Skip to main content

From here outside the gold fish bowl of US politics I'm sitting in slack jawed amazement of the number of times Ive read or heard in your media this quackadoodle argument trotted out that the 2nd Amendment right to bear arms is the US citizens best/only defense against governmental tyranny.

This has been touted by various gun nutty shills from the mock reasonable doofuses like Louis Gohmert (R-Clownland), through to despicable liars and conspiracy facilitators like Larry Pratt and Wayne LaPierre, to the foaming at the mouth rabid carnival barkers like Alex Jones and James Yeager.

Allow this humble diarist if you will to dispel this stupid myth. Follow me my chums past the orange barbed wire.....

1) Errrr....But....
History is a good place to start. Not the screams and screeches of 1776 and cold dead hands of the arch history revisionists of the nutty right. No. Recent history. History we have all lived through.

If, as is claimed, owning guns is an American citizens best and only defense against the rules of a tyrannical government they fight against, tell me how it worked out for any of the following brave "patriots" and "sovereign citizens": The Order/Silent Brotherhood? The Aryan Republican Army? Randy Weaver and his clan at Ruby Ridge? David Koresh and his millennial end times cult at Waco? The Montana Freemen of Justus Township? The Republic Of Texas militia group at Fort Davis? The Hutaree Militia of Michigan?

Ah, that's right. They picked fights with the supposedly tyrannical government and they all lost.

Because:

2) Armored Cars and Tanks and Bombs
Face it. Only in the Insane Killer Klown Posse world of the gun nutty extremists can a group of Ramboesques take on a government and win. Only in the Hollydud world of Red Dawn does a small group of plucky armed individuals successfully take down Spetsnaz troops tooling around town in tanks and APCs. The most heavily armed militia men will have at best outmoded surplus military equipment scavenged illegally, and some IEDs. On the other side will be heavily armed and highly trained troops with planes, tanks, support weapons, helicopters, drones, a comms network, central command, snipers, and all the other stuff that gets Tom Clancy in a froth. And when it is time to send in the last resort, there is your own version of our Brit SAS - the Navy SEAL teams, special forces specialists and all the other bad boys from Osama's worst nightmare.

Knock knock! Who's There? BOOM! Blat Blat Blat..... Seal Team 6!

Only in the world of the Truman Diaries and quackadoodle Old Testament mythology does wee little David and his sling take down big armored Goliath. In the real world Goliath shrugs off the slingstone hit, then pounds David into hamburger.

So, as we can see my rational chums, this nonsense claim that owning a gun somehow protects you from the US government acting in a tyrannical manner and shipping you off to some internment camp in the desert is somewhat laughable. And if you still don't believe me ask one of the Japanese Americans shipped off to the desert happy camps during WW2, or one of their descendants.

Alex Jones and all the rest want to scream how disarming the population brought in tyranny, and wave about totally wrong and idiotic examples like Hitler, Mao and Stalin in a Lions and Tigers and Bears Oh My! Gish Gallop of historical revisionist nonsense. Well Alex old chum, we Brits have been a mostly disarmed nation during the whole 20thC. Number of tyrannical governments? Zero. No tyrants, no guns needed to make sure there were none.

And while we are discussing tyranny, how about the tyranny of a tiny minority of US citizens that are both NRA members AND agree with the slimy shills like LaPierre and Pratt that there should be little or no sane gun controls in place get to dominate the conversation?
How about the NRA and GOA thinking that they represent the views of ALL gun owners in the US, when in fact their membership is a minority of those gun owners? Tyranny or not?
How about LaPierre the Tyrant ignoring what the majority of his own members agree with to instead represent the views of the minority and his real paymasters the arms industry? Tyranny?

No, owning a gun, guns, or the fantasy land armory of Alex Jones and the gun nutty character from the film Tremors is NO protection against government tyranny.

Shall I tell you what is?

Your vote, and your right to vote.

and

That Amendment that comes before the 2nd....the one that guarantees you free exercise, free speech, a free press and free assembly.

