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

New litmus test for military leaders…will you shoot American citizens…

PatriotRider on January 22, 2013 at 3:53 PM

Imagine THAT, Lennon !

listens2glenn on January 22, 2013 at 3:54 PM

But….but….but “It’s for the children”!

After all, if they never know freedom, they won’t mind slavery at all!

GarandFan on January 22, 2013 at 3:57 PM

PatriotRider on January 22, 2013 at 3:53 PM

Not just the military, but LEO’s and anyone else in a law enforcement capacity…

That is a scary thought that fellow americans would turn guns on us and do as asked by a tyrannical govt, no matter if or when that may happen…

Scrumpy on January 22, 2013 at 4:00 PM

The Chinese freedom fighter understands what the 2nd amendment is all about because he knows that if the Chinese people have the right to bear arms there will not be an oppressive evil communist regime that takes their freedom and lives… Of course our communists here want to take our right to bear arms so we cannot stop the tyranny of their communist government… Of course it is never going to happen, it is only in their wet dreams but not in the real life… Thank you Founding Fathers…

mnjg on January 22, 2013 at 4:01 PM

The way the kids are being indoctrinated by a liberal education system, it may come as no surprise that they would welcome it!

A govt that ‘cares’ for you cradle to grave… and anyone who doesn’t ‘toe’ the line is a prime target for ‘re-education’…

Scrumpy on January 22, 2013 at 4:02 PM

Can’t you just hear Obama yelling “get me a tank!”

Ellis on January 22, 2013 at 4:04 PM

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

lester on January 22, 2013 at 4:05 PM

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. This guy is a star.

Raquel Pinkbullet on January 22, 2013 at 4:05 PM

This is almost too much to bear.

A guy in China understands our Constitution better than 80% of our own citizens; Congress included.

And he’s the guy we’re supposed to be afraid of.

BobMbx on January 22, 2013 at 4:05 PM

Wolverines!!!

Ditkaca on January 22, 2013 at 4:06 PM

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

Too bad he isn’t part of the GOP.

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

lester on January 22, 2013 at 4:05 PM

The trucks bringing them ammunition and fuel are afraid of bullets.

sharrukin on January 22, 2013 at 4:09 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

“The threat of tyranny, today, is no less than at the turn of the century in 1900, in 1800, or in 1700!”

After watching yesterdays events and listening to our “Free and Independent” press, who were once charged with holding our politicians in check and accountable, have a collective orgasm…

… I would say that the threat of tyranny is very much alive and well, thank you very much.

Seven Percent Solution on January 22, 2013 at 4:10 PM

I would donate to him if he runs for office.

Raquel Pinkbullet on January 22, 2013 at 4:10 PM

Imagine THAT, Lennon !

listens2glenn on January 22, 2013 at 3:54 PM

We disowned John from the family the moment we read the lyrics to “Imagine”.

“So that’s your song? Communist bumper stickers set to music? Come on, man! I’m embarrassed to call you my brother.

“And I still haven’t forgiven you for making Yoko my sister-in-law.”

JimLennon on January 22, 2013 at 4:10 PM

Raquel Pinkbullet on January 22, 2013 at 4:05 PM

I know a few asians, and they are democrats… don’t ask me why, I am still trying to figure that one out!

My asian friends are sure gonna get this video!

Those with twitter and FB, post it and tweet it!!

What an outstanding citizen!!

Scrumpy on January 22, 2013 at 4:12 PM

Since when is guerrilla warfare a sure loser, even against a sophisticated, well-equipped army?

I have an answer for you, AP, the one you won’t like. An army can win against insurgency if it cares about neither land it fights for nor the people inhabiting it. The twenty-first century offers a very advanced – nuclear – version of scorched-earth tactics, against which rifles and handguns won’t fare well. Fear not the U.S. Army itself, even under command of an evil, corrupt Commander in Chief, but the U.S. Army working hand in hand with a foreign invasion (likely led by UN) force.

