Skip to main content

View Diary: If government is full of tyranny, why arm it to the teeth? (239 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Umm, what makes you think the FBI/ATF (20+ / 0-)

    will try to take the next batch of yahoos the same way? They didn't have the drones 20 years ago. Take your "Red Dawn" dreams and head over to Red State. I'm sure you'll be a hit.

    You can't assassinate the character of any of modern conservative. You'd have to find where it was buried, dig it up, resurrect it, then kill it. And killing a zombie isn't really assassination, is it?

    by ontheleftcoast on Tue Apr 02, 2013 at 09:22:01 AM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  I simply don't believe (5+ / 0-)

      that the US government would allow a drone strike in US soil.  the politics alone would be suicide.  And, if it did happen, wouldn't we be proving the right-wing radicals were right?

      Talk about dreaming...

      •  Jeeez... (23+ / 0-)

        Kos isn't saying the Government is tyrannical and gonna attack it's citizens, he's saying the gun nutz believe that yet they don't recognize the futility of their philosophy.

        If people are good only because they fear punishment, and hope for reward, then we are a sorry lot indeed. Albert Einstein

        by kharma on Tue Apr 02, 2013 at 09:34:42 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Kos is saying that IF the government is full of (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          FrankRose, a2nite

          tyranny, why arm it to the teeth?

          He's playing into the same futility with the other side of the argument.  Why push a straw man?  Why stoop to their level?

          •  Huh? (5+ / 0-)

            How is his argument a straw man? I don't like the argument either, but I fail to see how it's that kind of argument.

            To wit: if the government is full of tyranny, isn't that why it needs drones? I don't think the teahags are protesting the drones, but I could be wrong. That much would be serious cognitive dissonance--the drone program has only ever been signed off on (to the best of my knowledge) by this President, so why aren't they screaming bloody murder about the whole program? That evil not-white President is stealth-bombing other evil not-white people! They should be jumping for joy!

            And yes, it's comical to think they'd be able to take on a drone with an AK-47 and win; but don't kid yourself that a drone couldn't fall on the continental US. Accidents happen, don'tcha know...

            It is time to #Occupy Media.

            by lunachickie on Tue Apr 02, 2013 at 10:04:31 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  I don't accept the idea of an either/or argument (0+ / 0-)
              Either you think government is tyrannical and must be eroded of its ability to militarily suppress its populace, or you think a well-armed government is a benevolent force for world peace.
              I don't think that Uncle Sam is tyrannical, but I sure as hell don't think that he's a benevolent force for world peace.  I'm not sure that the diary argues that those are the only 2 available options, but I am sure that I support a "Third Way" viewpoint there.  Opposition to a standing military establishment in peacetime, which dates back to the Founders, essentially became moot in 1946. Opposition to body scanners in airports, massive electronic surveillance, and drone strike diplomacy is now, sadly, becoming equally moot.

              I thought that the question of armed militias rebelling against Uncle Sam became moot in 1865.  The philospophy of today's militiamen is little different than that of the secessionists of 7 score and 10 years ago.  Besides, I'm still not sure how my owning an AK-47 would prevent my cell phone calls from being monitored.

              On the other hand, however, I'd like to see final w/drawal from Afghanistan started tomorrow, the Pentagon budget slashed to, say, 2005 levels, and drone strike programs seriously curtailed.  Admittedly, my hopes are as fanciful in the current climate as those of the militamen.

              Some men see things as they are and ask why. I dream of things that never were and ask why not?

              by RFK Lives on Tue Apr 02, 2013 at 10:39:08 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  it's a strawman (0+ / 0-)

              because no RKBA group, to my knowledge (not even the NRA) has proposed that citizens need arms to protect themselves from drones.  NO RKBA group has suggested that they need 'parity' in some kind of arms race with the 'gubment' and their tanks/bombs/nukes/drones.

              This is a supposition widely imposed on gun owners/gun rights activists by the others side of an argument in an attempt to somehow discredit the RKBA, ergo, the government has tanks/nukes/drones/etc, how can you stop them with a rifle?

              •  I read that citizens need arms to protect (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:

                themselves from drone strikes all the time. They may not belong to a specific RKBA group, but certain gun owners do feel the need to arm themselves against potential drone strikes.

                You might wonder, then, what is the strategy for defending against drones? It all comes down to men with rifles raiding drone airfields and taking them over. Once again, rifles become the single most important tool of resistance in the face of tyranny, which is exactly why the government is right now desperately seeking to register and confiscate all rifles in the hands of U.S. citizens. The MQ-1C Warrior drone has an operational range of 675 miles, meaning that drone airfields must be relatively close to intended targets. The airfields are the weak link, and this is what Americans must take back ifdrone mass murder is unleashed against American citizens (by any president, now or in the future).
                •  thanks, I never saw that one (0+ / 0-)

                  but they do have somewhat a belabored point.  Airfields have been overrun and disrupted/destroyed by men with rifles.

