-
Up From Totalitarianism
April 19, 2013 | 20 comments
-
Obama and Israel Reconfigured
April 1, 2013 | 34 comments
-
Reflections on Timbuktu
January 30, 2013 | 7 comments
-
The Blackmailer’s Paradox
January 16, 2013 | 85 comments
-
A Clash of Rights
February 27, 2012 | 100 comments
Another Perspective
Right of Revolution?
Reflections on a senator and the Second Amendment.
About 15 years ago, I served on the staff of a Senator who was an ardent opponent of gun control. Once I asked him why he was so adamantly opposed to any restrictions on gun sales, when even the police favored banning sales of certain kinds of assault weapons.
The Senator dismissed these concerns with a wave of his hand. “The real purpose of the Second Amendment,” he explained, “is to guarantee the right of revolution. If the government ever becomes too oppressive, the American people will be able to rise up and overthrow it.”
“But Mr. Senator,” I objected, somewhat taken aback, “we are the government.”
“That’s right, Joe,” he replied, “but we might not always be.”
I have repeated this story many times over the years, and I never failed to include an ironic postscript: The only time in my life when I seriously discussed the possible overthrow of the U.S. government was in the course of a conversation with a U.S. Senator that took place in the Russell Senate Office Building on Capitol Hill.
In the wake of the awful events in Newtown, however, I find myself recalling this conversation — but without any trace of irony or amusement.
In his great book, Democracy in America, the incomparable Alexis de Tocqueville warned Americans against succumbing to an “immense tutelary power” that reduces us to “a herd of timid and industrious animals of which government is the shepherd.” Like many conservatives, I believe that the ultimate goal of American “progressivism” (although not, of course, its avowed intent) is to turn Tocqueville’s warning into a fact. And as we all know, it is the sad fate of sheep to end up in the slaughter-house.
Is the Second Amendment a way of protecting the American people against a sheepish fate, or is this entire way of thinking a prime example of what the historian Richard Hofstadter called “the paranoid style” in American politics?
And even if my former boss was correct, and the right to purchase the most dangerous weapons is a genuine insurance policy against “progressive” efforts fundamentally to transform American society, could it be that the premium we are paying — the periodic slaughter of innocents — is simply too high?
I don’t know the answers to these questions, but I think about them a lot now.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (84) | Leave a comment
More Articles by Joseph Shattan
More Articles From Another Perspective
http://spectator.org/archives/2012/12/20/right-of-revolution
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Moe Blotz| 12.20.12 @ 6:18AM
"It is not the sword that kills people, but the hand that wields it." Or something like that. Fortunately for wimps such as Joe Shattan, people who drive Heavy Gross Vehicles do not have an insatiable desire to kill others.
Aristocat| 12.20.12 @ 7:32AM
Whatever weapons you have, the government has more. Armed revolution is not possible...The feds have nuclear weapons. As a practical matter, if you are holding a gun, the police have the right to kill you. Maybe a military coup would be possible, or a revolution at the ballot box, by electing someone like Rand Paul. Otherwise, get used to being a victim of the government.
mike 3/505| 12.20.12 @ 8:47AM
Of course armed revolution against a militarily superior government is possible. Don't you pay attention to history? China, Burma, Viet Nam (special case but most of the fighting was between VC & US), Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan....on and on.
JmsA| 12.20.12 @ 1:22PM
Someone gets it.
Bill8472| 12.20.12 @ 9:40AM
1. Superior firepower is not a fully adequate substitute for a cause that is so popular that at least half of the people believe in it.
2. In our country, it is likely that some soldiers will be torn between obeying their orders (which they will at first - it's not going to be any picnic) and their sympathy for the cause;
3. The politicians who exercise micro-management of the rules of engagement will be conflicted about how our military will deal with a widespread insurrection, and that will be reflected in the operations of the military.
4. Even in all-out military conflict, as Afghanistan, the use of highly sophisticated weaponry doesn't insure military success. As General Giap said to American diplomats at the Paris Peace Conference, "You may have won the battles, but we won the war."
Bill8472| 12.20.12 @ 9:42AM
That's the Afghanistan vs. the Soviets, not the current conflict, although that one counts, too.
