EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Right Wing Militias and the NRA: Second Amendment Soulmates
This week's Time magazine cover story on "The Secret World of Extreme Militias" sounds an alarm that cannot be ignored. The threat of terrorism is real, but it does not originate with Al Qaeda alone. The danger of homegrown right wing political violence is just as real.
The Time article describes, in chilling terms, the proliferation of heavily armed, right wing militias engaged in paramilitary training to resist the perceived "tyranny" of government authority. Time notes that although the groups and individuals of the violent right reflect a "complex web" of ideologies, "among the most common convictions is that the Second Amendment -- the right to keep and bear arms -- is the Constitution's cornerstone, because only a well-armed populace can enforce its rights." For the militias and their ideological soulmates, "any form of gun regulation, therefore, is a sure sign of intent to crush other freedoms."
The connection between the gun control issue and the threat of violence from the right is an important, but largely untold, story. The militias' view that the Second Amendment protects our other rights, by ensuring the potential for armed insurrection against the government, is indistinguishable from the long-held constitutional ideology of the National Rifle Association.
For decades, NRA leaders have insisted that the Second Amendment is not only about duck hunting or self-defense against criminal attack. Rather, as one NRA official so colorfully put it, "the Second Amendment . . . is literally a loaded gun in the hands of the people held to the heads of government." NRA Executive Director Wayne LaPierre received loud cheers when he told last year's Conservative Political Action Conference that our rights as Americans mean little unless we are ready to defend them against the government by force of arms: "Freedom is nothing but dust in the wind till it's guarded by the blue steel and dry powder of a free and armed people . . . . Our founding fathers understood that the guys with the guns make the rules."
The Time reporter asked one Ohio militia officer what government action the militia is defending against. He replied, "Most likely it will start when the government tries to take our guns." Of course, the NRA stands alone in its ability to inspire hysterical fears of gun confiscation. During the last Presidential campaign, the NRA maintained a www.gunbanobama.com website and its delusional rhetoric about the Administration's supposed gun-banning intentions has been unrelenting. Looking forward to the upcoming elections, LaPierre seeks to rally the NRA troops by warning of "dark clouds on the horizon," with Democrats "lying in the weeds in wait to pick their time to destroy this freedom."
The determination of NRA leaders to generate paranoia and hatred toward the government has gotten them into trouble before. In a now-infamous fundraising letter sent on April 13, 1995, LaPierre warned his members about the "jack-booted government thugs" of the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, who have the "power to take away our Constitutional rights, break in our doors, seize our guns, destroy our property, and even injure or kill us . . . ." Six days later, as NRA members found this noxious letter in their mail, Timothy McVeigh, convinced that the time to resist federal tyranny had arrived, bombed the federal building in Oklahoma City that housed the local offices of the ATF.
The Time article quotes a "self-described colonel" in a Kentucky militia, who channels LaPierre's incendiary rhetoric by predicting war with "the jackbooted thugs of Washington." LaPierre has made a career of spreading the nonsense that the "jackbooted thugs" are always "lying in the weeds" waiting for the chance to take away everyone's guns. It also is revealing that Richard Mack, one of the sheriffs recruited years ago by the NRA to challenge the Brady Bill in court, is now a hero of the violent right. In an interview with the Time reporter, Mack referred to federal agents as "America's gestapo".
What is truly disturbing is that the political influence of the NRA
has given its insurrectionist view of the Second Amendment a home in
some very high places, particularly within the Republican Party. It's
not just Tea Party Republicans like Nevada Senatorial candidate Sharron
Angle, with her call
for "Second Amendment remedies," to be used "when our government
becomes tyrannical." As the Republican Party has become more and more
ideologically "pure" in its support of NRA policy positions,
insurrectionist talk has made some surprising appearances.
