"Head shots, head shots."

[WilliamPitt]

"Now if the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms comes to disarm you and they are bearing arms, resist them with arms. Go for a head shot; they're going to be wearing bulletproof vests. They've got a big target on there, 'ATF.' Don't shoot at that, because they've got a vest on underneath that. Head shots, head shots. Kill the sons of bitches."

-- G. Gordon Liddy, on broadcast radio, 26 August 1994

Dear right-wing moral outrage people: fornicate yourself with an iron rod.

Sincerely,

Me

[riqster]

1. Kick and Rec.

[KittyWampus]

2. Two words- "Southern Strategy". Republicans have intentionally stoked racist hatred for decades.

In RL, Facebook and forums I just use those two words and that simple fact.

The Republicans have encouraged, fostered and used racism to their advantage for a very long time now.

They should be forced to admit it. Oh, and WEAR IT.

[Bluenorthwest]

3. G. Gordon Liddy, of the Nixon administration.

Lately many on DU claim that Republicans back then were really moderate and smart and loving people who sought only to enhance the quality of life for minorities and the poor and the middle class. I strongly disagree with them.

[ColesCountyDem]

5. Republicans back then appeared to be moderate, only because today's GOP is batshit crazy! n/t

[daleanime]

10. +1

[George II]

14. Yes, it is a comparative description. Back then no one was saying they were "moderate", but...

...compared today many of them back then could almost be considered "liberal"!

[KingCharlemagne]

24. This is not an apologia for Tricky Dick's admin but, IIRC, Nixon, Haldemann and

Erlichmann all thought Liddy was a whack-job. (I think he may have been one of Chuck Colson's cadre but it's been awhile since I've studied the period.)

But I appreciate the point you're making here. The political spectrum (aka the "Overton Window&quot has shifted so far rightward that it can give the appearance that Tricky Dick was a 'liberal' when the reality is that he was anything but. Take a look at the 'Southern Strategy' or his so-called 'Secret Plan' to end the war in Vietnam during campaign '68 and the nostalgia soon fades away.

[Maedhros]

32. I think the takeaway isn't that Nixon was a Liberal,

but those Democrats who now govern from positions to Nixon's right are NOT Liberals.

[liberalhistorian]

48. If I remember correctly,

I think Liddy was actually brought in by Jeb Magruder, who was only a few shades less of batshit nuts than Liddy. I read Liddy's autobiography about twenty years ago (it was fascinating in a rubbernecking car accident kinda way) and was amazed at how open he was with his batshittery. Not just open, but proud, loud and would do it all again with no question. He actually talked about plans he and Magruder had for killing the columnist Jack Anderson after Anderson wrote anti-Nixon columns; he didn't think there was anything wrong with that because it was "for the good of the country as a whole" and "Anderson was an unpatriotic danger", yaddayaddayadda. The funny thing was that Liddy himself was an ex-FBI agent and there was a time when HE could have been the one staring down the gun barrel of an angry anti-government freakball being incited and whipped into a frenzy.

Apparently everyone except Magruder saw Liddy's batshittery, but ultimately had no problem with it because it enabled them to carry out their dirty work (which he happily did with no questions and, as he makes clear in his autobiography, he never had any remorse, never saw anything wrong with what he did and would do it again, again "for the good of the country", and his nutball wife and children feel the same way) without getting their own hands dirty. He was willing to do what they wanted done but didn't have the guts to actually do themselves.

And George Gordon Battle Liddy is still as fucking fruity as they come. How dare the RW get their knickers in a knot with this false "outrage" when their incitement and rhetoric has been responsible for a lot of blood on their hands, including of law enforcement (Waco, Oklahoma City, most recently the shooting of the Nevada policemen, etc.).

[hifiguy]

69. You are so correct in every particular.

The difference being that Magruder crumbled like a popcorn ball when the heat was turned up. Liddy just dug in his heels, as nutty as ever. Haldeman, Ehrlichman and Dean thought Liddy was barking at the moon nuts. So did Nixon after Tricky Dick found out about him.

[love_katz]

38. I'm with you, BlueNW

Some of us remember Tricky Dicky.

And, Barry Goldwater...

