No, not a straw man. The OP gives an example of using firearms to oppose tyrannical behavior. He did this twice: once refers to successful attempts to use Jim Crow laws to stop American blacks from voting, the other refers to Japanese Americans being locked up because they are Japanese.
And furthermore, 2nd amendment nutjobs mutter about using their guns to overthrow the democratically elected federal government all the time. Rick Perry1:
[QUOTE=Rick Perry]
Texans have a “different feeling about independence,” Perry told the group.
“When we came into the nation in 1845, we were a republic, we were a stand-alone nation,” the governor can be heard saying. “And one of the deals was, we can leave anytime we want. So we’re kind of thinking about that again.”
The bloggers erupted in laughter after the remarks, and the slideshow was posted under the headline “Texas Governor Rick Perry jokes about Texas leaving the United States.”
Sorry, but the OP addresses a very real and very stupid 2nd amendment argument, one which leads reasonable people to conclude that NRA members are a collection of loons, rubes, gulls and swallows.
So Jim Crow and Japanese internment were just perceived wrongs. Not *actual *wrongs, just *perceived *wrongs.
Funny use of strawman too: one usually doesn’t apply it to things that actually happened. The strawman is that there may be a situation where the US armed services turn against their own people, and the redneck nation will rise up in Red Dawn fashion to thwart them.
Measure for Measure already gave you some cites that refute this sentence, but I gotta ask, are you serious? I had you pegged as someone that followed politics, but for you to say something like this suggests you didn’t pay close attention to the 2010 election cycle, at the very least.
The Right has been talking like that since the Clinton years, much less recently. I recall a right wing talk show host at the time getting in the news for talking about shooting FBI agents in the face if you opened the door and saw one. If anything the difference is that it has became so much the norm that right wingers calling for violence and murder no longer makes the news; it’s just what they do.
That was G Gordon Liddy if I remember correctly. He suggested a head shot because they might be wearing bullet proof vests. I wonder if that applies to bus drivers?
So why exactly did civil disobedience, protest marches and boycotts work circa 1955-1965, when it had never worked before? Why didn’t the police just beat Parks with clubs and gun down the black protesters, like they did 1900-1940?
Ibn Warraq already mentioned that in 1957 Eisenhower (one of America’s most under-rated Presidents) sent the 101st Airborne into Arkansas to protect nine black students. At the same time he removed the Arkansas National Guard from Governor Faubus’ control to prevent civil war between two U.S. militaries. (And Faubus was considered a moderate. :smack: ) This was also the era of Martin Luther King, Jr. – one of the greatest men of the 20th century.
It couldn’t happen in today’s climate. Teabaggers would paralyze Washington with impeachment hearings if a centrist President sent U.S. military against a state. And today’s Supreme Court is dominated by right-wingers. Brown v. Board of Education and Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States – both decided by 9-0 votes at the time – would each be 5-4 (you pick) if today’s SCOTUS had heard them.
I’m dismayed by some of the comments in this thread. A Texas white man could kill an Hispanic woman in cold blood for poor service because it was night-time. :smack: In Florida an Hispanic can accost an unarmed black man for wearing a hoodie, kill the man, and get sympathy. Right-wingers would have soiled their pants with bloodlust excitement to imagine a white man murdering a black busdriver who denied him a seat.
If you are referring to the two cases I suspect you are, one was a shooting to stop a theft, and the other a killing in self defence, at least based on the evidence available to the public, and neither had a racial component.
But hey, don’t let facts get in the way of your rant.
“Stop a theft” is at best controversial in that case. Condoning murder for $150, OTOH, as you seem to, deserves a rant.
Accosting a stranger at night? After police told him not to? It was Martin who acted in self-defense, but “made the mistake” of bringing only his fists to a gunfight.
Rant all you wish about racial components or lack thereof, but to pretend that reactions would be the same in these cases were the murderers black and the victims white is delusional.
There’s a massive thread on this already, but all I say is that the evidence suggests quite strongly that the opposite is true, and as the trial’s just starting it should be clear soon.
If it turns out he did chase Martin and kill him, he’ll be convicted. If not, and he was attacked by Martin, he won’t.
I’ll guess you’ve spent at least 300 times as much time as I have studying the case, but my impression is that the facts may never come out: Of only two witnesses, one is dead.
And the faith your remark implies in the infallibility of justice and jury is flabbergasting.
The judge hasn’t ruled yet, but a news report suggests that prosecutor may need to spend a peremptory challenge to avoid E-81.
Have you not studied the civil rights movement? They did arrest, beat, and kill protesters in the 50s and 60s. What was different was that King emulated Gandhi’s tactics of nonviolent resistance. The marchers were unbelievably brave and disciplined. When the public saw on TV what was happening to peaceful marchers there was enough outrage at the national level to force the Federal government to intervene.
In neither of those cases was it proven at trial that the people charged were murderers, due in both cases to fuckups by the prosecution - in the case of Till, they failed to even prove he was dead, and the accused admitted the murders later.
As someone who actually cares more about justice than vengeance, I’d far rather see a guilty person go free than an innocent person jailed. And yes, if someone attacks you and you then shoot and kill them, it’s justice if you go free. If the prosecution can prove Zimmerman wasn’t attacked, then fine, convict him. Otherwise, no. Anyway, there’s a thread for this.
And how did Solidarity eventually topple the Soviet Union? How did they do it without guns? True there was a big setback, but the house of cards eventually tumbled.
“The arc of the universe is long…”
Partial answer: Solidarity’s leaders were familiar with the US civil rights movement and Gandhi. They also knew that they could not defeat the Soviet Union via arms, so peaceful techniques were the only remaining strategy.