Posted on 01/19/2013 5:32:14 PM PST by Bratch
In 2008, the Anchorage Daily News ran this deck bellow the headline: “NO MORE GUNS: Alaska State Defense Force stripped of many powers.”
Irony knows no bounds when it comes to the Tea Party.
In 2008, Tea Party Queen and Shoot ‘Em Up and Hang ‘Em Governor Sarah Palin (R-AK) disarmed brigade members of the Alaska State Defense Force (think volunteer militia) at the recommendation of the state military officials, based on a report by an investigator with the Washington National Guard.
(I)n a major decision proving unpopular with at least some of the force’s roughly 280 members, the state is taking away the brigade’s guns.
Yes, Sarah Palin, as executive of the state, took away their guns. And no, conservatives, you can’t have it both ways. Clearly they gave Sarah Palin the report and she took executive action on it (also known as “tyranny” when a Democrat does it).
“The report does not say Westall was a bad commander,” Campbell said. “The report says the state defense force, it’s a voluntary organization, it’s part time, it’s dedicated volunteers serving their state, but they don’t have the intensity of training, the skill sets the National Guard has.”
As a result, Campbell recommended to Gov. Sarah Palin that brigade members should no longer be armed.
The state also read a report on said militia, and yet the state was not accused of hating Republicans. Do not try this on a national level.
A report ordered by George W. Bush’s Department of Homeland Security warned of right wing domestic terrorism, writing that “the economic downturn and the election of the first African American president present unique drivers for rightwing radicalization and recruitment.” This caused massive right wing hysteria by the usual suspects. Michelle Malkin quickly donned her Republican Poutrage, and the Drudge and Breitbart followed with their angry misunderstandings of reality.
The report was unveiled in April of 2009, during the beginning of the Obama administration, and so naturally Republicans screamed and hollered about how it hurt their feelings to have a federal agency report the facts until the agency decided not to distribute the report to law enforcement. (No such whining when the same agency released a report on left wing terrorism.) This was before the Obama administration figured out that catering to crazy only enables it.
Sarah Palin has a reputation as a great gun freedom fighter of the Right (in spite of her struggles with actually shooting a gun on her reality TV show). The fact that she directed her administration to disarm the militia in 2008 and yet we heard nothing of this during the 2008 election suggests that disarming the militia is equated with “liberty” and “loving the second amendment” when a Republican does it.
When a Republican is in charge, the cult salivates at the use of dictatorial power. It’s a form of security for them, resulting in what psychologists describe as an urge to be dominated and controlled, stemming from their deeply shameful suspicion that they can’t control themselves.1
We must remember Sarah Palin’s affectionate relationship with Sheriff Joe Arpaio, who is sending out his civilian armed posse to patrol for “illegal immigrants” and to “protect” the schools. It’s a wonder Palin didn’t explain to him that in her own state, they found that “administering a part-time civilian force brings a high liability risk to the state.” Yes, really.
Why is that? Because they are not trained as well as the professionals. Go figure. This conclusion comes dangerously close to suggesting that education matters, gravity exists, there is such a thing as expertise and that not everyone should be armed with a gun. But outside of their own actual records, Republican exceptionalism demands that we attribute equal weight to non-exerts and arm chair wannabes, lest we be called “elitists”.
All you need to do in order to represent second amendment “freedom” is pose with guns and put cross hairs on your opponents. You can disarm the militia in your state without DESTROYING THE CONSTITUTION so long as you have an “R” after your name. Also, posing while leaning on the flag in short shorts helps (warning: do not try this as a Democrat or you will be branded a hater of the troops and an enemy of freedom).
If you have a “D” after your name, don’t you dare even mention enforcing the existing gun safety laws, or else the Tea Party (read: Civil War Resentment Party) will denounce you as a “dictator” and threaten to throw you in jail for violating their imaginary Constitution. You know, the one they would have written if only they had won that awful war of “Northern Aggression”.
Remember patriots, image is everything. Substance zero.
Update: This is for the Palin fans. The question is, what would the right’s reaction have been if this same scenario had happened under President Obama. With a title reading “NO MORE GUNS” they would have gone insane. They’ve already jumped the “tyrant Hitler” shark over 23 executive actions that do little more than direct gun safety commissions and enforce existing laws. Only two address limiting the availability of a category of gun or a magazine capacity. If Obama ordered Arpaio’s posse to be disarmed because they were a “liability”, would the right be defending that as they are Palin’s actions?
1. Note: These are real psychological theories on authoritarianism that are worth a look if you want to understand the consistent hypocrisy of the right. The conservative base can be seen as suffering from a desire to submit to an authoritarian who represents “traditional values”. The underlying theory is that the authoritarian personality has a weak ego unable to manage their id impulses. Alfred Adler proposed an alternative theory that power-over seekers are compensating for a feeling of inferiority, which might explain why Republican leaders are able to manipulate their base by stoking resentment of “liberal elitists”. Professor Bob Altemeyer expands on this theory in his book “The Authoritarians”. John W. Dean’s book, “Conservatives Without a Conscience” discusses the psychology of obedience to authority. For more on how the Republican fear that they can’t control themselves causes them to seek policies that impose rigid moral control, read “Red State Blue State”.
If so, they would because they are fools who believe their own BS, or because they are warriors celebrating the approach of a real honest-to-goodness battle.
