It’s not only possible, it’s the most likely way for it to happen. Most dictators (I presume you mean tyranny in its modern sense) come to power either through popular acclaim or by fully democratic means (Hitler, Mussolini, Mugabe etc etc). When power is seized it is often with the people’s consent or approval (Amin’s coup was greeted by cheering crowds in Kampala). And even at the height of their oppressive regimes they can remain popular (Mugabe is still revered by a good third of the population).
To get back to the point; do you really think the US has escaped dictatorship due to an armed citizenry? That’s bizarre.
And I was only a young whipper-snapper when Pericles began using the cult of personality to sway the demos. Doesn’t mean I can’t make a judgement call about it.
I’ll open my question up to a broader audience, if villa isn’t around to answer: Where were these heavily armed patriots when we needed to fight against the expansion of intrusive governmental powers over the past 8 years? Did you oppose FISA? Why didn’t the NRA exert its influence to stop the Bush adminstration from increasing the power of the police state?
Isn’t preventing the police from tapping your phones as cool as having a big, guns blazin’, full auto rock and roll shootout with them when they knock your door in?
Unfortunately, there’s much truth to this. I wish it weren’t so, but it is. The very nature of the dynamic I’m talking about is going to mean it is really only going to have effect when it comes to more direct infringement of rights.
Gun ownership isn’t the be all and end all of protection of rights. It’s not an excuse to ignore other necessary steps. Unfortunately too many people think it is, and way too many people think the government restricting the rights of others is not important so long as they aren’t personally impacted.
Well, I think that people want something to be true so badly that they believe leaders without question until it’s too late. The facts are that in Pre-Nazi Germany guns were severely restricted by the government, so much so that Clayton Cramer as quoted by the SD said in part that:
It is this history that we must use and learn from and never allow to repeat. I am not advocating everyone be given full auto assault rifles, nor am I advocating gun ownership for everyone because as we see from this incident it’s not something everyone should be into. Still, even if, as Cramer points out, the gun laws were not a major part of the process, I would rather have the option to go down with the ability to fight as opposed to simply rolling over because I cannot.
I think the US has escaped dictatorship not only because of an armed citizenry, but I think that it is one factor in many that has prevented the kind of things that Germany, Italy and Africa have experienced.
I would say one of the bigger problems of the “gun ownership for dictatorial defense” is that potential for following a dictator, though. Just as an armed populace could rise up against a tyrannical regime they don’t want, it could just as easily be on the side of it, providing a helpful ready militia at the worst point or simply armed people on side at the best.
As pointed out earlier, guns themselves are neutral. Come the revolution, there’s no guarantee that they’ll be pointed at the bad guys.
As a more direct answer, I am not heavily-armed (though I am heavy & I have arms), but I did oppose FISA. AS for the NRA - well, I’m not their biggest fan, nor am I a member. I would imagine the views of the membership were split pretty much like the rest of the country as to the rectitude of FISA, with maybe a slight tilt towards support for Bush, though I would guess less than people might think because of the general mistrust for government action that is prevalaent among a certain portion of the NRA membership.
Private gun ownership can’t prevent phone tapping - well not directly. If it has any impact, it is to the extent of shifting the view held by government of the population as being a passive group that can be railroaded generally. That said, I think that effect is negligible in the present environment.
Not really, because those gun owners on the side of the tyranny themselves make up numbers for them. If half of the gun owners in the country take up arms in an uprising against it, it’s just as likely that the other half will take up arms for it, cancelling each other out as far as the playing field goes.
What with all this talk of fields, I think it’s time we addressed farming concerns. The issues facing the average American farmer today…
Because the “system” ain’t broke yet; breaking out the guns and killing politicians, while somewhat attractive on a purely visceral level, is a solution that will create many more problems than it solves.
Good point - you may want to full auto rock and roll on some politician you disagree with, but you probably shouldn’t. Not the least reason being Revenant Threshhold’s cogent observation that the ones with the guns may also be the ones lining others up against the wall when the revolution comes. And really, when one loves ones tools, one really looks forward to using them, no?
However, the real point of my question was more about why it was that, if the armed portion of the populace was so armed because they are in part a defense against the police state, why haves they been so strongly aligned with those making us into more of a police state? This question is independent of whether or why they may not yet have started killing politicians they disagree with.
Ok, I’ve seen reports of an UZI, Mini-UZI, and Micro-UZI being the weapon in question here. After seeing some more recent and reliable local reports I believe the weapon was in fact a Micro-UZI. Which is an important distinction. This is the smallest of the UZI line and is very much a Machine Pistol. It has a very short barrel length and compact frame in similar dimension to a handgun, and it is exactly this reason, combined with their extremely high rate of fire, that makes them prone to muzzle rise and eminently uncontrollable in the wrong hands.
Here is a Micro-UZI in action along with specs in trained hands. (It’s a Japanese video and has a very strange ennui, with the classical music and the paced narrative. Very Typically Japanese :dubious:)
Like I said earlier, the father and other gun experts might have been under a false impression that the small size of this gun was the perfect size for a small child, when in fact the opposite would probably be true. If it had been a larger framed SMG like the full size UZI crbine this tragedy probably wouldn’t have happened. I even saw where the boy’s father said they passed over “larger” guns with more recoil for this smaller “recoiless” gun, which was exactly the wrong instinct. It does have recoil and an extremely high rate of fire wich translates into flip back.
Short barrel, recoil, and high rate of fire = more muzzle rise and decompensation. Short barrel=short arc to upright and beyond 90 degrees, combined with the physiology of a small boy.
"…To the back and to the left. Back and to the left. "
I’d hardly describe it as “shit shaking loose.” When indictments start coming in, maybe; then again, there’s an old saw about indictments and ham sandwiches, too.
But the cops have to be seen to be “doing something” to protect all the sweet innocent children from being mowed down by the evil guns.
Can’t speak for Mass., but I don’t think any Federal laws were violated here; technically, he wasn’t given the firearm to possess (as in, “Here, kid, take this home and hold it for me until I pick it up on Tuesday;” or, “Would you mind putting it in the trunk of your car for the drive home?”).
And there’s no federal law wrt to full auto firearms that would prohibit even a convicted felon from handling/firing an UZI legally owned by another party on a supervised range, as in the situation like this gun club open house.
State and local may be another can of beans entirely.
There’s a frightening quote from the DA in that article:
“At this point, I have found no lawful authority which allows an 8-year-old to possess or fire a machine gun,” Bennett (the DA) said in a statement.
Last I checked, the USA was still a country where that which is not expressly illegal is permitted, not where that which is not expressly legal is forbidden.
You’re right. That kind of ignorance on the part of a District Attorney is sickening.
Someone should send Bennett back to school to learn that in the USA we do not operate on an ‘everything is forbidden unless expressly permitted’ basis.
There is no lawful authority that says I may wash my clothes, either.
Perhaps someone should ask Bennett where in the manual the directions to the mess hall appear.
