You’re right, of course, except when the oppression comes from the vote. I don’t find that scenario so implausible as to ever voluntarily give up the firearm I (will) own.
I’m sure a Gore supporter will come along and say that voting DOESN’T work…
It’s all subjective, Czar.
This is my first post - and I’m going to respond to many different posts in this thread in this, because this is a subject that I’m passionate about.
Will you be so accomodating when they decide that free speech is against the best interest of the state? Will you simply keep quiet?
The US army, in number of actual combat troops deployable, is roughly 700,000. Another 200,000 or so for the marines. Maybe a million (a guess) police officers. Arrayed against 80 million gun owners, with 200 million guns. Alone, you won’t make a difference. Together, they have no chance against us, currently. That’s IF half the military doesn’t dissent and fight with us. When 190 million of those 200 million guns are gradually declared “unsporting”, that will be the time in which they can act.
And so the “I’m one man, I can’t make a difference” idea is invalid. Anyone who has ever fought for what they believe it is simply one man - but it is what they inspire, what they are part of that accomplishes anything.
No one “needs” high-speed printing presses to distribute their editorials, either. We should all stick to writing our political views on dot-matrix printers, right?
I own an ak-74 (updated ak-47) myself. As odd as you might think it to be, it hasn’t suddenly inspired me to go out and kill lots of people with my Big Evil Gun.
The reason that I own it? The reasons I would own any firearm - personal protection, against criminals or government, and recreation. My rifle was cheap, rugged, and will never fail on me. Does that somehow inherently make it evil?
An ak-47 does not have NEARLY the lethality of, say, your grandpa’s 12 gauge shotgun. The reason that you object to an ak-47, and not that shotgun? More or less, simple cosmetics. The ak-47 is an Evil Assault Weapon, while the shotgun is ‘sporting’. Commercial hunting rifles, designed to KILL large animals, are also FAR more lethal than any ak-47. Yet you don’t hear cries (yet) of “BAN THAT DEER RIFLE! IT’S EVIL!”
In any case, if you’d like, I can point you to various studies in which “assault weapons”, a group of which an ak-47, among many others belong, are responsible for less than a fifth of a percent of crime, nationally. And you would probably ignore that study, because you have a preconception that these rifles are inherently Evil.
In any case, one major purpose of the second amendment is to give a group of common citizens the ability to fight a military force. An invading force, or our own professional army. In such a context, a military-type weapon, such as an ak-47, seems to be a natural choice for such a role. Because, again, of it’s ruggedness and dependability - probably the most important aspects of a combat weapon in military terms.
Do you think that a criminal wouldn’t mug some old lady if he knew he only had a shotgun, and didn’t have a magic Evil Black Rifle (evidently capable of near-nuclear devastation?)
Comestics, emotional reaction. Get over it.
And the against search and seizure is just a garuntee against the federal government on the state government, right? And the right to free speech is simply the right to allow states to regulate their own speech laws, independent of the federal government?
‘The People’, used in the second amendment, is the same ‘The People’ in the first, fourth, and ninth.
Secondly, you’re not wrong about the SPIRIT of the second amendment. It is meant to limit the power of the federal government, among other things. But it does NOT do it through official, state mandated and regulated militias. If you assign the right to bear arms to states, then you give the states the right to create SELECT militias - and select militias are warned against heavily in the federalist papers as a potential tyranical army.
And so the PEOPLE will be armed, providing an ‘unofficial’ militia against any excess by the federal government, or against foreign invasion. Select militias directly under state control are little better than professional standing federal armies. Only a militia made and ran by The People themselves can effectively stem tyranny.
Again, we’re talking about select militias here - which was CLEARLY not to the founder’s intent. I can find the relevant passages if you’d like.
You’re sort of right. The power to vote is the important part here. But the power to vote isn’t magically uninfringable. The REASON we have the power to vote is because the government is still ran by the will of the people. If that changes, what will you do without arms? And how much less likely IS that to change, if the government knows that there are armed dissenters ready to act should they overstep their powers?
I’d agree partially on that. An informed AND armed populace would seem to be ideal.
