Huckabee: What's the Difference Between a Massacre and a Battle? Guns
By Heather Monday Jul 06, 2009 4:30am
Huckabee seems to have forgotten that most militaries have something a little larger than muskets to fight with these days. He apparently thinks arming the Iranians to the hilt and turning Iran into the wild, wild west would make things better over there. I don't think arming the citizens with guns is going to do them a whole lot of good trying to go up against that country's military force. They'd just be getting out bigger weapons to slaughter them with and more of them would end up dying. And while we're on the subject, just who do you think Jesus would arm Huck?
Huckabee: Well across America we celebrate this day as our nation’s 233rd birthday, and what a wonderful country. We ought to never take for granted our freedom, nor forget the depth of sacrifice for those that have given it to us. Just watch the events in Iran and breathe deep the air of freedom that you have. And we know the shot that murdered the twenty six old Neda Agha-Soltan has been called the shot heard round the world.
That’s a reference of course to Ralph Waldo Emerson’s poem commemorating the battle at the Concord Bridge in 1775, which begins:
By the rude bridge that arched the flood,
Their flag to April’s breeze unfurled,
Here once the embattled farmers stood,
And fired the shot heard round the world.But there’s a huge difference between these two shots. A difference not just in hundreds of years and thousands of miles. The shot that took Neda was for brutality and darkness. It was fired not just to stop her young heart, but to destroy the demand for dignity and fairness. The Battle of Concord ended differently from the battle and the events five years earlier when Americans had thrown snowballs at the British and five Americans ended up dead. That confrontation became known as the Boston Mascare.
Now what’s the difference between a masacre and a battle? Well I’ll tell ya’. Guns. Some of us fail to understand that our 1st Amendment right to speak and assemble is meaningless without our 2nd Amendment right to bear arms. We don’t make the connection sometimes.
Without the 2nd Amendment there are no battles, just masacres. That’s why I don’t understand some people in groups who are so gung-ho on the 1st Amendment, but the 2nd Amendment, not so much. Some don’t seem to believe that we have an indivdual right to bear arms and the founding fathers wanted to make certain that what ever happened in this country, we would be prepared to protect our freedom like the Minutemen, and not be reduced to pathetic victims throwing snowballs or chunks of cement like the poor souls in Iran.
Forewarned about the danger of tyranny is forearmed against it. Unarmed, is simply dead. As long as evil exists the shots will continue to be heard around the world and as free men and women, we need to do everything we can to ensure that they echo the Battle of Concord, and not the masacre of Tehran.






Login or Register to post comments.
Don't forget, the Iranians need tax cuts too. Lots of guns and tax cuts... and the ten commandments in all public buildings.
..don't forget the mistresses.
dorm room.
Huckabee, like all GOPers these days, is a simple minded fool.
Whenever I see the wide-eyed phoney, deer-in-the-headlights look on a Southern Pug's face I hear, 'Dixie' and the marching, shuffling of soldier's feet.
Huckabee isn't a simple minded fool. He's a simple minded bible banger intent on converting Muslims and making sure the unconverted are raptured.
And it makes him a fool in my book.
History: F.
Comments: Mikey needs to study his textbook a bit more thoroughly, and to take better notes.
Schmuckabee, just because you're nice, and can laugh at yourself, doesn't mean you know jack shit about the ME.
I would advise you, Huckabee...to go back to preachin and stay out politics.
Oh...and what's up with Palin resigning? I don't trust her motives.
She's up to something.
He's just trying to take the place left by the hillbilly from frozen tundra.
Shesus Gripes, Shesus Huseinna of Wasilla.(stolen from a commentor on another thread)
Who wrote this for Huckabee, Palin?
Oh yes, guns are always the answer to all problems. Jesus, he's frightening, as are many on the far right.
..or is he saying that an armed uprising in the US against the Obama administration is ok too? Hard to tell sometimes what the hidden codewords are in the rightwing religious speech are.
So if we ever have a war against Iran it'll be to face our own weapons?
Wasn't that our solution in Iraq?
We gave OhSammy lots of weapons.