Von Mises Jr| 12.20.12 @ 10:13AM
Mike and Bill are correct. The government can destroy us incrementally, but a revolution is something that does not follow a designed plan. How many people realize that we called the Russian government "Union of Soviet Socialist Republics," but the soviets were not the victors of the conflict, it was the Bolsheviks? And these so-called Republics were slave satellite States without representation or a Constitution (that is the concept of a Republic).
In the American Revolutionary War, one-third was revolutionaries that fought one-third Loyalist that supported the King before they fought the English while one-third sat on their hands?
In the civil War, family split and fought brother against brother and neighbor against neighbor, but they had a cause: to end or continue slavery. The military that would need to suppress his father and brother today does not have a moral cause to do so unless he is a committed socialist. I suspect there are not a majority of committed socialist in our fine military.
Al Adab| 12.20.12 @ 10:38AM
We had this same conversation at our morning coffee group. One facet is that certainly the military will, at least in part, refuse the orders to oppress their own citizens. Worse than the civil war in that regard. Second is what exactly will be the causitive event that sets the train in motion.
We have 25 States refusing to follow the health care mandates; 33 suing over Obamacare itself. This fracture will continue regardless of Court rulings. Whether this level of non-compliance will set events in motion or whether some more overt federal action is necessary remains the question. What form the final breakdown may take is also an open question.
Von Mises Jr| 12.20.12 @ 12:01PM
The triggers are twofold: financial and monetary.
The financial is going to start very soon as we address the Debt Ceiling and tax increases. The Debt Ceiling is a manufactured crisis in its timing, but not in its substance to the markets. If we cannot re-finance short-term Bonds at a low rate, it will spook the market. Recall that September 2008 started a fall in the Dow from 14K to 6,500 in a couple months. In the beginning of 2009 is when we got downgraded, if I recall correctly.
On the monetary side, if we cannot re-finance our debt, then QE5, 6, 7.....will be added to the tripling of M2 ($3T to $9T in 5 years) plus QE3 & QE4 that are $40B and $45B per month respectively. When prices here skyrocket like they are in the Middle East, we will have our "American Spring" that is actually more of a bitter winter.
That is when many people may figure out that our elites have betrayed us. Expect civil unrest in the big Blue cities (our Greek riots) and Red States basically giving the middle finger back to Obama and Reid whom seem to like that gesture so much. That's my projection and continuing down this course makes it unavoidable.
Al Adab| 12.20.12 @ 1:43PM
You seem to have thought it out rather well. It appears that the event itself may involve a three way with the urbanite, government and federalist (rural red state areas) opposing one another for first the urban payoffs ie their entitlements and second rural areas of self determination.
Since dissent is the highest form of patriotism and the right of the people to establish for themselves a government best suited to their happiness sacrosanct, the ultimate disolution of the United States into cultural componant parts seems a not illfounded prospect.
Bill8472| 12.21.12 @ 10:31AM
If there's an uprising, it will most likely begin with some outlier type resisting the government with arms, a Randy Weaver/David Koresh type. The outlier cause will come to seem more mainstream and will attract others, still more or less outliers but getting closer to the mainstream. Then there will be some deeply unpopular spasm of government reaction which will be met with a public revulsion similar to the public response to the shootings at Kent State in the 1970s, or the so-called "police riot" in Chicago at the 1968 Democratic National Convention. Then there will be various outbreaks of various types, followed by some sort of nationwide government attempt at suppression.
That point will be the tipping point; either there will be a general rebellion or the government will be successful in putting the resistance down.
Quartermaster| 12.21.12 @ 7:52PM
I firmly believe the country will split. Frankly, it's about time as the so called "Blue States" (better labeled red states for their controlling mentalities) will split from the Red States. The country is now pretty much ungovernable and the left in America has pretty much repudiated what made the country great.
I say, with many newspaper editors in 1860, wayward sisters, go in peace.