For me, the most striking example surfaced in the legal briefs filed before the U.S. Supreme Court in the landmark Heller
Second Amendment case. Bush Administration Solicitor General Paul
Clement filed a brief which, paradoxically, both infuriated the "gun
rights" crowd and endorsed the insurrectionist theory of the Second
Amendment. The pro-gun folks were enraged that the Clement brief
actually argued for reversal of the D.C. Circuit's ruling striking down
the District of Columbia handgun ban. Clement's brief suggested that
the case be sent back to the lower court for further fact-finding.
Largely unnoticed was Clement's comment that the Second Amendment
guarantees "an armed citizenry as a deterrent to abusive behavior by the
federal government itself."
This is a remarkable statement by a lawyer for the United States government. Does it not maintain that the potential for citizens to fire upon federal agents is an important constitutional value? Does it not imply that the greatest Second Amendment protection should be given to citizens who are arming themselves against the threat of government abuse, like the rightwing militias now training with assault rifles? Does this theory mean that Timothy McVeigh was engaged in constitutionally protected conduct as he built his bomb, because the threat of violence is "a deterrent to abusive government behavior"? It is noteworthy that Mr. Clement, as a private attorney, represented the NRA in the McDonald case, in which the Supreme Court struck down the Chicago handgun ban.
It will, of course, be loudly protested that the Bush Justice
Department did not advocate violence against the government, nor does
the NRA and Sharron Angle. This misses the point. The issue is not
whether they have advocated violence against the government, but rather
whether they have constructed a constitutional justification for
violence. When right wing militias, or lone extremists, take that
justification seriously, and act on it, no one should be surprised.
For more information, see Dennis Henigan's Lethal Logic: Exploding the Myths that Paralyze American Gun Policy (Potomac Books 2009)
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
60 Comments so far
Show AllConsidering some of the more creepy connections between the GOP & the loony tune militia crowd (remember the part of Ollie North's plan that would've empowered tens of thousands of these wackos under Posse Comitatus to round up progressives and put them into camps?), progressives would be well advised to get their own firearms and be familiar with their use the next time the latest incarnation of Bufford Furrow goes on a Glenn Beck-inspired rampage.
I think progressives should absolutely flood the NRA with memberships, buy rifles and vote the NRA into submission...first of all, if a good part of the membership are progressive it eliminates their paranoid arguments and maybe we could get some much needed & intelligent gun legislation in this country and a little more peace in Mexico!!
Trick question. No class 3 weapons are coming from the US... because 10% of the Mexican military and their weapons are missing and gone over to the cartels. Why buy hamburger in the US when you have steak at home. What the cartels are bringing over are vanity weapons, chrome plated 45s and the sort. Automatic weapons are VERY hard to get in the US and EASY to get in Mexico. It is all a smokescreen...
Truth helps. Smokescreen indeed, as are most of the "complaints" from Mexico.
OK...fortune telling 101, anyone trying to make Nazi comparisons to the US is off the mark. There are none of consequense that would stand the light of day.
The country is apparently heading back to the center. Extremists on both sides are so outnumbered they will be marginalized as people reassert common sense.
Redwrite
Turning the other cheek is not cowardice or weakness, though violent aggressors may think so.
It gives time to defend ourselves another day, defend ourselves another way and on our own terms.
It's losing the battle to win the war. :wink:
You are correct as long as you realize there does come a day when you must defend yourself and can no longer turn the other cheek.
That turning the other cheek only works as long as the one assaulting you agrees to it.
Ghandi would have had no luck with the Japanese if he had confronted them as he did the English.
Also you would find that the only time defense can dictate "terms" is when it is very strong.
That said, I'm with you, I'd run a marathon to avoid a fight, I'd try most any reasoning to avoid a fight, calling me a coward would only elicit a smile as I walked away, but be assured if I have to fight, I will...and I have no intention of being the loser if I must. Nor should you.
US breakup. California can go its own way. The northwest is self-sufficient. The southeast will return to its traditonal poverty and ignorance. The northeast will have to give up on "financial services" and return to actually manufacturing things. The midwest will be a cultural and economic wasteland devastated by Dustbowl II.
The 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution states that:
"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."
