This has to be said about the GOP and gun rights

[NkrumahWasRight Is Wrong]

Out of the many off-putting policies that the GOP generally has, to me, the most disingenuous and intellectually disrespectful is their strict constitutionalist stance on gun rights rather than viewing the Constitution as do the 'living, breathing side'.

Its essentially a waste of time to paint the nuanced political picture of gun rights during the time of its addition up until the development of the american war machine around the turn of the 19th century because its largely common knowledge. Brown bessies, my brother sam is dead, tories and red coats blah blah blah defense against tyranny.

When I read supposed Ivy-League scholars, debate experts, attorneys etc (cough Ted Cruz) STILL cling to the notion that gun rights must be defended strictly as written....wait here:

"The 2nd Amendment to the Constitution isn't for just protecting hunting rights, and it's not only to safeguard your right to target practice. It is a Constitutional right to protect your children, your family, your home, our lives, and to serve as the ultimate check against governmental tyranny -- for the protection of liberty," Cruz wrote to supporters in a fundraising email on Thursday, under the subject line "2nd Amendment against tyranny."

Good luck defending yourself against a tyrannical federal and/or state government with a revolver, a few shotguns and a hunting rifle. Good luck even trying to pool these resources in a network to defend against a tyrannical government with today's paper trails and surveillance. These aren't the days when the tyrannical government you are defending against is on an island across an ocean, takes weeks to get to land via boat and sans planes and uses muskets and outdated battle technique against guerillas with a WILD homefield advantage. Oh..and good luck getting the French to side with you, of all people Ted Cruz..and I fear for you and your supporters if you think that you could potentially sway a world power to aid your defense against this hypothetical tyrannical government with enough juice to defend against allies, usurp the federal government and then acquiesce and hand you the reigns to the government for you to preside over judiciously and prudently after all the dust settles rather than take you out and take it for themselves.

That opinion can be found in bundles, so its not just Cruz...yet, whether you like him or not, he is supposed to be very smart (by most quantitative measures at least). They know, however, that they simply cannot stray too far from the strict lens they view the constitution without losing all support..but the least Cruz could do, and the many in the GOP that agree with him on this specifically, is pivot to saying "its for our defense in the terrible event that there are rogue or foreign forces on our lands and the government has collapsed or can otherwise no longer defend us here". Is it a reach? Absolutely massive reach..yet, that is a fast-break transition lay-up into Isis fear mongering and it is an edible alternative to this defunct and obsolete notion that the 2nd Amendment still truly serves for the American people to take down the government should it become tyrannical. No one in their right mind would even think that is possible, even the dumbest and most staunch of Cruz'esque interpreters when they take a second to think about it, particularly when they run with urine down their legs to the pawn shop in fear every time the President gives a speech. It's fair to say that these same scared and hurried individuals cannot defeat a tyrannical federal government..one that also happens to be the most powerful country on the planet. And certainly not unless he would support small communities that are already organized in some sort of way to have SAM's for defense against a tyrannical government. Imagine who would be left out of that.

[just to add: Cruz's strict interpretation would also make him ineligible to serve as President]

 

[JahFocus CS]

I agree with Cruz on this. Obviously one armed person will not stop government tyranny, but a mass movement of armed people?

Do you realize no one from the Bundy Ranch standoff last year was charged? Despite aiming rifles at federal agents?

You guys don't realize how armed forces attacking an American city would cause fissures and divisions in those same forces. It would cause, at the least, massive civil resistance and unrest, and likely defections and depending on the scale, civil war.

On paper, people in the US have the most tools to free themselves, yet have the most narrow and short-sighted political imaginations in the world.

This is almost turning me into a single-issue voter. Democrats can't be allowed to do away with gun rights, or limit them to some fukking hunting rifles.

 

[CHL]

This is almost turning me into a single-issue voter. Democrats can't be allowed to do away with gun rights, or limit them to some fukking hunting rifles.

lol what? You cannot be serious breh

 

[JahFocus CS]

lol what? You cannot be serious breh

Quite.

 

[tmonster]

Do you realize no one from the Bundy Ranch standoff last year was charged? Despite aiming rifles at federal agents?

You guys don't realize how armed forces attacking an American city would cause fissures and divisions in those same forces. It would cause, at the least, massive civil resistance and unrest, and likely defections and depending on the scale, civil war.

o'rly?

Last Time Black Protesters Had An Armed Standoff, The Police Bombed A City Block

By James DeVinnie
Posted on January 4, 2016
43.5K Shares

The treatment of the group of right-wing terrorists that have taken over a federal wildlife refuge in Oregon has put the racist double-standards of the media and politicians on full display. The group, led by the son of Cliven Bundy – who had his own armed standoff with the police in 2014 – is heavily armed and prepared to use violence, apparently suicidal, has occupied federal property, and believes it is fighting a “tyrannical government.” And yet, the media, politicians, and police have consistently used only the most euphemistically positive terms for the group, in stark contrast to the ways in which people of color are described and dealt with for far lesser infractions.

