by David Safier
Out of the pens of cartoonists. Two of the most astute, our own local treasure, Fitz, and the inimitable Gary Trudeau.
Discover more from Blog for Arizona
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
12 thoughts on ““I’m mad as hell and I’m not going to think anymore.””
Comments are closed.
Ah, I didn’t realize you wanted REAL quotes. It’s unfortunate you completely misunderstood my point.
Here is one you probably won’t find on Wikipedia.
“Happy for us that when we find our constitutions defective and insufficient to secure the happiness of our people, we can assemble with all the coolness of philosophers and set it to rights, while every other nation on earth must have recourse to arms to amend or to restore their constitutions.”
Jefferson was involved in no conspiracy to take up arms whatsoever. I recall the document he drafted was not a Declaration of War, but a Declaration of Independence. Jefferson did his best to avoid war with the country he previously served under as an officer. Most of Jefferson’s time during the Revolutionary War was spent running away from Benedict Arnold and his silver handcuffs. The rest of his time was spent trying to get support from the French and praying for peace with Britain.
If you want to know how long until it goes from first resort to last resort, it took the colonists 12 years and 3 months from the passing of the sugar act until they publicly declared their independence. It took 11 years from the sugar act until the first shot was fired at Lexington. I would suppose though that you have felt “put upon” by your representative government for much longer than 11 years, and that could easily justify your shooting whomever you like, as YOU must be the true patriot fighting for the rights of all Americans (except the ones you are shooting since your rights would outweigh theirs…)
Given your criteria for elitism, you should probably stop quoting Jefferson and stick with quotes from Glenn Beck or some of your libertarian heroes.
Wow. It’s fairly apparent in my earlier comment that the people who are shouting and booing at town meetings are the ones who accuse Democrats of not listening, and so do their “leaders.” The Republican party is called the daddy party for a reason. It treats people who don’t obey its wishes as errant children.
How you could think I was saying my side is the father, I have no idea.
David,
Your paragraph on listening exposes what I see as elitism. If you and your side are the father and the other side is a misbehaving child then you are presuming that the father has righteous authority of the child. The other side in this case are adult Americans who have a position which is very valid (perhaps only in my mind apparently). The use of government power to plunder group X to provide services to group Y is going to cause conflict that will only be resolved when the plan to plunder is abandoned.
The Arizona Constitution says: All political power is inherent in the people, and governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, and are established to protect and maintain individual rights.
Forgive me for mixing the Arizona constitution with the US issues we are discussing.
I certainly hope that the conflict between those who wish to increase government power and those who say no more government can be resolved through peaceful discussion and ballots.
As for the people on the wrong side of the gun, I don’t think that anybody who pulls the trigger of a gun is free from fault or at fault (and that goes whether the person with the gun has a government badge or not or listens to Glenn Beck).
Thane selectively quotes from Thomas Jefferson. (A Google search will reveal that the quote is cited on a myriad of pro-gun websites, almost always with no context or source provided). The full quotation is from a letter from Thomas Jefferson to William S. Smith, a diplomatic official in London, dated November 13, 1787:
“… God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion. The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions, it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty…. And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure.”
Jefferson was commenting on Shays’ Rebellion (1786-87), an armed uprising in Massachusetts that had been put down earlier that year by organized state militia forces. (Jefferson also later opposed the use of federal militia led by President George Washington and Alexander Hamilton to put down the Whiskey Rebellion in 1794 http://www.ttb.gov/public_info/whisky_rebellion.shtml).
As Josh Horowitz wrote in an article for the Huffington Post http://www.huffingtonpost.com/josh-horwitz/thomas-jefferson-and-the_b_273800.html:
In the same letter, however, Jefferson stated that the rebellion was “founded in ignorance … The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive.” Jefferson also referred to the delegates who had finalized a draft of the U.S. Constitution in September 1787, stating, “Our Convention has been too much impressed by the insurrection of Massachusetts: and in the spur of the moment they are setting up a kite to keep the hen-yard in order.”
