Skip to main content

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

Comment Preferences

  •  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.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site