                  Nobody here at DK is arguing that RKBA is dependent on some ability to gain parity with tanks/drones/nukes, though.
                  In this context, to suggest that, because the 2nd amendment says that the right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed is somehow invalidated by the presence of tanks/drones/nukes/whatever else the goverment has, is a straw man.

              •  I had an argument with at least two gun owners (0+ / 0-)

                on this site - with lower UIDs - who argued that weapons ownership is inextricably linked to the possibility that they would need to overthrow our government.

                Much of RKBA is about placating one's paranoia and fears by "preparing" themselves through praying to a gun ownership god when you put someone's back to the wall on why they own (beyond antique collections and target shooting), so it wasn't a big stretch in that context.

                "So, please stay where you are. Don't move and don't panic. Don't take off your shoes! Jobs is on the way."

                by wader on Tue Apr 02, 2013 at 05:51:37 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  I can see a detterant effect (0+ / 0-)

                  behind say, 90 million firearms owners out of what, 350 million citizens?  There's no way to confiscate that many weapons if even a percentage of them resisted (not enough police, federal agents or even military, a lot of which, mathematically are also gun owners themselves).

                  To say, that a nation where a good percentage of citizens are armed provides a deterrence in defense of a free state.  That argument I'd buy.  To argue that, armed citizens need to be ready to forcibly overthrow the government if it became Tyrannical?  I'd call that a stretch when barely half the population bothers to vote on a good year.

                  Regardless, throwing out the old "how are you going to overthrow a government with tanks/bombs/drones/nukes" is a red herring.  War gaming that regular citizens may-or-may-not be able to overthrow the government, while creative and entertaining, is pointless.  2/3rds of both houses of congress to pass an amendment to the constitution, and 3/4ths the states ratifying, or a constitutional convention.  

                  Thats your hurdle.  That and all of the hunters, collectors, sports shooters, 'preppers' (as you call them) and regular folks who simply don't want to give up on the 2A of course.

                  •  "Detterence in defense of a free state" (0+ / 0-)

                    What does that even mean, please?  The state has police and militia, while the country has armed services - among other agencies.  What are loads of individual gun owners/carriers supposed to be deterring?

                    There is no red herring in this diary: many of us have, indeed, encountered the crackpot notion that gun ownership is somehow part of a suicide pill written into the Constitution that allows citizens to overthrow their government - by force, if necessary - when they don't like what's happening.  As if Madison added an escape clause after they had just gone through such a tough Revolutionary War phase to get their new land underneath local rule.  kos is offering that such odd references by gun-toting folks in and out of government are completely at odds with continuing to build up policing and military capabilities in the same governmental bodies that might need to be overthrown, some day.  Or, deterred.

                    "So, please stay where you are. Don't move and don't panic. Don't take off your shoes! Jobs is on the way."

                    by wader on Tue Apr 02, 2013 at 09:53:28 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Detterence in defense of a free state (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:

                      Here's a good summary of what I feel freedom via deterrence means:
                      A lot of 2A diatribe here summarized below...

                      Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force. If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either convincing me via argument, or force me to do your bidding under threat of force. Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories, without exception. Reason or force, that’s it.

                      In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact through persuasion. Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction, and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm, as paradoxical as it may sound to some.

                      When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force. You have to use reason and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your threat or employment of force....
                      ...When I carry a gun, I don’t do so because I am looking for a fight, but because I’m looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don’t carry it because I’m afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn’t limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by force. It removes force from the equation… and that’s why carrying a gun is a civilized act..... - by Maj L. Caudill USMC (Ret)

                      Take that rationale from the personal level to the national level, and you get what Douglas MacArthur was thinking about when he (not Isoroku Yamamoto) opined You cannot invade the mainland United States. "There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass".

                      It's not the supposition that taking an armed nation by force is impossible, given enough time/material/willpower the US would undoubtedly fall (to either some other nation, or a tyrannical government)... it's that to do so would be so costly in terms of lives/PR/political capital that the notion of using drone strikes/tanks/whathaveyou to squash a 'rebellion' would be counterproductive. Using force simply goes off the table when you're dealing with that many folks who are armed.  It's, frankly, inconceivable.

                      Now, if the government really wanted to disarm the people they could probably do so without one shot fired.

                      Thats why I see the whole "how are you going to stop a drone with a rifle" argument silly and without merit.

