“But make no mistake: (Micah) Johnson was acting on one of the central beliefs that animates the gun rights movement. It’s been called the ‘insurgency theory’ of the Second Amendment, and it holds that Americans must have the right to own military-style weapons because a heavily armed populace is the last bulwark against a tyrannical government running amok. The NRA is quite explicit about this.” – Joshua Holland in Dallas Shooter Micah Johnson Showed What the NRA’s ‘Insurgency Theory’ of Gun Rights Really Looks Like [via thenation.com]
I stubbed my toe the other day and I am sure the NRA is at fault for that too.
The NRA got in my trash can last weekend and messed all over my living room rug…
I told my wife to stop feeding them and they would just go away, but she doesn’t listen.
You need to make sure the lid is fully closed, or else the NRA will be able to lift the lid and start pulling garbage out. Once the NRA gets the garbage out, then the flying NRA will come and start making an even bigger mess.
I’m calling on Shannon Watts to push for more garbage can control. Ban high capacity garbage cans, ghost garbage cans, “assualt” style garbage cans, etc.
It’s time for a new hashtag/meme a la ThanksObama. #NRA’sFault
Didn’t the Supreme Court say that we had the right to own firearms suitable for military use?
They actually said that Americans only have rights to weapons that are of usefulness to the military.
BRB getting an M249 SAW.
“They actually said that Americans only have rights to weapons that are of usefulness to the military.”
That is the most true take away from Miller and the point that almost everyone sweeps under the rug, or just outright lies about.
Yayy select fire FN SBR’s & M9 A3’s for all… It makes you wonder if one day the judicial branch will rule themselves into a logical corner.
Haha. I suppose BLM and the drive-by media had nothing to do with it.
All of this “hands up don’t shoot” nonsense is getting real old real fast.
Also, the NRA is a bug supporter of law enforcement, and has saved many of their lives by giving them training that they desperately need.
So, the terrorist’s manifesto made reference to a tyrannical government, rather than wanting to kill police officers, and white people?
Or more likely, you’re just channeling your inner Saul Alinsky.
Probably by the time they let the manifesto out to the public, they will have already rewritten it to say he was an NRA member and was told by Wayne LaPiere, himself, that he should go out and kill police officers.
From what I’ve read about the Orlando terrorist, they rewrote the 911 transcript to say he pledged allegiance to God, and not allah. I’m pretty sure if he yelled “Admiral Akbar” before he killed those people in the night club, they’ll rewrite the witness reports to say he said “I support the NRA” or “Vote republican if you survive this”
Please be accurate in your muslim terminology, in the interest of cultural sensitivity. It’s “Aloha Snackbar”
used to read the nation a very liberal rag but i still had ar 1911 shotgun ect . they’re probably having a hard time selling ad space
Scott Adams (creator of Dilbert) has been frequently blogging about Trump’s campaign, in particular how good of a persuader he is.
Today’s post, “When Persuasion Turns Deadly,” explicitly blames the HRC campaign for the escalating violence we see. While I see the flames being fanned more with Obama’s bellows, I can’t disagree with his thesis.
Dems have this “divide and conquer” thing down pretty well … the first part, anyway, and they’re sure working on the other.
http://blog.dilbert.com/post/147247313346/when-persuasion-turns-deadly
Whether by Obama or Hillary, isn’t that tactic straight out of their Alinsky playbook? Foment enough public discontent, moral confusion, and outright chaos to spark the social upheaval, then insinuate themselves as saviors and leaders, erecting a transformed America atop the ruins they created?
I was in sales once, and the motto was, “Create a need, then fill it.” Sounds like Alinsky. Who borrowed from who?
Given the specific context of trying to foment a race war, it sounds a lot more like Charles Manson.
It shouldnt have to be said that the mans actions are his own regardless of outside influences.
But, as crass as this may be, his actions on that day do put to rest any of this “your guns would be useless against the .gov” nonsense we hear so often.
I expect the anti’s to drop that one in exchange for “your guns are a threat to the .gov!”
Well, even if Mr. Holland had a valid point, one deranged sniper does not an insurgency make. Still, I’d take this over having a government that can abuse it’s subjects with impunity.
Um… the revolution WAS an insurgency…
No, it was colonial workplace violence. Like, blacksmiths and sh_t.
Blacksmiths’ lives matter.
I have a homework assignment for Josh. Define murder. Then define tyranny.
Also define “insurgency”.
People like this remind me of idiot college freshmen who write papers without any sources and no knowledge of their topic.
I think that the blame lies squarely on the second amendment. After all, was it not written with the intention of it being used to usurp corrupt, tyrannical government? This man exercised his second amendment right to the fullest.
However, in order to successfully exercise your second amendment right, (in the sense of the context it was written) one must exercise it in a manner that has overwhelming popular support. And in order to have overwhelming popular support, ones perceived validation for exercising said right must have valid justification. This man’s did not.