Try this mental exercise:

If you take away the guns, you will still have the vote and protections of the 1st Amendment to rely on, but....
If you take away the vote and the 1st, how long do you think you will keep those guns?

Now which is the real protection against tyranny then?

Anyway guys, duty calls. Over to you for my slow basting. Crack on....

Originally posted to Dave The Sandman on Mon Jan 14, 2013 at 02:40 AM PST.

Also republished by Repeal or Amend the Second Amendment (RASA).

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  We have a Steuben Street here in Pittsburgh. (6+ / 0-)

    There is a Steubenville over in Ohio. Named after the German guy hired by the founding fathers to make a real army out of the colonists. The founding fathers realized they weren't going to get anywhere with a bunch of undisciplined gun carriers.

    Cowboys had very little to do with the settling of the West. Cowboys moved cows around. They didn't fight NDNs. The West was already pretty much settled, by soldiers.

    It's not the guns so much as the myths that accompany them. That's what they are really afraid of losing.

    We're fools whether we dance or not, so we might as well dance.

    by PowWowPollock on Mon Jan 14, 2013 at 03:01:52 AM PST

  •  It's basically the Romney landslide mentality (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Ralphdog, ssgbryan

    The idea is not a small, fringe group rebelling, but rather a huge portion of the population. At least a quarter.

    The idea is basically, if all the "real Americans" rebel, they can still win. Think about how white and Christian they are. God would side with them and if they all rose up at once, so would a lot of the Army.

    Just one more crazy fantasy on the ever growing list.

  •  Was this intended as a rational argument? n/t (4+ / 0-)
    •  Rationality is in the eye of the beholder (4+ / 0-)

      The English diarist seems to have a stereotypical view of the Irish, especially how well they kept their freedom of expression with their lack of guns.

      Can you in America imagine the government officially censoring the media so that it could not broadcast the voice of a sitting US Congressman? During the Troubles in Northern Ireland, censorship was used to prevent the Sein Finn party and the IRA from having access to the media. Since Parliament had Sein Finn members, these members of Parliament were by government decree, kept off the air.

      Those interested in the history of censorship in the United Kingdom and Ireland in particular can see the Wikipedia links here and here.

      How much difference guns might make is an open question and worthy of debate, but the assumption that something like our 1st Amendment stands proud under its own power is an equally difficult premise to swallow.

      As his own nation's history is a prime example of.

  •  If the Afgans or the Vietnamize can resist.. (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Chi, gerrilea, nextstep, fuzzyguy

    the US armed services without advanced weaponry then why couldn't US citizens successfully resist? The crucial variable you are not accounting for is how popular the resistance is. If it's just one compound of resisters, ala Waco, then obviously resistance is futile. But if whole states start breaking away, or if millions decide to resist then the tyrants would have a big problem on their hands.

    •  Exactly which states do you envision (0+ / 0-)

      "breaking away?"

      I am a warrior for peace. And not a gentle man... Steve Mason, 1940-2005

      by Wayward Wind on Mon Jan 14, 2013 at 04:45:51 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  been there, done that, the south lost /nt (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      ssgbryan, Dogs are fuzzy
    •  Exactly, the former Soviet Union....n/t (0+ / 0-)

      -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

      by gerrilea on Mon Jan 14, 2013 at 06:03:44 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Did that have something to do with (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        MaikeH

        private gun ownership?

        •  Not sure if I follow you. (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          fuzzyguy, Neuroptimalian

          Gun ownership was immaterial, the point of a populous uprising or States breaking away.

          The people of India did it.  The Soviet Union broke up because the individual states denounced Moscow's authority.

          While we do not have the same social values they do, it seems that history shows us nothing is permanent, even in the face of superior force.

