I thought the idea was to join up with like minded individuals, go into the woods, get military training, store supplies, and then something something it always gets vague after that part.
I rather thought it was more about citizens of any persuasion being able to exercise their second amendment rights free from heavy handed cops who routinely try to usurp those rights because of illegal searches and seizures.
I think ol’ Rosa should have carried two guns - a pistol to shot down the bus driver and anyone on the bus who tried to stop her (Stand your ground! She’s under threat, she’s got no obligation to retreat!) and a high-capacity-magazine shotgun, to take down the honkies when they go after her through the bus door.
And how should Rosa Parks have exercised those 2nd amendment rights? Pulled a handgun on the bus driver or just had a nasty looking shotgun on her back in a sling? Here we have a case of someone living under what is arguably tyranny, which is what the 2nd amendment is designed to prevent, and I just want to know what gun she should have used?
It’s a bit complicated of course, because it’s not clear *when *she should have threatened to use it. Was it with the bus driver or should she have waited until the police came and then threatened them? Once she was arrested, it would be too late as they would have taken her gun away. That’s too bad, because the best time to use the gun would probably have been when was convicted in court. Maybe her supporters could have brought guns into the courtroom and demanded her freedom once the sentence was issued.
Now of course they screen for guns at the courthouse, so my friends will have a harder time taking their matching guns with them when they go to get married. Maybe just having the group of tyranny fighting NRA members who will accompany them standing outside will be enough.
Another brilliant, silly argument. How could Ms. Parks brave and game changing move for the civil rights movement be belittled by some stupid and totally unrelated issue like gun control.. Oh I get it, by a crowd of lefties who try to turn the civil rights movement into a clown show; trying to discredit the second amendment.
Your humor fail is both stupid and insulting to the folks who actually fought for civil rights.
So how’s that working out for you? You know, being clever.
Incidentally, Rosa Parks was robbed and beaten in 1994.
I’m not sure I understand. Are you saying that we should *praise *people who were too scared to use guns to fight tyranny and instead used other means? Personally, I’m glad my friends still have the option of showing up at the courthouse with their armed supporters from the NRA so that they can exercise their civil rights.
Guns were illegal for them at the time, besides using guns then would not have advanced the civil rights cause.
You and me both. I’m on board with that
To take the OP with a far straighter face than it deserves:
No, a gun would not have done Rosa Parks any good in that situation. A gun is so that people cannot attempt to assault or murder you with impunity. It is not a magic wand that instantly confers respect and obedience; it does not make you eight feet tall and armor plated; and it is not so you can arrogantly throw your weight around (what if the other guy has a gun too?). Ideally guns are deterrents, to discourage the use of force. If everyone was equally armed, then the majority couldn’t be dominated by a minority, while the minority would retain the protection of being able to put on higher price on their lives and persons.
Unfortunately, the above is an idealization. It’s harder to respect others rights than to demand respect for your own, and historically people have been willing to restrict “those people” from having guns. From the beginning that included African-Americans; and as time went on it came to include immigrants, leftist radicals, poor people, striking workers, and now a substantial number of people would include the general public itself- the great unwashed, the hoi polloi.
If we accept that, then I guess Rosa Parks didn’t feel like she was living in “tyranny”. She didn’t carry a gun that day.
Now, we can certainly agree that blacks were “oppressed”, but the historical fact that they were able to affect change in those oppressive laws means it wasn’t “tyranny”, in the sense used by historians.
If you want to use the vernacular form of the word, then let’s just agree that forcing citizens to pay taxes is a tyrannical act, in which case the word loses it’s singular meaning and just becomes a synonym for “bad”.
What makes you think a black person could obtain a handgun in Alabama in the sixties?
I thought the second amendment prevented that sort of encroachment on liberties.
An axe. Nobody would fuck with a president who’d methodically chop a would-be assasin to bits with something as personal as an axe. In fact, President Clinton’s first action as POTUS should be to stage a conspiracy wherein the assassin gets in close and doesn’t realize he’s been given a gun loaded with blanks. BANG! Hillary whirls around and swiftly beheads the guy and then squats down and pisses on his neck stump–epic. Obama’s first term would’ve been more productive if he’d have employed his ‘whuppin stick’ in similar fashion. POTUS leads the biggest gang in the land, a blood-in/blood-out policy only makes sense.
The rest of this thread is stupid “I hate guns, repeal #2”/“I love guns, keep #2, why do you hate America?” wankery that’s been done to death here and everywhere else.
You don’t like guns? Don’t buy one and STFU. Want to protect yourself? Get a 1.5-inch diameter quarterstaff and learn how to use it. Most gunfights take place at close range which is perfect for staff-fighting. Trust me, nobody’ll give you trouble if you carry a staff like you mean business. Plus, if you get carried away and do a lethal headstrike after disarming your attacker the forensics cops will have a much harder time proving it was your staff that did in the assailant. Added bonus–ever hear of anyone accidentally killing his friend with a stick? At worst you might knock his toof out while you’re cleaning brains off it.
Think Ms. Parks would have gotten any shit if she’d whipped out Old Hickory? Black Panthers? Shit. One wise crack, one swift crack, silence & respect.
Of course you can’t set up some sort of if-then statement such that if someone doesn’t carry a gun, they don’t feel like they’re living in tyranny. That’s absurd.
When you ask me to lay out my case, however, I’m having trouble figuring out if you’re serious, or if you’re just trolling, trying to get me to lay out the bleedin’ obvious. What definition of “tyranny” would you use that excludes the treatment of black Americans in Alabama in the 1950s? Edit: and where do you find the definition of “tyranny” used by historians? Your rectum is an unacceptable answer.
Given your ignorance about where Parks was active–ignorance to the extent that you felt comfortable correcting me on the subject–maybe you really aren’t trolling. But I want to be sure that you’re not before I trouble to answer.
Here’s John Locke’s definition:
So do you suggest that the white government of Alabama in the 1950s did not exercise power beyond right? Do you suggest that they used their power for the good of the black citizens under their power? Do you suggest that they did not use the power for their own private, separate advantage? Or do you suggest that John Locke’s using a vernacular definition?
I mean, criminy.
I’m confused, you seem to be saying guns don’t protect Civil Rights, but you’re glad people can have them to protect their Civil Rights.
So a tyranny is any for of government which can not be changed without the use of force? So I guess East Germany was not a tyranny? It fell peacefully.
It’s not a quarterstaff-it’s a “walking stick”. 
I dunno, what kind did Cleopatra Jones carry?