Patterico's Pontifications


Scary, Right Wing Hate Quote

Filed under: General — Aaron Worthing @ 7:26 am

[Guest post by Aaron Worthing; if you have tips, please send them here.]

Now be careful, folks, because this is a scary one:

The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants.

Oh my gosh, this writer is calling for bloodshed!  Run for your lives!  Lock up your children!  The end is nigh!

Of course anyone modestly literate in history recognizes the quote and saw my “head fake” for what it was.  It’s from Thomas Jefferson.  Ah, but I am taking him out of context, right?  Mmmm, except not really.  Here’s the context.  He was arguing that the Constitutional Convention was being inappropriately stampeded into founding a new constitution by fears of uprisings like Shay’s Rebellion in Massachusetts:

[W]hat country can preserve it’s liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon & pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. It is it’s natural manure. Our Convention has been too much impressed by the insurrection of Massachusetts: and in the spur of the moment they are setting up a kite to keep the hen-yard in order. I hope in God this article will be rectified before the new constitution is accepted.

So to him a little rebellion now and then is a good thing.

And the deeper thought is this (and Charles Johnson, you complete idiot, notice this is me speaking only).  There are some who say that violence is never justified.  But we as a nation were founded on violence and it has been preserved by violence.  We have said that when we are under the boot of tyranny we have a moral right to rise up in arms against that tyranny.  That is precisely why the Second Amendment exists.  To quote Justice Kozinski’s classic opinion:

The prospect of tyranny may not grab the headlines the way vivid stories of gun crime routinely do. But few saw the Third Reich coming until it was too late. The Second Amendment is a doomsday provision, one designed for those exceptionally rare circumstances where all other rights have failed — where the government refuses to stand for reelection and silences those who protest; where courts have lost the courage to oppose, or can find no one to enforce their decrees. However improbable these contingencies may seem today, facing them unprepared is a mistake a free people get to make only once.

So it is incorrect to say that violence is never, ever justified.  The better answer is that violence is rarely justified and only under extreme circumstances.  And if we are going to accept that violence is rarely justified, we also have to accept that occasionally inopportune calls for violence will occur.  Jefferson was wrong to say that Shay’s rebellion was a good thing.  He was wrong to say a little rebellion now and then is a good thing.  But rather than demonize him as evil, evil, evil, we simply say he was wrong.  Why can’t people do that in our modern disagreements?

Oh right, because it means then we can’t score political points.

[Posted and authored by Aaron Worthing.]

77 Responses to “Scary, Right Wing Hate Quote”

  1. ” I am taking him out of context, right? [Mmmm, except not really.]”

    Nitpick, s/b “Not in the slightest.”

    Some intellect recently published to the effect: War is the least expensive means, in terms of human life and suffering, to resolve conflict between nations over land, resources and/or cultures.

    gary gulrud (790d43)

  2. Thomas Jefferson, the go-to guy for the cure for that which ails you.

    There was some fun at AoS a while back at a leftard’s expense.

    “Stuff Jefferson Said”

    BumperStickerist (19b59f)

  3. gary,

    i am literally not sure what you are trying to tell me.

    > Nitpick, s/b “Not in the slightest.”

    s/b? what is that?

    Aaron Worthing (e7d72e)

  4. s/b? what is that?

    “Should Be”

    Scott Jacobs (9b5ed3)

  5. If government is scared of the populace you have freedom.
    If the populace is scared of their government you have tyranny.

    What happened in Arizona is clearly wrong and should not have happened. However, it would become much worse if we passed misguided legislation based on that event. We have idiots like King in NY talking about 1,000 feet gun-free buffer for congresscritters and others are proposing more nonsense. BS! It is not like we are having a rash of attacks on politicians. Also, I would hate to have them get so comfortable that they think they can do anything with impunity. For example, there is talk of politicians considering confiscation of individual retirement accounts. That might constitute sufficient provocation to take up arms in some peoples opinion.

    largebill (1d1579)

  6. Sometimes that blood is shed on foreign soil, as it is now.

    Charles Curran (d5edbc)

  7. So it is incorrect to say that violence is never, ever justified. The better answer is that violence is rarely justified and only under extreme circumstances.

