Skip to main content

Shooting shotgun
Only in its proper place: a well-regulated range.
Even though the National Rifle Association and its supporters believe that there is never any good time to have a national conversation about gun policy in the United States, the latest example in a too-long string of mass murders has indeed prompted calls for exactly such a dialogue. These conversations proceed along the same lines every single time one of these incidents occurs. On one side are the people who think it should be at least somewhat harder, if not illegal, to own assault rifles and 100-round clips. These people tend to think that at the very least, we need to make sure that random individuals are not able to buy these kinds of weapons anonymously and with no background check, so at the very least we can make sure that violent criminals aren't stocking up on a full arsenal.

The arguers on the other side of this perpetually untimely conversation say that conversely, the problem isn't too many guns, but not enough guns. That if only there had been more people with loaded guns who felt like they could be heroes in a loud, dark theater among the screaming, the tear gas, and the rapid fire of 71 shots from a semiautomatic weapon, that the shooter could have been neutralized. Whether or not the people who claim this have ever been in a dark theater filled with tear gas and terrified innocent victims attempting to avoid the storm of bullets from a shooter who could be anywhere is immaterial: It is a theoretical possibility to live out a heroic fantasy, and so we must keep the dream alive.

But even more than that, they argue, the Second Amendment is not about the rights of hunters, or those who wish to have weapons to defend their persons and property against intruders—again, things for which an AK47 might not be the best choice. Indeed, the Amendment should specifically protect the right to own assault rifles because the original intention is to allow citizens to resist the military of an attempted takeover by a tyrannical federal government—the precise fear of which has for some reason risen significantly since Barack Obama was elected as president. But more on that later.

This brings up a question: Has anyone actually thought through the realities of staging a domestic insurgency against the armed forces of the United States?

Ignoring for a moment the paradoxical reality that the people who so fervently believe that they need assault rifles to protect themselves against our own military are so often the same people arguing that we should continue to spend more money on that same military than all other countries spend on theirs combined, the first conclusion anyone would come to is that a successful domestic insurgency would need far more than than an assault rifle. When the Second Amendment was written in the late 18th century, the main weapons of war consisted of muskets and flintlock pistols. There are two very worthwhile things to note about this period in weaponry: First, it would have been very difficult for any individual to walk into a crowded theater and commit a massacre with one of these weapons, mainly because by the time the shooter had managed to reload the weapon, everyone could have already run out of the theater, or even escaped at a leisurely stroll after pulling the assailant's knickerbockers over his wig. But secondly, a group of ordinary citizens, so armed and with the proper training, could pose a significant threat to an invading army, which would be comparably armed.

These days? Things are obviously somewhat different. This will become especially obvious should one find themselves face-to-face with an M1A1 Abrams tank with a Predator drone hovering above raining down hellfire missiles from the sky. One doesn't need field tests or a war games simulation to realize that even military-grade infantry weapons won't be very effective against that type of technological terror. If we're serious about enabling citizens to resist a tyrannical takeover by our nation's armed forces, it's immediately clear that we would need to start talking about legalizing far more than just guns. Any well-armed insurgency will need rocket-propelled grenades and surface-to-air missiles; beyond that, we should be talking about making it legal for pilots to retrofit any aircraft they own with whatever caliber of cannon their planes will support.

But previous history has taught us that perhaps the most effective insurgency weapon is the Improvised Explosive Device. If we are serious about defending American liberty against our own military, it's clear that we need our patriotic bomb-makers to have the freedoms they need to defend our country. As long as our government is monitoring and regulating purchases of fertilizers and other nitrates that could be used to make the explosives we need for self-defense, it's quite clear we can't have the freedoms we deserve to defend ourselves against tyranny. And while we're at it, our nation's sovereign citizens shouldn't be bound by United Nations treaties on self-defense items like chemical and biological weapons. The fear of anthrax or sarin gas might be the only thing that keeps our own tyrannical military from attempting to overwhelm our hard-earned freedoms. And while it's doubtful that any individual would have the wherewithal to build or acquire their own suitcase nuke, that person should certainly be free to do so: It's the ultimate in self-defense, is it not? The sum of all fears?

But let's conclude back in the real world. If the types who advocate for the Second Amendment as defense against tyranny were serious about their motivations, they would very quickly realize the inconsistency of having their arguments apply to guns alone, and seek to expand its scope to apply to weapons that actually had a hope of doing the duty for which they believe the Constitution provides. But those who say they dream of rebellion do no such thing, meaning that they either haven't thought through the consequences of their ideology, or that it is a cover for a motivation that dares not speak its name in polite circles, even if right-wing radio shock jock Neal Boortz did:

And I'll tell you what it's gonna take. You people, you are - you need to have a gun. You need to have training. You need to know how to use that gun. You need to get a permit to carry that gun. And you do in fact need to carry that gun and we need to see some dead thugs littering the landscape in Atlanta. We need to see the next guy that tries to carjack you shot dead right where he stands. We need more dead thugs in this city. And let their -- let their mommas -- let their mommas say, "He was a good boy. He just fell in with the good crowd." And then lock her ass up.
Now that Barack Obama is the president, it's simply that the people who fantasize about "standing their ground" against minorities and the people who fantasize about defending themselves against an intrusive government just happen to have even more interests in common.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Unless They Organized by Carrier Pigeon, a Revo- (38+ / 0-)

    lutionary force will be in custody before anyone gets out of their house.

    We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

    by Gooserock on Sun Jul 29, 2012 at 02:35:25 PM PDT

  •  My comment from another diary... (13+ / 0-)

    I have long wondered why every Abdul, Ahmed, and Saleem in the Middle East owns (and knows how to operate) an RPG launcher / rifle, yet I can't have one.

    I want my RPG... (cue Dire Straits).

    The test of whether we're willing to stand up to the thugs that wrote voter suppression laws is this: Are you willing to hold hands with someone that needs hand holding in order to qualify to vote?

    by Richard Cranium on Sun Jul 29, 2012 at 02:41:38 PM PDT

  •  I have always imagined the motivation for (7+ / 0-)

    owning assault rifles is about killing large numbers of non-believers when the day of judgment has come, hallelujah.

    The Dollar is a government program

    by billpuppies on Sun Jul 29, 2012 at 02:46:25 PM PDT

  •  No, most people do not say this. (28+ / 0-)
    The arguers on the other side of this perpetually untimely conversation say that conversely, the problem isn't too many guns, but not enough guns.
    If you cannot accurately portray those on the other side of the discussion from you, why should anyone bother to take the rest of your argument seriously?

    I suppose it does make it easier, to argue against a statement that you crafted yourself.

    Please, do enjoy your discussion with a nonexistent "other side."

    Yes, I often dress as a pirate. Your point?

    by theatre goon on Sun Jul 29, 2012 at 02:49:49 PM PDT

    •  Much easier argument (20+ / 0-)

      Misstate the opponents' position, and then accuse them of advocating violent revolution in the very next paragraph:

      Indeed, the Amendment should specifically protect the right to own assault rifles because the original intention is to allow citizens to resist the military of an attempted takeover by a tyrannical federal government—the precise fear of which has for some reason risen significantly since Barack Obama was elected as president. But more on that later.
      We don't advocate such things, although I guess we're supposed to let the diarist lump us in with the few who do.

      "She's petite, extremely beautiful, and heavily armed." -1995 Michael Moore documentary Canadian Bacon

      by Tom Seaview on Sun Jul 29, 2012 at 02:58:47 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  So the people who said... (19+ / 0-)

      ...that Aurora wouldn't have happened if someone else in the audience had been carrying didn't actually say it.  We were all just collectively hallucinating that they said it.

      •  But, that's not what the diarist claimed, is it? (10+ / 0-)

        No, it is not.

        Glad we could clear that up.

        Yes, I often dress as a pirate. Your point?

        by theatre goon on Sun Jul 29, 2012 at 03:10:57 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  actually, that's pretty much what he was (5+ / 0-)

          saying.

          Lewis & Clark Law class of 2015

          by James Allen on Sun Jul 29, 2012 at 03:16:09 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Not in the quote I provided. (9+ / 0-)

            Sorry 'bout that.

            He claimed a false position for all those who happen to disagree with him, you know, the "arguers on the other side."

            When that's where you're starting from, it's hard to go anywhere else.

