The Pro-Gun Movement's Total Disregard for Our Constitution

[SecularMotion]

National Rifle Association (NRA) board member and aged rocker Ted Nugent made national headlines in April when his threats against President Obama and Democrats earned him a visit from the Secret Service. But he has taken recently to uttering another mantra that is equally disturbing and revealing. At a concert in Forth Worth on August 25, Nugent told the crowd, "The whole world sucks. America sucks less." It was at least the fourth time in the last year he's publicly shared this derogatory opinion about the United States.

Nugent's remarks got me thinking about a seldom discussed but critical aspect of the modern pro-gun movement: Its total lack of faith in the system of government established by our Founders in the U.S. Constitution. It is that profound lack of faith -- more than anything -- that is responsible for the insurrectionist ideology ("Second Amendment remedies&quot that fuels the movement.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/josh-horwitz/oh-ye-of-little-faith-the_b_1889553.html

[ileus]

1. Good news is the founders left us with the 2A...

IMHO it's all about providing for the safety of my family.

No one really believes what we see across the globe is going to happen here. We're too civilized for such chaos...


Hopefully we can continue to see more progressive laws allowing for the continued safety of the people.

[Remmah2]

3. The 1A allows piss poor journalist to crap all over the constitution.

It's their prerogative, so be it.

[Remmah2]

2. Bio info on the author.

http://www.csgv.org/about-us/about-josh-horwitz-executive-director

[Indydem]

4. Oh how quickly some forget.

It was a mere 4 years ago that we feared the idiot in power then may refuse to leave office.

Then what will your options be?

We all love Obama and have no fear of his government - but what about the next guy, or the guy after that, or the girl after that?

While it may seem absurd to question the need for an armed resistance with our man in the Whitehouse, the former and the future should instill fear and loathing in our hearts and make us recognize that just because the Founding Fathers instilled a document for "domestic tranquility" does not stop a madman bent on power from sweeping it away, leaving us with a dictator and a real reason for the use of "personal firepower."

[samsingh]

7. i don't think our guns stand a chance against the US military - or even any other meaningful militar

but i guess we all have our fantasies.

[Missycim]

9. I guess you didn't witness the beating we took against IED's and armed insurgents in Iraq.

Thats not mentioning if rebels could get hands on better weapons in case it ever came down to overthrowing a tyrannical govt. Lets face it kiddies nothing lasts forever and this govt wont.

[MercutioATC]

12. Neither did the British in 1775-1776 (nt)

[Clames]

15. You're right.

You didn't think. Not that you have any idea of the capabilities of the US military nor have paid attention to war that's been fought the last 10+ years...

[Reasonable_Argument]

18. There's an old quote

Guerrilla fighters don't win wars, but they often make armies lose them.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

21. Why not trust...

...the opinion of a professional.

"You cannot invade mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind each blade of grass." - Isoroku Yamamoto, Admiral, Imperial Japanese Navy.

[glacierbay]

22. And what makes you think that the military

will turn their guns against american civilians? Some would no doubt, but I predict that most of the armed forces would regard an order to shoot american civilians as an illegal order and refuse to obey it.
How well is civilians standing up to the US military working in Iraq and Afghanistan?
Japan never wanted to invade the mainland US because they knew that there would be a gun behind every blade of grass. During the cold war, a Russian General was asked if it would be feasible to invade the US, his reply was, NYET, because of american private ownership of firearms, it would be a slaughter.

So, the only fantasy is yours.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

24. It is the firearms aspect of our culture...

...that, in part, makes today's member of the US military what he/she is. Sure there are pilots, sonar operators, chaplains and cooks but the core of the military land forces are riflemen trained for battle. To be sure, the world has known many a great military force. From the Spartans to Rhodesian Light Infantry there are numerous groups of warriors through history that did what seemed like it couldn't be done.

It's said of sports teams that it's teamwork that wins the games and coaches who lose them. The same is true in military. Losses are the responsibility of the leadership. Every current and retired serviceman and woman I know are Americans first and team players. Trust me. They won't be shooting their neighbors.

[truebluegreen]

28. Really? "Trust me" is the best you've got?

You have been watching what our militarized police have been up to lately, right? They've shown exemplary behavior towards their fellow citizens in Occupy, or Wisconsin, or any where else dissidents raise their voices, right? Sadly, no: they weren't standing up for their neighbors, they were the servants of TPTB.