                      •  I'm not worried about foreign invasion, if that's (0+ / 0-)

                        supposed to be the point of "deterrence".  That's smacks of a Red Scare situation which was based on an escalating fear which made for a highly malleable citizenry - it led to opportunities for demonizing perfectly good USA citizens for decades, as an example.  Not productive.

                        You're quoting from extremist websites with rather silly arguments, btw.  None of these things are rational: we have organized counterinsurgency and there's no need to invade our shores or otherwise.  Red Dawn was slash fiction.

                        The point still stands untouched: why continue to build up our own military that paranoid gun owners are wary of resisting with their weapons at some future point?  There's a blind spot in their thinking, and it's all due to cultural manipulation: fear the dark person (or other) getting into your personal space, so own and carry various weapons; further, fear the government's motives at least equally as dark assailants, and arm yourself further - rugged individualist you are and all.

                        That's the silly and without merit argument, right there.  Essentially, fear drives more gun sales, which helps only gun manufacturers and their political cohorts.

                        "So, please stay where you are. Don't move and don't panic. Don't take off your shoes! Jobs is on the way."

                        by wader on Tue Apr 02, 2013 at 11:00:26 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  this is where I don't think we're going to agree. (1+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:

                          Without getting into a (albeit short) laundry list of the firearms I do own, none were bought out of fear... the exception being the 1903 Springfield I bought because I know others in the shop were interested in it (and if I would have held out a few weeks longer, found one in better condition.  Whats stopping me?  Blowing another two grand, to be honest).

                          Collector, totally. Hunter, yes. Range plinker, guilty as charged.  Scardy cat?  Nah, you need to do a better job of convincing me that with the exception of one historic rifle, I've made any fear-driven firearm purchases.  I see a lot of the fear angle coming from folks who are not gun owners.  I see a lot of folks scared of guns, and a few folks scared of guns trying to convince gun owners that they only own guns out of... fear?  

                          Your comments in particular about 'dark people' getting into my personal space?  Dark people, really? You mean my stepfather? My cousin? pardon me while I mock you trying to insinuate that some kind of 'dark people' are driving my fear-based gun purchases, when I happen to eat dinner with at least one 'dark person' most Sundays.  

                          I can see how some folks, you may feel they are extremists, couch their defense of the second amendment.  I feel it's a reasonable explanation, from the perspective that they do not trust their government. I'm not that person, though, because if I were, I would have been wholesale foolish to work for the government (military) for ten years, given them (the NSA) access to my background information for security clearances (twice), then proceeded to give them more (personal information and fingerprints, again) for additional state background checks to carry concealed and for my foid card.  Who is so paranoid of the government, that they give them that much information? repeatedly?

                          I consider people who want to see the 2nd amendment struck from the bill of rights as extremists, as well as folks who want to ban certain firearms which look scary.  I find their arguments reasonable, too, from their perspective that they don't trust an average citizen with "that kind of firepower" but not something I'm willing to support.  I'm not that person either, because I'd be going against my self interests, similar to how a person who mistrusts the government would invite them into my business as much as I have.

                          Yeah, I'm just not buying what your selling from either the fear, race, or government angles.  Not at all.

      •  In response to the "Republic of Steve" forming (7+ / 0-)

        in East Texas? If a couple of hundred armed idiots decided to declare themselves a sovereign nation it would require the US respond with appropriate force. At that point military action would be considered appropriate. Yes, a line would be crossed, but it would be by the assholes in the militia, not by the US government.

        You can't assassinate the character of any of modern conservative. You'd have to find where it was buried, dig it up, resurrect it, then kill it. And killing a zombie isn't really assassination, is it?

        by ontheleftcoast on Tue Apr 02, 2013 at 09:35:07 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  conflation of soverign citzens and the RHBA (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          Is just as pointless and counterproductive.

          The average Joe-firearms owner who supports the RKBA is not a sovereign citizen.  Using logic like that only further alienates single issue voters.  You know, the ones that the hated NRA is so good at mobilizing...

          •  Who cares about the single issue RKBA voter - (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            kharma, ontheleftcoast, ssgbryan

            they might as well be unicorns.

            Could you show me some data that says what % of the electorate this "powerful" voting block represents?

            My guess says 1% of Dem gun owners are on board with what they claim to represent.

            RKBA - the new 1%

            •  You don't believe in them, but a lot of politicans (0+ / 0-)

              seem to.

              As an activist, we tend to drink our own cool-aid... we spend significant time and energy on our issues, our parties, our activism, or campaigns.  We have somewhat of a self-interest in promoting our causes.

