Paul Begala On God, Guns And The Government
BY Herschel Smith
10 years ago
CNN:
This notion — that the Second Amendment gives citizens the right to fire upon federal officials, or their local police, or sheriffs or even U.S. military personnel — is common among right wingers. But it’s one thing to hear, say, goofball Ted Nugent honk off that way. (The Nuge, by the way, has boasted about how he avoided taking up arms in defense of his country during Vietnam.) It is another to know that someone with those loopy views is one step away from the United States Senate.
The Washington Monthly blogger Ed Kilgore has asked the right question — the one any Iowa voter should be putting to Ms. Ernst: “Since you brought it up, exactly what circumstances would justify you shooting a police officer or a soldier in the head?”
Good question, Ed. Is it OK to do so if, say, the Supreme Court stops the counting of votes so as to give the presidency to the candidate who got fewer votes? I don’t think so.
How about segregation? If ever American citizens were oppressed by their government it was African-Americans under Jim Crow. Thank God we had Dr. King and not Ms. Ernst leading the civil rights movement.
Perhaps Ms. Ernst reserves her bloody right to truly egregious government actions, like ensuring affordable health care, even to folks with pre-existing conditions? Lord, I hope not.
[ … ]
Don’t believe me? Ask George Washington. Gen. Washington, as president, forcefully rejected the notion that American citizens had a revolutionary right to take up arms against their government — even against the most hated government officials enforcing the most hated government program. President Washington and his Treasury Secretary, Alexander Hamilton, sought to enforce a tax on whiskey, which Congress passed in 1791. A group of Pennsylvania whiskey distillers objected, violently. In what was known as the Whiskey Rebellion, they refused to pay the tax and burned the home of the federal tax collector.
Washington personally led 13,000 troops to crush the rebellion (the only time a president has commanded troops in the field). Washington was willing to shed blood to ensure no one took up arms against his or her own country.
To argue that the Second Amendment allows citizens to turn their guns on their government is to repudiate the actions of George Washington, as well as the Constitution itself.
I say this as a gun owner — and I’m not just talking about some puny 9 mm like the one Ms. Ernst brags about. At last count I have 22 guns. I use them to hunt, shoot targets, and bond with my family. My grandfather was a hunter and gun owner, as is my father, as am I — as are my sons.
But neither we, nor Ms. Ernst nor any American has the right to turn those weapons on American military personnel, peace officers or other government officials.
The last refuge of a gun control scoundrel is to claim that he has guns, and the more of them the better. But I couldn’t care less if he has 2200 guns. As the saying goes, beware of the man with one gun. He probably knows how to use it.
Begala’s invoking of George Washington and the Whiskey Rebellion is rich. Only someone like him could ignore the fact that the entire continental congress in effect turned their guns on their own government, and commissioned George Washington as general to lead the effort.
But Begala quickly turns his attention away from the founding fathers to examples of things that would cause a man to turn a weapon on his own government. Socialized medicine? Nope. Racism and Jim Crow laws? Nope. But how far does this go Paul? Where would you draw the line?
Would it be okay with you if the government showed up at your doorsteps one day to confiscate your grandchildren to take them off to be put to death because they happened to be born different? What should the parent of a Down’s syndrome child think when this happens? What about Jews, Paul? What about Catholics, Paul? You’re a Catholic (at least nominally). A number of religious clerics went along with Hitler’s plans.
But there were good men too, like Dietrich Bonhoeffer and Martin Niemoller who opposed Naziism to their own demise. In which camp are you, Paul?
I have a feeling that Paul Begala can’t answer the question. Note that God was never invoked in Begala’s missive, but it is in my own title. That’s because to a collectivist, there is nothing more supreme than the state. Not the right to vote, not the right to be free, not the right to bear arms, not the right to use them. To the collectivist, the state is god. And if you have no threshold that can be crossed, no trigger than can be pulled, literally no action that the state can take and be opposed by you with force of arms, you’re no different from those pictured above. And I’m glad I don’t know you.
On October 27, 2014 at 6:41 am, UNCLEELMO said:
“…so as to give the presidency to the candidate who got fewer votes?”
The Forehead is still ticked off about Bush.
Note to Mr. Begala- It was YOUR party that were the original segregationists, Paul. (And since you brought up Dr. King, he was thought by his brother to have voted Republican. Odd, isn’t it?)
And by the way, your precious OBAMAcare may be affordable to those with pre-existing conditions, but it isn’t to everybody that’s paying for it, which is everybody else.
Paul is a typical Big Government Dem- he’s delusional.
On October 27, 2014 at 8:07 am, MattBracken said:
When should you shoot them in the head? When they come to your door to confiscate your firearms and ammunition that were legal the year before. Ask the Armenians, European Jews etc what follows confiscation.
On October 27, 2014 at 12:08 pm, Frank Ch. Eigler said:
… would that have been good advice for Britons and Australians who were partially or fully disarmed in recent decades? If only the transition to totalitarianism were that clear-cut.
