I usually enjoy Bill Maher, if only for the fact that I share his views on religion and am more than a bit irreverent myself. Have seen him live and really enjoyed it. But then it saddens me that much more when such a realist, such a rebel, loses sight of some things, such as the value of freedom even when it is hopeless.
In discussing the Second Amendment recently, Maher noted that:
"Can we get to, first of all, how ridiculous it is for people to think that the Second Amendment protects them from tyranny. Didn't Waco solve that? We just had the anniversary a couple of weeks ago. Remember Waco? You know what they had in Waco? They had like 1.9 million rounds of ammunition; they had .50 caliber machine guns; they had grenades...What did the government have? Everything else. The winner and still champion - the United States government. Thinking the Second Amendment protects you from tyranny is like thinking the First Amendment protects you from Thor. It's quaint. It's ridiculous. It's nonsensical. And they never get called [on] it!"
Well Bill - If the government is willing to bring in drones, tanks, and, who knows, tactical nukes and "everything else" then, indeed, the civilian possession of firearms may seem a futile attempt to ward off tyranny. Indeed, if the large bulk of the American people can be made to see such rebellion as evil and thus would be willing to stand mutely and impotently by as their government assaulted it's own citizenry (as in Waco) then the ability of any freedom to withstand tyranny is non-existent. I assume then that you think that Koresh and followers should simply have let themselves be subjugated in the face of superior firepower? Helluva a way to live (and die)! Give in or die!
So, is that it, Bill? Do we simply give up then? Do we accept that tyranny is irresistible and live a cowed existence? Suppose the "Christian Brotherhood" comes to power (more than it already is) and decides that we must all attend services each Sunday, recite the magic words, and put our trust in the Lord? That to speak otherwise is blasphemy and means imprisonment or worse? You good with that? Hell, you can't effectively resist it - you are one, they are many, they have all the cool weapons - so either STFU or enjoy your water-boarding and indoctrination. Nothing worth standing up for?
I think we both appreciate the First Amendment, yet should the government decide it is meaningless and begins to imprison or execute people like us for saying the "wrong things" (Why does that make me think of Monty Python and the Holy Grail), will we all just go along? After all, you can't resist them - they have all the cards, all the "real" weapons! If our civilian firearms will not do it, then certainly bare hands and foul language will not. Somehow I would have doubted you would be so willing to STFU. Perhaps I am wrong?
I know that, should even the local police decide to take my weapons, they have enough firepower to do so - that inequity is already built into the system - that should I resist them, I will lose. But unlike you, I am not even willing to allow that inevitable defeat to mean I simply give up and give in. Just like you (hopefully) will likely not shut the fuck up when told to do so, but will be dragged kicking, screaming and cursing into whatever hole they put the blasphemous, I will not relinquish my firearms. I will lose, I may die or go to prison, but I think we all have a line we will not cross.
Your sentiment, along with know-it-all Lawrence O'Donnell, is simply one of capitulation, choosing subjugation over peril, of living on your knees because it will keep you alive.
Not an opinion I had ever suspected I would hear from you.
Really sad!
No comments:
Post a Comment