              Politicians, by and large, have shown us that they like to remain in office.  The raise a lot of money, with and without our help to do so.  They poll on issues.  They have advisors.  They don't necessarily drink our cool-aid, unless it's to their advantage.

              The politicians have shown that they have somewhat of a begrudging fear of the NRA and gun voters.  They continue to do so.  They seem to believe that there's a creditable threat, in some areas, to their political existence if they go against the NRA and gun voters.

              While you may not believe in them, it seems that they do.  And from the looks of things, you're not convincing them otherwise. Barbra Boxer can't be counted on to stand against the NRA, what does she of all people know that you don't?

              •  By "them" you mean the DKos gun club and (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                trumpeter, ssgbryan

                those who support its "ideas".

                About Boxer - didn't see her mentioned in that diary you linked.

                •  my bad, that first was filibuster reform, widely (0+ / 0-)

                  cited as an obstacle to gun control pasage in the senate.

                  On a private call with the Bay Area Democrats on Wednesday, Merkley identified Reid as the key person in the talks, and he urged activists to target members of Reid’s leadership team ahead of their meetings next week, according to people on the call. He also characterized Democratic Sens. Max Baucus (Mont.), Patrick Leahy (Vt.), Dianne Feinstein (Calif.), Barbara Boxer (Calif.), Joe Manchin (West. Va.) and Mark Pryor (Ark.) as wrestling with his proposal, sources say.
                  --RE naming Democratic senators not on board with filibuster reform

                  this one is the first suggestion that she was on board a few months ago.

                  here's the one I really had in mind... From a few days ago...

                  •  That's not proof that the reason she didn't (0+ / 0-)

                    support filibuster reform is because she couldn't stand up to the NRA - it's not even logical.

                    There are many reasons not to support it, for example, what happens if the GOP takes the Senate?

                    •  and about this? (0+ / 0-)

                      the one I had meant instead of the one I originally linked?

                      •  A comment on the DKos message board? (0+ / 0-)

                        Without being able to hear the conversation, you can't really draw a definitive conclusion. There's a lot of moving parts in the sausage making of all the legislation being produced, and to take one flimsy anecdote and use that to make a point, is at best, not smart.

                        •  context provided... (0+ / 0-)

                          Dems under added pressure to support universal background checks Some holdouts stand firm

                          Be careful about being too sanguine about Boxer (1+ / 0-)
                          I called Boxer's office yesterday to express my strong wish that she support the assault weapons ban and magazine limits.  Staffer told me that they were keeping a "tally"  of calls.  When I asked why Boxer wouldn't openly support Feinstein's bill, he was evasive.

                          I'm very disappointed that Boxer won't stand up to the NRA.   Call her office now at 213 894-5000(Los Angeles), and tell her to stand with her colleague and the majority of Americans who want these weapons banned.  

                          Californians have to be out in front here!    

                          If Liberals Hated America, We'd Vote Republican

                          by QuarterHorseDem on Thu Mar 28, 2013 at 05:29:02 PM CDT

                          My take is either:
                          -She's politically safe in her district, and she's a holdout to give cover to another senator who, for some reason, doesn't want to vote against the sentate bill package, but still doesn't want to support it (and they will reciprocate at a later time, or she already owes them the favor).  You're right about sausage making, senators cover each other like this from time to time as I understand.
                          -She has data, polling, or something else to suggest that  crossing the NRA isn't in her best interest.

                          She's very well can be playing chess while we who watch are playing checkers.  Or she's simply looking out for herself with no greater goal.  You're right, without getting inside her head, there's no way to be certain, but she appears to be holding out, which seems to be what the NRA wants.

                          •  Boxer has her own school safety bill as part (0+ / 0-)

                            of the Dem gun safety package, so perhaps she's using it to bring supporters to her bill. And, there's also the question of exactly which BC bill will be the one - why give support to something that isn't completely known yet. It could be that she won't voice support unless it's Schumer's bill.

            •  40% of gun owners are Democrats, you know this (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:

              right?  Gun ownership is a cross section of America, and cross both aisles.  It is more rural than urban but more suburban that inner city although that is changing some.  

              Gun ownership has declined over the past decades but not rapidly, and some of that decline is thought to be that lack of participation or out right denying to pollsters that people in the home own a gun.....since the actual number of guns purchased and concealed weapons licenses is soaring, thus the numbers don't correlate.

              There are 310 million firearms on the streets, that we know of.  Almost one gun for every single person in America. Depending on the get anywhere from 39 to 49% of homes in America has at least one firearm and call themselves "gun owners".  Those are the ones who actually answer in the affirmative to a stranger on the phone taking a poll about gun ownership.  (Personally, I would lie or not answer)

               That's 1 in 2 or 1 in 3....across every state, and every city in this country.

