# Would people in the US really try to fight the military/police with hunting rifles? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [July 2, 2006, 3:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-people-in-the-us-really-try-to-fight-the-military-police-with-hunting-rifles/362910 "2006-07-02T03:42:16Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2006, 11:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-people-in-the-us-really-try-to-fight-the-military-police-with-hunting-rifles/362910/41 "2006-07-02T23:38:37Z")
ESPECIALLY from the state. That’s the whole point - that the state is nothing more than the collective will of free people, and that their consent can be revoked should the state get out of line. To that end, the people reserve the right to keep and bear arms. Hell, the founding fathers approved of the right of citizens to own cannon, which is not exactly your home-defense weapon of choice. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [July 3, 2006, 12:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-people-in-the-us-really-try-to-fight-the-military-police-with-hunting-rifles/362910/42 "2006-07-03T00:49:40Z")
> [@Sam Stone](#): > > ESPECIALLY from the state. That’s the whole point - that the state is nothing more than the collective will of free people, and that their consent can be revoked should the state get out of line. To that end, the people reserve the right to keep and bear arms. Hell, the founding fathers approved of the right of citizens to own cannon, which is not exactly your home-defense weapon of choice. Maybe they were wrong about that. “The Constitution is not a suicide pact,” **Sam.** You certainly would not approve, I hope, of a dissatisfied **individual** shooting at government officials a la Ruby Ridge. Or even an organized dissident party. Even a very large dissident party. Those would be crimes, pure and simple, with no constitutional sanction whatsoever. The “collective will of free people” comes into play only when popular discontent with the government has grown so widespread and furious that even a disinterested observer might acknowledge the justice and necessity of revolution. But if that happens in a republic, discontent will be expressed **electorally** long before that point is reached. Unless it’s a sham democracy like Hussein’s Iraq – but in such a case, having their own guns will no more help the people overthrow it than it helped the Iraqis overthrow Hussein. So what’s the point? ---
**Author:** ![Argent\_Towers](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e8c25b/32.png) [@Argent\_Towers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Argent_Towers)\ **Post date:** [July 3, 2006, 12:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-people-in-the-us-really-try-to-fight-the-military-police-with-hunting-rifles/362910/43 "2006-07-03T00:54:35Z")
The day rebels start firing Enfields at the National Guard, I’ll buy you a martini. ---
**Author:** ![Martini\_Enfield](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/martini_enfield/32/11123_2.png) [@Martini\_Enfield](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martini_Enfield)\ **Post date:** [July 3, 2006, 2:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-people-in-the-us-really-try-to-fight-the-military-police-with-hunting-rifles/362910/44 "2006-07-03T02:22:17Z")
> [@Crafter\_Man](#): > > Really? Why is that? Please explain. Several reasons- one of which is that many people are uncomfortable with paramilitary organisations that operate without Government oversight. Surely you can see how a group of people in full camouflage gear and tactical rig, running around the forests with Springfield Armoury M1A rifles could be perceived negatively? Especially when their members indicate that they would be prepared to use force to ensure they can keep doing so for the foreseeable future? You mentioned your Militia was there for the benefit of the Community, yet you don’t appear to engage in any good works (such as building homeless shelters or teaching first aid classes to the general public) FOR your Community, besides knowing fieldcraft and owning a gun. Again, I’m not saying you should be volunteering in Soup Kitchens or anything like that, but really, you see the point I’m trying to make? Most people’s knowledge of Militias comes from things like _Bowling For Columbine_ (which is bit like trying to learn about National Socialism by watching _Raiders Of The Lost Ark_, but I digress)- which didn’t paint an especially flattering view of said groups. And then there’s the “God Loves America Best” thing, which I’m not going into… > [@](#): > > My right to keep and bear arms is inalienable. Its existence is not contingent upon “permission” from any_one_ or any_thing_, including the government. So it looks like I won’t be moving to Australia soon. 😉 I’m curious as to _why_ you feel your right to keep and bear arms is inalienable? Because the US Constitution says so? Personal Code? Other? ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [July 3, 2006, 2:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-people-in-the-us-really-try-to-fight-the-military-police-with-hunting-rifles/362910/45 "2006-07-03T02:27:45Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > Maybe they were wrong about that. “The Constitution is not a suicide pact,” **Sam.