    The problem is that when the airwaves contain prominent right wing talking heads who repeatedly clamor about “the end of America as we know it”, coupled with doomsday predictions of “death panels” and “FEMA camps”, etc., some people out there might actually believe that those “extreme circumstances” exist now. Then they’ll commit acts of violence, which — to them — is justified.

    Nobody is denouncing Jefferson for his quote. They’re denouncing those who embrace the Jefferson quote as if it gives them permission — nay, a patriotic duty — to commit acts of violence against their fellow man. See McVeigh, Timothy (whose favorite T shirt had that Jefferson quote, and who was more than merely “wrong”, but indeed “evil”)

    Kman (d30fc3)

  8. Kman, since you are ignoring the left-wing talking heads on left wing airwaves who repeatedly clamored about the Bush administration’s “fascism”, we’ll put your comment where your comments all lie now.

    Ignored for hypocrisy and vacuousness.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  9. Oh, and Kman, just to show what a clown you are, the FEMA camps story? Left wing propaganda against George W. Bush.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  10. Had an argument with a blindingly indoctrinated leftist (who condemned “right-wing rhetoric” while calling us rabid dogs) and I stated that the 2nd Amendment was the one around while all other rights depended. He thought that stupid, to which I said the following (though in different words):

    “So if there were no right to own a weapon, if it was in fact illegal, and the Government decided to do away with wide swaths of you right to free speech, what recourse would you have? A tyrannical government could do as it pleased with absolutely no consequence. It is only the ability of the citizenry to stand up and oppose infringement of our liberty that even begins to keep government honest. Having my gun – a gun ready to rise up against a government attempt at outlawing Islam or making it illegal to disagree with any President – is all that stands between you and re-education camps.”

    He failed to get what I was saying to such a level I suspected him of actually being a bot.

    Scott Jacobs (6aff37)

  11. Kman

    lol so anyone saying that we will have death panels is inciting violence?

    Does that include paul krugman?

    Aaron Worthing (e7d72e)

  12. Oh, and Kman, just to show what a clown you are, the FEMA camps story

    SPQR, there are idiots on both sides. But there’s a difference between obscure left wing media outlets that nobody has every heard of writing about “FEMA camps”, and supposedly legitimate politicians like Michelle Bachmann talking about them on CNN.

    That’s the difference between the left and the right: our fringees are actually AT the fringes.

    Kman (d30fc3)

  13. “FEMA camps” were, as best as I can recall, something from Glenn Beck’s CNN days…

    Beck when the Left loved the guy because he wasn’t a fan of Bush. The second he dared question Obama, though, they were freaking DONE with him.

    Scott Jacobs (218307)

  14. Kmart is back to its “I hold you responsible, just not personally responsible” idiocy.

    JD (306f5d)

  15. Actually Beck debunked that rumor, that most recently came from Alex Jones, but the provenance
    of same goes back some 25 years, to the Reagan
    administration, something called Rex 84

    narciso (6075d0)

  16. Kman, the difference is that you are both hypocritical and trying to blame “right wing” for “left wing” rhetoric.

    This only shows the basic dishonesty of your claims.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  17. Kman, the difference is that you are both hypocritical and trying to blame “right wing” for “left wing” rhetoric

    Uh, the Jefferson quote isn’t being embraced by the left wing. And McVeigh wasn’t left wing.

    End of story.

    Kman (d30fc3)

  18. Kman, you’ve already demonstrated by your own incompetence that the “left wing” rhetoric is no less offensive than “right wing” rhetoric.

    The bottom line is that your claim to the contrary is a lie you are aware of.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  19. McVeigh was not right wing either. End of story. Jesus Christ, kmart.