And how 'bout the soldiers who were just arrested in Georgia? or wherever for plotting against the president? They murdered at least one fellow serviceman in pursuit of their plan, along with his wife or girlfriend (I don't recall if she was in the service too). Which neighbors were they standing up for?

What about Timothy McVeigh? Retired military, Gulf War I. Oh right, he didn't shoot people, he just blew them up, including a bunch of kids in a day care.

There's plenty more where that came from. But maybe you're right. Maybe they will always stick up for their "neighbors." I guess the problem lies in how they define it.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

31. okay, don't trust me

What should we do different?

[truebluegreen]

40. Sorry--I don't understand your question.

You are asking me what we should do different, when you don't believe there is, or even could be, a problem?

You are right, the US has a deeply-ingrained gun culture. I think it is pointless, and maybe detrimental, to try to change that. But I am not going to say that the best-trained military in the world can't or won't be used against our own citizens, you know, just 'cause.

Standards had to be lowered to make quotas during the Iraq war, too many troops had too many deployments, too much PTSD has been ignored: does that sound like a recipe for trouble? How about the soldiers in and out of uniform who hate the government and/or the President?

What would you do about it?

[gejohnston]

42. What to do about that?

Jefferson had the perfect model, and it works quite well in Switzerland.
No empire, no MIC
Draft every Johnny and Suzy into national service with no deferments. Everyone gets the choice of military or peace corps. Medically disqualified from the military? Peace Corps or other public service choice.

[truebluegreen]

44. Sounds good to me.

I hate the "all-volunteer" military almost as much as I hated the draft (as practiced).

But let me ask you a hypothetical: If the US military will not and cannot be turned against the civilian population, who are all the 2nd amendment defenders going to be defending against? You and others on this thread seem to imply only foreign invaders are the problem. What about internal enemies? And how do you know that the military will line up on the correct side in an internal conflict?

[gejohnston]

46. The Pinkertons, Blackwater.

and 20 years of hanging around people who would be the ones involved.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

52. re: "...I am not going to say that..."

...the best-trained military in the world can't or won't be used against our own citizens..."

There are all kinds of Americans. James Holmes is an American, McVeigh was an American... All I'm saying here is that these folks are not the norm.

Will the federal government ever use its might to oppress the people? Probably, since it already has. I could list instances but we all know them. I don't see such events being pervasive or long maintained.

This sub-thread started with samsingh saying that American civilians don't stand a chance against domestic military might. Myself and others feel differently as we've said. I don't see such an action being backed by a majority of our rank and file military folk.

[truebluegreen]

55. I hope you are right

but I can see a scenario where it would be the case. What worries me is the current separation between the military and the civilian population. Because of the all-volunteer force, the military is not representative of the population as a whole, a result I believe the MIC planned for. If it is not our sons and daughters it is much easier to use them for resource wars or whatever. "They volunteered!"

That, plus the fact that many of them have gone through hell with multiple deployments in Iraq and Afghanistan, means that they can relate better to each other than to civilians. That is not a good thing.

[glacierbay]

33. And you're comparing all police and military service members to

a small minority of police and military members. I can say with some confidence that most police and military, if ordered to fire on american civilians would either refuse or those that did, would be fired upon themselves or taken down.

After Kent State, the military has no stomach for shooting american civilians.

[truebluegreen]

34. Nope. Not true.

Didn't say "all" nor did I mean it.

However, 40 years on, there are still plenty who think the kids had it coming at Kent State.

[glacierbay]

36. Maybe so

but that doesn't change the fact that the US military has no appetite for shooting american civilians.

[gejohnston]

35. McVeigh didn't retire

he did his four years and went off the deep end.

[truebluegreen]

38. Sorry, I mispoke.

[glacierbay]

29. I think that anyone who believes that the US military

would start shooting american civilians have no idea of how the military works and have never served.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

32. Inexperience and lack of knowledge...

...hasn't stop folks from expounding on firearms. Some posts I read convince me that people write from ignorance and have a stubborn belligerence about learning anything from those with firsthand information. People are apparently not shy about passing on unfounded and incorrect information.

