Candidate's gun remarks should scare us

[internet troll]

The author of this article is scared that American Citizens might vote in this pro gun candidate. Basically looking down on anyone who does not share the same beliefs as her and she can't seem to fathom that a lot of people think differently than her.



http://www.cnn.com/2014/10/24/opinio...html?hpt=hp_t3

Editor's note: Paul Begala, a Democratic strategist and CNN political commentator, was a political consultant for Bill Clinton's presidential campaign in 1992 and was counselor to Clinton in the White House. He is a consultant to the pro-Obama super PAC Priorities USA Action. The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of the author.

(CNN) -- If it was just a political pander, it was a beauty. But if it was a serious statement of philosophy, it was chilling -- even scary.
Joni Ernst, the Iowa candidate who has vaulted to within an inch of United States Senate due to her boasting of hog castration in this year's most inventive political ad, was speaking to the National Rifle Association in 2012.
Paul Begala


"I do believe in the right to carry, and I believe in the right to defend myself and my family -- whether it's from an intruder, or whether it's from a government, should they decide that my rights are no longer important."
Huh?

This notion -- that the Second Amendment gives citizens the right to fire upon federal officials, or their local police, or sheriffs or even U.S. military personnel -- is common among right wingers. But it's one thing to hear, say, goofball Ted Nugent honk off that way. (The Nuge, by the way, has boasted about how he avoided taking up arms in defense of his country during Vietnam.) It is another to know that someone with those loopy views is one step away from the United States Senate.

The Washington Monthly blogger Ed Kilgore has asked the right question -- the one any Iowa voter should be putting to Ms. Ernst: "Since you brought it up, exactly what circumstances would justify you shooting a police officer or a soldier in the head?"

Good question, Ed. Is it OK to do so if, say, the Supreme Court stops the counting of votes so as to give the presidency to the candidate who got fewer votes? I don't think so.

How about segregation? If ever American citizens were oppressed by their government it was African-Americans under Jim Crow. Thank God we had Dr. King and not Ms. Ernst leading the civil rights movement.
Perhaps Ms. Ernst reserves her bloody right to truly egregious government actions, like ensuring affordable health care, even to folks with pre-existing conditions? Lord, I hope not.

As Michael Waldman notes in his excellent new book, "The Second Amendment, A Biography," the Second Amendment was designed to ensure that citizen-soldiers would be the heart of our national defense. A standing army, such as we have now, would have been anathema to our Founders. Indeed, Thomas Jefferson, in his first Annual Message to Congress (now known as the State of the Union Address), said, "nor is it conceived needful or safe that a standing army should be kept up in time of peace."

Joni Ernst Campaign Ad: 'Shot' Ernst on DC: 'It's a mess'
Should America be invaded, Jefferson said, the proper response was "the body of neighboring citizens as formed into a militia." The Founders thought citizen-soldiers would be the military, acting on behalf of the government. They did not advocate armed citizens taking on federal officials.

Don't believe me? Ask George Washington. Gen. Washington, as president, forcefully rejected the notion that American citizens had a revolutionary right to take up arms against their government -- even against the most hated government officials enforcing the most hated government program. President Washington and his Treasury Secretary, Alexander Hamilton, sought to enforce a tax on whiskey, which Congress passed in 1791. A group of Pennsylvania whiskey distillers objected, violently. In what was known as the Whiskey Rebellion, they refused to pay the tax and burned the home of the federal tax collector.

Washington personally led 13,000 troops to crush the rebellion (the only time a president has commanded troops in the field). Washington was willing to shed blood to ensure no one took up arms against his or her own country.
To argue that the Second Amendment allows citizens to turn their guns on their government is to repudiate the actions of George Washington, as well as the Constitution itself.

I say this as a gun owner -- and I'm not just talking about some puny 9 mm like the one Ms. Ernst brags about. At last count I have 22 guns. I use them to hunt, shoot targets, and bond with my family. My grandfather was a hunter and gun owner, as is my father, as am I -- as are my sons.
But neither we, nor Ms. Ernst nor any American has the right to turn those weapons on American military personnel, peace officers or other government officials. To suggest otherwise betrays our Founders, our Constitution, and common sense.