    JD (0d2ffc)

  20. Greetings:

    Your argument about the Second amendment is what I see as the insidious nature of the prohibition on large capacity firearm magazines. As our police services militarize their own equipment, adding high power, high capacity weapons to almost every officer’s inventory, citizen firearm owners are under continuing attack to settle for less and less firearm capacity. I anticipate the argument that our Founding Fathers only meant for citizens to have “the right to keep and bear” flintlocks.

    11B40 (a7b2a0)

  21. Again, note how the leftists try to lay collective guilt and blame on people when it suits their Narrative. But, when one of their own does it, they are fringe, irrelevant, not representative of the mainstream, and speak only for themselves.

    JD (d56362)

  22. @11B40

    Considering the tales of cops firing dozens of rounds and only hitting a suspect once or twice (if at all), I’m not terribly concerned…

    I mean, the only reason the cops need those extended mags is because they are unbelievably bad shots, where as those of us who pay for our own ammo – and who can be (and often are) held liable for any “collateral damage” or for hitting unintended targets in the background – practice and make sure we hit what we shoot at.

    Scott Jacobs (218307)

  23. kman

    its not a “left wing quote” bwahahahahahaha.

    you know because the left is full of pacifists like piven and mao.

    Aaron Worthing (e7d72e)

  24. Even if it were justified (I don’t think it is,) a popular armed rebellion against the US govt could never succeed. The asymmetry of firepower is too great. (See e.g., the Waco siege.) So brandishing the Jefferson quote seems like empty bravado; I don’t know why people throw it around so much. We have the right to keep and bear arms, and that’s a good and sacred thing, but don’t fantasize about overturning a 21st century superpower govt with handguns and AR-15s.

    gp (72be5d)

  25. gp, you haven’t studied much military history, have you?

    SPQR (26be8b)

  26. “4.s/b? what is that?

    “Should Be”

    Comment by Scott Jacobs — 1/25/2011 @ 8:14 am

    5.If government is scared of the populace you have freedom.
    If the populace is scared of their government you have tyranny.”

    Thomas Paine paraphrase. The issue isn’t whether Jefferson or Paine were at times hyperbolic, or that Madison had misgivings about an unfettered right to bear arms, the right was an explicit insurance against tyranny, a right that might be exercised precipitously, or injudiciously, but must remain. We fought one Civil War already. I believe history is settled on the right side(that time the government) having won-equality under the law.

    The Constitution-Bill of Rights enshrined a right bestowed by the Creator the benefit to us being we start with the means to defend ourselves and a military drawn from our number.

    Nations, e.g., China and Britain do not start as ‘securely’.

    gary gulrud (790d43)

  27. I’m sorry but this has been nagging me:
    Is it pat·ter·‘i·co or pat·‘ter·i·co?

    melanerpes (cedb5a)

  28. @28


    Scott Jacobs (218307)

  29. A miracle.

    After the Giffords shooting my congress critter, who received her seat in congress from her late husband while settling up the estate, spoke on talk radio for the first time.

    She has been re-elected twice, never been in a debate, and used the duck out method, instead of meeting with constituents in a public forum.

    Doris Matsui’s attitude was refreshed by that blood of patriots and tyrants that Jefferson was talking about..

    papertiger (bf15c8)

  30. “haven’t studied much military history” No, I haven’t. Although I _do_ know about how armed wackos like the Black Panthers, SLA, and Waco-nuts were crushed by overwhelming govt firepower. And then there were those wackos, like Bill Ayers’ friends, who blew themselves up by accident.

    SPQR, with your knowledge of military history, can you outline a scenario in which a popular armed rebellion against the US federal govt, in the year 2011, would “succeed?” By “succeed,” I mean the “tyrants” are overthrown. If by “success,” all that you mean is that a bunch of “patriots” die heroically in a spectacular fire, well, I don’t call that success.

    gp (72be5d)

  31. gp, if I actually outline a scenario, then Kman will start quoting it as if I was advocating that everyone run out, start resistance cells and overthrow Obama.

    However, I will point out that our overwhelming military firepower won’t be very effective domestically without safe bases. See Afghanistan.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  32. gp

    let me ask you a question.

    why did we lose the vietnam war?

