Well, it's official. Mr. Robert Beierle, of the fatuously named Creative Insight, LLC, publisher of the Our Town pennysavers circulated throughout Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and parts of New York and Maryland has now officially moved from seditionist blowhard to full on supporter of domestic terrorism. That's really the only way something like this can be interpreted. When we have a man running around the woods of Pennsylvania, killing police officers and another writing about how the Second Amendment guarantees our right to rise up in violent revolt against our government, what else could he be? Incredulously, Bob actually has either the gall or the total lack of self awareness (based on his past writings and his insistence on referring to himself as a "patriot," I'm going to go with the latter) to try to disassociate himself from this violent psychopath; as if his brand of rhetoric and vitriol is not the exact sort of encouragement that would lead someone to shoot at the authorities. I'm not saying Eric Frein was one of Bob's readers, because I can't prove that, but would anyone be surprised if he is? Hell, for all we know, Frein was at the "Patriot Connectors" meeting where Bob spoke, and it was Bob's misappropriation of the phrase "If not YOU, then who? If not NOW, then when?" that encouraged Frein to set up his little duck blind in the woods and kill the 38 year old father of two.
Let's do a little break down of Bob's misguided attempt at explaining the Second Amendment. As you might expect, it's nothing but NRA fairy tales, half truths, and insurrectionist wet dreams. For starters, Bob is convinced that the Second Amendment is second because the hallowed Founding Fathers believed that the right to own a gun is second only to the right to free speech. Even a cursory inspection of the Wikipedia page on the Bill of Rights shows that not only was the right to bear arms the fourth proposed amendment to the Constitution, but James Madison (you know, the Founding Father who wrote the damn thing) didn't even want it included. Hell, even Bob's sacred freedom of speech was the third proposed amendment. There's some reality for you. By Bob's reckoning, the Founding Fathers thought that how much money Congress got paid was more important than freedom of speech. There's your truth, Bob. Open a damn history book once in a while.
Next, I have to address this insurrectionist fairy tale that Bob is so hot for. First, I want you to download and read a paper called The Hidden History of the Second Amendment. It is an eye opening, scholarly paper that explains exactly why the Second Amendment was included in the Bill of Rights. I'll get to the crux of that paper in a bit, first, let's address the problems with what Bob is saying. For about 40 years now, the NRA and the firearms industry have been promoting this idea that the Founding Fathers included the right to bear arms in the Bill of Rights for two reasons: first, they wanted to be sure that they could raise a militia to defend the US from invading British or Native American forces, and second, they wanted us to violently overthrow the government every 25 years or so and rebuild it. This is so wrong headed and ignorant it hurts. Anyone with a cursory knowledge of history, especially the American Revolutionary War and post war period, knows that this is a flat out fabrication, and a damaging one at that. It's not surprising that Bob would perpetuate these lies, after all, he probably does not know any better. They play to his world view and support his twisted, destructive reasoning. Unfortunately for Bob, history, and the facts, do not bear him out.
Let's start with point one: the Founding Fathers wanted a ready militia to defend the United States. This is one of those truly damaging lies that continues because it has the ring of truth to it. We've all heard stories of the brave Minutemen, farmers who were ready to fight the Redcoats in under a minute and win our freedom. It's a great bit of American folklore, and not much more. The reality is that the militias were not held in very high regard by the Founding Fathers. They were the reason the Americans were driven from Breed's Hill (you may know it as the Battle of Bunker Hill) resulting in a British victory. They failed to protect Washington's regular army as the British drove him from Brooklyn all the way across New Jersey in the fall and early winter of 1776. In fact, Washington didn't have a very high opinion of militia at all. The fact is, while the Founding Fathers were no fans of a standing army, they didn't put much stock in the idea that your average untrained farmer was going to be much worth if the British regulars came calling again either. The truth is, the militia question was one of the driving forces behind the Constitutional convention in the first place.
