Skip to main content

View Diary: The Fantasy of "Government Tyranny" (211 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  your hypothetical (5+ / 0-)

    > a hypothetical government that claimed the power to imprison or kill anyone it chose without judicial review to be a tyranny?

    All governments take that power - or have you never really encountered the police department? The question is: how wide spread? Relative rule of law is the best we can hope for and, by and large, the cops of this country do a good job.

    The gun nuts don't have a fantasy of the liberals forcing them to attend gay weddings, the want to maintain the ability to raise a militia, which in the time the Constitution was written meant "use guns to beat down the uppity negros", and to them means basically the same thing these days whether they're conscious of that or not.

    The fat guy shouting about 1776 on Stewart was indicative of the white man's burden tantrum that revolves around all our arguments, from HCR to gun control. In a large portion of the country it is, literally, the government took our slaves away and we're not going to let that happen again. I'd love it if that fat guy or some 1776 shouter was met with "you're a traitor. you hate America" on a talking heads show. Chances are that's not permitted.

    If you didn't like the news today, go out and make some of your own.

    by jgnyc on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 12:54:32 PM PST

    •  2nd militias weren't about "uppity slaves" (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      AoT, leema, JerryNA

      it was about uppity whiskey distillers, and mormons, and indians, and the odd British invasion.

      in 1790s slavers had plenty of arms to keep the slaves oppressed without need for a militia.

      •  They also made sure to keep the slaves unarmed (7+ / 0-)

        and Southern states used gun control laws to keep blacks disarmed for decades after the Civil War was lost .   Because being in the Ku Klux Klan is no fun if the other guys can shoot back.

        •  Good point. (0+ / 0-)

          About the south having experience using arms to keep slaves.

          I suppose the day after the North disarms, the South would rise and either secede or invade the North to reassert skin based oppression nationwide.

          It's safe to trust a sane person with the keys to nuclear weapons, but it's not safe to trust an insane person with the cleaners under the kitchen sink.

          by JayFromPA on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 02:26:22 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  which begs the "Stand your ground" point (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          a2nite, rb608

          In my generic tristate area, if memory serves, there's a case of a black father blasting a white kid because the kid was after his son. Not sure what happened (this is a pretty lame researchless post on my part but, hey, it's a thread on the internet ...) but the first time some crazed 1776er is waving their "patriotic" rifle around and someone feels threatened and blasts them, say in Florida, what's going to happen if the shooter is black or hispanic (or asian)?

          If you didn't like the news today, go out and make some of your own.

          by jgnyc on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 02:30:50 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  Maybe that's why they are against it so (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          AoT, bmastiff

          strongly.  They did it........

      •  citation needed (0+ / 0-)

        I don't have one but I question your assertion.

        If you didn't like the news today, go out and make some of your own.

        by jgnyc on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 02:27:13 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  The "Catch-22" of the Tyranny Fantasy (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Laconic Lib

      All those folks who say they need their semi-automatic AR-15s with extended clips to stand up to the United States Federal Government have a problem.

      AR-15s won't get them to first base.  The Federal Government will laugh at their semi automatic AR-15s as they blow the rebels to bits with drone launched hellfire missiles.

      If you say the Second Amendment gives you the right to own weapons sufficient to take on the United States Federal Government and win then you need to say the Second Amendment gives you the right to own B-52s and M1 tanks, because that's what it would take.  The "Catch-22" problem is that if you insist the Constitution gives you the right to own your very own M1 tank you don't get an M1 tank, you just get laughed off as a lunatic.

      So, instead we get people who say that their fantasy about government tyranny gives them the right to own weapons sufficient to kill first grade children at school, but that's all.  Their is just no connection between the hardware they want to own and the tyranny they fantasize about.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site