** You certainly would not approve, I hope, of a dissatisfied **individual** shooting at government officials a la Ruby Ridge. Or even an organized dissident party. Even a very large dissident party. Those would be crimes, pure and simple, with no constitutional sanction whatsoever. The “collective will of free people” comes into play only when popular discontent with the government has grown so widespread and furious that even a disinterested observer might acknowledge the justice and necessity of revolution. But if that happens in a republic, discontent will be expressed **electorally** long before that point is reached. Unless it’s a sham democracy like Hussein’s Iraq – but in such a case, having their own guns will no more help the people overthrow it than it helped the Iraqis overthrow Hussein. So what’s the point? And if the Republic turns nasty? Gee, I thought the left was already claiming that elections in the U.S. were rigged. Now imagine if they REALLY were. Obviously, we’re not talking about a government even remotely like today’s government in the U.S. We’re talking about one that has essentially changed into a totalitarian state. Imagine a government declaring a ‘state of emergency’ and ending elections - and making it permanent. 20 years ago, the scenario was that a nuclear war destroyed the government, and whatever remnants were left decided that only a strong hand could maintain order. We have a distorted view of the benevolence of government, because we happen to be living in a period of good governance. But history suggests these periods are pretty short. And even in the last century you saw plenty of examples of countries that went from democracy to totalitarianism, or at least from benevolent government to something much, much worse. Could it happen in the U.S.? It’s hard to see how, but these things are always unpredictable and change can come about faster than you’d think. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [July 3, 2006, 2:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-people-in-the-us-really-try-to-fight-the-military-police-with-hunting-rifles/362910/46 "2006-07-03T02:50:21Z")
> [@Sam Stone](#): > > And if the Republic turns nasty? Gee, I thought the left was already claiming that elections in the U.S. were rigged. Now imagine if they REALLY were. The American political/electoral system is rigged in favor of the corporate interests, and could be a great deal more democratic than it is (for which purpose I have made many suggestions in this forum). But it is nothing like a sham democracy such as Hussein’s. It’s a continuum, not a dichotomy. From George Orwell’s [_The Lion and the Unicorn:_ (1941)](http://www.netcharles.com/orwell/essays/lion-and-unicorn1.htm) > [@](#): > > And yet the gentleness of English civilization is mixed up with barbarities and anachronisms. Our criminal law is as out-of-date as the muskets in the Tower. Over against the Nazi Storm Trooper you have got to set that typically English figure, the hanging judge, some gouty old bully with his mind rooted in the nineteenth century, handing out savage sentences. In England people are still hanged by the neck and flogged with the cat o’ nine tails. Both of these punishments are obscene as well as cruel, but there has never been any genuinely popular outcry against them. People accept them (and Dartmoor, and Borstal) almost as they accept the weather. They are part of ‘the law’, which is assumed to be unalterable. > > Here one comes upon an all-important English trait: the respect for constitutionalism and legality, the belief in ‘the law’ as something above the State and above the individual, something which is cruel and stupid, of course, but at any rate incorruptible. > > It is not that anyone imagines the law to be just. Everyone knows that there is one law for the rich and another for the poor. But no one accepts the implications of this, everyone takes it for granted that the law, such as it is, will be respected, and feels a sense of outrage when it is not. Remarks like ‘They can’t run me in; I haven’t done anything wrong’, or ‘They can’t do that; it’s against the law’, are part of the atmosphere of England. The professed enemies of society have this feeling as strongly as anyone else. One sees it in prison-books like Wilfred Macartney’s Walls Have Mouths or Jim Phelan’s Jail Journey, in the solemn idiocies that take place at the trials of conscientious objectors, in letters to the papers from eminent Marxist professors, pointing out that this or that is a ‘miscarriage of British justice’. Everyone believes in his heart that the law can be, ought to be, and, on the whole, will be impartially administered. The totalitarian idea that there is no such thing as law, there is only power, has never taken root. Even the intelligentsia have only accepted it in theory. > > An illusion can become a half-truth, a mask can alter the expression of a face. The familiar arguments to the effect that democracy is ‘just the same as’ or ‘just as bad as’ totalitarianism never take account of this fact. All such arguments boil down to saying that half a loaf is the same as no bread. In England such concepts as justice, liberty and objective truth are still believed in. They may be illusions, but they are very powerful illusions. The belief in them influences conduct, national life is different because of them. In proof of which, look about you. Where are the rubber