The media’s euphemistic treating of these violent extremists – and the racist double-standard it elucidates – is truly astounding. According to the current media narrative, not just from reliable spewer of fictitious bile Fox News but from the mainstream media as well, a group of “armed protestors” led by “activists” conducted an “action” by seizing the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, threatening to hold it indefinitely, and vowing to kill and be killed if necessary to support their fringe cause. This narrative is in sharp contrast to the media’s quickness to describe any Muslim remotely connected to violence as a “terrorist,” “extremist,” or “jihadi.” If a similar siege by as many as 150 terrorists were carried out by Muslims, it would be a national crisis, no matter how irrelevant the target, but the media seems relatively unconcerned with the actions of the so-called “militia” in Oregon.

The subtly racist double-standard quickly descends into disgustingly overt racist hypocrisy when comparing the media’s treatment of the Oregon siege to that of peaceful black protestors, whom Fox News has labeled “terrorists,” “Nazis,” “sub-human,” a “hate group,” “extremists,” and “like the KKK” and even such supposedly objective sources as CNN are wont to refer to as “thugs,” “rioters,” and “grave threats” to the police.


Moreover, the benign police response and desire to negotiate a peaceful solution with this large group of deranged and heavily-armed thugs also stands in stark contrast to the police’s instantaneous resort to execution-style violence towards unarmed black men and children like Tamir Rice, Laquan Mcdonald, and Mario Woods. And, most astonishingly, the same Republican presidential candidates who spread rabid, illogical, and racist fear of Islamic extremism, are quick to propose mass bombings of civilians to fight Islamic terrorists, and peddle the same racist fear-mongering about black protestors, have not only defended but overtly supported the extremists in Oregon, whose patron saint Cliven Bundy is, to no one’s surprise, a Donald Trump supporter.

Beyond the media hypocrisy, the double-standards of police and politicians are put on display when comparing the Oregon siege to another similar incident: The MOVE siege, which occurred in Philadelphia in 1985. Like the Oregon extremists, the members of MOVE, who lived together in a townhouse in West Philly, were rabidly anti-government, antagonized law enforcement, represented a fringe ideology, and were heavily armed. There was, however, one crucial difference: the MOVE adherents were black. And so, on May 13, 1985, police with military-grade weapons surrounded the house, purportedly seeking to make an arrest for a noise complaint, and, when shots were fired back, assaulted the house with a barrage of bullets and tear gas, and dropped two bombs on the American civilians inside from a military helicopter.

The bombs triggered a massive blaze that destroyed several nearby blocks and killed eleven people, including five children. Similarly, when armed supporters of the American Indian Movement occupied the town of Wounded Knee, SD in 1973, simply demanding that the federal government honor their treaties and grant the Indians greater control over their native lands, the police, military, and FBI turned the reservation into an all-out war zone and snipers shot dead two AIM members. In 1967, when the Black Panthers began arming themselves to protect black communities and a group of armed Panthers peacefully marched on the California Capitol in Sacramento, the “terrorists” were so frightening to the white establishment that Ronald Reagan and even the NRA quickly clamored for gun control just to disarm the Panthers.

To be sure, the government has at times resorted to violence in response to right-wing terrorists, but the more common reaction from the police and military is that of seeming nonchalance, as has been observed with the siege in Oregon, which contrasts tremendously with the deadly violence often used against radical armed groups of people of color. And the racist hypocrisy and double-standards of politicians and the media has been a constant, with terms like “terrorists” and “thugs” unquestioningly applied to radical people of color, armed or not, whose murder is readily justified, while similar white radicals are defended and described with a heavy dose of euphemism.

This racist hypocrisy that has even descended into tacit support for terrorism from prominent Republicans like Donald Trump, is a grave danger, not only because it reinforces the proto-fascist mindset of the core right-wing constituency but also because right wing terror is an increasingly grave threat to the nation. Indeed, more Americans have died at the hands of right-wing terrorists than jihadist ones since 9/11 and yet the latter is granted wall-to-wall fear-mongering coverage and the former is almost entirely ignored by politicians and the media.

 

[JahFocus CS]

@tmonster Yes, I am well aware of the attack on MOVE. But MOVE did not have a large basis of support even in the Afrikan community. Obviously racism plays a role, elites divide the masses with it. My point that you quoted above was more so referring to the idea that some people have on here of American armed forces leveling American cities and shooting people down in the streets. Of course the state can get away with attacking small isolated groups.

 

[Domingo Halliburton]

A bunch of goat herders in Afghanistan held off the military for over 10 years

 

[theworldismine13]

the gop is correct on gun rights, black people joining in on the gun restriction movement is another example of the democratic party's bamboozling of black people

and cruz logic is perfectly correct and on point, black people need guns top protect themselves from a tyrannical government and thats black people all over the world not just in the us

 

[FredG]

Whew...I came into this thread thinking this was going to be a "We must ban all guns". I'm highly impressed at what I'm seeing.

 

[NkrumahWasRight Is Wrong]

Whew...I came into this thread thinking this was going to be a "We must ban all guns". I'm highly impressed at what I'm seeing.