The GOP believe anything can be solved with enough guns. And remember this is the Christian Right we are talking about, so arm up you religious assholes and fire off a few rounds of compassion for your fellow man. Duck!!!
seems to forget that for all our freedoms, owning guns included, that the USA has the highest murder rate of any civil country.
an example of American freedom.
No taxes. No government. More guns. Money for me but none for you.
Yep, that's the perfect GOP world.
soul mates.
I didn't wanna go down that road, because the list would be too long and icky.
long, it would stretch for miles.
huck is ignoring the discrepancy between how the government is armed and how we are armed. as a child of a survivor of nazi germany, i was given to learn the use of a firearm by my mother, but i don't think she was looking at dealing with apache helicopters and hellfire missles. the best a population with small arms can do is change the odds in a small way for a short time for a small number of people. note how no conservative government officials are supporting our right to bear LAW missles.
what a pair!
In the Huckster's little brain, that almost makes sense. After all it was Arkansans that were massacred by Mormons (well, Indians, but the Mormons tricked both groups)... and if the Arkansans had not given up their weapons... it would have been a battle.
they're throwing snowballs in Iran?
The 1st Amendment lays the foundation for a free state - the internal structure. It grants liberties which King George did not, including the right to petition the government for a redress of grievances. And that's a far more significant lapse in Iran's government - something that is accompanied by a tight-fisted religious rule.
The 2nd Amendment sets forth principles for maintaining that free state in the face of an external threat, such as the British Crown seeking to rein in its former and rebellious colonies. It is not for the convenience of 'overthrowing' a 'tyranny' that is little more than a bunch of sour grapes by sore losers.
It's unpatriotic to confuse a right winger with facts. Didn't you know that?
... who insisted my interpretation of the Bill of Rights - which I also described as each Amendment building upon the previous one to create a free state as a whole, not just an isolated 'right to bear arms' or 'freedom of religion' was full of shit.
It's not confusion, it's the absence of critical thinking.
I missed it.
I honestly don't even remember the exact topic ... possibly the teabagger nonsense when Glenn Beck was pushing his 'We Surround Them' horseshit.
It is always fun to poke a stick at the dittoheeads and their ilk.
Stupid gits.
Hell, a situation has to become critical for them to even attempt to think for themselves and then they can't remember how it's done.
Let's take a look at that pesky old 2nd amendment
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." What the NRA and the gun loons seem to forget is the first four words.
The founding fathers had in mind that the only way to prevent chaos and wanton killings was to organize those "bearing Arms" into a militia which was led by men who had the intelligence to organize them into an effective, disciplined unit. Undisciplined individual troops without a leader and a unit strategy usually end up dead. Keeping arms in a home was fine in the Colonial days when every man was expected to help with the community defense. Instead, today's whackos have co-opted it into every citizen making a fort out of his home.
And the coward Huckabee would NOT pick up a gun to defend anything, typical coward. But he'd let other people die.
This weekend when Huckabee was asked about Palin's decision, his routine remark was basically, I've been a bigger victim than she's been, and I toughed it out and survived. I guess she's off his christmas card list for this year.
There's a Christmas card list? Why, oh why, am I not on that list?
You have to kiss some serious republican ass to make that list.
She's a pretty staunch Republican and conservative.
(It's true that opposites do attract).
Wait... ass kissing... you don't mean that literally, right? (Unless you're Lindsey Graham or Larry Craig, and that would be butt slurping. I suspect that Holy Joe does his share of butt slurping too.)
That is the "icky" factor I tried up thread to avoid.
only to ten.
I count only to ten? Sure on a bad day, but on a good day I can speed right up to the really big numbers.
Since Huckabee in on Fox and kind of dis-ed Palin and Mika and Joe are on MSNBC and spent the morning more or less defending Palin (Mika was freaking out defending her) I'm guessin Palin may be going to get a show on MSNBC.
My reply was to ThunderMonkey's post of the wife counting.
I agree with you, Huckleberry is an idiot.
Maybe 7-11 can come up with something like Butt Slurpees.
a Labor Day card?
Howzaboot a Samhain card?
Somebody is a potential threat in Iowa. Huckabee will call her a quitter all the way through February 2012.