Archivarix on January 22, 2013 at 4:13 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

If you say so…

CurtZHP on January 22, 2013 at 4:14 PM

I had some progressive tell me how we’d never stand up against a drone or a BFV. After 10 years in the Marine Corps and 3 tours in iraq I can tell you that insurgency is an art. You fight on your own terms, and quickly melt away. You see, the US military is well known for using a sledge hammer to kill a fly – war is hell. Such actions inevitably cause “collateral damage.” When women and children die in far off lands most Americans could really care less. But on the streets on an American city, on old farm roads, a standing army occupying it’s own country will eventually over react. Just the shear site of armor glad soldiers patrolling the street, setting up check points and inevitably causing collateral damage will turn the most ardent supporter of big government against the actions. It de-legitimizes the the government. Insurgent, and counter-insurgent warfare isn’t pretty and it’s not just about fighting. It is about perception.

MoreLiberty on January 22, 2013 at 4:15 PM

I’m amused that the trolls think our 2nd amendment rights are to be ignored simply because we’d likely be outgunned by our military.

By that same logic, their right to free speech should be immediately curtailed because it’s highly unlikely they will ever own a radio station or publish a newspaper.

CurtZHP on January 22, 2013 at 4:15 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

That would sure make hunting a lot easier.

Archivarix on January 22, 2013 at 4:16 PM

I also find it amusing that the trolls are openly mocking a man who stood up to an oppressive government despite being outgunned by that government.

I thought standing up to the government was all the rage with liberals. What’s that you say? There’s a liberal in charge now? Standing up to the government is no longer chic?

CurtZHP on January 22, 2013 at 4:18 PM

I have an answer for you, AP, the one you won’t like. An army can win against insurgency if it cares about neither land it fights for nor the people inhabiting it.

Archivarix on January 22, 2013 at 4:13 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

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

Glad that you posted this on HA. I sent a tip to Drudge 3 days ago, somehow they still haven’t picked it up. This video needs to go viral.

The follwoing link has better video quality and it includes the first paragraph of the speech missing in your link:

thepoint on January 22, 2013 at 4:20 PM

lester on January 22, 2013 at 4:05 PM

We can always thank the Islamists for IEDs.

Cindy Munford on January 22, 2013 at 4:20 PM

Somebody send this to Tom Friedman as a little post-inaugural palate cleanser.

Christien on January 22, 2013 at 4:20 PM

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

lester on January 22, 2013 at 4:05 PM

If only we had a time machine for you to talk sense to the Warsaw Ghetto rebels.

aryeung on January 22, 2013 at 4:20 PM

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

lester on January 22, 2013 at 4:05 PM

..why don’t you go away, Google “Stalingrad” and “Molotov Cocktail”, and come back and tell us how that works out for you?

The War Planner on January 22, 2013 at 4:21 PM

Archivarix on January 22, 2013 at 4:16 PM

I’ve heard the some of them are good for fishing.

Cindy Munford on January 22, 2013 at 4:21 PM

As we all know, lester is always a gnatbrain.

Schadenfreude on January 22, 2013 at 4:21 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

.
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 War Planner on January 22, 2013 at 4:21 PM

Or a guy with guts and a log to shove between road wheels. The tank can still fire, but it won’t be moving for a while.

Liam on January 22, 2013 at 4:23 PM

Until the Awakening changed the dynamic in Anbar province, Iraqi Sunnis were doing okay holding out against the world’s hyperpower.

I’m not sure the Obama regime would have the same ROE.

the_nile on January 22, 2013 at 4:24 PM

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

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

lester on January 22, 2013 at 4:05 PM

..and, while you’re at it, look up Warsaw Ghetto Uprising and find out what some determined Jews in the ZOB with a few firearms could do against the Nazis.

The War Planner on January 22, 2013 at 4:25 PM

As we all know, lester is always a gnatbrain.

Schadenfreude on January 22, 2013 at 4:21 PM

..unfair to gnats everywhere.

The War Planner on January 22, 2013 at 4:26 PM

Glad that you posted this on HA. I sent a tip to Drudge 3 days ago, somehow they still haven’t picked it up. This video needs to go viral.

The follwoing link has better video quality and it includes the first paragraph of the speech missing in your link:

thepoint on January 22, 2013 at 4:20 PM

Massachusetts State House Firearms Rally 1/19/2013

thepoint on January 22, 2013 at 4:27 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

.
How many tank crews have been killed by someone climbing upon it, and shooting down through the open hatch?

