Skip to main content

Let's see the Second Amendment protect against THAT.
Good point.
In the current debate over gun control, the pro-gun lobby has an ace card up its sleeve: We need weapons to prevent government tyranny, they say. These self-styled champions of liberty see guns as the ultimate insurance policy to protect the Constitution. The problem is that most of those making this argument also strongly support a massive U.S. military -- exactly the behemoth we must be armed against. It's the great gun gobbledygook.
The dumbasses with their guns and 15-round clips and AR-15s or AK-47s think they're the vanguard against U.S. government tyranny, when a well-aimed drone strike would take out the lot of them in no time flat (not to mention any decently trained tactical assault team).

Either you think government is tyrannical and must be eroded of its ability to militarily suppress its populace, or you think a well-armed government is a benevolent force for world peace. Thinking both just makes you a moron.

In other words, it makes you a Republican.

Originally posted to kos on Tue Apr 02, 2013 at 08:50 AM PDT.

Also republished by Shut Down the NRA, Repeal or Amend the Second Amendment (RASA), and Daily Kos.

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

  •  Tip Jar (129+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    cactusgal, rudewarrior, ericlewis0, Glen The Plumber, Involuntary Exile, Words In Action, TomP, a2nite, ontheleftcoast, kevinpdx, One Pissed Off Liberal, ChemBob, stormicats, fou, mikeconwell, Habitat Vic, commonmass, implicate order, Smoh, koosah, camlbacker, mrsgoo, Bluesee, TheFern, democracy inaction, myboo, mbh1023, skod, maryabein, Tropicana, zerelda, Deep Texan, kharma, blue aardvark, n8rboy, mofembot, Deward Hastings, tytalus, The Hindsight Times, high uintas, sawgrass727, jwinIL14, citizen dan, ZedMont, shopkeeper, kenwards, FogCityJohn, dougymi, DerAmi, Thinking Fella, No one gets out alive, Buckeye Nut Schell, vivadissent, Rich in PA, OLinda, Nulwee, middleagedhousewife, LNK, concernedamerican, VTCC73, FoundingFatherDAR, pat bunny, mdmslle, CwV, basquebob, eeff, Heart of the Rockies, dewtx, Aquarius40, We Shall Overcome, ColoTim, jbob, 88kathy, Thomas Twinnings, lyvwyr101, orlbucfan, shoeless, wdrath, ljb, Its a New Day, bartcopfan, Karen Hedwig Backman, Miggles, Eric Nelson, Shockwave, shaharazade, blackjackal, Powered Grace, Keone Michaels, Moody Loner, Aunt Pat, Buckeye54, offgrid, pimutant, chicklet, smartdemmg, elfling, Caneel, Grandson named me Papa, juca, zenox, basket, petulans, trumpeter, Possiamo, leonard145b, Sam Sara, mconvente, 417els, Oaktown Girl, drcraigphd, livingthedream, MichiganGirl, James Kresnik, fumie, Trendar, sparkysmom, GrumpyOldGeek, defluxion10, Dobber, Akonitum, Daniel Case, Clive all hat no horse Rodeo, TexDem, wader, Nova Land, floydgrant, WakeUpNeo, Fulgour
  •  I've often argued this same point with TB's. (59+ / 0-)

    They say you need to cut everything but defense. Then they say they need guns because TYRANNY!

    Then I ask them about the inherent contradiction:

    How is having a 15-round clip going to help you against a drone attack?

    Dumb like a box of rox.

    •  To gun enthusiasts, the gun is a talisman (63+ / 0-)

      Yes, but you forget for the gun enthusiasts, the gun is a talisman.

      A talisman is an object, imbued with magical properties, that confer special powers on the one who holds the object.  And for gun enthusiasts, holding a gun gives them special powers.

      For gun enthusiasts, a gun gives them the special power of safety and protection against violence (tho' empiric studies of guns show that gun owners have a greater risk of dying by homicide than do non-gun owners).  Additionally, gun enthusiasts are equally sure that having a gun gives them liberty (tho' we all know our civil rights have been increasing circumscribed, even as gun availability in America has soared).

      You can't really expect rational thought from those given to magical thinking.  

      You can read more about the talisman of the gun here (http://www.dailykos.com/...)

      "The fool doth think he is wise: the wise man knows himself to be a fool" - W. Shakespeare

      by Hugh Jim Bissell on Tue Apr 02, 2013 at 09:12:26 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Guns & Drones to kill scary brown & black people (12+ / 0-)

        There's no inconsistency what so ever. The Republicans party can no longer just come out and speak about the racism that is inherent to everything they do.

        Kos is playing dumb here. He knows damn well why Republicans hold the positions they do on guns and the military.

        look for my eSci diary series Thursday evening.

        by FishOutofWater on Tue Apr 02, 2013 at 09:46:53 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Agreed: racist fears fuels desire for guns (5+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          mconvente, fumie, rudewarrior, wader, WakeUpNeo

          I agree with you: there is a strong element of racist fear that fuels much of the talk about the need for more guns.

          The gun industry needs people to buy more guns.  For the gun industry, more people buying more guns and bullets means more profits.  The gun industry doesn't really care why people buy those guns and bullets, just so long as people keep buying the guns and bullets.

          And it turns out that racial fears are an excellant way to sell more guns and bullets.  So the gun industry is only too happy to pump up those racial fears: the message to whites is that black and brown-skinned criminals seek to commit crimes so you had better get a gun.  The message to black and browned skinned people is that a gun will protect them from white people.

          As an aside, I have always thought the Tea Party was created to give voice to all the racist thinking that the republican party was trying to suppress.

          "The fool doth think he is wise: the wise man knows himself to be a fool" - W. Shakespeare

          by Hugh Jim Bissell on Tue Apr 02, 2013 at 11:08:49 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Over-arming the state is foolish and dangerous. (0+ / 0-)

          I also think the feelings of butthurt OFWGs on the matter are hardly relevant to how people get to protect themselves and their families.

          If the endgame of Disaster Capitalism is destined for the United States, even well-sheltered, well-policed urbanizes will need all the firepower they can handle:

      •  Great analysis (5+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        lyvwyr101, Aunt Pat, ssgbryan, fumie, wader

        This is a very good summary of what the "gun enthusiast" is thinking.

        Also, just had to point out that you and I are probably the only two people on this site that use the Subject: line as it's intended. Seeing your post was like a ray of sunshine in my OCD-Heart.

        [Terrorists] are a dime a dozen, they are all over the world and for every one we lock up there will be three to take his place. --Digby

        by rabel on Tue Apr 02, 2013 at 10:05:06 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  More Than You Know (6+ / 0-)

          When I was a kid, late 60's and early 70's my dad and I would go shooting out at this gunsmith's range that was big buddies with my grandad.

          We'd shoot and then set around and talk guns and stuff with the gunsmith and my grandad who were both old.

          Really gun control wasn't a huge issue back then but must have been the late 60's around the time the 68 GCA was being debated the subject came up.

          The old gunsmith said:

          "We need guns. OK so imagine right now that a carload of big black bucks pulls up and wants to start a fight. What chance would we have, two old man, a skinny young man, and a kid without guns"
          My dad of course  was a huge extreme liberal and very much loved the Kennedy's so of course the first thing I asked him when we went home was what was a "Black BUCK" I thought they were talking about some sort of aggressive deer.

          But there is was, even back then.

        •  I'm glad to be a source of sunshine!! n/t (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          rabel

          "The fool doth think he is wise: the wise man knows himself to be a fool" - W. Shakespeare

          by Hugh Jim Bissell on Tue Apr 02, 2013 at 11:09:51 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  those powers include creating mass mutiny (14+ / 0-)

        See, it goes like this;

        1) I am right. all my opinions are right. My feelings are always correct. thus they never need to be examined.
        2) Everyone (that matters) feels exactly the same way as I do. that is why I make sweeping pronouncements about "What America wants" and "what God intends" all the time.

        Therefore, when the Kenyan usurper tells his minions to take mah guns away, the army will revolt against him, making my assault rifle more a badge of kinship (a talisman) than an actual weapon to be used against better armed, better trained professional soldiers.
        Which is a very comforting lie, because if i were to actually think this out for more than a few self-deluded seconds, I would realize that David Koresh had it pretty good compared to what I can actually expect when I take up arms against the United States of America.

