In case you missed this, Thom Hartmann on 2nd Amendment.

[chknltl]

I post this for those here who may have missed this. It is from The Thom Hartmann Show and was posted over in Video and Multimedia by fellow DUer Thom Hartmann.

A little about Thom in case you do not know him. He is a remarkably educated historian, especially regarding our founding fathers. He owns an original set of Thomas Jefferson
Diaries which he found in the attic of a house he once owned. Thom is a prolific publisher with well over a dozen books to his credit, most dealing with America, her history and our democracy. The Thom Hartmann Show is broadcast Monday through Friday, noon to three pacific time.

This is a segment from his show which aired Tuesday. Lastly, I post this for those who wish to read it, not for any other purpose. I am not Thom, I can not add anything to further the discussion
of Thom's words. Sometimes (rarely) he answers our posts to him in his OPs.

Entire OP over at:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/101745287

"Rewind back to the early days of America - even after the British were beaten back in the Revolutionary War there was still tremendous fear that American was vulnrable to attack. It could be the Spanish coming up from Florida. Or the French - or the British again - coming down through Canada. And most of our Founding Fathers also had an enormous fear of standing armies during times of peace - after all, thousands of years of history showed them that great nations that kept a standing army during times of peace were often taken down by that very army in a military coup. Jefferson wrote exhaustively on this - even threatening to blow up the Constitution since it didn't include protections from standing armies. As Jefferson wrote to James Madison in 1787: "I do not like the omission of a Bill of Rights providing clearly... protection against standing armies." And as Jefferson wrote in 1814: "The Greeks and Romans had no standing armies, yet they defended themselves...Their system was to make every man a soldier and oblige him to repair to the standard of his country whenever that was reared. This made them invincible; and the same remedy will make us so."

And that's why they formulated the Second Amendment, which would provide for a well-armed militia that could be called on should the nation be under attack. Again - the second amendment is there to protect the nation - and, in part, to protect it FROM a standing Army during time of peace. In fact, it was modeled on the Constitution of Pennsylvania, the state where the Framers met, in Philadelphia in 1787, to write our Constitution. Article 13 of the Pennsylvania Constitution, adopted in 1776, says it pretty plainly: "XIII. That the people have a right to bear arms for the defense of themselves and the state; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; And that the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power."

But recently - especially since President Obama took office - that rationale has been flipped on its head - and many - particularly on the Right - believe that the Second Amendment is there to protect the people AGAINST the nation. As though militias in South Dakota armed with rifles, handguns, and shotguns could somehow beat back the U.S. government armed with cruise missiles, tanks, and drones. They can't - and this idea that the second amendment is a protection against tyranny from our own government is a lie - a lie that's increasingly used today to paint President Obama as a radical who wants to take away our freedoms."

The rest can be found over in Video and Multimedia:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/101745287

I strongly recommend reading on as Thom brings things forward to our current Supreme Court where he diagnosis Justice Scalia's recent interpretations.

[Ilsa]

1. Very interesting.

Thanks. I love TH, but don't get to listen as much as I would like to.

[gejohnston]

2. One thing I disagree with Thom on

is his outrage over something Scalia might have said about RPGs or machine guns. Scalia didn't say anything FDR's AG didn't already know. Maybe not a disagreement, but something he would not know.

The purpose of the NFA[1] was to regulate what were considered "gangster weapons" such as machine guns and short barreled shotguns.[2] Then U.S. Attorney General Homer S. Cummings recognized that firearms could not be banned outright under the Second Amendment, so he proposed restrictive regulation in the form of an expensive tax and Federal registration. Originally, pistols and revolvers were to be regulated as strictly as machine guns; towards that end, cutting down a rifle or shotgun to circumvent the handgun restrictions by making a concealable weapon was taxed as strictly as a machine gun.
Conventional pistols and revolvers were ultimately excluded from the Act before passage, but other concealable firearms were not: the language as originally enacted defined an NFA "firearm" as:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Firearms_Act

But recently - especially since President Obama took office - that rationale has been flipped on its head - and many - particularly on the Right - believe that the Second Amendment is there to protect the people AGAINST the nation. As though militias in South Dakota armed with rifles, handguns, and shotguns could somehow beat back the U.S. government armed with cruise missiles, tanks, and drones. They can't - and this idea that the second amendment is a protection against tyranny from our own government is a lie - a lie that's increasingly used today to paint President Obama as a radical who wants to take away our freedoms."