I need someone with more military experience than I to answer that.

But, is the answer “0″? Very few?

listens2glenn on January 22, 2013 at 4:28 PM

How many tank crews have been killed by someone climbing upon it, and shooting down through the open hatch?

I need someone with more military experience than I to answer that.

But, is the answer “0″? Very few?

listens2glenn on January 22, 2013 at 4:28 PM

What if the answer is 0? Does it matter? I find the whole tank v rifle argument to be a pretty weak strawman.

aryeung on January 22, 2013 at 4:29 PM

‎”Never forget, even for an instant, that the one and only reason anybody has for taking your gun away is to make you weaker than he is, so he can do something to you that you wouldn’t let him do if you were equipped to prevent it. This goes for burglars, muggers, and rapists, and even more so for policemen, bureaucrats, and politicians.” – Aaron Zelman and L. Neil Smith, Hope (2001)

The Chinese know this reality only too well, as have those citizens that have been disarmed in countries around the world.

ProfShadow on January 22, 2013 at 4:29 PM

will there be a post on bibi’s boo-boo today?

sesquipedalian on January 22, 2013 at 4:30 PM

I need someone with more military experience than I to answer that.

But, is the answer “0″? Very few?

listens2glenn on January 22, 2013 at 4:28 PM

And while we’re asking questions, look at how “under-equipped” our enemies in Afghanistan are. Yet, they will pull out a win.

aryeung on January 22, 2013 at 4:30 PM

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

lester on January 22, 2013 at 4:05 PM

All it takes is one bottle of gasoline into the hatch. Start working on gasoline ban… oh wait, Ogabe already does.

Archivarix on January 22, 2013 at 4:31 PM

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

lester, it’s time for your violin lesson! on January 22, 2013 at 4:05 PM

Sorry, Kid, but tanks have been damaged and destroyed by bullets before. Some of the Soviet tanks were especially vulnerable because they had external fuel tanks.

F-

Del Dolemonte on January 22, 2013 at 4:32 PM

will there be a post on bibi’s boo-boo today?

sesquipedalian on January 22, 2013 at 4:30 PM

Winning his election was a “boo-boo”, Yogi? Please enlighten us.

Del Dolemonte on January 22, 2013 at 4:34 PM

New litmus test for military leaders…will you shoot American citizens…

PatriotRider on January 22, 2013 at 3:53 PM

With Colin Powell it would just be certain types of Republicans.

morbius on January 22, 2013 at 4:35 PM

will there be a post on bibi’s boo-boo today?

sesquipedalian on January 22, 2013 at 4:30 PM

Bibi has a choice between a pure right-wing bloc in case he wants to smash your sponsor (a.k.a. Iran) into Stone Age, and a center-right secular government in case he wants to reinforce Israeli economy. Given that Likud was bound to lose votes anyway, the election ended up perfectly.

Archivarix on January 22, 2013 at 4:35 PM

And while we’re asking questions, look at how “under-equipped” our enemies in Afghanistan are. Yet, they will pull out a win.

aryeung on January 22, 2013 at 4:30 PM

Because we have no spine and are trying to civilize the uncivilizable in less than 100th of the time they’ve been running free with their savagery.

If we quit letting blubbering cowards like antifederalist dictate how we fight wars and quit trying to civilize places until AFTER the natives were cowed or buried, we’d do way better.

MelonCollie on January 22, 2013 at 4:36 PM

Yes, it’s about freedom. ‘Nuf said.

Well, if I had to say more, I’d say that beyond freedom, and beyond hunting & protection from renegade animals, guns are the requisite equalizer for law-abiding folk to protect themselves from criminal thugs. Especially for women. And for the elderly. For all really.

Oh, and beyond protection from conceivable govt tyranny as TJefferson envisioned, (effective) guns are a key in helping to allay some of our most acute concerns about the possibility of societal breakdown and anarchy.

anotherJoe on January 22, 2013 at 4:36 PM

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

Sorry, Pal. James Taylor doesn’t want you to have so much freedom. And he knows what’s best for you.

UltimateBob on January 22, 2013 at 4:37 PM

How many tank crews have been killed by someone climbing upon it, and shooting down through the open hatch?

I need someone with more military experience than I to answer that.