The delegates to the Constitutional Convention had indeed taken Shays’ Rebellion very seriously, viewing the lack of a strong institutional response to the incident as symptomatic of a weak central government that was struggling to preserve the liberties they had fought so hard for. The country could not be governed in a state of perpetual revolution, the delegates realized, and despite the fears of Anti-Federalists, the Constitution authorized Congress to raise a standing Army. Furthermore, Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution stated that one of the purposes of the Militia was to “suppress Insurrections”–not to foment them.
* * *
With the drafting of the Constitution, Jefferson became more tempered in his own views, and acknowledged that well ordered republican democratic political processes could make armed violence unnecessary. In a letter to Dutch diplomat Charles William Frederick Dumas, Jefferson observed, “Happy for us, that when we find our constitutions defective and insufficient to secure the happiness of our people, we can assemble with all the coolness of philosophers and set it to rights, while every other nation on earth must have recourse to arms to amend or to restore their constitutions.”
Upon becoming President of the United States in 1801, Jefferson’s views about executive power and private rebellion were further transformed. In contrast to his previous advocacy for a ban on standing armies, Jefferson proposed the creation of a national military academy, which was built in West Point, New York. In 1807, after Aaron Burr conspired with military officers to create an independent republic in the American Southwest, Jefferson declared him a traitor and had him arrested and prosecuted for treason. In 1808, Jefferson deployed U.S. Army troops inside the country to enforce a trade embargo against Great Britain and France. Historian Henry Adams observed about Jefferson’s embargo policies: “Personal liberties and rights of property were more directly curtailed in the United States by embargo than in Great Britain by centuries of almost continuous foreign war.” Jefferson’s use of military personnel to enforce domestic laws remains unprecedented.
Those who hold the belief that the Second Amendment gives them an individual right to take violent action against our government should it lapse into “tyranny” have isolated Jefferson’s “tree of liberty” quote in order to justify a radical ideology. The truth is that Jefferson’s views on private rebellion were far more thoughtful and nuanced. While scholars like Saul Cornell have acknowledged that Jefferson affirmed an individual right to keep arms for private purposes, he never described disorganized or spontaneous insurrection as a right. Jefferson instead envisioned “a universally armed citizenry organized into well-regulated militia units based on a system of ‘ward republics'” as a deterrent against “usurpers” and a key guarantor of a healthy republic.
Thane.
I see. That explains it. You don’t want any violence, but if it happens, it’s the fault of the people on the wrong end of the gun, not the people pulling the trigger.
And I also understand the meaning of the word “listen,” as in, “You should listen to what these people are saying.” It’s like a father saying to a misbehaving child who is back talking, “You’re not listening to me.” To listen means to accept their arguments and change accordingly. In that definition, listening and not agreeing is the equivalent of not listening.
See what these folks are capable of doing in 2010. If more conservative candidates win in fair elections, that will mean the message is being believed. If not, it will mean people hear what is being said but don’t accept the message. That is also a form of listening.
Thomas Jefferson engaged in a rather large conspiracy to incite thousands of individuals to take up arms against a politician he disagreed with (King George).
My quote has the advantage of being a true quote and not a false one. As for first resort or last resort, it seems to me that those opposing ever increasing government have been petitioning and demonstrating for quite some time – who gets to determine where to peg the resort counter?
As for calling those you disagree with ignorant, how does that aid any effort to educate or persuade?
As for calling those you disagree with bigoted, if calling bigots bigoted was effective, the end of bigotry would have happened years ago.
As for calling those you disagree with angry, you just might have a point. I would encourage you to spend some time listening to the reasons those of the other side give for their anger – some effort might allow you to understand why they are angry.
Of course you don’t have to stop insulting your opponents, but I don’t think insults are likely to be effective in the overall campaign to increase unity and understanding between people of differing political ideologies.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Revolution:_A_Manifesto
I certainly hope and pray that people in America will not need to consider alternatives to words and ballots to resolve political problems.