Jack in Wi| 12.20.12 @ 8:25AM
In Catholic theology the right to revolt against an oppressor is clearly laid out. There must be no other way to get it done peacefully. The oppression must extremly severe. There has to be a good chance of success. Right now we have many other options. There is no doubt that the 2nd Amendment was put in the Constitution for the people to retain the Right of Revolution as a last resort. However before we do that lets remember we have the right to peaceful resistence, as practiced by pweople like, Martin Luther King, Ghandi, Lech Walesa, and Nelson Mandella. Even in South Africa Apartheid was overthrown mostly peacefully. In The case of slavery over history, it was mostly overthrown by peacefull means. A true Christian should always think of every peacefull option first.
Stkman| 12.20.12 @ 12:56PM
We don't need to, nor should we wait fior extreme opression. Our forefathers not only showed us how to overcome this, but they gave us written instructions as well. Just read the preamble to the Declaration of Independance. It tells us all we need to no. We are long overdue to rid ourselves of the government we have now. Neither democrats or republicans represent the will of the people anymore. They represent whatever special interest will empower or enrich them.
Pecos Pete| 12.20.12 @ 7:00AM
We don't have a "right to purchase the most dangerous weapons" as stated by the author. The public can not purchase military grade weapons. A semi-automatic rifle is not military grade. We can't purchase machine guns, grenades, bombs, rockets, F-15 jets, tanks and etc. The only thing I can think of that is military grade that the public can purchase is a wicked knife.
C. Vernon Crisler | 12.20.12 @ 9:31AM
Right, I think I heard one of the Supreme Court Justices (not the really stupid one) say that whatever is the modern equivalent of firearms that were available at the time when the Constitution was formed would only be covered by the 2nd Amendment. These could not be regulated by the federal government.
This makes sense. If certain firearms are too powerful (military grade weapons, tanks, A-bombs), it makes it impossible for the government to fulfill its Constitutional responsibilities of protecting the citizens against domestic threats.
Frank Drackman| 12.20.12 @ 9:40AM
What are you, an Idiot?
Purchased a Beretta 92fs, which is exactly the same pistol as the Military M9 for my oldest daughter, lets see, it was the September of Katrina, carry the 5, divide by 2, leap year...
when she was 15. She'd decided she wanted to be a Marine Pilot, and since I couldn't find a good used FA-18, we got the next best thang.
She's currently at Quantico, TBS(The Big Suck, Taxes Being Squandered, etc) and one of the best shots in her class...
Frank
Bill8472| 12.20.12 @ 9:54AM
If current firearms manufacture is similar to what it was during World War II, when the Colt Government Model M1911A1 that my father-in-law privately bought was clearly a better gun than his government issue M1911A1, the civilian Beretta M92FS is a better gun than the M9, even though they're the same design.
Frank Drackman| 12.20.12 @ 10:16AM
the differences are subtle, 92fs has slightly angled dust cover, 3 dot sites instead of dot/post, and "radiused" back strap for small womanly hands like mine, I mean, for the Split-Tails we're increasingly counting on the keep the A-rabs where they belong(A-rabia)
Frank
Bill8472| 12.21.12 @ 10:24AM
Something in my brain really likes the idea of women in combat against radical Muslims.
Bill8472| 12.20.12 @ 9:44AM
No, people can't buy machine guns and other heavy weaponry in the ordinary course of business, but of course, there's always stealing, always subverting the military people who care for the heavy weapons, and taking the weapons off the dead soldiers.
John Navratil| 12.20.12 @ 10:06AM
Bill8472,
Or we can buy them from the Libyans and Egyptians.
Pecos Pete| 12.20.12 @ 10:34AM
Of course, citizens of the USA could/can acquire military grade weapons from the ME as well as Mexico and further south.
Al Adab| 12.20.12 @ 11:01AM
Pete:
I do know of a privately owned and operated F-4. Only one but it might make a point.
Appleby| 12.20.12 @ 7:01AM
Whenever I hear liberals whine that "We" have to do something or other, I always ask, "WE who?" And I remember that Ayn Rand said that when someone is pontificating, "Of course WE all AGREE..." then you speak up immediately and say "I don't." Because odds are pretty good that you don't.
