FWIW, neither peaceful nor violent protest probably made a dent in American society until the time was right for it to have a chance. James Baldwin said as much in The Fire Next Time:
Oh, you know, the horror and whatnot.
Yeah, but they have a Hellmouth to deal with.
My ex moved to Portland, not Sunnyvale. Wait! Good Lord, there’s another?!
It is also hideously inaccurate. The march depicted in the first minute or so is a march against the banning of foxhunting - which is done with dogs. No guns involved. Shotguns and rifles for bird and deer hunting never have been illegal in Britain.
Then the action moves to New Zealand for some reason.:rolleyes: After that I gave up.
Oh, and the ban on fox hunting was nearly ten years ago (2004) and the Dunblaine school shooting (and the ban on handguns) six years before that (1996) (And there hasn’t been a school shooting in the UK since, btw). The Hungerford massacre was ten years earlier (1987). So it is a bit disingenuous to use the UK ban on automatics and handguns as a prop for a pro-gun argument. Especially when they can’t even get their facts straight.
[QUOTE=Lumpy]
I need a semi*-automatic “assault weapon” primarily so that I know I don’t live in a country where the government can ban any weapon it thinks the “proles” shouldn’t have. The antis are always saying it’s paranoid to think that we need to be prepared to resist a tyrannical government; banning “assault weapons” IS tyrannical. [/SIZE]
[/QUOTE]
Not that I think it’d necessarily work out well for you, but why aren’t you using your gun to fight this tyranny right now? Your precious gun rights are being bled away; many of them are already gone. You need your guns to fight tyranny, remember? So what are you waiting for? Shouldn’t you be revolting?
I haven’t quite yet given up on the rule of law. Let’s just say that if Feinstein’s version of an AWB passes, there’s going to be massive civil disobedience.
I haven’t given your last answer the proper consideration yet, so bear with me. But are you saying that you- or people you know- are going to start shooting if assault weapons are banned? Or what do you mean by ‘massive civil disobedience’?
The main insight I’ve had as a result of following this issue is that people split along the lines of what they are afraid of. You, for example, seem afraid of a tyrannical government (Hitler took people’s guns away!! which is true…) and see unlimited gun rights as a (or the) way to prevent that. In contrast, I am not too concerned about guns either way (though highly skeptical of the prospect/possibility of banning them outright), but instead afraid of a tyrannical business community. The effort to do away with regulations of all kinds seems like a way to de-fang the government altogether in a way that could leave ‘We the People’ without any kind of voice and we’ll end up with no minimum wage, no environmental protection, no access to even basic health care, on and on for everyone who is not a part of a small privileged set. A banana republic kind of thing where the proles are reduced to something much like peasants, or maybe worse- check out the crowds of homeless everywhere you look.
I feel like the scare tactics around gun regulations are used by moneyed interests to turn people against the government/regulations more broadly. What do you think? Are you worried at all about what could happen if the government were more-or-less defeated by the big money interests and got ‘out of their way’? Do you think much of the population has already been significantly degraded (my best guess for why people go nuts and do mass shootings btw) and guns are a kind of last stand, but also, perhaps, not really the most important fight?
I want to commend the discipline and good taste of all my fellow Dopers, who firmly ignored this plum of a straight line.
No doubt, but will any of it involve you using your guns to fight the government? Or will that civil disobedience look more like you wrapping your guns carefully in oilcloth and burying them in the cellar?
I’m trying to get a sense of what sort of “tyranny” would be bad enough for you to take up arms against it. We’ve already established that you will not use guns to defend your right to import guns, your right to purchase new automatic weapons, or your right to interstate gun commerce. So it follows that you don’t really believe any of these rights are really necessary to prevent tyranny, yes?
From what I’ve heard, Sen. Feinstein is looking to renew the AWB that expired in 2004, or a reasonable facsimile thereof. Were you old enough to own a gun before 2004? If so, you must not have believed that specific AWB was tyranny either, since you didn’t take up arms against it. At any rate, the rest of the gun-wielding community managed to suck it up for a decade, so they ultimately didn’t think it was worth an armed rebellion either. Unless the new ban goes drastically further, gun owners should have no problem with it. If it wasn’t tyranny a decade ago, it can’t be tyranny now.
On the other hand, if any of the above actually does constitute tyranny, then all this history seems to prove that American gun owners won’t actually use their guns to fight tyranny. So if the authors of the Constitution were counting on that happening, the joke’s on them, I guess.
It isn’t about “carrying a gun to feel safe”, it’s about being prepared for any eventuality, no matter how remote that possibility might be. Me personally I don’t carry my .45 around at all. It’s mostly at home, loaded, locked in my gun safe. I do take it to work when I close on weekend nights because the Arby’s next door was robbed a year ago, the bank across the street was robbed a year and a half ago, the Rally’s up the street was robbed 6 months ago…these things happen…and I work in a part of Cincinnati that isn’t even really a “bad part of town”.
And I don’t bring it with me to protect the bossman’s money. I bring it with me because I want to continue to breathe to see my sons graduate from high school.
This is simply moronic. Stay calm and carry on, you fucking pussy.