    Aaron Worthing (e7d72e)

  33. gp – That war is won by convincing the government troops to defect/ignore their orders. In general insurrections and rebellions that succeed do so only when the governments troops stop supporting the government.

    Have Blue (854a6e)

  34. @Aaron – We lost because the American Public listened to f**kwits like Hanoi Jane and “The War Is Lost” Cronkite.

    We’d knocked the average age of the VC to about 14, and they had largely stopped teaching them how to even reload the AK-47…

    We lost because America is, in general, populated by morons.

    Scott Jacobs (9b5ed3)

  35. scott

    i am waiting for GP’s answer.

    Aaron Worthing (e7d72e)

  36. The asymmetry of firepower is too great.

    All this means is that we won’t have a revolution here unless the tyranny is massive enough that the people willing to rise up are in the tens of millions.

    Remember, many of them would be vets. Many of them would probably be people leaving the military to defend the Constitution (As they swore).

    Many of the weapons you think would be on the US’s side probably wouldn’t be. Lockheed can build weapons in Texas.

    Thank God we are nowhere near the justification for a war like this, so the only people who would revolt as so few that they simply could be surrounded in a day or two and annihilated as you see.

    But if the American people wanted to rise up, they could. We have far more weapons, and we all have cars. We are tremendously more mobile and lethal than any other people in the world.

    Thank goodness we have free elections for the most part. In my book, so long as there are elections, and violence for political ends is completely unjustifiable. And in my book, tampering with elections is just as wrong as political violence.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  37. The link I put up, above is how they dodge the consequence of their actions, now assymetrical warfare was what Marighela was working on, and
    Ayers copied, luckily he was spared the consequences of his actions, in Brazil, Chile, Uruguay, Argentina, the guerillas only strengthened
    the hand of the military, and hastened their own

    narciso (6075d0)

  38. That is precisely why the Second Amendment exists. To quote Justice Kozinski’s classic opinion

    Why go to the second or third hand?

    Just read Federalist #46.

    It’s by James Madison. You know. The guy who wrote the thing.

    IgotBupkis, President, United Anarchist Society (c9dcd8)

  39. Or you can go the ironic direction with it:

    “A Monarch’s neck should always have a noose about it… It keeps him upright.”
    – Robert Heinlein, ‘The Cat Who Walks Through Walls’ –

    Guns in the hands of the people are that noose.

    IgotBupkis, President, United Anarchist Society (c9dcd8)

  40. Thanks for the link narciso. I disagree with their stupidly lumping the Tucson shooter as an example of course.

    But did Glenn Beck really call Frances Piven “one of the nine most dangerous people in the world?” Whether or not it results in violence isn’t the point. He’s just delusional if he thinks that.

    carlitos (a3d259)

  41. carlitos

    no, he did not call her one of the nine most dangerous people in the world.

    Aaron Worthing (e7d72e)

  42. Or maybe we can recognize that Jefferson was an extremist, and instead quote this:
    “AFTER an unequivocal experience of the inefficacy of the subsisting federal government, you are called upon to deliberate on a new Constitution for the United States of America. The subject speaks its own importance; comprehending in its consequences nothing less than the existence of the UNION, the safety and welfare of the parts of which it is composed, the fate of an empire in many respects the most interesting in the world. It has been frequently remarked that it seems to have been reserved to the people of this country, by their conduct and example, to decide the important question, whether societies of men are really capable or not of establishing good government from reflection and choice, or whether they are forever destined to depend for their political constitutions on accident and force. If there be any truth in the remark, the crisis at which we are arrived may with propriety be regarded as the era in which that decision is to be made; and a wrong election of the part we shall act may, in this view, deserve to be considered as the general misfortune of mankind.”

    Sam (9a0030)

  43. I don’t actually see a link for that, with all the times, that it’s been cited, by the NWRL and ACORN were in large part responsible for the fiscal crisis in NY, in the 70s, and they certainly played a part in the lowering of standards on lending that contributed to the busting of the subprime bubble.

    narciso (6075d0)

  44. gp

    While an organized military would win any set battle, the notion that a small military and dispersed police force could tyrannize literally millions of armed citizens is disproven by history.

