Simon Maloy spews forth at Salon, proving yet again that when Leftys try to think:
Simon Maloy shows why one should never try to have a logical discussion with a Liberal:
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.
Bless that state and Ted!!
:)
Of course a leftist propaganda @$$ wipe would consider the problem to be civilians making it clear what’ll happen if they aren’t left alone and not a government growing far too big for said civilians to control.
[ The ex-hippies at Salon were real gung-ho for insurrection when it was their side doing the insurrecting. ]
They were all about civil disobedience during the bush years when it came to “ending the war”, they have been stragenly silent since mid janurary of 2009...
“What is the minimum threshold for government “tyranny” that justifies an armed response from the citizenry?”
The very first time that Obemba violated the Constitution Of The United States Of America, that’s when, dumb-ox Simpleton Maloy, but people are still asleep.
Go Ted Go!
As they say, you only catch FLAK when you’re over the target.
“Firearms are Freedom’s Firewall”.
I love it when people discuss guns on this site :) Although it took me six months to figure out what 5.56mm was. I thought it was a religious reference lol
LMAO!!!! If “Salon” is blasting you, you’re on the right track. Apparently the Salonunists haven’t read the text of the 2nd Amendment.
All need to address this (Officials in Mexico have conformed that there is an active Islamic terrorist training camp...) sponsored by ISIS right across the Texas border in the Mexican Anapra area west of Ciudad Juárez.
(Islamic State operating in Mexico just 8 miles from U.S. border: report)
(U.S. State Dept. says report on ISIS training camps in Mexico 'unfounded')..............I suppose they will trot Susan Rice out to make one of her puppet denials along with Kerry, of Vietnam fame.....
It's a little game they play, pretending not to understand the meaning of the 2A, so that they make you say it. Then they sit back and proclaim how nuts you are for thinking that the government would ever take the people's guns. Even though the government wants to take the people's guns.
Salon is a bunch of losers.
I think the whole “deconstructionist” view of the written word is intentional obtuseness as well,
with the sole object of advancing their power agenda.
But, I think they do truly believe that if enough power is concentrated in the right hands, they can achieve “the greater good”.
when does the shooting start? where is the line?
when the fedgov decides they can ruin you, take everything you’ve ever worked for, your home and your ability to provide for your family by taking your business... because you would NOT perform an action ... that’s about the time to reach for the musket. what other reaction would they expect?
involuntary servitude is protected against by the thirteenth amendment. enforce it with the second.
Simon Maloy spews forth at Salon, proving yet again that when Leftys try to think:
Simon Maloy shows why one should never try to have a logical discussion with a Liberal:
Feh. Drama Queens.
Agreed totally. In Canada, until 1979 (Firearms Acquisition Certificates were required from then on), anyone over age 16 could simply walk into a decent sporting goods store and buy themselves a decent hunting rifle or shotgun and ammunition and no questions were asked. Violent crime was virtually unheard of for many years until about the early to mid 1970s when it went on an upswing (like most other places in the Western world, but still lower than New York City or DC or Chicago). My great uncle who died in 1984 aged 93 kept his guns in full view in the old family farmhouse and as a kid visiting there, I was quite captivated by them and liked learning about them. No eyebrows were raised at all over this at the time.
I think about things like this whenever I hear shallow, sanctimonious talk about how Canada is distinct from the U.S. because gun ownership is not a right up here. What utter garbage. Particularly when you consider, as you say quite rightly, the “psychological benefit of having a responsible citizenry”.
Sissy Simon, don’t get your lace panties in a twist. We will know when it’s time.
On the contrary, it makes every bit of practical sense or the proggies wouldn't be squealing about it. It happens to be very handy when this fictitious "faith in our democratic institutions" runs out. It's running a little thin at the moment.
It is more than a little amusing to see the progress of the meme of the moment through the lickspittle press like a pig through the body of a snake. The difficulty from Salon's side of the fence is that yes, their opponents really are (1) heavily armed, (2) nearly completely disenfranchised, (3) ridiculed throughout the media, and (4) thoroughly fed up. This isn't a silly phantom they've conjured up to frighten the lumpenproletariat. This one's real.
Liberals’ disdain for pro 2nd amendment people goes so far as to ridicule people with Alzheimer’s, as George Clooney did to Charlton Heston, who was 10 TIMES the man Clooney will ever be. I dislike him and his Israel hating wife very much.
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.