          -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

          by gerrilea on Mon Jan 14, 2013 at 08:41:28 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  It's about control (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Dogs are fuzzy

      If the government actually became a tyranny and resistance to it (armed or not) seemed legitimate enough that it had popular support, then it would seem likely that there would be a lot of citizens in the armed forces who would also be supportive of it.  They would either refuse orders or else join in with the resistance.  THAT scenario is the realistic one, and not the idea that a bunch of lightly armed (by military standards) and completely disorganized citizens is going to be able to succeed against an organized and much better-equipped military.

      Aside from the obvious self-penile-enhancement, this insistence on having is about creating the illusion of control.  People think of the bad things that can happen and don't want to feel helpless.  Someone might break into your house?  We want a gun to fight back.  Government might start tyranny?  We want military-style weapons to stop them.  Never mind that it creates more danger than it might stop, or that the fantasy scenario is ridiculous: people want control.

      This is also why humans invented gods and spirits: to try to bring some order to all of the unknown around them, and thereby get some control over it as well.  Need a good harvest to survive?  Sacrifice and pray to the gods.  It might not be a coincidence that the same people who love the gun culture so much are also the more highly religious group, and are also the ones who believe in conspiracy theories for all the things that go bad: they can't handle the unknown and the uncertainty, and so they invent explanations and do things to make them feel like they have some control.

    •  Here's a clue: (0+ / 0-)

      7 Dec 1941 - 3,000 kia
      8 Dec 1941 - every recruiting station in the US had people lined up around the block

      11 Sep 2001 - 3,000 kia
      12 Sep 2001 - Most Americans cowering in their homes.

      •  MANY people sought to join the military after 9/11 (0+ / 0-)

        As it turned out, many were deemed too old to be accepted.  If anything like 9/11 should ever happen again, perhaps the military will see the wisdom of accepting the assistance of everyone willing to serve.  We could have avoided having to use the independent contractors, and all the problems that caused, had they done so last time.

        "Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity, and I am not sure about the universe." -- Albert Einstein

        by Neuroptimalian on Mon Jan 14, 2013 at 04:14:31 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  Afghanistan. Vietnam. (0+ / 0-)

      That's what the nuts are wishing for. I've never seen them spare a second of thought for the innocent bystanders.

  •  Which is more likely? (13+ / 0-)

    That armed "patriot militias" would choose to wage war against police departments, the National Guard, or US armed forces in the name of combating "tyranny"? (They know they wouldn't stand a chance.)

    Or that such militias would serve powerful elites as private terror armies, intimidating unarmed local citizens in order to break strikes, suppress political demonstrations, terrorize undocumented immigrants, and enforce Jim Crow laws ("no black faces to be shown in town after sundown").

    Armed right-wing vigilante militias like the Freikorps served to destroy democracy in the Weimar Republic, not to fight tyranny.

    •  This. Many times this. (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      LanceBoyle, Hohenzollern, eataTREE

      The key error in the "resistance to tyranny" calculus is the failure to grasp that an armed citizenry can just as easily be used to enforce tyranny as resist it. And a militia armed sufficiently to face irregular forces but not so well armed as to realistically resist a regular army should, on that basis, be viewed very suspiciously.

      "Speaking for myself only" - Armando

      by JR on Mon Jan 14, 2013 at 05:32:05 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Not tyranny per se but (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        ssgbryan

        that's exactly what's happening. The second amendment is being used as a rallying point for a political agenda that is anything but democratic.

        The Tea Party; brandishing weapons at political rallies.

        Many who are threatened by any measure of safety controls implemented to curtail random and criminal gun violence, as an infringement on their rights and freedom are fools and tools of a political campaign that is completely opposed to their best interests, and undermining very real and effective means of political expression.

    •  The gun shoots where you point it (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      fisheye

      Our government is "of the people"

      If people rise up and "rebel" against the government (which is the people)...

      Then it's just people shooting people.

      It's always people shooting people.

      Ideas are bulletproof. The bad ones, too.

      How does the Republican Congress sit down with all the butthurt over taxing the wealthy?

      by athenap on Mon Jan 14, 2013 at 06:23:19 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  What happens when they take the vote away? (3+ / 0-)

    I have no faith in HAVA.  It's implementation has allowed for secret "proprietary code" to be used whereby we cannot know how the votes are tallied.  And it was forced down our throats here in NY.  