Not really that recent. From what I understand (and Thom's description at other times) the Michigan militia has been around since he was was a kid. I remember first hearing about people like that during the Clinton years. That said, since the military swears an oath to the constitution, they would probably ignore any orders by a dictator, even if the coup attempt against FDR was successful. Definitely true today. That said, someone forgot to tell the Viet Cong and the folks in Afghanistan to did just that against the British and USSR. Oh yeah, Chinese partisans against the Chinese.

No one is perfect, not even Thom. At least he admits the NRA backed Bernie Sanders a couple of times.

Thom has scapegoated the gun culture as being the source of our violent crime problem, while giving the drug culture a complete pass for funding and fueling it. He is also one of the "Bush's terror watch list doesn't have any real terror suspects until they decided to add it to NICS", which is hypocritical and dishonest. Call me a prig, but I put honesty above party.
Other than that, I agree with Thom about 90 percent of the time.

[Glaug-Eldare]

3. Let's look at that article...

Last edited Wed Aug 1, 2012, 07:04 AM - Edit history (1)

XIII. That the people have a right to bear arms for the defense of themselves and the state;

The right to defend yourself applies against both public and private attackers of any nationality, including Pennsylvanian or Federal soldiers, in the event they become attackers. This point also negates another point of Thom's, which is that everybody's guns should be locked up in the town arsenal where the rabble can't get to them -- the guaranteed right to defend yourself (and not just the state, as that is not what the article says) is completely negated if you are not allowed to possess tools to do so, when and where you may need them.

and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up;

This has gone out the window at the national level, and abrogates a good part of the federal government's claim to peaceful benevolence. The federal military is enormous, untrustworthy, and enjoys unique immunity from criticism, investigation, and prosecution.

And that the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.

This one is mostly intact for the time being, but I will not forget nor forgive the way Maryland was treated when the U.S. Army was placed above our civil courts and empowered to arrest citizens (including elected legislators and judges) for the crime of disagreeing with the Lincoln administration or wearing clothes with forbidden colors on them. I don't believe modern politicians would have any qualms about ordering it again, if it suited their purposes.

[gejohnston]

43. which begs the question

his point also negates another point of Thom's, which is that everybody's guns should be locked up in the town arsenal where the rabble can't get to them

As I understand the 1792 Militia acts, you had to buy your own gun, ammo, and equipment. Why would you be expected to store your personal property in a central armory?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_Acts_of_1792

[Hoyt]

4. Excellent article. Why is it people like Thom get it, yet these guys don't?

I suppose it's not that hard to answer when you look at the bunch above.

[Missycim]

5. Wait you are confusing

in one breath you say to own a gun you have to be in a militia and then when they are in one you compare them to KKK or commie-nazi's. So I wish you'd make your mind up. (oh and the state isn't the only entity allowed to make a militia)

[Glaug-Eldare]

6. You mean the Continental Army wasn't authorized by King George III?

[calmeco702]

7. A bunch of guys dressed in BDU's

holding rifles and shotguns is all I see. What point are you trying to make? Are thay doing something illegal? I'm a little bit confused.

Pretty cool picture though.

[Hoyt]

9. Not a "bunch of guys" just playing with their guns -- they are a bunch of racist assholes playing

with their guns . . . . . .

I do not understand why you folks like the TParty, Republicans, militia bigots with guns, etc. Maybe you'd like to explain.

[Glaug-Eldare]

10. Any evidence that they're "racist assholes"

or that they're "playing" with their guns? Is there any indication of affiliation with any destructive political or social organization, or do I have to "just look at them!"

[Hoyt]

12. Plenty of evidence. Again, why are you guys so supportive of groups like this?

[HALO141]

15. Right, hoyt. Because it's plainly obvious that any white guys out in the woods are

nothing more than "racist assholes." They have no legitimate purpose there and, in fact, since they've demonstrated their dangerous nature by having guns out in the woods they should probably be locked up.

Like these guys.



One picture is all we need to make that determination so no other "evidence" is required.




Is that about it?

[4th law of robotics]

18. Present such evidence

preferably in list form.

[HALO141]

19. Like that's ever going to happen.

I haven't seen hoyt present any evidence yet. On anything. Could it be he doesn't have any?

Naaaahhh!!! That'd mean he was resorting to ad hominem attacks and straw man arguments (with the occasional childish name-calling thrown in) wouldn't it?!?

[4th law of robotics]

26. Oh it won't I know

but he needs to be called out on it every time so casual observers will see what he is up to.

