Video: Tiananmen Square activist speaks up for the Second Amendment

posted at 3:51 pm on January 22, 2013 by Allahpundit

If you missed this at Townhall, Weasel Zippers, Ace’s site, or the dozens of other conservative blogs that have posted it in the last few days, make time. (If you can’t spare seven minutes, Blog O’ Stuff has the transcript.) One gun-control argument I’ve always had trouble understanding, never more so than now, is the idea that millions of citizens armed with pistols and rifles as a bulwark against tyranny might as well give those weapons up because they’re no match for a modern military with tanks and planes. Really? Since when is guerrilla warfare a sure loser, even against a sophisticated, well-equipped army? Until the Awakening changed the dynamic in Anbar province, Iraqi Sunnis were doing okay holding out against the world’s hyperpower. The Taliban crawls on to this day after 11 years of war in Afghanistan and may well end up back in control once the U.S. finally gives up and withdraws. The point of Petraeus-style counterinsurgency doctrine, I thought, is that even the most well-trained, well-equipped force can’t pacify a population through brute strength. It’s one thing to believe worrying about martial law here is silly, it’s another to believe that an attempt at martial law would inevitably succeed.

Anyway. After you watch this, head over to Legal Insurrection and watch a veteran speak up for the Second Amendment at a town hall in Illinois.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

Rainsford on January 22, 2013 at 6:01 PM

Oddly the guys who actually wrote it thought that it did. I am glad you are here to put that straight. /

“…to disarm the people – that was the best and most effectual way to enslave them.” (George Mason, 3 Elliot, Debates at 380)

“Americans have the right and advantage of being armed – unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.” (James Madison, The Federalist Papers #46 at 243-244)

“As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms.” (Tench Coxe

“The prohibition is general. No clause in the Constitution could by any rule of construction be conceived to give to Congress a power to disarm the people. Such a flagitious attempt could only be made under some general pretense by a state legislature. But if in any blind pursuit of inordinate power, either should attempt it, this amendment may be appealed to as a restraint on both.” [William Rawle, A View of the Constitution 125-6 (2nd ed. 1829)

“And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms….The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants” (Thomas Jefferson in a letter to William S. Smith in 1787. Taken from Jefferson, On Democracy 20, S. Padover ed., 1939)

Or you are just a gibbering idiot.

sharrukin on January 22, 2013 at 6:19 PM

Yes, it should be readily clear from the writings of the founding fathers that the 2nd amendment was as a defense against a tyrannical government.

I realize that I’m taking a great risk with the thread as this question:

But if self-defense against tyranny isn’t the purpose of the 2nd amendment and it fails to mention hunting, ducks or any other type of waterfowl, then what exactly was the point of the right of self-defense?

Galt2009 on January 22, 2013 at 6:31 PM

Even the Soviets in Afghanistan didn’t reach that level. It is possible, but its rare to find a government that sees much benefit to acting in such a way.

sharrukin on January 22, 2013 at 4:19 PM

I remember there was a Soviet installed leader in Afghanistan who said it would be OK if 90% of the people died so that the other 10% would have a state that met his vision. As I recall he had a rather quick end to his rule and it was not because he was voted out.

KW64 on January 22, 2013 at 6:33 PM

But if self-defense against tyranny isn’t the purpose of the 2nd amendment and it fails to mention hunting, ducks or any other type of waterfowl, then what exactly was the point of the right of self-defense?

Galt2009 on January 22, 2013 at 6:31 PM

Turkeys are actually quite vicious – so maybe it means we can defend ourselves against really mean animals – as opposed to hunting them of course/////

OR – maybe it was intended for us to defend ourselves against the Indians – since they were still a major threat. Do the libs really want to go down that warpath?

dentarthurdent on January 22, 2013 at 6:37 PM

If the time ever comes that I have to worry about an American tank manned with American boys laying tread in my town, much less firing,,, well,, I won’t worry about dying. Sooo far gone I might as well.