    Movies, books, articles and news reports have been written on the ensuing fraud throughout the nation from these electronic machines.

    http://www.hackingdemocracy.com/

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...

    http://www.salon.com/...

    http://ebiquity.umbc.edu/...

    Greg Palast: Easy Ways to Steal an Election

    http://thevotingnews.com/...

    As for the false claims of "free speech", "free press" and "free assembly", three words:

    Occupy Wall Street.

    We've had one such incident in this nation where democracy was restored by the exercise of the 2nd A:

    The Battle Of Athens, TN:

    At end-1945, some 3,000 battle-hardened veterans returned to McMinn County.
    Is this why there's been a push to disarm vets?

    Nota Bene: I neither own or promote firearm ownership.  I do however believe the Constitution is the supreme law of the land and must be followed, without exception and that the Bill Of Rights are not "suggestions" or "recommendations".

    As for the premise of this diary, it's a numbers game.  It always has been and always will be.  Whose numbers will win cannot be discussed theoretically. Each side will present theirs and attest to their validity, in the end, the only numbers that truly matter, the ones history reveals for us.  See India. See former Soviet Union.

    -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

    by gerrilea on Mon Jan 14, 2013 at 06:02:06 AM PST

    •  I, too, am not a gun owner. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      gerrilea

      Yet I fully support the Second Amendment.  I hope to never feel like I need to own a gun, but the way the world is going, I'm glad the Amendment exists in case I need to avail myself of it in the future, thus I will vote against any politician who seeks to do away with it.

      "Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity, and I am not sure about the universe." -- Albert Einstein

      by Neuroptimalian on Mon Jan 14, 2013 at 04:19:41 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Saddam Hussein's Iraq (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    RockyMtnLib, ssgbryan

    Iraq is the most heavily armed civilian population on Earth after the United States.  The male head of every household is allowed to have a fully-automatic AK-47 and ammunition for 'personal security' regardless of if they are Sunni or Shia, Arab or Kurd.

    Yet Saddam Hussein and the brutal Baath party ruled with an iron fist for three decades.  Maintaining a Sunni-minority dictatorship that permeated every aspect of Iraqi society with propaganda and armed goons.  Perpetuating a genocide or two in the process.

    And now Iraq, awash not only with small arms but plastic explosives, rockets, and missiles...experiences nothing but new forms of terrorism, mass murder, and government oppression.

    One could even make the argument that privately-owned guns make it far easier for a tyrannical government to claim their brutal methods are all about destroying threats to the state.  What better way to justify the deaths of civilians than pictures of those civilians holding weapons that could never stand up to an armored column? Just look at how the world has reacted to 60,000 dead in Syria...

    Follow Me on Twitter! https://twitter.com/#!/ZeddRebel

    by TarantinoDork on Mon Jan 14, 2013 at 07:33:07 AM PST

  •  Actually You're Wrong (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    fuzzyguy

    there was a diary here on Christmas.  In fact, the Founders went on and on about how the 2nd amendment was to make sure that citizens had the ability to rebel.

    Yes the wingnuts say stupid things like "Hitler confiscated guns" without a shred of historical truth, but we can't counter just by creating our own myths.

    There’s always free cheddar in a mousetrap, baby

    by bernardpliers on Mon Jan 14, 2013 at 08:02:20 AM PST

  •  I've been saying for years (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    eataTREE, ssgbryan

    that if you want the right to own a gun to protect yourself against the government, there are two things wrong with that:

    A) The government has you so overwhelmingly out-armed that a gun will do you about as much good as a kitchen knife.

    B) If you really fear a tyrannical government, you don't need a legal right to own a gun; you just need a gun.

  •  "Well-regulated militias" (0+ / 0-)

    existed only from the 1792 Militia Act to 1903, when the National Guard was created.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site