But, is the answer “0″? Very few?

listens2glenn on January 22, 2013 at 4:28 PM

Very few.

Cutting off their fuel and supply train is what works.

Insurgents run away from tanks, they don’t play Johnny Commando and attack them.

sharrukin on January 22, 2013 at 4:37 PM

Sorry, Kid, but tanks have been damaged and destroyed by bullets before. Some of the Soviet tanks were especially vulnerable because they had external fuel tanks.

F-

Del Dolemonte on January 22, 2013 at 4:32 PM

Also, from what I have been told by a retired Army captain, the Soviet tanks stored their ammunition in the same compartment as the tank operators. So if anything penetrated that compartment, the whole thing would go BOOM, along with the people inside.

UltimateBob on January 22, 2013 at 4:42 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

We have a right to be armed with the same weapons our government would use against us.

Think carefully before responding.

Bishop on January 22, 2013 at 4:43 PM

Tanks are very nice things for infantry to have along. Tanks tho, in anything other than a blitz type movement, need infantry support, particularly in any close quarter fighting (urban, heavy forest, etc.,) or they become sitting ducks for half-decently trained and equipped opposition.

questionmark on January 22, 2013 at 4:45 PM

But on the streets on an American city, on old farm roads, a standing army occupying it’s own country will eventually over react.

MoreLiberty on January 22, 2013 at 4:15 PM

You don’t have to look further than Waco for examples.

can_con on January 22, 2013 at 4:46 PM

Also, from what I have been told by a retired Army captain, the Soviet tanks stored their ammunition in the same compartment as the tank operators. So if anything penetrated that compartment, the whole thing would go BOOM, along with the people inside.

UltimateBob on January 22, 2013 at 4:42 PM

That fuel tank was an inverted U, the space used to store ammo. A hit usually blew the turret off, too.

Liam on January 22, 2013 at 4:46 PM

CurtZHP on January 22, 2013 at 4:18 PM

We have a right to disagree with any administr….wait…what year is this? Sorry, I forgot, disagreeing is now racist.

Bishop on January 22, 2013 at 4:46 PM

Expensive ducks

questionmark on January 22, 2013 at 4:47 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

.
We have a right to be armed with the same weapons our government would use against us.

Think carefully before responding.

Bishop on January 22, 2013 at 4:43 PM

.
That was much better worded, than my reply.

Thanks. : )

listens2glenn on January 22, 2013 at 4:48 PM

Veteran stands up for 2nd Amendment at Chicago anti-gun forum
http://legalinsurrection.com/2013/01/veteran-stands-up-for-2nd-amendment-at-chicago-anti-gun-forum/

Veteran Stands Up For 2nd Amendment At Chicago Anti-Gun Forum
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7C44B55YYLQ&feature=player_embedded

The exchange:

Veteran: Sir, sir. While you’re standing up. I’ve sat here [inaudible] and I’d like to agree with the professor. Everyone standing in this room right now, especially the veterans in the room right now, know, that we are all Americans. The problem with this country right now is it’s us and it’s f***ing them. We need to stop this crap.

Now, the thing I would like you to answer, sir. And I did go to war for this country. Whether it was for everyone in here’s ability to have oil and gas in their cars, or the banks, or whatever. I went to war for my country.

And I went to war for your ability to have the First Amendment, to say what you stood up there and said today, to write what you want to write in your newspaper, and have whatever opinion you want to have. You can practice whatever religious freedoms you want. I would like you to answer the question, since you just said that one of the rights that I went to war over to defend, that is inalienable, to every American citizen. If this discussion was going on, about your First Amendment rights, would you still have the same opinion that we don’t need that any more either.

Goodman: You didn’t hear my answer….that’s not what I said…I said it doesn’t matter what their reasons are, what matters is whether or not it’s relevant today.

Audience member: It’s an eternal truth, an eternal truth….

Goodman: When they consider any part of the Constitution, any law, they’re going to say, “what does it mean today?”

Audience: NO!

Veteran: The threat of tyranny, today, is no less than at the turn of the century in 1900, in 1800, or in 1700!

Southern by choice22 on January 22, 2013 at 4:48 PM

We have a right to be armed with the same weapons our government would use against us.

Think carefully before responding.