When I was in the service I dreamed about that young girl that admired me for protecting her family. Not terrorizing them upon orders of a two bit marxist pos outta chicago.

wolly4321 on January 22, 2013 at 6:38 PM

But if self-defense against tyranny isn’t the purpose of the 2nd amendment and it fails to mention hunting, ducks or any other type of waterfowl, then what exactly was the point of the right of self-defense?

Galt2009 on January 22, 2013 at 6:31 PM

There wouldn’t be any point to it. The constitution set up the framework for a government and obviously the Second Amendment was vital to that governance. So was the First Amendment which is why they were so prominent. There was no amendment dealing with wagons, horses, or urban planning because those things, while important at the time, were not vital to setting up a functioning government. Firearms were vital as the final guarantee of freedom.

sharrukin on January 22, 2013 at 6:41 PM

But if self-defense against tyranny isn’t the purpose of the 2nd amendment and it fails to mention hunting, ducks or any other type of waterfowl, then what exactly was the point of the right of self-defense?

Galt2009 on January 22, 2013 at 6:31 PM

Turkeys are actually quite vicious – so maybe it means we can defend ourselves against really mean animals – as opposed to hunting them of course/////

OR – maybe it was intended for us to defend ourselves against the Indians – since they were still a major threat. Do the libs really want to go down that warpath?

dentarthurdent on January 22, 2013 at 6:37 PM

LMAO!

I am really curious to hear an answer to this – because they pretend to be intellectually superior to those of us on the side of preserving liberty – they ought to have a good answer.

Maybe not.

Galt2009 on January 22, 2013 at 6:41 PM

I remember there was a Soviet installed leader in Afghanistan who said it would be OK if 90% of the people died so that the other 10% would have a state that met his vision. As I recall he had a rather quick end to his rule and it was not because he was voted out.

KW64 on January 22, 2013 at 6:33 PM

A government has to govern and can restrict freedoms, but eliminating the entire population just isn’t in the cards.

sharrukin on January 22, 2013 at 6:44 PM

The second amendment has never had anything to do with “defense against government tyranny”. Anyone who says it does flatly doesn’t understand it/how our government works.

Rainsford on January 22, 2013 at 6:01 PM

.
Hey Rainsford ! … It worked !

Look how many HA commenters you got to respond to that.

listens2glenn on January 22, 2013 at 6:44 PM

Hey Rainsford ! … It worked !

Look how many HA commenters you got to respond to that.

listens2glenn on January 22, 2013 at 6:44 PM

And there are those reading who may actually believe that crap. According to a recent poll, 35% actually do, so I don’t much care to leave stuff like that unanswered, even if it does give Rainsford a woody.

sharrukin on January 22, 2013 at 6:48 PM

“To me, a rifle is not for sporting or hunting, it is an instrument of freedom.”

The Communists are well aware of that..that’s how they came to power in most countries. That’s why they don’t want those who oppose them to be armed.

We’re seeing a different tactic here (Socialist takeover), but that’s because we’re so heavily armed to begin with unlike most societies.

Dr. ZhivBlago on January 22, 2013 at 6:57 PM

Guns are not enough…we also have a constitutional right to machine guns, grenades, SAMS, and RPG’s.

Pablo Honey on January 22, 2013 at 4:10 PM

RPGs were found in a gun buy back in Los Angeles. The US government sells RPGs to other countries. However, a US citizen cannot have those arms.

You liberals want to talk about Constitutional rights, but you don’t talk about why you want to infringe upon the 2A when it comes to RPGs, etc. Or why it’s OK to allow others to have RPGs and not US citizens.

You liberals are disgusting because you want to turn the US into a defenseless nation filled with frightened people. Frightened of their own government.

Private citizens should be allowed to own anything that the civil authorities have, and use. All of the items you’ve listed are supposed to be forbidden for civil law enforcement to use.

That’s where the line is drawn.

listens2glenn on January 22, 2013 at 4:22 PM

The thing is, that line was never highlighted in the 2A.