I've been 'discussing' this Amendment for decades with 'gun nuts', among them some of my relatives. The problem, as I see it, is that the language it is written in is hopelessly ambiguous - rather typical of "lawyer language" and of the rest of the Constitution in general.
For instance, what is a "...well regulated Militia?" - the National Guard of the various States - wacko Right-Wing 'militia' groups - what? Also, at that time period, what kind of arms were meant(envisioned) to "not be abridged?", and for what purpose were firearms commonly used. (i.e. did the Framers envision Automatic Assault Weapons or RPG's?)
IMHO, this 'arguement' will rage on until there is a definitive ruling on the vague language of this controversial amendment by our Congress an Supreme Court. (I'm not holding my breath)
For the time being, it the NRA and the wacko militias that are winning.
Reasonable point, V3.
But I think some of it isn't as arcane as it might superficially appear to be.
To some extent, you have to figure out what those words meant at the time they were written -- but that's not too hard to do.
Some good analyses have been done, I believe, though you should certainly do your own research. (Trust isn't my strong suit.)
My best judgement so far, based on the evidence at hand, is that "well-regulated" most closely means "operating correctly" the way a "well-regulated" instrument is in tune.
"Militia" is easy -- it includes every man capable of bearing arms. Today we would say every "person" capable of bearing arms.
As far as the "legislative intent" of the amendment, I think there's quite a bit on that. It really wasn't about hunting or sport, or even about self-defense on the street. I believe it was to ensure that the People would always be in a position to defend themselves from oppressive government as well as from outside invasion.
It seems that the weapons that the framers included would be all those that could be "born" by the individual soldier. So if you can carry it, it's included. Tanks, no. Anti-tank weapons, yes.
I'm not suggesting that my assessment is perfect, or the only possible "interpretation," but just that I don't think the meaning is all that much "up for grabs" as some folks seem to imply.
Just my opinion, of course.
Liberty & Justice,
sj
In the period of three to five years after the Oklahoma City bombing, I noticed a attitude change among government workers from the Post Office to City Hall. Less arrogance, more politeness, and a willingness to find a way to solve problems rather than find reasons why they, themselves, couldn't help you. Today, it is business as usual.
The United States of America was founded through the violent expulsion of British troops in a long and bloody war. If the British had simply past and enforced better gun control laws well in advance of this insurrection they could have avoided this debacle and the U.S.A. would never have been birthed.
gnken
Well I believe it was about 8 months ago that an Extremist group wanted to Kill Police Officers. As well they called themselves a Christian Militia Group. When members of the group were arrested, the press and the Govt. would not consider them a "Christian Terrorist" Group. Islam groups are called Muslim Terrorist Groups. Back in the 80's I use to read several Survivalist Magazines. I quickly saw what they were all about and have continued to keep up with those groups and watch how they have an continue to evolve. They were considered very extreme groups and normal mainstream society did not pay any attention to most of them. Groups like them are attracting Tea Party types especially lowered educated - under employed or unemployed types. These groups are going to get wose. When will Washington call these groups for what they are. DANGEROUS!!
A couple of weeks ago, the FBI raided the homes of peace activists in the Twin Cities and took computers, cell phones and documents to search for evidence that they are providing support to terroristic groups. The only "evidence" I'd guess they'll find will reveal only a J. Edgar Hoover-like paranoia in the FBI.
The activists are refusing to honor subpoenas calling them to testify in Chicago. On their behalf, Minneapolis and St. Paul citizens were asked to call Eric Holder to urge that he drop all charges against them.
When I called, I reminded him that it is not the members of peace groups that commit violence but right wing extremists like Timothy McVeigh or abortion doctor murderers. People who agitate for peace are exercising their constitutionally protected right to free speech AND their duty as citizens to tell their government when it is wrong.
If you can't distinguish between 'activists' and 'weirdos with guns', the distinctions between left and right are WAY too subtle for you.
Obama at this moment is expanding the unleashing of death and destruction across three nations when he could have stopped it.