Bishop on January 22, 2013 at 4:43 PM

Ok.

I’ll bite.

I am an ardent 2nd amendment supporter, even though I am from MA and like JT.

I do not think people should have access to chemical (although we do), nuclear, or biological (again, we do) weapons.

I understand your thought process, but keep this in mind. We don’t really need them. Neither does Al Qaeda. All that is really needed is intense will. We don’t have that yet. That’s why Al Qaeda is winning.

WryTrvllr on January 22, 2013 at 4:51 PM

It’s also why the democrats feel they will eventually win.

Funny that.

WryTrvllr on January 22, 2013 at 4:54 PM

It’s also why the democrats feel they will eventually win.

Funny that.

WryTrvllr on January 22, 2013 at 4:54 PM

Win what?

The ability to impose an Oppressive tyranny on the US?

Galt2009 on January 22, 2013 at 4:57 PM

Win what?

The ability to impose an Oppressive tyranny on the US?

Galt2009 on January 22, 2013 at 4:57 PM

Yes.

WryTrvllr on January 22, 2013 at 4:58 PM

Not many people appreciate the wisdom of Gerry Ford. But in the ’76 campaign he said,’Any govt capable of giving you everything you want or need, has the power to take away everything you have.”

xkaydet65 on January 22, 2013 at 4:58 PM

Also, from what I have been told by a retired Army captain, the Soviet tanks stored their ammunition in the same compartment as the tank operators. So if anything penetrated that compartment, the whole thing would go BOOM, along with the people inside.

UltimateBob on January 22, 2013 at 4:42 PM

That fuel tank was an inverted U, the space used to store ammo. A hit usually blew the turret off, too.

Liam on January 22, 2013 at 4:46 PM

There was also a battle in Desert Storm where our (US) tanks were held off for a time by the Iraqis, using non-tank weapons.

Del Dolemonte on January 22, 2013 at 4:59 PM

Because motive doesn’t really count for shiite.

WryTrvllr on January 22, 2013 at 4:59 PM

“What’s this ‘Tiananmen Square’ I keep hearing about? Is it a new restaurant?” -Average Dem voter

visions on January 22, 2013 at 5:00 PM

“What’s this ‘Tiananmen Square’ I keep hearing about? Is it a new restaurant?” -Average Dem voter

visions on January 22, 2013 at 5:00 PM

Yeah, I hear that’s where Ben Gazzi likes to eat.

CurtZHP on January 22, 2013 at 5:01 PM

WryTrvllr on January 22, 2013 at 4:58 PM

So is that what you want?

The end of Liberty?

Galt2009 on January 22, 2013 at 5:03 PM

Bishop on January 22, 2013 at 4:43 PM

.
Ok.

I’ll bite.

I am an ardent 2nd amendment supporter, even though I am from MA and like JT.

I do not think people should have access to chemical (although we do), nuclear, or biological (again, we do) weapons.

I understand your thought process, but keep this in mind. We don’t really need them. Neither does Al Qaeda. All that is really needed is intense will. We don’t have that yet. That’s why Al Qaeda is winning.

WryTrvllr
on January 22, 2013 at 4:51 PM

.
The civil authorities are not supposed to have those kind of weapons to use on us.

That’s one of the things Bishop was trying to say.

listens2glenn on January 22, 2013 at 5:03 PM

So is that what you want?

The end of Liberty?

Galt2009 on January 22, 2013 at 5:03 PM

You obviously don’t know me. I Think EVERYONE should be required to own an M4.

WryTrvllr on January 22, 2013 at 5:05 PM

listens2glenn on January 22, 2013 at 5:03 PM

This is one of those extreme weaknesses for Oppressives – the inability to argue without the crutch of strawman arguments.

Galt2009 on January 22, 2013 at 5:06 PM

The civil authorities are not supposed to have those kind of weapons to use on us.

That’s one of the things Bishop was trying to say.

listens2glenn on January 22, 2013 at 5:03 PM

We also weren’t supposed to have a standing army or an income tax. (I don’t want to argue about what form the federal revenue stream takes). Nevertheless, reality intruded. Very quickly too, for Thomas Jefferson.

WryTrvllr on January 22, 2013 at 5:07 PM

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

lester on January 22, 2013 at 4:05 PM

Mohandas Gandhi: “Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the Act depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest.