This seems to be a hugely misinformed statement. It is hard to get a license to own a fully automatic weapon in the US today. And it requires quite a bit of financial investment. I fear that’s how all guns will be one day. But in any case…
The national firearms act, heavily restricting civilian ownership of automatic firearms, was enacted in 1934. There are currently 1.3 million registered full-auto gun owners in the US today. During the 67 year period in which this law as been effective, and the MILLIONS to own such weapons, NOT A SINGLE CIVILIAN HAVE EVER BEEN CONVICTED OF A CRIME RELATING TO A LEGALLY OWNED FULLY AUTOMATIC WEAPON. Zero. (0). Out of several million owners.
Not simply supported by Hitler, but NEEDED by Hitler. After all, you can’t exactly slaughter 13 million of your own suspects if they all own guns. It’s hard to take 13 million armed men quietly in the night. Ask Mao Se Tung, or Joe Stalin, or Pol Pot, or any of those other warm and cuddly anti-gun people. It’s for the children, and all that.
If those duties, one day, included shipping off societies “problematic people” to re-educaton camps, should be equally bow in deference and respect to their authority? After all, it is simply their official duty.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by DoctorJ *
Why don’t those who believe violence is a proper response against a tyrannical government hold McVeigh up as a hero? Is it because his threshhold for tyrrany is lower than theirs? Is it because the reality of what it took to cause a successful and significant violent act against the US was less romantic than their idea of shooting Reno and her jack-booted thugs off their front porch?
[QUOTE]
Firstly, gun owners don’t have any desire to see civilians indescriminately killed. Had he managed to blow up only those agents involved in the massacres at waco, he would get more support. If you DO say “Well, maybe he was right to strike at the government…” people will automatically react predictably. “WHAT!? YOU WANTED HIM TO KILL CHILDREN!? CUTE LITTLE CHILDREN!? HOW CAN YOU SAY SUCH A THING!? HOW CAN YOU HATE CUTE LITTLE CHILDREN!?”
Secondly, people probably fear, perhaps legitimately, that if they publically speak in support of any aspect of his actions, they would be put on a government list of some type, and eventually face suspicion as a ‘domestic terrorist’.
… Because Jews don’t have to think with one collective mind, to establish one collective opinion, if you didn’t know. There can be Jews with both pro and anti-gun sentiments. That being said - Jews for the Preservation of Firearms (in America) is one of the most active gun news organizations.
I’ll bet any of you that if someone, in say, 1933, said “Don’t give up your arms. This Hitler guy looks like he could be trying to gain too much power - and we’ll need a way to unseat him if he does”, they’d be ridiculed as “paranoid nuts”. Obviously, Hitler is just enacting reasonable legislation for our own safety…
I also want to make a comment to those who find it repulsive that we would go to lethal lengths simply to defend our own gun ownership. We will not do that. We WILL go to lethal lengths to defend our personal freedom and the rest of our rights. We are convinced that if a government is bent on taking away our arms, it is slowly but surely trying to dismantle all of our freedoms, from freedom of speech to right to a public trial. The second amendment is the cornerstone and “teeth” of all the other amendments. Surrender the second, and you surrender them all.
I didn’t say or imply I would keep quiet. I’m not keeping quiet about anything right now. You need to lurk a little bit more, and read my hundreds of pro-gun posts before you imply that I’m going to just “keep quiet”.
There are many and numerous things I can and do do to try and fight this fight. I do give a significant amount of money to the NRA for political purposes. Why? Because despite all the strawman coloring that people like to do on them, they are still the only game in town for exerting political influence - pure and simple.
I debate endlessly these topics, here and everywhere. I research these so I present an informed opinion, or try to.
I take people I know shooting at the range, expecially looking for first-timers, to try and show them that the gun isn’t going magically start killing school children once they fire it. And to show them that shooting is a great sport, that is just plain fun. Even my little gal Fierra had a ball at the range, when she came over from England to see me (and she was really good at it, too).
I vote. I use the ballot box.
The scenario as put forward in the OP may not allow for a mass rebellion. It puts forth a slow, smaller, less confrontational way of collecting the guns. You can cast your gaze over at the shit in California to look for signs of any mass rebellion as formerly law-abiding gun owners, who hurt no one with their guns, are forced to turn them in. That is how reality will go, IMO. And in that reality there is a choice - become an outlaw, or continue on with your life and try everything you legally can to reverse things.
It’s easy for people here to post anonymously on a message board about making a last stand, an armed resisitance, blah, blah, blah, I have a feeling that 99.99% of the “macho” attitudes would evaporte as soon as that knock comes on the door. At least I’m honest with myself.