            Yes, I often dress as a pirate. Your point?

            by theatre goon on Sun Jul 29, 2012 at 03:18:51 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  TG (4+ / 0-)

              Excuse me but whether or not you are on "the other side" depends entirely on whether or not you are opposed to any regulation of assault weapons. Look at how the diarist defines the first side presented:

              On one side are the people who think it should be at least somewhat harder, if not illegal, to own assault rifles and 100-round clips. These people tend to think that at the very least, we need to make sure that random individuals are not able to buy these kinds of weapons anonymously and with no background check, so at the very least we can make sure that violent criminals aren't stocking up on a full arsenal.
              If you are opposed to all of the above and do not make the arguments attributed by the author, you have a just cause for complaint. OTOH, if you agree with any of these strictures, you couldn't be defined as a part of the "other side" as described by the diarist.

              Which is it?

              Nothing human is alien to me.

              by WB Reeves on Sun Jul 29, 2012 at 03:33:49 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  I have to disagree. (9+ / 0-)

                It is a false either/or -- that there can only be these two positions, and this is clearly not the case.

                Again, had the author made this argument against specific people or even a specific advocacy group that took such a stance, I wouldn't have batted an eye.  Heck, if he'd even simply pulled a specific instance of someone actually saying that "the problem isn't too many guns, but not enough guns" I would have slid right on by.

                That's not what he did, though.

                What he has done is create two false camps -- and attributed to one of those sides a single argument.

                Is it now too much to ask that our discussions at least be about what has actually been said, instead of crafting some false stance for others to take?

                Yes, I often dress as a pirate. Your point?

                by theatre goon on Sun Jul 29, 2012 at 03:41:57 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Then state your case instead of (8+ / 0-)

                  whining about what the author wrote. If the author's profile doesn't fit you, you don't have anything to complain about. State your case instead of this ridiculous sideways attack on the author which reads very much like "don't talk about gun control, ever."

                  I live with an idiot who believes the fantasy that he could have "taken out" the Aurora gunner, that all the theater goers who tried to escape are cowards compared to him. He believes there should be no gun restrictions. He has never had any police, SWAT or military training, he's just.. y'know... exceptional. Heh.

                  So I'm all too familiar with that "camp" described by the author.

                  The sh*t those people [republicans] say just makes me weep for humanity! - Woody Harrelson

                  by SoCalSal on Sun Jul 29, 2012 at 04:06:16 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                •  I'm sorry but that wasn't your initial complaint (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  brasilaaron, Val

                  You presented yourself as someone on the "other side" who didn't make such arguments. In the context of the diary, that would mean that you opposed all the strictures the diarist enumerated.

                  If you had made the argument that you are now making, that the diary sets up a false opposition for purposes of over simplification, you'd be on firmer ground.

                  Nevertheless, even then it's clear that the diarist is speaking only of those who espouse an absolute opposition to the regulation of assault weapons. The subject of guns in general doesn't come into it, so it's plain that he is speaking about a subset group, rather than gun rights advocates in general.

                  This leaves open the question of whether his representation of the "other side" is a fair one but he's certainly not characterizing gun rights advocates as a whole, much less gun owners.

                  If you don't oppose all regulation assault weapons, he simply isn't talking about you.  

                  Nothing human is alien to me.

                  by WB Reeves on Sun Jul 29, 2012 at 04:20:31 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

        •  This is in the diary (5+ / 0-)
          That if only there had been more people with loaded guns who felt like they could be heroes in a loud, dark theater among the screaming, the tear gas, and the rapid fire of 71 shots from a semiautomatic weapon, that the shooter could have been neutralized.
          It's the next sentence after the one you quoted above.

          Here are a few examples:

          If someone else had a gun in the Aurora movie theater, lives could have been saved. Gun control is victim disarmament. Crazy people will always be able to get guns. The rest of us need to be able to defend ourselves from attacks.
          http://julieborowski.wordpress.com/...
          The head of an American firearms lobbying group has said the shooting at a cinema in Denver, Colorado is an opportunity to "loosen up gun laws".

          Larry Pratt, executive director of Gun Owners of America and a member of National Rifle Association, told BBC Radio 5's Stephen Nolan programme that anti-gun laws were "setting people up for this kind of disaster".

          Mr Pratt told the programme: "It is very sad that there was a no-guns policy in that theatre and that nobody had thought to take a gun with them anyway.

          http://www.independent.co.uk/...
          Now, former Arizona State Senator Russell Pearce, the guy who authored that controversial immigration bill (SB 1070) is in the news for making similar statements about the Aurora theater shootings on his public Facebook page, saying “If someone had been prepared and armed, they could’ve stopped this ‘bad’ man from most of this tragedy.”

          Read more: http://filmdrunk.uproxx.com/...

          I'm sorry, I just don't see the connection. In fact, I think if someone had been in that movie theater and had been exercising their second amendment rights a little bit more, we might not have had so much bloodshed. You know, I mean, there's a point where you say, why do we have to wait for the police to show up to clean up the mess and the disaster after all the blood had been shed?
          MO State Representative Tim Jones (R-Eureka)  
          http://blogs.riverfronttimes.com/...

          “We are not a nation that says ‘don’t ask, don’t tell.’ We are a nation that says ‘out of many, we are one.’” -Barack Obama

          by skohayes on Sun Jul 29, 2012 at 03:27:19 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  And yet... (9+ / 0-)

            ...none of this makes that false statement any more accurate.

            The statement I quoted is simply false -- it is attributing a false stance to all those who happen to disagree with the diarist.

            How is this acceptable discourse?

            Could I similarly craft an inaccurate stance for all people arguing to restrict gun ownership rights based on the stance of, say, the Brady Campaign?

            Well, I'm sure I could -- but it would be inaccurate and I would be rightfully laughed out of the room, at the very least.

            Do we want to discuss this subject in a realistic way, or do we want to paint others as something they are not, so as to dismiss their arguments more easily?  Rather, dismiss arguments that they aren't even making...

            Yes, I often dress as a pirate. Your point?

            by theatre goon on Sun Jul 29, 2012 at 03:33:23 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  The diarist is clearly talking about those (4+ / 0-)

              who oppose all regulation of Assault weapons. Is that your position?

              Nothing human is alien to me.

              by WB Reeves on Sun Jul 29, 2012 at 03:38:19 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  First of all, (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              brasilaaron
              The arguers on the other side of this perpetually untimely conversation say that conversely, the problem isn't too many guns, but not enough guns.
              I proved this true by the several quotes I included in my comment above, did you miss them?
              You can't say this is a false statement when in a 5 minute google search, I came up with 4 people who said exactly that.
              The diarist did not use the term "most people", as you claimed, he called them "the arguers on the other side".

              If you are not making that argument, he's not talking about you.

              “We are not a nation that says ‘don’t ask, don’t tell.’ We are a nation that says ‘out of many, we are one.’” -Barack Obama

              by skohayes on Sun Jul 29, 2012 at 03:56:03 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

          •  Those pro-gun people think (0+ / 0-)

            a gun fight is like what you see in TV: Some guy with a pistol can shoot a kill someone firing with a higher powered weapon. In reality, I don't think anyone could effectively kill the perpetrator without after the perpetrator has killed a dozen or so, and without facing the possibility that trying to confront the perpetrator (rather than escape from the perpetrator as fast as possible) would result in death to yourself. Even if the police were there immediately, an officer wouldn't just go in alone to confront the perpetrator.

            These people basically represent in the interest of the weapon manufacturers, trying to sell extra weapons that aren't needed and aren't useful based on unrealistic scenarios.

      •  Yes, some people said that (6+ / 0-)

        They weren't taken seriously by the majority of the gun-owning community.

        Because if you do visit a range periodically and practice with your firearm, particularly your concealed carry weapon (which is most cases is a small, short-barreled pistol), then you know that the Aurora case was a worst-possible scenario.

        But personal defense isn't really about Aurora. It's about the parking lot you're walking through. It's about noticing that some people are following you. It's about situations where there are no police and there will be no police when you need them.

        Most people, they just figure bad things won't happen and they live accordingly. Some take precautions.

        This diary is utterly awful, tripe dreck. Just strawmen and fallacious argumentation. Usually the DKos front page does better. This, well, it's shit.

        And we do see that in Iraq and Afghanistan, defenders do not need missiles and tanks and such to put up a spirited defense. Just regular arms like handguns and rifles are perfectly adequate to thwart and frustrate an army.

        In many cases, we saw that one sniper could, in fact, wreak tremendous havoc. Given the level at which the American citizenry is armed, we could resist the government.

        Every day's another chance to stick it to the man. - dls

        by The Raven on Sun Jul 29, 2012 at 04:24:50 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Indeed (0+ / 0-)

          And the fact the Taliban and Saddam Hussein continue to rule Afghanistan and Iraq respectively demonstrates the effectiveness of such a spirited defense.