    That said, it is difficult to imagine anything short of an apocalyptic scenario where that situation would occur in the USA. And, as has been said previously, since our military swears an oath to uphold the Constitution, obvious forms of tyranny are extremely unlikely to gain critical military support.

    iconoclast (bbd5ee)

  45. He’s just delusional if he thinks that.

    Comment by carlitos

    He would be, but the lack of a quote on this point is suspicious.

    I’ve googled “nine most dangerous people in the world”, and all I come up with are people claiming Beck is an antisemite, or references to this article bashing Beck.

    I don’t see Beck’s actual proclamation. It may have been manufactured to further a long chain of exaggerations so that people who don’t watch Beck just get the impression he’s delusional.

    BTW, Piven is very good friends with Hillary Clinton. She would be at the White House in the 1990s when bills were signed. I’m delighted the masses are finally really aware of her.

    It seems this as a “list of 9” people, with no reference to their being the worst 9, or the most dangerous in the world. The oldest claim about this being ‘the most dangerous in the world’ is when Piven called the list that on MSNBC. She was ‘correcting’ the notion it was a mere list.

    Why would MSNBC tone down something Beck said? Because they didn’t.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  46. Carlitos, I’ve been searching for any video, on several sites, under “nine most dangerous people in the world”. I’m still drawing a blank on Beck actually saying it.

    All I’ve found is Piven saying that’s what Beck said, which seems to be the source of many articles.

    If Beck said that, then I agree with your take. Though if he didn’t, it’s powerful evidence that a lot of things we hear about Beck’s delusional extremism is manufactured by his enemies.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  47. This is from one of those esteemed scholars, in the letter to Fox News:

    narciso (6075d0)

  48. Aaron asks me why the USA lost the Vietnam War. I don’t know military history, but I’ll take a stab at it. Off the top of my head:
    1) ARVN was thoroughly infiltrated by NVA and NV irregulars. South Vietnamese govt quite corrupt.
    2) Geographically, NV had easier supply logistics than US forces.
    3) American popular will to win was undermined by several factors:
    a) Protracted nature of the war, 10+ years.
    b) No support from Hollywood/popular culture (compare WWII.)
    c) The 1960’s sex/drugs/hippie phenomenon weakened our character.
    d) Vigorous opposition by dupes and fifth columnists.
    e) Many Americans did not see a compelling national interest.
    4) Enemy was battle-hardened by prior years of French/Indochina warfare, and morale invigorated by driving out the French.
    5) Enemy was willing to use brutal tactics that we were not.
    6) Enemy was attacked on his own soil. I daresay if the NVA tried to invade the USA, they would have been promptly immolated.
    7) Is it possible that conscripts won’t fight as willfully as guerillas? I don’t know.
    I’m eager to hear other ideas from you all.
    Sorry this didn’t fit into a tweet. 😉

    gp (098d27)

  49. 44.carlitos

    no, he did not call her one of the nine most dangerous people in the world.

    Comment by Aaron Worthing — 1/25/2011 @ 11:21 am

    It doesn’t appear so. That’s what I get for assuming a letter written by a reputable professional organization would be factual, and not full of Media Matters spin. A lie travels ’round the world before the truth can get its boots on, or something.

    carlitos (a3d259)

  50. “it is difficult to imagine anything short of an apocalyptic scenario where that situation would occur in the USA.” I completely agree! So why, again, do some of us brandish the Jefferson quote so flippantly, when the scenario it addresses is so unthinkable, unlikely, and, I say, futile?

    gp (098d27)

  51. Because ignoring the unlikely helps to lay the groundwork for the unlikely to occur.

    Scorp (86914a)

  52. gp:

    So why, again, do some of us brandish the Jefferson quote so flippantly, when the scenario it addresses is so unthinkable, unlikely, and, I say, futile?


    Because ignoring the unlikely helps to lay the groundwork for the unlikely to occur.

    And sales of tin foil skyrocket.