Re: your comment on 1.3 Million holders of licenses. Do you have a cite for that? My information shows far, far fewer licenses:
From the t.p.g.p.g. FAQ:
Er, huh? You said you were a 100% law abiding citizen. He offered the scenario where free speech was outlawed, and asked if you would still be a law abiding citizen.
I’m sorry, Anthracite, you make a clear case in an “honest” nation, and seem to assume that it is the citizens’ fault in some way if the govenment gets out of hand. I don’t see any inclinination in our Government’s history, or in the recent to not-so-recent history of many governments around the world, to make the assumption that governments are honest. They’ve got another two to six thousand years, at least, to make their case.
As well, I think we take a different philosophical view of being a law abiding citizen. A bill can sit in gridlock for years, or it can be rushed through, but when the president signs his name on that bill citizens who were law-abiding in one regard are suddenly criminals. I don’t see that, as a rule, to be a “choice” of a citizen-- voting or not.
Gee, you don’t happen to do presidential election ads, do you?
1kBR Kid: you are my newest Straight Dope Hero! (SorryWierd Al; the list does get occasionally revised.).
Czar: Down with the Czar! Power to the Revolution!
Sorry; couldn’t resist.To answer your question: most RKBA types I know (and there are plenty of examples here on TSDMB) are ardent civil libertarians. Even quite a few who are totally neutral on person possession yet support the premise of the RKBA. The reason so many of us gun owners are ardently pro-2nd Ad. is that we feel that it is the un- or under represented, misunderstood, red-headed step-child of current political thought.
I resisted the use of the terms “trendy, PC-Left political thought” as I know that it is counterproductive in the larger sense, but I included this disclaimer to let you know how the “caveman” side of me sometimes thinks.
Generally Speaking to Y’All:
The examplesof King and Ghandi are good, but in a limited context only. The means of achieving social change through non-violent means is only as usefull as the gov’t’s/societies willingness to use brutality in their oppression, and the extent to which they are willing to apply it.
While I’m not trying to denegrate the Civil Rights movement here in the U.S.A., do you honetsly think they would’ve stood a snowball’s chance in hell in a Stalinist Soviet Union? A Hitlerian Germany? These may be examples of Godwin’s Law to some; to others who belive that we should remember the past lest we be doomed to repeat it, they are historical precedent.
I believe that those opposed to these arguments are putting the cart in front of the horse; that civil rights activists perceive an unwillingness on the part of their oppressors to resort to extreme violence, and so play the part of innocent victim to garner the popular support of people who would find brutal oppression, whatever their politics, distasteful and unseemly.
I think that if either Ghandi or King had perceived that the current political and social climate favored brutal oppression techniques, they may have taken a different tack.
A Thought On The 14th. Ad.:
It would seem to me, procedurally speaking (and IANAL!) that us pro-gun types would first have to get a definitive ruling on the 2nd. Ad. before attempting to get state and municipal laws overturned by way of the 14th Ad… Until the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals rules on U.S. v. Emerson, it’s all just spitballing and bitching and moaning.
I doubt that Emerson will go any higher than the 5th Circuit, though it sure would be nice to get it to the USSC.
Since Nobody’s Done So Yet:
Spavined Gelding has asked, several times, about what went on in California. IN short: several “assault weapons” were identified as being required for registration. After registration, many of the weapons on the first list were banned, and registered owners were contacted, and instructed to either turn them in or remove them from the state.
A heavily editorialized version can be found here. With some selective reading and decoding, the facts can be picked out of the dross. More general info is available at the State of Califonia’s Dept. of Justice’s Office of the Attorney General’s Firearms Division’s website.
Now I must briefly run into work, plus take care of general Saturday-type activities (going to the shootin’ range, cleaning the guns, overthrowing those gub’mint sunzabitches). Catch y’all later.
(For the sarcasm impaired: I’m retrieving shipping documents, picking up software from Best Buy and getting my developed pictures back).
As opposed to doing what? Armed rebellion? The scenario in question does not have any relation to the OP here, either in tone or in character.
Well, I’m sorry that we have a failure to communicate here. I make no assumption whatsoever that our government is honest, and the actions of the last 20 years I have seen justify my belief that our government is not honest.
