General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsLeading Republicans differ over armed ‘insurrection’
Posted with permission...and FUBARed.
http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/leading-republicans-differ-over-armed-insurrection?cid=sm_fb_maddow
Leading Republicans differ over armed insurrection
04/17/15 08:40 AM
By Steve Benen
Nearly five years ago, a Republican U.S. Senate candidate named Sharron Angle used a phrase that was as memorable as it was alarming: her political vision included Second Amendment remedies. At the time, Angles point was that if conservatives disapproved of policies adopted by elected officials, Americans might want to consider armed violence against their own country.
We learned last year that Sen. Joni Ernst (R-Iowa), before her election, endorsed a similar perspective. The right-wing Iowan said at an NRA event that she carries a firearm virtually everywhere, in case she needs to defend herself from the government, should they decide that my rights are no longer important.
This year, its Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) whos dipping his toes in the same waters. Sahil Kapur reported yesterday that the far-right presidential candidate is taking the uncommon view that the Second Amendment includes a right to revolt against government tyranny.
This insurrectionist argument, as Second Amendment expert and UCLA law professor Adam Winkler calls it, is popular among passionate gun owners and members of the National Rifle Association. But major party candidates for president dont often venture there.
Winkler told TPM, Its pretty rare for a presidential candidate to support the right of the people to revolt against the government.
At least it used to be. In the American mainstream, when the people are dissatisfied with the governments direction, we dont need to take up arms or threaten violence we have elections. Your right to vote exists; your right to armed conflict against Americans does not.
Cruzs radicalism was enough to draw a rebuke from a fellow Republican and likely White House rival.
Well, we tried that once in South Carolina. I wouldnt go down that road again, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) told TPM, in an apparent reference to the Civil War. I think an informed electorate is probably a better check than, you know, guns in the streets.
Graham added hes not looking for an insurrection.
Just so were clear, weve reached the point in Republican politics at which presidential candidates take opposing sides on Americans right to an armed insurrection against the United States.
Or put another way, Lindsey Graham should probably be considered a moderate because the senator who boasts of his A rating from the NRA believes your gun rights dont include the right to a violent rebellion.
okaawhatever
(9,478 posts)Bigmack
(8,020 posts)American history shows clearly that guns - and militias - were to be used for suppressing rebellions, not starting them. Whiskey Rebellion (Washington actually led the troops), Shays' Rebellion, the Dorr Rebellion in Rhode Island in 1842, the Abolition disturbances in Kansas between 1854 and 1858, the railroad strikes of 1877, extending through West Virginia, Maryland, Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Indiana, the Chicago strike of 1894, the San Francisco fire of 1906, the West Virginia coal strikes of 1921, the Bonus March of 1932... the list is long.
The Founders firmly believed that the American Revolution was the last justified revolution this country would see.
Cruz and those other shitheads have no idea about real American political history.
moondust
(20,019 posts)I don't believe slavery could have existed without the deadly force of guns including armed slave patrols.
sufrommich
(22,871 posts)along the same lines:
Timothy McVeigh's anti-government resistance now mainstream in Republican party
http://www.oregonlive.com/opinion/index.ssf/2015/04/timothy_mcveighs_anti-governme.html
Skittles
(153,261 posts)THEY ARE PARANOID COWARDS