[truebluegreen]

37. And historically you would be wrong.

Look at the above-mentioned Kent State. Check out the history of the labor movement.

Are you trying to tell me that in the deeply-divided nation we live in today, this could not be a problem? What about that Homeland Security report that was so hastily buried, saying that SOME ex-military were a potential recruiting population for the right-wing anti-government militias? As I said before, not unlike Timothy McVeigh? Are you going to say Semper Fi again, referring to the likes of him?

Are you trying to tell me that all soldiers always follow orders, and all orders are legal?

Let's make a few more blanket assertions, why don't we?

[glacierbay]

39. Some is a very small minority of the military

I'm curious, have you ever served? Not meant as a call out, just curious.

Military personnel follow legal orders, that was pounded into our heads just as if we strongly believed that an order was illegal, we had the right to refuse to follow it.
The US military, as a whole, will not fire on american civilians, if the govt ordered them to start shooting, most would ignore the orders.
As far as the Labor movement, do you really think that the govt will use the military to put down a Labor strike? In this day and age?
No, they won't and the military would refuse to, that's not their job.

[truebluegreen]

41. No, I have not served.

And I really hope you are right about the US military's adherence to legal orders, and willingness to ignore illegal ones. But, as you say, there are always "some."

And to be frank, I CAN see state governments using the National Guard to put down labor movements, even, maybe especially, in this day and age of attacking all unions. Regular army, etc, probably not.

The militarized police? Definitely. What the F are those people doing with tanks?

[gejohnston]

43. I see the return of the Pinkerton's first.

BTW, many local gun laws in the 1920s was about disarming labor organizers and social justice activists.

[truebluegreen]

45. I think the Pinkertons are already here,

calling themselves Private Security.

And apparently you missed my statement about it being pointless to try to disarm the US.

That said, the NRA isn't friends to anyone except the gun manufacturers. Most of their membership want some kind of controls to keep guns out of the hands of criminals, whack jobs and terrorists. The leadership regards any gun regulation as a slippery slope, and makes a career out of ginning up fears that the government is coming for all our guns. Where do you stand?

[holdencaufield]

47. You fail to realize...

... that this is American and not Libya.

Soldiers in the US do not enjoy special privileges that would encourage them to repress their fellow citizens -- they ARE their fellow citizens. If there ever IS a popular insurrection in the US, you can bet that many in uniform will be joining its ranks.

[truebluegreen]

49. <sigh>

There are at least two sides to everything these days....A "popular insurrection". Would that be progressive or Tea Party? Libertarian? What? How about completing sides, both claiming the title "Of The People"?

What happens then? Who will the military line up with then?

[gejohnston]

51. you mean a Northern Ireland/Iraq

free for all? That will take some serious thought.

[holdencaufield]

54. There are frequently MORE than two sides to everything ...

... these days, there always has been.

One of the disadvantages of the American two-party system is that no matter how big your tent, you can't include every permutation of opinion on every subject.

There are many pro-RKBA Democrats (including myself), there are climate-denier Democrats, there are fiscal conservative Democrats, there are pro-life Democrats. There are Republicans who are pro-choice, support gun control and social programs. There are simply more hot-button issues than there are parties and not everyone from either parties fully accepts their party line.

When I say, "popular insurrection", I don't mean a survivalist compound full of heavily-armed polytheists with 2-years worth of tinned beef, a million rounds of ammunition, and a slightly off-centre version of biblical prophecy. I mean a truly dissatisfied populace from all walks of life who feel a real and present threat from government. A populace so widely-dissatisfied that the urge to fight will transcend party loyalties.

One example I can think of would be fictional scenario where a future US President attempts to dissolve congress and seize supreme power for the Executive Branch. That is the kind of disregard for the Constitution that would unite Democrats and Republicans (hopefully because the Republicans have most of the guns we would need to fight) into a popular insurrection to overthrow that President. Under such a scenario, the military would (initially and nominally) be under the control of that president, but a large percentage of the military would refuse to follow such a path and join with civilian insurrectionists to uphold the Constitutional division of powers.

[4th law of robotics]

59. We're having a hard time enforcing our will on Afghanistan

a tiny country where we have total freedom to act and our soldiers have no compunctions against firing back.