I think we'd better concentrate on what he's doing instead of the usual deflections on "homegrown terrorists".
The only "homegrown terrorists" I see, reside and operate in Washington, D.C.
Any change would be an improvement.
Voting sure didn't do it.
Look! Guns, God and Gays!
Pay attention to these emotional wedge issues, but don't look behind the curtain at how the Duopoly works.
Don't pay any attention to the rampant institutional corruption and historically unprecedented levels of kleptocracy that are happening behind the scenes and un-reported by the Corporate Media Oligopoly.
The Duopoly status-quo needs these emotional diversions in order to do their work without too much interruption. Helluva job
Now be sure and vote straight D in November, cause those bad ol right-wingers don't want gun control.
Socialist, yes, I agree with what you say up until the last sentence where I'm not quite sure what the sarcasm means.
Last week I wrote a long explanation of this very issue which I no longer can find but it basically states that the elite corporate powers that control us know that the pen is mightier then the sword because it is less obvious. When you have almost complete control of the media (pen) in an isolated country like the U.S. you essentially have a velvet glove in a steal fist type of totalitarianism and people don't even know it because there are not troops and police on every street corner as there might be in a more extroverted and aggressive totalitarian country.
The control and propaganda is so complete and unconscious that they can, and in many cases actually encourage the population to have their little penis guns that function just like a Linus blanket to keep masses into thinking their safe. Think the Beatle's "happiness is a warm gun" here.
In reality the "powers" would be able to crush just about any uprising and more importantly, would be able to control the message that as to who is victim and who is hero.... at least for considerable time depending on how long and deep the "darkness" becomes. Ultimately if it cannot be contained eventually the below will happen.
Other then this false sense of security that massive gun ownership instills the real result will be a massive karmic blood letting within our own people as there is proportionately almost no real external enemy that is an existential threat. To reap what we have sown we will turn on ourselves and destroy ourselves as most violence is ultimately a form of suicide (think biblical: " Those that live by the sword will die by the sword."
If you want to see the laws change radically, organize a large, nationwide LEFT-wing militia.
Now you're talking, saras. Sign my ass up!
(Gee, what would the Professional Left think about that? :)
This is an issue that needs more discussion. There are obvious philosophical roadblocks, such as obvious inherent Pacifism on the Left, but the idea should be put out there bit more often.
I Think the Government is training them already in this place called Afghanistan.
Giving them plenty of motivation to hate those who sent them there as well.
"The militias' view that the Second Amendment protects our other rights, by ensuring the potential for armed insurrection against the government, is indistinguishable from the long-held constitutional ideology of the National Rifle Association."
Both groups also believe that 2+2 = 4.
Just coincidence?
How come we never hear about "left wing" militias?
I find it very entertaining that right-wingers of my acquaintance consider me practically a communist, while now my "liberal" acquaintances consider me a practically a nazi for my support of the 2nd Amendment.
Look. It's simple.
This government has been on an increasingly totalitarian path since the end of WWII. The pace picked up quite a bit with the murder of JFK, went into over-drive with Reagan, and first Bush was, and now Obama is feverishly whipping it to a headlong dash in the home stretch.
If you don't see that happening, then I'd be very pleased to play cards with you sometime. I'll even bring the hooch.
Just you bring the deed to the ranch and the pink slip on your car.
Liberty & Justice,
sj
All "Strict Constitutionalists" know that the second amendment only guarantees every citizen the right to a musket, a bag of shot, and a powder horn; provided of course one is a member of an "Organized Militia."
Of course those damn liberals at the NRA don't see it that way.
You mean my homemade dirty nukes and cruise missiles aren't covered? Damn!
I imagine that disallows the anthrax factory and ricin distillery too. And my phased array of microwave oven tubes.
C'mon, they're not WEAPONS, just HOBBIES.
Excellent job of lumping in the precise First Amendment with the militaristic and ambiguous Second. Try reading the trenchant comments of Veni Vedi Vici concerning this topic.