Since the massacre took place, I have had to fight off hordes of pontificating Canadians whose idea of "having a conversation about gun control" is "Shut up and agree with everything I say." They do not understand the USA although their very existence depends upon its continuing to not be like Canada; but you cannot tell them that they don't understand us because they think if there are a lot of them who think the same way, that means they're right. I have finally drawn a line in the sand and said "No more harangues about how we have to think like you do." The whole idea of revolution still scares the daylights out of them 350 years after our first one. It's kind of funny to contemplate, in an irritating sort of way.
Bill8472| 12.20.12 @ 10:01AM
These debates are yet another instance of the clearing of the fog that has been surrounding the question of which political philosophy has the better grasp of reality.
Bill Bennet, on his radio show this morning, referred to the liberal unwillingness to be realistic when he told of how he asked a liberal acquantance whether or not the liberal would want to have a firearm if a gunman was going to shoot his child. Bennett said the liberal said "No," he absolutely would not want to have a gun to defend his child. Bennett observed that this is a bit like the fictional story of the Lord of the Rings, where ownership of the ring twists people; the liberal was so in love with his principles that he would not entertain the possibility of violating that principle, even if faith to it meant the destruction of his child. He, like Gollum, had the Ring.
Appleby| 12.20.12 @ 1:48PM
I seem to remember it was a similar clanger that did Michael Dukakis in (if he had any lingering hope after that photo in the tank) during one of the debates. Something about if he'd shoot a man who had raped his wife, I think.
Ringmaster| 12.20.12 @ 7:12AM
Mr Shattan, lest there be any misunderstanding, your conversation with the Senator had nothing to do with the, "overthrow of the government" but rather the restoration of it.
No one has yet devised a better social contract than our founders and an important part of it is to insure the citizens would always have the means to defend that contract. As Mr Franklin so famously said, we have a Republic, "If you can keep it".
The intent was always that this would be accomplished through normal peaceful, political processes but through the use of arms should it become necessary.
Tim the Enchanter| 12.20.12 @ 10:33AM
No, Mr. Franklin, we couldn't.
sockmonkey| 12.20.12 @ 8:22AM
If we are truly worried about the massacre of innocents perhaps we should look at a ban on surgeon's tools.
Frank Drackman| 12.20.12 @ 9:41AM
what????
seriously, Vitamin H, get some.
Frank
JimH| 12.20.12 @ 8:29AM
People advocating a 'assault weapons' ban are engaging in political symbolism as these weapons are functionally no different from any standard semi-auto hunting or target weapon. Obviously criminals and the mentally ill should not be armed and the people who are armed must be held accountable for their weapons. Maybe, rather than having the government so involved it would be better if would be gun owners were required to post a bond; the size and cost of the bond commensurate with the perceived risk of the owner and the weapon. And while I agree that guns don't kill, people do. It is a fact that it is easier to kill large numbers of people with a weapon with an extended ammunition clip than with a lesser firearm or other weapon. There have actually been a number of similar incidents in China where a madman has attacked a school with a knife. I don't think you can have 100% security against someone willing(wanting?) to die, but having at least some of the staff armed, as on airlines could go a long way to enhancing security. We should also not publicize the names of the whack jobs. This would reduce the incentive to go out in 'a blaze of glory'.
JoeS| 12.20.12 @ 9:20AM
I like this.
We can post a bond for being able to speak, or seek redress of grievances. The press should post a bond to be a able to report. Posting a bond for permission to freely associate is also a good idea. We can post a bond to have permission to go to church.
If we post a bond we can be protected for illegal searches or quartering soldiers (not such a big deal now, but....).
Yes, posting a bond to secure constitutional rights is a great idea.
/sarc off
BShep| 12.20.12 @ 9:58AM
"Obviously criminals and the mentally ill should not be armed"
Be careful what you wish for. How soon after "the mentally ill should not be armed" does being conservative or pro-life or even just owning a gun qualify someone as “mentally ill”?
Tim the Enchanter| 12.20.12 @ 10:35AM
There was a book written about this idea. I believe it was called "Catch-22".
Al Adab| 12.20.12 @ 11:03AM
The Soviets had great success filling "mental wards" with political opponants.
SUBVET| 12.20.12 @ 10:54AM
Jim..........the term "assault" is a political term for a gun they don't like.
Frankinfinestine in CA made this liberal term up the last time they tried to ban guns......after 10 yrs. both sides voted that it didn't work and deleted the law.