John Ross’ book proposed the impending loss of ability to resist as the appropriate moment to resist, but even that is subjective.
On October 27, 2014 at 1:57 pm, MattBracken said:
There is sometimes a delay of decades between confiscation and extermination. But once a people are disarmed, extermination is baked in the cake.
On October 27, 2014 at 3:21 pm, Frank Ch. Eigler said:
It isn’t literally be that simple, else many countries would be void of men by now. I’m sympathetic to your point, but a decades-long-slipper-slope would be a poor defence to a jury of one’s peers.
On October 27, 2014 at 10:08 pm, MattBracken said:
“And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if every Security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say good-bye to his family? Or if, during periods of mass arrests, as for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire city, people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling with terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand?… The Organs would very quickly have suffered a shortage of officers and transport and, notwithstanding all of Stalin’s thirst, the cursed machine would have ground to a halt! If…if…We didn’t love freedom enough. And even more – we had no awareness of the real situation…. We purely and simply deserved everything that happened afterward.”
― Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
On October 27, 2014 at 10:17 pm, Dennis said:
Hi Matt:
In addition to your take on this I would like to interject Mr. John Bad Elk. John Bad Elk V. United States; 177 US 529 (1900). The Court said that a person was justified in resisting an unlawful arrest up to and including the death of the officer. This included resisting unreasonable force if it could be reasonably construed to cause serious bodily harm or death.
With the amount of police beatings and shootings of late this could be a real game changer. Unfortunately the later courts seem to ignore this . The Supreme Court of Indiana stated a couple of years ago that “a modern reading of the Fourth Amendment” negates such responses from citizens who can simply sue the police later for damages if they are arrested wrongly. (I like that a modern reading like who the hell gave them the right to read it in other than original intent. There si no Amendment which is the constitutional process for changing the Constitution. I guess they missed that day in law school….) Never mind that you might be 6 feet under after an encounter with some of the lunatics that seem to be drawn to police departments. The Indiana Legislature promptly passed a bill reaffirming a citizens right to resist such craven brutality. So, in your face Black Robes and I say, Hell Yeah!
Of course this goes for all the alphabet agencies that have received swat teams since Bush pushed the “Un Patriot Act” upon the people. I like his AG’s response when he was asked the Constitution said they could go so far with mere legislation. Gonzales said , “it doesn’t say we can’t”. This is a great departure from Madison’ s description in Federalist 45 “..powers delegated are few and defined.”… Seems like we have had a hugh rash of public officials not being able to read, even simple black and white.
Heller V. DC specifically stated that overthrowing tyranny was one of the purposes that the Second Amendment supported. Here we go again all these talking heads not being able to read freshman college material. A real bunch of know nothing authorities here.
It would appear that our elected representatives need to be given a history lesson. We should be well versed in the subject matter, both practical and academically. Afer all practice makes perfect :)
God Bless Squid
On October 28, 2014 at 12:33 am, Chingalasatfers said:
You must get into the game before they come to the door! LE departments do internal cleaning whenever the LE violates their oath, or does anything even remotely crossing the line outside their scope. The feebs yank clearances if one sneezes sideways and they are out to get ya. So people should be able to do the same thing. If LE no longer considers a member a member once they cross the line, then violating the constitution, or their oath, should be considered crossing the line, and thus outside scope, and therefore- are no longer to be considered law enforcement, but simply civilian criminals. If these civilian criminals attempt a house invasion in order to steal your weapons, even using a search warrant obtained under false pretenses, illegally signed off by a judge that didn’t read it, or forwarded by a supervisor who wasn’t smart enough to attest to the legality or veracity of the information provided (Waco), then a law abiding citizen should be justified in protecting his home, family, and property.
On October 28, 2014 at 3:26 pm, SamAdams1776 said:
Long before then, or its too late. And I AM a military member–but also an Oathkeeper. I will NOT obey unconstitutional orders against the people.
SamAdams1776 III Oath keeper
Molon Labe
No Fort Sumters
Qui tacet consentit
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
Corruptissima re publica plurimae leges.
Idque apud imperitos humanitas vocabatur, cum pars servitutis esset
On October 27, 2014 at 8:31 am, madoradataman said:
I recommend books like “This Non-Violence Stuff will get you Killed,” and other tomes about the role of firearms in the civil rights movement.
Dr. King, et al, may have practiced non-violence as a philosophy and a political strategy; but, … many of those involved, including Dr. King’s body guards, were ARMED (…with real guns!!).
On October 27, 2014 at 10:10 am, UNCLEELMO said:
He applied for a CCW permit in 1956, but was denied by the powers that were.
Ever seen the YouTube video ‘Black conservative leaders discuss how the NRA was created to protect freed slaves’?
On October 27, 2014 at 10:00 am, Ned Weatherby said:
Paul Begala employs the typical straw-man arguments so typical of gun owning anti-rights tools.