It is the citizen’s fault, if they continue to vote in criminals, and fail to use recall to get them out. Who else’s fault is it for putting them in there? I know of at least three people in my small group of friends who voted for Clinton in 1992 solely because they wanted a “change”. They didn’t really care about his policies, his politics, whatever. They just wanted something nebulous and undefined - a change. From what? Well…none of them could honestly say. I also know of two people who voted for him (primary reason, mind you, in all seriousness) because he was “cute”. :rolleyes:
These same people voted for him again because he was still “cute” 4 years later, and I know of two people who voted against Dole because he was “old”. With core voting decisions made in this manner, I have no wonder as to why we get criminals in office.
I don’t know what you mean, but I do know what I mean. I mean I’m sick to shit of seeing people spout off statements anonymously on message boards about how they will engage in open rebellion, join massive protests, start training in survivalist camps, etc. should the sweeping gun bans come into play. How they will take on the police, the army, etc. all in some sort of fantasy*. It’s bullshit, IMO. What happened in New York? DC? California? Nothing. There were no mass protests, no general outcry, no fights with the police, no forming of neighborhood militias. Why? Because the average cowlike American simply at heart wants their TV, their beer, their car, and occasionally sex. Other than that, they will take whatever the government gives or takes from them. I see no possibility whatsoever of a major armed rebellion in the Middle and Upper Classes, and to post anonymously on a message board about settin’ the streets 'afire really sounds like adoloescent posturing.
And what of the other scenario - the one I think is most likely for the armchair rebel? I think the most that people will ever do is to hide the guns, bury them, not turn them in. And over time, hiding and waiting, the ranks will be diminished. Societal attitudes will be continuously altered by the media, the Left, the control freaks, to paint anyone who ever owned a gun, hunted with their Dad, shot targets, etc. as a whacked-out drooling anarchist child killer needing to be placed in a re-education camp. Steadily the guns will be confiscated, as homes are searched, and people get careless, and crimes continue to be committed. Eventually, maybe in 100 years, we will be in a similar situation as the UK today, and in 200 years people may laugh nervously at the absurd thought of even holding a gun.
Let the SC decide on a clear, unambiguous case of the RKBA in the 2nd Amendment. Let them evaluate all the historical evidence as to its meaning and intent, and let them throw judicial activism out the window. And if they decide that there is no right, then at least we know where we stand, and what our future holds for us all.
[sub]And before you misinterpret yet something else I say, I do believe it is very possible for the current citizenry to successfully rebel against the powers that be (see Afghanistan, for one case). I just can’t see it ever happening.[/sub]
I may have missed something here. That has been known to happen. I understood the question to have been what the ordinary law abiding citizen was going to do when the government’s agents arrived at the front door and demanded the surrender of firearms. This thread has wandered around for quite a while and some of our friends have indulged in more than a little hyperbole in the process. What ought to be obvious, however, is that:
There is a Constitutional provision that has been pretty generally accepted as sanctioning the private ownership of firearms and that view is not likely to change. We can argue all we want about the wisdom of permitting private ownership of firearms but that does not change the fact that there is a right to bear arms and that is a fact of life in this country.
Like almost any other Constitutionally sanctioned right, the right to bear arms is subject to limited restrictions. As indicated before, in my state the possession of “offensive weapons” is prohibited. This is an accepted limitation even though a submachine gun would make an astounding deer gun in close terrain and a sawed of 12 gage is a great rabbit gun. As I understand it, the State of California has classified weapons with oversized magazines as offensive and therefore prohibited. That seems like a reasonable restriction to me despite the convenience of being able to squeeze off 30 rounds with out reloading. To say that a 10 round magazine is OK but a 30 round magazine is not does not look like a significant restriction on a right to bear arms. It also strikes me a being well within the police power of the State. If our friends in California think this an impermissible infringement of their liberties, let them go to the political process and the judicial process to change it.
The likelyhood of any State legislating a significant prohibition, let alone a blanket prohibition, on private gun ownership is so remote as to be a hallucination. The only way the argument can be made to work is to say that because California has prohibited 30 round magazines it will shortly prohibit anything bigger than 3 rounds. This involves a leap in logic that cannot be sustained and ignores the political realities of the situation, as well as the economic power of gun manufacturers, wholesalers and retailers.
The possibility of armed rebellion to thwart the government’s interference with a perceived right is likewise a hallucination. The ability of even county government to deal with that sort of thing renders it a futility. Given the system of government we have developed it is faster, cheaper and more certain to change government policy by the political process than by running around waiving assault rifles at TV crews or snipping at sheriff’s deputies.