Under the Articles of Confederation, the Federal Government existed to defend the United States from outside forces like the British or Native Americans, but had no power to deal with interior problems. Which is why, when a group of farmers lead by Daniel Shays decided to rebel in 1787, the leaders of the new United States got together and wrote the Constitution, which provided the new Federal Government with the powers to call up a militia to deal with such insurrections. In fact, the first time the Federal government called up the militia was to put down just such a rebellion. Mostly, however, the militias were called out to put down slave rebellions, like Nat Turner's, Harper's Ferry, and the German Coast Uprising in 1811. The truth, which racists like Bob Beierle don't want to acknowledge, is that the Second Amendment exists not to provide for the defense of the United States from external threats but to provide for the defense of white slave owners from their slaves.
See, as The Hidden History of the Second Amendment explains, the only Founding Fathers concerned with the right to keep and bear arms at the Constitutional Convention were Southerners like Patrick Henry:
The second, and possibly even more dangerous, fairy tale that Bob perpetuates here is the insurrectionist fairy tale: the idea that our Founding Fathers wanted us to have the ability to violently overthrow the government. Not only does this confound all logic and reason, but it is simply not supported by anything. Most famously, the proponents of this delusion quote Thomas Jefferson as saying "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." Not only is this always taken out of context, but it was a sentiment almost universally opposed by Jefferson's peers. For starters, it was part of a private letter Jefferson sent to the son in law of John Adams which was never meant to be made public. The statement is in response to an inquiry about Shays' Rebellion, which every other Founding Father decried as treason. Jefferson took a great deal of criticism for his position, with no less than Samuel Adams saying "in monarchies the crime of treason and rebellion may admit of being pardoned or lightly punished, but the man who dares rebel against the laws of a republic ought to suffer death." Clearly, the Founding Fathers did not want bloody rebellion once a generation.
If you doubt this, think on this: the Americans had just spent the better part of a decade fighting a bloody and costly revolution that they had only barely won. It left them deeply in debt and left the populace war weary and distrustful. What possible reason could they have for wanting to do this once a generation? This quote from John Adams sums it up nicely:
Now, I know there is no convincing people like Bob that these facts prove him wrong. He has feelings on his side, so he doesn't need facts. But this is reality. This is the truth. Bob actually says at one point that he doesn't have "an issue with opposing viewpoints that are thought out, well debated, and use facts." Well, maybe Bob should try some of those things some time, because none of his arguments are thought out, well debated, or remotely factual. He talks about extremists as if he isn't one. He talks about a domestic terrorist as if his own writings do not support and encourage the very actions that man took. He acts as if letting a gun manufacturer spread his lies and fear mongering in his magazine doesn't make him a shill. Bob is truly the most despicable type of human being. He makes me ashamed to be an American. You can lie to yourself, Bob, but you're not fooling the rest of us. We see you for the treasonous terrorist you are.
One final thought: Bob has a pullout in this week's rag advertising a party he's throwing this weekend for all the other bundhists. In a truly tone deaf and disgusting bit of irony, there's a bit about how they're holding an auction to raise money for the family of the PA State Trooper who was murdered in cold blood by one of Bob's "fellow patriots." I really hope his wife throws your money back in your face, Bob, but I doubt she even knows who you are or what you stand for. How about this Bob: instead of raising money for a real Patriot who gave his life in the line of duty, you stop printing your seditionist lies and insurrectionist fairy tales? How about instead of encouraging people to take shots at the police and the government, you act like a real patriot and support it? Like another great patriot, Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson once said: "The choice is not between order and liberty. It is between liberty with order and anarchy without either."
A republic is a government of the people, Bob. Maybe start acting like one.
Let's do a little break down of Bob's misguided attempt at explaining the Second Amendment. As you might expect, it's nothing but NRA fairy tales, half truths, and insurrectionist wet dreams. For starters, Bob is convinced that the Second Amendment is second because the hallowed Founding Fathers believed that the right to own a gun is second only to the right to free speech. Even a cursory inspection of the Wikipedia page on the Bill of Rights shows that not only was the right to bear arms the fourth proposed amendment to the Constitution, but James Madison (you know, the Founding Father who wrote the damn thing) didn't even want it included. Hell, even Bob's sacred freedom of speech was the third proposed amendment. There's some reality for you. By Bob's reckoning, the Founding Fathers thought that how much money Congress got paid was more important than freedom of speech. There's your truth, Bob. Open a damn history book once in a while.
