![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
underlankers.livejournal.com posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
talkpoliticshttp://freeadam.net/2013/05/24/adam-kokesh-march-50-state-capitols/
So that idiot who wanted to bring around 10,000 armed people to the Capital to provide a demonstration of willingness to 'defend' rights by provoking a firefight in the event that this demonstration without a permit had gone off now revealed his true colors.He's called for an army of secessionists to menace the United States. Except that this is the 21st Century. No army can menace a government that can spy on its enemies from space. No army can succeed in such an endeavor here, and if such idiocy must be unleashed, it is only justifiable if it can win its war that it sets for itself to fight. In the 21st Century no such thing like this is possible.
The people who agitate most loudly for the Second Amendment as a license to commit treason neglect that the Constitution empowers the Feds to use all due force in the event of a domestic insurrection. Of course I expect that there'll be a lot of comments to this arguing that his call for an army of treason to march on state capitals really isn't a call for that, that never say what it really is. That's predictable. So would be the prospect that once again, like that damn fool earlier in the Obama Administration that threatened to 'do something' if Obama didn't resign and Ted Nugent, who predicted he'd be dead by now that nothing at all happens. But this is why people can be and are skeptical of the so-called Second Amendment crowd. Because the right to keep and bear firearms is no guarantee against a tyranny these days, and any pretense it is will end up with a lot of dead people and a war already lost. And it's even more interesting how the people who damn Communists, Hamas, and Hezbollah, as well as the Taliban, also turn around during these kind of discussions and argue that they should emulate the folly of the people they hold as terrorists and the antithesis of freedom and of all that is best in humanity.
So that idiot who wanted to bring around 10,000 armed people to the Capital to provide a demonstration of willingness to 'defend' rights by provoking a firefight in the event that this demonstration without a permit had gone off now revealed his true colors.He's called for an army of secessionists to menace the United States. Except that this is the 21st Century. No army can menace a government that can spy on its enemies from space. No army can succeed in such an endeavor here, and if such idiocy must be unleashed, it is only justifiable if it can win its war that it sets for itself to fight. In the 21st Century no such thing like this is possible.
The people who agitate most loudly for the Second Amendment as a license to commit treason neglect that the Constitution empowers the Feds to use all due force in the event of a domestic insurrection. Of course I expect that there'll be a lot of comments to this arguing that his call for an army of treason to march on state capitals really isn't a call for that, that never say what it really is. That's predictable. So would be the prospect that once again, like that damn fool earlier in the Obama Administration that threatened to 'do something' if Obama didn't resign and Ted Nugent, who predicted he'd be dead by now that nothing at all happens. But this is why people can be and are skeptical of the so-called Second Amendment crowd. Because the right to keep and bear firearms is no guarantee against a tyranny these days, and any pretense it is will end up with a lot of dead people and a war already lost. And it's even more interesting how the people who damn Communists, Hamas, and Hezbollah, as well as the Taliban, also turn around during these kind of discussions and argue that they should emulate the folly of the people they hold as terrorists and the antithesis of freedom and of all that is best in humanity.
(no subject)
Date: 31/5/13 18:30 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 31/5/13 18:44 (UTC)If using physical intimidation to force the government to refrain from passing gun control laws works, why would that approach not be expanded to other policies?
bd: I just don't regularly see mobs of armed rednecks pressuring lawmakers to deregulate tobacco or mandate prayer in school or force any other policy.
I don't see them succeeding. I do see them trying, and hurting an awful lot of people perceived as proxies for the government in the process. Given the history of right wing violence in this country, why would that be unlikely?
(no subject)
Date: 1/6/13 03:06 (UTC)Indeed. So either they don't think it will work, they're not to that point yet, or on some level they know it is a bad idea.
I don't see them succeeding. I do see them trying, and hurting an awful lot of people perceived as proxies for the government in the process
This march is really not a good idea. That I agree with. But I do think that free societies work best when the people lend power to the government bottom-up, not the government lending power to the people top-down.