Extreme, I agree, but freedom isn’t docile.

aryeung on January 22, 2013 at 4:24 PM

I agree. That line is arbitrary. The government will use that arbitrary reasoning to push for gun control and tyranny. It’ll be a slippery slope to disarm the citizenry.

Kyle_Reese on January 22, 2013 at 7:05 PM

As we all know, tanks are afraid of bullets, particularly those fired by handguns.

lester on January 22, 2013 at 4:05 PM

As pointed out, while a rifle has no chance against a tank, it doesn’t mean those slaughtered should just sit there and take it.

aryeung on January 22, 2013 at 4:20 PM

During the Hungarian Revolution of 1956, 10-year old boys did a hell of a job destroying tanks by dropping bottles of gasoline onto the engine compartment, thereby setting the tank afire…and then shooting the crew as they tried to flee the burning tank.
It might be “old style”, but it still works.

Solaratov on January 22, 2013 at 7:38 PM

listens2glenn on January 22, 2013 at 6:44 PM

.
And there are those reading who may actually believe that crap. According to a recent poll, 35% actually do, so I don’t much care to leave stuff like that unanswered, even if it does give Rainsford a woody.

sharrukin on January 22, 2013 at 6:48 PM

.
I apologize for wording that poorly. I wasn’t making fun of you.

I believe that’s all Rainsford was looking for, was the reaction. Just a “hit ‘n’ run” statement designed to stir things up.
But I didn’t mean to imply that there shouldn’t have been a response to his (or her?) comment.

listens2glenn on January 22, 2013 at 8:20 PM

I agree. That line is arbitrary. The government will use that arbitrary reasoning to push for gun control and tyranny. It’ll be a slippery slope to disarm the citizenry.

Kyle_Reese on January 22, 2013 at 7:05 PM

.
I don’t believe the Founder’s intent is arbitrary.

I believe it can be proven in a court of law.

listens2glenn on January 22, 2013 at 8:23 PM

I don’t believe the Founder’s intent is arbitrary.

I believe it can be proven in a court of law.

listens2glenn on January 22, 2013 at 8:23 PM

…unless rollover Roberts is in that court!

KOOLAID2 on January 22, 2013 at 8:33 PM

But I didn’t mean to imply that there shouldn’t have been a response to his (or her?) comment.

listens2glenn on January 22, 2013 at 8:20 PM

No problem.

sharrukin on January 22, 2013 at 8:50 PM

Ironically Communist China was founded when the armed masses rose up and overthrew the government.

DarkCurrent on January 22, 2013 at 8:58 PM

Ironically Communist China was founded when the armed masses rose up and overthrew the government.

DarkCurrent on January 22, 2013 at 8:58 PM

And not so ironically, after taking control, their next step was to disarm the population – followed immediately with the extermination of any and all opposition.

dentarthurdent on January 22, 2013 at 10:33 PM

And not so ironically, after taking control, their next step was to disarm the population – followed immediately with the extermination of any and all opposition.

dentarthurdent on January 22, 2013 at 10:33 PM

Actually that started under the Nationalists. Do you suppose private gun ownership is more common in Taiwan than on the mainland?

DarkCurrent on January 23, 2013 at 12:08 AM

Who is this fellow? He is most excellent.

Wow why is this guy not running for political office? He would draw back all that Asian vote in to the Republican party, and God knows we need it.
Raquel Pinkbullet on January 22, 2013 at 4:05 PM

I’d vote for him. Obama got most of the Asian vote. Taiwanese fellow I worked with, PhD Math, very bright, told me “America has too much freedom. In my country [back then] if you move to another city, you must report to the police and register” Yet this man became a citizen. Why didn’t he stay in paradise? He could not connect that our sloppy liberty encouraged the fantastic growth and creativity of the populace.

American growth has stalled. This is due to over control, private property is the key to a man s willingness to sacrifice or even die for his individual kingdom. The gun gives a man his share of the power, and his share of the responsibility. Liberty means a man will be hung after he steals the sheep, and not in case he might steal.