Uhm…no. It wouldn’t and it isn’t. A sub-gun fires small to medium caliber pstol cartridges, which may wind up killing a deer, it would leave it a bloody wreck unsuitable for consumption. And rabbits are too small to use a sawed-off shotgun on; the shot dispersal would almost guarnatee either a miss, or not enough pellets hitting to kill the siwwy wabbit.
Is that the only basis they used? Perhaps your understanding isn’t nearly as complete as you would like. Perhaps the fault is mine, in that the second link I provided in my previous post was too vague. Try this one instead, paying particular attention to
sections 12276.1 and 12276.5
All by itself, you may have a point; taken as an aggregate (of all the other restrictions that have been passed/will hopefully be passed), a more disturbing trend becomes apparent. And what basis was used to distinguish between an “offensive” and “defensive” weapon? My handgun, kept in my home for home protection, is used for defensive purposes, but is undoubtedly an offensive weapon (with just 6+1 ammo cap.) A hunting rifle or shotgun is practically useless for home defense (size and bulk), yet are powerfully offensive hunting weapons, with large caliber high velocity bullets designed to inflict immediately or quickly fatal wounds for a “clean, merciful kill”. Remember the W. Hollywood Bank Robbers? With their illegally purchased and illegally modified AK, wearing body armor, were able to walk through a hail of police gunfire from “assault weapons”. Yet a standard hunting rifle (IIRC, a .375 H + H Magnum) dropped them like puppets with their strings cut.
It wasn’t the edge in weaponry that allowed those two knuckleheads to waltz through the police gunfire; they only kept the police at bay. It was body armor.
And you have completely missed the point of several other poster’s comments. Sudden, sweeping bans are never going to happen: you are correct in that sense. But long-term, incrementally tighter restriction can yield the same result, with little interest or care from the general populace. Before the “Assault Weapons” ban, nobody thought it would possibly happen; before the ban, there was registration, which nobody thought would possibly happen.
Those of us raising the alarm aren’t being “paranoid gun nuts”; we’re connecting a series of seemingly unconnected events nationwide. Because it is a matter of interest to us, we pay attention to this sort of stuff (the rest of you, with no stake or interest in the matter, either can’t see it, don’t see it or don’t want to see it); and we are seeing a picture forming that we don’t like. Between anti-gun and anti-owner rhetoric, media bias (against guns and gun owners), the arrogant presumption of people like Sarah Brady and HCI to claim to speak for all Americans, and politicians like William Jefferson Clinton, it is relatively easy to see why those of us on the other side of this issue feel somewhat besieged. All you have to do to see it is pick an issue dear to you, and substitute the “issue” for the word “guns”, using the words and rhetoric of the pro-control crowd.
And where, pray tell, was that economic power when the California legislature was doing its thing and banning the previously-registered-and-promised-to-never-be-banned Assault Weapons? If they had that power, don’t you think that they would have used it to kill the proposed legislation and thus ensure themselves an open market of millions of Californians, one of the wealthiest and most populated states in the U.S.A.?
No. You are buying into the myth of the omnipresent, omniscient and omnipotent “gun lobby”.
As to the OP: nunya damned beeswax. “The less one makes declaritive statements,…” and such. But the dealers I buy from would most likely torch their files before letting any Firearm Confiscation Joint Task Force get a hold of them. As to what may transpire in the future? Who knows. I would say let the future worry about the future, but that’s the sort of thinking that got us here in the first place. So I help get the word out, try to convince people to wake up and smell the maple nut crunch, and vote.
So, if it was a group of government employees-even ones that perhaps were innocent, it wouldn’t bother you?
That’s cold.
Sam:
And where is Afghanistan today? Obviously their guns didn’t keep the country from falling to an even worse, more oppressive government than the Soviets ever gave them. (And if anyone thinks that the Taliban is better than the Soviets, I don’t know whether to laugh or cry).
And when will people stop trotting the out the whole, Hitler banned guns. It was the Weimar Republic that had banned them.
sigh
Well, let me draw it with a finer pencil.
General Case: an amendment to the constitution gets whacked.
Case of this thread: the second gets whacked.
You commented about staying within the laws even should the Second Amendment be interpreted in favor of a ban on individual possession.
Hypothetical case within the same general case: the first gets whacked.
Then the question is, let’s pretend it was a different amendment-- the First-- which got whacked. Would you still be a law abiding citizen and try to use the system’s politics?