          Oh wait...

        •  Huh (0+ / 0-)
          Just regular arms like handguns and rifles are perfectly adequate to thwart and frustrate an army.
          They are perfectly adequate in a situation where the army in question is trying to minimize casualties on both sides (especially their own) and where they are limiting themselves accordingly. In other words, in a very specific set of circumstances. And you'll note that in Iraq and Afghanistan stand-up firefights became very rare and quickly the IED became the weapon of choice because people carrying the handguns and rifles didn't last long enough to have multiple firefights.

          One sniper versus someone willing to call in a 105 fire mission shot equals chunky salsa of ex-sniper.

    •  wrong (4+ / 1-)
      Recommended by:
      pyegar, sagesource, JayBat, Sue B
      Hidden by:
      Catesby

      Hey, theatre goon come back when you've re-entered reality

      Pencils aren't for eating. Trust me.

      by Hamtree on Sun Jul 29, 2012 at 03:11:24 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Actually, this was said over and over after the (0+ / 0-)

      Aurora mass murder. It seems to go hand-in-hand with the "everyone should be armed" theory for some.

      202-224-3121 to Congress in D.C. USE it! You can tell how big a person is by what it takes to discourage them. "We're not perfect, but they're nuts."--Barney Frank 01/02/2012

      by cany on Sun Jul 29, 2012 at 05:14:15 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  To be fair, I advocate more gun ownership. (0+ / 0-)

      But then again I think it's a rewarding experience and I'd like to share it with as many people as possible.  I certainly don't think in a nation with 100 million armed households that more guns can make things worse.

  •  Important discussion. One question: (12+ / 0-)

    What defines an "assault rifle" and what distinguishes it from a hunting rifle?  Specifically, what makes it more dangerous?  And yeah, I know:  That was three questions.


    Time travel opportunity. Must bring your own weapons. Your safety is not guaranteed, I've only done this once before. Call 866.555.1212.

    by IndieGuy on Sun Jul 29, 2012 at 02:51:04 PM PDT

  •  The insane Scalia today on Fox... (18+ / 0-)
    SCALIA: We’ll see. Obviously the Amendment does not apply to arms that cannot be hand-carried — it’s to keep and “bear,” so it doesn’t apply to cannons — but I suppose here are hand-held rocket launchers that can bring down airplanes, that will have to be decided.
    Taking this potential "as long as you can carry it it should be legal" interpretation to its logical extreme, it would open up the door to private ownership of chemical, biological and even nuclear weapons.

    Take Scalia's rocket launcher and arm it with sarin nerve gas gas shells and you've a weapon of mass destruction. Just what we want to be sold to "sportsmen" at gun shows.

    Mitt Romney treats people like things. And he treats things - corporations - like people.

    by richardak on Sun Jul 29, 2012 at 02:51:53 PM PDT

  •  Ironic that the shooting happened at the Batman (4+ / 0-)

    movie. The gun fetishists all think they could be Batman if they just had the ammo. It never occurs to them that they would probably be George Zimmerman instead.

    •  The way they celebrate Zimmerman (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      a2nite

      It appears they think he IS batman.

      •  Who is 'they'? (9+ / 0-)

        I am fully for the 2nd Amendment.
        Fully against any new gun control.
        And fully convinced that Zimmerman should spend the rest of his life behind bars.
        The Right to Bear Arms has nothing to do with killing an unarmed kid.

        •  If you are for any OLD gun control, (0+ / 0-)


          Then you should reconsider, because Scalia did away with the "Well-Regulated Militia" part upon which the OLD regulations were partly based, in 2008.

          Wouldn't it be better to say you are against and NEW gun control and against any OLD gun control which does not rely upon the 13 words of the Second Amendment made "Inoperative" by Mr. Scalia?

          Figures don't lie, but liars do figure-Mark Twain

          by OregonOak on Sun Jul 29, 2012 at 04:09:34 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  "I am fully for the 2nd Amendment" (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          radical simplicity

          What does that mean?

          The meaning of the Second Amendment changes according to the eye of the beholder.  A straight reading of just the amendment itself doesn't seem to strongly imply any right to individual gun ownership, linked as it is with the word "militia."

          A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
          Go here:
          http://en.wikipedia.org/...
          ...and see just how freaking convoluted things can get.

          Please feel free to HR me for my informative and argumentative nature. 'To know what is right and to do it are two different things.' - Chushingura, a tale of The Forty-Seven Ronin

          by rbird on Sun Jul 29, 2012 at 05:28:55 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  It doesn't simply 'imply' a right to individual (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Tom Seaview, boriscleto, gerrilea

            ownership.
            It flat-out states it: "right of THE PEOPLE..."
            The contrary argument that the Constitution was used to provide the govt the 'Right' to 'arm' their 'army' is absurd.

            •  Actually... (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              radical simplicity

              the second amendment merely states that the government won't disarm the militias. The right to keep and bear arms was already established common law, and had been for more than a century.

              In the beginning, the universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry, and is generally considered to have been a bad move. -- Douglas Adams, The Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy

              by boriscleto on Sun Jul 29, 2012 at 06:21:26 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  The wikipedia article goes into this as well (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                semiot

                The "English common law" argument has gone in and out of favor with the court over the years.

                Since a system was established in the Constitution by which we can change the Constitution, I take that to mean we are not bound by tradition.  We can make the Constitution into a document relevant to our times.

                But like I said below, this is as far as I'm willing to go in this discussion, since I am not a constitutional scholar.  People have been arguing over the meaning of that document for two hundred freaking years, I imagine we'll be arguing about it two hundred years from now.

                Please feel free to HR me for my informative and argumentative nature. 'To know what is right and to do it are two different things.' - Chushingura, a tale of The Forty-Seven Ronin

                by rbird on Sun Jul 29, 2012 at 06:49:28 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

            •  Did you read the wikipedia article? (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              radical simplicity

              Because a lot of smart people disagree with you on the meaning of that sentence.  Your interpretation of that sentence ignores the qualifying statement in the first half.  The totality of the Second Amendment seems confusing and contradictory to me.  As some of those aforementioned smart people said...

              When each word in the text is given full effect, the Amendment is most naturally read to secure to the people a right to use and possess arms in conjunction with service in a well-regulated militia. So far as appears, no more than that was contemplated....
              The Amendment’s text does justify a different limitation: the “right to keep and bear arms” protects only a right to possess and use firearms in connection with service in a state-organized militia. Had the Framers wished to expand the meaning of the phrase “bear arms” to encompass civilian possession and use, they could have done so by the addition of phrases such as “for the defense of themselves”.
              That's all the further I'm going down this road, since I'm not a constitutional scholar.  Read the article, it covers all the major interpretations of the amendment, including several that agree with you.

              Please feel free to HR me for my informative and argumentative nature. 'To know what is right and to do it are two different things.' - Chushingura, a tale of The Forty-Seven Ronin

              by rbird on Sun Jul 29, 2012 at 06:43:27 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  These "smart people's" theories ignore a few (0+ / 0-)

                points.

                1.  The Constitution does not grant me or any American any rights.  

                2.  The Constitution grants our created government limited authorities.

                3.  The 2nd A grants said government the limited authority to regulate the arms of militia members while called into service.

                If you are not sure on what I've enumerated above, please see this:

                http://www2.law.ucla.edu/...

                United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542, 551 (1876)

                The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose."  This is not a right granted by the Constitution.  Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed; but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress.

                And if you still aren't sure, see this:
                And yet the same revolutionary beliefs for which our forebears fought are still at issue around the globe—the belief that the rights of man come not from the generosity of the state, but from the hand of God. ~JFK
                http://www.bartleby.com/....

                Any questions?

                If so, please take to to review this:

                http://www.dailykos.com/...

                -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 Sun Jul 29, 2012 at 09:46:58 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

    •  Batman doesn't carry a gun (6+ / 0-)

      Unless that's changed recently. I haven't seen any of the recent movies.

  •  Those that think 'there are not enough guns" (7+ / 0-)

    are incorrect: even if everyone in the theater had been armed to the teeth, had night vision goggles, had gas masks, and probably more stuff that I haven't thought of, Aurora would still have happened.  Why? Because they would not have had armor piercing bullets.

    Here isDigby talking about how it took 350 cops an hour to kill 2 bank robbers, and the police had to wait for the SWAT team to come because the police did not have armor piecing bullets.

