Just like the more passionate James Yeager in his retraction video, this guy keeps saying "it's not time yet." This obviously indicates that he believes the time is coming, despite all his qualifiers to the contrary. I sent him the Jack-Boots because my remarks there apply perfectly.
Every true freedom-loving, second-amendment-supporting, patriotic American gun owner's worst nightmare.
I am curious if he knew that the founders had couple of different ideas of what constituted tyranny:
ReplyDelete1) the establishment of a large military establishment, some of many examples:
"What, sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty. Now, it must be evident, that, under this provision, together with their other powers, Congress could take such measures with respect to a militia, as to make a standing army necessary. Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins." Elbridge Gerry, House of Representatives, Amendments to the Constitution 17, 20 Aug. 1789Annals 1:749--52, 766--67
"It is against sound policy for a free people to keep up large military establishments and standing armies in time of peace, both from the enormous expenses, with which they are attended, and the facile means, which they afford to ambitious and unprincipled rulers, to subvert the government, or trample upon the rights of the people." Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution 3:§§ 1890--91
2) religion could also form tyranny:
"What influence, in fact, have ecclesiastical establishments had on society? In some instances they have been seen to erect a spiritual tyranny on the ruins of the civil authority; on many instances they have been seen upholding the thrones of political tyranny; in no instance have they been the guardians of the liberties of the people. Rulers who wish to subvert the public liberty may have found an established clergy convenient auxiliaries. A just government, instituted to secure and perpetuate it, needs them not." --- James Madison, "A Memorial and Remonstrance", 1785
Given that the right tolerates both a large military and the interference of religion in politics--Isn't that tyranny?
Laci,
DeleteYou make good points here and point out a huge inconsistency on the right.
What would you say to a dramatic reduction in defense spending (phased in over time of course to allow the economy and job market to adjust), and a return to the militia system?
Militia training for all males within a certain age range (e.g. 18-40 or 50) would improve firearms training, possibly reducing accidents, and provide an opportunity for trainers/leaders to observe people's interaction and behavior, and to get help for those individuals who need it.
It would also help with our deficit problem because we could cut down defense spending by a great deal and because it would be much harder to engage in wars at the president's whim since the militia cannot be sent overseas. Instead, Congress would have to raise an army and people would have to volunteer for it.
Laci, to answer your points:
Delete1. Our militiary budget is driving us into financial chaos, so our standing military is soon to shrink. But it's correct to say that this military is a danger, especially in the way that modern presidents of both parties have abused their authority. I don't see you calling for reductions in military forces. I do see you advocating disarming good citizens. So which side of the tyranny you named are you on?
2. We have great religious freedom in this country. Whenever some politician tries to establish one religion or ban another, the courts smack that effort down. For now, the system works to preserve our liberties with regard to religion.
TN - as far as militia service is concerned, there is no reason to leave out women from being required to serve in the militia as well.
DeleteI am also in favor of reducing the size of our military. There is no reason America should ever have to place troops into a foreign country. We do not need to invade countries to protect our interests in the world. Keep a strong airforce and navy and if anything comes up, just bomb the hell out of the other country. No need to send in our people before or after.
Anon,
DeleteI said able bodied men for two reasons: The main one is just because that's how it was done traditionally, here and abroad, and how current statutes treat it. The second is that women from various religious groups would oppose mandatory military service, so we could avoid a problem there by making women's participation voluntary. This issue could also be handled by simply liberalizing the conscientious objector rules. I think we could afford doing either (or both) because we have a large enough population that whoever was left would be enough of a deterrent for would be attackers.
Mike,
ReplyDeleteIf you can't tell the difference between this guy and Yeager, that's just pitiful.
Also, regarding your Jack-boot joke, if a bunch of goosestepping morons like in your picture don't scare you, after what we've seen goosestepping morons do in the last century, I can't help you.
I said "the more passionate James Yeager." Does that sound like I can't tell the difference?
DeleteThat image is about as frightening as these.
http://it.images.search.yahoo.com/search/images?_adv_prop=image&fr=mcafee&va=star+trek+aliens
Mike,
DeleteIt's not a difference in level of passion. The difference is that Yeager is a big talking, hot headed idiot who went on a tirade about going out as a one man army if his rights were infringed.
This video, on the other hand, is a calm, well spoken person who is trying to calm down such hot heads and remind them that the proper way to deal with what they see as tyranny is through proper application of free speech through writing congresscritters, voting, etc. and that violence is not justified unless a government goes so far as to shut down the ability of people to protest and try to change its actions.
As for the Jack-Boots picture, it's not the thing itself that is scary, it's what it represents. You know that what we mean is the idea of a police state and of unconstitutional laws or unconstitutional enforcement of laws. You may not agree with us regarding what is unconstitutional and what isn't, but I'd hope you'd agree with the principle that we should all fear a government that disregards the Constitution or that disregards protections like the 4th Amendment in favor of more "efficient" policing.
Mikeb, you find jack-booted agents of a tyrant to be the same as aliens? What this shows is that you're afraid of difference. That's one basis of racism.
DeleteWell, the idea of living in a police state of true tyranny is frightening. I get it. But the probability that it can happen here is where we differ. That's what I put in the alien category.
DeleteMike,
DeleteJust food for thought--think about the post 9/11 hysteria and think of the insanity about Muslims that has come from certain quarters. The worst of it has come from neo-cons like Michelle Bachman, but I've heard a good deal from "enlightened" progressives including some who I introduced to an authentic Arabic restaurant and who, when the staff was out of earshot, kept wondering aloud if they were making bombs in the back.
There are stupid, prejudiced people on both sides, and if we have another big attack, I can easily see some truly horrifying imbeciles getting elected.
And let's not forget that Germany was a civilized and educated society that chose tyranny in response to high unemployment, economic failure, and social unrest.
DeleteMikeb, this man is being reasonable. He's also right. As I've said to you before, if that picture of jack-booted soldiers doesn't make you angry, you don't love freedom.
ReplyDeleteWhat constitutes tyranny? Read the Declaration of Independence. We may as well pick up our shovels, dig up Jefferson's grave, roll him over and spit.
ReplyDeleteThose guys would never have put up with this shit!
orlin sellers