truncheons, where is the castor oil? The sword is still in the scabbard, and while it stays there corruption cannot go beyond a certain point. The English electoral system, for instance, is an all but open fraud. In a dozen obvious ways it is gerrymandered in the interest of the moneyed class. But until some deep change has occurred in the public mind, it cannot become completely corrupt. You do not arrive at the polling booth to find men with revolvers telling you which way to vote, nor are the votes miscounted, nor is there any direct bribery. Even hypocrisy is a powerful safeguard. The hanging judge, that evil old man in scarlet robe and horse-hair wig, whom nothing short of dynamite will ever teach what century he is living in, but who will at any rate interpret the law according to the books and will in no circumstances take a money bribe, is one of the symbolic figures of England. He is a symbol of the strange mixture of reality and illusion, democracy and privilege, humbug and decency, the subtle network of compromises, by which the nation keeps itself in its familiar shape. > [@Sam Stone](#): > > Obviously, we’re not talking about a government even remotely like today’s government in the U.S. We’re talking about one that has essentially changed into a totalitarian state. Quite true. But what has **that** got to do with allowing the citizenry to be armed, for the specific (and under modern circumstances futile, stupid, and suicidal) purpose of opposing the government?! ---
**Author:** ![Crafter\_Man](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/crafter_man/32/458_2.png) [@Crafter\_Man](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Crafter_Man)\ **Post date:** [July 3, 2006, 3:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-people-in-the-us-really-try-to-fight-the-military-police-with-hunting-rifles/362910/47 "2006-07-03T03:21:53Z")
> [@Martini Enfield](#): > > Several reasons- one of which is that many people are uncomfortable with paramilitary organisations that operate without Government oversight. Why should I care about that? > [@Martini Enfield](#): > > Surely you can see how a group of people in full camouflage gear and tactical rig, running around the forests with Springfield Armoury M1A rifles could be perceived negatively? Um, no. I have yet to receive negative feedback. In fact, I’ve received nothing but praise from the community. > [@Martini Enfield](#): > > You mentioned your Militia was there for the benefit of the Community, yet you don’t appear to engage in any good works (such as building homeless shelters or teaching first aid classes to the general public) FOR your Community, besides knowing fieldcraft and owning a gun. Again, I’m not saying you should be volunteering in Soup Kitchens or anything like that, but really, you see the point I’m trying to make? Most people in our community don’t give a rat’s ass about “homeless shelters” or whatnot. They only care about individual liberty. Unlike you, we do not have a socialist mindset. > [@Martini Enfield](#): > > I’m curious as to _why_ you feel your right to keep and bear arms is inalienable? Because the US Constitution says so? Personal Code? Other? No. Because I say so. ---
**Author:** ![Crafter\_Man](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/crafter_man/32/458_2.png) [@Crafter\_Man](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Crafter_Man)\ **Post date:** [July 3, 2006, 3:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-people-in-the-us-really-try-to-fight-the-military-police-with-hunting-rifles/362910/48 "2006-07-03T03:24:25Z")
> [@Sam Stone](#): > > absolute power derives from the people. Amen. Only wish places like Australia would understand this. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [July 3, 2006, 3:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-people-in-the-us-really-try-to-fight-the-military-police-with-hunting-rifles/362910/49 "2006-07-03T03:29:32Z")
> [@Sam Stone](#): > > . . . because it flows out of the idea that absolute power derives from the people . . . :dubious: “Absolute,” **Sam?!** That’s a very un-conservative and un-Libertarian thing to say. Even I, a democratic socialist, would have some problems with it. ---
**Author:** ![Revenant\_Threshold](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f1d935/32.png) [@Revenant\_Threshold](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revenant_Threshold)\ **Post date:** [July 3, 2006, 3:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-people-in-the-us-really-try-to-fight-the-military-police-with-hunting-rifles/362910/50 "2006-07-03T03:31:11Z")
> [@Crafter\_Man](#): > > No. Because I say so. Uh, wouldn’t that come under “personal code”, then? ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [July 3, 2006, 3:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-people-in-the-us-really-try-to-fight-the-military-police-with-hunting-rifles/362910/51 "2006-07-03T03:38:42Z")
> [@Crafter\_Man](#): > > Most people in our community don’t give a rat’s ass about “homeless shelters” or whatnot. They only care about individual liberty. :dubious: What exactly **is** your “community”? I’m sure it’s not any **American** community, even in Ohio! ---