The GOP is now the party of Stupid. I mean truly, it seems the front runners or "rock stars" if you will, are just plain stupid or ignorant. I think that's why they are so pissed at Obama. When bush was in office they thought he made being stupid cool. Now we have an intelligent President and they are bummed out because being stupid is now....stupid.
POP, that comment was worded just perfectly.
It didn't sound stupid? ;)
Without the 2nd Amendment there are no battles, just massacres.
Oh good, so Steve McNair died in a "battle" -- his family must be relieved.
This show actually exists...
another Rocket Surgeon had a similar plan ...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CLjNJI54GMM&fe...
... let's remember one other location where the citizenry was well armed.
It was a place called Mogadishu ...
I don't think.
There were NO laws, other than what the warlords decided.
As crazy as our country is with guns. Mogadishu had/has some serious fire power, not stuff you'd find at a gunshow in BFE Redneckville.
They had serious firepower, and no regulation at all.
Here, at least we have some regulation.
And the infrastructure to back it up to a certain extent, Mogadishu...not so much.
If he was at the rodeo he could have cheered wildly for
GWB
Did you hear any of bush's speech? Jesus, he sounded more southern or texan than ever. He used to go into that mode when he was speaking to the good old boys during his time of campaigning but this weekend it was so thick that he sounded like a total hick.
He was such a hick in office, but I always thought it was staged phoniness, he couldnt ever go off script, when he did he'd get in trouble so it was back to the tough talking cowboy schtick. I'm not surprised he reverts to form for speeches.
Speaking before a rodeo audience in Oklahoma, hot ticket for an ex-Prez.
Now that Bushco does not live in DC, he has no need of a speech coach.
He is free to be the hick cowboy that his inner self demands.
Bush is a northerner, born in Connecticut. A carpetbagger.
Have never fired at another human being. I have not even fired all the guns I own. I always enjoyed target shooting and clay pigeons.
When I was young we used to hunt and we needed the game to feed the family. But I haven't hunted an animal in nearly thirty years.
However I have no intention of giving them up. Some are keep sakes and I will just keep them thank you.
republicanism is a mental illness!
...or am I the only one who thinks he's got a good point?
After all, it was folks armed with little more than assault rifles who chased us out of Vietnam and who have kept us stalemated in Iraq and Afghanistan for these past 8 years. Sure, we've got stealth bombers, tanks, and aircraft carriers. Sure, we're killing 50 of them for every 1 of ours. But we sure aren't winning.
Sometimes, in military affairs, tenacity counts for a lot more than firepower. As we should have learned over these past decades.
Still a bad idea, but it has more merit than most people are giving it credit.
we would have just bombed the crap out of the entire country.
Women and children? dead
Everyone else? dead
Also all the oil wells and refineries.
The Utility of Force by Brig. Gen. Rupert Smith.
Smith addresses the changing military landscape. We fought Vietnam as if it were an 'industrial' war - a battle won by bulk forces: tanks, planes, warships.
What we're facing in Iraq is what Smith calls 'War Amongst The People' - the urban counterinsurgency, door-to-door combat.
Nice find on the book.
A neighbor who was a military strategist and in intelligence, and one rank below Brig. Gen. used to say after Nam used to say things like this guy does. He would add intelligence operations needing to change as well.
Mass torture really hurts "your side" if you do it and it becomes public. Re: France in Algeria, US in Iraq and Ahmadinejad in Iran now. And if it is widespread, it always becomes public.
War is changing, and in many ways.
Huckabee is a shill already looking to the next election. He is trying to invoke the boogeyman of Democrats will take your guns (which they won't) in prep. for the next elections. He is using the death of Neda to scare American's into thinking that could happen here and would if we didn't have guns. Right now I'm far less worried about my right to bear arms as I am my right to privacy. I want to know what Huckabee will do to protect all the amendments. His use of Neda is just callous and self-serving.
News Flash for Huckabee: Neda did not die for your presidential goals.
I just don't think that he'd be singing the same tune if it were the American people being massacred. If such a scenario were to come about, the massacred would be just so many dirty home-grown terrorists who deserved to be exterminated, and guys like him would be praising the people who were murdering the People.
Confederate States of America's next election?
