Again, I am not much of a gun control advocate. If not one additional control measure is taken I don’t think the Republic will fall.

            My entire point on this thread has been the over-the-top rhetoric used by the right in general and gun rights advocates in particular. If I didn’t know better I’d say Obama was dangling this shit in front of them expressly TO make them look foolish.

            As I said, the Assault Weapons Ban Renewal won’t pass, and Obama won’t push it very hard, either — just enough to mollify his base. Serious leftists will feel betrayed and righties will look foolish for making another Teapot Tempest.

          • Brucehenry

            Again, I am not much of a gun control advocate. If not one additional control measure is taken I don’t think the Republic will fall.

            My entire point on this thread has been the over-the-top rhetoric used by the right in general and gun rights advocates in particular. If I didn’t know better I’d say Obama was dangling this shit in front of them expressly TO make them look foolish.

            As I said, the Assault Weapons Ban Renewal won’t pass, and Obama won’t push it very hard, either — just enough to mollify his base. Serious leftists will feel betrayed and righties will look foolish for making another Teapot Tempest.

          • jim_m

            I had not missed that.

            SO your point is that people should be allowed to have guns only if they are not willing to use them to protect their liberties in any way. Excuse me if I find you an apologist for tyranny.

            “Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty.” – Wendell Phillips.

            “There is no safety for honest men except by believing all possible evil of evil men.” — Edmund Burke

  • http://www.wizbangblog.com David Robertson

    I dislike to rain on anyone’s parade, but the purpose of the 2nd Amendment is spelled out in it: “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”

    The U.S. Bill of Rights went into effect in the year 1791. The need for the 2nd Amendment was made evident several years later when the War of 1812 began. Lest we forget, during that war, British soldiers entered Washington, D.C. and burned the presidential mansion (which later became known as the White House).

    In short, at the time that the 2nd Amendment was enacted, there was still a danger that there could be an actual war on U.S. soil, during which Americans would need to be armed in order to defend the nation from foreign soldiers.

    That is the original purpose of the 2nd Amendment.

    These days, the right to bear arms is needed in order for people to protect themselves and their property from criminals. Thus, it would be foolish to advocate the elimination of the 2nd Amendment.