As long as we have the second amendment, there will be those who abuse it. This is the cost of having it. I am okay with the cost, as I believe the benefit outweighs it. As I have said to many a petty tyrant, If you don’t want guns in the hands of criminals/crazies/extremists, then the second amendent must be repealed. There is a defined process for doing this. Call your congresscritters and good luck. molan labe
“This man exercised his second amendment right to the fullest.”
False. The 2A guarantees our right to keep and bear arms. It ensures that we have access to the means to shoot people. It does not give us the right to shoot people. The right to shoot someone in self defense or in defense of our nation may be ordained elsewhere or it may be God-given, but it’s not in the Second Amendment.
“As long as we have the second amendment, there will be those who abuse it.”
This was not the abuse of a right. This was mass murder. The two things are not even similar.
“This is the cost of having it. I am okay with the cost, as I believe the benefit outweighs it.”
Another fail. Mountains of data tell us that where lawful gun ownership is high, violent crime is low, and vice-versa. Terrorists and thugs use assault rifles to commit mass murder in disarmed countries on a regular basis. Been to Mexico lately? Violent crime is not the result of armed citizens. It is the result of disarmed citizens who can’t shoot back.
If this wack job in Dallas, or that wack job in Orlando, had used bombs instead of guns, we wouldn’t be having this discussion.
I disagree curtis. I may have gotten my terminology a bit wrong. let me try again.
“This man exercised his second amendment right to the fullest”
Maybe worded poorly.
This man exercised the benefits of his second right to the fullest.
“As long as we have the second amendment, there will be those who abuse it.”
second try,
As long as we have the benefits of the second amendment, there will be those who abuse it.
“This is the cost of having it. I am okay with the cost, as I believe the benefit outweighs it.”
I’ll stand by this one. I mentioned benefit. I guess you didn’t notice.
I’ll bite.
Murder is not a “benefit” of the second. No matter how you spin it, he committed a crime. Crime is not a “benefit” of the second amendment. Don’t know how else it can be said. The second amendment is NOT to blame here. If you removed the second (and his guns), he’d still have found a way to kill cops.
Warren, my point is that taking up arms against the gov is always murder, until it is justified. The dick in Dallas wasn’t justified, so he was murdering. However if the dick in Dallas had popular support and an armed nation of citizens behind him, then it is no longer murder, just the proper application of the second amendment.
“Cap as many arbitrarily chosen white pigs as possible.” – Charlton Heston (with Wayne LaPierre nodding in the background).
I wasn’t even eating or drinking anything and I still about choked to death.
Source? YouTube? Newspaper? Seems unlikely.
“Don’t believe everything you see or read on the Internet.” – Abraham Lincoln
Source? Tommy Flanagan. Yeaah, that’s the ticket.
The authors’ salient point is only a handful will take up arms against government, therefore any “insurgency” would be manageable. Begs the question…are armaments mental comfort against excesses of government or kit to employ against taking our liberties.
Given the state of the replacements, how government is folded into their lives, the country will receive no help from them.
“the right to own military-style weapons”..not that it will happen but when will these dumb dumb stupids ever bother to learn the difference between full and semi auto? Bugs me to no end..
Full auto weapons aren’t the exclusive domain of the military. Bugs me to no end that people perpetuate that myth. Granted, they’re out of the financial reach of 99% of the population, but still.
But, but, but the shooter used a Fully Semi-automatic SKS Assault Rifle! (Yes the news actually printed that)
“… a heavily armed populace is the last bulwark against a tyrannical government running amok.”
It is also the last bulwark against a foreign government who decides to invade the U.S. Look, if a foreign government wanted to invade, they could easily wipe out our existing military bases (with almost all of our military personnel and equipment) using nothing more than conventional munitions. Once those are out of the way, what is left to stop an invasion force? Answer: you and me.
Centralized anything provides ginormous efficiencies. Distributed anything is basically impervious to disaster/attack. Our military personnel and equipment is centralized. Our unorganized militia (basically every able bodied person) is distributed. That is why our military takes point on any event … and the unorganized militia is backup. Having both means no foreign government would ever seriously contemplate invasion of the U.S. mainland.
^^^ THIS! Far too many forget this CRITICAL fact of the formation of America and get so complacent in our freedoms they believe it’ll last forever and have NO CLUE why we enjoy such freedom. What, do they think oceans are what protect us from invasion? Our friendly foreign policy? Our military alone? Haha! History class needs a revamp in this country. The good and the bad.
The principle of the 2nd Amendment requires more than just access to firearms. It requires…
1. An educated citizenry that embraces liberty.
2. A moral and ethical society where what is right and wrong are clearly defined and agreed upon by all citizens.
3. A respect for your fellow citizens and a high value placed on life.
4. A societal embrace of the concept of justice, not revenge.
The 2nd Amendment is a pillar and strength of a moral society that respects life, liberty and private property. When our society is driven by revenge, depravity or a political class bent on using the power of government to further thier agenda and punish political opposition, the 2nd Amendment will appear to some as a bad idea and others a necessity and final check to bring balance back into the equation.