              So I do believe...there are a bit of voters mixed in there somewhere.

              •  Bailey, we've been through all this before, (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:

                you get that 40% number from the Mark Penn video the DKos gun club uses as the basis of its existence.

                That same video says 37% of ALL voters are gun owners.

                So, 40% or 37% and then slice that again because only 1% of gun owners believe what the DKos gun club believes.

                So, you're talking about 1% of Dem gun owners are with you and your club.

                •  Ummmm no ...I get it from Gallup. (0+ / 0-)

                  The data and polls are there from numerous sources.  Even women report 43% ownership rates.

                  Here's Gallup:


                  •  OK, well, I get the 37% number from the (0+ / 0-)

                    DKos gun club's DKos page.

                    So if only 37% of voters are gun owners and only 40% of Dems are gun owners, then you've got about 17% or so Dem voters who own guns. About 99% of those support UBC and about 80% support AWB. That leaves you and the DKos gun club, about 1% of all Dem gun owners or about .1% of the Dem electorate.

                    •  ok, what? If you have that many gun owners in (0+ / 0-)

                      any have gun owners who are also voters.  Hence the point I was making.  I assure you that is is way beyond 1%.

                      Where do you get that only 37% of voters are gun owners?  What poll shows that?

                      Exit polls from 2012 showed 42 to 47% depending on the poll for a national average and it can be as high as 60% and  in some states.  Again, these numbers are those who did in fact answer "yes" when asked.

                      •  Jeez, Bailey, your RKVB, or whatever the acronym, (0+ / 0-)

                        is for the DKos gun club, would be disappointed to know that you don't even read your club's very own propaganda docs.

                        The Mark Penn video that RKVB posts on its DKos group page is where I got the 37% number - your people.

                        •  Ok, well it's wrong. I have never seen the video. (0+ / 0-)

                          I look at actual polls.

                          •  So you join the RKBA DKos group without knowing (0+ / 0-)

                            what it believes/stands for? That video is the intellectual basis for the group. Why'd you join if you haven't seen the video? And that video is based on polls, by the way.

                          •  I know what it stands for, still have never seen (0+ / 0-)

                            the video.

                             That number is wrong...don't care what it says.  Please cite the polls.

                            That video is the intellectual basis for the group.
                            Really now?  You think that our wishing to protect part of the Bill of Rights is not a valid intellectual basis....but a video would be?
                          •  Go to the RKBA group site and read it for yourself (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:

                            the stated common core belief of the group is that supporting gun safety leads to Dems losing elections. So, regardless of whether you think supporting gun safety is the right thing to do or not - it does not matter.

                            The RKBA page does not say the common core belief of the group is to safeguard the Bill of Rights.

                            The group page says it was formed to save Dems from electoral defeat.

                            Fairly cynical group if you ask me.

                          •  That is true as well. It has been proven numerous (0+ / 0-)

                            times.  However, a video is not the intellectual basis behind the group.

                          •  Really? That video was presented at (0+ / 0-)

                            Net Roots Nation - was that just for kicks? The group was formed in 2011 and to introduce themselves to DKos they chose to use that video at Net Roots Nation in 2011.

                            About losing elections - so, then, you agree that Dems who don't agree with you, should just ditch their convictions for political expediency (for the moment, let's say RKBA is right about that)?

                          •  ummm no. I think that I support the entire Bill (0+ / 0-)

                            of Rights and will fight to preserve all of them.  I am not alone. That is my view and why I feel the 2A is just as valid as all of the other ones and why I fight to make certain it is not infringed upon.  I do the same with each of my eyes, they are equal.  There are a lot of Democrats and Progressives who feel exactly as I do.

                            You should do as you consensus tells you to do, and I would presume to tell you how to fight or how to campaign for your that is what being a progressive is all it not?

                          •  OK, so dodge the question about the reason for (0+ / 0-)

                            RKBA's existence. Seems to be it's mostly a major concern troll group.

                            But yes, you should not compromise on your convictions, you have to take a risk to get a reward.

                            Of course, supporting something that 90% of Americans support is really no risk at all.

                          •  I support UBC, as long as there is no registry. (0+ / 0-)
                          •  Of course you do. You support a meaningless (0+ / 0-)

                            "safe" bill so that you can say that you support gun safety legislation and that you're being reasonable, just like the GOP does. So they can go in front of the cameras and claim they "doing something" - it feels good, doesn't it?