And how us Dirty Fuck!ing Hippies were reviled and hated (and shot...remember Kent State).

Wrong wing pukes have always been pukes.

[NBachers]

41. Richard Nixon jerked and twitched his way across our bruised psyche like a grotesque marionette.

[Feral Child]

63. Nixon was the 1st elected Dominionist.

Eisenhower marks the last of the old GOP, when they were greedy but not batshit. I think he actually realized that the Upper Class needs a strong middle class, because they're the consumers that keep the rich rich.

Ike promoted civil rights for AAs, at least to a degree. He detested Nixon, his 2nd VP. That was when he warned us of the MIC.

Nixon's administration marked the end of the GOP, now it's wholly owned by Dominionists.

I remember rejoicing when he got caught. I thought the Republicans were finished. But, Carter got one term and was set up by the Iran hostage situation. Reagan followed and we've been fucked ever since. I still think that the attempted assassination of Reagan was a Bush Cartel hit. They got impatient with Ronnie's 55 mph speed limit, wasn't consuming oil fast enough. Ronnie was getting senile and wasn't advancing the Middle East conflict fast enough to suit the Bush's timetable. If Bush I hadn't told that Gold Star mother to sit down and shut-up in public...

Yes, we got Clinton, and Bill did some good things, but so did Ike. I consider the Clintons to be Eisenhower-Republicans. That's what our party has become. Our country is moving steadily to the right.

The GOP is determined to overthrow the Constitution and drive us ever farther into Corporate Feudalism.

[hifiguy]

68. Nixon was many rotten things, but I assure you

a Dominionist he was not He wasn't even much of a Quaker, much less a freaking Dominionist. People want to compare and contrast Nixon to today's Repukes and it doesn't hold up. Nixon was a sleazy ward-heeler type who managed to make it to the presidency. He had the ethics of a hyena and the personal style of a poison toad, it is true, but his demons were all personal. He wanted to take down the "Eastern Establishment" types he had always been jealous of and whom he perceived as keeping him down because he was from a poor California background and not a Harvard or Yale type.

Nixon never spent two seconds thinking about how to undo the New Deal. He learned from Ike what a stupid idea that would be and took it to heart - remember, Ike expanded Social Security - and was not a stupid man; Nixon was never driven by ideology, only by opportunism.

Believe me, I know my Nixon and have read dozens of books about him and his presidecy.

[Feral Child]

81. OK.

We'll have to disagree, and I won't spend 2 seconds to rebut you.

I never said Nixon was competent. Reagan wasn't competent, nor was either Bush. But they all had, have, an agenda. A shared agenda to destroy the middle class, and pervert the Constitution.

[hifiguy]

67. To be fair, I just read John Dean's "The Nixon Defense"

and virtually everyone inside the Nixon WH, including Nixon, though Liddy was crazier than a needle-dicked bug-fucker, to borrow one of Harlan Ellison's more pungent expressions. It's all there on the thousands of hours of tapes Dean reviewed for the book. They hired him to do "campaign intelligence" and he responded with crazed James Bond shit that nearly got him laughed off the campaign in 1972. But they let him loose on a more limited scale, without knowing what he intended to do, and the rest is history.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

4. Thankfully, no one of importance wants to deprive Americans of their fundamental RKBA so

this knucklehead's advice will go untested in this regard.

However, if some authority were to attempt to deprive people of other fundamental rights, their lives, their liberty or their property in a tactical sense I suppose it probably remains sound. Imagine if the Civil rights movement was playing out in this day and age of militarized police when the Klan was the police (and judges and politicians). Imagine the labor movement trying organize in the face of armed strike breakers, only instead of the Pinkerton agency it's Blackwater. Imagine the battle of Athens, TN versus cops bedecked in the excesses of the Ferguson PD.

[BrotherIvan]

7. Ah yes, "no one of importance" wants meaningful gun control

and the fantasy of an armed insurrection - Revolutionary War style. Those two lies have been sold by the NRA and others for far too long. Unfortunately, just like religious fanatics, they love to see other people die to prove their faith. Enough.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

13. I didn't say anything against "meaningful gun control" (though my definition my differ from yours)

I rejected Mr. Liddy's characterization that a general confiscation is in the offing.

the fantasy of an armed insurrection - Revolutionary War style.