Someone could flesh your comment out and make a fantastic article of it.
Agreed. I think this statement can be expanded on and make a great article on its own.
Per my previous comment to someone about history class in this country… I was impressed to see your #1 above. Well said. The good news is that we’ve come so far. The bad news is that we’ve come so far. The American people are forgetting. This will be a perilous mistake.
The author basically says, ‘This is how the NRA wants the 2nd Ammendment to be used.’ But what the Dallas shooter did is several steps removed from what the 2nd Ammendment is there for: There are still other viable options to change the government (in this case the actions of police,) his actions are not shared by any significant portion of the population, and his actions were of absolutely no strategic consequence to any overall goal.
So while the USA might be the closest it has come in well over a century for needing the 2nd Ammendment to be used in one of its primary purposes, that time is not here yet, the actions of the shooter were simply mass murder. Most people can see the the only way that this article is relevant is simply because he used a gun. If this man had used any other weapon, the article would not, could not, have been written. When it is the actions of the person, not the tool that he used, that define the article, then you could truly make a claim about an ‘insurgency.’
If this recent murder does change the way the government treats minorities and gun owners for the better, causing some actual change that makes our rights and freedoms safer, then doesn’t that completely invalidate this “author’s” point?
who the hell reads the national? desperate times …desperate measures…right national employees?
No the BLM did, though how the Bureau of Land Management did that I’m still trying to figure out
Oh that’s nothing. I heard that the NRA made Steve Guttenberg a star.
Well, he did associate with Tackleberry, so…
The NRA causes global warming because all those hot boo-lits and escaping gases from evil white folks pollute the “planet”©…
I blame Santa Claus
Yep, it was those right wing NRA copsuckers, it’s always their fault.
Black Lives Matter and New Black Panther Party members calling for the deaths of cops had nothing to do with it.
The NRA is at fault eh? Yep.. And the Pope is a jew
Well, kinda… Jesus was. Of course, so was Abraham, so that would make the Muslims Jews also. It’s the Jewish conspiracy again!
Fair enough, hehe…. I’ll try again.. Santa Claus is a Jehovah’s witness?
I read the linked article. This Joshua Holland guy sounds a lot like 2Asux.
There is no doubt She will have the NRA declared a terror group and add the member list to no fly. BLM on the other hand will become a quasi agency like the NLRB to ensure they get what they want.
I’m mighty impressed that Joshua Holland could type while stroking #BLM’s collective dinguses (dingi?) at the same time.
My car has never been stolen. I should quit locking the doors.
My house has never burned down. I should get rid of my fire extinguishers.
I’ve never been dead and burried. I should get rid of my life insurance.
My government has never taken my freedom. I should get rid of my guns.
My techers/college professors know everything – I should believe what I’m told without questioning a word of it.
Jumping the shark is now the new liberal media standard (following the liberal political standard) for reporting “the facts.” Just as outrageous was a recent ad seen on CBS touting their news division as trustworthy and reliable. In a pig’s eye. I can barely stand this constant flow of bullsh*t anymore. When will it end?!
Just another leftist Moron
The NRA is actually very pro police officer. Not that anyone should expect Holland to know anything about the NRA.
Wayne LaPierre is Cobra Commander!
The person who is responsible was the man who did it, If anyone is to blame other than the man who did it it would be the media and politicians that constantly puts forth this liberal bs that it the man keeping people down. That they are being exploited and jump up in arms when a black person get killed by a police, or that they report about “driving while black” stories that are debunked but they never spend a second to clean up the messes they are making.
I didn’t know that the NRA wanted to kill “white police officers” as opposed to all other evils of the government.
Guess I should drop my membership?
F the BLM gang.
This vapid argument can be dismissed much more easily than what others have been saying. The shooter claimed, through various manifestos, that he was angered by the police shootings in other parts of the country, particularly the one that took place in Baton Rouge and Minnesota. Yet he chose to single out and kill white cops in Dallas, who as an individually or as a department had nothing to do with those other shootings. The police departments all around this country aren’t one giant organization who has the same rules, regulations and procedures as one another.
Isn’t the author really saying the idea of armed citizens rising up and throwing off a government is pure mythology, therefore there is no need for citizens to have weapons that would be used for such insurrection?
Like most anti-gun rights people, he confuses insurrectionist actions with being the same as the right to resist a tyranny. The Founders themselves did not believe one has a right to just go start shooting at politicians because they decided said politicians or government officials or people are a tyranny. As stated in the Declaration of Independence, prudence must be exercised when deciding whether to fight the government ,and it needs to be at the point of being an absolute tyranny.
Shooting cops does not an insurgency make. Shooting politicians on the other hand….