    I've always heard that saying, "Your right to swing your fist ends at my nose." I guess it should be updated. "Your right to swing your religion ends at my panties." jennifree2bme

    by sailmaker on Sun Jul 29, 2012 at 02:52:38 PM PDT

  •  But that is their point: (9+ / 0-)

    If the purpose is to allow one fair shot at revolution, then the second MUST allow every citizen to stockpile an unlimited amount of weapons.....it is a theory tailored to remove any limit. I suspect ninety per cent of gunnies know its a bullshit theory but it is so useful as a trump card they'll say it anyway.

    "My taxes are of the legally correct height, and the core reason for my campaign is to make them a different, lower height, and it is none of your business what precisely either of those heights might be." Mitt, as channelled by Hunter.

    by Inland on Sun Jul 29, 2012 at 02:54:38 PM PDT

  •  Where does the Amendment say this? (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    happymisanthropy, pivy
    to allow citizens to resist the military of an attempted takeover by a tyrannical federal government
    It appears to allow the citizenry to resist the military of an attempted takeover from any force - be it internal, or a foreign invasion.
  •  I've never had the guts to ask the hardcore (6+ / 0-)

    2nd Amendment folks if they believe law abiding Muslim and inner city minority Americans having vast stocks of legal firearms is ok.  Waste of breath of course.

  •  A substitute for atrophied genitals... (6+ / 2-)
    Recommended by:
    bwintx, sagesource, JayBat, a2nite, pyegar, atana
    Hidden by:
    PavePusher, gerrilea

    if you need an assault rifle with 100 round magazines to feel tough, you've got no balls.

    Mitt Romney treats people like things. And he treats things - corporations - like people.

    by richardak on Sun Jul 29, 2012 at 02:59:25 PM PDT

  •  Honestly.. (4+ / 1-)
    Recommended by:
    bwintx, JayBat, sagesource, atana
    Hidden by:
    PavePusher

    I often believe that the insane male gun owner, (different from lets say the hunter who owns one or two rifles), is simply using the weapons, especially those into assault weapons, to make up for other percieved or actual  shortcomings attached to their bodies.

    For the women, I have no clue.

  •  the romance of the 18 C American rifleman(sic) is (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    basket, nominalize, earthling1

    maintained by more than RW culture, unfortunately (Falling Skies and Zombieland). The tenther arguments for decentralized regulation make the possibility of civil unrest more problematic and tragic (Katrina). The enforcement of existing laws have been sabotaged since the rules of engagement snafus of the 1990s (Ruby Ridge, Waco). The relative autonomy of a suburban castle defense is confused by further demographic density and urbanization as well as the issues of diversity (Zimmerman). The simplest and safest policy solutions is to enforce model rules and/or existing laws that are not absurdist (weapon modification by minor exception such as flash hiders and magazine purchase) but by use of certain weapons or accessories (100 round magazines) in the commission of crimes rather than re-criminalizing generalized possession implying confiscation. The times require enforcing import/export restrictions and using the existing regulatory structure including federally uniform background checks and licensing on the model of automobile regulation in the simple goal of public safety. Short of national conscription, firearms training must accompany firearms sales. Given the apparent abuse of the law by constitutional authorities (AZ), citizens need protection not only from the mentally deranged but the politically kleptocratic.

    Präsidentenelf-maßschach"Nous sommes un groupuscule" (-9.50; -7.03) "Ensanguining the skies...Falls the remorseful day".政治委员, 政委‽ Warning - some snark above ‽

    by annieli on Sun Jul 29, 2012 at 03:01:50 PM PDT

    •  If there's no desire for government regulation (0+ / 0-)

      then the next best thing is to provide tools for the gun interests to self regulate. I believe that if someone were to go to a retailer and buy hundreds of load, the clerk who would sell it to would certain have some questions to ask and at least have a look whether that person is sane or not.

      If someone were to buy multiple smaller amounts from different retailers, no one would able to know unless there's some type of system that can provide that information.

  •  Really. See Occupy Wall Street and how (7+ / 0-)

    our gov reacts to civil disobedience.  I laugh in the general  direction of those who argue the 2nd  amendment that way.

    How did Supreme Court decision ACA help the 23 million still uncovered? Ask the 18,000 Doctors of PNHP -- they're not waiting, FORWARD now to pass H.R. 676, the “Expanded and Improved Medicare for All Act .

    by divineorder on Sun Jul 29, 2012 at 03:02:10 PM PDT

  •  I'm telling you, if you outlaw tanks and nuclear (12+ / 0-)

    warheads, only outlaws will have tanks and nuclear warheads! How'm I supposed to protect myself without them?!

  •  The armed revolt scenario has an unstated (7+ / 0-)

    assumption - that sections of the military and police, as cross sections of society as a whole, would break off and support the revolutionaries.  This isn't that far fetched given how civil wars and revolutions usually occur.  So I don't need surface to air missiles to kill those drones - I just need a member of the military to side with me, turning that drone toward a hostile tank instead, for example.

    "The attack on the truth by war begins long before war starts and continues long after a war ends." -Julian Assange

    by Pierro Sraffa on Sun Jul 29, 2012 at 03:04:06 PM PDT

  •  Excellent Diary. Thanks very much. (4+ / 0-)

    You can't make this stuff up.

    by David54 on Sun Jul 29, 2012 at 03:04:12 PM PDT

  •  guns make stupid people feel invisible (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    texasteamster

    how are you gonna argue with them to give up that feeling?

    so long and thanks for all the fish

    by Anton Bursch on Sun Jul 29, 2012 at 03:04:31 PM PDT

  •  wow, common sense (9+ / 0-)

    yes, if you worry about the military taking over the country, then cut the defense budget.

    It amazes me how patriots are ready to fight their own military and talk about take over of the government.

    If a liberal were to say they wanted to take over the government, it would be treason.  A republican thinks it is their patriotic duty.

    "The only person sure of himself is the man who wishes to leave things as they are, and he dreams of an impossibility" -George M. Wrong.

    by statsone on Sun Jul 29, 2012 at 03:04:56 PM PDT

    •  Which does nothing except (0+ / 0-)

      infer (quite incorrectly, by the way) that Liberals are not Patriots? Really? Indefensible!

      Nurse Kelley says my writing is brilliant and my soul is shiny - who am I to argue?
      Economic
      Left/Right: -7.75
      Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.51

      by Bud Fields on Sun Jul 29, 2012 at 03:39:59 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Nobody in their right mind would ... (0+ / 1-)
      Recommended by:
      Hidden by:
      joesig

         want to fight the US military. What I would like to expect is that they would join with those civilians who can't change their government in any meaningful way through the ballot box because the lobbyists and corporatist supermen have bought, borrowed and stolen everything from the 90+ %. I think it's a losing proposition though, because the US military now is essentially a mercenary force. They'll never join our side. The Neocons have won. We are nutless left wing socialists after all.

      •  mercenary force? (0+ / 0-)

        how many servicemembers do you know? Your utter lack of understanding just who that 'military' is is appalling.

        Try to shout at the right buildings for a few months.

        by nickrud on Sun Jul 29, 2012 at 06:07:41 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  In the last ten years . . . (0+ / 0-)

             at any point you want to pick, less than 1% of Americans ever served on active duty. They are a small force owned by by the military-industrial complex. (Remember that Eisenhower guy.) I was in the Navy in Vietnam and my son was in Macedonia & Albania during the Serb war. The military in America is not in the people's control.

          •  Name a time (0+ / 0-)

            the military was in the 'people's' control. And what that means. Then there might be space for discussion.

            Maybe we could start with what the benefit of occupying Macedonia was for the military-industrial complex.

            Try to shout at the right buildings for a few months.

            by nickrud on Mon Jul 30, 2012 at 09:08:32 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  I don't like HR'ing. At all, but.... (0+ / 0-)

        when something this offensive, and stupid, gets written....what choice does anyone have?  

        The US military is now a mercenary force?  Really?  Which makes President Obama, as CINC of that force, what, exactly?  

        Both parties voted for the invasion of Iraq.  Both parties support continuing fighting in Afghanistan.  But you somehow want to attack the instruments of a bipartisan consensus on American use of force?  

        If this is a site to elect more and better Democrats,  you are actively working against it.

        To avoid starting dumb wars, punish the dumb people who vote for them.

        by joesig on Sun Jul 29, 2012 at 08:12:58 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  false dichotomy (8+ / 0-)

    Good essay, but somewhat reduces the complexity of the modern reasoning behind an armed citizenry. From many different political positions -- including versions of Left Libertarianism and anarchism (in the Emma Goldman vein, not the everything-goes vein) -- it's not just between a wholly unarmed, wholly non-violent population on the one hand and a population equipped equally with the weapons of mass destruction that rein indiscriminate death upon the civilian citizens of countries the U.S. drones over.