Admiral Yamamoto: “You cannot invade mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind each blade of grass.”

Adolf Hitler: “The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing.”

itsspideyman on January 22, 2013 at 5:08 PM

lester on January 22, 2013 at 4:05 PM

A tank makes a wonderful broiler oven when it runs out of fuel.

A few armed men and a couple Molotov cocktails or similar weapons can cause a lot of damage, fast.

On a related topic, guess our former president Bill doesn’t understand the Second Amendment either. Seems he has warned a few Dems that a lot of hunters and sportsmen might be a bit peeved if control goes wild.

It ain’t about hunting. Not mentioned at all in our Constitution.

It is about that last ditch, that one last citizens’ bulwark against tyranny.

The Founders understood this. They lived it.

We, however, seem to have forgotten all about that.

coldwarrior on January 22, 2013 at 5:09 PM

WryTrvllr on January 22, 2013 at 5:05 PM

I’m only judging you based on your comments here – so what did you mean when you said:

It’s also why the democrats feel they will eventually win.

WryTrvllr on January 22, 2013 at 4:54 PM

And you’re agreeing with my response:

Win what?

The ability to impose an Oppressive tyranny on the US?

Galt2009 on January 22, 2013 at 4:57 PM

Yes.

WryTrvllr on January 22, 2013 at 4:58 PM

Galt2009 on January 22, 2013 at 5:09 PM

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

lester on January 22, 2013 at 4:05 PM

They gotta come out of the tank sometime…

NickelAndDime on January 22, 2013 at 5:12 PM

The Last Letter from Mordecai Anielewicz
Warsaw Ghetto Revolt Commander
(April 23, 1943)

It is impossible to put into words what we have been through. One thing is clear, what happened exceeded our boldest dreams. The Germans ran twice from the ghetto. One of our companies held out for 40 minutes and another – for more than 6 hours. The mine set in the “brushmakers” area exploded. Several of our companies attacked the dispersing Germans. Our losses in manpower are minimal. That is also an achievement. Y. [Yechiel] fell. He fell a hero, at the machine-gun. I feel that great things are happening and what we dared do is of great, enormous importance….

Beginning from today we shall shift over to the partisan tactic. Three battle companies will move out tonight, with two tasks: reconnaissance and obtaining arms. Do you remember, short-range weapons are of no use to us. We use such weapons only rarely. What we need urgently: grenades, rifles, machine-guns and explosives.

It is impossible to describe the conditions under which the Jews of the ghetto are now living. Only a few will be able to hold out. The remainder will die sooner or later. Their fate is decided. In almost all the hiding places in which thousands are concealing themselves it is not possible to light a candle for lack of air.

With the aid of our transmitter we heard the marvelous report on our fighting by the “Shavit” radio station. The fact that we are remembered beyond the ghetto walls encourages us in our struggle. Peace go with you, my friend! Perhaps we may still meet again! The dream of my life has risen to become fact. Self-defense in the ghetto will have been a reality. Jewish armed resistance and revenge are facts. I have been a witness to the magnificent, heroic fighting of Jewish men in battle.

M. Anielewicz

Ghetto, April 23, 1943

rokemronnie on January 22, 2013 at 5:13 PM

Just as an aside about Tiananmen Square:

My ex was a high school student in Beijing at the time (living about 5 miles from the square), and only after she left China and meeting me, and having access to uncensored information, did she learn the truth of the massacre there. Her parents still don’t believe anything happened to this day other than a mild protest.

Boy that was a rocky few months!

Also…most over there think Obama is a dumb***!

can_con on January 22, 2013 at 5:15 PM

Galt2009 on January 22, 2013 at 5:09 PM

Here’s a thought. Don’t judge me at all. I was biting. As for the democrats, they use the exact same tactics. control the media. control the education. populism. etc. etc. etc.

WryTrvllr on January 22, 2013 at 5:17 PM

WryTrvllr on January 22, 2013 at 5:17 PM

What’s the matter – can’t answer that question?

And you’re agreeing with my response:

Win what?

The ability to impose an Oppressive tyranny on the US?

Galt2009 on January 22, 2013 at 4:57 PM

Yes.