I am so glad to have seen the video. In China there are many heroes, only they get no publicity. One day, one of them may save our hides

entagor on January 23, 2013 at 12:36 AM

I don’t believe the Founder’s intent is arbitrary.

I believe it can be proven in a court of law.

listens2glenn on January 22, 2013 at 8:23 PM

.
…unless rollover Roberts is in that court!

KOOLAID2 on January 22, 2013 at 8:33 PM

.
Oh, you had to bring that up . . . . . . . : (

listens2glenn on January 23, 2013 at 1:30 AM

The comments here about tanks as superior is so asinine it is hard to believe we have lived in the same Country and watched the same history. Partisans win about 3/4 of the time, and these are ignorant peasants dressed in camo who can maybe spray an AK without shooting themselves. They don’t build weapons and they are ignorant to the fine points of working one.

White Americans would be a FedGoov horror show. A tank commander would roll up to an intersection and pop the tank top. Boom, his head explodes from an invisible rifleman 400 years away. Crew calls for help. FBI and BATF show up and in the space of a few seconds take 5 or 6 of their own casualties. Rifleman goes home, cleans his rifle for another day. Meanwhile hundreds of agents swarm around the “incident”, disrupting traffic and generally being stormtrooperish. Multiply this by 50 a day and you get an idea what 2nd Amendment guys are talking about. We are not talking about some guy shooting up a bar in San Stinko for “Viva Revolution!”. We are talking about highly intelligent men who are part of the gun culture who have owned weapons, built weapons accurized weapons and have the best weapons in the world taking on disorganized, fat, overpaid police forces who will die in DROVES (and far more will quit and some will even switch sides) in an effort that will lead to a real change in Government, but one in which the Liberals can’t possibly believe.

Look up “Battle of Athens”.

Bulletchaser on January 23, 2013 at 2:10 AM

yards not years…sorry.

Bulletchaser on January 23, 2013 at 2:12 AM

Unlike most gun owners, I absolutely LOVE the argument from the left that they’re not trying to take away sporting firearms, just the “high powered” military guns that “law abiding citizens don’t need.”

Uh huh. So tell me, when that big black bear is coming at you because he’s curious about the color of your insides, which round would you rather have, a military 9mm or a sporting .41 magnum. Would you prefer an Armalite AR’s .223 or a Winchester lever action in .45-70?

“Sporting” firearms have “military” firearms outgunned in every area except cyclic rate. And what is spray-n-pray going to do for you when you go up against a guy who can drop a buck at 300 yards with bullets that will penetrate body armor like it was putty?

Think I’m kidding? See below.

One final note. Our police, troopers and servicemen are not mindless storm troopers. They’re us. They’re part of our communities and called to service by noble desire. Does any sane American think men and women of this character are going to answer a call to mobilize against their countrymen?

No American is putting his countrymen in his sights. So confiscation will not happen. The libs just don’t get that fact.

And a Winchester is way cooler than an AR. Sorry black gun lovers, but that’s just the way it is ;)

The State of Wisconsin had over 600,000 hunters in the field during their nine day hunting season last year. Allow me to restate that number, 600,000 in the field. Red Dawn has nothing on these guys. During the last hunting season, Wisconsin ‘s hunters became the eighth largest army in the world.

The whole thing is worth reading:

Cricket624 on January 23, 2013 at 9:52 AM

Oops. The link didn’t show. My bad. Will try again.

Here it is typed out:
http://secondamendmentfreedom.blogspot.com/2011/03/worlds-largest-army-america-s-hunters.html

Cricket624 on January 23, 2013 at 9:54 AM

Pablo Honey on January 22, 2013 at 4:10 PM

I see Pablo is still trying to spin straw into gold.

Rainsford on January 22, 2013 at 6:01 PM

Fail

Freelancer on January 23, 2013 at 11:53 AM

Spoken like a “True “ American as only a person subjected to a oppressive regime can fully understand. Welcome to America and thank you for your inspiring words. Thanks for posting this, I almost cried.

Dollayo on January 23, 2013 at 4:28 PM

Comment pages: 1 2