    The rationale of an armed citizenry also includes a kind of distribution of the means of violence, which (theoretically at least) reduces the monopoly of violence in the already violent State. An armed populace is therefore not necessarily dependent upon the violence of the state for, say, self-protection. If you think this sounds crazy, consider the hyper-militarization of police forces since the 1980s: if you'd told the average citizen in the 1950s that local police forces of Dipshitville, USA would have tanks and automatic weapons and drones and stuff, you'd be talking science fiction. Yet this kind of militarization has indeed occurred, largely with the reasoning that the State has to be as hyper-violently equipped as the supposed escalating violence of the streets requires.

    These don't happen to be my positions, but they're philosophically and pragmatically coherent, and not held exclusively by easily dismissed nutjobs who only leave their NRA meetings long enough to wallow in cognitive dissonance.

    Aside: If you want a real discussion of gun control and state violence, start by asking what kind of speech President Obama would have made if a predator drone had rained one of those hellfire missles down on a movie theater in Islamabad. It would sound a lot more like "mistakes were made and there was at least one terrorist in the theater" rather than solemn prayer and mourning, and this goes to the heart of questions about how one adjudicates permissible and impermissible levels of violence and tragedy within a culture and state.

  •  It's simpler than this. (10+ / 0-)

    There's no paradox when you realize that they aren't expressing their actual feelings.

    They desperately hope for civil unrest sufficient to enable them to shoot people that they don't like alongside the United States military.

    They absolutely dream of being called to arms by a sitting (R) President who warns the public of a raging horse of Muslims, liberals, or African-Americans that are trying to overthrow the United States.

    They presume that it wouldn't be successful, just a hollow threat of the "tyranny" that would emerge if such a group were successful in dominating the U.S.

    But it's not about the real concern that the U.S. will fail or change in any radical way. It's just about not wanting to miss the chance to shoot a Muslim, a liberal, or an African-American, should the day ever come.

    Those that have guns will get to go out and shoot. Those that don't will have to stand idly by while the military handles things.

    They can't bear the thought of being left out, of not finally getting to take shots at Muslims, liberals, or African-Americans at some point.

    -9.63, 0.00
    I am not a purity troll. I am a purity warrior.

    by nobody at all on Sun Jul 29, 2012 at 03:06:08 PM PDT

    •  I should qualify this by saying that it's (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Madrig, Dirtandiron

      anecdotal, but I have at least a dozen family/friend individuals in my immediate circle that are gun nuts on one side of my family, and they are absolutely NOT imagining shooting at Dubya. They are itching, itching for the chance to shoot someone that looks like an Abdul Rahman, or a Barack.

      They're just waiting for the presidential speech that tells them to do so.

      -9.63, 0.00
      I am not a purity troll. I am a purity warrior.

      by nobody at all on Sun Jul 29, 2012 at 03:10:05 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I hear it too, and sadly these folks see nothing (0+ / 0-)

        wrong with the idea. they find it humorous, a wink/nod sort of "yeah, I'm with ya on the black president thing."

        It infuriates me.

        202-224-3121 to Congress in D.C. USE it! You can tell how big a person is by what it takes to discourage them. "We're not perfect, but they're nuts."--Barney Frank 01/02/2012

        by cany on Sun Jul 29, 2012 at 05:35:15 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Zimmerman (5+ / 0-)

      How do you think that psychopath raised 200K on the net for his defense--all people living vicariously through him, having shot "one of those" dead.

      They're scared and venal and generally old and pathetic.

      And they are the GOP.

      •  It's "The Lost Cause," and "Apocalypse Now" (0+ / 0-)

        all rolled into one gigantic orgasmic funtime for shooters. Its the re-enactment of the Little Bighorn, Gettysburg and as an added plus, The Somme, in which everyone with a saucepan and a shooting game gets to "imagine" another outcome.

        Sheesh. What children we have here in the US. They act like children way into their 80s.

        Figures don't lie, but liars do figure-Mark Twain

        by OregonOak on Sun Jul 29, 2012 at 04:18:23 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Mostly these RWNJ people are afraid that (5+ / 0-)

    some country like Somalia will invade us, defeat our military and impose Sharia law. Our homegrown nut jobs will then be our only backup against this tyranny of foreign nut jobs.

    The definition of INSANITY: Voting Republican over and over and over and expecting the economy to get better.

    by pollbuster on Sun Jul 29, 2012 at 03:10:41 PM PDT

  •  Colorado is a state full of guns (6+ / 0-)

    I am entirely positive that other people in that theater were armed. However being armed is one thing and not being afraid to use those arms is another thing.

    The definition of INSANITY: Voting Republican over and over and over and expecting the economy to get better.

    by pollbuster on Sun Jul 29, 2012 at 03:13:53 PM PDT

  •  Never asked question (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    annieli, john07801, Dirtandiron

    What about the day after the revolution?

    Who picks up the garbage?  Who writes the paychecks?  Who assures that they are good?  Who can sue if they are not?  How will they obtain justice and in what courts?

    How will the practical problems of our world be different after a revolution?

    We still have the fact that we live in a world with 7 billion people and a base of resources that are stressed because of that fact.  

    You can't shoot global climate change, or the need for some way of controlling the population or feeding it.  

    Some think they can.  What is amazing is that no one seems to ever point this out.

    hope that the idiots who have no constructive and creative solutions but only look to tear down will not win the day.

    by Stuart Heady on Sun Jul 29, 2012 at 03:14:08 PM PDT

  •  I suppose we'll have to watch the outcome of (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Dirtandiron, nickrud, PavePusher

    the civil war in Syria. Seems like the people are battling against modern standing army equipment.  

    Romney is George W. Bush without brains.

    by thestructureguy on Sun Jul 29, 2012 at 03:17:43 PM PDT

  •  Arab spring? (5+ / 0-)

    Nations with strict gun control, no history of or right to extensive civilian gun ownership, versus government forces willing to shoot on their own citizens and armed with tanks, machineguns, artillery, attack helicopters, etc.

    Said governments now under new management.

    It would seem to be prima facia evidence that successful revolution is possible. I would imagine that having a starter supply of real guns would help in such cases:

    http://www.youtube.com/...

    I am certainly not advocating revolution, just pointing out that the diarist is assuming that rebels cannot win because they do not have the biggest guns, when clearly this is not the only factor involved.

    •  Contradiction (0+ / 0-)

      First you say "strict gun control, no history of or right to extensive civilian gun ownership" and note that the revolutions were successful.

      Then you say for the revolutions to be successful, stockpiled guns would be an asset.

      Seems you just shot yourself in the foot. If these cases prove anything, it's that stockpiled guns are not necessary. And when we add that to the fact, for instance, that a house with a firearm is five times more likely to see a successful suicide than one without a firearm.....

      "They smash your face in, and say you were always ugly." (Solzhenitsyn)

      by sagesource on Sun Jul 29, 2012 at 03:37:19 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Exactly. Successful revolutions and civil rights (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      cany

      are usually won by unarmed pacifists and populations.  Ghandi.  MLK.  Arab Spring.  The list goes on.  Because in the end, ideas have more power than guns.

  •  Thanks (0+ / 0-)

    The radical Republican party is the party of oppression, fear, loathing and above all more money and power for the people who robbed us.

    by a2nite on Sun Jul 29, 2012 at 03:31:41 PM PDT

  •  asdf (6+ / 0-)
    “And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if every Security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say good-bye to his family? Or if, during periods of mass arrests, as for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire city, people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling with terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand?... The Organs would very quickly have suffered a shortage of officers and transport and, notwithstanding all of Stalin's thirst, the cursed machine would have ground to a halt!

    Medic Alert: Do not resuscitate under a Republican administration.

    by happymisanthropy on Sun Jul 29, 2012 at 03:34:58 PM PDT

  •  The problem with democracy is... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    sagesource

    ...even though you get a vote, that doesn't mean you get what you want.

    The second amendment fantasy is all about dealing with that disappointment.

    "No special skill, no standard attitude, no technology, and no organization - no matter how valuable - can safely replace thought itself."

    by xaxnar on Sun Jul 29, 2012 at 03:37:13 PM PDT

  •  The Increase In Gun Sales Is Nothing New (9+ / 0-)

    I remember when Bill Clinton was first elected and a Second Amendment gun nut I knew who already had three gun safes and a couple of hundred guns ran out and started buying more. After all, Bill was going to go after law abiding citizens like him.

