In the clip, TV show host Piers Morgan debates gun control with Breitbart.com's Ben Shapiro and each present their viewpoints. It gets heated at times but when all is said and done, Morgan has wrestled the incredible reason for his intransigence out of Shapiro.
Watch:
So Shapiro and those who think like him, apparently believe that they need their firearms in order to hold off a tyrannical government, their government, when it comes knocking at the door. Or maybe they think they're going to go on the offensive and low crawl it across the Washington Mall to the gates of the White House in order to support General Glenn Beck and Colonel Michele Bachmann as they give Obama the order to surrender.
Either way, do they really think their Glocks and Sigs or even their Bushmasters would have a chance against F-16's, tanks, and missiles?
Sometime SFDB commenter Jewish Marksman answers that question in the affirmative on his blog...
I firmly believe that Americans must have some degree of parity of arms with government forces. The AR-15 and other so-called "assault rifles" (which I've blogged about) are required to maintain that parity. If you have any doubts, you need only study the history of Afghanistan and present events in Syria to realize that the "people" do not necessarily need tanks or fighter planes, but they do need rifles. A group of motivated riflemen can, at least by today's standards of military technology, overcome a superior armed force. There is absolutely no historical precedent for Jews to not eventually become the targets of first discrimination, and ultimately physical abuse and murder.So not only is Jewish Marksman agreeing with Shapiro, he's apparently going one step further and saying that Jewish gun owners are going to be the first ones that the U.S. Government is going to come after because, well, they're always the first. Or something.
Wow.
And wow.
Motivated or not, I'm thinking their Fantasy World would actually look a little more like this...
Ben, Jewish Marksman and their ilk would do well to watch "Taps."
While I consider it a movie, I'm sure they consider it training.
************
More indications that we really need mental health screening for gun owners comes from a website called the American Conservative Daily. Here's a portion of their open letter to President Obama...
IT’S NOT ABOUT GUNS, IT’S ABOUT FREEDOM
Do you expect the American people to take so lightly this assault on their freedom?
They won’t, Mr. President. Millions of otherwise law-abiding citizens will refuse to comply, and by so doing become criminals. But I suspect you know that, don’t you? Maybe that is exactly what you want because, as George Orwell noted in his book “1984,” government has no control over the law-abiding; it can only control people who violate existing law, such as it may be.
And what happens next, Mr. President? Do S.W.A.T. teams break into the homes of our citizens at night to confiscate arms and arrest offenders? Make no mistake: That is what enforcing this law will require.
And what happens when, inevitably, some resist? Do you honestly believe people will go peacefully into bondage? How many will die as the direct result of your actions?
There is no need to send the Secret Service to my door, Mr. President (although I suspect you might anyway). I am not advocating violence; I am merely saying what others are afraid to.
The real question, Mr. President, is whether you so hunger for power that you are willing to foment what might be the next American Revolution. Will that be your enduring legacy?
At the Battle of Thermopylae, King Leonidus I, facing demands by the numerically superior Persian army for the Spartans to surrender their arms, responded with what is now expressed as “Molon labe.”
It means, “Come and get them.”
.
15 comments:
"Do you expect the American people to take so lightly this assault on their freedom?
They won’t, Mr. President. Millions of otherwise law-abiding citizens will refuse to comply, and by so doing become criminals. But I suspect you know that, don’t you? Maybe that is exactly what you want because, as George Orwell noted in his book “1984,” government has no control over the law-abiding; it can only control people who violate existing law, such as it may be."
Oddly enough, when the PATRIOT was passed in 2001, they gladly went along with all of the provisions, including indefinite detentions, warrantless wiretapping, suspension of due process for "enemy combatants" (aka Mooslims and brown people), and a host of infringements other rights, all in the name of "freedom fries." Where was this screed then?
As you point out, Bobby, supposed infringements are all well and good when white Republican guys are behind them. Hell, Ronald Reagan was for a ban on assault weapons and you never heard this kind of talk back then.
No, this kind of talk is being driven by something much stronger and something that has been brewing since 2008.
.
I must clarify whenever I see the dark-minded, soulless, heartless, culture-less creature that is the American hillbilly display his unmerited audacity to invoke the name of the Greeks, and the outrageous ego to compare his cowardly "all talk and no action" self to the Greek heroes. The author of the open letter to Obama has no idea what it means to be like a Greek. It means to live out the physical sacrifice for one's morality; to die like a man for one's principle.
Leonidas was the king of a powerful region fighting off foreign invasion. The author of this open letter, and all the other hillbillies that tout "molon labe" as an everyday phrase are nobodies. I do not point this out merely to insult, but also to bring into perspective the meaningful distinction between these idiots who are inappropriately using the term, and a man who has been glorified by historians for the past 2,400 years for being brave enough to actually live it. Leonidas did not only say the words, "molon labe," he actually sacrificed his life and openly demonstrated his principles for all to see. This writer is not facing life-threatening physical force when he writes these words. He is not making any sacrificial action when he types them. If he were, I think he would swallow his tongue rather than dare say, "come and get them." So this guy needs to stop using "300" for all of his historical quotes. He should go read an actual book about the history of the Greeks since he so desperately aches to be one.