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

        by kamarvt on Tue Apr 02, 2013 at 10:08:08 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Not only more danger to themselves (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Aunt Pat, Possiamo, fumie, wader

        but more danger to the rest of us as well.

        If you don't want to be kept in the dark and lathered with horse dung, stop acting like a mushroom.

        by nomorerepukes on Tue Apr 02, 2013 at 10:11:25 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  To many people, the gun may be a talisman, (7+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Aunt Pat, kharma, RichM, ssgbryan, Possiamo, fumie, wader

        but it's also a projection of the penis, particularly the power the penis projects.  Owning and firing guns gives them a sense of power unattainable for them without the ability a gun gives them to exert that power over others.

        "In this world of sin and sorrow there is always something to be thankful for; as for me, I rejoice that I am not a Republican." - H. L. Mencken

        by SueDe on Tue Apr 02, 2013 at 10:16:44 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

          •  The same thing. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            wader

            The sex of the person holding the gun is not a distinction in the desire for the power the gun projects.  

            "In this world of sin and sorrow there is always something to be thankful for; as for me, I rejoice that I am not a Republican." - H. L. Mencken

            by SueDe on Tue Apr 02, 2013 at 04:11:00 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  That's sad, and not for them. (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              SueDe, DavidMS

              http://www.guncite.com/...

              Reviewing unsubstantiated, mostly "derogatory ... speculative literature on the personality characteristics of gun owners," the NIJ Evaluation (p.120) mentions "the psychoanalytic" view that "weapons are phallic symbols representing male dominance and masculine power." The idea of gun ownership as sexual aberration has been casually espoused by such anti-gun luminaries as Arthur Schlessinger Jr., Harlan Ellison, Mike Royko, and Joyce Brothers.[41] The only serious study endorsing this view is by psychiatrist Emmanuel Tanay who sees "the need for a gun" as serving "libidinal purposes ... to enhance or repair a damaged self-image ..., and involving "narcissism ..., [p]assivity, and insecurity".[42]

              There is no viable argument for the penis theory as against pragmatic explanations for gun ownership. Psychiatrist Bruce Danto rejects the penis theory because it fails to account for female gun ownership. In fact, 50 percent of those who own a (p.12)gun only for protection are women (especially black women), even though women are much less likely than men to own guns for sport.[43] This pattern is more accurately explained by a woman's need for protection than by feelings of penile inadequacy.

              Dr. Danto also notes that the penis theory would predict that male gun owners would lean toward the largest barrel and bore weapons available. But the respective popularity of guns of different sizes uniformly appears to reflect purely pragmatic concerns.[44] The penis theory is equally incapable of explaining other demographic differentials in gun ownership. When all gun owners are counted (not just those who own for protection alone), survey evidence shows that

                  gun owners are disproportionately rural, Southern, male, Protestant, affluent and middle class ... [and that] weapons ownership tends to increase with income, or occupational prestige, or both.[45]

              The explanations here are, once again, purely pragmatic; hunting is more an activity of rural people generally, and Southerners particularly, than of city dwellers. Among urbanites, guns are most owned by the affluent because they are more likely to hunt--and also to have the money to afford guns and property that they may need to defend. Most guns are owned for sport, and males more than females engage in gun sports. Survey show Protestants are more likely to hunt than Catholics or Jews (Protestantism is most predominant in rural areas); beyond that, Protestants and gun owners both tend to be descended from older American stock, retaining cultural values redolent of the "individualistic orientation that emanated from the American frontier ..."[46](p.13)

              In contrast, the penis theory has no explanatory value for these demographic trends. Are Protestants or the affluent or rural dwellers or Southerners more subject to feelings of penile inadequacy than Catholics or urbanites or the poor, and so forth? Incidentally, it may be relevant to note that surveys show gun owners are no more hostile to feminism and the women's movement than are non-owners.[47]

              Tanay's arguments for the penis theory validate only his own (self-admitted) fear and loathing of guns. He asserts that "the owner's overvaluation of his gun's worth is an indication of its libidinal value to him." Because Tanay never attempts to explain what "overvaluation" means, there is nothing to distinguish guns from the "overvaluation" involved in having other collectibles. People who do not share the passion often marvel at the amounts of time and money spent by others who "over-value" such more or less intrinsically worthless items as old phonograph records, musical instruments, cars, political campaign buttons, stamps, coins, and candelabra.[48] Much the same problem characterizes Tanay's evidence of "narcissistic investment":

                  Most of the dedicated gun owners handle the gun with obvious pleasure; they look after the gun, clean, polish, and pamper it ... speak of their love and respect for guns.

              Most, if not all, collectors revere the objects they collect; they clean and polish them (if coins or antiques) or encase them (if gems or musical instruments) in velvet, suede, or other attractive settings. Are all collectors motivated by feelings of penile inadequacy? Or does Dr. Tanay's depiction of gun owners reflect only his own narrow-minded inability to evaluate the feelings of those who love and respect something he admittedly loathes?

              A final point of interest is Dr. Tanay's citation of Freud's view that weapons may symbolize the penis in dreams. This, Freud said, is true of dreams involving any long object (e.g., "sticks, umbrellas, poles, trees") but especially objects that may be viewed as penetrating and injuring ("... knives, daggers, lances, sabers; firearms are similarly used ..."). This passage refers to dreams in general without distinguishing gun owners from others. Dr. Tanay is perhaps unaware of--in any event, he does not cite--other passages more relevant to his argument. In these other passages Freud associates retarded sexual and emotional development not with gun ownership, but (p.14)with fear and loathing of weapons.[49] The probative importance that ought to be attached to the views of Freud is, of course, a matter of opinion. The point here is only that those views provide no support for the penis theory of gun ownership.

              •  Very interesting. (0+ / 0-)

                Thank you for the extensive exposition.

                "In this world of sin and sorrow there is always something to be thankful for; as for me, I rejoice that I am not a Republican." - H. L. Mencken

                by SueDe on Tue Apr 02, 2013 at 05:54:37 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

        •  I have never seen so much obsession (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          oldpunk

          With speculating on penis sizes as I have in discussions about firearms... all from the anti-gun ownership side. A lot of you really have a one-track mind in that sense.

      •  Mind-reading. Super. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        andalusi

        The right to keep and bear arms is a liberty in and of itself.

        I am not in the habit of supporting infringements upon them.

        There. Now you know the issue.
        Notice my answer is shorter and more plausible than yours.
        OTOH my answer doesn't include the excitement of mind-reading nor the fun of an 'us vs them' scenario and it doesn't include the self-congratulating dehumanizing of those who disagree with you.

        To each their own, I guess.

        Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

        by FrankRose on Tue Apr 02, 2013 at 10:27:39 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  You have perfectly proved my point (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          wader, floydgrant

          You have perfectly proved my point.

          To a gun enthusiast such as yourself, you are convinced you are free merely by your possession of a gun, and that without possession of a gun you must therefore be enslaved.

          The rest of America knows that whether or not you hold a gun, you no longer are free of unreasonable government search and seizure; you no longer have the right to an attorney if arrested, or the right to a jury trial if accused of a crime; that your phone conversations and email messages can be scrutinized without court oversight; that your right to vote is being taken from you, and even if you voted a court may decided the election.

          But, by virtue of possessing a gun, you are magically free!  

          "The fool doth think he is wise: the wise man knows himself to be a fool" - W. Shakespeare

          by Hugh Jim Bissell on Tue Apr 02, 2013 at 11:24:22 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Unless 'your point' is that you have reading (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            andalusi

            comprehension problems, then you are wrong.

            The right to keep and bear arms is a right in and of itself.
            Hence, it's inclusion in the 'Bill of Rights'
            In the future when you respond to me, why don't you respond to what I have written, instead of whatever the hell is going on in your imagination?

            "no longer free of unreasonable search and seizure, to an attorney...."
            So your solution to losing liberties is to give another one away?
            I disagree.

            Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

            by FrankRose on Tue Apr 02, 2013 at 11:45:35 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  I just thought... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        ssgbryan

        They all had very small, ineffectual penises.  

        'Where free unions and collective bargaining are forbidden, freedom is lost' - Ronald Reagan, Communist

        by RichM on Tue Apr 02, 2013 at 10:45:12 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  I have a further collorary to this theory... (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        fumie, wader, floydgrant

        Many of these same 'gov't tyranny' people claim the 2nd amendment was created SPECIFICALLY by the Founders for armed resistance to what is seen as government tyranny. If this is true, why did George Washington -- one of those founders, who wrote the 2nd amendment -- Why did he put down the Whiskey Rebellion?

        here we have one of the founders CLEARLY demonstrating that armed rebellion is NOT a right guaranteed in the 2nd Amendment.