Sorry. The second amendment is very clear. As clear as the first amendment in fact. The right to keep and BEAR arms is an individual civil right EXACTLY the same as the right not to belong to a religion, to speak your mind without government squelching your freedom...
I might add that the right to keep and bear arms is written directly into the Constitution yet the right to have an abortion is not.
Explain to me how you can abrogate the right that is there in black and white and support the right that is only inferred?
Consistency is important. If you love rights, then you have to love ALL rights.
Sorry. The second amendment is very clear. As clear as the first amendment in fact. The right to keep and BEAR arms is an individual civil right EXACTLY the same as the right not to belong to a religion, to speak your mind without government squelching your freedom...
I might add that the right to keep and bear arms is written directly into the Constitution yet the right to have an abortion is not.
Explain to me how you can abrogate the right that is there in black and white and support the right that is only inferred?
Consistency is important. If you love rights, then you have to love ALL rights.
I just went to Hennigans website Lethal Logic where he attempts to justify gun control. He goes on and on about this and that, but totally completely neglects the one most telling statistic. What happens to crime rates AFTER guns are confiscated?
In the UK and Australia, where most private gun ownership has been outlawed, you guessed it - violent crime increased substanatially and whoops, gun crimes went up too!!! Geeminy crickets, how could that be? maybe there is something to that old saying, when you outlaw guns, only the criminals will have them.
From the BBC: Handgun crime 'up' despite ban
Handguns were banned following the Dunblane massacre
A new study suggests the use of handguns in crime rose by 40% in the two years after the weapons were banned.
The research, commissioned by the Countryside Alliance's Campaign for Shooting, has concluded that existing laws are targeting legitimate users of firearms rather than criminals...
a little more for you:
The cure is worse than the disease
In a pattern that's repeated itself in Canada and Australia, violent crime has continued to go up in Great Britain despite a complete ban on handguns, most rifles and many shotguns. The broad ban that went into effect in 1997 was trumpeted by the British government as a cure for violent crime. The cure has proven to be much worse than the disease.
Crime rates in England have skyrocketed since the ban was enacted. According to economist John Lott of the American Enterprise Institute, the violent crime rate has risen 69 percent since 1996, with robbery rising 45 percent and murders rising 54 percent. This is even more alarming when you consider that from 1993 to 1997 armed robberies had fallen by 50 percent. Recent information released by the British Home Office shows that trend is continuing.
Reports released in October 2004 indicate that during the second quarter of 2004, violent crime rose 11 percent; violence against persons rose 14 percent.
The British experience is further proof that gun bans don't reduce crime and, in fact, may increase it. The gun ban creates ready victims for criminals, denying law-abiding people the opportunity to defend themselves.
Fact is people, I went to the Brady Center website and emailed these articles in to them. Surprise surprise, no response.
We have to ask the right questions!
Facts are not important to people that base their arguments on Dogma rather than the truth. And more so when they find the Constitution ambiguous when it clearly is not.
Whose truth? Please define truth.
Seriously?! Really? Come on.
You are correct. Dogma beats truth 100% of the time.
Sorry Lou but you lost me as soon as you cited the American Enterprise Institute as a source. How about finding similar information from a less right wing source then you might bring me around. I believe in the Constitution and its many Amendments but it is certainly open to interpretation from people of all political persuasions. You might, as well, recall that statistics can be used to prove any hypothesis.
Peggyforpeace
Very well said.
Sorry Peg. The facts are there. The interpretation is up for grabs, but the facts are there and they came from the CNN article initially.
The reason there aren't left wing stats is that the left wing think tanks get funded by people that DEARLY believe that gun control is right so when facts just are never going to line up that way with stats, then why do the study at all when you can use that donor money for something that will actually make the doners happy, thus in the mind to contribute to your think tank again...
The right would never do a study to find out how abortion helps women's lives. The left will never do a study to find that guns are not the cause of the problem, but the symptom.