    This idiot carried several assault rifles and handguns in the trunk of his car at all times and slept with two assault rifles under his bed and a handgun under his pillow.

    How stupid and paranoid do you have to be?

    The point Dante made about protecting yourself from a tyrannical government must be made. In the age of high tech weapons including armed drones puts that argument to rest.

    The other issue is the fear politicians have too standing up to the NRA or as I like to call it the Wayne LaPierre lifetime employment and personal enrichment association. The fact is most Americans want sensible controls over assault weapons, 30, 60, and 100 round clips, and armor piercing ammunition.

    Until our quavering politicians decide to stand up to NRA nonsense, I don't have much hope.

  •  On the other hand (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Catesby

    a well-regulated and well-accoutered state militia, which is what the 2nd Amendment is actually about, could be effective in an insurgency, as we found out in 1860. However, the main purpose of the militias was to bear arms against a “foreign” invasion, in this case, an invasion from outside the state. For example, an invasion by the federal government in order to impose emancipation on a slave-holding state.

    •  So remember... (0+ / 0-)

      ...we have our eyes on you Canada...

      “Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing.” Conan of Cimmeria via Robert E. Howard

      by roninkai on Sun Jul 29, 2012 at 03:54:39 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  I accept that there are arguements on (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    PavePusher

    every side of the national "gun issue."  But I don't understand the frequent expressions of disdain for those who say that gun ownership is also about potential resistance to the government, since resistance to the US nilitary would be futile.
        My question is:  why did not the guerillas in Viet Nam, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc. realize the futility of their resistance and yield immediately to  the vastly superior resource of the US military?
         One response to this has been that the groups mentioned had other sources in the world for support.  This doesn't work too well since there must be a few other countries which would be glad to be supportive of a new American Revolution.
         No doubt there is a simple explanation...or is there?

  •  Revolutions are won (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Sue B, lorell

    when the army comes over to the side of the revolution.

    Of course, then the army usually runs things when the revolution is over.

    •  According to out budget (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Shahryar

      this has already happened.

      “Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing.” Conan of Cimmeria via Robert E. Howard

      by roninkai on Sun Jul 29, 2012 at 03:55:15 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Great diary! But I have a correction. (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    mike101, Sue B, cany, FG

    You make a historical mistake early on, and I don't want people to get hung up on this mistake and ignore the rest of your message, which is spot-on.

    In reality, the main weapons of war around 1776 were not muskets and pistols, but cannons, horses, and bayonets.  Muskets were not very effective at all since they were not accurate at all.  If you had a rifle (which were rather rare) you could be a decent shot.  Most muskets were fired once or twice in a battle, if at all, and if they were shot it was almost always at a distance where they generally wasted their ammo.  Any closer, and you'd charge with your bayonet to do some real damage.

    Coming back to the fantasy of standing up to tyranny, citizen militias weren't even very effective at the time, especially against regular troops. This was the case both during the war or after it (Whiskey Rebellion, Shays Rebellion, War of 1812...).  A few American guerrilla groups managed success against the British, but you can't win a war without turning the guerrilla into something more concerted.  

    And nowadays, there'd be no hope at all.  There's no hobby arsenal in the world that could stand up to the US Military.  Remember that when they get into thick firefights, they call in air support, artillery, or tank support.  Good luck with stopping that with your hunting rifle!  :)  That's why insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan do little but plant IEDs and set ambushes, even though they've got better guns and have a lot more experience than any of us do.

    When you add the fact that most American houses are wooden and thus very flamethrower-susceptible, the reality is that the laws of the US pursuant to the 2nd amendment do not allow any means of "protecting against tyranny".  In the real world, democracy is our best protection against tyranny.  It's been proven time and time again.  

    But there's that word again... reality.  

    Conservatives need to realize that their Silent Moral Majority is neither silent, nor moral, nor a majority.

    by nominalize on Sun Jul 29, 2012 at 03:51:43 PM PDT

  •  Difficult to judge (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    IndieGuy, PavePusher
    "One doesn't need field tests or a war games simulation to realize that even military-grade infantry weapons won't be very effective against that type of technological terror."
    Here is a name for you: Afghanistan.

    That nation held off the USSR and now the US.
    They actually started out with small arms.

    So your "field test" has been run.

    Sure we need to make sure the kooks don't harm themselves or anybody at all, agreed.

    But to say a population can't rise up is just false.

    “Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing.” Conan of Cimmeria via Robert E. Howard

    by roninkai on Sun Jul 29, 2012 at 03:51:44 PM PDT

    •  Not really. USSR won all the battles in that war. (0+ / 0-)

      It just got sick of the losses and left. The real problems started when the muj got RPGs and started bringing down helicopters. Hard to fight in the mountains without helicopters. Still it wasn't enough for them to actually win the war. So this analogy doesn't work at all.

  •  Why don't responsible gun owners (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Phil S 33, Shahryar, investorb, cany

    get together and found a new organization separate from the NRA.  I'd like to hear their organizing principles, how they would work to reduce gun violence, etc.  If they don't want to be lumped in with the gun nuts, they need to step forward with a different path and work for it.  Otherwise, I do lump them all together, because they are not doing anything constructive.

    •  They have. (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      meagert, Sychotic1, PavePusher

      Check out the LGC.  Few more members, lots more $$$, and Bob's yer uncle.


      Time travel opportunity. Must bring your own weapons. Your safety is not guaranteed, I've only done this once before. Call 866.555.1212.

      by IndieGuy on Sun Jul 29, 2012 at 04:02:35 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I suggest to you (5+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Sue B, SoCalSal, investorb, cany, FG

        and the commenter below to post information on this group in the gun control diaries and make your case more broadly.

        The pro gun ownership comments I currently see aren't going to convince anyone of anything.

        The unregulated gun ownership side appears to be immoveable, and the gun control side has a wide array of options and opinions.  If that's not true, you need to step up and make your case for something other than what the NRA has become.  But I repeat myself.

        •  The point is made very regularly in diaries here. (0+ / 0-)

          It's usually drowned out by accusations of supporting the murder of children, possession of tiny genitals and the like.  In other words, thought-free drivel leading to closed minds.


          Time travel opportunity. Must bring your own weapons. Your safety is not guaranteed, I've only done this once before. Call 866.555.1212.

          by IndieGuy on Sun Jul 29, 2012 at 05:00:54 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I don't follow (0+ / 0-)

            the gun diaries, but I do read ones related to major events, such as what happened in Tucson and then here in Colorado.  I have never seen a mention of the liberal gun group.

            And your response wasn't helpful. Is this really the best you have to offer?  Do you want to move the dialogue forward or just verbally retaliate?  

            •  That wasn't necessarily directed at you. (0+ / 0-)

              If you feel it's unfair, I apologize.  To you.  I do not apologize for the comment in general, though, because - as you can see in just this diary - that sort of thing is not uncommon.  And those are just two of the milder things.  

              You'll find, on a pretty regular basis, people calling for the unilateral banning of all RKBA supporters here.  Personally I think that's the sort of McCarthyite purge that would make Michele Bachmann proud, but then I'm an old-school DFH liberal.

              If you are interested in learning how liberal gun owners feel about the topic, feel free to join in the discussion in the RKBA diaries.  Better yet, get away from the DK paradigm entirely and check out the LGC.


              Time travel opportunity. Must bring your own weapons. Your safety is not guaranteed, I've only done this once before. Call 866.555.1212.

              by IndieGuy on Sun Jul 29, 2012 at 06:08:56 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

    •  The NRA is second on my list, (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      IndieGuy, PavePusher, indie17

      after I am able to do something about the inordinate influence of Fox News Network.

      Care to help?

      Here is a link to the Liberal Gun Club, and you can send a contribution as well to help support the direction forward on a new path:

      http://www.theliberalgunclub.com/...

      ...someday - the armies of bitterness will all be going the same way. And they'll all walk together, and there'll be a dead terror from it. --Steinbeck

      by Seldom Seen on Sun Jul 29, 2012 at 04:14:08 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Your ideas (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    PavePusher

    on how Goddess forefend a revolutionary insurrection would be conducted are absurd.

    The difficulties on conducting a defense of government when the military bases and supplies, not to mention the patriotic politicians, local police, manufacturing installations, press mouthpieces etc are in the country where the revolution is occurring, are vastly worse than the challenges faced by our forces in Iraq or the Syrian tyrant's forces in Syria.