        It shoots the argument so full of holes they only blubber and repeat themselves, louder.

        We have no desire to offend you -- unless you are a twit!

        by ScrewySquirrel on Tue Apr 02, 2013 at 11:00:25 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Maybe you're not talking to very smart people. (0+ / 0-)

          Perhaps you haven't discussed this with someone who thinks more analytically than you or those that you do bring the argument up with just roll their eyes to themselves and don't bother to respond to such a ridiculous claim (much as I don't bother to respond to people who promote Homeopathy - it's just not worth wasting my time).

          It's clear that the founders didn't intend the Second Amendment to allow a citizen to do whatever they wanted without government interference just because citizens possessed firearms. Else, the Constitution to which it is attached would not have established a rough framework of a court system - which would make no sense if anyone with a firearm could just ignore the decisions of that court system because they possessed a firearm.

          The reason the Whiskey Rebellion was not successful was mostly that not enough people cared enough to take up arms and/or didn't think the tax was unconstitutional (remember, an issue in the recent Revolution was taxation without representation, not all taxation). The outcome might have been quite different if 13,000 militia were facing 26,000 armed citizens instead of only 500 armed citizens - who decided to go home before the militia got there because it really wasn't that important to them.

          Contrast this to the American Revolution just a bit earlier. In that case, there were colonists willing to put their lives on the line and fight their government - which, without firearms would have been impossible. In the final confrontation of the Whiskey Rebellion, not a single person was killed (and very few were even injured in earlier phases of it) while in the American Revolution, some estimates are that there were about 8,000 "American" combat deaths.

          It is completely reasonable to believe that Washington (who, as you recall, was a military leader during the Revolutionary War) understood the difference between a Revolution and a few disgruntled citizens who were not very committed to their cause and were protesting about a single law rather than a systemic unjust system.

          The Whiskey Rebellion could be better compared to OWS or any of a number of previous protest movements than the American Revolution. No one expects the protesters to take up arms and fight the police -- there just aren't enough protesters to do that nor do (at least most of them) think that's appropriate in that situation.

      •  Guns do seem to inspire talismanic thinking (0+ / 0-)

        ...in the minds of some of the people against gun ownership. You, for instance,  have utterly failed to describe myself or any gun owners I personally know in the slightest, yet you speak with the same certainty and breathtaking lack of actual experience that any average Rush Limbaugh devotee speaks of feminism. You are obsessed with a stereotype, taking the actions of an outlier and assuming it is representative of the norm, and I suspect engaging in a fair bit of cherrypicking to come up with your fantasy gun owner.

        Just so you know, my guns aren't magical and, not suffering from psychotic delusions, I have never made the mistake of imagining them to be. I am also fully capable of rational thought, even to the extent of believing someone can hold a position radically opposed to my own and still also be considered a rational person, not one gripped by "magical thinking." It is a pity that you do not seem to share that viewpoint, given that a fair number of progressives do own guns and you might actually be able to stand them---or hell, even become friends with them!---if you had the honesty to admit that gun ownership is not an automatic indication of mental illness.

    •  Please! It's so obvious! When the government (5+ / 0-)

      begins to round up true, patriotic Americans, our heroes in the military forces will of course defend the Constitution and do the right thing by rebelling, telling that black commie jihadist "commander in chief" in the White House to go to hell,  and then becoming the allies of the Tea Party and the NRA! 1776 all over again!

      (I'm not kidding. These idiots are absolutely convinced that this would happen.)  

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

      by Sirenus on Tue Apr 02, 2013 at 10:12:52 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Yeah, I mean, they kinda ensured they'd (17+ / 0-)

    lose that arms race long ago...

    What's the point of letting neoliberals into the tent when neoliberalism is burning down the campground?

    by Words In Action on Tue Apr 02, 2013 at 08:59:35 AM PDT

  •  All the kings horses and all the kings men... (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    gerrilea, noway2, dewtx, FrankRose

    Sorry Kos,

    The dumbasses with their guns and 15-round clips and AR-15s or AK-47s think they're the vanguard against US government tyranny, when a well-aimed drone strike would take out the lot of them in no-time flat (not to mention any decently trained tactical assault team).
    Which is why our military did so well against rag-tag groups of men in Viet Nam, Afghanistan, Iraq...

    Besides, if you think US military action is unpopular abroad, how popular would it be domestically?  You were in the Army too, at one point.  Would you fire on civilians?

    Chasing one moot point with another is choir preaching at best.

    •  Ask David Koresh about that approach (36+ / 0-)

      Armed to the teeth in a bunker and where is he now?

      The militia movement in this country is nothing like the Viet Cong or the Taliban.

      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 09:06:00 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I remember, the Army came in and waxed him... (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        gerrilea, noway2, Miggles

        Wait a minute, no they didnt...

        I remember Janet Reno being widely criticized for that fiasco, I remember that she specifically ordered that no pyrotechnic devices be used in the assault.  

        Four agents were killed and 16 more were wounded.  To take out what, 60 or so Dravidians?  Thats a lot of good men lost! At that rate, the ATF/FBI is going to run out of agents if they tried to extend that policy nationwide?  Thats a terrible war of attrition which would render the two bureaus combat ineffective after a few raids.

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

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

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

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

          [ Parent ]

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

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

            Talk about dreaming...

            •  Jeeez... (23+ / 0-)

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

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

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

              [ Parent ]

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

                tyranny, why arm it to the teeth?

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

                •  Huh? (5+ / 0-)

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

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

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

                  It is time to #Occupy Media.

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

                  [ Parent ]

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

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

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

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

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

                    [ Parent ]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

                      [ Parent ]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

                          [ Parent ]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

                            [ Parent ]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

              [ Parent ]

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

                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:
                    kharma

                    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 survey...you 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:
                      ssgbryan

                      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:

                        http://www.gallup.com/...

                        •  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 regard....you 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:
                            a2nite

                            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 them....in 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 causes...as that is what being a progressive is all about....is 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.

                            http://www.courant.com/...
                          •  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:
                            WakeUpNeo

                            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:
                ontheleftcoast

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

                Because you KNOW they'll be breaking plenty.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

              [ Parent ]

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

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

              They have drones. They'll use them.

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

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

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

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

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

              They would do it without a thought.

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

            being answered honestly.

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

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

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

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

            [ Parent ]

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

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

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

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

              [ Parent ]

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

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

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

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

                What am I missing again?

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

                The Borg said it best:

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

                DHS Report on Rightwing Extremism Puts Napolitano on Defensive

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

                [ Parent ]

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

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

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

                  [ Parent ]

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

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

                    Asymmetric warfare and internal strife defeated the Soviets, eventually.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

                    [ Parent ]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

                [ Parent ]

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

                  Not directly.

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

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

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

                  nothing more than people hating the government.

                  http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...

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

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

                  Why are you perpetuating fear here???

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

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

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

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

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

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

                  [ Parent ]

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

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

                Of course, this is absurd.  Illogical.

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

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

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

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

                [ Parent ]

    •  I'm not sure I understand this. (14+ / 0-)

      The point is that there's a weird inconsistency in the argument about big brudda, not that it would be nifty to make war against American civilians.

      But, since you mentioned it, notice anything different about, say, the rag-tag jungle and mountain villagers and Suburban red state Americans?  

      •  now that you mention it, I see some differences... (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        gerrilea, FrankRose, happy camper

        -Suburban red state Americans are Americans, the same nationality as the Military we're supposing is going in to stop them.

        -'Red State' implies some degree of conservatism, the same ideology held by a lot of cops and combat solders.  I don't remember us sending the military, sworn to uphold the constitution of the United States to fight conservatives supporting the constitution of the United States in Viet Nam, Afghanistan, or Iraq...

        -Attacking fellow Americans, from American bases, which require resupply from outside, whos soldiers often live off-base, whos extended familly lives off base, and whos retierees go on to live off base is not a recipe for success.

    •  Would [they] fire on civilians? (7+ / 0-)

      Ask the dead kids at Kent State.

      Fake Left, Drive Right . . . not my idea of a Democrat . . .

      by Deward Hastings on Tue Apr 02, 2013 at 09:39:30 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Good point, but we've come a long way since (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        mmacdDE

        then, I hope.