"Sure, we're killing 50 of them for every 1 of ours. But we sure aren't winning."
But we could if we wanted to. Meaning, if we weren't concerned about killing innocents, or at the very least not pissing off the rest of the world, then yes, we could blast their country off the map entirely. Does anyone really think that if the protesters in Iran were armed, that the army wouldn't just bomb them into oblivion?
Hey Huckleberry...what's the difference between a steaming pile of shit on the side of the road on a hot summer's day and what you think?
I don't know either.
... isn't as offensive.
it smells better!
... the pile of shit doesn't have delusions as to its true nature.
The Great Empirelist, some called him the great communicator, tried the same thing. He did so very quietly and quite illegally through good ole' Ollie who now has his own tv show.
Remember?
Huckabee needs to tend to his homofilic preaching and stay the hell away from anything that resembles politics or policies.
And we need to keep him as far away from the Oval Office as possible.
I think the word you're looking for is HOMOPHOBIC.
"Homophiliac" suggests a person who loves homosexuals, as a bibliophile is one who loves books.
Hm...I figured homophiliac was something like a hemophiliac...maybe someone who, after they start being gay, just can't stop?
Funny!!
Or you could just say republican.
..explains how Ghandi was so successful.
Robert McNamara dead @ 93.
...but 'Fog Of War' is a superb documentary.
...to think about the millions of innocent people he fire bombed to death in Southeast Asia.
I'm a liberal democrat but I support the second amendment. The second amendment helps protect people from government. Do we really want only cops, soldiers, and g-men having guns? And remember the bill of rights aren't really rights at all but rather limitations on government. Anyway how this would play out in Iran is something I do not know. And neither does Huckabee. I don't think comparing Iran to the US regarding 'keeping and bearing arms' is a valid or useful comparison.
The blogger who posted this also implies that since the founding fathers only used muskets and other old style weapons that the 2nd amendment shouldn't really be taken so seriously anymore. However, she is wrong. The founding fathers chose to use the words "arms" because they knew damn well that weapons change. If they just meant muskets then they would have said so.
n/t
No one wants those dumb mother fuckers guns. I live in Chicago and work in the criminal justice system...illegal guns in the hands of violent individuals is a major problem that must be addressed.
Does it mean that as a gun owner I am either a dumb mother fucker or a violent individual.
A less defensive position might suit you better. I come from three generations of law enforcers and responsible gun owning hunters. My issue wasn't with gun ownership.
I'm a gun owning progressive who has them for hunting , sport and Defense. I'm not going to shoot anyone in church or museums or unarmed and non -threatening. The Marines tought me how to shoot in 67 and tought me who to shoot and who not to shoot. I don't trust government to look out for my welfare and I damn sure don't trust any fucking right -winger to have my best intrests in mind.You too will have to pry my weapons out of my cold dead hands.
Piss on so called christians like huckleberry and piss on their god , he is not the God I adore and trust, just like the country they want has no resemblence to the Country I want. I want a real Democracy not a theocracy.
I'm not going to debate this issue with anyone here, because some "progressives" are so knee-jerk anti-gun that it is a waste trying to open their eyes.
So, to all you anti-gunners, go f*** yourselves. Enough said.
For all you intelligent progressives with open minds, here are some great pro-gun progressive sites:
www.liberalswithguns.com
www.theliberalgunclub.com
www.a2dems.net
www.gunlovingliberal.com
www.progunprogressive.com
www.americangunculturereport.com/index.html
Nice how you bought into the conservative framing of liberals being anti-gun.
Regulating ownership is not the same as being anti-gun. I always get a chuckle when some belligerent gun nuts find it offensive that other people may request they show a minimal gun ownership proficiency, and a clear bill regarding their mental health before buying a gun. IMHO, people who find those two items "offensive" should not be near a BB gun, much less a full fledged assault rifle.
"Nice how you bought into the conservative framing of liberals being anti-gun."
Nope. Obviously, not all liberals are anti-gun. If that were the case, the web sites I listed wouldn't exist.
As far as criminal background checks go, you'll get no argument against those from me.
Concerning you "progressives" who think that there's no point in individuals owning guns, because "the government will always have more guns than you ever will", I suggest you read Che Guevara on the subject of guerrilla warfare.