    Kman (d30fc3)

  53. gp

    okay, point being a relatively backwards force can beat a technologically advanced force if it has morale on its side, the terrain, and so on. So even assuming we are not as brutal as the VC, etc., why can’t we beat the US military, if it came down to it.

    i mean there are 300 million americans. if only about 3.33% of Americans join, that is 10 million. 10 million determined americans are hard to beat.

    David can beat golliah, especially a whole army of them.

    which is off the point. the point of this post was to say that violent rhetoric is not the boogeyman the left is saying it is, that we are killing something in the american soul to discount our revolutionary heritage. we were founded on revolution, and under the right circumstances, may engage in it again.

    yes, they are not likely to happen. read over the kozinski opinion–that is not a very likely scenario. but we have to be free to talk about how likely it is.

    Aaron Worthing (e7d72e)

  54. Kman

    mmm, so you think, circa 1935 the people saying that FDR was a threat to Americans’ freedom were crazy, right?

    Aaron Worthing (e7d72e)

  55. AW @ 57 Lefty grandstanding about “violent rhetoric” is disingenuous demagoguery. We should definitely not discount our revolutionary heritage. We certainly should be free to talk about the revolutionary scenario.

    What kind of “right circumstances” can you imagine, that would trigger the Jefferson solution in USA 2011?

    gp (098d27)

  56. A bailout of CA, NY, or IL comes to mind…

    Scott Jacobs (6aff37)

  57. AW:

    mmm, so you think, circa 1935 the people saying that FDR was a threat to Americans’ freedom were crazy, right?

    You constantly amaze me at your attempts to put words in my mouth so that you have a strawman to shoot down.

    Kman (d30fc3)

  58. 59. We’ve got 26 states suing the Feds over some aspect of Obamacare. We’ve got a test of the mandate coming up to refine ‘interstate commerce’. I’d say a revolution of sorts is upon us.

    gary gulrud (790d43)

  59. Remember, only Kman is entitled to use logical fallacies like strawmen, “No True Scotsman”, begging the question, etc.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  60. my observations indicate that people tend to put words in “kman’s” mouth simply because they can’t believe that anyone capable of using a computer to post here can be so fing stupid as his own posts show him to be, and thus try to raise his end of the debate a bit by giving him more credit than his own w*rk deserves.

    redc1c4 (fb8750)

  61. …thus try to raise his end of the debate a bit by giving him more credit than his own w*rk deserves.

    Is “work” a dirty word now?

    Kman (d30fc3)

  62. Violence is the last resort of the incompetent, because only the incompetent wait that long.

    C. S. P. Schofield (e4bd33)

  63. Is “work” a dirty word now?

    No, but creepy stalkerish person most definitely is.

    Dmac (498ece)

  64. Even if it were justified (I don’t think it is,) a popular armed rebellion against the US govt could never succeed. The asymmetry of firepower is too great. (See e.g., the Waco siege.)

    That must be why the U.S. was successful in Vietnam.

    Michael Ejercito (64388b)

  65. An example of the benefit of an armed citizenry:
    Back in the 70’s there was an outbreak of sick cattle and congenital malformations in an area of Michigan. The authorities in Michigan could not figure out the problem. At some point in time a local vet sent tissue samples to the Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation (WARF) labs in Madison for analysis. Somebody, I believe at the state level, tried to have the vet arrested for breaking some law regarding transport of animal tissue samples or such. The local farmers heard about it before the law authorities (state police?, Sheriff?) got there. When the law enforcement officers arrived, there were a number of farmers (more than 8, not sure just how many) standing in front of the vet’s office with their rifles and shotguns (held pointing in the air, not in a threatening manner). The farmers told the authroities they would have to go through them to arrest the vet. The head of the force called up the chain to ask, “If they really wanted him to go through with this”. The answer was no, IIRC, neither did they arrest any of the farmers. Lab testing (from Wisconsin) came back showing high amounts of a toxin that had gotten into the food supply through the one area feed mill. I don’t think it was ever determined exactly how the feed was contaminated, why the Michigan folk didn’t discover it, or why the attempted heavy hand at the vet. (I think it might have been a situation where seed that was meant for planting, having been treated with an anti-mold agent or something, was used for animal feed).
    [Sorry I can’t find a reference for this, I’ve tried.]