(probably not as interesting as a Wakefield thread, but it is gun related American current events)

[39flathead]

At last count I have 22 guns.

Lightweight.

[internet troll]

Lightweight.

But if most of your guns are puny 9mm or less, he will be calling a lightweight

[Zeke2A]

Lightweight.

LMAO

[internet troll]

Btw…. this line stands out to me.

"To argue that the Second Amendment allows citizens to turn their guns on their government is to repudiate the actions of George Washington, as well as the Constitution itself."

Maybe I am misremembering my history, but didn't Washington take up arms against his king and the English Government leading to some revolutionary war or another that created this country and the Constitution?



And this:

"How about segregation? If ever American citizens were oppressed by their government it was African-Americans under Jim Crow. Thank God we had Dr. King and not Ms. Ernst leading the civil rights movement."

And maybe if slaves had guns, they would not have been slaves because the government would not have been as easily able to run roughshod over them. But I guess that in the case of slavery, the author is fine with it and that slaves had no reason to rebel against the the government. Heck, it sounds like the author would be really unhappy with any war even if it resulted in slave being freed and becoming citizens because there are no values worth standing up for.

[39flathead]

But if most of your guns are puny 9mm or less, he will be calling a lightweight

Pfft.

Behold the awesomeness that is Snakeskin:







Sorry, not to derail your thread more than I have already, but the sad thing is that there are plenty of these types in DC and around that either make or influence policy.
As someone that reads early American history quite a bit, this disgusts me.

[internet troll]

Pfft.

Behold the awesomeness that is Snakeskin:







Sorry, not to derail your thread more than I have already, but the sad thing is that there are plenty of these types in DC and around that either make or influence policy.
As someone that reads early American history quite a bit, this disgusts me.

Snakeskin…. I like it.

Agreed, the cherry picking and closed mindedness about events in American history tick me off also. The so called "Fact" that he may own 22 guns does not make his opinion any more valid. Basically he comes off as a government shill who has no problem selling out American Citizens or anyone who is not willing to give the government free reign to do whatever it pleases.

In response to his questions and scenarios about when is it okay for citizens to take up arms against the government, I ask these questions

Would it have been okay for the Jews in Germany to take up arms against their government.

Would it have been alright if slaves did had access to guns, for them to take up arms against the American government. (or should they have continued accepting that being owned by others and their every action done at the whims of others, was not a worthy thing to fight back against)

Should American Indians have laid down and let the American government do whatever it wanted to them. (They fought back they lost, but if I am reading this guy correctly, they should not have stood by any values and just capitulated)

I'm guessing he would have been happy in Stalinistic Russia where millions of citizens were imprisoned and/or killed by the government. (as long as he was one of the elite who would be safe….. though in reality, no one was actually safe from Stalin)

There have been a lot of events in history where if the citizens had been armed to stand against their government, things could have turned out differently. Things like their government imprisoning people, torturing citizens, and killing them may not have happened. But it sounds like those things don't matter to the author of the article.

[staylo]

I say this as a gun owner -- and I'm not just talking about some puny 9 mm like the one Ms. Ernst brags about. At last count I have 22 guns.

I don't hate black people. I have black friends! I just want reasonable restrictions on black people.

And to juxtapose Washington enforcing tax law with citizens standing against a tyrannical government is pathetic, even for Begala.

[stainless]

Btw…. this line stands out to me.

"To argue that the Second Amendment allows citizens to turn their guns on their government is to repudiate the actions of George Washington, as well as the Constitution itself."

Maybe I am misremembering my history, but didn't Washington take up arms against his king and the English Government leading to some revolutionary war or another that created this country and the Constitution?

That also caught my attention while reading the post.

Rewriting history on a grand scale.

Another fast talking ambulance chaser that spent most of his life indirectly feeding at the government trough.

[firebird.77]

Since when is George Washington the Messiah?


I think that ANYONE in power is going to be resistant to being overruled or overthrown. In essence, you always need both sides pushing to keep things balanced.


When GW was a "subject" he was the one rebelling the Government. And then he helped to create a new government that better fit what he and the other founding fathers wanted. Once he WAS the government and made new rules, it was up to him to enforce them.



The point is that we do need a government, as much as we need citizens keeping the government in check.