I'm a realist. Tyranny can happen anywhere, even in the US. That's why the RKBA is so important.
shredded?
It is kind of pointless to wax poetic about how guns can defend freedoms, when a lot of our freedoms have been dissipated without a single shot being fired back.
Face it, the conditions for which the 2nd amendment applied have long been passed by both history and technology.
the fact that you talk in terms of "you progressives" is kind of funny though.
I have no problem with people owning their lead viagra, to each their own. However, I want to make sure that I am not going to be endangered in the process. Not much to ask, really. I fail to see what is so offensive about making sure of that.
Not a very smart way to find allies.
I didnt know those sites existed, thanks. Even though I own a few guns I actually am in favor of stricter gun control laws, I still read up on various types of weapons, thanks for the links
Also, any argument about being able to defend yourself from the big bad government by less gun control laws is horseshit, if people only would stop and think that the United States government spends more on weapons of all kinds then the rest of the world combined kind of makes your 9mm not very effective to whatever the govt. will throw at you.
Stricter gun control laws would lessen the flood of weapons not only to Mexico but to streets all across America, and thereby reduce the glut of guns in America, many owned illegally. And it would lessen gun crimes and thats why cities like Chicago and D.C. want handgun bans. Only Chicago is still alive amongst those two with a ban in place after the state Supreme Court ruling that made it legal to continue to ban (unlike D.C.)
More power to Mayor Daley
Yet no one complains that they regulate the size of blades.
It's illegal in Texas to carry a sword, never mind a sword cane.
I would love to be able to walk around town, with my vintage machete strapped to my back...but noooooooo!
Please don't buy into the 'liberals hate guns' crap. Classic non-issue that the right uses to get votes. There is a large chunk of the left wing that supports the second amendment. Read through these comments for a reminder that democrats don't equal gun stealers.
http://leftake.com/diary/76/iran-election-and...
What good is Hickster's gun going to do against a predator drone if the fedrul guvment wanted to take him out? Or a Russian or Chinese nukular missile?
Idiot.
...when the second amendment was written, a musket was the top end of military technology. Essentially whatever arms the government had was also available to the citizenry. To maintain that parity today, citizens would now need to be able to own anything in the US arsenal.
This isn't true. Top end military equipment in the 1700's would be navies, cannons, calvary units etc. Not simply men with muskets. History has demonstrated time and time again though that men with guns can defeat armies with greater fire power.
just delays the inevitable. Velvet revolutions have more staying power. Jesus and his band of merry men didn't have any shoot outs with the Romans, but eventually...
The US would have become independent from Britain just as all other countries did in the absence of the Revolutionary War.
And if armed farmers (plantation owners) didn't get what they wanted, what was the point? And as for the North using guns...the North would arguably have been better off if they had just let the South go their own way. It has infected politics ever since and prevents the progressive majority in non-CSA states from self-determination.
Certainly, our forefathers owned guns but not all of them. Some fought and some died but not all owned guns or fought with them during revolutionary times. There are other things driving revolutions and other methods to employ than merely "arming everybody". Even the British dealt with the situation by employing Hessians, heavy cannons, etc. but we still managed to throw the British out. Oh, and did I mention it took more than a few riots in the streets over an election to do that?
Hey Huckleberry, go hound someone else!
One of the US reporters was asked a week of so ago if Iranians could own guns. He said they could but most in the cities do not. In the rural regions you are more apt to find people who have guns for one reason or another.
... at some point I read, prior to the 2003 invasion, that the personal gun ownership rate in Iraq was higher than in the US. So much for that bullshit theory about gun ownership leading to "polite" societies and maintaining tyranny in check.
In any case, I tend to disregard the waxing poetic about "polite" societies by people whose main MO includes being a petulant obnoxious morons that would not know politeness if it bite them in the ass.
The truth is, that if the shit hits the fan... chances are that the NRAites would break all sorts of land speed records running scared. At the end of the day, all this is just more bullshit smoke and mirrors to defend their lead viagra.
seems from what I've read...and that was admittedly a while back...that the second amendment was orginally included because the founders had a fear of a standing army. Thus the provisions for "well regulated militia."
