Your comment is unfounded, as are most of your comments. It wasn’t just the right. It was everybody. There was some serious shit going down back in the 60s and 70s.
I remember when I was a deputy sheriff sitting through training on changing the way we did traffic stops. The reason was FBI reports of the Black Panthers installing a shotgun in the driver’s door of cars, so that they could crack open the door, fire a 12 gauge round right down the side of the car where cops are trained to approach, close the door and haul ass.
Someone on another board addressed a commentator of this ilk who suggested that JFK wouldn’t have been shot if he’d been armed :smack:, and added, “And MLK would have been arrested if he was.”
Let’s face it, if Adam Lanza had shot 20 kids with names like XuQuanzaa or Sharquavious, it wouldn’t have even made the local news and would only be discussed on racist blogs.
If she were armed, that would have come out when she was arrested. Also, of course, Rosa Parks’ resistance was not on that moment’s impulse, it was a planned demonstration; and when you are intending/expecting to get arrested, you’d be a fool to pack heat.
I’m not a fan of the NRA or a huge defender of the Second Amendment, but if you have issues with the NRA or the brain arguments set forth by gun fetishists, but please don’t try and drag into it the Jim Crow era and Rosa Parks into it.
Doing so is extremely offensive.
FWIW, I feel the same about the gun rights crowd who squeal about Martin Luther King registering to own a handgun to protect himself and his family.
Spreading misinformation that black panthers are mounting shotguns into driver’s side doors is. It’s about as believable as urban legends about bad guys hiding under your car to grab you when you approach.
Not saying it’s not offensive, but I’m wondering, can you elaborate on why you find it offensive? I think the underlying message is intended to be highly complimentary to Parks: it’s saying, “Look, dumbshits, there are effective ways to stand up to an unjust, tyrannical government. Rosa Parks knew how to do it. It didn’t involve waving guns around.”
I don’t see that as offensive, but I’m open to being educated on the subject.
I’m not sure what got into me. How could a discussion of using 2nd amendment rights to defend civil liberties have referred to the Jim Crow era? I should have used a more race-neutral example.
What kinds of guns should Japanese Americans have used to prevent them from being sent to internment camps?
Noone who refers to tyranny and the second amendment is referring to tyranny that is imposed democratically. We have other parts of the constitution to prevent that. Thay are talking about a tyranny that is undemocratic.
The segregation and oppression that went on in Alabama was imposed by the majority on the minority.
An unarmed citizenry can be subjected to a tyranny of the minority. This is a lot harder to do to an armed citizenry
With that said the particular type of tyranny that the second amendment would protect against is highly unlikely to occur. It would take the collapse of society or something like that.
Seriously, do you even fucking hear yourself? You very clearly CAN have a democratic tyranny. The majority can and do make decisions to benefit them over the rights of any minority and it happens even in a free and liberal democracy.
In a democracy the minority only wins when it changes the mind of the majority, gathering firearms and threatening to shoot cops and soldiers does not aid and severely hinders that objective.
There is no objective definition of tyranny that justifies armed revolution. There is no app for your iPhone or Android device that says “tyranny” or “no tyranny.”
However, armed revolution is obviously the final and most serious step. People realize that it will likely lead to their own and friends’ death, imprisonment, or possibly torture. It is only invoked when all other possible methods are exhausted and the current situation is intolerable to the point where risking your own life or freedom is necessary so that your kids or your neighbors may possibly have a semblance of freedom.
The OP presents a strawman in which 2nd amendment supporters use violence to right almost every perceived wrong. Jefferson even said that the overthrow of government is not for “light or transient causes.” As is admitted, the civil rights movement and communism in Eastern Europe succeeded without resorting to armed resistance. It doesn’t mean that those governments weren’t wrong or that they weren’t tyrannical, but in those situations there was a better way.
On some rare occasions, there is not a better way. On those occasions, the population needs to be armed. Nobody is saying to go around blasting away at government servants because you disagree with a law.