"Gun Rights" and Political Violence

"Gun Rights" and Political Violence

Brady Center Vice President and Author of "Lethal Logic"
Posted: April 8, 2010 02:00 PM

It is too easy for politicians and political commentators to treat our increasingly incendiary political atmosphere as a product merely of disparate extremist individuals and groups on the fringes of our political system. Treating the problem as the product of a relatively few misguided individuals with bizarre violent fantasies misses a far more troubling reality. What we are seeing is the acting out of an ideology of violence as a tool of political power that has long had a home on the American right - particularly in the "gun rights" movement dominated by the National Rifle Association.

The central theme of that ideology is that the meaning of the "right of the people to keep and bear arms" in the Second Amendment is not limited to private self-defense or hunting, but far more importantly includes the potential for an armed citizenry to resist the government. According to this view, the Second Amendment deters government overreaching by creating an ever-present threat of violent resistance. Some years ago, an NRA official put it this way, "the Second Amendment . . . is literally a loaded gun in the hands of the people held to the heads of government."

Echoes of the NRA's insurrectionist rhetoric can be heard from the leaders of the gun activists who plan to converge on Washington, D.C. on April 19, a date with great emotional resonance for the "gun rights" movement and, for different reasons, for the rest of us. It is both the anniversary of Lexington/Concord and of the tragic federal assault on the David Koresh compound in Waco, Texas in 1993. It also is the anniversary of what was, to that date, the worst terrorist attack in U.S. history - Timothy McVeigh's 1995 bombing of the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City. McVeigh, as we know now, saw himself as the embodiment of the Second Amendment right to use violence against government overreaching - for him, the Waco tragedy was evidence of government "tyranny" sufficient to justify insurrection. Consider now the words of Skip Coryell, the founder of the Second Amendment March set for April 19 in the Nation's Capital, as he justifies threats of armed force against elected officials:

"We the people have been exercising our First Amendment right to the hilt. We're screaming! We're protesting! We're faxing! We're phoning and marching and yelling....But still...they ignore us....There are a lot of people out there like me who will no longer tolerate the arrogance of politicians who ignore us....And here's the million-dollar question: What happens if the First Amendment fails?...When the government ignores the First Amendment, it is time to rattle the Second Amendment sabers...As long as our elected officials believe we will rise up and overthrow them under certain conditions, then they will not allow those conditions to occur. Their jobs and their very lives depend on it."

In other words, if we use the First Amendment to try to persuade our elected officials to our point of view, and we fail, then it's time to resort to the Second Amendment - that is, to threaten violence. And, ultimately, to use violence.

This is right out of the NRA's playbook. Last year, NRA Executive Director Wayne LaPierre explained it in chilling terms to the wild cheers of the Conservative Political Action Conference. According to LaPierre, when it comes down to it, the only freedom that really counts is the right to be armed - without it, "liberty is but an illusion." In the NRA's world, we are free only to the extent that our guns allow us to impose our will on others. Here are LaPierre's words:

"Our divine rights, they might have been endowed by a Creator, but they are preserved by mortals, if we mortals have the means and the will to make it stick....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."

It is worth pausing to reflect on that phrase: "The guys with the guns make the rules." In the NRA's distortion of democracy, the rules we live by are not ultimately the result of our collective decision-making, made through our elected representatives, after we have had a fair opportunity to exercise our First Amendment right to be heard. Ultimately, the rules are made by those who are more powerful than the rest of us because they are armed.

With manufactured outrage, the NRA will deny that it condones violence or that it is "responsible" for the violent acts of others. What it cannot deny is that it has long been the most powerful purveyor of an ideology that legitimizes violence, and the threat of violence, as a tool of political power. And, after Oklahoma City, none of us can hide from the foreseeable, and perhaps inevitable, consequences of that ideology

Hmm .....

[BOP]

Originally Posted by EmptyTimCup

Hmm .....

And the problem with an armed citizenry would be...?

[aps45819]

Originally Posted by EmptyTimCup

In other words, if we use the First Amendment to try to persuade our elected officials to our point of view, and we fail, then it's time to resort to the Second Amendment - that is, to threaten violence. And, ultimately, to use violence.

This is right out of the NRA's playbook. Last year, NRA Executive Director Wayne LaPierre explained it in chilling terms to the wild cheers of the Conservative Political Action Conference. According to LaPierre, when it comes down to it, the only freedom that really counts is the right to be armed - without it, "liberty is but an illusion." In the NRA's world, we are free only to the extent that our guns allow us to impose our will on others. Here are LaPierre's words:

"Our divine rights, they might have been endowed by a Creator, but they are preserved by mortals, if we mortals have the means and the will to make it stick....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 writer should read some history, the rules have always been made by the guy with the guns

[DEEKAYPEE8569]

Originally Posted by BOP

And the problem with an armed citizenry would be...?