Indeed. Not even one of those responses (yet). Wasn't quite the thesis of the content though either

 

[NkrumahWasRight Is Wrong]

@tmonster Yes, I am well aware of the attack on MOVE. But MOVE did not have a large basis of support even in the Afrikan community. Obviously racism plays a role, elites divide the masses with it. My point that you quoted above was more so referring to the idea that some people have on here of American armed forces leveling American cities and shooting people down in the streets. Of course the state can get away with attacking small isolated groups.

If under pure tyranny or complete state collapse/revolution...of course they would. It would be a bloodbath if it ever got to that point...but the point was that even with guns, if any type of major movement that was moving under the guise of literally defending America against a tyrannical state started to take any slight sort of semblance, there would be an epic squash and top security detention camp overloads. this is not comparable to bundy or any other rogues defending their liberties (according to them) in a super isolated incident that no one really cares about.

A bunch of goat herders in Afghanistan held off the military for over 10 years

lol, hence the SAM minor joke at the end. hes not letting any muslims have SAMs/rocket launchers etc to defend america

 

[JahFocus CS]

If under pure tyranny or complete state collapse/revolution...of course they would. It would be a bloodbath if it ever got to that point...but the point was that even with guns, if any type of major movement that was moving under the guise of literally defending America against a tyrannical state started to take any slight sort of semblance, there would be an epic squash and top security detention camp overloads. this is not comparable to bundy or any other rogues defending their liberties (according to them) in a super isolated incident that no one really cares about.

There are something like 300+ million privately owned firearms in the U.S. I agree that the state and bourgeoisie will resort to extreme levels of violence when necessary, but it would not be easy to suppress the whole populace. It's just ludicrous to think it would be a cakewalk if you're at all familiar with military tactics and strategy.

Moreover, the force at the government's disposal is not a legitimate argument for disarming the populace. That only makes everyone more vulnerable. That is unacceptable.

You guys arguing for mass disarmament or severe restrictions are extremely dangerous.

 

[NkrumahWasRight Is Wrong]

There are something like 300+ million privately owned firearms in the U.S. I agree that the state and bourgeoisie will resort to extreme levels of violence when necessary, but it would not be easy to suppress the whole populace. It's just ludicrous to think it would be a cakewalk if you're at all familiar with military tactics and strategy.

Moreover, the force at the government's disposal is not a legitimate argument for disarming the populace. That only makes everyone more vulnerable. That is unacceptable.

You guys arguing for mass disarmament or severe restrictions are extremely dangerous.

No one is arguing for mass disarmament here or severe restrictions as far as I can tell..and it certainly wouldnt be a cakewalk..but it would be quite easy for the state to take a stranglehold on many private firms if under a state of martial law and the paper trail would lead them to every single person that would be fighting against them. The organized chaos strategy of the christopher black cop guy (borden? idk forget name) not so far back shows that it would not be easy. however, its far more reasonable for the gop to pivot to a stance that is less inciting but actually mirrors the logic of it being defense and say it would be about merely defense..right now there are both overt and subtle implications of a revolution behind the rhetoric and that really needs to be toned done if they dont want to continue to alienate a vast majority of the populace through this further sullying of their brand. I am in favor of essentially keeping the status quo on gun rights, perhaps doing something that exhibits a bit more caution in regards to background checks and thats about it. I really really dislike hunters but am not intellectually disrespected when they say they want guns under constitutional right to hunt where its legal. Nor am I insulted when individuals want a firearm for personal protection...but this group think movement of mass defense, which will probably lead to more benign militia type civilian groups in the short term (1-5 years), is just outlandish when dressed up with one of the most antiquated interpretations of the constitution thats left.

 

[JahFocus CS]

No one is arguing for mass disarmament here or severe restrictions as far as I can tell..and it certainly wouldnt be a cakewalk..but it would be quite easy for the state to take a stranglehold on many private firms if under a state of martial law and the paper trail would lead them to every single person that would be fighting against them. The organized chaos strategy of the christopher black cop guy (borden? idk forget name) not so far back shows that it would not be easy. however, its far more reasonable for the gop to pivot to a stance that is less inciting but actually mirrors the logic of it being defense and say it would be about merely defense..right now there are both overt and subtle implications of a revolution behind the rhetoric and that really needs to be toned done if they dont want to continue to alienate a vast majority of the populace through this further sullying of their brand. I am in favor of essentially keeping the status quo on gun rights, perhaps doing something that exhibits a bit more caution in regards to background checks and thats about it. I really really dislike hunters but am not intellectually disrespected when they say they want guns under constitutional right to hunt where its legal. Nor am I insulted when individuals want a firearm for personal protection...but this group think movement of mass defense, which will probably lead to more benign militia type civilian groups in the short term (1-5 years), is just outlandish when dressed up with one of the most antiquated interpretations of the constitution thats left.

Perhaps I misunderstood your original point. Are you simply arguing that (right-wing) supporters of gun rights should just switch up their rationale to something that you think makes more sense?

The cop's name was Christopher Dorner.

I simply don't agree with your assessment of the tactical situation at all, except that I agree that these right-wing militias lack the capacity to seize power. But, also keep in mind that they have sympathizers and members in the police and military forces too.

 

[JahFocus CS]

[double post, delete]