                            I prefer the Connecticut Effect, a tough, sensible, comprehensive bi-partisan bill that takes a lot of risks in order to get a lot of rewards. And a bill that includes a real compromise on the part of many Sandy Hook families:

                            "There were some who said the 'Connecticut effect' would wear off — that it would wear off in Connecticut and it would wear off across the country," Senate President Pro Tempore Donald Williams, D-Brooklyn, said at an evening press conference in the Capitol flanked by five other legislative leaders.

                            "What they didn't know was that Democrats and Republicans would come together and work to put together the strongest and most comprehensive bill in the United States to fight gun violence, to strengthen the security at our schools, and to provide the mental health services that are necessary," he said.

                            The bipartisan deal would strengthen the state's existing ban on semiautomatic assault rifles to include weapons such as the Bushmaster AR-15 used by Adam Lanza to kill 20 first-graders and six women at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown. Current law defines an assault rifle as having two military-style characteristics on a list of several, such as a pistol grip and a flash suppressor. The new bill would require only one such characteristic. It also lists more than 160 firearms by name as assault weapons.

                            People could keep the banned rifles that they already own if they submit to new registration procedures. But future sales of the rifles would be prohibited. An existing owner could bequeath an assault rifle to a family member, but could sell it only to a licensed firearms dealer who would have to sell it outside Connecticut.

                            Magazines Disputed

                            The bill stepped back from an outright ban on large-capacity magazines containing more than 10 cartridges, such as the 30-round magazines that Lanza used. Instead, it would allow owners of large-capacity magazines to keep them if they make an official declaration by Jan. 1 of how many they own and submit to restrictions on their use. The magazines could only be loaded with 10 or fewer rounds, except in their owners' homes or at a shooting range, where they can be fully loaded.

                            Buying, selling, importing or transferring high-capacity magazines would be a Class D felony, punishable by up to five years in prison and a $5,000 fine.

                            Parents of Sandy Hook victims said Monday that they wanted those high-capacity magazines taken away from owners, not "grandfathered in" under the new bill. They called for an up or down vote on that issue.

                          •  I do not support the Connecticut bill. This is (0+ / 0-)

                            the type of legislation in which you will find that 90% fall dramatically.

                            UBC are the thing we are deabting and you said that 90% are backing you up on that and so then I say, okay I'll stand behind you and support it....but now that's not good enough. Hmmm....

                          •  Did you know the firearms industry is huge in (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:

                            Connecticut? So, the Dem and GOP elected representatives are voting to impact a major industry in the state.

                            They are bucking the gun lobby, just like New York and Colorado.

                            Do you think you know the electorates of those states better than the politicians do?

        •  And it would not be the US Army that responds (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          sawgrass727, lyvwyr101

          it would be National Guard. They are the next step up from BATFE/FBI. The Army is barred from deployment on US soil.

          If I ran this circus, things would be DIFFERENT!

          by CwV on Tue Apr 02, 2013 at 10:01:19 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Army is barred from deployment on US soil? (4+ / 0-)

            no, they're barred from police action.  haven't you noticed there are lots of deployed military in bases around the country?  in the civil war, it wasn't the militia that fought the south.

          •  And as I said before in another diary... (0+ / 0-)

            After Kent state, everything changed with the National guard.  You'll never see another Kent State.

            Furthermore, the Guard is even more closely tied to the community/state.  Their whole selling point, aside from college tuition, is that you can serve your community as well as your country.

            If a given community has strong militia/sovereignty/whatever aspirations, then the guard unit mustered from it is going to have similar feelings.  So why not just send in another unit you ask... what makes you think another unit form the same state is going to fair any better?  And guard units can only be sent from one state to another if federalized, which makes them Regular Army units, so that option is out too.

            Its a broken premise from either side of the argument.

        •  Raises an interesting question (5+ / 0-)

          What is the scenario likely to happen?

          I don't think idiots declaring themselves to be sovereign would cause anyone any concern.

          And I think those nutcase sheriffs who are going to selectively ignore Federal laws will find themselves facing legal issues in Federal courts.

          No amount of violent or anti-government rhetoric will prompt a reaction.

          But with that escalating rhetoric, my hunch is that problems are inevitable.  I bet there will be organized violent "guerrilla" conspiracies a la Timothy McVeigh.  Government facilities and employees are probably at their greatest risk since 9/11.

          Indeed, these were McVeigh's words but they sure are commonplace today...and there are sure are a lot of people with the same complaints.

