Posted on 04/17/2015 11:48:06 AM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
Ted Cruz thinks Americans should arm themselves against "tyranny," and Lindsey Graham thinks that's crazy.
As incredible as it sounds, there’s an argument going on right now between two Republican senators (and, potentially, two Republican candidates for the presidency) over whether the American citizenry should be ready to fight a war against the federal government. The two senators in question are Ted Cruz and Lindsey Graham, and they can’t seem to agree whether the Second Amendment serves as bulwark against government “tyranny.”
It all started with a fundraising email Cruz sent making the case that “The 2nd Amendment to the Constitution isn’t for just protecting hunting rights, and it’s not only to safeguard your right to target practice. It is a Constitutional right to protect your children, your family, your home, our lives, and to serve as the ultimate check against governmental tyranny — for the protection of liberty.” TPM’s Sahil Kapur asked Graham what he thought of his Texan colleague’s view of the Second Amendment, and the South Carolina senator was not impressed. He even invoked the Civil War, which should make Cruz’s people plenty upset. “Well, we tried that once in South Carolina,” Graham said. “I wouldn’t go down that road again.”
This view of gun rights that casts personal firearm ownership as a check on the abuses of government doesn’t make a great deal of practical sense, and it betrays a lack of faith in our democratic institutions. But it’s become increasingly popular among high-level Republican officials who quite literally scare up votes by telling voters they’re right to keep their Glocks cocked just in case the feds come for them. Iowa’s new Republican senator Joni Ernst famously remarked that she supports the right to carry firearms to defend against “the government, should they decide that my rights are no longer important.”
The obvious question raised by statements like those from Cruz and Ernst is: when does the shooting start? What is the minimum threshold for government “tyranny” that justifies an armed response from the citizenry? In 2014, Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy was ready to start a shooting war with the feds to defend his illegal grazing practices, and he garnered the support of top-level Republican officials (they only abandoned him after he started wondering aloud whether black people would be better off as slaves).
It’s an important question because Republicans and conservatives – Ted Cruz included – tend to throw around terms like “tyranny” sort of haphazardly when criticizing policies and politicians they disagree with.
In May 2013, Cruz spoke at a press conference arranged by then-Rep. Michele Bachmann (remember her?) to vent rage at the IRS over its targeting of Tea Party-aligned non-profit groups. Cruz quoted Thomas Jefferson to suggest that the IRS scandal (along with Benghazi and Obamacare and other stuff) was a harbinger of “tyranny” from the federal government:
(VIDEO-AT-LINK)
Last January, Cruz said Barack Obama was running the country like a dictator because of his executive orders on immigration and the administration’s delay of the Affordable Care Act’s employer mandate. “There are countries on this globe where that is how the law works,” Cruz said. “You look at corrupt countries where the rule of law is meaningless, where dictators are in power and they have things they call law. But what does law mean?”
Later that same month he wrote a Wall Street Journal Op-Ed suggesting that Obama’s “lawlessness” was a threat to personal liberty:
That would be wrong—and it is the Obama precedent that is opening the door for future lawlessness. As Montesquieu knew, an imperial presidency threatens the liberty of every citizen. Because when a president can pick and choose which laws to follow and which to ignore, he is no longer a president.
I don’t doubt that Cruz would argue strongly against an armed response to Obama’s immigration orders and tweaks to Obamacare. But at the same time, he’s the one bringing up government “tyranny” and “lawlessness,” and he’s the one bringing up the need to arm oneself in order to preserve one’s liberty. So he should be the one to explain where those two concepts intersect, and when an armed citizen would be justified in committing violence against the government.
Boy, it sure does not take much to get the Party of Government and the Talking Class into a tizzy, doesn’t it?
The ex-hippies at Salon were real gung-ho for insurrection when it was their side doing the insurrecting.
Sniff...Sniff! I smell something...smells like fear!
Salon is filled with a cadre of organized communists. Of course they would disparage any resistance to their communism.
Yet another anti-American BS gun-grabber screed in the communie propaganda mediia?
Time to purchase another firearm for the collection!
But it’s just fine and dandy for a legislator in California to draft up legislation to arm homosexuals for their protection against bigoits...
You have a link for that?
Like Jefferson?
So Lindsay Graham considers the election of Lincoln and a promise to end slavery equates to government tyranny? What a bizarre viewpoint...
That's easy. See King George III, and what we did there.
Won that and made a US of A. If we the people made it... we can unmake it.
Mind your place Federal government...
/johnny
These little p000ies ought be scared. But they’re the idiots trying to light the fuse.
If Cruz was pushing for a rebellion, why would he be running for a position he wants to tear down?
..bulwark against government “tyranny.”
I don’t think it’s a bulwark against government “tyranny”, but it is a bulwark against government tyranny (absent the scare quotes). I think that’s what Cruz was referring to, as well.
I love the quotes around "tyranny."
Obviously tyranny is impossible in America. I know that's true because President Obama himself has said so, and he never lies.
Obama To Grads: Reject Voices That Warn About Government Tyranny
No, not currently, but wasn’t there a article here on FR on that very subject a few weeks ago ?
I like Cruz more all the time. No surprise that he actually understands what the Second Amendment is for - and he is not afraid to say so.
The fear is palpable.
Don’t start none, won’t be none...
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.