And then they would become furious at the utter stupidity of the American people for being so drawn to an attractive, optimistic, youthful figure who was telling them that the government was shackling them and using them, and that it was time to start challenging Federal assumptions and reclaiming individual and organized rights to be enterprising and productive on our own terms, instead of being held back by bureaucratic regulation from 15 different agencies.
The DNC would be left in the dust. Americans on the whole sneer at liberals the same way Palin does. They're primed in a way that scares folks on the right and the left.
I think you only think you know what the DNC would do.
Very succinctly summarized. Exceptionally well done, Kolath.
She sold a state owned airplane ~
Who??
This gun grab has ONLY JUST BEGUN! Oh, the Sandy Hook incident, tragedy, was bad enough; and Obama’s not letting a CRISIS go to waste. - Worse is likely to happen with so many people being on pins and needles, and more Narcissists being all psyched up to show their butts. Then, of course, Obama will be JUSTIFIED in taking any drastic measures which he deems necessary. - To heck with the economy and “job creation”. It’s way more important to sink the coal and energy industry and GET MORE LAYABOUTS COLLECTING UNEMPLOYMENT AND FOOD STAMP CARDS!! - Is that on the right track? . . or am I mistaken and misled by that list compiled by the World Health Organization that showed the U.S. is actually pretty low on the murder per 100,000 population list? - Where’s this going? WHY IN THE HE double hockey sticks can’t we have a MOMENT’S PEACE ANY MORE? - or is that too much to ask???
It's a typo. It should read "non-experts." The real problem is with the affirmative claim made by the author, which is nonsense. She thinks concealed carry advocates are of the opinion that random citizens in a one-on-one confrontation with an armed agressor would be as effective as people trained specifically for the job. Nobody has ever made that claim. She also believes that Alaska repudiated -- by a truly fabulous extrapolation -- the whole principle of self-defense.
Neither of those things is true. The argument for concealed carry is nothing more than this: in a confrontation with an violent aggressor who stands more of a chance: an armed citizen, or a disarmed one? [Hint for the Lefties, because you find this so difficult: the armed citizen.]
The AK decision doesn't repudiate this concept, it doesn't even address it. Nor does it "come dangerously close" to anything even remotely resembling it (or remotely resembling her own far-fetched interpretation, for that matter.) It simply says, "any state run enterprise better be conducted by highly trained people because the state is going to be responsible for the consequences."
That applies, by the way, to ordinary citizens putting out a fire as opposed to trained volunteer or professional fireman. Yet (strangely) no one (except liberals) advocates that if an untrained citizen sees a fire starting on top of his stove that he should step aside and wait for the professionals to arrive before putting it out -- however long that might take.
“A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”
The founders feared a militia that might degenerate into an armed gang or that would take orders from a tyrant. “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” means that citizens needed to be armed to ensure that any militia was regulated and would not be used by the government against the people.
Sounds like Sarah did the right thing and understands the intent of the second amendment. She disarmed the 280 person militia, she did not take the arms of private citizens.
Wrong question.
Why are folks who should know better so quick to be credible?
Did you read the piece, and perceive that its author was a very poor writer and blindly liberal? Did you read the links to the actual happenstance, and see that the author is essentially an unrepentant Emily Latella?
You may disagree with Palin's decision, but if it's on 2nd amendment grounds, you are ... Emily Latella.
yeah, she did, but not sure I get the relevance here (could be I’m tired...)
Excuse the hell out of me, DoDo. I went to a Fred Thompson rally in O.C. California, and while the crowd was decent, it wasn't packed.
Palin drew crowds in the thousands. Sometimes the tens of thousands. Regularly.
And was it also only the "devoted following" on FR (but not nationally, no way! Sayeth Conventional Wisdom such as yours) that conservatives would let Romney sink. They'd "cowboy up" and vote for him, don't worry
They misjudged sentiment RE Romney, and they are misjudging sentiment RE Palin.
Wonderful! Let's give them what they want!
Palin/West '16
Palin 2016, LOL
Sarah Palin has a far greater following apart from FR. Most of them have never heard of FR. I'm involved in a number of support Palin organizations. She has a HUGE base of support.
What a steaming, stinking load. Anybody on this board suffer from a desire to submit to an authoritarian of ANY sort? Anybody? Show of hands? That's what I thought.
Sarah Jones is a liberal idiot using pseudo psychology to explain away people who want actual freedom. Apparently that is a concept she is not capable of understanding.
I told my wife if she was just reelected, she probably would skip the whole inauguration hoopla and quietly be sworn in at the White House to save money. What an example that would be.
Almost as if it is a coordinated effort by certain 'journOlists'.
Well.... it doesn't use the word 'weapons', it uses the word 'equipment'.
I notice that other posters on this thread have verified that the ASDF MEMBERS, prior to this 'change' in 2008, DID supply their OWN WEAPONS.
Do you have any 'info' that proves they did not ?
Your analysis is right on the mark, especially this part that puts everything in perspective:
“In a confrontation with a violent aggressor... who stands more of a chance: an armed citizen, or a disarmed one?”
Can’t you just imagine one of these dipshits being asked this question.....and then unbelievably saying “unarmed”?
It seemed to me that Sarah handled her rifle quite ably when she killed that large ungulate. But how could I judge; I’m not a liberal kvetcher babe straining a gut to make Gov. Palin look stupid and inept.
I disagree with her decision too, but she is the CIC of the State Militia and she in no way removed the right for those same people to keep and bear arms as civilians. So to compare her actions to the attempts that will be tried by Obama and the Dems isn’t valid.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.