That requirement is now gone.
However, with the advent of Black Water and other private armies now at the gov'ts disposal (as well as the overthrow of posse comitatus by W) the second amendment gets new life in my book.
And I'm not armed.
... was economic in nature. The founding fathers didn't want to justify the upkeep/maintenance of troops. So they chose a 'citizen militia' which could keep and bear the arms they would bring to battle when summoned.
The founding fathers nonetheless saw fit to also add protections against the quartering of troops (3rd Amendment) and unreasonable search & seizure (4th Amendment), because these were abuses of the British Crown.
The Crown also had this habit of running 'press gangs,' where they'd just grab people off the street and impress them into His Majesty's Navy - regardless of whether you held a job or had a family. Thus, a 'well-regulated' militia - answerable to the state yet nonetheless free citizens.
The right-wing 'gotta have our guns in case the government goes wacky on us' really does a disservice to the principles and thought that went into the Bill of Rights.
It wasn't entirely economic although that was a factor.
The quartering of soliders during peacetime, who tries soldiers when they commit a crime in the colonies, warrantless searches and seizures etc.
Doesn't Huckleberry Hound sound like the typical Reslug Dumb Ass??
He's bloating up faster than Rush Limbaugh. These doughy combat dodging conservative cowards couldn't fire a gun without hitting an old lawyer in the face let alone the enemy.
He used to be very overweight. He lost weight twice when he was running for re-election in AR...once he gained it back, the second time he made this big deal about wanting to make Arkansas healthier. Looks like he's going to have to go on another diet before the next election...
...if it were American police and armed forces, along with hired thugs like Black Water, who - on being turned lose against the American People, were met with armed resistance? Would the American people be patriots and would-be victims who chose not to be victims, or would they be terrorists and insurrectionists all deserving to be mowed down?
If the people are rising up against a Democratic government then they are patriots and victims of oppresion.
Those people would be terrorists and anti-American scum if a Republican administration was in power.
Armed resistance is ONLY ok if you're resisting against Dems!
Ummm Huck my boy, ever hear of a little fracas called Little Big Horn? Both sides had guns there.
Massacre was force of arms...didn't work out too well in the long term. And yet he also worships an unarmed victim of state violence, in some bizarre fractured logic.
.
it would make it much harder for the government to suppress the people, big guns or not. The right to bear arms is important. Of course the NRA takes that to an extreme, hunting with military weapons and all.
Personally if If I need to rise up against my government for taking my founding rights and freedoms, I'd rather have a gun than a rock and a molotov cocktail.
That said I still want to hurl my cereal up listening to Huckabee's little diatribe.
Mike Huckabee is one of the clearest speakers I have ever heard and he plays bass.
There. I said something nice about him.
He's actually a guest on the Daily Show and Colbert Report fairly often, and he's very funny and charming. He makes it easy to forget that he's batshit insane.
The end result of the riot instigated by one Adams in order to provoke exactly what happened, in which a vastly outnumbered group of soldiers was threatened by an unruly mob who (American myth to the contrary) were throwing more than just snowballs, resulting in the frightened soldiers firing once, their fire immediately stopped by the commanding officer on the scene, and said soldiers being defended by another Adams who demonstrated, in court, that they by and large had a legitimate reason to fire in self-defense.
that it makes you some sort of default hero. Technically, since we aren't allowed to strap RPG launchers to our chest when we leave the house, hasn't tyranny already won?
How about a strap-on dildo?
A cornpopper and a squirrel.
"Some of us fail to understand that our 1st Amendment right to speak and assemble is meaningless without our 2nd Amendment right to bear arms. We don’t make the connection sometimes."
I'm having a little trouble making that connection.
I don't remember seeing in either amendment, or anywhere else in our Constitution, that we have the right to shoot somebody if they disagree with or try to infringe on our First Amendment right to free speech. In the case of Huckleberry's assertions, there's a difference between free speech and cheap talk.
I was in college when Kent State took place!
Were Americans to protest like they have in Iran, our government would have our blood running in the streets like water, and our "liberal" media would be telling America and the world that martial law was absolutely necessary because the rioters were nothing but looters and criminals!