Al Adab| 12.20.12 @ 1:47PM
It is the looks of the weapon not its function of which they disapprove. Being themselves unfamiliar with the capabilities and capacities of various weapons they fear those which look dangerous.
BTW, remember that mayor Bloomberg refused to allow the national guard into NYC after Sandy because they carried guns. Irrational but instructive.
RFisher66| 12.20.12 @ 9:09AM
Aristocrat hit the nail on the head. I get a good laugh when I see the preppers and doomsday types playing soldier. I guess they just never grew up. Even the weapons that I used in the Marine Corps 40 years ago are enough to make quick work of all these play soldiers. The government has more sophisticated weapons than the average person even dreams about. How do you combat hundreds of drones armed with heat seeking technology and missiles. Where do you hide? Our only hope is that the US Military would not fire on its own citizens. Most of you preppers would crap in your pants at the site of the first Cobra gunship popping over the horizon. We either change this country at the ballot box or it won't get changed.
John Navratil| 12.20.12 @ 10:10AM
RFisher66,
It seems to me that you have placed a lot of faith in the ballot box when a significant number of voters have no skin in the game and no faith in the military to fight domestic enemies when it is our own government.
Syria is illustrative.
Stkman| 12.20.12 @ 1:21PM
40 years ago I'm sure the Vietmenese quaked in their sandals the FIRST time they saw a huey gun ship, but just the first time.
As for changing things at the ballot box, the two controlling parties have 100 years of writing and passing illegal laws so that they and only they have any chance of getting on a federal ballot, much less getting elected to a federal position.
It is my opinion that when 100 senators and 435 congressmen see 10 million armed and angry citizens that they will be the ones to quake in their boots, or as you put it, crap in their pants.
Bill8472| 12.20.12 @ 9:36AM
One indicator that the Second Amendment serves a valuable purpose in insuring ongoing liberty and self-rule is that the people who enjoy a sense of control and power are mocking the Second Amendment, and saying it's outdated and should be changed or revoked.
Frank Drackman| 12.20.12 @ 9:44AM
THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND ARM BEARS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!!!!
I don't care what it says before that,
Where in the Constitution does it say the right to have abortions shallnot be infringed? I'll give up my HK91, AR15(s), AK47(s), M-1 Garand/Carbine/FN49/toomany pistols to list,
when I see"2d Ammendement Repealed" on the front page...
Frank "When your enemy's in range, so are you"Drackman
Al Adab| 12.20.12 @ 10:44AM
In addition Frank, do we still believe that "whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it..."?
How will the military respond should events take such a course remains to be seen. That this has become a topic of everyday conversation should give us pause.
Bill8472| 12.21.12 @ 10:18AM
It's probably not a good idea to advertise that you own guns and what they are.
JMM | 12.20.12 @ 9:46AM
A platoon of Marines fresh out of Boot would defeat all the "Preppers" and "Survivalists" before their their puny Black Rifles could even pull a heat.
I keep several defensive weapons handy to protect myself and family. The rest of my guns are for sporting purpose and kept in the safe.
Frank Drackman| 12.20.12 @ 10:18AM
Safes sound good and everything, buttttttttt
How do you get the safe to your place in the first place? Don't really want Pedro and his MI-6 homies traipsin all over my pad...
Frank
Frank Drackman| 12.20.12 @ 10:20AM
Umm yeah, Marines are pretty tough..
OTOH, Koresh and his buddies gave the FBI/ATF some "What'Fur" 9mm vs 50 Cal, DUH
Frank
Al Adab| 12.20.12 @ 10:58AM
The point isn't necessarily about winning the fight, it is about when and how the fight comes to pass.
James Baker| 12.20.12 @ 12:16PM
Okay, this is getting silly. You do realize some of the preppers ARE current and former military themselves, right? Don't just assume a green platoon from boot would actually stand up against a prepper group made up of combat vets. Because those groups do exist.
Skippy| 12.20.12 @ 12:50PM
It's the chaos, not the armed engagement that is the true weapon against Big Govt.
No patriot is gonna try to fight on the enemy's terms.
IED's; sabotage; sniping; all are asymetrical and effective.