    In addition, the defense of our Republic by our military, etc., is being conducted by a Republic on its own territory.  The American people were not that troubled by losses in Iraq and Afghanistan, especially when the press mouthpieces cooperated by dropping the topic from the nightly news; the news is a bit harder to hide when it is down the street.  The rightwing and leftwing airbags were happy to cheer for war war war when it was someone else's children dying in a remote foreign land; their enthusiasm may quail when the sniper's target is them, personally.

    Furthermore, military competency among Iraqi patriotic youth shooting at foreign invaders -- to our country;s eternal disgrace, that was us --  was lacking, as witness the videos from Fallujah when it was made one with Lidice.  There are a whole pile of Americans of all political stripes who went to Viet Nam and other places and have lots of competent military training.

    There is also the moderate difficulty that under the conditions you describe, which appear unlikely to take place, there may be some issues with the loyalty of the military forces to whichever side thinks they should be receiving the loyalty.

    With respect to lock them up before it starts, I note the magnificent success the FBI etc have had against right wing terrorists going after abortion clinics and left wing terrorists going after developers in some western states.

    By the way, the Syrian tyrant has only moderately fewer tanks than we do.

    We can have change for the better.

    by phillies on Sun Jul 29, 2012 at 03:53:00 PM PDT

  •  Why should I trust these NRA guys ... (0+ / 0-)

    if a revolution comes?  Would they be any better than what we have got?  I doubt it!  More likely they would be worse - a lot worse!  We (in the United States) were VERY lucky in our founders.  Sure they had a few warts (slavery being one of them), but the revolution did not result in the Terror (as in France) or the execution of thousands (as in most other revolutions).

    Be careful what you wish for!

  •  At some point, the specifics will have to... (11+ / 0-)

    ...be discussed.

    So far, we have Democrats in Congress seeking a renewal of the Assault Weapon Ban of 1994-2004. And Democrats in Congress seeking to ban large magazines.

    In both cases, it will have to be decided whether to confiscate the existing weapons and magazines covered by the ban or grandfather them in the way the old ban did.

    Anybody who thinks the conversation has been acrimonious on this subject so far should brace themselves when confiscating existing weapons and accessories starts being discussed.

    Don't tell me what you believe, show me what you do and I will tell you what you believe.

    by Meteor Blades on Sun Jul 29, 2012 at 03:57:04 PM PDT

  •  Z (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    investorb, Miggles, cany, Catesby

    Look, we shot our way into the country and shot our way west and we shot all the buffalo and shot all the natives and when we got to L.A. there was nobody left so we shot each other and we've been shooting each other ever since.  And you want us to what?  

  •  There is no logic except hormonal imbalance (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    IARXPHD

    that accounts for the NRA's hate speech.  Except for the fact that all NRA true believers including their five SCOTUS arse lickers are functionally illiterate, they would admit that the Amendment was written to protect the Government with a 'well regulated militia' against threats arising from tax-protesters, rebellious slaves and Indian freedom fighters.  But the truth is that the NRA is the filthy afterbirth of the Ku Klux Klan and its goals are the same, a white supremacist American racist plutocracy.

  •  Don't forget ....... "Wolverines!" (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    FG

    You know... the whole notion that the only thing that stopped the Soviets from invading the United States was the Red Army's mortal fear of high school students with hunting rifles...

  •  When I left the USMC I was a very good shooter (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    GoldnI, FG, blueness, tandrews

    I had been trained to kill, even with my bare hands, by our government.  It was supposed to help me help us protect ourselves from our enemies.  Two points here then I write a diary.

    First:  After I got out my right wing NRA  father-in-law took me to an NRA range because he knew I loved shooting.  As we prepared to shoot I looked down line and some as*hole was loading his rifle as it was pointing downrange at me.  In the  Corps that was a Courtsmartial Offense!  I left and never have respected these lunatics since.

    Second:  Violent revolution only spawns violent regimes.  The one example that burns in my mind is the US vs Canada.  Think about it.

    An idea is not responsible for who happens to be carrying it at the moment. It stands or falls on its own merits.

    by don mikulecky on Sun Jul 29, 2012 at 04:18:33 PM PDT

  •  how did right to well regulated militia (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Miggles, cany

    warp into this nsanity?  Seriously, I doubt that the writers of the constitution wanted citizens to have the right rain down mayhem on their fellow citizens.

    "The real wealth of a nation consists of the contributions of its people and nature." -- Rianne Eisler

    by noofsh on Sun Jul 29, 2012 at 04:19:06 PM PDT

  •  So the Govt has already won? (0+ / 0-)

    And there's no chance for me to change anything (because as we've seen from Obama and the Democrats elections do NOT work)?

    I might as well take as many of the slavers with me as I can when they come to force me into my final subjugation.

  •  Reminds me of the US Wargames pre Iraq (0+ / 0-)

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/...

    At the height of the summer, as talk of invading Iraq built in Washington like a dark, billowing storm, the US armed forces staged a rehearsal using over 13,000 troops, countless computers and $250m. Officially, America won and a rogue state was liberated from an evil dictator.
    What really happened is quite another story, one that has set alarm bells ringing throughout America's defence establishment and raised questions over the US military's readiness for an Iraqi invasion. In fact, this war game was won by Saddam Hussein, or at least by the retired marine playing the Iraqi dictator's part, Lieutenant General Paul Van Riper.
    Drones and Tanks will give the Government forces a leg up.
  •  Not as strong as the wet dream of the hero shooter (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    IARXPHD

    ...saving the day in a crowd, "Leathal Weapon" style...

  •  Shit, I didn't even see this when I posted (0+ / 0-)

    my snark diary along similar lines.

    "I'm going to rub your faces in things you try to avoid." - Muad'Dib

    by Troubadour on Sun Jul 29, 2012 at 04:46:21 PM PDT

  •  great politics to elect (0+ / 0-)

    President Romney.

    This is falling into the Repubs honey trap and very naive to do so.
      It is, IMO,  to support Darcy Burner rather than the larger national election, I'd rather we have Darcy Burner's success or failure to learn from than lose the presidential race.

    That nowhere did the diary speak to the politics supports that view IMO, and that it did not refer to the election coming in three short months is serious bit of political miscalculation.
    except for, at the last

    Now that Barack Obama is the president..
     some of us here would want it  to be after his reelection, not all of us however...

    I think we should ban these gun diaries until after the election.
       Enough already!

    This is a distraction and helps no one but our enemies, paulbots, and reeper trolls.

    Nothing...nothing at all is being accomplished toward electing democrats of any standard, good, bad, or indifferent with this.

    We can and will have this same conversation after the election when we know who we are dealing with.

    From those who live like leeches on the people's lives, We must take back our land again, America!...Langston Hughes

    by KenBee on Sun Jul 29, 2012 at 05:04:51 PM PDT

    •  This is silly (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      blueness

      You're suggesting that discussing this important issue in a diary is somehow helping the bad guys. I don't really see the Pres. contributing here, and I don't think anybody expects him to, but I'm not going to pretend that it isn't a very serious matter that needs to be discussed.

      •  silly to ignore calls for Obama to (0+ / 0-)

        'make a statement' from Boehner and many others...silly to ignore that trap.

        worse than silly.

        no legislation will get done by election time, little evidence this will do anything positive for Obama or down ticket races, much educated opinion says negative effect.
              Darcy Burner is out front on this, let's see how that plays out, and good luck to her.

        again...silly to ignore that trap.

        From those who live like leeches on the people's lives, We must take back our land again, America!...Langston Hughes

        by KenBee on Sun Jul 29, 2012 at 05:37:47 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Has anybody seen any historical research on (0+ / 0-)

    this nonsense?  I know it will have absolutely no affect on the conversation (nationally) but I'm deeply interested in refuting this myth.  The reading I've done on the Bill of Rights  indicates to me that the trail remains hard to follow on the subject of where this amendment actually came from.  However, the fact is that several states urged that the Constitution be amended in various ways during the ratification process.  Gun rights were mentioned by at least one state (New Hampshire) but was hardly part of the discussion in most others.  I think I can safely say that gun rights were mostly an afterthought, and the ratifiers spent most of the debate arguing over more substantive issues e.g., the ability to enact taxes and to regulate commerce on a majority vote, as well as others that might seem odd today, such as the number of representatives in the House, and the length of the term of service.  George Will has an interesting discussion in "A Necessary Evil" on the primary intent of the 2nd Amendment (as drafted by James Madison) that sheds a totally different light.  In short, there is little evidence that I have seen that could credit the theory that the intent was to allow citizens to arm themselves against their government.

    •  I dunno, gun rights weren't argued, more likely (0+ / 0-)

      because they were a given that no one had an objection to.  Notice how they are high up on the list and little debate occurred.

