“Democrat strategist” Paul Begala wrote a ridiculous anti-gun column on CNN, and this part caught my attention:
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. To suggest otherwise betrays our Founders, our Constitution, and common sense.
Source: Candidate’s gun remarks should scare us
Or as Adolph Eichman would put it, “I was just following orders.” When Joni Erns made these remarks: “”I do believe in the right to carry, and I believe in the right to defend myself and my family — whether it’s from an intruder, or whether it’s from the government, should they decide that my rights are no longer important.” She’s not calling for an armed rebellion or trying to scare anyone, she’s just reminding people that we are not subservient to the government.
As Michael Waldman notes in his excellent new book, “The Second Amendment, A Biography,” the Second Amendment was designed to ensure that citizen-soldiers would be the heart of our national defense. A standing army, such as we have now, would have been anathema to our Founders. Indeed, Thomas Jefferson, in his first Annual Message to Congress (now known as the State of the Union Address), said, “nor is it conceived needful or safe that a standing army should be kept up in time of peace.”
That is ridiculous, all armies are made of citizens. Cuba, China, Vietnam, the former USSR, they all have armies, none of them have a 2nd Amendment. The standing army Jefferson was talking about wasn’t millions of individuals keeping and bearing arms on their own time.
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.
Yes, and Washington was wrong. They’re our founding fathers, not our founding saints. Jefferson owned slaves yet I doubt anyone today wants to bring back slavery to follow his example. Abraham Lincoln violated habeas corpus, yet I doubt the GOP celebrates that. Sometimes great men can have moments of hypocrisy. It’s ironic that our war of independence was over taxes, yet our very liberator would attack his fellow Americans over an immoral whiskey tax. Put yourself back in those days, you’re living in the boondocks, you’re self-reliant, whiskey is a form of currency because the dollar has barely made it in your area, and one day a big bad government comes and tells you to pay taxes when you’re getting nothing in return. Would you rebel? I think you might.
By the way, CNN’s own link about the Whiskey Rebellion confirms my views:
Small farmers of the back country distilled (and consumed) whiskey, which was easier to transport and sell than the grain that was its source. It was an informal currency, a means of livelihood, and an enlivener of a harsh existence. The distillers resisted the tax by attacking federal revenue officers who attempted to collect it.
Many Americans, particularly members of the opposition Jeffersonian Republican Party, were appalled by the overwhelming use of governmental force, which they feared might be a first step to absolute power. To Federalists, however, the most important result was that the national authority had triumphed over its first rebellious adversary and had won the support of the state governments in enforcing federal law within the states.
Begala is a Democrat, so I can understand why he wants Uncle Sam to have all the power. So Mr. Begala, let me ask you what every liberal asks me? Why do you need so many guns? A soldier fights only with one gun, two if you count his handgun. Clearly Begala has 20 guns to many. Luckily for him, our side doesn’t support gun confiscation.
I’m a minimalist myself, but this is too much. Where your headline, Aguila Ammo?
Imagine a gun that’s ready for your silencer (that’s the term under patent)? Here’s the ad they did:
Based on the pistol carried by LAPD SWAT, plus a barrel threaded for suppression,
the TLE (Tactical Law Enforcement) is widely regarded as the ideal 1911 for duty carry and personal protection.
I’m not a girl and I don’t like to run, but the Beretta Pico seems like a great gun for concealed carry even when you’re wearing Lycra.
It’s a smart ad, and a .380 gives you greater stopping power than a 9mm. I like seeing the gun next to the smartphone, that makes a great point about size. The girl looks good to, realistic, and considering what happened to that Central Park Jogger all those years ago, the woman who got raped by a pack of thugs, it sends the right message. Our women will be strong, armed, and ready to face any danger with the gun of their choice.
Click info.Beretta.com/GAC to learn more
P.S. Beretta isn’t paying me a penny to promote them, I’m doing this out of my passion for guns and gun advertising.
Now that looks like a serious hunter…
Click StoegerIndustries.com/payday to learn more
Hey Stoeger, how about a hunting ad with a woman? That’s rarely seen, I think.