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

        by gerrilea on Tue Apr 02, 2013 at 10:11:27 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  mostly, I fear, (0+ / 0-)

          in the wrong direction.  We now have an "all volunteer" Army of paid killers, many of a christo-fascist persuasion who have no particular appreciation for diversity of thought.  Or for thought at all.  They might have some problem facing down their own kind, but killing "libruls" wouldn't bother them any more than killing "muslims" does.

          Fake Left, Drive Right . . . not my idea of a Democrat . . .

          by Deward Hastings on Tue Apr 02, 2013 at 10:41:01 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  You obviously havesn't spent much time around them (0+ / 0-)

            Most of the enlisted troops voted Obama.

            The officer corps is hard core Republican, but they have been that way for the past 30 years.

            At least this time around, you don't have field grade officers at the Pentagon saying that "The Military should have a say in who the President is."  Like they were in '92.  (I was assigned there at the time.)

            •  having "voted for Obama" (0+ / 0-)

              (if that is actually true) does not seem to inhibit them from going out and killing thousands of innocent Afghans and Iraqis.

              Why would going out and killing anyone else be any different?  Once you're down with killing on command for "god and country" (and no other identifiable reason) does the identity of the victim matter?

              Fake Left, Drive Right . . . not my idea of a Democrat . . .

              by Deward Hastings on Tue Apr 02, 2013 at 01:36:18 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

      •  That wouldn't be the guard now (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        gerrilea

        it would be the cops. Local or state, most likely.

        That's who handles protests and rallies now, not the guard.

      •  I might point out that the massacre at Kent State (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        a2nite

        was done by the Ohio National Guard.

        Not federal troops.

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

        by Sirenus on Tue Apr 02, 2013 at 10:41:35 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Well, here you go, kos (6+ / 0-)

      Here's the pro-gun lobby, here's the fringe. Have at it.

      We demanded a plan to reduce gun violence. Now it's time to demand a vote.

      by tytalus on Tue Apr 02, 2013 at 09:39:33 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  You really think voters would have a problem.. (6+ / 0-)

      ....with the government putting down an insurrection.

      Sorry, that shit might fly where you're from, but most of the country would say "wipe 'em out, now"

      "Michael Moore, who was filming a movie about corporate welfare called 'Capitalism: A Love Story,' sought and received incentives."

      by Bush Bites on Tue Apr 02, 2013 at 10:08:49 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Exactly (0+ / 0-)

        If there was really an armed insurrection, a group of people would be attacking government buildings and personnel to take them over.

        Remember Ft. Sumter?

        We tried civil war once, it didn't turn out so well for the guys that wanted to overthrow the tyranny of the federal government.

      •  OWS wasn't armed (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        ZhenRen

        and the shut down using para-military robo cops and Homeland Security working in conjunction with majors and banksters  certainly did not incur any major public outrage. The US population has little regard for 'insurgents' resistor's, protesters even of the non violent variety. Facing a line of robo cops in full metal dress at an OWS event showed me that there was no way in hell that the police were going to 'join the people'. This society just loves the shock and awe of violence especially when it is deployed against the pesky folks who want to end tyranny and injustice. Law and Order even if the law isn't legal.      

    •  Rag-tag? (5+ / 0-)

      In all three of your examples of rag-tag men those rag-tag men had support from nation states giving them artillery, weapons, logistics, anti-aircraft weapons... They certainly were not the well-crafted military of the United States but they could hardly be called rag-tag.

      Are you trying to say that the VC ran the USA out of Vietnam because the VC were just a bunch of brave farmers with AK-47's and our military is just not able to defeat a populace armed with assault rifles?

      The problems with the wars you mention aren't so much with our military not being able to defeat enemies in battle, but the much more complicated aspects of foreign wars including diplomacy with other nations that have interests in the region, popular support of the "enemy" from the people of the area, our ability to finance extended operations overseas...

      Our military is very, very, good at killing people. Managing the aftermath is where we lack common sense and decency.

      [Terrorists] are a dime a dozen, they are all over the world and for every one we lock up there will be three to take his place. --Digby

      by rabel on Tue Apr 02, 2013 at 10:19:16 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  The last time US citizens attempted to overthrow (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      kos, ontheleftcoast, ssgbryan, a2nite

      the US government, the military had no problem firing on them.

      The problem with political jokes is they get elected.

      by shoeless on Tue Apr 02, 2013 at 10:26:05 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Yeah (4+ / 0-)

      you missed the point. Entirely.

  •  Government Would Never Fire a Shot. (14+ / 0-)

    As soon as these goons begin organizing for a serious action, they'll all be plucked out of their houses before they can pull one boot on.

    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 Tue Apr 02, 2013 at 09:02:22 AM PDT

  •  Exactly (19+ / 0-)

    How many times have I heard a righty make a DMV or USPS joke like "And these are the guys you want running your healthcare?"

    But the same folks almost never have an issue with "those guys" running military operations.

  •  Love that photo and comment! (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Deep Texan, FogCityJohn

    Join us on the Black Kos front porch to review news and views written from a black pov—everyone is welcome.

    by TomP on Tue Apr 02, 2013 at 09:03:00 AM PDT

  •  It ain't about the using of 'em (12+ / 0-)

    so much as the selling of 'em.  And the folks who sell 'em don't care so much whether they've got one big client with stupid policies or lots of little ones.  Move the merch!

    •  and that argument is consistent (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      shaharazade

      1. support heavily armed government
      2. point our that citizens needs to be heavily armed to serve as a "second amendment check" vs. said government.
      3. sell guns to citizens.

      it's like the NRA guy who lets crooks take his semi-auto. No problem! just creates more demand for NRA funders' product.

      An ambulance can only go so fast - Neil Young

      by mightymouse on Tue Apr 02, 2013 at 10:21:11 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Aurora & Newtown shooters both stopped shooting (6+ / 0-)

    their AR-15s when they jammed.  Good luck with 'em freedumb fighters.

    Republicans: They hate us for our Freedom.

    by mikeconwell on Tue Apr 02, 2013 at 09:09:56 AM PDT

  •  Guns in my hands = Freedom!! (30+ / 0-)

    Guns in someone else's hands = danger!! Unless they're pointed at someone else, or pointed at a deer, or concealed where I can't see 'em, in which case Freedom!!  Guns in the government's hands = danger!! Unless they're police officers, or Our Soldiers pointing them at guys in the Middle East, in which case Freedom!!

    Do guns cause psychosis, or just reflect it?

    The road to Hell is paved with pragmatism.

    by TheOrchid on Tue Apr 02, 2013 at 09:12:15 AM PDT

  •  More civilian than gov't targets (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    myboo, lyvwyr101

    When was the last time these people have actually fired upon a tyrannical gov't target? Seems like they are more interested in targeting of the civilian population first. Perhaps one so deranged would see a group of people at a mall or a classroom as agents of tyranny, but I guess that is the point.  

    "I know the meaning of life. It doesn't help me a bit."

    by dss on Tue Apr 02, 2013 at 09:16:12 AM PDT

  •  "gobbledygook" is too mild (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Smoh, Deep Texan, gzodik, lyvwyr101

    When the second amendment was written there was a real abhorrence for having a standing army.  My how things have changed...except for the wingers.

  •  The only time I feel that our Govt. is tyrannical (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    gerrilea, lyvwyr101

    is when the Republicans are in charge.
     Even with President Obama's mistakes concerning whistleblowers, internal surveillance, and drones, etc,  I just think it's dumb, misinformed, misdirected, not tyrannical.
     But, being careful on the phone, in my emails, in conversations...under Bush, I was much more wary. And I was mad that they caused me to think that way.

    "The United States is a nation of laws: badly written and randomly enforced." -Zappa My Site

    by meagert on Tue Apr 02, 2013 at 09:37:36 AM PDT

    •  They are only mistakes when you refuse to fix them (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      meagert, FrankRose

      The President and the Press: Address before the American Newspaper Publishers Association

      I not only could not stifle controversy among your readers--I welcome it. This Administration intends to be candid about its errors; for as a wise man once said: "An error does not become a mistake until you refuse to correct it." We intend to accept full responsibility for our errors; and we expect you to point them out when we miss them.

      ~JFK

      Instead our POTUS has doubled down and codified these "mistakes" into the law of the land.