And lest any hypocrite underestimates the presence of these exact same heroics in modern Greeks, allow me to remind you of our more recent history:
"For the sake of historical truth I must verify that only the Greeks, of all the adversaries who confronted us, fought with bold courage and highest disregard of death..” --Adolf Hitler, May 4, 1941
"Until now we used to say that the Greeks fight like heroes. Now we shall say: The heroes fight like Greeks.” --Winston Churchill
Oh, and the same goes for fraternities and sororities. They're not Greek, they're just sports rejects and whores, respectively.
"Morgan has wrestled the incredible reason for his intransigence out of Shapiro"
Wrestled? Shapiro and my arguments are as old as the 2A itself, and their justification has already been settled in DC v. Heller 2008 Supreme Court Case:
"There are many reasons why the militia was thought to be 'necessary to the security of a free state.' ... when the able-bodied men of a nation are trained in arms and organized, they are better able to resist tyranny."
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=2739870581644084946
This is just one argument among others that I and others have been making, such as that a) banning AR-15 or other semi-automatic rifles will not save lives, b) banning high capacity magazines will not save lives and c) that semi-automatic rifles and pistols enjoy tremendous popularity for sport and self-defense.
The arguments are in some sense intertwining. Because of a), b) and c) above, the argument that losing civilian parity with the state's potentially tyrannic forces over this issue is unjustified.
"this kind of talk is being driven by something much stronger and something that has been brewing since 2008"
Ah, of course, the race card. Sure, if Hillary had won the 2008 nomination and become president, all us "gun nuts" would be eagerly turning in all of our guns. Is there any depth to which you won't stoop?
Why the outrage, the spastic gun-buying, the howling protestations about Big Government tyranny? Such righteous chest-pounding!
It seems obvious that it's easier to rage against imaginary super-villain foes than it is to stand up for yourself day to day against the shitty little injustices your butthole boss lays on you. Easier to make murderous threats on YouTube and in blogs than to try getting Comcast on the phone to fix the goddamn cable problem again. Such a rush to feel like you COULD make a dramatic statement in your actions instead of putting up with 40 minutes of stop-and-start traffic every single day, just to get home, where your wife needs you to mow the lawn still, but only rewards you with a "thanks," another night of warmed-up leftovers and the cold shoulder when she comes to bed.
Too bad these guys never put 2 and 2 together to figure out all of us would rather be Masters of the Universe too, but instead live in this day-to-day just like them and try to make the best of it -- instead of looking for someone else to blame.
Their guns are simply a physical manifestation of their desperate need to blame someone for something -- a way to waggle their fingers (or another part of their anatomy) until some sort of explosion brings release.
Go to the gym or find a constructive hobby or try reaching out to those who are truly needy. Get REAL and stop all the huff-n-puff Super Patriot posturing.
teeberg's analyis is flawed, because everyone knows that all of this country's problems are caused by The Rich and George Bush.
I have listened very carefully to our Glorious Leader for the past four years.
Glorious leader has convinced me that our "super-villain foe" is The Rich and George Bush. There is nobody else to blame for any of this country's problems but The Rich and George Bush.
Therefore, your premise is clearly flawed because I do not blame anybody for anything but The Rich and George Bush, and thus my support for the Second Amendment must be for some other reason than a desire to blame someone for something.
Jewish Marksman...whatever argument that you put forth is overshadowed by your belief that you sincerely fear that your [liberal and tyrannical] government is, one day in your lifetime, going to attempt to forcibly take your weapons from you and that you need an arsenal to stave off that attack. Furthermore, you actually believe that Jews will be targeted first and that your semi-automatics will be sufficient because you're a "motivated rifleman."
You can throw out URL's and case law all day, but nothing resolves the madness and abject paranoia of the paragraph above. Nothing.
Let me suggest something else that you're apparently missing. Americans don't like to be threatened. Whether it's motivated by testosterone, a psychosis, or ideology, threats against Americans and our system of government are usually not well-received by the general populace no matter how righteous those making them seem to be. So when guys like Gun Free Zone declare war against Americans who are working to come up with gun safety measures that try to prevent another school massacre or when NRA board member Ted Nugent instructs Obama to "suck on my machine gun", they've officially radicalized their views of gun control to a point that would seem to threaten the majority of Americans who respect our system of governing [and, may I add, all its flaws]. They can expect a certain amount of outrage and criticism from Americans who do support our democracy.