“Ask George Washington,” et al. The question “exactly what circumstances would justify you shooting a police officer or a soldier in the head?” can be answered easily.
How about when the police come for you because of your use of a computer, instead of penned letters? Isn’t that the same thing as making a certain guns illegal overnight by the stroke of a pen?
When they come for your family, Paul – because of violation of some “created by the stroke of a pen, pretty neat” regulation – to put them in a cage, what will YOU do?
Because you are an apologist and a sycophant for government ALWAYS being “right,” you will, undoubtedly, make the call yourself, and help the police shackle your wife and children.
My your chains rest lightly upon your quisling wrists and ankles.
On October 27, 2014 at 10:42 am, Damien said:
There are precedents set already- from England : http://archive.lewrockwell.com/grigg/grigg-w242.html
From USA: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=177&invol=529
Both of these I gleaned from : http://freedominourtime.blogspot.com/2014/10/either-praise-police-or-shut-up.html?m=1
On October 27, 2014 at 10:33 pm, Dennis said:
The Miller case states that a peaceful arrest may not be resisted but merely postpone the right of contending in a court. This does not address a non peaceful arrest and what arrest now days is peaceful.
On October 27, 2014 at 10:51 pm, Dennis said:
Bad Elk I am very familiar with, very good law and still valid. We cannot allow them to strip of us of our Common Law rights. The Civil Law as Blackstone, the Great Commentator on the Eglish Common Law, put it the commercial or Roman Civil Law was the law that the Romans used to rule over conqured peoples and regions. The Commercial Law is the same in Colonial America as Admiralty Law, in England all maritime and actual Naval Regulation came under the Admiralty. “For expanding the Laws of Admiralty beyond their ancient limits, even within the jurisdiction of a county” Declarations and Resolve Continental Congress March to October 1774. Anothe passage states “We are entitled to the Common Law at all times”… Clearly the colonists did not consider themselves to be merely articles in commerce, they were screaming mad about it. So you see we have come full circle here and the very encroachments resisted and wared against have been foisted upon us again.
Does anyone think that the Constitution purports to do the very thing the Revolution and it’s creation were designed to prevent???? Yeah me either… We need to be informed so as to recount the criminal acts to the perpetrators when the time comes. As Madison stated “.. to resist with manly firmness”…
I know what he means but you can bet these forked tounged bastards will attempt to rationalize that to support their elite position and their privilege to be free of being even questioned. I think the Inqusition is a bit to tame for such as these, but that is mere conjecture and opinion but at least I would like to be present when God asks them.
On October 27, 2014 at 1:12 pm, Mike Davis said:
Any act of a socialist would be just fine with Paul.
On October 27, 2014 at 1:51 pm, revjen45 said:
(The Nuge, by the way, has boasted about how he avoided taking up arms in defense of his country during Vietnam.)
That’s funny – I didn’t know Ted was Viet Namese.
_revjen45
On October 28, 2014 at 7:30 pm, David Wright said:
No, but if he did as stated (and I’ve heard that from more than one source), he’s anathema to me. I AM a Vietnam veteran. When my country called, much as I disliked that war, I WENT! I DIDN’T RUN AWAY. Millions of us answered that call. We WENT. As dirty and nasty as it was, as vile and wicked as our enemies were, we went. Over 58,000 of us paid the butchers’ bill IN FULL, so that the Nuge could play silly mind games at his draft board, so HE could stay home and become rich, republican and famous. So he could make loud and empty noises at the gun-grabbers, while supporting the surrender monkeys of the NRA.
If THAT’S patriotism nowadays, make mine vanilla. I will do whatever is needful when the time comes, just as I did before (and felt the warrior’s call and stayed in my Marine Corps well over 22years). Just keep phoney “patriots” like the Nuge out of our way. My generation fell down on the job and let these marxist scumballs get away with as much as they have. It’s up to US to clean up our mess. I believe we will. Without the Nuge.
On October 28, 2014 at 3:24 pm, SamAdams1776 said:
This is because they do not believe in Natural Rights. They do not accept the philosophy of Locke; instead they subscribe to that of Hobbes with Marx thrown in to boot–they are statists.
SamAdams1776 III Oath keeper
Molon Labe
No Fort Sumters
Qui tacet consentit
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
Corruptissima re publica plurimae leges.
Idque apud imperitos humanitas vocabatur, cum pars servitutis esset
On October 28, 2014 at 7:47 pm, liberalloons said:
When democrats control government, they oppose any resistance against it. When they don’t control government, they run around with a clenched fist screaming for revolution. I gave up trying to reason with left-wing hypocrites a long time ago….its a waste of breath and time.
On October 29, 2014 at 2:09 pm, parks207 said:
Begala’s a left wing crazy. To demonstrate exactly how anti gun this ass clown is, he does the whole shoot them in the head bit. Had he even a very small amount of shooting knowledge he would have known to shoot center mass…