[friendly_iconoclast]

21. Evidence that exists solely in your mind doesn't count, Hoyt.

Something you keep forgetting...

[Hoyt]

25. You need to get off those right wing gun sites, and pay attention to what is going on.

[HALO141]

29. You and your conspiracy paranoia.

[Hoyt]

24. I think your buddy is gone.

[MrDiaz]

27. How is it

that white guys owning guns are racist? you making that assumption is the same as a white guy saying all african americans are thugs. If you expect other people to use their brains and not stereotype everyone... maybe you should start by doing so yourself.

[Hoyt]

28. Hey, there are several gun carriers here who cite "thugs" as the reason they carry.

I'm sorry, where I'm from, when a bunch of white guys stand around with their lethal weapons, they are likely racists -- they listen to FOX, Hannity, Limpballs, Boortz, etc., they vote Republican; they hate immigrants; they love militias; they like cutting funds for social programs; they think Zimmerman is a fine man; and the like.

You can call them what you want. I know what they are.

Sometimes the "stereotype" fits, as in this case.

[MrDiaz]

30. ok so

you think some stereotypes are good, and some are bad? And only the stereotypes you use are okay, and stereotypes that others use are wrong... that is a very ignorant stance. EVERYONE who uses stereotypes are wrong. You are simply using the same logic the repukes do but applying it towards your way of thinking. You are arguing a point in which you have absolutely ZERO evidence on. I argue with rightwingers just like you. You my friend are PART OF THE PROBLEM.

[Hoyt]

32. No, those who think racist militias, the Border Klan, assault weapons, etc., are all good,

are the problem with respect to guns and such.

Those guys in the "militia" photo with the TBag flag just don't look like a very diverse or tolerant crowd to me. Maybe to you, but not me.

[MrDiaz]

35. so all militias

so all militias are racist? What does that flag say that makes you call them teabaggers? Or are you just seeing white people and letting a stereotype go off in your head? Like I said that is how right wingers act. They see all mexicans as an immigrants, they see all african americans, as gangsters and thugs. And here you are applying that same myopic view towards your logic.

[HALO141]

31. "You can call them what you want. I know what they are. "

Wow. Where have we heard that kind of language before?

[Hoyt]

33. From the bigots I grew up with -- many of whom are probably in "militia" groups

nowadays parading around with their guns in an intimidating dance -- not unlike the cross-burnings common among bigots of yesteryear.

Do you really think a bunch of fuckers with their guns, posing in cammo, flyng the Tbag flag of "love" is really what we need to be promoting. I don't. Appears more than a few here do.

Have a nice day.

[HALO141]

41. That explains a lot, actually.

[calmeco702]

11. Explain what?

I just asked a question.
How do you know they are racist assholes?
Because they wear BDU's and have rifles?
I didn't see any playing with their guns, what I see is that they are properly holding their rifles.
I have several pictures of me and my comrades posing with our weapons after a mission, I don't consider us to be racist assholes.
I'm not trying to be argumentive, I'm just asking what the problem is with a group of men posing in BDU's, holding rifles is.
Are they doing something illegal? Are they threatening anyone?
I'm just trying to get where your going with this.

[Hoyt]

14. Lots of things are legal, but immoral and just plain wrong. Hopefully DU will be good for you.

But, you'll have to read about things other than guns.

This is not a war zone.

[calmeco702]

16. What's immoral or just plain wrong with that picture that you posted?

You say they are racist assholes. How do you know this?
Does that make myself and my comrades racist assholes for posing with our weapons after a mission?
I know this is not a war zone, I've been there, done that. Have you?
I and my wife are avid shooters who own numerous rifles and handguns, we both have carry concealed licenses, and we both have numerous other hobbies like, photography, hiking, boating, horseback riding and I have posted in other forums.

I hope Democratic Underground is good for me too.

Picture of the type of fast patrol boat I served on, I was normally on the aft mount.

[4th law of robotics]

20. I agree wholeheartedly

For instance: interrupting discussions online with ad hominems and blatant displays of ignorance all the while making definitive statements in contradiction to reality but consistently refusing to provide even a shred of evidence then falling back on emotional appeals is perfectly legal but definitely immoral and just plain wrong.

[Hoyt]

34. Funny how you guys always agree with those about to booted.

[4th law of robotics]

36. Hey you responded!

So if you could just give me that list of criteria that made the people in the picture shown earlier (post 4) racist that would be just super.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

37. Your sincere belief...

...in a timely and accurate response to the above leads me to ask if you have any interest in acquiring a certain bridge over the East River.