Just ask any veteran of Iraq/Afghan.
The Finns whipped the Soviet's hiney in 1939 with skis and old Russian rifles they rebuilt.
If anybody thinks Big Govt doesn't fear the armed citizenry, take a listen to President Santa Claus butching up for a fight with the NRA.
Appleby| 12.20.12 @ 1:52PM
One of the best trained and equipped militias in the State of Georgia (and Alabama) is the Korean Grocers' Association. Ask anybody who was in Atlanta for the Rodney King Sympathy Loot'n'Shoot.
Bill8472| 12.21.12 @ 10:36AM
Even Marines, SF, Rangers, Delta, or any elite force you can name can be ambushed and booby-trapped as recent events amply demonstrate.
Bill8472| 12.21.12 @ 10:39AM
Elite forces have one Achilles' Heel; they are very confident of their skills. Sometimes they are overly confident.
farmerinthedale| 12.20.12 @ 10:02AM
I seriously doubt that we will see the first skirmishes of a pushback against an out of control government in the form of an organized quasi-military charge on the Capitol building by the Patriots. I suspect that what is in our future is a large scale unraveling of the cradle-to-grave nanny state due to the beginnings of a total financial collapse. It may start with a skirmish here and there of Obamabots carrying on because they can't get their stuff anymore similar to what happened in Madison WI and Lansing MI - mobs carrying on like thugs - which will lead to throwing punches which will escalate to cars being tipped over, buildings being torched and eventually one of them will start shooting. Patriots will start to band together to protect themselves, their families and their property. Law enforcement and National Guardsmen will be the first level of armed government response against the civilian population. Eventually the government will be shooting civilians to regain control. Once that happens, the gloves come off and civil war begins. It will be the Patriots against the government and the Obamabots. The current level of discord between the Patriots and those who have been deliberately trying to bring us to socialism and total government control coupled with the mathematical certainty that we are headed towards total financial collapse - to think this can lead to a significantly different outcome is purely wishful thinking - it's probably only a question of when.
Pecos Pete| 12.20.12 @ 10:38AM
farmer: Agreed, except its not probable, it will happen.
Stkman| 12.20.12 @ 1:29PM
It's most likely already happened, we just don't know it yet. Why do you think we keep printing money and having bailouts? Where is all this bailout money? It seems to disapear as soon as it it printed. Whats really happening is the rich and powerful have stolen everything from the treasury to the point that they are printing money to steal. They are then buying gold and other tangible goods because they no that soon the vaslu of gthe dollar will be less than that of toilet paper. I say give it six months to a year and all hell is gonna break loose.
Louis Jenkins| 12.20.12 @ 10:29AM
Just because the military is armed to a greater degree does not mean a tribe or militia will not have the support of the local population. The militia must always maintain good relations with the people who may support a movement. Remember, if the rebel's have that support, regardless of how well or badly they are armed, they have a large slice of the pie, and a way to get refurbished if needed.
The rebel must understand when the odds are against him. ie, Cobra gunship, M-1 abrams, etc. Heat sensing vision is bad ju-ju, particularly if he's the one being looked at. Better to run away or stay hidden. The rebel never bites off more than he can chew and never takes on overwhelming odds.
Giving up one's guns should be comensurate with giving up abortion. After all, Obama did say we need to protect our children didn't he? Will they?
James Baker| 12.20.12 @ 12:17PM
And you have to think logistics here, who is going to making the parts for the high tech equipment in a civil war?
scotchieguy| 12.20.12 @ 12:20PM
He shoots, he scores! Nice line, Louis Jenkins. The last paragraph on guns/abortion I have already committed to memory. Can't wait to bring that up when my hysterical, naive, gun-hating, liberal sister comes to town and starts bitching about how the CT shooter "went all Rambo with his AK-47 military-style assault weapon on those poor, defenseless little creatures."
First think I will ask her is to define "semi-automatic weapon." This will be good!
Stkman| 12.20.12 @ 1:32PM
Ask her to tell you who is the most sinister, a crazed shooter who murders children then has the decency to kill himself, or a doctor who performs/murders 1200 children a year and gets paid for it? Then ask how do we protect the children?