      The torture of Bradley Manning.
      The war on Whistleblowers.
      The NDAA.
      The FISA Law.
      The Military Commissions.
      The Secret courts & secret legal "interpretations".
      Indefinite Detention.
      Targeting and killing Americans without charges, judge or jury.
      The Targeted Kill Lists.
      Gitmo.
      Failure to prosecute actual criminals, ie. HSBC, Mortgage Fraud Deal, torturers, etc.
      The Monsanto Protection Act.

      Um, I'm really having a hard time seeing any differences these days.

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

      by gerrilea on Tue Apr 02, 2013 at 09:48:08 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Beep..you are now being recorded...continue. n/t (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        FrankRose, gerrilea

        "The United States is a nation of laws: badly written and randomly enforced." -Zappa My Site

        by meagert on Tue Apr 02, 2013 at 09:56:05 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  I don't know about the rest.... (0+ / 0-)

        ...but there actually is no "Monsanto Protection Act."

        http://sync.democraticunderground.com/...

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

        by Sirenus on Tue Apr 02, 2013 at 10:48:59 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Thanks, I guess it's how you view it. (0+ / 0-)

          I'll take the ACLU's position for the win!

          https://doc-0s-bo-docsviewer.googleusercontent.com/...

          Unprecedented Assault on Judicial Safeguards
          This provision is not only an assault on the fundamental safeguards of our judicial system, but also will set a dangerous precedent for Congressional intervention in the Judiciary. The ability of courts to review, evaluate and judge an issue that impacts public and environmental health is a strength, not a weakness of our legal system.

          Our federal courts have long been the last resort for people seeking to challenge illegal actions by the government or its officials, including actions that may threaten freedom from discrimination, access to education, access to health care, property ownership and other important social benefits including clean air, clean water and the fair distribution of government resources. The loss of this safeguard could leave public health, the environment and livelihoods at risk for unchallenged consequences. If this provision were to become law, it would harm not only those who would otherwise challenge illegal government actions, but also all people and communities who benefit from efforts to root out government abuse and unlawful action.

          Congress should not meddle with the judicial review process or preemptively compel the Secretary of Agriculture to take actions that might harm farmers to serve the special interests of a few powerful firms. If Members feel the Plant Protection Act needs to be changed, let them propose to do it in a transparent manner, with full opportunity for public debate.
          For the foregoing reasons, we respectfully oppose the “Farmer Assurance Provision” and support any efforts to strike it from the FY 2013 Agriculture Appropriations bill.

          Respectfully submitted:

          ACLU et. al.

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

          by gerrilea on Tue Apr 02, 2013 at 11:25:15 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  Or American exceptionalism, where (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    orlbucfan

    the virtue and trustworthiness of people in descending order is:

    Americans
    American military
    Foreign peoples
    Foreign governments.

    Then you'd insist that the American military be well armed and directed only at foreginers, like Rand Paul.

    That's not even "gun control". It's more like "massacre control".

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

  •  110,000 dead Iraqis approve this message. (4+ / 0-)

    Iraqis who had nothing to do with 9-11-01.

    Either you think government is tyrannical and must be eroded of its ability to militarily suppress its populace, or you think a well-armed government is a benevolent force for world peace.
    Thinking both just makes you a moron.
    Morons.  We killed them for their own good.
    Anyone could see that.

    The country was in peril; he was jeopardizing his traditional rights of freedom and independence by daring to exercise them.” ~ Joseph Heller, Catch-22

    by 43north on Tue Apr 02, 2013 at 09:38:41 AM PDT

  •  Gov records every email, phone call, tweet (5+ / 0-)

    your credit card bills, you name it, the gov already owns these idiots, they never complained about the 4th amendment, now they think their assault rifle will protect them, from WHAT?

  •  2nd amendment right to Predator Drones!! (4+ / 0-)

    America!!!

    Fuck Yeah!!

    C'mon - You know your gonna hear this.


    The Fail will continue until actual torches and pitchforks are set in motion. - Pangolin@kunstler.com

    by No one gets out alive on Tue Apr 02, 2013 at 09:44:11 AM PDT

  •  amen! (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    lyvwyr101

    My heroes have the heart to live the life I want to live.

    by JLFinch on Tue Apr 02, 2013 at 09:45:13 AM PDT

  •  THE BORDER (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    dss

    If you really think the government is going to turn on its citizens, why insist that we have to build an airtight border wall to go with it...

  •  Republicans... (6+ / 0-)

    ..think when the gov'ment comes a callin' a Hatfield vs. McCoy type feud will ensue.

    They think it will be their sharpshooter rifles vs. the tyrannical American army's sharpshooter rifles.

    And good luck trying to convince them the American army will slaughter the lot of them in 5 minutes no matter how armed to the teeth they are.

    I could list you 100 fantasies that drive Republican party policies & beliefs.

    This is just one of those 100 fantasies.

    To any Republican reading this, I request you write a diary about why Republicans are such assholes. I promise to tip & recommend such a diary.

    by wyvern on Tue Apr 02, 2013 at 09:47:16 AM PDT

    •  No! NO! NO!!!! (0+ / 0-)

      The true patriots of the US Military will join the rebellion!

      Why do you patriot-hating, government-loving liberals not get that?

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

      by Sirenus on Tue Apr 02, 2013 at 10:51:32 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Resistance is Futile. nt (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    lyvwyr101
  •  Is everybody that doesn't think like you a dumbass (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    FrankRose, lyvwyr101, Frank Dewey

    moron, idiot, asshole or a terrorist?  Good grief.   I think those emails you evidently get have gone to your head.

    "I'm an antiwar propagandist as accused by democrats. Not even republicans have called me that."

    by BigAlinWashSt on Tue Apr 02, 2013 at 09:52:27 AM PDT

  •  Reminds me of my H.S. teacher's story of WWII (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    JML9999, AZphilosopher, lyvwyr101, mmacdDE

    He was a Marine on Midway Is. during the infamous attack.  But the only thing he could do was shoot his small pistol at passing Japanese airplanes in spite, knowing full well none of the bullets would ever hit the planes.

    My Karma just ran over your Dogma

    by FoundingFatherDAR on Tue Apr 02, 2013 at 09:53:58 AM PDT

  •  I'm only giving up my AR15 when the police and the (14+ / 0-)

    ... military do.

    By the way, is it illegal to plant landmines in my front lawn? And please give me an answer quickly as the yard guys are scheduled to be here at 3:00 today to start work.

    Suggested liberal gun lovers' motto: "More liberal than the NRA on everything except guns."

    by Bob Johnson on Tue Apr 02, 2013 at 09:55:06 AM PDT

  •  no, it makes you a politician. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    lyvwyr101, shaharazade
  •  I am willing to accept a grand bargain (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    lyvwyr101

    where the right gives up the satnding army (just like the founding fathers envisioned), and in turn they get the right to bear arms.

  •  I propose a simple solution to our massive (14+ / 0-)

    ... military budget:

    Al those in this country who want to carry a weapon at all times where legal, whether concealed or open, and who are not either law enforcement or have a reason to carry a weapon (security personnel, those who regularly transport large amounts of cash or extreme valuables, those who may the victims of a stalker, and other, limited cases) should be the first to be sent to war, particularly since they are so fond of their guns.

    So instead of just walking around with a gun strapped to their side to feel safe and secure and to be ready "when the shit hits the fan," they can actually put their love of the gun to good use in a situation where the shit really is hitting the fan. Daily.

    How about it, concealed and open carry heroes?

    Suggested liberal gun lovers' motto: "More liberal than the NRA on everything except guns."

    by Bob Johnson on Tue Apr 02, 2013 at 10:01:45 AM PDT

  •  It's all about "rights" (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    high uintas, lyvwyr101, WakeUpNeo

    Frame any point in America around "RIGHTS" and have activists hammer away about it for decades and you're more likely to win.

    That's what has been done with individual gun 'rights' and my impression, from talking to some normal people who jokingly banter about owning guns as protection against the government, is that they only expect government agents who are sort of clueless.

    I'm reminded of how bootleggers and illegal marijuana growers in secluded areas boobytrap their properties.

    Then again, maybe part of the fantasy is this:  when the government tyrants come to get you, take out as many of them as you can....even if it's suicide (and you'll be considered a martyr).

    Does anybody here remember MOVE in Philadelphia?
    That's when I realized the (local) government might burn down a whole neighborhood; hardly a win-win situation. Tragic:

    http://www.philly.com/...

    http://en.wikipedia.org/...