It wasn’t an insulting question, it was merely a question of how you viewed the Bill of Rights’ Amendments… equally, or preferentially.
Sorry, I used to agree with you but no longer. I think Democracy as it exists in the US is a failure dressed up in lingerie. I don’t find that failure to be the fault of the body of citizens. Our government and society became more complex, seemingly exponentially, and yet the methods used to have the citizens interact with their government haven’t even come close to keeping pace.
When I look over the Senate’s web page, or senators’ pages, or listen to them speak, they say next to nothing about all the laws that get passed every year. Party platforms are like Olestro(sp?) potato chips. Even a decently informed voter votes on a platform of small ideas, and the myriad decisions that congress makes all the time never filter through to those.
I don’t recall confiscation of drug suspects property being on anyone’s plate in any election. You voted for that? You voted your representatives in for that? What about our consistent refusal to pay our UN dues?
I think that is only part of the problem.
What should people do, sign letters and send it in to congress?
Give me a break.
I’m not prepared to make such a statement. I do know, indirectly, that there are plenty of people who have already buried ammunition and such.
Sorry, what does the ‘K’ stand for? I’ve been wondering…
I don’t think the USSC will ever decide on such a thing until it absolutely has no choice. This is the political system you want us to work with: cowards afraid to stand on real issues.
erislover, why don’t you come right out and cut to the heart of it. What is your real problem with me? The more I look at what you are trying to get after me about, the less I understand. I thought we were on the same side here. You have seen the few thousand lines of pro-gun text I’ve been posting over the last week, right? 
War is hell. Many people killed in wars are non-combatants who happened to be born in the wrong place, or soldiers who were drafted. But government employees knew they were joining an unpopular organization when they applied for the job. They can quit anytime they want. Causing a number of them to do so (and discouraging other people from replacing them) would be the ideal outcome of any attack, far better than killing them all, for several reasons.
If I sound harsh I do apologize. I have no problem with you at all. In fact, if we had actually had any significant communication in the past I would have even told you that I was glad to see your return. I digress.
The issue I have here is that of the argument I am atempting to make. We don’t want guns for hunting. We want them for defense. Defense from tyrrany in the extreme case, to more mundane (if one can use such a word in using or threatening deadly force) self-defense from baddies.
To me, a gun is analogous to life insurace. You don’t need a million dollar policy, and you don’t need 30 clip assault rifles.
To keep this analogy up, I find that relying ultimately on political methods to protect a political right is like trying to beat Kasparov at chess; or, in the analogy above, like an insurance agent asking you to write up the policy. The odds are not only stacked, but in some ways diametrically opposed.
Armed citizens, through historical precidence of the “Framers”, were meant to be for one thing primarily: defense against tyranny, regardless of the source of that tyranny. True, guns have other uses: hunting, recreational target practice, whatever. As a tool for resisting force, guns are-- IMO-- outside the system. A chess clock is not regulated by the rules of how to manupilate chess pieces. Manipulating chess pieces, creating new movemnt rules, solving chess puzzles-- this is the political arena. The clock is simply there to enforce something else on the game… a limiter.
Guns and other personal defense weapons are a limiter on the government, not votes. Votes are how the government chooses to work in this form.
This is how I view the Bill of Rights in general: as being the chess clock, keeping time on the government. Hell, that’s what the Constitution was supposed to be for in the first place: to limit the power of the government. the chess clock says, “You can’t fuck around forever.” The constitution says, “you can’t fuck around with everything[sup][sub] at least not without a REALLY good reason[/sub][/sup].”
As such, I feel that a fundamental flaw in the constitution is that it is reflexive: the system can modify itself. A pretty good idea in some ways since government shouldn’t be static. But its like The Matrix… the agents could modify The Matrix to their choosing and the rest of us, as elemets of the system, were basically at their whim. Neo, Buddist Jesus that he was, was outside the system. He was a true check on power.
So I neither appreciate nor agree with the voting method. It often fails for even non-crucial things, nevermind something as important as a person’s defense against oppression in any form.
Am I making any sense here? Anyone? Anyone? Bueller?
The problem is that there is no common definition of the “tyranny” we are supposed to be defending against. For some, it would be jack-booted thugs breaking down their doors in the middle of the night to take our children. For others, it would be the IRS sending them a letter asking why they haven’t paid their property taxes in 15 years. For still others, it would be a politician that didn’t tell them exactly what they wanted to hear. Try to guess which of these happens most often. Now try to guess which of these are most often greeted with threats of gun violence. That’s right, folks-when you look hard enough for “tyranny”, you can find it.