Second Amendment rights will do nothing to protect our first Amendment rights if too many of us get together and raise our voices against any issue the rich take exception to!
Who would Jesus shoot, and would Jesus be more of an AR or an AK guy.
Praise Jeebus, and pass the ammo. We're hunting for squirrels with Huckabee!
Yeeeeeeeehhhhaaaaaaaaa!
PS. The ironic part about that Jesus feller is that he made it rather explicit that weapons and self defence were a big no no, and he talked all that about loving people and shit. He didn't say shit about teh gays, or the 2nd amendment, or tax rates... I just fail to see how supposedly ordained Christian ministers can live with themselves
Huck is just looking to increase the ratings of Cops on the TV. The more people buy guns, the more we'll all get to watch those juicy confrontations between some poor, desperate, unemployed slob pointing a cheap pistol at fifty cops armed with shotguns and sniper rifles.
It's a fair fight, America, because by gawd, you've got a gun, too!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Ox1Tore9nw
Not to break with the pile on here, but it is a pretty established fact that small arms lead rebels to bigger arms. Ever heard of the American Revolution? Guys with muskets stole supplies and took over armories full of canons and powder. Then the guys with the little guns had big guns.
When the people have enough access to small arms it's called "a battle" when they organize. If they all had broomsticks rather than muskets it would have been "The American Massacre" and the Beatles would have come from Pittsburgh.
I know that gun ownership is one of those wedge issues and there is plenty of legitimate disagreement to be debated. . . but lets at least be reasonable and put to rest the red herring that having small arms is useless against government weapons. Governments and tyrants have always had bigger weapons at first. People with small guns don't just stand there in the street waiting for the helicopters to mow them down. They go gorilla. They take their pistols and rifles and hijack trucks carrying night vision, body armor and portable missile launchers. .
If powerful governments could just squash people with small arms then we would have won the war on terror before it began.
I'm just sayin'. . .
But, arm everyone because the troops cannot be trusted? Is that the gist of the argument? Seems a bit contradictory...
Gen Custer was unarmed?
Schmuckabee,
Since you seem to have a, to say the least, limited understanding of history and your own religion, not to mention a diminutive intellect, let me point out that the British Empire, the largest empire ever to rule the globe, was brought to its knees by a little man dressed in a home made sheet. Regarding your religion allow me to remind you of the admonition that, should some one strike you, turn the other cheek! No, your imaginary hero didn't say unless you want to steal his oil!
"Now what’s the difference between a masacre and a battle? Well I’ll tell ya’. Guns. Some of us fail to understand that our 1st Amendment right to speak and assemble is meaningless without our 2nd Amendment right to bear arms. We don’t make the connection sometimes."
Quite aside from all the arguments you can make just on the face of this statement, and the nuttiness of what Huckabee has to say . . .
What about when the government is spying on you without your knowledge? When your private, freely expressed opinions are secretly being eavesdropped upon electronically without warrant, and your First Amendment rights are being routinely violated without your knowledge, what use is a gun?
How does a gun protect you from electronic tyranny?
For that matter, how does a gun protect you from a state that possesses standing armies, city police forces with heavily-armed swat teams and a federal police force that can operate across state lines?
In an age of techno-spying and armed government, the 2nd Amendment is a joke. It's a quaint reminder of a long-dead era when the right to own a musket enabled citizens to be soldiers when the need arose to defend against arbitrary rule. That world no longer exists.
The Continental Army in 1775 was about 22,000 soldiers. Other than muskets and a few rifles the heaviest arms was 4 regiments of artillery. On the other hand in 2009 the United States Army consists of over 1,090,000 troops armed with everything from M-16 rifles to ground-to-ground missiles.
At the time the Second Amendment to the Constitution it was realistic to think that an armed citizenry organized into state militia could defend the country. By November 1791 General Arthur St. Clair's disastrous defeat at the Battle of the Wabash proved that state militia was inadequate. President Washington organized the Legion of the United States.
Any of us who have served in the military know that armed individuals, even if they have assault rifles, stands no chance against M-60 machine guns, helicopters, and M-1 tanks.
Login or Register to post comments.