Shooting at the government

[Running Gator]

10 minutes ago, Butero said:

This would be a situation where the government is no longer following the Constitution, and they are sending in people to confiscate your guns, shutting down churches, closing down newspapers that are unfriendly to the government, things like that.  This could lead to a revolt by the citizens because the government is no longer following the supreme law of the land, and the only thing the people can do is take up arms and fight to defend the Constitution.  I don't have the right to go around seeking out members of Congress I don't like and shooting them. 

Sounds logical to me!  Thanks

[Running Gator]

5 minutes ago, shiloh357 said:

In the case of government tyranny, both would be necessary.

But the first step in tyranny is to disarm the public.   How much different would China be if the people were armed?  How might it look in North Korea if the people had the means to stand against Tyranny.

This has no similarity, though, to what Hodgekinson did.   He wasn't really standing up to the government.  He wanted to murder members of a particular party in Congress because as an extension of his hatred for Trump.

Perhaps in his own little twisted mind, he thought that Trump was being tyrannical. 

[Guest shiloh357]

3 minutes ago, Running Gator said:

Perhaps in his own little twisted mind, he thought that Trump was being tyrannical. 

He might have.  Trump has been false accused of tyranny by some who hate him and have no moral compunction about lobbing false accusations.  

But that doesn't really change anything.   The 2nd Amendment gives us the right to defend ourselves against genuine tyranny.  Millions believe that very thing, and they own guns;  a lot of guns.  And they don't shoot anyone in government, even the one's they despise.

[Steve_S]

2 hours ago, Running Gator said:

Perhaps in his own little twisted mind, he thought that Trump was being tyrannical. 

It is really irrelevant whether he does or not insofar as his actions are concerned. I think that a line can be drawn between political disagreements and tyranny, though. Reformulating a healthcare bill, which was one of this guy's main complaints evidently, can hardly be described as tyranny by any reasonable person. He may have thought it was, I don't know, but him thinking something does not make it reality. The key thing here is that there is nothing preventing him from voting for the people he wishes to in order to be a part of the changes he wishes to make with regard to what trump is doing. That is the ultimate end-result of tyranny, the removal of any realistic sort of ability to change a government peacefully through voting or some other sort of agreed upon mechanism that gives either individuals or their representatives the ability to directly affect changes to things that they do not wish to have happened or to implement things that they wish to happen. That ability has certainly been maintained. He doesn't like what trump is doing, he can vote for another guy in three and a half years and vote for congressional representatives to oppose trump in one and a half years.

[Anonymous Aristotle]

4 hours ago, SavedByGrace1981 said:

I'm not sure where Snopes fits into this, but here's what I did.

There was no link provided in the OP, so I simply Googled 'judge napolitano 2nd amendment quote'.  The second result was the January 2013 article from the Washington Times.  That seems to be the genesis of the quote.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jan/10/the-right-to-shoot-tyrants-not-deer/

Blessings,

-Ed

I also conducted a search to source out the sourceless OP. Google was my avenue of research. I used near the same search criteria.

"Napalitano shoot tyrants not deer."

Snopes was the second search result. I used that because it gave the most detailed explanation and put into context the OP's brief synopsis.

I also appreciated that the Snopes fact check provided sources for their own fact checking. Posted below with the Snopes link re-posted as source. 

Disparaging those sources as non-credible as someone did attempt to imply would be a heavy burden to defend. Calling each source false in effect. Therein making the onus to uphold that credibility issue the skeptics. I did not find those sources questionable when I further investigated before committing the finding to post. 

 

http://www.snopes.com/rand-paul-tweet-second-amendment-purpose-shoot-tyrannical-government/

Fact Checker:Dan Evon

Featured Image:Flickr/Jamelle Bouie

Published:Jun 15th, 2017

Sources:

Persons, Sally.   “Sanford: Trump Partially to Blame for Heated Rhetoric that Led to Alexandria Shooting.”
    The Washington Times.   14 June 2017.

Hod, Itay.   “Alexandria Shooting Debate: Does the Media Bear Blame for ‘Increase in Violent Rhetoric’?”
    The Wrap.   14 June 2017.

Lytvynenko, Jane.   “Here’s The Misinformation Going Around About The Alexandria Shooting.”
    Buzzfeed.   14 June 2017.

Lytvynenko, Jane.   “Here’s The Misinformation Going Around About The Alexandria Shooting.”
    Buzzfeed.   14 June 2017.

O’Keefe, Ed.   “Gun-Control Overhaul is Defeated in Senate.”
    Washington Post.   17 April 2013.

Martin, Jonathan.   “Their Own Targeted, Republicans Want Looser Gun Laws, Not Stricter Ones.”
    New York Times.   14 June 2017.