WryTrvllr on January 22, 2013 at 4:58 PM

It now appears that you want to LIE your way on of your predicament.

Galt2009 on January 22, 2013 at 5:26 PM

It now appears that you want to LIE your way on of your predicament.

Galt2009 on January 22, 2013 at 5:26 PM

yeah…..

you’re a riot.

WryTrvllr on January 22, 2013 at 5:27 PM

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

lester on January 22, 2013 at 4:05 PM

This proves that lester is as big a dunce on military history or modern military weapons, as he is on almost everything else. Tanks are needy creatures. They need fuel (lots of it), they need proper terrain to operate in, they need support vehicles and troops to protect them from some idiot taking out their treads with improvised bombs or heck even Molotov cocktails can be used to at least blind a tank.

The point all those associated troops and vehicles are very susceptible to small arms fire.

William Eaton on January 22, 2013 at 5:35 PM

WryTrvllr on January 22, 2013 at 5:27 PM

And you’re a Liar.

Galt2009 on January 22, 2013 at 5:37 PM

Also…most over there think Obama is a dumb***!

can_con on January 22, 2013 at 5:15 PM

If you can only be correct about one thing, that’s where I would put my money also.

Cindy Munford on January 22, 2013 at 5:51 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

New litmus test for military leaders…will you shoot American citizens…

PatriotRider on January 22, 2013 at 3:53 PM

That question needs to be more specific.
My answer would be – “Yes – if they are trying to deny other American citizens their Constiutional rights.”
The standard oath office includes the words “protect and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies foreign and domestic“.
So would I pass or fail your litmus test?

dentarthurdent on January 22, 2013 at 6:03 PM

All it takes is one bottle of gasoline into the hatch. Start working on gasoline ban… oh wait, Ogabe already does.

Archivarix on January 22, 2013 at 4:31 PM

Don’t even have to get it in the hatch, just get it in the deck grating over the engine compartment, it’ll burn the control wiring just fine and no more motion. Take a little while, though.

Maybe paintball the vision blocks and zap the crew when they open the hatches.

But the easiest way for an insurgency to fight heavier military vehicles is kill the people ordering their use against the civilian population. Destroy the planes and drones in their hangers, the tanks in their laagers. If you wait for the no-knock in the night, or until the Army tank is plowing a flammable tear gas nozzle thru your walls, you’ve already lost.

rayra on January 22, 2013 at 6:05 PM

Because the Founders never believed that a gov’t could go bad:

“Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security” – Declaration of Independence.

Lou Budvis on January 22, 2013 at 6:10 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

This guy’s a fvcking idiot. Or liar. Useful Idiot either way.

h ttp://www.monticello.org/site/jefferson/when-governments-fear-people-there-libertyquotation

“The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.” (Thomas Jefferson Papers p. 334, 1950)

rayra on January 22, 2013 at 6:12 PM

Any would-be insurgents would do well to read ‘The US Army/Marine Corps Counterinsurgency Field Manual’ and some Sun Tzu.
And Clausewitz ‘On War’ speaks as much to mindset and morale as tactics.

rayra on January 22, 2013 at 6:15 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

Anyone who would say something like that clearly doesn’t understand what the US Constitution says.

dentarthurdent on January 22, 2013 at 6:16 PM

I’ll say it again, Rainsford is a goddamned liar. Anyone who has done ANY reading of the Founders / Framers notes, letters and the Federalist papers would know that fighting tyranny is EXACTLY what the 2nd Amendment is intended for.

rayra on January 22, 2013 at 6:16 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

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

What’s alarming is full a third of this nation thinks like he does, or just plain doesn’t know. Apparently the most ‘education’ they every got was 109mins on how the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor.

h ttp://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/gun_control/65_see_gun_rights_as_protection_against_tyranny

rayra on January 22, 2013 at 6:20 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

Anyone who would say something like that clearly doesn’t understand what the US Constitution says.

dentarthurdent on January 22, 2013 at 6:16 PM

But I will give you this part – our federal government currently does not work according to the Constitution, or the intent of the original framers of that incredible document.
And that’s NOT a good thing in any way.

dentarthurdent on January 22, 2013 at 6:20 PM

Comment pages: 1 2