Send a Tweet
Most Popular Choices
Poll Analyses
Share on Facebook 10 Share on Twitter 1 Printer Friendly Page More Sharing
OpEdNews Op Eds   

Tyrant Trump Is the 2nd Amendment's Covert Hell-Spawned Enemy

Author 87431
Message Patrick Walker
Become a Fan
  (24 fans)

"When government fears the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny."

-Thomas Jefferson (spurious quotation)

Second Amendment Rally Against Gun Control
Second Amendment Rally Against Gun Control
(Image by Fibonacci Blue from flickr)
  Details   DMCA

An Unplanned "Tract" with Incendiary Origins

I began this "Tracts for Our Times" series from a sense of having some interesting, outside-the-box ideas tailor-made for these highly perilous "interesting times". Perhaps it's emblematic of our times that I find it impossible "to keep my tracts on track". In other words, something even more urgent pops into my brain that supersedes the content I promised in ending my previous tract. Such is my discussion of Donald Trump's "bearing" (sorry, couldn't resist the pun) on the Second Amendment here.

Like my previous piece (about my proposed Justified Outrage movement) this one began with an act of rash public speech. Speech so rash my nervous misgivings drove me to deeper reflection--which then became subject of a new "tract". But unlike the passion-provoked taboo language of "vulgar satyagraha", my rash, incendiary speech here was of the legally questionable kind--the kind that can bring law-enforcement personnel a-rapping at your door.

To wit, I publicly proposed--in several tweets and in article comments at OpEdNews and Reader Supported News--the conditional assassination of one Donald J. Trump. More precisely, I proposed that leading liberal billionaires should put a $1 billion bounty on his head provided he refuses to accept an Electoral College loss in the upcoming presidential election.

Needless to say, numerous respondents--even those who agree with me that Trump is an unprecedented public menace--were shocked and horrified. Didn't I fear being arrested for making an illegal public threat against the life of a sitting president? And why am I crazy enough to now publicly admit having made such a threat?

Why indeed? Because, on serious deep reflection, I'm by no means convinced conditional threats of this nature are illegal. For if they are, the right-wing's ad nauseam justification for the 2nd Amendment right to bear arms--that it's the safeguard of all our other freedoms--is the biggest imaginable piece of bull crap. Or better yet, "bear" crap. In any case, I'd love to be arrested for my conditional threat--provided the ACLU or the Center for Constitutional Rights is notified in advance--and turn this into the show trial of the new millennium. Specifically, about Trump's tyranny and America's less-than-worthless 2nd Amendment.

Why Conditional Threats on Tyrant Presidents Are Protected Free Speech

Readers should understand that I, in writing this, am a dyed-in-the-wool enemy of the Second Amendment--though not necessarily of regulated gun ownership. They should likewise understand that I do not desire the assassination of Donald Trump (wholeheartedly as I despise that fascist tyrant). Rather, fearing massive bloodshed--if not outright civil war--if he refuses to accept a clear electoral loss, I'm proposing the most powerful last-ditch deterrent available to stave off national tragedy (after all safer, saner ones are exhausted).

I do so based precisely on my scathing contempt for President (or better yet, Tyrant) Trump. See, I believe "President Bone Spurs" is a sniveling coward who'd snivellingly accept democracy's harsh judgment on his four-year misrule if faced with likely assassination. Not wishing to see Trump--or anyone--die, I (as an avid chess player) base my proposed tactic on the old chess-players' adage "The threat is stronger than the execution."

And despite finding the Second Amendment an outmoded piece of constitutional raw sewage (worse than useless against modern tyranny), I as a political tactician and strategist work with the laws--and prevailing legal theory--as I find them and not as I wish they could be. One prevalent legal theory, strongly embraced by most Trump supporters (and presumably by the conservatives on the Supreme Court), is that the Second Amendment offers our best (if not only) deterrent against government tyranny. So I'd love to see them embrace a theory of legally protected speech that renders the Second Amendment more useless (as a tyranny deterrent) than breasts on a mechanical bull. If we can't publicly forewarn that a tyrant, upon undertaking certain clearly tyrannical deeds, is likely to be shot for them, what the hell kind of tyranny deterrent is the Second Amendment?

As Dr. Strangelove memorably said about the Doomsday Machine ultimate deterrent, "Of course, the whole point of a "doomsday machine" is lost ... IF YOU KEEP IT A SECRET! WHY DIDN'T YOU TELL THE WORLD, EH?" Since the whole point of the 2nd Amendment as a credible tyranny deterrent is that prospective tyrants be forewarned of the vigilant citizens who are forearmed--and of their intent to act. While presidents are generally aware of many U.S citizens being armed to the teeth, these citizens so rarely (like never) signal their intent to invoke "2A" against tyranny that renewing its near-dead credibility as a tyranny deterrent absolutely depends on vigorous public speech signaling intention.