I do think that freedom is being squeezed by proposals to expand government, don’t you? Government spending, taxing and borrowing are going full speed ahead. The problem is that many modern day liberals think that a government program to provide and regulate health care is a freedom, as valid as the freedom to choose and pay for health care oneself.
My opinion differs from others who think that freedom means government gives a service away, I see that as a reduction of my freedom, you may see that as a just act – in the end a conundrum.
In the end I would far prefer that Glenn Beck rail against US government foreign aid for Pakistan and the drain of US overseas occupations. My treasure (taxes) is being spent to ensure that the governments of Pakistan, Afghanistan and Iraq continue to operate in the manner to which they have become accustomed while American jobs are being eliminated in favor of jobs in India (not that I don’t want Indians to be employed, I just object that American jobs must overcome taxes that pay for wasteful military occupations).
I advocate peace and cooperation in all realms but when government has a monopoly on violence and continues to expand its operations then those Americans who are forced under threat of confiscation, imprisonment and death to pay for higher and higher taxes and when their objections are considered not at all then what do you think is likely to result?
Glenn Beck, Joe Wilson and the Tea Party events are a result of political conditions and no amount of accusations of racism thrown from the parapets of orthodoxy is going to assuage the issue that causes the problem – too much government.
Again, I don’t spend much time listening to Mr. Beck. I do think that you and I should absolutely listen to what they have to say. They are speaking English and they do make understandable points even if you and I don’t always agree with them.
Of course there are those who think that Beck or the 9/11 bombings can be either heckled or ignored away by blithely stating that “They hate *X*”. I’d rather prevent another Revolution than incite one.
P.S. My prayers do not include any of the following terms: snail, melt or any word variation of death.
How many times did Jefferson take up arms again? I forgot he was such a gun-totin’ rampaging maniac, shooting any politicians he disagreed with.
It reminds me of Jefferson’s famous quote: “The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a FIRST resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government, or if they just don’t like their current elected leaders, or their elected party is not in power, or if they don’t want to be bothered with the political process (that I helped to create), or if they are ignorant, bigoted and angry.”
Jefferson was a true warrior statesman.
So let me be clear. You’re advocating taking arms right now to preserve our liberties? Let’s not hide behind Jefferson. What do you think? Are our liberties in such jeopardy, or does it look like they might be in the near and foreseeable future, that we need to take arms? Are we at a point, right here in the U.S., where the tree of liberty should be refreshed with the blood of patriots & tyrants? These are the paraphrases of the Jefferson quotes you’re fond of. Do you just like the sound of them, or do you think they’re a call to action in today’s United States?
Maybe I don’t listen to Mr. Beck enough. I’ve read enough of his 9/12 ideas to know that he has some nice sentiments but they aren’t a complete road map to me.
As for my (and others) revolutionary motivations, I can only point out that there are people who just don’t cotton to being being saddled with ever more taxes for an ever bigger government.
Thomas Jefferson – “And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms.”
http://everything2.com/title/Tree+of+Liberty+letter
I am sure he didn’t mean it did he?
Thane.
You mean to say, you can take Glenn Beck seriously? I don’t mean as a political force. I take him seriously as a political force and a signpost of where the Republican Party is right now. But can you listen to him and say, “As often than not, this man makes sense”? Because if so, and if your rumblings about the new American Revolution with its proto-militaristic implications are any indication, you have drunk very deeply in the kool-aid punch bowl, my friend. And that disturbs me on many levels, one of which being, you’re an intelligent fellow who is often quite rational. And if people like you keep going back to that punch bowl for refreshment and enlightenment, we’re in for a long, dark winter. And I can only hope you folks freeze your asses off on your own without dragging the rest of us down with you.
I have no particular iron in the fire when it comes to Glenn Beck, I can take him or leave him. I always welcome comics with political comment but I have to say that Fitz’s comic in the end is just a fancy insult to those who find Glenn Beck to be worth watching. Hardee-har-har, that is one sly comment there (not).
I’d love to have Glenn Beck interview Fitz on his radio or tv show and share what it is he thinks Mr. Beck should be talking about.