Stkman| 12.20.12 @ 1:33PM
That should be a crazed shooter who murders 20 children.
RichTex| 12.20.12 @ 11:33AM
I do recall once reading a subversive document which stated that rights come from God and that governments were created only to secure those rights. But if the government got to the point of being destructive of those rights, it was within the power of the people to alter or abolish that government.
Skippy| 12.20.12 @ 12:27PM
Give up the names of those conspirators so they can be re-educated during their incarceration.
Al Adab| 12.20.12 @ 1:48PM
Imagine anyone seriously believing such tripe.
William R. Barker | 12.20.12 @ 12:13PM
Shattan writes, "I don’t know the answers to these questions, but I think about them a lot now."
Uh-huh.
Perhaps Ben Franklin can help...
“They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”
Petronius| 12.20.12 @ 12:18PM
There will be no armed revolt because our oppressors who control all the institutions have no risk. That's the bottom line. We can't win because the Real power emanates from the plutocrats we cannot reach.
Skippy| 12.20.12 @ 12:54PM
Plutocrats can be dragged from their mansions and shot just like the Ceaucescus and the Romanoffs.
Mao said it best: Political power emanates from the barrel of a gun.
Stkman| 12.20.12 @ 1:36PM
Hang three Senators or 15 Congressmen on those cherry trees and we will have our government back. Today's politicinas are not similar to our founding fathers in any way shape or form.
Appleby| 12.20.12 @ 1:55PM
Heck, Tom Clancy has already figured that one out. Wait until the State of th Union Address and get a guy to fly a 747 straight into the Capitol.
holmegm| 12.20.12 @ 12:25PM
If guns were at fault, the Walnut Grove school house would have been shot up every year. EVERY family had a gun, at least one.
Something *else* must have changed ... something that we don't want to talk about.
wombat1| 12.20.12 @ 1:13PM
No less sickening than the murder of innocent children is the gale of self-righteous bilge from the “ progressives” who instantly politicized it ( after yelling that investigation of the Benghazi massacre was “ politicizing”).
Quick- without looking it up- name any one of the Newtown victims. No? Try naming the last kid who got gunned down in Chicago? Stockton?Miami? Inner-city and minority children are being blown off their own front porches every day by vicious morons who are as unquestionably sane as they are evil. It isn’t even news anymore.
But this time the victims are all white, and the perp too, so it’s safe to declare it a national tragedy. And to “solve” the problem, naturally, by punishing the law-abiding.
There will always be self appointed experts, eager to play God, claiming to act in the “public interest” while listening to no voice but their own. "Health and safety" is their cover story, not their objective. There is no pleasing them. Each concession only leads to further demands. Their aim is seize political power. Their goal is to give orders. Make no mistake-they're not after your guns, or your sodas and french fries .They’re after YOU.
Petronius| 12.20.12 @ 4:19PM
So right.
I just watched some think tank nannystatist say, "The IRS code is chocked full of incentives to get the people to do what WE want." The beltway bastards are experts at utilizing passive methods to rule US. Street crime is the biggest. The Community Reinvestment Act has destroyed the value of our property. And the tax increases and debt obligations will not be halted until the middle class has No disposable income to enjoy life. They want to make this country like Scandinavia where everyone is the same and forced to fit Their mold. And the sad fact is, most people want the government to be a substitute for Mommy. It will end only when those who are competent refuse to be taxed and put out to subsidize their deficiencies by closing down businesses, plowing crops under, and sitting on their hands with total defiance. The weenies can't and won't support themselves. And it's passed the time when the lowlife be issued the ultimatum. Let us live by and for ourselves or face the starvation they truly deserve.
George S| 12.20.12 @ 1:38PM
The Second Amendment and Dependency do not go together. Why would anyone who gets government assistance to cut back his necessity to work take up arms against Sugar Daddy? To die in the name of taking care of yourself? To get up at 5:00 in the morning and wait in the rain for a bus to take you to a minimum wage job? And I have to pay for my gun?
Come to think of it, if the Second Amendment could be turned against us -- to protect the Entitlement Society against those who would overthrow it with responsibility and the work ethic.
Rhoetus| 12.20.12 @ 11:01PM
Congress and the current POTUS and all living former presidents should be in Federal prison for perpetuating a public fraud.