[4th law of robotics]

38. Eh, just hammering away

can't let him say these things without being questioned.

I know he won't respond. He's got nothing. He's not a serious poster. But to let him go unchallenged eventually becomes passive tolerance of what he's saying.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

39. Bravo!

"So that which is good may flourish."

[hack89]

8. "That the people have a right to bear arms for the defense of themselves ..." Sounds good to me. nt

[Lizzie Poppet]

13. Ah, the old "you couldn't beat the US military" argument.

You hear variations of "a bunch of guys with their guns could never stand up to the US military with its planes, missiles, etc." every time someone points out that one of the major rationales behind the Second Amendment is to provide for resistance to tyranny. In the surface, it seems like a reasonable argument, as the military's force advantage would seem to be overwhelming.

Things aren't that simple, though. the argument assumes an intact US military, following its orders to fire on a segment of the American public. Under most any truly plausible scenario of widespread insurrection against oppressive acts by the federal government, such an assumption is unjustified. The members of the military would hardly be unaware of the reasons for the insurrection, and military training and discipline wouldn't remotely be enough to get those inclined to agree with the insurrection to follow orders to oppose it. They'd defect, just like they did the only time in our history when anything similar occurred (the Confederate forces contained huge numbers of troops who'd defected from their US Army units). They'd bring their personal weaponry with them...and many would sabotage whatever they could before they left.

The most important aspect of these defections would be the fragmentation of any units that experienced significant defections. Fragmentation would mean that not only would the units operating those weapons and communications systems that give a modern military its huge advantage over civilian insurgents be incapable of manning those systems, the disruption in logistics would make it impossible to re-ammunition, refuel, and maintain those systems for long.

In such a scenario, civilian weapons are important. Particularly when you consider their enormous numerical advantage...

[friendly_iconoclast]

22. *cough, cough*Taliban*cough*...

[chknltl]

23. Although i wanted to not respond anywhere to Thom's OP,....

...this is something that raised my eyebrow as well. Respecting the Thom Hartmann tradition of not discussing the character or thoughts of those not present to defend themselves, i would like to instead point to examples where you and I may agree to what you are saying and not bash Thom or his words directly.

Recent history agrees with you Lizzie Poppet, look to mass defections by members of the Libyan and Egyptian armies for evidence here.

From a fully different perspective that does not deal with massive defections, but addresses instead the utility of a force from the 'peasantry' we have the citizenry of North Viet Nam, using their very limited firepower to harry and hold off one of the mightiest armies the world had ever seen up to that point.

History gives us any number of other examples to include the French Resistance of WWII, the Taliban during the Russian Occupation and even the patriotic citizenry who fought to free us from the British during our own Revolutionary war.

I once heard that it is not about the size of the dog in the fight, it is instead about the size of the fight in the dog!-(Ceaser Milan)

FWIW, I doubt strongly that Thom would disagree with you or I in this regard Lizzie Poppet but again, he is not here to defend himself so.....

.... regarding Thom Hartmann, he is different than most other radio/television political teachers in that he actively seeks out those who disagree with his views. Generally he winds up 'schooling' these people but on occasion he gets 'schooled' himself. On those occasions, (and you can hear it in his voice), he genuinely enjoys the learning expierience and adopts the new information updating it to a better overview on the topic. For me this puts Thom Hartmann far above anyone else out there on the radio when it comes to credibility.

[4th law of robotics]

17. The founders weren't concerned that the US would be taken out in a coup by the military

that's absurd.

They knew, quite rightly, that nations with large standing armies could use them equally well against domestic enemies as they could foreign ones.

There's a reason that all the large standing armies of continental Europe coincided with the rise of totalitarianism whereas the relatively weak army of the Brits* allowed the average citizen there far more freedoms than they would have enjoyed in say France.

A standing army has always been seen as a threat to freedom, not the nation itself.

*they relied on a powerful navy which while great for colonization and trade doesn't prove too valuable in keeping angry peasants on their farms.

[Atypical Liberal]

40. This argument has one serious flaw.

If the militias were not set as a deterrent to federal military power, why didn't the founders just have a national militia?

[aikoaiko]

42. I think Hartmann is conflating "the nation" and "the federal government"

Yes, the 2nd amendment protects the nation as a free state from any source of oppression by ensuring the people's right to keep and bear arms is not infringed by the federal government.

All of the bill of rights protect civil liberties of the people.