**Author:** ![Martini\_Enfield](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/martini_enfield/32/11123_2.png) [@Martini\_Enfield](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martini_Enfield)\ **Post date:** [July 3, 2006, 3:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-people-in-the-us-really-try-to-fight-the-military-police-with-hunting-rifles/362910/52 "2006-07-03T03:52:05Z")
**Crafter\_man** , I truly appreciate your time and thoughts in this thread, but I can see we’re probably going to have to agree to disagree on a number of issues. If you can’t understand or care why being part of a modern-day paramilitary Commando Unit is unsettling to people, then I really don’t know that to say. I’m not expecting you to _agree_ with them- you have every right to disagree, or think their views are wrong/unimportant- but at least be _aware_ that I’m guessing you haven’t read _The Postman_? I strongly suggest you do- it’s an excellent book, and contains much that may be of interest or at least give you pause for thought. If your local community doesn’t care about homeless shelters or whatever, that’s fine (I was only using it as an example). I’m just not sure how you can “help the community” simply by virtue of owning a firearm… surely you could do as much, if not more good by joining the local police department? What do you mean by “Socialist Mindset”, exactly? If only we could give ourselves inalienable rights purely on our own say-so… I believe I have the inalienable right to a luxury tropical island home with a massive staff and my own personal fleet of private cars and aircraft, as well as squillions of dollars in the bank and a bevy of attractive, sexually open-minded young ladies to keep me company! No offence intended, **Crafter\_man** , but you realise that you’ve just proved the OP- ie, there ARE people in the US, in reasonable numbers, who would actually try and shoot it out with the authorities over a dramatic change in the firearms laws? ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [July 3, 2006, 3:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-people-in-the-us-really-try-to-fight-the-military-police-with-hunting-rifles/362910/53 "2006-07-03T03:54:23Z")
> [@Martini Enfield](#): > > If your local community doesn’t care about homeless shelters or whatever, that’s fine . . . No. No, it **isn’t.** ---
**Author:** ![Oakminster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/77aa72/32.png) [@Oakminster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Oakminster)\ **Post date:** [July 3, 2006, 3:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-people-in-the-us-really-try-to-fight-the-military-police-with-hunting-rifles/362910/54 "2006-07-03T03:57:13Z")
> [@Martini Enfield](#): > > No offence intended, **Crafter\_man** , but you realise that you’ve just proved the OP- ie, there ARE people in the US, in reasonable numbers, who would actually try and shoot it out with the authorities over a dramatic change in the firearms laws? It wasn’t just him. Several posters, including a certain brilliant, sexy, and witty attorney/druid (Yes, ladies, he’s single) told you the same thing in other ways. ---
**Author:** ![Martini\_Enfield](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/martini_enfield/32/11123_2.png) [@Martini\_Enfield](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martini_Enfield)\ **Post date:** [July 3, 2006, 3:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-people-in-the-us-really-try-to-fight-the-military-police-with-hunting-rifles/362910/55 "2006-07-03T03:57:29Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > No. No, it **isn’t.** I meant from a debate point of view, not from a philosophical/humanitarian point of view. ---
**Author:** ![Martini\_Enfield](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/martini_enfield/32/11123_2.png) [@Martini\_Enfield](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martini_Enfield)\ **Post date:** [July 3, 2006, 3:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-people-in-the-us-really-try-to-fight-the-military-police-with-hunting-rifles/362910/56 "2006-07-03T03:59:01Z")
> [@Oakminster](#): > > It wasn’t just him. Several posters, including a certain brilliant, sexy, and witty attorney/druid (Yes, ladies, he’s single) told you the same thing in other ways. Yes, but only **Crafter\_man** came forward and said that he, personally, would actually be prepared to do it. ---
**Author:** ![Oakminster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/77aa72/32.png) [@Oakminster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Oakminster)\ **Post date:** [July 3, 2006, 4:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-people-in-the-us-really-try-to-fight-the-military-police-with-hunting-rifles/362910/57 "2006-07-03T04:00:37Z")
Think about why that may be. Waiting is. ---