    “I _do_ know about how armed wackos like the Black Panthers, SLA, and Waco-nuts were crushed by overwhelming govt firepower”

    The scenario where armed citizens are a force for stability is not when a small band try to do something against the nation, rather it is when a large enough section of the population is armed so that any military strength put down of large scale demonstrations would cause such a terrible toll that the military would think twice about carrying out orders. If the people of Germany had private ownership of guns, Kristalnacht and the indiscriminant arrest and persecution of the Jews would have been much more difficult, both because the Jewish people could have defended themselves, and the many Germans who disagreed with the Nazi’s would have had the option to resist as well.
    Yes, there is no way private citizens can stand against the US military. But one would hope that the military chain of command would have to seriously consider when their obligation to uphold the Constitution of the United States would come into play rather than “following orders”. The military and police do not take an oath to primarily obey a governor or a president, but to protect the state and the nation as defined by the constitution. Yes, it would be a very extreme circumstance when it would be warranted. But the very extreme circumstance is exactly the time you do not want the populace to be defenseless.

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  66. And let’s not ignore that the extreme circumstance MD is talking about is chilled and prevented because those who would push us in a Tom Friedman or Francis Piven direction can calculate that their efforts would fail.

    Just as we have fewer massacres in places you can conceal guns, we have a chilling effect on extreme tyranny. We don’t ever know what crises the 2nd amendment has prevented, but we can see places where guns are banned from any Alaskan doorstep.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  67. The US lost the Vietnam War because we gave up. We did not give up when we left, we gave up when we refused to live up to our responsibilities as defined in the peace treaty when N. Vietnam failed to honor the treaty with a full-scale invasion of the South. IIRC, the US Congress even refused to send S. Vietnam humanitarian aid such as medical supplies, but I could be wrong.

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  68. Professor Terguson has the final word on why we lost the Vietnam War.

    kaf (982cf2)

  69. Kman

    I’m not putting words in your mouth. i am asking you a question. can’t answer it?

    Aaron Worthing (73a7ea)

  70. I’ve noticed our government authorities use violence the second they feel it is needed. I suppose one could often say “restrained violence” and not “excessive violence”, but nonetheless, quite individual and personal violence, and so often one cannot count the daily occurrences.
    Yet, we have one incident where “the government” “feels” violence was directed at it – and all hell breaks loose…. demands that words be censored immediately rise, and all the talking heads call for calm and peaceful language and the end of certain targeted words.
    The Congress goes on sotu dates, to drive the point home…
    I’m not convinced of anything except the immense threat of government violence, one which we are all keenly aware of.
    I noted in another recent thread a poster mentioned the tree of liberty being watered, and immediately a fellow poster said reported to fbi and secret service and he knew this blog was all about that *violence against gov*…
    So we have the government threat of violence displayed to us on a daily basis and our fellow citizens immediately ready to assist the threat of government to issue life destroying violence for so little as a post line on a blog.
    I’m certain the tree of liberty won’t be refreshed.

    SiliconDoc (7ba52b)

  71. “But few saw the Third Reich coming until it was too late. ”

    Demonstrably false: many feared Hitler’s, Lenin’s, Stalin’s, Mao’s and Chavez’s tyrannies.

    tehag (c9c7bc)

  72. tehag,

    Not sure who’s comment in particular you are responding to, but I’ll grant you are right that “many” feared, but in Hitler’s case for one, that was not in a state of revolution and complete chaos, the “many” were not nearly enough to have a voice to do anything about it, which was certainly true once firearms were gone and the police presence was augmented with military (if I understand it correctly).

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  73. Do tyrants have to be in the government before patriots can use their blood to water the tree of liberty? What about non-governmental tyrants?

    EdWood (c2268a)

Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.1195 secs.