Predictably, the comment threads at right-wing sites are filled with calls to “Buy More AMMO!”, “Start the Impeachment drum roll!”, and “stop…a thug who needs to be physically subdued.”
This comment is typical:
Marxists don’t play by normal rules…They usually shoot those who oppose them. Rest assured that Obama would do just that if he could…Instead, he will lie, cheat and steal to get what he wants and dare anyone to stop him. He knows that we have had peaceful legislation in this country for over two hundred years, so there is no precedent for stopping a thug who needs to be physically subdued…The line in the sand has been laid at the feet of Senate Republicans…Stop playing nice! You better be prepared to shout, scream, walk-out, knock Harry Reid’s teeth out. Cane his ass on the Capitol steps…It’s been done before, and for less!
Clearly, these folks are feeling a bit upset after being told by their favorite bloggers than Obama had met his Waterloo.
You don’t have to go to comments on blogs for talk like that. I saw a vid the other day with a GOP candidate (can’t recall the name of the man) who was talking about using the ballot box so he wouldn’t have to resort to the ammo box.
.
(Times Dispatch) – Sounding more like Malcolm X than Patrick Henry, Virginia political candidate Catherine Crabill warned of armed insurrection during a Northern Neck “tea party”.
“We have a chance to fight this battle at the ballot box, before we have to resort to the bullet box,” said Crabill, the Republican nominee for the 99th District seat in the House of Delegates.
“But that’s the beauty of our Second Amendment right. . . . Our Second Amendment right was to guard against tyranny.”
But can the tyranny of a distant monarch be legitimately likened to discontent with the policies of a democratically elected president?
And does the inscrutable Second 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 — give individual citizens the right to take up arms against their government?
Crabill clearly thinks so, as does the U.S. Supreme Court.
In a 5-4 vote last year, the court struck down a handgun ban in Washington, D.C., and concluded that fear of tyranny is a basis for individuals to possess firearms.
Abraham Lincoln no doubt would have frowned upon that case, District of Columbia v. Heller. “Among free men, there can be no successful appeal from the ballot to the bullet,” he wrote before being slain by a man who considered him a tyrant.
When folks such as John Wilkes Booth and Catherine Crabill get to decide what constitutes tyranny, we should all be very afraid.
“This debate has taken a radical turn,” Joshua Horwitz, executive director of the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, said during a panel discussion at the YWCA of Richmond.
When asked in an e-mail by Richmond Times-Dispatch political reporter Tyler Whitley to explain her “bullet” remark, Crabill hardly retreated. “Rather than scrutinize my comments, why doesn’t the media examine how this administration’s policies and trajectory into socialism/Marxism has incited the people to buy arms at an unprecedented rate?” she asked.
Gun Owners of America endorses Catherine Crabill (pdf)
"But I will not let myself be reduced to silence."No, we should be equally prepared lest we bleed out on the streets asking with our last breath, “Can’t we talk about this?”
Caning! Now that’s a novel idea for Republican obstruction! It’s been what, 150 years?
Shorter wingnut: The president must be impeached and/or shot since I don’t like his proposal.
Actually, there is. It’s called The Rule Of Law. First implementation is generally a call to the police at 9-1-1. The court system has had AMPLE experience in dealing with this kind of thing, believe me.
I’m not sure what these guys are shaking in their boots over, though. I haven’t heard or read anyone on the left (even in the broadest of definitions) advocating violence of any kind, not even on the most divisive topics. I haven’t heard anyone in the Obama administration advocating any major changes in gun control laws — his statements during the campaign were pretty mild and reasonable, and it doesn’t seem to be much of a factor in his domestic agenda.
But there’s no point in talking to them — as far as they’re concerned, there really IS a monster under the bed, and not even having a gun under their pillow helps them feel safe anymore.
Outrage for the sake of outrage does not a democracy make.
“First Things” is a religious publication, largely Catholic, I believe, but definitely Christian in focus.
I’ve pretty much had it with Christian hypocrisy. Of course, we can’t assume that those commenting were Christians, either nominally or authentically, but my guess is that they would lay claim to that label. So, I couldn’t help myself. I had to make my own comment. It will be interesting to see if it remains on the site. But if you check it out, I’m “Mum” at #45.
I blame public education. Clearly, the left-wing, union member teachers have not adequately taught the children a proper definition of Marxism or what the rights under the Constitution truly represent.
Teachers have unions? Who knew?
It all kinda makes me wish the state opt-out was included. Oklahoma or someplace could just opt out of all healthcare and invite these asses to move on in. Of course deciding to take advantage of the opportunity would be irreversible.