**Author:** ![Least\_Original\_User\_Name\_Ever](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/e480ec/32.png) [@Least\_Original\_User\_Name\_Ever](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Least_Original_User_Name_Ever)\ **Post date:** [July 3, 2006, 4:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-people-in-the-us-really-try-to-fight-the-military-police-with-hunting-rifles/362910/58 "2006-07-03T04:01:12Z")
**Crafter Man** , that’s the single most insane thing I’ve heard in a while. Nobody cares about homeless shelters? You want to do what you want? The only think that separates you from chilren gone wild on Maury Povich is the fact that you think that playing commando in the fucking woods with live ammo is fun. This thread is about to get pushed waaaaaay far away from the point now. ---
**Author:** ![Least\_Original\_User\_Name\_Ever](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/e480ec/32.png) [@Least\_Original\_User\_Name\_Ever](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Least_Original_User_Name_Ever)\ **Post date:** [July 3, 2006, 4:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-people-in-the-us-really-try-to-fight-the-military-police-with-hunting-rifles/362910/59 "2006-07-03T04:05:31Z")
Additionally, I’m all for people having different viewpoints. Help me figure out why you think what you think. I get the feeling you could care less about helping others understand, but at least throw us some bone over here. ---
**Author:** ![SenorBeef](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/senorbeef/32/2220_2.png) [@SenorBeef](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SenorBeef)\ **Post date:** [July 3, 2006, 5:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-people-in-the-us-really-try-to-fight-the-military-police-with-hunting-rifles/362910/60 "2006-07-03T05:10:34Z")
What people lose perspective of, in our relatively well governed, benevolent period in the western world, is that historically the biggest threats to people’s lives and quality of life aren’t foreign invaders, or criminals, or terrorists. It’s their own government. Genocide, forced relocation, labor camps, death camps, imprisonment for political issues, or just relatively benevolent oppression like the later Soviet Union are all far greater threats to the life and liberty of people than any terrorist (the current boogeymen) has ever been. Most of you are are probably rolling your eyes. After all, we live in enlightened, modern times. Our governments would never present a serious harm to our life or liberty. The nature of government is inherently evil, inherently oppressive. Governments become larger, more overbearing, and more a hinderance of the life and happiness of their people as time goes on. This is historically true for just about any government. Modern western socialist thought that the elite few, the enlightened (among which most of you reading this post will consider yourselves, most likely) should make decisions on behalf of what they consider the impossibly stupid masses who couldn’t possibly make decisions for themselves, is a probably modern cause that will lead the extremely liberal (in a historical sense) modern western governments into tyranny. It’s a continuum, a matter of degree, but governments, absent revolts, always slide towards being larger, more powerful, more oppressive, and more an entity of their own, outside the will of the people. The distribution of force within a society is a critical measure and balance for curbing this tendency. Any society that wishes to be free from the evils of oppressive government must not let said government have a monopoly on force, and hence, a monopoly on power. History shows over, and over, and over, that such a monopoly on force can never be trusted to be benevolent. As such, I believe the attempted infringement on arms rights by a government on its citizens is the most important, and most direct assault on their freedom. It’s an attempt to establish a monopoly on force, an ability to rule as an entity outside the people with nearly absolute power. It’s a necesary stepping stone on the way to oppression. As such, any attempt on it should be resisted. > [@](#): > > No offence Crafter\_Man, but Citizen’s Militias are exactly the sort of people that give recreational/sporting shooters, hunters, and collectors a bad name. Obviously I dislike this attitude. Your ability to hunt, to be sporting, to engage in recreational, are mere toys compared to the very critical issue of distribution of force. When bans on military-style weaponry come up for debate, often the recreational shooter crowd is all for them. The bulk of gun owners just want their hunting rifle, and to be left alone - they care nothing for their obligations to defend citizenry against the government. The dichotomy is flawed (hunting weapons make excellent insurgency weapons, and military-style weapons are not nearly as effective in comparison that people believe), but they are willing to sell out on this issue to protect their personal hobbies. Gun rights shouldn’t be about wanting to keep your toy for a hobby - they have so much more important a purpose. (There are plenty of other reasons that I oppose gun control, of course - I don’t want to narrow it down to only being about this issue). > [@Least Original User Name Ever](#): > > Yeah, the original post is correct. These weapons would come out (supposedly) when the Constitution becomes actively shit on. > > So…um…why don’t we care about the defecation of the First? What makes you say this? There’s a big stir whenever there’s any sort of perceived violation of the first amendment - as well it should be. If there were any attempts to marginalize the first amendment in the same way that the second is, there would be a huge uproar. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-people-in-the-us-really-try-to-fight-the-military-police-with-hunting-rifles/362910.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-people-in-the-us-really-try-to-fight-the-military-police-with-hunting-rifles/362910.md?page=4)