Skip to main content

I have friends who actually think that they can hold off or even topple the government if they don't like it.

Now I like weapons as much as the next person, but an armed society...

Here's what it's REALLY like.

I have to laugh bitterly when some American waves a gun around and flatters themselves that they "Can hold off the government".

Waziristan... Everybody's armed. Firearms are a cottage industry. They'll make you whatever you want from scratch. A Chinese .50 caliber machine gun goes for $200. Boxes of grenades on special. The main street of Dera Ismail Khan is ALL weapons shops... A NRA member's dream. And they STILL can't keep the drones away. A fully armed society, Armed in a way that makes the USA look like sissies, and one cheap drone they can't even shoot down bombs wherever and whenever it will.

Remember Waco, Texas? I know, it was a long time ago, and memory isn't America's strong suit. It was just 21 years ago. The Branch Davidians even had MACHINE GUNS!!!. So Manly. Oh boy. Big deal. The smallest, weakest armored vehicle we have, and we aren't talking about a REAL tank, killed them all. So much for toppling the government with guns.

You want an armed society? Syria is an armed society. Conflict has changed. Yes, armed citizens can give the government trouble. Syria is proof of that. Ordinary people organized in militias are in a stalemate, somewhat successfully holding off the government tanks and helicopters with AK's and RPG's. Meanwhile, the country is devastated; women, children, the elderly, dying of hunger and being bombed when they stand in bread lines, If even there IS bread.

There's your armed society. Have a nice day. Oh, and while we're at it, as we enlisted men used to say in the army, "Don't call me sir, I work for a living!"

Share this with your gun-totin' tough-talkin' acquaintances.

Originally posted to Mr Horrible on Tue Feb 04, 2014 at 12:04 AM PST.

Also republished by Repeal or Amend the Second Amendment (RASA), Shut Down the NRA, and VAGV - Veterans Against Gun Violence.

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

    •  This might be what your friends think they can do (14+ / 0-)

      I think that they might watch a tad too many movies like this. I'm trying to think of the last time a government was overthrown by force from citizens, can't come up with anything.

    •  That was easy. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Glen The Plumber, Matt Z

      You can't make this stuff up.

      by David54 on Tue Feb 04, 2014 at 04:01:25 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Didn't they all end up dead in the movie? (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      gramofsam1, Glen The Plumber

      I never saw it because the entire idea was so stupid and so unrealistic I refused to slap down my hard-earned cash.

      This isn't freedom. This is fear - Captain America

      by Ellid on Tue Feb 04, 2014 at 07:24:24 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  The only Wolverine I'll watch (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        fumie, Glen The Plumber

        is Hugh Jackman.

      •  All but two of them died. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Neo Control

        The brothers at the end sat next to each other with fatal wounds.

        Thus anyone who critiques the movie as a gung-ho fantasy obviously never watched the movie and is going off stories of other people who have never watched it.

        I don't call near starvation and freezing and have to shoot your friend because they are bugged and watching almost all of your high school friends get killed horifficly and your parents put in concentration camps a fantasy.

        •  Many fantasies are morbid. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          coquiero

          This is a problem with some gun fetishists: they imagine (fantasize) many scenarios in which their gun is the best way they can try to defend themselves or others from evil-doers. Then, they transfer this fantasy (fear) to reality and policy. Sure, happy endings are nice, but even morbid martyr fantasies of some preppers I know reinforce their desire for guns, to "go down shooting." Their lesson from these dark fantasies is that they should get even more firepower.

          The word has taken on a positive valence in common use (a fantasy woman, a fantasy vacation), but that's not a necessary part of the definition:

          fan·ta·sy  (făn′tə-sē, -zē)
          n. pl. fan·ta·sies
          1. The creative imagination; unrestrained fancy. See Synonyms at imagination.
          2. Something, such as an invention, that is a creation of the fancy.
          3. A capricious or fantastic idea; a conceit.
          4. a. Fiction characterized by highly fanciful or supernatural elements. b. An example of such fiction.
          5. An imagined event or sequence of mental images, such as a daydream, usually fulfilling a wish or psychological need.
          6. An unrealistic or improbable supposition.
          7. Music See fantasia.
          8. A coin issued especially by a questionable authority and not intended for use as currency.