Next, I have to address this insurrectionist fairy tale that Bob is so hot for. First, I want you to download and read a paper called The Hidden History of the Second Amendment. It is an eye opening, scholarly paper that explains exactly why the Second Amendment was included in the Bill of Rights. I'll get to the crux of that paper in a bit, first, let's address the problems with what Bob is saying. For about 40 years now, the NRA and the firearms industry have been promoting this idea that the Founding Fathers included the right to bear arms in the Bill of Rights for two reasons: first, they wanted to be sure that they could raise a militia to defend the US from invading British or Native American forces, and second, they wanted us to violently overthrow the government every 25 years or so and rebuild it. This is so wrong headed and ignorant it hurts. Anyone with a cursory knowledge of history, especially the American Revolutionary War and post war period, knows that this is a flat out fabrication, and a damaging one at that. It's not surprising that Bob would perpetuate these lies, after all, he probably does not know any better. They play to his world view and support his twisted, destructive reasoning. Unfortunately for Bob, history, and the facts, do not bear him out.
Let's start with point one: the Founding Fathers wanted a ready militia to defend the United States. This is one of those truly damaging lies that continues because it has the ring of truth to it. We've all heard stories of the brave Minutemen, farmers who were ready to fight the Redcoats in under a minute and win our freedom. It's a great bit of American folklore, and not much more. The reality is that the militias were not held in very high regard by the Founding Fathers. They were the reason the Americans were driven from Breed's Hill (you may know it as the Battle of Bunker Hill) resulting in a British victory. They failed to protect Washington's regular army as the British drove him from Brooklyn all the way across New Jersey in the fall and early winter of 1776. In fact, Washington didn't have a very high opinion of militia at all. The fact is, while the Founding Fathers were no fans of a standing army, they didn't put much stock in the idea that your average untrained farmer was going to be much worth if the British regulars came calling again either. The truth is, the militia question was one of the driving forces behind the Constitutional convention in the first place.
Under the Articles of Confederation, the Federal Government existed to defend the United States from outside forces like the British or Native Americans, but had no power to deal with interior problems. Which is why, when a group of farmers lead by Daniel Shays decided to rebel in 1787, the leaders of the new United States got together and wrote the Constitution, which provided the new Federal Government with the powers to call up a militia to deal with such insurrections. In fact, the first time the Federal government called up the militia was to put down just such a rebellion. Mostly, however, the militias were called out to put down slave rebellions, like Nat Turner's, Harper's Ferry, and the German Coast Uprising in 1811. The truth, which racists like Bob Beierle don't want to acknowledge, is that the Second Amendment exists not to provide for the defense of the United States from external threats but to provide for the defense of white slave owners from their slaves.
See, as The Hidden History of the Second Amendment explains, the only Founding Fathers concerned with the right to keep and bear arms at the Constitutional Convention were Southerners like Patrick Henry:
"If the country be invaded, a state may go to war, but cannot suppress [slave] insurrections [under this new Constitution]. If there should happen an insurrection of slaves, the country cannot be said to be invaded. They cannot, therefore, suppress it without the interposition of Congress . . . . Congress, and Congress only [under this new Constitution], can call forth the militia."The Southern delegates were worried that Northern representatives, who would outnumber them due to the higher populations of northern states, would use Article I, Section 8 as a way to destroy slavery by not arming the Southern state militias. Without arms, they could not control a slave population that outnumbered them in some states almost 3 to 1. The Founding Fathers were less worried about defending the country from the English than they were about the monster they were creating in slavery. This, and not the fairy tale Minuteman ready to defend the United States, was the reason for the compromise that is the Second Amendment. During the 1970s and 80s, however, with the threat of the Soviet Union hanging over the world and rising crime rates, gun manufacturers realized that they could sell a lot more guns if people thought they would be defending their homes from the Red Army or some cracked out inner city "thug" (that's Fox News code for "black person," BTW), so they spread this fairy tale of the American duty to own a gun and protect their homes, despite mounting evidence that homes with guns were more likely to be victims of gun violence. (Also here, here, and here. I know these come from "liberal" sources like Harvard, Yale, and the National Institutes of Health, but hey, science is science and facts are neither liberal nor conservative. So take your bias strawman and shove it.)