The Revolutionary War was just a dream? Are we in the Matrix?

Those two lies

I cited 3 examples of people defending themselves from the abuses of authority.

[ieoeja]

50. "The Revolutionary War was just a dream?" In response to "fantasy of a RW style insurrection".

Revolutionary War Americans vs British:

- cannon vs cannon
- horse vs horse
- muskets and rifles (revolutionaries actually had superior firearms) vs muskets


Fantasy Revolutionary War style vs United States:

- IEDs vs artillery, drones, jets, bombers and cruise missiles
- armored personnel carriers vs tanks and helicopters
- firearms vs firearms


Are the two really comparable?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

52. Do you believe the Iraq insurgency could be suppressed?

Because, near as I can tell the US military brought its every resource to bear against an insurgency that never numbered more than a couple dozen thousand in an area that was at best the size of a single mid-sized state. I also have doubts that this (presumably fictional) tyrant would enjoy the solidarity within the ranks that accompanied the fight against Saddam and, in turn, the violent jihadists.

However, I find this to be the most curious of all arguments. It assumes a government willing to unleash every weapon of war against the populace -- and then begs the populace to disarm lest this (presumably fictional) tyrant be roused in his anger. Any person that would unleash tanks and bombers against Americans in their own homes is exactly the sort of bastard who needs to know there are 100 million guns out there -- somewhere.

I hope you won't feign naiveté to suggest the government should be implicitly trusted in all things. The Klan holding offices within the police and government before setting out to lynch Americans, Pinkertons deputized to break strikes and violent corruption in Athens, Tennessee are all stark examples of when government has become the enemy of the people -- and the people went on to successfully defended themselves. True, tanks and bombers weren't employed in these instances but then it never came to such extremes because it quickly became apparent such a cost was higher than the not-so-fictional tyrants were willing to pay.

After all, there are a hundred million guns out there -- somewhere.

[ieoeja]

53. Of course it could be suppressed!

Local insurgencies are suppressed all the time. Saddam had absolutely no difficulty suppressing insurgencies.

Likewise, our government would have no problem suppressing an insurgency here.

I can't even believe you asked that question.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

54. So, Saddam could suppress an insurgency but the US would not.

Do you want our national leaders to be more like Saddam? Is this where gun control seeks its validation?

(Not that Saddam every contended with a potentially fractured military and 100 million armed citizens spread across a land mass the size of the continental US.)

Just when I think the gun control arguments couldn't get any weirder.

[ieoeja]

55. No, I don't want them to. But you're rather naive to think they wouldn't.

And this has nothing to do with justifying gun control. It has to do with debunking a poor pro-gun argument.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

56. I'm still at a loss to understand how the proper response to a Saddam-esque

domestic reign of terror is disarming the populace. The only ones who could possibly benefit would be the State.

[ieoeja]

71. I don't know. Maybe you should be talking to someone who is suggesting that.

You equated the Revolutionary War to a theoretical rebellion today.

I pointed out that, technologically, the two sides were roughly equal in the RW, but would be nowhere near so today.

You equated a foreign occupation with a domestic rebellion.

I pointed out the fallacy of comparing the two. Which, by the way, is also true of the Revolution given that the British military was NOT made a local colonial force under local government control fighting on their own soil for their own homes and lives, but rather an occupation force from overseas.

Now you're talking about something that seems to have come out of nowhere. I say wait til next century. Chicago Cubs are going to kick ass then!

[Nuclear Unicorn]

84. "You equated the Revolutionary War to a theoretical rebellion today."

I did no such thing. I cited 3 historical examples of the people employing their RKBA to protect themselves from the abuse of civil authority: African Americans protecting themselves against the Klan, labor organizers protecting themselves against armed strike breakers and the battle of Athens, TN.

You equated a foreign occupation with a domestic rebellion.

Yes, for the purpose of noting the US is geographically far more expansive and diverse than the geography of Iraq, it is twelve times more populated and there would be no guarantee the military would be as unified as in Iraq (assuming any would heed orders to suppress a significantly popular uprising. I've learned US soldiers don't really consider themselves different from the people they serve).

