The following is my second comment on this linked article, Why Do 'Pro-Life' Pols Like Paul Ryan Protect Weapons of Mass Murder? by John Nichols. The Nation:
If your critique were correct, then there would be few to no supporters of the 2nd amendment not the ideological descendants of White slavers. Of course, there are many supporters of the 2nd who are not that. In fact, if you will pay as much attention to what the gun-libertarians are saying as you do the anti-gun activists, you will find that they believe slavery was wrong and that it was wrong that the blacks didn't enjoy the 2nd right along with the Whites. The 2nd existed before the Civil War. You write as if it wasn't there in the 1850's or before and had no reason for being after the British were defeated. You don't think there are supporters of the 2nd who are descended from those who were indentured servants, a euphemism for debt-slaves, in the "good" Northern states? Please. Slavery was not confined to the Southern states of the US. It was once legal in England. There were slaves in New England as well. Do we discount all arguments against real tyranny just because some people's ancestors, whether blood or ideological, may have included slave owners? I don't think so. Your argumentation is specious.
You are also failing to highlight the fact that the Congress was illegal under British rule. The whole revolution was illegal in their eyes. The British confiscated huge quantities of gun powder right before the "shot heard around the world" was fired at Lexington. Furthermore, the French are irrelevant to the issue of the 2nd amendment. Whether they had helped or not, had the Americans prevailed, the 2nd would still have likely been written into the Constitution, where it now sits guaranteeing the right of the citizenry to keep and to bear arms for the very reason that regardless of the Civil War, tyranny can rear its ugly head much faster and much more easily with an unarmed citizenry. The gun-libertarians do have a point concerning that. To dismiss it as merely coming from a bunch of closet or otherwise racists is worse than weak. It is defaming many anti-racists, even Blacks and other non-Whites who stand for the 2nd as a bulwark against tyranny, which can happen here (already has in my view).
Just read another of the recent posts on The Nation: www.thenation.com/article/172403/will-obama-constitutional-lawyer-please-stand. Does any of that look like at least creeping tyranny to you? It sure does to me and not so creeping really but rather rapid and extremely stealthy at least where the sleepwalkers are concerned. Are you someone with his eyes closed about the huge unconstitutional abuses of the Obama administration? The man's a war criminal and has violated the US Constitution left and right since day one. He let the Bush-43 administration walk – not even one investigation – just look forward. That's tyranny! He should be impeached and removed from office for sure, but people writing as you have here turn the minds of others away from reality and toward greater and greater acceptance of fundamental errors where our civil rights and liberties are concerned.
You put tyranny in quotation marks concerning Lincoln's administration, yet he did do tyrannical things in the name of empire (albeit still somewhat budding). There are many things I like about Abraham Lincoln, but to pretend that he didn't step on the Constitution regardless of the slave issue is disconnected thinking. He didn't fight to free the slaves. He fought for federation against confederation. He would happily have sent all the Blacks to Africa if that would have solved the issue. He did not believe in the equality of the races. Many, most, the vast majority of, gun-libertarians do believe in equal rights for Blacks and all other non-Whites – all people. Take a poll.
It seems to me that you are looking at Lincoln and the current and all future Presidents through rose-colored glasses and spreading false propaganda.
The proper way to address violence whether the weapons are guns or any other weapons, and there are numerous types of weapons, is via spreading non-violence. That's not happening via Obama's illegal kill lists and illegal predator drones firing Hellfire (apt name that) missiles murdering hundreds (that's hundreds and that's murder!) of completely innocent children in nations where we don't even have a "legally" declared war. Tyrannical? You bet it is, and no amount of "democracy" where all anti-war candidates are restricted by the two major parties from getting into the debates and on the ballots, etc., and where the mainstream tyrannical corporatist media is behind only those two parties will make the pig's ear Obama administration a silk-purse legitimate republican form of government. He's an outlaw, and you're defending him here on a rather radical site by Republican standards and even Democratic ones. Your view is far, far, far from Progressive. It excuses the reactionaries. It protects the protectors of the Wall Street banksters. It's far from truly liberal.
The following should appear at the end of every post:
According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":
Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.
Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.
Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.
Political Campaign Intervention
Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.
Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.
Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:
- Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
- Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
- Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
- Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
- Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office
Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:
- The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
- Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
- We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
- When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
- It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
- We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
- We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
- When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
- We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
- It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.
And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)