The second, and possibly even more dangerous, fairy tale that Bob perpetuates here is the insurrectionist fairy tale: the idea that our Founding Fathers wanted us to have the ability to violently overthrow the government. Not only does this confound all logic and reason, but it is simply not supported by anything. Most famously, the proponents of this delusion quote Thomas Jefferson as saying "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." Not only is this always taken out of context, but it was a sentiment almost universally opposed by Jefferson's peers. For starters, it was part of a private letter Jefferson sent to the son in law of John Adams which was never meant to be made public. The statement is in response to an inquiry about Shays' Rebellion, which every other Founding Father decried as treason. Jefferson took a great deal of criticism for his position, with no less than Samuel Adams saying "in monarchies the crime of treason and rebellion may admit of being pardoned or lightly punished, but the man who dares rebel against the laws of a republic ought to suffer death." Clearly, the Founding Fathers did not want bloody rebellion once a generation.
If you doubt this, think on this: the Americans had just spent the better part of a decade fighting a bloody and costly revolution that they had only barely won. It left them deeply in debt and left the populace war weary and distrustful. What possible reason could they have for wanting to do this once a generation? This quote from John Adams sums it up nicely:
I must study politics and war that my sons may have liberty to study mathematics and philosophy. My sons ought to study mathematics and philosophy, geography, natural history, naval architecture, navigation, commerce, and agriculture, in order to give their children a right to study painting, poetry, music, architecture, statuary, tapestry, and porcelain.Finally, the Constitution of the United States creates a system whereby the government can be peacefully changed every 2 - 6 years. The men who wrote this document set this system up in such a way that the States would determine who could vote for Congressmen and other representatives. In most states at time, the only people who could vote were land owning white men. So answer me this: if the Founding Fathers set it up so that less than 1/3 of the population could change the government through peaceable means, what kind of twisted, idiotic logic makes you think they wanted everyone armed and able to do it violently?
Now, I know there is no convincing people like Bob that these facts prove him wrong. He has feelings on his side, so he doesn't need facts. But this is reality. This is the truth. Bob actually says at one point that he doesn't have "an issue with opposing viewpoints that are thought out, well debated, and use facts." Well, maybe Bob should try some of those things some time, because none of his arguments are thought out, well debated, or remotely factual. He talks about extremists as if he isn't one. He talks about a domestic terrorist as if his own writings do not support and encourage the very actions that man took. He acts as if letting a gun manufacturer spread his lies and fear mongering in his magazine doesn't make him a shill. Bob is truly the most despicable type of human being. He makes me ashamed to be an American. You can lie to yourself, Bob, but you're not fooling the rest of us. We see you for the treasonous terrorist you are.
One final thought: Bob has a pullout in this week's rag advertising a party he's throwing this weekend for all the other bundhists. In a truly tone deaf and disgusting bit of irony, there's a bit about how they're holding an auction to raise money for the family of the PA State Trooper who was murdered in cold blood by one of Bob's "fellow patriots." I really hope his wife throws your money back in your face, Bob, but I doubt she even knows who you are or what you stand for. How about this Bob: instead of raising money for a real Patriot who gave his life in the line of duty, you stop printing your seditionist lies and insurrectionist fairy tales? How about instead of encouraging people to take shots at the police and the government, you act like a real patriot and support it? Like another great patriot, Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson once said: "The choice is not between order and liberty. It is between liberty with order and anarchy without either."
A republic is a government of the people, Bob. Maybe start acting like one.
Thanks for this. I don't know how someone like this could be in support of the 2nd amendment yet be such a wacko at the same time. Really weird guy. Even weirder videos online of his speech for the Patriot Connections.
ReplyDelete