  •  more like a civil war (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Bob Johnson, tytalus, mightymouse

    The NRA rhetoric is all about breakdowns of order, so both go together.

    it's an emotional response, mainly, where if a problem exists, violence can solve it.

    The fringe of the fringe does distrust the U.S. military -- ZOG UN helicopters and all of that, as if the UN weren't anti-Israel.

    Difficult, difficult, lemon difficult.

    by Loge on Tue Apr 02, 2013 at 10:06:13 AM PDT

  •  Dumb Bubbas. n/t (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    lyvwyr101

    "Michael Moore, who was filming a movie about corporate welfare called 'Capitalism: A Love Story,' sought and received incentives."

    by Bush Bites on Tue Apr 02, 2013 at 10:06:47 AM PDT

  •  The Walking Dead survivalist fantasy (5+ / 0-)

    They truly believe that there is some end of days scenario and they need their guns to kill zombies or something.

  •  Already diaried. (9+ / 0-)

    The opposite of "fear" is spelled G-U-N!

    I live in fear of a tyrannical government taking away my freedoms and liberties.

    I am the last line of defense of our constitutional freedoms! When only the government has guns, I will be at their mercy! They are coming to get my guns! All of them! I know it! It is me and the Constitution against the tyrannical overlords! Stay away, tyrannical overlords! I am armed!

    There's a knock at my door! It is a man in a government uniform! I will waste that tyrannical government overlord who is trying to take away--

    Hang on, hang on... It's a guy from the Water Department. He said the water line running down the street has a small leak so they will be shutting off our water for 20 minutes.

    Wait... Shutting down our water? Are they trying to starve us out so they can get our guns? What the hell? I'll be right back. I'm going to fill up the bathtub. I'll be ready for those tryannical gun grabbers! Me and my gun and the Constitution!

    I live in fear of the coming civil war.

    Yes, when the tyrannical overlords arrive to take away my guns (now I'm wondering if that guy was really from the Water Department or if he is scouting for the houses that will not be easy targets when the gun grabbers arrive), I will be ready for the civil war! Me and my guns. Me and my fellow patriots will defend this great nation from within!

    There's a knock at the door! It's a police officer! I hope he is ready to join our side in the fight against the tyrants! Or is he here to take away my guns? Was the Water Department guy a scout? They're coming to get my guns!

    I will not answer the door. I will hide here, beneath my computer table and make that officer think I am not here. Silence. I must maintain radio silence. I don't have a radio. A two-way radio, I mean, so I can communicate with my fellow patriots in the civil war! What was I thinking! I am here, all alone! Trying to defend our Constitution! Our freedoms and liberties! Dear Lord, watch over me and keep me safe as I prepare to fight the tyrannical overlords!

    Hold on, hold on... I think he's gone. There's a note stuck to the front door. Oh. It's a "courtesy reminder" that my car that's parked out front needs a new city sticker. It was supposed to be on January 1, but I haven't gotten around to it. That was nice of them not to give me a ticket.

    Still, he may have been scouting. I will not be an easy mark when the gun grabbers arrive! I will defend my fellow citizens from the those who would usurp our freedoms!

    Oh my gosh. What a day. I'm exhausted.

    And I need to change my diaper.

    Suggested liberal gun lovers' motto: "More liberal than the NRA on everything except guns."

    by Bob Johnson on Tue Apr 02, 2013 at 10:13:10 AM PDT

  •  The same companies sell guns to the military (9+ / 0-)

    and to Joe Prepper. So the arms industry and its shills are being absolutely consistent -- about their bottom line.

  •  I love how they use the "inflation clause" (4+ / 0-)

    as a device against tyranny but at the same time they seem to deny that a real tyranny would probably settle the matter with drones, bunker busters and nukes.

    Any person who thinks that the prefatory clause allows technology to be updated in our understanding of the right to bear arms but denies the right to own anti-aircraft weaponry, nukes  and drones is being very inconsistent.

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

    by AZphilosopher on Tue Apr 02, 2013 at 10:14:29 AM PDT

  •  Wish they'd go back to moonshining. (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    88kathy, mmacdDE, Moody Loner, a2nite

    As soon as these people get into politics, they just embarrass themselves.

    "Michael Moore, who was filming a movie about corporate welfare called 'Capitalism: A Love Story,' sought and received incentives."

    by Bush Bites on Tue Apr 02, 2013 at 10:18:05 AM PDT

  •  This is asinine. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    BigAlinWashSt, andalusi

    "The military can kill you, thus rights are void"

    What kind of argument is that?
    Who will this convince?
    How is this useful?

    Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

    by FrankRose on Tue Apr 02, 2013 at 10:18:45 AM PDT

  •  There are plenty of Democrats who (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    high uintas, Frank Dewey

    believe in both the Second Amendment and a strong national defense.  Don't kid yourself, kos.   We're not all morons, or Republicans, just because we don't always agree with you.  

    Not everyone is part of a Gestalt - Owsley Stanley

    by SpamNunn on Tue Apr 02, 2013 at 10:20:25 AM PDT

  •  Janet Reno was tricked into a attack because she (0+ / 0-)

    believed they were actively abusing the children. Otherwise the siege would not have lasted a year.

    No in's no out's and if they would have played non-stop Lawrence Welk, maybe much much less than a year.

    No cable or satellite. Jam their electronics. No video games. No Wii. Maybe soak the area with the aroma of hamburgers and french fries.

    guns are fun v. hey buddy, watch what you are doing -- which side are you on?

    by 88kathy on Tue Apr 02, 2013 at 10:22:06 AM PDT

  •  Kos misses point . . . (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    shaharazade

    Kos,

    You've missed the subtle, but critical, point that makes it all make sense.  Our tyrants are better than anyone else's.  That's why we need all that defense spending.

    --G

  •  That's one heckuva photo (0+ / 0-)

    even if it is Photoshopped. A good illustration of how much $$ is wasted on the MIC.

    Some people make u want to change species! --ulookarmless, quoted w/his permission: RIP good man.

    by orlbucfan on Tue Apr 02, 2013 at 10:23:06 AM PDT

  •  Let's see the Second Amendment protect against THA (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    defluxion10

    Wel it is simple the only thing protecting you against a bad guy with a Predator Drone armed with a Hellfire missile tipped with a .5M thermonuclear warhead is a good guy with a Predator UAV armed with a Hellfire missile tipped with a .5M thermonuclear warhead anybody who is by God not a HOMOSEXUAL can see that.

  •  this is an excellent line of inquiry... (0+ / 0-)

    ...in fact, it would be great to frame the entire political situation in American today in the exact same way, not only when it comes to this country's outrageously bloated military spending (which Republicans never have a problem throwing money at since it lines their pockets and those of their warmongering defense contractor friends), but all of the other services which these government-haters so willingly benefit from and use:

    If government is so full of tyranny, then...why do those who insist it is so continue to accept and use government services? Such as roads. Such as bridges. Such as public water and sewage. Such as television (which wouldn't be possible without the FCC regulating the use of airwaves which would be a chaotic nightmare otherwise). And public eduction. And police protection. And firefighting. And Social Security. And Medicare. And unemployment. And FDA-approved and regulated food and drugs. And electricity (which could not be provided on the mass scale it is without government-regulated distribution systems). And insurance (which government regulates to prevent everyone from simply being ripped off). And snow plowing, etc., etc., etc.

  •  The only thing better than tyranny.... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    pat bunny

    ....is tyranny with hellfire missiles.

    "Michael Moore, who was filming a movie about corporate welfare called 'Capitalism: A Love Story,' sought and received incentives."

    by Bush Bites on Tue Apr 02, 2013 at 10:26:46 AM PDT

  •  Tyranny (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    tytalus

    The tyranny the Framers worried about was monarchy and aristocracy.

    "A republic, if you can keep it."

    The unamended constitution contains an express guarantee of federal intervention to ensure every state against insurrection and guarantee them a "republican form of government."

    Before the convention and in the Federalist Papers Madison and Hamilton said this guarantee was something very important that the Articles of Confederation should have but did not contain.

    Many others thought so, as well.

    Anyway, the threat of somebody making a monarchist coup in Delaware is not what it once was.

    And the tyranny these modern gun nuts are worried about is nothing but taxes higher than they want to pay and limitations on their favorite hobby, gun ownership.