Of course, with a government vastly--indeed, unimaginably--more heavily armed than the citizenry, the consequences of invoking "2A" against general tyranny (say, by corporate influence) are so grave that few dare do so. And with uninvolved citizens so likely to be caught in the crossfire, public opinion (and not just force of arms) is virtually certain to be strongly against those who'd dare. Plus, our government possesses vastly greater propaganda tools for shaping public opinion than militias of armed citizens. These considerations alone should convince us that the 2nd Amendment--almost certainly not intended by the Framers as a tyranny deterrent--is virtually worthless in that role. And yet that toothless right-wing justification is dogma for millions of gun-toting Americans--and possibly soon for a majority on the Supreme Court.

Next Page  1  |  2

(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).

 

Well Said 1   Valuable 1  
Rate It | View Ratings

Patrick Walker Social Media Pages: Facebook page url on login Profile not filled in       Twitter page url on login Profile not filled in       Linkedin page url on login Profile not filled in       Instagram page url on login Profile not filled in

Patrick Walker is co-founder of Revolt Against Plutocracy (RAP) and the Bernie or Bust movement it spawned. Before that, he cut his activist teeth with the anti-fracking and Occupy Scranton PA movements. No longer with RAP, he wields his pen (more...)
 

Go To Commenting
The views expressed herein are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.
Writers Guidelines
Contact AuthorContact Author Contact EditorContact Editor Author PageView Authors' Articles
Support OpEdNews

OpEdNews depends upon can't survive without your help.

If you value this article and the work of OpEdNews, please either Donate or Purchase a premium membership.

STAY IN THE KNOW
If you've enjoyed this, sign up for our daily or weekly newsletter to get lots of great progressive content.
Daily Weekly     OpEdNews Newsletter
Name
Email
   (Opens new browser window)
 

Most Popular Articles by this Author:     (View All Most Popular Articles by this Author)

Frankly, Koch Brothers Deserve the Death Penalty

Let's Hunt Neoliberals to Political Extinction (Part 1 of 2)

Obama's Real Legacy: Savior of Corporate Fascism

Fascism without Totalitarianism: America's Present Plight

Climate Judge Hansen "Profiles" Clinton's Democrat Criminals

Hillary Sings Pop: "Talked to Stiglitz for Nothing (I Want My TPP)"

Comments

The time limit for entering new comments on this article has expired.

This limit can be removed. Our paid membership program is designed to give you many benefits, such as removing this time limit. To learn more, please click here.

1 people are discussing this page, with 2 comments


Patrick Walker

Become a Fan
Author 87431
(Member since Apr 20, 2013), 24 fans, 150 articles, 7 quicklinks, 2149 comments (How many times has this commenter been recommended?)
Not paid member and Facebook page url on login Profile not filled in Not paid member and Twitter page url on login Profile not filled in Not paid member and Linkedin page url on login Profile not filled in Not paid member and Instagram page url on login Profile not filled in

  New Content

If our presidential debates were serious, moderators would ask Trump whether his refusal to surrender power on losing the election makes him a fascist tyrant--the kind the 2nd Amendment is supposed to protect us against. Or ask whether he fears being shot for the tyrannical act of refusing to peacefully transfer power if he loses.

That the questions I'm daring to raise in this article aren't on EVERYONE'S mind has me fearing deeply for the future of democracy. What the hell kind of sheep are we?

Submitted on Wednesday, Sep 30, 2020 at 11:40:29 AM

  Recommend  (1+)
Flag This
Share Comment More Sharing          
Commenter Blocking?
Indent

Patrick Walker

Become a Fan
Author 87431
(Member since Apr 20, 2013), 24 fans, 150 articles, 7 quicklinks, 2149 comments (How many times has this commenter been recommended?)
Not paid member and Facebook page url on login Profile not filled in Not paid member and Twitter page url on login Profile not filled in Not paid member and Linkedin page url on login Profile not filled in Not paid member and Instagram page url on login Profile not filled in

Reply to Patrick Walker:   New Content

P.S. Of course, it's a historically dubious theory that the Framers intended the 2nd Amendment to provide for revolt against government tyranny. Why the hell would you do that when you just instituted (via the U.S. Constitution) a highly controversial new government? But even if they did so intend, they did so long before the mass communications and psychological techniques were available to create modern fascism. If anything gun mavens are more likely to be authoritarian personalities who SUPPORT the fascist tyrant.

More on this is my next, follow-up "tract," probably titled "Obsolete 2nd Amendment, Meet Thoroughly Modern Fascism."

Submitted on Wednesday, Sep 30, 2020 at 11:57:02 AM

  Recommend  (0+)
Flag This
Share Comment More Sharing          
Commenter Blocking?