I pointed out the fallacy of comparing the two. Which, by the way, is also true of the Revolution

You pointed out the differences in the example YOU provided for YOUR argument, not mine. Again, I made no mention of the Revolutionary War, you did. I cited my 3 domestic examples plus Iraq.

Now you're talking about something that seems to have come out of nowhere. I say wait til next century. Chicago Cubs are going to kick ass then!

No. I'm addressing the penchant for those who reject the RKBA to claim modern war is too difficult so keeping the RKBA on the pretense of fending-off an illegitimate government is futile. The only conclusion that can be drawn from such statements is: We might as well dispense with the RKBA and pray for merciful masters.

If memory serves from past conversations you do not affirm the right of the people to own guns. Now, here you are arguing about the futility of resistance to an illegitimate government. Perhaps you are not attempting to bridge those arguments and these positions are merely accidental and coincidental to your mind. Or perhaps not and you are simply reluctant to admit it because the implications for such thoughts speaks to a potentially timid and servile nature.

[tblue37]

75. Syria's rebels and its government have managed only to wreck the country

and kill innumerable citizens. Look at Baghdad in 2000 and today. All we created was rubble and ruin. The US military couldn't defeat the insurgency, but the insurgent fighters were not able to do anything toward establishing a government, and the "government" the US stuck in there is no government at all.

If we end up with a revolution of any sort, we will have desperate conditions like those in Syria and Iraq, and hundreds of thousands--or even a few million--dead to show for it.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

82. Should we then accept whatever Fate or the designs of the greedy and cruel people provides us?

[sendero]

60. Only because they were localized.

.... the idea that the military could stop a widespread insurrection is ludicrous. Can't even tame a rag tag group like the Taliban. Give me a break.

[ieoeja]

70. So you're saying the United States military is not local to the United States?

I think you're replying to the wrong poster. The previous poster tried conflating our difficulty suppressing an insurrection as an outside occupying force to our ability to suppress an insurrection right here in the United States.

To keep it an apples-to-apples comparison, I pointed out that a, to use your word, localized government had been quite successful at suppressing insurrections in Iraq.

You seem to be saying I am correct in changing it to localized suppression. I'll put your snark down to confusion cuased by the previous poster's attempt to equate localized with non-localized.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

83. I understood his use of the term "localized" to mean "geographically confined."

[Pholus]

58. Imagine the Gadsen flag draped across those Las Vegas policemen.

I am personally sick and tired of having to deal with the aftermath of unhinged right wing morons and their obsession with "overthrowing tyrannical governments."

Call it what it is -- mental illness.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

61. That is not the sole expression of the RKBA.

As I have repeatedly noted people have defended themselves from Klansmen who were the local government, armed strike breakers given legal cover and elsewhere.

The RW does not have a monopoly to define the RKBA -- unless you want them to but I can't imagine any other rights being consigned to them for their sole interpretation.

[Pholus]

64. I pretty much don't see the use in having non right wing RKBA types about.

Last edited Tue Dec 23, 2014, 04:45 PM - Edit history (2)

I mean, how would it have worked a couple years back to hear a few of you guys say: "Hey fellow gun enthusiasts can't you see that carrying a semiautomatic rifle into Chipotle really isn't responsible or safe. Can you please exercise some self restraint cause you really ain't looking too sane?"

Even the fricking NRA did that for like 30 seconds until they caved....and certainly I would expect liberal RKBA'ers to have slightly more moral fiber than the NRA.

But no! Complete and utter silence from you guys. So the "Gun Grabbers" do the heavy lifting and the issue ONCE AGAIN becomes media shorthanded into "Gun Grabbers" vs "RKBA" and common sense gets tossed to the curb because nobody can approach this from the idea that guns ARE a complicated issue that might require compromise.

So to your point: When the RW are the only ones vocally making interpretations on RKBA and owning the issue does it REALLY matter if non-RW RKBA types actually exist out there?

Nope. Not one bit. Because there is zero difference between "nonexistent" and "completely useless and spineless."

