National Review: Calling All Insurrection Fans (11 posts)

Thread tags: Abraham Lincoln, Kevin Williamson, National Review
|
  • Profile picture of milemarker milemarker said 1 year, 10 months ago:

    NRO’s Kevin Williamson schools us on how the 2nd Amendment throws open the door to start shooting at the government:

    There is no legitimate exception to the Second Amendment for military-style weapons, because military-style weapons are precisely what the Second Amendment guarantees our right to keep and bear. The purpose of the Second Amendment is to secure our ability to oppose enemies foreign and domestic, a guarantee against disorder and tyranny.

    It’s the only alternative, he says.

    I’ve asked guest blogger Abraham Lincoln to respond:

    Our popular government has often been called an experiment. Two points in it, our people have already settled,–the successful establishing and the successful administering of it. One still remains,–its successful maintenance against a formidable internal attempt to overthrow it. It is now for them to demonstrate to the world that those who can fairly carry an election can also suppress a rebellion; that ballots are the rightful and peaceful successors of bullets; and that when ballots have fairly and constitutionally decided, there can be no successful appeal back to bullets; that there can be no successful appeal, except to ballots themselves, at succeeding elections. Such will be a great lesson of peace; teaching men that what they cannot take by an election, neither can they take it by a war; teaching all the folly of being the beginners of a war. Abraham Lincoln, in his first message to Congress, July 4, 1861

  • Profile picture of milemarker milemarker said 1 year, 10 months ago:

    More Republican talking to each other. This time the media elites from the far Right making the case that if they can’t win at the ballot box, they think they’ll win the hearts and minds of the majority who defeated them by shooting people. Talk about tyranny!

  • Profile picture of Lamonster Lamonster said 1 year, 10 months ago:

    A very interesting and well reasoned article. While I reject your conclusion that he advocates using bullets when ballots (making Lincoln’s “response” apples to oranges) don’t give us the desired results, he states perfectly what I believe to be the true purpose of the 2nd amendment. Thanks for posting it.

  • Profile picture of milemarker milemarker said 1 year, 10 months ago:

    I’m repeating what other conservatives have been saying about the this recent emphasis on protecting the country from government tyranny, which is as important a theme in Williamson’s article as the debate over gun control. There’s that implication in Kevin’s article and it’s a disturbing one since we heard it from candidates running for office in the last election cycle. I’ve been following the discussion for a couple of years and Williamson is a central figure in it. He’s on the same page as Nevada’s Sharon Angle of “I’m hoping that we’re not getting to Second Amendment remedies. I hope the vote will be the cure for the Harry Reid problems” fame. That’s the position Williamson has staked out, as well. He’s not emphasizing it in this article like he normally does, but it’s there just like it almost always is with him.

  • Profile picture of milemarker milemarker said 1 year, 10 months ago:

    John! Show a little respect for the topic I’ve established by deleting that and starting your own discussion.

  • Profile picture of Lamonster Lamonster said 1 year, 10 months ago:

    MM, that’s my point too. My view is that the 2nd amendment is for the purpose of insuring the citizens against a government that would overthrow the constitution and put them back under European style tyranny, ala a monarchy and the church. At the time it made good sense because we were not really supposed to maintain a large standing army during peacetime and, when needed, the army was made up of citizen-soldiers who owned and kept the same weapons as used for fighting (maybe not the cannons).

    Sadly, that is not the case today. Not only do we have a permanent military (peacetime doesn’t seem to last long anyway) but the development of weaponry has far surpassed what any private citizen could or should be reasonably expected to keep, much less afford. So that aspect of the 2nd is, in practicality, outdated and moot. But that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t be allowed to keep and bear the best available for our personal protection. How much is enough? A little bit more than our attacker has.

  • Profile picture of limalimamike limalimamike said 1 year, 10 months ago:

    good luck defending yourself against any tyrannical govt when all you have left to defend yourself with, thanks to Feinstein, who has a concealed weapons permit, rivals a slingshot.

    Maybe you should inform yourself about firearms, and their capabilities, because the 2nd amendment wasn’t written for hunting

    “The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.”
    Do that with a single shot small caliber.

  • Profile picture of Geoffrey Thorpe Geoffrey Thorpe said 1 year, 10 months ago:

    Ha! Good luck defending yourself against the U.S. military as currently constituted, if it chose to launch a coup. I don’t care how many AR15s you’ve got, LLM, you’d be toast. Drones…nuclear weapons…M1 tanks…yeah, good luck with that.

  • Profile picture of John  Bravo John Bravo said 1 year, 10 months ago:

    THe pilots of those drones have families.

  • Profile picture of limalimamike limalimamike said 1 year, 10 months ago:

    Do you think the entire military would listen to crackpot president?

    One higher up recently committed career suicide to show the public what the president really is.

  • Profile picture of Groucho Groucho said 1 year, 10 months ago:

    Are you talking about Petreus? Mike, he committed career suicide because he let the wrong head do his thinking. I am glad he is gone.