          Taxes are a joke. Regardless of what a political candidate "promises," they will increase. More taxes are always the answer to government mismanagement. They mess up. We suffer. Taxes are reaching cataclysmic levels, with no slowdown in sight. [...] Is a Civil War Imminent? Do we have to shed blood to reform the current system? I hope it doesn't come to that. But it might.
          The government is afraid of the guns people have because they have to have control of the people at all times. Once you take away the guns, you can do anything to the people. You give them an inch and they take a mile. I believe we are slowly turning into a socialist government. The government is continually growing bigger and more powerful and the people need to prepare to defend themselves against government control.
          The NRA is a strong and proud supporter of arming domestic terrorists.
        •  It wouldn't need the army (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          They'd break a bunch of laws. Tax laws, for one. Currency/counterfeiting if they try to pass their own money. If they threaten people, or assault them, that's breaking laws as well. And we won't even talk about murder, or kidnapping, or child endangerment, or any of the other many laws they might be breaking.

          Because you KNOW they'll be breaking plenty.

          They'd be dealt with by law enforcement, at various levels, NOT the military.

          This has happened before, many times, and I'm not talking about the civil war. They almost always get charged with some kind of tax charge, at the very least. Because, of course, they don't need to pay taxes to the US, at least in their minds.

      •  If you take tyranny talk seriously (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        why wouldn't a tyrannical government order it?  You can find a small group of people to agree to anything. Presumably, if a government were truly tyrannical, graft and coercion could get enough people to operate the weapons for which there are no countermeasures.  

         The simple fact is that if you really take the "2nd amendment prevents tyranny" analysis seriously individuals would need strategic weapons,drones and anti-aircraft weaponry to prevent the possibility of government incursion.

        I'll always be...King of Bain...I'll always be...King of Bain

        by AZphilosopher on Tue Apr 02, 2013 at 10:23:46 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Really? (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        tytalus, ssgbryan

        And you know it wouldn't be the army, it would be the FBI/ATF and local cops.

        They have drones. They'll use them.

        If there was a group of armed idiots who went around armed all the time, annoying the rest of the population and scaring the kids, not to mention bringing the local, state, and federal cops flooding into the area, you don't think the people would support the COPS?

        Cops who would be have access to drones, surveillance equipment, armor, and would be able to cut off both communications and transportation routes.

        Remember, those right wing radicals would have broken a bunch of laws, perhaps murdering a few civilians and cops along the way. The army isn't even necessary. At all.

        They won't get out alive. And most people really don't want to live in a war zone, contrary to movies.

      •  You are delusional. (0+ / 0-)

        They would do it without a thought.

    •  The argument was posted by Kos and it was (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      being answered honestly.

      This doesn't mean anyone here is "dreaming of a Red Dawn" fantasy or belongs on a Red-State site.

      If Kos didn't want us to debate the issue, he wouldn't have brought it up.

      -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

      by gerrilea on Tue Apr 02, 2013 at 09:36:13 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  There's debate and then there are delusional rants (8+ / 0-)

        Claiming the militia in this country is anything like the VC or Taliban is a delusional rant.

        You can't assassinate the character of any of modern conservative. You'd have to find where it was buried, dig it up, resurrect it, then kill it. And killing a zombie isn't really assassination, is it?

        by ontheleftcoast on Tue Apr 02, 2013 at 09:38:07 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Wow, really???? (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          Quick questions, how many vets are there in America today?

          How many of them have witnessed and experienced said tactics first hand?

          The Al Queda kept the Soviets at bay for over 20 yrs, right?

          What am I missing again?

          Oh, that fighting the US government is useless and futile.

          The Borg said it best:

          Oh, and the point of my question was how many of the "militia" are returning vets?

          DHS Report on Rightwing Extremism Puts Napolitano on Defensive

          On April 15, 2009, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano responded to criticism from lawmakers, conservatives and veterans groups about a leaked unclassified intelligence assessment warning national law enforcement agencies about ongoing political and social conditions that could trigger "rightwing" extremism. In a released statement,  she denied the DHS targets anyone based on political ideology. The report said returning veterans joining militias "could lead to the potential emergence of terrorist groups."

          So, how many are we talking here? A few hundred? A few thousand? A few million?

          It's all about numbers, always has been and always will be.

          And the point that you intentionally ignored was that how many of our active military will actually shoot their mother, father, brother, sister or family members?

          And asking these questions doesn't make it a "delusional rant".

          What would you do if you were ordered to kill your family and friends and neighbors?  Surely you're not a mindless robot "just following orders" , correct?

          Therein lies the real dilemma and uncertainty and the legitimate questions.  Do I personally believe any militia could defeat our seasoned military, not a chance in hell.  