[Nuclear Unicorn]

65. You're claiming your failure to see such statements is the end-all be-all of reality.

You would be wrong, as DU's own RKBA forum has repeatedly demonstrated.

[Pholus]

66. Hmmm, what is the usual thing to say about that?

Oh yeah, "It's easy to be brave in cyberspace." When I see a real world debate between a liberal gun owner and a RW gun owner about guns -- anywhere other than online -- I'll upgrade my opinion from "useless and spineless to boot."

Hell, *I* go shooting with friends as a self-identified liberal and in several years I am still the only one to be found on that range.

So RKBA liberals and pink unicorns seem to be just about as common in the real world. Either that or the RKBA liberals are soooo scared about pissing off the RW'ers that they are "Heinlein polite" to a fault.

[HoosierCowboy]

6. Law Enforcement people

Are working stiffs just like everybody else. They have families and they belong to unions. They have one inconvenient duty, they are sworn to uphold the law.
Police are reviled because they have to enforce unpopular laws. They didn't make the laws and if they would have their way we'd be back to the days of Sheriff Andy and Deputy Barney

Most of those unpopular laws do not have the consent of governed because the governed had no part in making them....

.....and that issue is the one that most needs discussion. Not how to shoot an ATF guy in the head.

[workinclasszero]

8. Like the law against selling cigarettes on the street in NYC?

Where the cops were judge, jury and executioner? Didn't know that carried an auto death sentence wow.

Or are we talking about the law?? against playing with toy guns in public when black which is also an automatic death sentence carried out by the enforcement arm of the 1% while white people parade around with real loaded assault rifles all the damn time and the cops do nothing to them?

I'm confused I guess.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

12. "if they would have their way we'd be back to the days of Sheriff Andy and Deputy Barney"

Bull fucking shit.

NY cops are all ready squawking about reducing marijuana laws. How else are they going to make illegal searches if they can't go sniff sniff " I detected the odor of cannabis"

[BobbyBoring]

17. Andy and Barney?

If a lot of them had their way, we'd be back to the days of Wyatt Earp where justice is instant. They would still want body armor.

[blackspade]

20. Upholding the law?

So all of the assaults, sodomizing, theft, and murders are just done by working stiffs?

Police are not reviled because of the laws that they uphold.
They are reviled because of how they do their jobs.

[BeanMusical]

23. +1 n/t

[AgingAmerican]

42. So the cops assault, harass and murder people

...because the laws they uphold are unpopular? Seriously?

I believe you are dead wrong sir.

[Thespian2]

9. I'm not sure

but I think being completely evil and being a rwnj is a sure path to wealth and influence. G. Gordon is a very good example of this Republican process. The best examples include Kissinger, Baker, Reagan, G. H. W. Bush, G. W. Bush, Ollie North, Rumsfeld, Rice, all the authors of PNC, including Jeb Bush, and, of course, the supreme leader of all that is evil, Dick Cheney. Making a list of evil bastards is getting harder and harder, and longer and longer.

RWNJs, please follow the sage advice given you by WilliamPitt in this OP.

[SHRED]

11. And this...

[niyad]

15. k and r for visibility. I had forgotten this little bit of insanity.

[L0oniX]

16. ...A searing red hot iron rod.

Dear right-wing moral outrage people: fornicate yourself with an iron rod.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

19. ......sideways.

[L0oniX]

21. ....rotating.

Dear right-wing moral outrage people: fornicate yourself with an iron rod.

[BeanMusical]

22. ...at 15,000 rpm

[L0oniX]

26. ...and jack hammered.

[JEB]

44. With barbs on it.

[L0oniX]

46. Powdered with shards of glass, salt and Habanero hot sauce.

[hifiguy]

85. To hell with that.

Ghost pepper extract.

[L0oniX]

86. Now you've really gone too far!

[lastlib]

28. ...not less than six inches in diameter

.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

31. Thus explaining my old sig....

Back in the day during what was a never ending flame war.

"You done yet?"

[blackspade]

18. exactly right.

[malaise]

25. And don't forget what went down at the Bundy ranch earlier this year

and the killing of two cops by persons who were at that ranch attacking Federal agents.