[4th law of robotics]

58. Shhhh

Obama will be president forever. No need to worry about the next guy.

[DWC]

5. If it weren't for our guns

Tea rather than coffee would be our National drink and German would be our National language.

The NRA is not always right, but they are single issue, bipartisan, and right a great deal more than they are wrong

OPs like this just motivate me to contribute more to the NRA.


Semper Fi,

[Starboard Tack]

8. WTF is wrong with tea?

[Missycim]

10. Nothing is wrong with it

you know what he meant, stop being obtuse.

[Starboard Tack]

13. Phew! Good to hear that.

Wouldn't want to think we need a new constitutional amendment establishing a national drink or national language.

Obtuse, moi? And you think your NRA buddies can take on the US government with Glocks and IEDS. I can tell you are a critical thinker.

You are right about one thing - "Nothing lasts forever".

[Missycim]

14. You are right

nothing last forever, restrictions on gun owners will fall eventually.

[oneshooter]

20. Not a thing wrong with tea. I prefer Irish over English anytime.

[glacierbay]

23. I love tea

served hot with a dollop of milk, better than coffee in my opinion.

[Starboard Tack]

60. Chamomile and other herbal infusions are great. But they are not tea.

Calling them tea is sacrilege

[Starboard Tack]

62. Nah! Not worth it.

It's like calling root beer "beer". I'll just have a nice cup of real tea and relax. Aah!

[Starboard Tack]

65. I'm well into cocktail hour now.

[glacierbay]

64. What is your idea of real tea,

and how do you fix it and what do you add?
I assume your British from what I've read, so I'm curious of the British way of serving tea?
Thx.
I know, off topic, but really curious.

[Starboard Tack]

66. A real cuppa!

First, you need a good teapot (ceramic) and a kettle. Just before water comes to a boil, pour some in the teapot and swish it around to warm it. Bring water to a good boil and empty the teapot. Place a tea ball, containing 1 tsp your preferred blend of loose tea, into the teapot and pour in boiling water. If you have a cozy, cover the teapot with said cozy and leave to steep for minimum of 3 minutes. Pour, add sugar and milk to taste.
I normally drink black tea, currently from Kenya (family over there send it) and it is excellent. I sometimes blend it with a light sprinkling of pu'erh tea and mallow flowers (more of an afternoon tea).
Important thing to remember is the water must be boiling, the pot should be preheated and there should be some time for it to steep.

BTW, I usually drink coffee in the morning. Freshly ground Italian espresso roast for a great cappuccino.

[glacierbay]

67. Thx.

I do have the ceramic teapot and a good kettle. We have a pretty good market where I live that carries a variety of teas. I'm going to try it like you have described, it sounds delicious. I like to have a cup of tea in the morning when I get home from work, it helps relax me and helps me sleep.

[truebluegreen]

48. Regarding tea vs coffee

I seem to recall that tomahawks were the tool of choice that night.

And BTW are you aware that the Tea Party was in response to a tax CUT? Just askin'

[gejohnston]

50. response to corporate welfare

the East India Company was the only one to get the tax cut, all other trading companies, UK and Colonial alike, did not. That said, smuggled Dutch tea was popular in the UK as well as the US colony. There was still the issue of "taxation without representation" which not anti tax per se. It was anti being taxed by a parliament that they had no vote in.

[truebluegreen]

56. Bingo.

Just wondered if you knew.

[samsingh]

6. well put

[petronius]

11. Horwitz wants to ignore that 2A *is* one of those constructs of government

that the Founders thought was essential. He's actually doing what he accuses RKBAers of doing, which is a fatal flaw in this otherwise useless 'those-guys-are-soooo-stupid' fluff piece...

[Atypical Liberal]

16. The key sentence in that article:

I find the criticism of Nugent's remarks on par with those against Michelle Obama about “People in this country are ready for change and hungry for a different kind of politics and … for the first time in my adult life I am proud of my country because it feels like hope is finally making a comeback" remarks. No doubt Michelle was proud of the USA before her husband was elected president and this was clearly a reference to how she is even more proud now that America has at least broken through centuries of racism at least enough to see an African-American elected president.

I disagree with Nugent on many things, but I grok the gist of what he is saying about America: It isn't perfect, but in many ways it beats what goes on in much of the rest of the world. (except for things like labor rights, healthcare, etc. etc.)