          -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

          by gerrilea on Tue Apr 02, 2013 at 10:10:22 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Remind me again... (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            ssgbryan, tytalus
            The Al Queda kept the Soviets at bay for over 20 yrs, right?
            Who armed the Taliban (they weren't called al-Qaeda during the Russian invasion) Without major financial and military assistance from us in the 80's or Pakistan for that past decade the Taliban would be a footnote in history

            You can't assassinate the character of any of modern conservative. You'd have to find where it was buried, dig it up, resurrect it, then kill it. And killing a zombie isn't really assassination, is it?

            by ontheleftcoast on Tue Apr 02, 2013 at 10:53:12 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Um, good point??? Maybe??? But again, (0+ / 0-)

              doesn't this prove that modern our modern military could be hamstrung by a group of "wannabes"??? And that's what I'd call Al Queda/Taliban/Mujahedeen  

              Asymmetric warfare and internal strife defeated the Soviets, eventually.

              How or why it couldn't happen here is still a mystery to me.

              That said, I don't believe we would ever recover if these "militia" groups started a war with the US government.  How far they would get would depend completely on the support of the people.

              See Hezbollah in Lebanon.  A terrorist group that ultimately got elected to office.

              But in a clearly defined role of us versus them, they'd get their asses handed to them but not before millions were hurt or killed.

              And another point you've missed, the war would be on our own soil, American against American.  The "supply of weapons" wouldn't be an issue, really.  They're already here. No need to have them manufactured or shipped in.

              -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

              by gerrilea on Tue Apr 02, 2013 at 12:04:24 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

      •  correct, I don't believe in either premise (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        gerrilea, FrankRose

        that the military would crack down on civilians, or that some right-wing/left-wing militia would muster to pose a threat to the government.

        Hyperbole being answered with hyperbole does nothing to advance the discussion, IMO.

        •  Hutaree were a real org (0+ / 0-)

          and there is evidence at least that the Aryan Brotherhood is embarking on a pogrom against law enforcement officials in Texas and Colorado. right wing militia organizations and membership are at an all time high.

          those are uncomfortable realities that make the possibility of an organized, armed insurrection something less than hyperbolic. and given that, and the botching of Waco and Ruby Ridge, how exactly does the military get pulled off the table as a potential response? nothing in the constitution prevents it in case of just such an occurrence, only against individual homegrown terrorists.

          Last full month in which the average daily temperature did not exceed twentieth-century norms: 2/1985 - Harper's Index, 2/2013

          by kamarvt on Tue Apr 02, 2013 at 10:16:38 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  The military really wouldn't be necessary (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            Not directly.

            They'd be available to provide arms and training to the local/state/federal police.

            But it wouldn't be soldiers going after them. It would be the cops.

          •  The Hutaree were acquitted and amounted to (0+ / 0-)

            nothing more than people hating the government.


            "The court is aware that protected speech and mere words can be sufficient to show a conspiracy. In this case, however, they do not rise to that level," the judge said on the second anniversary of raids and arrests that broke up the group.

            Roberts granted requests for acquittal on the most serious charges: conspiring to commit sedition, or rebellion, against the U.S. and conspiring to use weapons of mass destruction. Other weapons crimes tied to the alleged conspiracies also were dismissed.

            Why are you perpetuating fear here???

            Not every American loves their government.  I know there are moments that I absolutely hate it, does that make me part of some militia planning on taking on it on???

            NO!  And seriously, what would an insurrection look like today?  A bunch of guys raiding the local armory?  And then what?  Take over the court house? Or the Mayor's Office?  And you don't think the 20+ yrs of the militarization of our Police Forces would be utilized?

            I know they would and it would end in a couple minutes.  Maybe if they wanted more funding they'd make it last a few hours, but a couple minutes would all it would take to get the bad guys.

            I don't buy into the fear porn that there are "evil" Americans plotting to overthrow the gubmint!  They really aren't that stupid.  It would take a full scale door-to-door sweep of this nation to collect all the firearms before you'd see anyone shooting their family or friends or starting a real civil war here.

            -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

            by gerrilea on Tue Apr 02, 2013 at 02:43:59 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  We're talking about perception here. (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          MaikeH, ssgbryan

          There are plenty of people in this country who think that if Obama starts rounding people up and shipping them to gulags--and they think that's not merely possible they think it's inevitable, make no mistake--the U.S. military, full of true, gun-loving patriots,  will immediately change sides and start taking their orders from the head of the Tea Party.

          Of course, this is absurd.  Illogical.

          But you're dealing with the TP/NRA/Dixienuts here.  Logic is not their strong point.

          And what they think is important. Because these idiots vote. And fund candidates. Who sometimes win.

          Freedom has two enemies: Those who want to control everyone around them...and those who feel no need to control themselves.

          by Sirenus on Tue Apr 02, 2013 at 10:34:30 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site