      "I watch Fox News for my comedy, and Comedy Central for my news." - Facebook Group

      by Sychotic1 on Sun Jul 29, 2012 at 08:03:13 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  "because the original intention is to allow (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Miggles, Catesby

    citizens to resist the military of an attempted takeover by a tyrannical federal government"

    I'm no legal scholar, but since the definition and penalty for treason are defined within the body of the Contsitution, I don't see how a reasonable person can interpret the 2nd Amendment as protecting the means to committ treason.

    Republicans: if they only had a heart.

    by leu2500 on Sun Jul 29, 2012 at 05:16:34 PM PDT

  •  Nuclear weapons will do the trick! (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    FG

    What we need in this country is a private industry to manufacture nuclear arms. So we really can use our 2nd amendment rights to defend ourselves in case the government becomes tyrranical! Clearly the framers had this in mind when they authored the constitution; otherwise they would have inserted language limiting arms to the strictly mechanical kind.  

  •  There is something disturbing about this diary. (0+ / 0-)

    If I didn't know better, I'd guess Atkin's is actually fantasizing about unleashing American troops against American citizens, and imagining facing them down with degree of brutality unseen in either Iraq or Afghanistan.

    Otherwise, I do not know how he came to the conclusion that an insurgency here would be stamped out given the experience of the past ten years.  His mention of IEDs, which are still second to gunfire as the leading cause of casualties amongst Coalition forces, indicates he has some passing awareness of America's wars in the Muslim world.  

    I should point out that the government is not regulating purchases of fertilizer at this time.  The rulemaking process began only at the end of last year.  The Feds aren't even officially monitoring, and there is no data on seller compliance as of yet.

  •  My Preeeecious, My Preeeeecious (0+ / 0-)

    Croak all the Gun Gollums

    WTF!?!?!?! When did I move to the Republic of Gilead?!

    by IARXPHD on Sun Jul 29, 2012 at 08:00:45 PM PDT

  •  Jonathan Swift (0+ / 0-)

    Eat your heart out!  That was well done, a truly modern Modest Proposal.

  •  Revolutionaries vs Us Military, Very Funny. (0+ / 0-)

    US Military: "I'll see your AR-15 and raise you one Cobra Gun Ship.  In fact I'll see all your arms and raise you a flight of F-18s armed with TOW missiles."

    Duh!

    Now of course this assume that the rank and file would actually fire on their own citizens.  See Arab Spring Egyptian Edition.  Or see fall of the USSR when the Russian army turned their guns and let the rebels take the capitol building.  As we have learned, the officers of army captain and below actually fight the army and the lower the rank the more they tend to relate to the people.  

    Now this is a danger of an all volunteer professional force which is much more likely to side with their paymasters rather than their fellow citizens.  When nut cutt'en time comes which way would they go?    

    A bad idea isn't responsible for those who believe it. ---Stephen Cannell

    by YellerDog on Sun Jul 29, 2012 at 09:26:31 PM PDT

  •  Yes we do need a conversation. And if AT FIRST (0+ / 0-)

    people are talking past each other with "talking points", then we have to be patient with that. It's inevitable in this case so we just have to take a deep breath, let it out, and wait for a chance to contribute something other than talking points.

    The "dialog" the diarist presupposes is not a conversation. So of course it doesn't work. When both, or all, sides respect each other or even some of the other side, the real conversation can begin. I think we're actually at that point, and the trick is to find the right forum.

    How about a group here at dKos, with some ground rules? Disagreement is totally allowed, disrespect is not.

  •  Revolution? WTF? Open your eyes! (0+ / 0-)

    What are these comments on this screen doing here?

    This is an invention in the direction of opening up more people than was ever possible before to a real marketplace of ideas.

    The World Wide Web is based on mathematics, physics, and electronics.  

    The is where the revolution is happening.  People who want to buy guns feel some kind of energy in the culture and some kind of change that is subtle but nevertheless being felt.  

    They think there is something to shoot.

    This revolution is happening all around and has been in the works probably since the dawn of the Information Age, whatever one wants to date it from.

    The entire field of human endeavor in all countries is being affected by this.  Change is speeding up, not slowing down and those who wish to do something to slow it will not find a way.  

    Screw 'em.

    There has never been an ability to have a national dialogue about the true nature of the realities we face or what policies might provide the best way forward.  We call it progressive for lack of a better term, but essentially it is about trying to find the way in the dark.

    You can't shoot 7 billion people, or the prospect for pandemic disease or poverty.  You can't shoot prejudice itself where it denies its existence.  You can't shoot a lack of justice.  You
    can't shoot all the people who need medical care, and you can't reform the health care system by shooting it.

    You can't shoot global warming, and you can't even shoot those who might be responsible because it is an aggregate and the whole world, the entire human race has to face up to being responsible for becoming conscious and acting out of a greater consciousness.

    You can't shoot a lack of consciousness.  You can't improve awareness by shooting anything or anyone.

    Perhaps we are led to think we can shoot our way out of our greater dilemmas because it looks like the heros of movies and cartoons do.  

    We tend to think that real life is a projection of our dreams and there are times that we in fact have a hard time telling the difference.  This is perhaps why we think in terms of revolution.

    It looked good in the movies.  

    Except for the ones we don't like to watch, which show the French Revolution.  That kind of got out of hand.  A lot of people died, including possibly the best minds of the time.

    A lot of good people have died over the past decades in Central and South America.  

    The Constitution and the Bill of Rights was a miracle.  It didn't have to happen.  That set of battles could have easily led to a balkanized, regional set of countries instead of the larger union that managed to survive the Civil War.  

    There is no way a Constitutional Convention today would bring together framers who would have the intellect and the insight that the original founders had.  Just no way.

    Besides which, there is a revolution underway.

    This one is being formed by a communications capability the founders would never have dared dream of.  

    We ought to double down on it.  No one can shoot it, although we ought to be concerned that, since the infrastructure is largely the product of corporate facilities, the future could be subject to some variation on the them of the great Chinese firewall.  The battle that ought to be given a lot of focus is the battle to keep the future development of the internet free and open.  

    hope that the idiots who have no constructive and creative solutions but only look to tear down will not win the day.

    by Stuart Heady on Mon Jul 30, 2012 at 03:48:11 PM PDT

  •  You ask if anyone has thought about it (0+ / 0-)

    and I'm here to tell you yes. It is considered at length throughout all of history by people of all walks and types. There is a vast body of research and theory surrounding the topic. However, those experts draw widely differing conclusions than you do.

    First, no sitting government can deploy full military domestically and maintain the support of the general populace. If you look at examples from history or current events wherever you see the government rolling tanks over people it is the government, and not the people, who are called terrorists.

    Should the US deploy ordinance or army or heavy air support against its own citizens popular support of the government would drop to next to nothing. International pressures would isolate the nation and utterly collapse the economy. The cost in infrastructure damage would forever cripple the government. In short, it would NEVER happen because our rulers are far too smart to ever try it.

    That all assumes you could actually talk enough of the military into deploying against their brothers and friends. Having been in the military I can assure you this is not so. And that was before the creation of Oathkeepers, or the information distribution network known as the internet.

    As for us obtaining other things, we already can - albeit on the down low. If you'd like a surface to air rocket/missile I can get you one in a week if you can provide the $$$. If you want a chem/bio weapon I can make it in my bathtub in 3 days for about $250. There are guides online for all of it, and anyone who takes preparedness against the government seriously already has copies and training.

    Speaking of having training, remember that unlike the militias of the revolutionary period, our citizenry is made of up of people (like me) who have been professional soldiers. We were trained in and by the army we would be facing. We know their ways, their capabilities, etc. It isn't trained professionals with good weapons versus bumpkins with improvised ones...it's equal footing all around...except that much like the British of old the military will wear uniforms and march up and down the street in straight lines, while we look like any other Joe Blow on the street...until we suddenly draw a pistol and take them out one at a time.

    No government can stand against its citizens.

    •  I'd disagree in one regard... (0+ / 0-)

      On one side are trained soldiers in body armor and equipped with medium range, small caliber weapons firing NATO ball ammo.

      On the other side are recently trained soldiers armed with an assortment of long range, large caliber weapons that fire expanding hunting bullets.

      Body armor would be useless, and getting close enough to employ team tactics is going to be a challenge when a half-dozen marksmen are taking .30 caliber pot shots at you.

      "First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win". Mohandas K. Gandhi

      by DaveinBremerton on Fri Aug 03, 2012 at 06:53:19 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site