Anyway. The key sentences in the article were these:

"Pro-gun leaders like NRA CEO Wayne LaPierre would have us believe that "the guys with the guns make the rules" in our democracy. But nothing could be further from the truth. In reality, our Founders ratified the Constitution to obviate the need for political violence."

And yet, the Founders included the second amendment to give the people the ultimate final recourse to security liberty. They created a government that put the military power in the hands of the civilians, and decentralized its command under the states!

Why would they do this if they had complete trust of the entity they were creating? The answer is simple: They didn't.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

68. comprehending a belief system

Religion and politics are two topics that don't mix well in discussion but they do share some common ground. In religion, when a believer dissents from an accepted belief or doctrine, he is called a heretic. The thing about heresy is that whether political or religious, is that it originates from a fundamental defect/misunderstanding of the nature and source of the belief system.

Horwitz, who wrote this article has either deliberately ignored or consciously denied two serious contradictions. The one, mentioned elsewhere in this thread, that 2A is also part of the Constitution can be explained by the common collectivist view. However, the fact is that this country predates the Constitution and was founded by the Declaration of Independence. The Constitution founded the current federal government not the country.

The Declaration gives the reason for our country's existence:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

(emphasis is mine)

In their wisdom the Founders recognized the need for the Constitution to change. They provided for that in Article Five. During the Constitutional Convention representatives for many states brought up the need for a Bill of Rights and required that a Bill of Rights be added to Constitution. This was the first use of the Article Five provisions and probably most important change to the Constitution. The Bill of Rights does a number of things but the one relevant to this topic is in the 2A. This amendment provides a second method for changing the government and had the Founders not thought that right so important, it would not have been among those clearly protected.

Adding to this misunderstanding we have this gem from Mr Horwitz:

"...the Framers knew it (liberty) could only be safeguarded if a robust government was in place to arbitrate private disputes and guarantee that each citizen has an equal voice..."

This sums up my thoughts on Huffington's heretic: The Founders knew that the principle danger to liberty was from the government. No other message comes through so loud and clear. British oppression prompted the founding of the US. What the hell could be so wrong with someone that they couldn't see that?

[Atypical Liberal]

69. They just think such a thing could no longer happen.

British oppression prompted the founding of the US. What the hell could be so wrong with someone that they couldn't see that?

Look at all the posts here of people saying that armed rebellion is impossible or not feasible today, and that such notions are obsolete.

There are lots of people who truly believe that we have arrived at the pinnacle of representative government.

When you have people running for office who consider half the country not worthy of worrying about, how could anyone believe that?

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

70. It's said...

...that in Klingon elections they don't just count heads but also weigh them. I'd suggest Romney's plan is to just weigh your wallet. Carrying too little weight would have a double meaning.

This is not without precedent, there was another time when half the population didn't matter as much as the other half. IIRC they mattered about 3/5ths as much.

[rl6214]

17. Opinions are like assholes, everyones got one and Nugent is an asshole

But really, Josh Horowitz as a source?

With him as a source the entire story goes

[Reasonable_Argument]

19. Talk about bias

Our founders believed the government was of the people. They also had an inherent distrust of power and believed in checks and balances, as is show in every part of our government. Without delving into quotes. The 2nd amendment is the last check to power. I think too many of my fellow liberals look at the "castle" we've built and marvel at it. Forgetting, that should the foundations of the castle rot the people must have the tools to tear it down to build a better one. Our founders understood that, but it's a lesson that many seem to have forgotten in their current comfort.

[truebluegreen]

30. Just for fun...

try reading Article I, Section 8, Enumerated Powers.

I'll give you a hint: the "well-regulated militia" was not intended as the last defense against the government, it was intended as the defense OF the government, since there was to be no standing army.

[Reasonable_Argument]

53. Because they distrusted a standing army

Which they felt would lead to tyranny.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

26. twisted logic.

Pretzels. yummy!

[tama]

27. I'm a pacifist

but I understand Jefferson's caution against standing army.

[4th law of robotics]

57. Isn't the adherence to any rights a sign of lack of faith in the government?

We don't have the first amendment enshrined in law because we trust the government not to interfere with our freedom of expression if given the opportunity.