    But the tyranny we need to worry about is that of loons who think we need to let them own and carry military grade combat weapons to keep us free from a republic that is a lot safer than it was in the Framers' day.

  •  They believe that uniformed Americans are... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    tytalus, a2nite

    ...mostly wingnuts like them.

    Romney had twice the supporters in uniform than Obama, although Obama got more donations from them;

    Obama's monetary collections from the various wings United States Military outpaces Romney even though Romney polling among military members doubles Obama. The donation comparison comes from campaign finance tracking website OpenSecrets.org.

    The previous political king of military support, votes and donations, was Rep. Ron Paul, who at one point during the Republican Primaries held a 10 - 1 campaign finance advantage over his opponents in terms of the military donations.

    A recent Military Times poll found Romney with a 40 point advantage over Obama among active and reserve military members.

    In their calculus, the military is behind them.

    Daily Kos an oasis of truth. Truth that leads to action.

    by Shockwave on Tue Apr 02, 2013 at 10:27:27 AM PDT

  •  To be fair (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    88kathy, MaikeH

    These people see the military as the one and only proper justification of pooling taxpayer money for a common purpose. The military is people like them, they think, not hard-scrabble kids from America's poorest schools that had no alternative if they wanted out of the hell we created for them. Kids that desired the socialized medicine and youthful retirement benefits a career in the military offers.

    No doubt the armed forces have their share of gung-ho imbeciles that just want to kill brown people, but they also have millions that know damned well they had no other option in society.

    No, the gun-crazed think the military will be backing them up in their fight against unreconstructed hippies and lefties, along with the cops. That said, you're right. I'm not sure whom they imagine they need all those guns to protect themselves against.

    Atlas shrugged. Jesus wept.

    by trevzb on Tue Apr 02, 2013 at 10:29:43 AM PDT

  •  Pretty simple explanation for the inconsistency (8+ / 0-)

    In my estimation, these individuals don't view the military as a part of the government, at least not in the traditional sense.

    Because when they think of the military, they think of nice, young white guys who look and think like them. The heroes they see on TV and stuff. And when they think of the "government," the think of that black guy in the Oval Office and all of the black people he is giving stuff to.

    And these folks are sure that if push came to shove, the nice young 2nd Lt. who grew up on their street would be on their side, fighting the tyranny of the great black dictator. It's cognitive dissonance taken to the most extreme level.

    When they say they want guns to protect themselves from the tyranny of the government, they don't mean Capt. Smith who grew up in their church. They mean Barack Obama and the people on welfare who are going to beat down their doors and steal their TVs.

    "I believe that, as long as there is plenty, poverty is evil." ~Bobby Kennedy

    by Grizzard on Tue Apr 02, 2013 at 10:30:44 AM PDT

  •  kos, the thing you're not getting is that the (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    88kathy, pat bunny, tytalus, a2nite, WakeUpNeo

    ... military will come over to our side ("our side" being the side of people like me who feel naked without a gun strapped to my hip or shoved down my pants) when the tyrant Obama (or some other Democrat tyrant) comes for our guns.

    Because the military is always made up of people just like me who love guns.

    Suggested liberal gun lovers' motto: "More liberal than the NRA on everything except guns."

    by Bob Johnson on Tue Apr 02, 2013 at 10:32:40 AM PDT

  •  Same reason they hate Arabs then burn gasoline all (0+ / 0-)

    day and night... there is no time in the conservative day for critical thinking that leads to difficult decisions, just let everyone do what they want and I'll do what I want and so long as you don't tread on me I won't have to shoot you for tyranny, the end.

    You Hate Cuts To the Big Three? Do You Love Obamacare Also? It added $1 trillion to Medicaid.

    by CornSyrupAwareness on Tue Apr 02, 2013 at 10:39:32 AM PDT

  •  hmmmmm (0+ / 0-)
    Either you think government is tyrannical and must be eroded of its ability to militarily suppress its populace, or you think a well-armed government is a benevolent force for world peace. Thinking both just makes you a moron.
    What if you think neither?
  •  People with guns kill people (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    a2nite

    I think the anti-government 2nd Amendment justifications are nonsense. Antiquated nonsense. Fudgin” Branch Dividian Waconess. See how it ends. There ain't a wacko “patriot” in suburbia that has a wife who will live through the toilet not working, much less all dreams held in 401-Ks and equities when your checking account is closed . You think there's someone to shoot at? Tip the couch over in front of the picture window and … ? March on ??? You and what army?:

    Get real? They will drone your posterior while you're sneaking over to the neighbors for a bucket of water while everything you ever planned on dissolves and the world never even notices.

    You tell me what the Federal Government of the United States Of America has to do that will ever get an organized group of NOT-CRAZY people ( I've been to Tea Party big events) to act in an armed manner.
    Then, after you finally stretch out all logic and history, whatever you put up, I will measure against school massacres.

    I propose that semi-auto pistols be illegal. No ammo magazines over 6 rounds - if you can't take that deer down with 6, give it up.

  •  See, the thing is (0+ / 0-)

    They're so intently focused on mis-reading the 2nd amendment that they kind of missed the thing where it says in the Constitution that taking up arms against the US is Treason.

    But they looooove the Constitution, so maybe that part would just make their heads hurt.

  •  "In other words, it makes you a Republican." (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    a2nite, WakeUpNeo

    LOL!!! Moron, Republican, short and sweet. Thanks KOS.

    "Three things cannot be long hidden: The Sun, The Moon, and The Truth." Buddha

    by Grandson named me Papa on Tue Apr 02, 2013 at 10:46:59 AM PDT

  •  Totally playing devil's advocate (0+ / 0-)

    but when right-wingers talk about government "Tyranny" they are usually referring to the Police, FEMA, and Homeland Security. I think most of them believe something about how the military will defect if ordered to fire on US citizens. Hah!

  •  Arguments? The pro-gun forces are impervious (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    a2nite

    to "argument."  This will be won, if at all, on sheer political power.  The best "argument" is, "we don't agree with you and there are way more of us."  

  •  There's no contradiction (0+ / 0-)

    if you're the NRA and represent the people that sell guns to the military and civilians.

    If you can sell them the same guns, so much the better.

  •  the thing is we are just like the brown people (0+ / 0-)

    "over there"

    If it ever becomes apparent that its our globalcorpoplutocracy backed by USMIcomplex vs "American Citizens" (instead of a brown foreign group of people), it wont matter who has the drones and the bombs, you can't kill human resolve and solidarity.

    The beer bellied stars and bars gun hoarders would not be fighting alone, many people including many of us would be on their side.

    Think the scenario ALL the way through. Because the "war" would not be Govt of the people vs people, it would be govt brought and sold to the corporations vs the people.

    And we do NOT have a govt of the people, that is not who really pays our leaders in today's real world, now is it? (plus we are taught and encouraged not to fight back, so the natural torch and pitchfork response did not and does not ever happen).....

  •  Paradoxical thinking (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Sam Sara

    I have pointed this fact out time and time again.

    Unlike Iraqis and Afghans, would-be Wolverines do not have the access to explosives which would make an effective IED campaign as crippling as it was in OIF/OEF. Now an armed populace is nothing to be sneezed at but once again any 'freedom fighters' are going to be in EXACTLY the same boat the Taliban has found themselves in during most of OEF.

    They can kill people but they can't hold territory unless their enemy (that would be us/NATO) withdraw. So sure your 2nd Amendment Paladin can snipe those evil government troops all day and usually get away with it. Yet the minute he and his 'patriotic' buddies gather together to 'throw the bastards out' they become an easy target and get wiped out. I saw first hand what happens to 200+ guys with hand-guns when they go up against helicopters, gunships and artillery. (Hint: Patrick Swayze couldn't have saved them)

    So It does seem rather paradoxical that a certain segment of our population says we need guns to protect us from the government while doing there best not to cut weapon systems owned and operated by said government.

  •  Gee, and I thought this diary was about the (0+ / 0-)

    potentially self defeating concept of insisting that the military be well armed when they are the "bad guys". Everything else I've read in the comments seems to be extrapolation on top of innuendo based on hearsay that's been derived from reading the entrails of a chicken or tossing the bones.