[SavedByGrace1981]

25 minutes ago, Anonymous Aristotle said:

Disparaging those sources as non-credible as someone did attempt to imply would be a heavy burden to defend. Calling each source false in effect. Therein making the onus to uphold that credibility issue the skeptics. I did not find those sources questionable when I further investigated before committing the finding to post. 

I just want to use the partial quote above to respond to a larger issue - so-called 'fake news.'

For the most part I haven't delved into that debate.  First off, I think 'fake news' is not a new thing. I like to say it goes back at least to 1898 when the Hearst Newspapers ran screaming headlines about the sinking of the USS Maine in Havana harbor.  They got what they wanted - a war with Spain.

I prefer - if I see an article from a source I might find questionable - to refute the facts stated in the article, and not the source itself.  I have a close relative who's political knowledge is a mile wide and an inch deep.  She also LOVES to argue, and has been known over the years to take an opposite view JUST FOR that very reason.  She loves to get under one's skin.

A while back (against my better judgement) I was goaded into a political argument with her (I generally avoid political arguments with relatives to try to keep peace in the family.)  I forget now what it was about, but after a few minutes all she could come up with was "well, you heard that on Fox News" and that was supposed to end the discussion.

I've posted things from major newspapers and even CNN - though I very often doubt their veracity.  In fact, I just posted a Buffalo News article. (I have pretty much zero respect for that particular organ - that goes back years).

But these are ways to engage discussion, especially with those who view anything to the right of the NY Times as right wing drivel.

Blessings,

-Ed

 

Edited June 19, 2017 by SavedByGrace1981

[Anonymous Aristotle]

11 minutes ago, SavedByGrace1981 said:

I just want to use the partial quote above to respond to a larger issue - so-called 'fake news.'

For the most part I haven't delved into that debate.  First off, I think 'fake news' is not a new thing. I like to say it goes back at least to 1898 when the Hearst Newspapers ran screaming headlines about the sinking of the USS Maine in Havana harbor.  They got what they wanted - a war with Spain.

I prefer - if I see an article from a source I might find questionable - to refute the facts stated in the article, and not the source itself.  I have a close relative who's political knowledge is a mile wide and an inch deep.  She also LOVES to argue, and has been known over the years to take an opposite view JUST FOR that very reason.  She loves to get under one's skin.

A while back (against my better judgement) I was goaded into a political argument with her (I generally avoid political arguments with relatives to try to keep peace in the family.)  I forget now what it was about, but after a few minutes all she could come up with was "well, you heard that on Fox News" and that was supposed to end the discussion.

I've posted things from major newspapers and even CNN - though I very often doubt their veracity.  In fact, I just posted a Buffalo News article. (I have pretty much zero respect for that particular organ - that goes back years).

But these are ways to engage discussion, especially with those who view anything to the right of the NY Times as right wing drivel.

Blessings,

-Ed

 

I think the phrase, "fake news" , started by the HR Clinton campaign became so popular many people thought her camp invented it. However, I do agree with you that it is likely far older than that. Though I remember the olden days of broadcasting and back then there wasn't the back biting and brazenly contradictory reporting on any subject, much less the president.

All this drama that surrounds fake news may not be new, and that is likely true, but it does appear to be gaining in such popularity as a debate topic that it just appears as if it is a new phenomena. It is a way to divide the country. Maybe that's the point of making it a hot button issue now. 

Notice the drama of fake news arrives after we've been saturated for years with the drama of "reality TV"?

 We're more ready as a TV consumer public for the machinations of such stuff on our psyche. As we can tell is having its effect as we recall the Alexandria terrorist James Hodgkinson targeting Republicans. While carrying a hit list in his pocket so as to seek out more Republican Representatives for death.

[Anonymous Aristotle]

33 minutes ago, Cobalt1959 said:

I didn't say I had anything to refute Snope's finding.  I said it is not a reliable source of information.

I am not attempting to refute what Napolitano said because he is essentially correct.  I am pointing out that Snopes is no more reliable than Wiki, or Breibart, or the HuffPost.  They lie, and they lie often.

That however is not the case in this particular instance. Rather, it is a reliable source. And its sources in the fact check demonstrate that from which the Snopes material was sourced so as to publish their fact finding article. 

[Anonymous Aristotle]

1 hour ago, Cobalt1959 said:

That hardly changes the fact that, by and large, Snopes is demonstrably unreliable.  Even a broken clock has the right time twice a day.  It is academic that you feel that this particular instance is correct.  They get more wrong than they get right when it comes to anything with a political component to it.  Urban legends?  Snopes is the go-to.  Anything political?  Not So Much.

It is a fact in this thread. That Snopes proved reliable through fact checking concerning this thread topic is what is relevant in this thread. I appreciate your sharing your warning concerning the credibility of Snopes. I tend to make it a habit to check my sources before sharing them with others. 

Thank you again.