And when you look just a tiny bit more, “tyranny” is all you see. How does that old saying go?
“When all you have is a hammer, everything starts looking like a nail after awhile.”
What war? McVeigh was not part of a war-he was protesting the killing of people by killing others. Two wrongs don’t make a right.
:mad:
Some wars start on a large scale all at once, some start gradually.
If two wrongs don’t make a right, then I suppose we shouldn’t have ever entered any war?
Well. You make what seems to be a definitive statement, and then you qualify it, leaving me in confusion. Let me restate my question: Can you conceive of any law which, if passed, would be so onerous that you would feel morally compelled to actively resist it, said active resistance possibly including violence?
I don’t understand this at all. Are you suggesting that people who commit crimes with guns, as in, say, your two examples above, have a greater tendency to morally rationalize their crimes as those who commit similar crimes but don’t use guns? If the racist in your second example used a baseball bat instead of a gun, would he be saying to himself, “I know this is wrong, but I’m gonna so it anyway…”?
This also doesn’t make sense. The individuals in your examples are breaking the law.
I don’t think anyone who asserts that has said that an armed populace is the sole prerequisite for a free society.
Well, I wasn’t there on the scene, as you were, but I’ll bet these persons weren’t a part of any group out of favor with the government, assuming they weren’t actually working for it.
No regularly established court has held very much at all on the subject of the 2d Amendment lately, at least in comparison to other areas of the law. However, as I understand it individual rights guaranteed against infringement by the state in the bill of rights have been held to apply generally to infringements by state governments, as well as the federal government. Thus, in the absence of a direct ruling either way, we can reasonably infer that that the 2nd Amendment is binding on the states, unless you subscribe to the spurious “collective right” theory of 2nd amendment exceptionalism.
Apparently you are correct, it is IIRC one of only six. However, my question is valid for the other 44 states that do have constitutional provisions for the right to keep and bear arms.
An interesting style of “debate” you have here…one unfortunately all too popular.
Irrelevent. For one thing, such a thing would only be clear in hindsight. Second, an event does not have to be probable to be a subject of debate, only possible.
Israel? What are you talking about? As for the other places, I believe the citizenry became armed as a result of the breakdown in order. Certainly that’s how it happened in Yugoslavia. And in N. Ireland the citizenry is not armed…only a small cadre of terrorists.
Balderdash. You have the tail wagging the dog here. Do you recall what happened to that gun manufacturer, the name of which escapes me at the moment (Colt?), that caved in to some gun control demands as a consequence of a lawsuit? Do the words “consumer boycott” ring a bell?
I’ve heard about this type of thing before, and I am curious. Is there anything on the web about it?
No problem ExTank. We can use all the help we can get.
A lot of truth in this. I for one would like to think I would stand up and resist if backed to the wall, but more likely I would find a reason not to. However, I don’t think the fact that people are posting anonymously should count against them. After all, if you honestly believe that at some point in your lifetime you are going to get that “knock on the door” (literally or figuratively), then the prudent thing to do is to avoid making provocative statements about violent resistance, at least in your own person, in order to avoid possibly making yourself a special target when it happens.
True, although to be fair, evidence of more passive kinds of resistance is harder to see.
I hope that’s not what you think actually will happen. As I said in my first post to this thread, I think there is plenty of cause to be optimistic, but I IMO fatalism only plays into the hands of our opponents.
Perhaps. We won’t really know what we are capable of until actually put to the test, for real. But do keep in mind that in the past century we have underestimated before, as being to soft and luxury-addicted to fight effectively. Much to the detriment of those who did the underestimating.
P.S. I know I am supposed to be writing something for you. I am trying to, honest. Hard as it is to keep myself focused on a good day, 2 or 3 new gun control threads in GD on (top of all the other distractions) is just too much for me to resist [sheepish grin].
Come on, Ex Tank. That blurb by the NRA VP is hardly evidence that the California registry was used to contact gun owners with an ultimatum. We went through this in another thread where we were unable to produce any evidence that the registry in CA was used to track down owners of banned guns. The fact that certain guns were arbitrarily banned is bad enough. There’s no need to make it sound worse than it is.