    "Find out for yourself what is truth, what is real. Discover that there are virtuous things and there are non-virtuous things. Once you have discovered for yourself give up the bad and embrace the good." -Buddha Shakyamuni-

    by Sam Sara on Tue Apr 02, 2013 at 11:02:52 AM PDT

    •  The drone picture was an example of the (0+ / 0-)

      absolute detachment from reality that these folks seem to have sold themselves by believing the second amendment is their own personal "iron dome". It could have just as easily been a picture of a cruise missile, or a Apache attack helicopter.

      "Find out for yourself what is truth, what is real. Discover that there are virtuous things and there are non-virtuous things. Once you have discovered for yourself give up the bad and embrace the good." -Buddha Shakyamuni-

      by Sam Sara on Tue Apr 02, 2013 at 11:08:48 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Okay, not everything else I've read... (0+ / 0-)

      "Find out for yourself what is truth, what is real. Discover that there are virtuous things and there are non-virtuous things. Once you have discovered for yourself give up the bad and embrace the good." -Buddha Shakyamuni-

      by Sam Sara on Tue Apr 02, 2013 at 11:30:44 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  This peculiar logic of arguing from both ends (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Sam Sara, defluxion10

    ...without seeing the hypocricy is a typical mental function (or malfunction) observed in individuals drawn to what we call the " Republican Party" in recent times.

    Their severely conflicted psyche is causing them self contradict all the time. When reminded, they either deny or lie or  ignore or turn it aroundblaming somsomeone else.

    Socrates was put the death because he was messing with this mindset.

    "Corruptio Optimi Pessima" (Corruption of the best is the worst)

    by zenox on Tue Apr 02, 2013 at 11:02:58 AM PDT

  •  The Second Amendment was entirely about the (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    CornSyrupAwareness

    prevention of a standing army. Its "militia" clause is no mistake. It was based on George Mason's Virginia Declaration of Rights. Mason was one of the few drafters who did not put his name to the new constitution because he was miffed that it didn't contain a sufficiently vigorous Bill of Rights. It was precisely to win over critics like Mason that Madison drafted the bill of rights.

    What does the Virginia Declaration of Rights say about arms?

    XIII That a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that, in all cases, the military should be under strict subordination to, and be governed by, the civil power.
    See any familiar clauses? So what about that part with the standing armies? Well, Madison was a bit conflicted. Yes, he was Jefferson's chief lieutenant, but his prime collaborator during the fight for the  constitution was Jefferson's eventual arch-antogonist, Hamilton. (Jefferson was so much Hamilton's rival that he could not resist paying him a back-handed compliment as a parting shot after Hamilton's death, setting Hamilton's bust opposite his own in the foyer of Monticello, remarking to those that noticed it "opposed in death as in life.") At the time of the drafting of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, Madison was arguably (save perhaps Washington and Hamilton himself) the greatest proponent of centralization. He actually proposed an article in the new constitution that would allow Congress to veto any state law it found obnoxious.

    Long story short (Too late-I know. I get that a lot). Madison was not about to give up on the possibility of a peace-time standing army. The Second Amendment was not a declaration of ultimate truths, it was an attempt to relieve the anxieties of those who feared the power of a central government. Thus Madison tried to split the difference and assuage the anti-Federalists by guaranteeing the right to bear arms, but not explicitly outlawing a standing army, which he, quite rightly, perceived would eventually become a necessity.

    His first attempt to assuage the anti-Federalists, in his Federalist 46 made this quite explicit:

    Extravagant as the supposition is, let it however be made. Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the Fœderal Government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State Governments, with the People on their side, would be able to repel the danger. The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by Governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops.
    When that didn't do the trick he came back with a watered-down version of Mason's own Declaration in order to keep the possibility of a standing army alive while still placating the anti-Federalists. What neither Mason nor Madison foresaw was that insane jackasses like Wayne LaPierre would take this compromise and make it into an industry that kills more Americans every year than the British army ever did.

    Ceterum censeo Factionem Republicanam esse delendam.

    by journeyman on Tue Apr 02, 2013 at 11:04:13 AM PDT

  •  Gun marketing 101 (0+ / 0-)

    Small arms sales to the US non-military market are falling, and have been for years. Most of the sales now are to repeat buyers. So marketing is mainly focused on repeat buyers, who have... a certain profile, which the industry understands and exploits.

  •  But the Army would be on "our" side! (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    defluxion10

    That's what I've heard when massive military supporting anti-Government types bring this up.

    We have to have a huge and well armed military and if the government ever gets fully corrupt, why, the military would side with us, the gun nuts. Why? Because the military, that's why.

    It is a lot of magical thinking.

  •  yeah, the same freaks want high 'defense' spending (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    defluxion10

    and worship military bases

    This is a list of 76 universities for Rush Limbaugh that endorse global warming denial, racism, sexism, and GOP lies by broadcasting sports on over 170 Limbaugh radio stations.

    by certainot on Tue Apr 02, 2013 at 01:01:18 PM PDT

  •  Christ on a cracker. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Otteray Scribe, ER Doc, theatre goon

    It's like some people have never heard the terms "assymetrical-" or "geurrila-warfare".

    Even after spending time in the military.

    Are people really this ignorant or merely rejecting of history and reality?

    Your hate-mail will be graded.

    by PavePusher on Tue Apr 02, 2013 at 07:34:35 PM PDT

    •  Look at Afghanistan. (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      PavePusher, ER Doc, theatre goon

      Bunch of mountain tribesmen beat the British empire in the 19th century, the Soviet Union in the 29th, and are beating back the most advanced military in the world in the 21st century.  

      The early Scots held off the Roman legions until Rome built a wall to keep the barbarian Scots out of their "civilized world."

      American patriots defeated the British empire with largely guerrilla tactics during the American Revolution.  We may call them Republicans and Democrats now, but one might ask, "Which of the two parties most resembles the Tories and which the Whigs?

      Also, there is a logical fallacy that the US military will be as willing to fire on fellow American citizens as the Chinese did in Tienanmen Square and elsewhere.

      Am fear nach glèidh na h-airm san t-sìth, cha bhi iad aige 'n àm a' chogaidh.

      I don't think the proposition posed by the diarist will ever come to pass, but going down a primrose path of logical fallacies is not helpful.

      The general who wins the battle makes many calculations in his temple before the battle is fought. The general who loses makes but few calculations beforehand. - Sun Tzu

      by Otteray Scribe on Tue Apr 02, 2013 at 08:43:49 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

paradox, Angie in WA State, RF, Trendar, Powered Grace, Shockwave, eeff, xynz, maskling, exNYinTX, Heart of the Rockies, JLFinch, concernedamerican, 88kathy, fumie, wader, kharma, Moody Loner, TexDem, pat bunny, Eyesbright, laughingriver, wdrath, defluxion10, Daniel Case, deantv, zerelda, Deward Hastings, lyvwyr101, sawgrass727, Bluesee, democracy inaction, basquebob, dewtx, ChemBob, YucatanMan, Dobber, Kevskos, FutureNow, LNK, SBandini, dbadw, Pluto, We Shall Overcome, tarheelblue, myboo, 417els, gpoutney, The Hindsight Times, el cid, middleagedhousewife, Clive all hat no horse Rodeo, suspiciousmind, shaharazade, bartcopfan, Temmoku, One Pissed Off Liberal, Habitat Vic, bearian, mbh1023, leonard145b, skod, JML9999, MichiganGirl, TomP, jwinIL14, mconvente, gzodik, Sixty Something, Thomas Twinnings, Involuntary Exile, NewDealer, Buckeye Nut Schell, Akonitum, pamelabrown, Dancing Frog, mofembot, petulans, Matt Browner Hamlin, Karen Hedwig Backman, rudewarrior, juca, TheFern, maryabein, WakeUpNeo, shopkeeper, kevinpdx, sfarkash, Larsstephens, Words In Action, Railfan, commonmass, FogCityJohn, Polly Syllabic, anonevent, DerAmi, Betty Pinson, orlbucfan, kenwards, ericlewis0, Liberal Capitalist, implicate order, Possiamo, mrsgoo, n8rboy, VTCC73, cactusgal, Miggles, zenox, No one gets out alive, livingthedream, GrumpyOldGeek, sparkysmom, stormicats, DeadHead, Eric Nelson, pimutant, a2nite, Deep Texan, Buckeye54, tytalus, FrY10cK, Glen The Plumber, madcitysailor, Blue Dream, koosah, Sam Sara, jbob, aresea, IamNotaKochsucker, Icicle68, Smoh, Grandson named me Papa, rigcath, chicklet, Fulgour, H E Pennypacker

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site