Anthony| 12.20.12 @ 1:59PM
Well you left Washington just in time Mr. Shattan because you were beginning to develop Washington leftist brain rot. Apparently however, you're still afflicted with the virus.
The weapons used by Lanza in CT were legal and did not violate CT's assault rifle ban. The rifle fired only one shot at a time, as did the semi-automatic hand guns that he used.
If you honestly think millions of American gun owners are engaged in the politics of the paranoid, I suggest you get your head out of your ass and listen to what Obozo and the American left are saying.
Your former boss had it 100% correct, probably, because as a Senator, he was in the belly of the beast and knew the mindset of his collegues well.
As horrible as the events were in Connecticut, they still pale in comparison to an entire nation subjugated to tyranny.
I suggest you re-read de Tocqueville and Hayak's "The Road To Surfdom". Then pick up a copy of "Rules for Radicals", you'll be running to the gun shop before you finish the last chapter.
Havoc| 12.20.12 @ 5:54PM
Mr. Shattan: Freedom is neither cheap nor free. But, as a well-educated man, you already knew that ... right?
Rhoetus| 12.20.12 @ 10:58PM
Rules for Conservatives @
http://www.saveamericanow.us.com
sdfhlk | 12.20.12 @ 11:00PM
Merry Christmas to you 2012.
TruSkeptik| 12.21.12 @ 7:11AM
Without question, the purpose of the Second Amendment is to check the natural human desire for absolute power. A review of history prior to 1776 proves that. Those in power are meant to fear the potential of the people to rise up in bloody revolution and dethrone them. Hence, the effort by the Left to deprive the majority of Americans of the wisdom and knowledge of the Constitution. This is accomplished in two ways. First, the public school system considers such knowledge either "incorrect" or reactionary. Second, the MSP, Hollywood, art & culture and scientific/philosophical inquiry in general have all turned exclusively to the neurotic study of the ego. The will to fight has been steadily drained from us through the above mentioned strategies. We just want to "feel good", and are no longer outraged by the criminality on display every day in our towns, in our cultural, and in our government. Revolution is a sacred right for which our forebears fought and died. It can be glorious. What we are waiting for is that statesman who can bring us to our feet and lead us to our rightful future. A future of freedom, prosperity and peace.
Murl| 12.21.12 @ 10:35AM
You guys are talking about revolution, and I can't even help my 20 year old daughter get a drivers license or identification card from the State of Florida, because the assholes that encompass ownership of the DMV rejected my scanned color copy of her social security card.
You guys talk of revolution, but words fail to compensate for the complete lack of attention to the fact that we are already a police state where if you don't tow the government line, they tell you to go fuck yourself in not so many words.
I'm still trying to reconcile how the social security administration has anything to do with issuance of a government endorsed identification card, but I digress.
We are all slaves to a government that has complete control over every facet of our lives through taxation, and manipulation. Don't believe me? Skip your next property tax payment on your house or car. See how long you "own" it.
Words about a coming revolution ring very hollow to me. Sort of like listening to a bunch of sniveling cowards mince words to which they fail to back with any sort of action. You want to impress me, get the 51% of the morons in this country that voted for Barack Obama to actually give a shit about the country they think they believe in beyond American Idol and smoking crack.
TruSkeptik| 12.22.12 @ 7:05AM
Revolutions first begin in the coffeehouses. That is, people need to voice these matters first insofar as they are very much beyond our everyday experience. And, quite frankly, nobody is trying to impress you. If you can't even manage the beauracracy of Florida's DMV you aren't exactly in the right league anyway. By the way, when the revolution does arrive, know that if you don't fight you don't eat.
paulie4| 12.21.12 @ 12:02PM
This talk of revolution, I’m almost afraid to engage in it and I suppose that might say something about the fear of government reprisal now felt by many Americans. Revolution is in the air though; there is no doubt about that.
Ura Frecal| 12.21.12 @ 1:24PM
Yes, you know the answer to these questions, Joseph. Crank your brain up and do some more research before putting to print such a nonsense dichotomy as more/dangerous weapons = slaughter of innocents. Do some research. Don't be lazy