[maced666]

27. So police enforcement gets it from all sides.

Yea, we already knew that.

[KingCharlemagne]

29. That is so openly an incitement to violence that it staggers the mind that

Liddy was not brought up on charges.

N.B. The First Amendments does not extend to speech that incites imminent violence, per SCOTUS Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969).

[kelly1mm]

30. Does not meet the 'imminent' prong of Brandennburg.

"Now if the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms comes to disarm you and they are bearing arms"

Is kind of an 'if -then' statement.

If he was saying this while armed ATF agents were approaching the position, then it would be incitement.

But, barring that, this does not meet the Brandenburg test.

[KingCharlemagne]

33. There's a damned good reason I should not be dispensing legal advice and you

have deftly illustrated it!

Your annotation is much appreciated and I stand corrected (I think). I was keying off the imperative "Kill the sons of bitches" without taking into consideration the conditional context in which it resides.

Thanks again.

[kelly1mm]

34. Oh it is just my opinion, and I certainly am no SC justice so my opinion does not

really matter! He was an asshat to say that though! I think we can agree with that.

Imminence is the hardest thing to prove in the Brandenburg test as it is conditional to outside facts and ultimately subjective. You made the same mistake (maybe not even a mistake?) that lots of lawyers make every day.

[BeanMusical]

35. Too bad that this scumbag's 20 years sentence was reduced to 8 by President Carter.

And that he only served a total of four and a half years of actual incarceration. I guess that for some, crime does pay.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G._Gordon_Liddy#Watergate_burglaries

[WilliamPitt]

36. Joe Cocker is dead.

Liddy lives on.

Go figure.

[AngryDem001]

49. So does Darth Cheney

and so many other evil scumbags.

[winterwar]

37. Good job

They can always use a reminder of the shit bags they have in their ranks.

[marym625]

39. I suspect some of them would find that enjoyable

[baldguy]

40. With a glowing cherry red hot iron rod

[Omnith]

43. This guy gets it. nt

[MH1]

59. Which guy? Pitt or Liddy? nt

[maced666]

45. "Today is the worst day of My life," Jaden Ramos, 13

http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2014/dec/21/jaden-ramos-racebook/

[Reter]

47. Right-wingers like cops but hate feds

Especially ATF or IRS agents. I honestly don't see any inconsistency. They hate federal laws, so they hate feds. They love states rights, so they love local police. Not defending this viewpoint, but it is consistent, like it or not.

[shaayecanaan]

57. But they love the military

and every dollar of the $500 billion in federal funding it entails.

[jmowreader]

51. Following this advice will get you killed quick

If you even LOOK like you're fixin' to shoot an ATF agent, his battle buddy will put three rounds in your center of mass so fucking quick you won't have time to get your gun into firing position.

[Rex]

72. I guess Clive Bundy is lucky they didn't send in the ATF.

Might have been an entirely different outcome.

[ieoeja]

74. Very likely it would have. Think Waco and Ruby Ridge.

Bundy's Bunch was taking on the Bureau of Land Management. I can hear the rallying call now:

First the BLM! Then HUD and HHS! We won't stop until every clerk, accountant and secretary has been crushed!

[jmowreader]

87. Clive "Ted's little brother" Bundy is a special case

The government knew that place was a ticking time bomb that couldn't be defused...the safest thing to do is put a lead blanket on it and retreat to a safe distance.

If I was the president, I would have found an agency that's (1) authorized to deal with civilian law enforcement and (2) equipped with high-res cameras, and sent them to Nevada.

[Rex]

88. We spend billions on the DHS, but nobody ever brought it up that I remember.

I would think the DHS would handle special cases? They sure do love to hang around OWS rallies.

[Jester Messiah]

62. What it really goes to show...

is that right-wingers really don't like it when they aren't the only ones with guns and the will to fire them. Kind of like they don't enjoy it when their "religious freedom" laws apply to religions other than theirs. "Freedom for me but not for thee" ought to be their motto.

[Octafish]

73. Bullethead Kapitan Amerika knows what he's talking about.

[WilliamPitt]

80. Thanks, Oc. You just killed my brain.

It's the sandals that make this art, really.