Mar-co! Mar-co! Mar-co!

If I had any confidence at all in the Florida Democratic Party, I would send Marco Rubio a few bucks and really try to help him beat Charlie Crist in the Republican primary, because if this really is indicative of how his mind works, then he ought to be easy pickings come next November.

Florida Senate candidate Marco Rubio is the latest to make his own curious comparison drawn from the Iranian demonstrations — that the protesters would have more success if they had a constitutional right to bear arms.

“I have a feeling the situation in Iran would be a little different if they had a 2nd amendment like ours,” Rubio tweeted on Sunday.
Think of the possible implications of Rubio's post. Is he advocating a violent response from the Iranian protesters? What if there were a similar situation here--is Rubio arguing that it's okay for US citizens to take up arms against their local, state or federal government if they thought there was a fraudulent election? What's the bar of proof here?

Rubio is tapping into the idea fomented by many 2nd Amendment absolutists that the primary importance of the right to bear arms is to be able to resist one's government should it become oppressive or corrupt (or be overthrown by some foreign invader a la Red Dawn). Rubio conveniently forgets (or hasn't thought out) that few revolutions succeed, and those that do usually do because the existing military turns on its government.

Does Rubio imagine that it's gun owners who keep US elections (reasonably) free of corruption? Are the Joint Chiefs crapping themselves in fear of the notion that the NRA will mobilize a revolutionary force if the election seems fraudulent? Give me a break. The US military could quash any attempt at overthrow without breaking much of a sweat. Hell, the police departments of most major cities could probably handle it.

The reason Ayatollah Khamenei is in trouble right now has nothing to do with how much access the average Iranian has to weapons and everything to do with Khamenei's overreach:
As Supreme Leader, Ali Khamenei may have many powers, but he doesn’t have the power to do as he pleases for personal gain. As a fundamental principle, in the Islamic Republic, no one is free to do as he pleases, not even the “Supreme Leader.” Everyone is subject to the law—that law being the shari’a. By appearing to commit a blatant dishonesty in order to put his own man in the drivers seat, Khamenei has cost himself an aura of impregnable authority, and this will hurt him because, for all the military and police resources at his command, the Supreme Leader’s authority ultimately derives from rectitude and religious learning, not bodyguards and guns. As soon as people stop believing in his rectitude, guns won’t save him.
It's all about legitimacy--Khamenei apparently thought he could control reality and he discovered he was wrong, and he's reaping the whirlwind as a result. Whether or not his populace is armed is secondary to the problem at best.

Newer Post Older Post Home