Brave Patriot Fights Tyranny of “Traffic Stop”
Here’s what happens when a brave 2nd Amendment patriot decides to fight the tyranny of the “routine traffic stop” in Ohio.
[youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yid9qG30II8]
The brave well-regulated militiaman had a Kalashnikov on his person, along with eight 40-round magazines. It is somehow important for the proper exercise of his 2nd Amendment liberties that he have these so that he can shoot as many bullets as possible at the unsuspecting police officers who were “just doing their jobs” as the AmeriKKKan lamestream media calls it.
The difference between a “responsible gun owner” and “deluded homicidal lunatic” is sometimes razor-thin. But this video also depicts the idiotic pseudo-patriotic fever-dream of the particular gun people who think that the founding fathers intended for individuals to arbitrarily take up arms to fight an undefined “tyranny” from time to time, or that the Constitution somehow sanctions that. They didn’t, and it doesn’t.
On a positive note, there now appears to be one fewer maniac.
I’m glad the police survived—but their injuries were significant. Of course, nobody needs an AK47 and forty-round magazines for home defense. To hell with Gilkerson, the gunman.
But rather than just hitting the gun fetishists, I wonder if there might be some room for solidarity between right- and left-libertarians on genuine infringements of civil liberties—for instance, government executions of Black Panthers, MOVE members, militiamen, children at Waco, Mark Virginia on Buffalo’s West Side, countless young black men on Buffalo’s East Side, etc.
Perhaps even more important, in the long run, we face fundamental government infringements on rights: if, in fact, Barack Obama’s administration is now recording all digital telephone communications, this is more dangerous than anything a black helicopter could bring. Even more dangerous than a traffic stop. See here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/may/04/telephone-calls-recorded-fbi-boston
Here’s the catch: these are fights that must proceed politically, and small arms fire is irrelevant to them. The most that can be offered by gun law opponents is the possibility of going out in a blaze of glory—like Thelma and Louise. How about winning instead?
“The difference between a “responsible gun owner” and “deluded homicidal lunatic” is sometimes razor-thin. ”
Untrue. It’s just that pro-gun propagandists attempt to cover all gun owners under the same umbrella, eliminating differences between them. Just because someone claims to be a responsible gun owner doesn’t mean he is; but conversely, just because someone isn’t when he claims to be, doesn’t mean that anyone else that claims to be responsible, isn’t.
There are plenty of gun owners that are responsible, not idiots, are unafraid of background checks, are horrified at events like those documented in this video, etc. etc. etc.
Anyone who’s ever been marginalized by association with a demographic should recognize the same tendency to stick it to somebody else, and avoid doing so. Unless, of course, propaganda’s your thing.
Tell it to the cretins agitating against background checks.
Did you know that they succeeded in blocking universal background checks in the Senate? Didn’t even let it go to a vote.
You say “propaganda”, I say “empirical proof”. Potato, Potahto.
Yes, I am aware of that, and I share your distaste for it. I just hate being lumped in with fringe viewpoint holders.
The first link in my piece goes to the TPM article, from which you can further link to the Cleveland Plain Dealer’s compendium of books found in the guy’s car.
Got it, thanks. I struck out in my (admittedly cursory) search.
By the way, I meant to ask: Do we have evidence that the subject in this video was the stereotypical “2nd Amendment Patriot extremist,” as opposed to simply a criminal? There are, after all, other scenarios that could lead to an encounter such as we see here.
Here’s the thing: there’s no real way to sort the responsible people from the people who seem responsible but will someday lose their shit. Individuals may be responsible; people on the whole just aren’t. Maybe it’s not worth all the dead bodies just so the responsible people can enjoy squeezing off a few rounds at the range, you know?
You are so right. A few ruin it for the many, always. Why should guns be any different.
Exactly. As I’ve said before, every gun-owner is “law-abiding” until the moment they pull the trigger in anger.
There’s no way to determine who may share sexually transmitted diseases either. Do we make abstinence law?
Your STD analogy is fatally flawed, unless you were born with a Glock attached to your body, not to mention that there obviously are ways to determine who has STDs, and sex is necessary to the survival of the species (and more fun than shooting guns).
Liberty is not the only value we as a society should hold dear. I am not, for instance, free to bury land mines in my front yard. Why not, if liberty is the only value worth considering? Why can’t I collect chemical weapons, etc.? Because security is another, equally valid common value, despite that wonderful Ben Frankin quotation everyone seems to love. When we pit the liberty of some people to own guns against the security of other people from bullet wounds, it’s no contest for me.
You assure me you’re a responsible gun owner, but I have nothing but your word on that. I believe you believe it, but I also wonder what effect, say, a fifth of Jack Daniels and some romantic melodrama might have on your sense of responsibility. It only takes a momentary loss of emotional control to turn a lifetime of responsible gun ownership into yet another tragically stupid murder and/or suicide. We are just mammals, and we fuck up. It’s not an anolmaly; it is the norm. It’s just not worth the risk to hand such an easy-to-use killing device to the impulsive, emotion-driven primates that we are. There are other toys.
Here’s another analogy, then. You assure me you’re a good driver, (and probably believe you are), but I only have your word and a license to say that’s true… though maybe some alcohol would turn you into a DWI assassin. So do I demand you only ride a bicycle?
The point is, we live with responsibility to each other as neighbors and citizens, but also live with risk. I’m in favor of good legislation to help manage that risk (I personally favor background checks for firearms purchases), but don’t support severe restriction on people’s freedom to exercise… or fail to exercise… responsibility.
In America, we have always struggled to find a balance between individual liberty and communal sensibility. It’s something intrinsic to this country.
The difference between a “responsible gun owner” and “deluded homicidal lunatic” is the former will abide by gun laws, the latter won’t. That effectively makes tougher gun laws pointless, as safety will no be improved.