Thursday, August 11, 2016

- The "Right" To Kill Politicians

A while back, I asked the question “How much is too much?” when it came to talking about the potential for a violent response to tyranny. It was stated in my typically plain spoken, pro second amendment way, and that was controversial enough for Charles M. Blow to tweet it. The result was a traffic spike and a great deal of ridiculous liberal pearl clutching.

Keep in mind, I wasn’t even saying something like “we should overthrow the government if it gets too tyrannical”. What I was asking was, “if that’s how you feel, is it legal under the first amendment to actually say so?” Still, liberals live in fear, and that fear was overwhelming to them. Read the comments section… it’s hysterical (literally). Naturally, I didn’t find those hysterics persuasive at all.

With Trumps perfectly harmless comment about ‘second amendment people’ liberals are once again up on their chairs screaming ‘eeek a gun!”. Trump was way WAY under the line in my opinion. And the liberals that are accusing him of advocating assassination are showing themselves as ridiculous for it. The full Palin has taken hold with stories being invented from whole cloth all over the mainstream media. Journalists are reprobate scum so I expected nothing less.

But this is actually the nice thing about the gun debate. It’s a perfect distillation of how our two opposing political camps express their ideas and feelings. Liberals say that "there is no right to overthrow a tyrannical government", and second amendment supporters say “if there is or isn't, we don’t care”.

There is a limit to the persuasiveness of legality, and violence always follows suit. I don’t think Hillary Clinton is stupid enough to try to ban all guns because she recognizes the cost of such an effort and in the end, she doesn’t care about how liberals feel any more than I do. I believe she will definitely try to impose some creeping incremental restriction designed to make it harder to own a gun and to shore up her support, but she will always be stopped at what places like Texas and Idaho are willing to enforce – which is not all that much. It’s not a winning issue for her because Americans simply will not give up their guns no matter what the law says. And unless she is willing to do so by force, she is not going to be able to take any guns away.

In other words, when it finally comes to it, someone is going to be breaking the law here. It will either be the Liberals, or it will be both the liberals and 2A advocates. And at that point, liberals 'violence is not the answer' philosophy will be thrown out the window, or absolutely nothing is going to change.

Liberals believe that no group of civilians can withstand the US army's tanks and planes. To any real student of military history (including all of America's military commanders) that's obviously not true, but it also means that liberal politicians will have to be willing to order American tanks and planes to fire on US civilians. Where is their higher moral ground then? And to quote my brother, a former Tanker in the Second Armored Cav, "You'd be surprised how under-represented anti-gun zealots are among those Americans who know how to drive a tank." So liberal politicians should try not to be too shocked when the turret actually swings back in their direction.

Right now, Slate is running a piece talking about how there is no right to a revolt. Not only does this miss the real answer to this issue, it misses the relevant question. No one who cares about gun rights cares if there is a right that liberals recognize. They can spout all they like about their feelings and 2A advocates will simply shrug and refuse to comply. Make gun registration mandatory. Build a database. Try to impose a new AWB. None of it is going to get any meaningful portion of the 400,000,000 guns out of American civilian hands.

But … if you idiots at Slate really believe what you say, then by all means. Call a constitutional convention, repeal the second amendment (if you can) and begin passing laws that require confiscation. See how well that works out for you. Pro second amendment people recognize that the government has been the enemy of liberty before, and it almost certainly will again. Your feelings on that view are irrelevant to them. So by all means - pass a law. Talk all the talk you like. It will change nothing unless you're prepared to use force. And once you do, all the pro 2A violence will be perfectly justified.


Blogger has been a little odd lately. Since I almost always publish my first draft, I went back to correct some of my spelling and grammar errors only to find that when I pressed update, the post was deleted. Luckily Google had cached a copy. Apologies to Muzz whose comment was deleted in the interim.