Not a d*mn thing. Even in our little town. It would be nice if we could try it; like trying a new recipe. If the soup tastes good, eat the whole pot.
Grant all applicants a CCW that pass a background check; and the society will change. WHY? Because the crimininals would either think twice before committing a crime or wind up shot, or worse.

I'll reference Tennessee again.....how many instances of crimes like robberies, muggings or car-jackings do you hear about down there? Not as many as you do here.

Originally Posted by BOP

And the problem with an armed citizenry would be...?

As a Gun owner, I have no problems with Armed Citizenry .....


I was tempering my response until I saw how others would respond ..... I do not want to be the only radical in the room


Mr Liberal needs to check the History books and read up on Jefferson.

Gun Ownership is the only way to remove a repressive Government, through Armed Rebellion .....


One Man's Terrorist, is Another Man's Freedom Fighter .....


I am sure that is what the Colonials would have been called in the Revolutionary was was fought in 1976 instead of 1776 .....

[Larry Gude (Premo)]

Originally Posted by aps45819

The writer should read some history, the rules have always been made by the guy with the guns

We live in an age of intellectual disconnect.

"Our divine rights, they might have been endowed by a Creator, but they are preserved by mortals, if we mortals have the means and the will to make it stick....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."

I have yet to hear anyone on the left discuss the issues that have agitated and animated folks in the middle and on the right in terms of whether or not
freedom is actually being taken from them and, naturally, what they may do about it.

Is there too much spending? Is there too much government? Is freedom and liberty being taken, unconstitutionally, from the people? At most, the media will mention that Bush got his way or spent more or expanded government, too, not whether what he did was right or wrong. Obviously, people didn't just suddenly get angry January 2009. This has been brewing and THAT discussion does not happen.

[glhs837]

This is right out of the NRA's playbook. Last year, NRA Executive Director Wayne LaPierre explained it in chilling terms to the wild cheers of the Conservative Political Action Conference. According to LaPierre, when it comes down to it, the only freedom that really counts is the right to be armed - without it, "liberty is but an illusion." In the NRA's world, we are free only to the extent that our guns allow us to impose our will on others.

Heres the disconnect right here. He doesnt understand its this way...

In the NRA's world, we are free only to the extent that our guns allow us to prevent the imposition of others will on us in violation of the Constitution.

Just like the founders used weapons to take the power of the Crown to impose its will on the colonists, then created a government designed so well that it not only has provided freedom for its citizens for over 200 years, but has used weapons to return freedom to millions of folks who might never had the chance to regain it themselves, but also to millions who never had it in the first place.

Now see, I, who would really need to hear the stomp of jackboots in the street before I would ever consider picking up a weapon, have to sound like I'm filling molotovs just to get the point across. These guys are good. You cant debate them without giving them ammunition against you.

[Larry Gude (Premo)]

Originally Posted by EmptyTimCup

Gun Ownership is the only way to remove a repressive Government, through Armed Rebellion .....

That's not the only way. We can vote people out of office who have gone to far. We just need to define who and what we want and stick to it. It's not enough to reduce Pelosi and Reid and Obama's advantage in votes. Hopefully, the new folks will be a good bit more attentive to their oath of office than of late.

[Larry Gude (Premo)]

Originally Posted by glhs837

Heres the disconnect right here. He doesnt understand its this way...

In the NRA's world, we are free only to the extent that our guns allow us to prevent the imposition of others will on us in violation of the Constitution.

Just like the founders used weapons to take the power of the Crown to impose its will on the colonists, then created a government designed so well that it not only has provided freedom for its citizens for over 200 years, but has used weapons to return freedom to millions of folks who might never had the chance to regain it themselves, but also to millions who never had it in the first place.

[Larry Gude (Premo)]

Originally Posted by glhs837

Now see, I, who would really need to hear the stomp of jackboots in the street before I would ever consider picking up a weapon, have to sound like I'm filling molotovs just to get the point across. These guys are good. You cant debate them without giving them ammunition against you.

I disagree. If you voted for many of the problems, the policies that went too far, you will have a tough time and be on the spot the whole time; Les Evil.

Plenty of people have no problem taking exception to Obama and Bush without sounding like Tim McVeigh. Those are the people who understand that Les Evil is still Evil and understand the issues not in terms of win and lose but, in terms of right and wrong and act accordingly. We need MORE of them folks.