The statistics you suggest for Australia have been totally distorted by the 2nd Amendment nuts in the US. What you say and what you have read are totally untrue, and have been cherry-picked by those with a need to justify themselves. I suggest you search for the real data yourself - use google.com.au, not google.com.
The bottom line is that the vast majority of Brits and Aussies don't want guns, in spite of all the fear mongering by the fearful in the US.
So let me guess, you want government to regulate fire arms even though the government is the biggest producer of terrorism right now murdering millions of innocent civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan, not to mention the torture, illegal spying, drone attacks and assassination programs?
We the people need to concentrate on regulating the governments use of weapons. Not this fear mongering crap by someone who obviously worships government.
Government - you think the problems we create are bad, wait until you see our solutions!
==The United States of America was founded through the violent expulsion of British troops in a long and bloody war. If the British had simply past and enforced better gun control laws well in advance of this insurrection they could have avoided this debacle and the U.S.A. would never have been birthed.==
This was stated tongue-in-cheek but, sadly, American history is beginning to forget Bernard B. Fall - see Wikipedia. Among many MANY things, Fall was a historical expert upon the war of the colonial rebellion, and lectured at various seats, including West Point, where he ruffled feathers.
It is the position of BBF that the colonial army, no matter how trained and equipped, could never by itself have defeated the seasoned British Army and Navy. Independence of the American colonies from their parent, England, was won nearly entirely FOR THEM by the seasoned and disciplined troops of France. At the ceremony which ENDED the war for colonial independence, tradition required General Cornwallis to surrender his sword to General Washington. After a long drum roll, the British pipes and drums swung into "The World Upside Down." Cornwallis lifted his leg to walk - but he deliberately made the FIRST THREE paces towards the French General and then swung about to face George. He was saying to all present that the sword belonged to France, not to this ragged conglomerate of armed oafs and hooligans.
That explodes Myth One, about mere possession of Bang Sticks to deal deadly blows to Governments. Yankee Doodle fools.
The second myth explodes the noble triumph of Caucasians over NA noble savages. The European invaders faced hunter gatherer aborigines with no history of a single =martial art= and no history of sword making and use of metal. Had colonists stepped onto Plymouth Rock et cetera and been met by hoards of militarily trained Samurai --- you can abandon all ideas of some cute Thanksgiving Dinner.
On both counts, our history of bearing arms to secure both liberty and land by brilliant violence is a history that sits down to pee. We were not Roman Legions or Genghis Khan.
This SHAM by which we live has definite priapic affects upon the folks who retain their tooth brushes inside camouflage tubes and use desert camou condoms.
HA!
A tip of my hat to your post!
No doubt about it, "the mere possession" of weapons isn't enough to do the job. And yet, if I recall my history classes correctly, I do believe those French troops were armed, were they not?
It's also true that the "best-armed" doesn't always "win," although, as the saying goes, that's the way to bet.
I think you're on point with your comment on American Indian Samurai.
The argument isn't that having arms, per se, ensures "victory." (Although some folks with no experience of any kind of combat may fantasize about the product without the process, the same way someone might buy a gun for "self-defense" and then keep it in his desk drawer and never learn how or when to use it safely and effectively.)
But I'm pretty sure we could make the case that a lack of arms almost certainly means defeat.
History is nothing if not a long, sad account of what happens when well-armed people meet unarmed or less well-armed people.
No?
Liberty & Justice,
sj
I am curious as to how the last Carthaginian you spoke with thought of your hypothesis?
While historically correct, your conclusions seem a bit naive. When the Roman legions won with the assistance of barbarian axillaries, in your opinion they did not win? Or because the Duke of Wellington needed the Prussians and others on the field of Waterloo, it was really the French who won?
Did you miss the fact that the Americans were still in the field after years when the French finally entered the war?
"Had colonists stepped onto Plymouth Rock et cetera and been met by hoards of militarily trained Samurai --- you can abandon all ideas of some cute Thanksgiving Dinner."
Here you are arguing against your own hypothesis.