And how many people were injured in those robberies? If somebody pulls a gun on you what do you do, show him your gun resting comfortably in its holster? Because it’s hard to outdraw somebody who is already aiming at you.
Use your brain and think the situation through before it happens, then do what you need to do to prevent it. And if the stickup happens, be pleasant as you give him the money. He’s nervous and probably impaired, so don’t give him any reason to shoot you. Making like Marshall Dillon is a reason.
BTW, I grew up in a hunting family, used firearms unsupervised as a kid (grew up in the sticks), and am not anti-gun. I am, however, anti-fucking-moron.
Opps… I looked up more recent articles, and they suggest that the proposed legislation might be considerably more expansive. So I admit, the fact that gun owners swallowed the 1994 ban doesn’t prove that they won’t rise up in armed rebellion over the new one. If I had to bet money on it, I’d anticipate a spate of random gun hoarders going berserk privately and shooting up more public spaces, rather than anything resembling a popular uprising. But who knows.
Not that it really matters, since it seems impossible that such an expanded ban would pass, so it would all just be a colossal waste of time. So it looks as though the gun-waving community will yet again avoid having to live up to its rhetoric, the gun manufacturers will continue to profit, and we can look forward to another series of threads like this one every five months or so. At least until the streets are so choked with guns that the shootings stop completely.
Pew, pew, pew.
So, you have the guns . . . and over there are the morons . . . 
Fois Gras (with all due respect, snark free, I swear…)
How does that scenario work? Don’t these guys usually operate in ambush? That is, he’s got the gun out, on you, before your know something is amiss. You say “Hold up, there, King’s X, gotta let me get my gun out, fair’s fair…”
Seems to me the only time this works for you is when you already know what the perp is up to, so you “get the draw” on him. So, you’re in luck, you’re being robbed by the dumbest sumbitch who was ever born.
Or he does get the drop on you, has your money, whatever else you got, and another gun!
Or, you see that he’s acting suspiciously. Whatever that means, but he’s doing it, so you draw down on him before he gets the chance! Yeah, that’ll work! Long as you’re right, of course. Because if you’re wrong, the very best possible outcome is the intense embarrassment of Sudden Onset Dangerous Douchebag.
So, I guess you gotta go with “acting suspiciously”. Maybe he’s acting like he’s on drugs. So, you go along wherever you go, checking people out? Maybe that black kid, dresses all gangsta. Thing is, a lot of perfectly nice black kids dress like that. I sure as hell wouldn’t know. Would you?
Its hard to see any positive outcomes here, hoss.
You know, I feel pretty free here in England where healthcare is treated as a right of a citizen. I know that no matter what I do, up to and including treason, I will have access to at least perfunctory health services. I think the Trilateral Commission called the disparity in mindset the “freedom from” and “freedom to” orientations, though I’m not sure if that adequately covers it. In the US, you’re free from a government that restricts the right to bear arms, while in the EU, people are free to take a job without worrying about whether it means they’ll have to forego medical care or become bankrupt. It’d be amiss to confuse the limitations on government with enfranchisement or real participation.
Aw, does the internet tough guy feel all warm and prickly inside calling random strangers names? I think that says a lot more about you than it does about me. Furthermore, which part of my previous reply did you not read correctly? I DO NOT CARRY MY GUN AROUND. Even when I bring it to work on rare occasions (maybe once a month?) I don’t carry it. I don’t even own a holster for Christ’s sake.
I understand the ramifications of these situations. I would never try to draw a weapon on someone that’s already pointing one at my head. I still like to have it here in case something happens and I have the means to access it. If not, I’m smiling and shoveling money into a bag just as fast as you please, kind sir.
Taking a stance against something you think is wrong isn’t a single submit/revolt decision; there’s a broad spectrum of reactions and everyone’s thresholds will differ. If you think something ought to be changed, it’s a question of what strategy you think has the best chance of succeeding. It’s not hypocritical to say that one will accept something wrong for the time being and try more conventional methods than to immediately jump to a quixotic and doomed revolt.
What would civil disobedience look like? In addition to ceaseless efforts to continue working within the system, it would indeed include hiding one’s now-illegal guns. It might include clandestine efforts to secure a supply of banned guns by smuggling, illicit manufacture, or theft. It might include being a scofflaw and simply refusing to go along with a ban, even if it meant risking prison, if you thought your stand would add one more straw to the camel’s back.
What would it take for me to take up arms? Like I said above, everyone’s thresholds will differ. I guess the tipping point is when you think no lesser method can work; when you feel that you (and a large abiding number of other people who agree with you) have been locked out of any further discussion on the issue. When revolt appears to be the least lousy option left to you. It depends on how much faith you have in our institutions. A radical few have no faith at all, some are deeply skeptical, many are doubtful.
If you’re soliciting my personal tipping point on armed revolt, it would be something like this: when a ban is passed, when after some years it becomes apparent that the ban didn’t achieve the shining results the control crowd hoped for, when more and more desperate and brutal measures are resorted to in a futile effort to make it work, and yet the system keeps the ban locked into place, impervious to public opinion and sustained by a minority who thwart all reform; in short, when I’m being made a victim for no useful purpose- then it would be time.