Guys like David Koresh, Timothy McVeigh, and Terry Nichols are usually not considered to be examples of good Americans although they were very righteous in their distrust and criticism of the government. They probably were able to cite case law, too, and had computers been around back then, would have had plenty of online discussions and debates about their beliefs, I'm sure.
Having said all that, I'm hoping that one of the measures that is put forth in the coming weeks is expanded mental health screening for gun owners. Although I think a lot of current gun owners will be disappointed with the results.
.
Rick, you reveal to your audience the true nature of The Progressive. The Progressive seeks to control the population because he is terrified of what others might do with freedom. He's afraid of his neighbors, his co-workers, even his family--perhaps because when he looks in the mirror he does not trust himself. So to make himself feel less afraid, The Progressive will propose and support policies that make him feel that the State will control those fellow citizens he is afraid of. When charismatic, forceful leaders arise, promising to take control of citizens abusing their freedom, The Progressive is drawn to them like moth to the flame.
In 1977, the Nazi Party of America sought to march through Skokie, Illinois, a heavily Jewish area. "Progressives" sought to ban that march and pass so-called "Hate Speech" laws, notwithstanding the constitution. Those opposing the Nazis in 1977 were afraid of them. They ware afraid of the Nazi message itself. They were afraid of hurt feelings. They were afraid that other free citizens might hear the Nazi message and be drawn to it. Fear, fear, fear. The Progressives were outraged when the courts ruled that the ideals advanced in the First Amendment protect even the hatemonger. "Damn the constitution and the old white rich men who wrote it!" the Progressives chant to themselves. The Progressives swarmed onto college campuses and implemented their speech codes, and on the campuses where they could, their thought codes. Again, all because they were afraid of what unregulated thoughts might come to their fellow citizens. All the while, The Progressive insists that whatever the First Amendment once meant, it cannot mean that today, because otherwise, it would scare him.
And so it goes with the Second Amendment. The Progressive is afraid of what his fellow citizens will do with that right. Once again, The Progressive tells himself that the constitution cannot mean what it says today, because otherwise, it would scare him. The Progressive is drawn again to the security of a State to police and control his fellow citizens, because he is afraid.
I don't fear my fellow citizens enjoyment of the First or Second Amendments. I promote the ownership of firearms by all citizens willing and able to take on that responsibility. For obvious reasons, I network with other minority leaders in the firearms community to promote the same goals. Unlike The Progressive, unlike Rick, I am not afraid.
You doubt my argument? Read carefully what Rick wrote:
1. "[non-Progressives] officially radicalized their views ... to a point that would ... threaten ... our system of governing ... "
2. "[non-Progressives] can expect ... outrage ... from Americans who do support our democracy."
Note his first argument. Supporting the Second Amendment's principles and trusting your fellow citizens with guns "threatens ... our system of governing," i.e. the State that is his security blanket. Supporting the 2A doesn't threaten the general citizenry, that's not what he said--it threaten's his beloved State.
Note his second argument. The US is NOT a democracy. It is a CONSTITUTIONAL democracy. Our system is designed so the emotional and fearful mob cannot rule to the torment of the minority. The constitution prohibits the democracy from banning the Nazis from marching. To The Progressive, to Rick, the constitution is to be ignored when convenient, or more specifically, to be ignored in times when he is afraid of his fellow citizens.
So, Rick, as Ben Shapiro put it to Piers Morgan, go ahead and stand on the graves of a few dozen dead school children. I will stand on the graves of the hundreds of millions of children and adults slaughtered by their governments. I will stand on the principle that a madman's abuse of freedom does not warrant abandoning freedom. I will stand on the principle that logic and reason should be the basis for the few laws constraining freedom, not emotion, and certainly not fear.
It is you and your "ilk" who live in fear of your fellow man, Rick, not me and my "ilk".
Look, JM, build your bunkers and fortify your houses because the jack-booted thugs are coming for your guns and your 2nd Amendment. You all have been saying it for the last 4 years so why not continue for the next 4. It's a lot of wasted time and effort as far as I'm concerned but, hey, it's a free country, right. Knock yourself out. And buy plenty of bullets. Wayne LaPierre says you'll need 'em.
.
"JM, build your bunkers and fortify your houses because the jack-booted thugs are coming...buy plenty of bullets"
Rick, you misunderstand. I want you, squathole, Dez, Mustang Bobby and all of my fellow sane and responsible neighbors and citizens to freely own firearms so that none of that is necessary.
It was the "progressive" ACLU, the demon of all the right-wingers, that defended the Nazis who wanted to march through Skokie. They won.
FWIW, JM, I'd rather not have you be the one to defend my rights. "'Tis an ill cook that cannot lick his own fingers."
Bobby-
"FWIW"=0
JM:
Cer ar gerdded a gwna mo d bacia.
I agree with Jewish Marksman.
Word.
Post a Comment
Spam, vulgar language, trolling and off-topic comments are not tolerated at SFDB and your comment will be removed if it meets this criteria.