Perhaps its best to consider that just because a man offers a constrain view of history or it fits preconceived frames, it doesn't make their views true or even relevant?
Bringing your thesis into modern times, I have long-argued that an irregular militia, no matter how well armed with automatics, TOW-etc missiles, etc, has little chance in defeating today's regular army.
In the event of any conflict within US borders, the military would immediately control GPS signals, the ethernet and the media, and commandeer credit-card data. This event alone would have the vast majority of militias being reduced to nothing more than children aimlessly running around with stick and stones. "Survivalists" would fare better, but by definition, they are lone wolves and of little strategic consequence.
In short, militias are amateurs (mostly pathetic), lacking modern command-and-control means and protocols and a disciplined approach to warfare and propaganda.
Peggyforpeace, here is a link to the story on the BBC.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/1440764.stm
Thats the best I can do for you. But I imagine if you Google "UK handgun crime statistics" you'll find all you need.
Read the article, from 2001. Did some Googling, as suggested. Lot's of interesting information out there but not going to read it all. Most interesting site I found was the following: http://www.guninformation.org/. It has to do with the US but still think that we all would find it of interest since most of us live in the US who are commenting here.
"If you're not idealistic when you're young, you don't have a heart. If you're not nihilistic when you're old, you don't have a brain." - Sydlitz
Here is what I do not understand - people on the left use this website to rant about how the government in the USA has abused it's powers to:
Invade other countries in illegal wars to steal resources.
Incarcerated a higher per capita rate of citizens in prison then any other nation on earth.
Shredded the constitution to carry out domestic spying, assassinations, use torture to gain information.
Established a network of secret prisons and detention centers around the world.
outspends the rest of the planet on weapons and weapon research.
Has built a police-intelligence-security-law enforcement establishment of a size and cost beyond the imagination of a Hitler, Mao or Stalin.
Has police kicking in the doors of peace activists in Minneapolis, beating - arresting demonstrators at the RNC etc.
Is building a 'Hadrians wall' along the Mexican border.
Yet, when gun owners and the NRA worry about our government being out of control lefties and progressives dismiss them as being paranoid?!!!
"Yet, when gun owners and the NRA worry about our government being out of control lefties and progressives dismiss them as being paranoid?!!!"
The NRA is a corporate huckster whose sole goal is maximizing profits. They only draw up on 2nd amendment fears to boost their sales. They have been known to side with Corporate America and the Military Industrial Complex especially on Iraq, anti-abortion, drilling, allowing commercial interests to buy off land, and other sellouts silently. There are better local gun club groups that actually care more about the environment too. Try them instead of the NRA.
Gun owners can be almost any ideology. I don't blame the gun owners for their anger and fear of government but some of them aren't fighting for civil liberties except when it comes to guns and only guns. They need to be consistent about it. Personally, I support reasonable gun control, not to be confused with banning guns altogether, but I don't blame those who vehemently oppose gun control as long as they also join the left on fighting to restore and protect the rest of our civil liberties.
gun in private hands is a public safety issue by any standard - unless referendum prove society is allergic to safety / pools are reliable only when people know something can be done about it
edweg
Max I'm really with you and said almost as much last week on a similar thread.
I'll just repeat one point. The domestic gun pushers ("a panacea for all that ails you") are just the smaller version of the larger MIC with it's main goal (just like any other capitalist corporation) profits. There sales pitch are endless and include: fear/paranoia; penis insecurity; the constitution; patriotism; machismo, and of course product placement (have you turned on your TV or gone to the movies in the last 20 years where guns have become as ubiquitous as cigarettes used to be (in film).
Hey gun guys how about the fall of the military mighty soviet union without so much as a shot. Gee how did that happen maybe courage has more to do with confronting evil and challenging it then shooting it through the eyes.
there is no way around it - every generation has to have right to write own constitution accepted in referendum, anything short of it is from the moral ground, illegal
edweg
Simply stated:
“Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.” -President John F. Kennedy