          9. Obsolete A hallucination.
          tr.v. fan·ta·sied, fan·ta·sy·ing, fan·ta·sies
          To imagine; visualize.
          [Middle English fantasie, fantsy, from Old French fantasie, from Latin phantasia, from Greek phantasiā, appearance, imagination, from phantazesthai, to appear, from phantos, visible, from phainesthai, to appear; see bhā-1 in Indo-European roots.]

          Dark fantasy is a subgenre of fantasy which can refer to literary, artistic and filmic works that combine fantasy with elements of horror. The term can be used broadly to refer to fantastical works that have a dark, gloomy atmosphere or a sense of horror and dread.

      •  Lea Thompson and Brad Savage (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        BvueDem

        Escaped at the end of the movie.  Thompson narrates at the end:

        In the early days of World War III, guerrillas – mostly children – placed the names of their lost upon this rock. They fought here alone and gave up their lives, so "that this nation shall not perish from the earth."

        Talk about a nice, rousing, patriotic end to a semi-okay Cold War movie.  It was children with guns that stopped the big, bad Russkies!  I never saw the movie in the theater, but it the late 80s, Red Dawn would play endlessly on TBS when all the other cable stations had nothing to watch--that and the Beastmaster!

        I have no interest in seeing the remake.

  •  What USians need: (16+ / 0-)

    Great article in the National Journal today for your reading pleasure:

    The End of American Exceptionalism

    It is very fresh and provocative. Check it out.


    “The Internet is the first thing that humanity has built that humanity doesn't understand, the largest experiment in anarchy that we have ever had.” ― Eric Schmidt

    by Pluto on Tue Feb 04, 2014 at 01:47:00 AM PST

  •  I prefer a free society (13+ / 0-)

    Even if it means I have to tolerate people who I disagree with who are doing me no harm so long as they don't try to coerce me as part of their intolerance. This includes...

    Conservatives: on matters of race, abortion, immigration, social programs, unions, wages and homosexuality (maybe a few others, it's hard to keep track)

    Liberals: on matters of firearms and occasionally free speech

    •  Libel ain't free speech. (6+ / 0-)

      Of course that doesn't stop certain Conservatives from Screaming about it when spouting actual Blood Libel.

      I don't blame Christians. I blame Stupid. Which sadly is a much more popular religion these days.

      by detroitmechworks on Tue Feb 04, 2014 at 06:10:05 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Firearms are not freedom. (21+ / 0-)

      Endangering others is not freedom.

      It's assholery and arrogance.

      "What could BPossibly go wrong??" -RLMiller "God is just pretend." - eru

      by nosleep4u on Tue Feb 04, 2014 at 06:21:07 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  -Misuse- of firearms would be assholery (11+ / 0-)

        and arrogance. Are you claiming that mere ownership is also these things?

        •  You Have Trigger Locks? (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Kevskos, Glen The Plumber

          All your guns have trigger locks on them? Otherwise they're being misused.

          "When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro." - HST

          by DocGonzo on Tue Feb 04, 2014 at 07:02:13 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  I have no idea what you mean (12+ / 0-)

            A gun that is not being used is incapable of being misused. Whether it has a trigger lock on it when not being used is irrelevant. For instance, I am home right now, we have no children and there is a firearm with no trigger lock outside of my gun safe.

            Demonstrate how it is "being misused".

            Besides, the question was whether the commenter (or you) wishes to state that mere ownership of a firearm is arrogance and assholery.

          •  I think I have one handgun (5+ / 0-)

            That came with a trigger lock. It's in a box in the bottom of the closet somewhere. Most (not all) of my firearms are locked up however.

          •  How 'bout a vault? (4+ / 0-)

            Well, except for the one currently on my hip.

            Your definition is misuse is ridiculous.

          •  Trigger locks are stupid and inherently dangerous. (8+ / 0-)

            Something you would know if you had even a modicum of knowledge about firearms.

            Here's a hint: The trigger is the part that makes the firearm go boom.  By inserting something into the trigger guard you increase the likelihood of pulling the trigger, with predictable results.

            Action locks are better, they render the firearm incapable of being loaded, and you can't put an action lock onto a loaded firearm.  A safe or quality lockbox is superior to both.

            Of course, this whole discussion was just a redirection because none of you have the guts to answer Shamash's actual question.

            There are four boxes to be used in the defense of liberty: soap box, ballot box, jury box and ammo box. Use in that order.

            by Crookshanks on Tue Feb 04, 2014 at 07:27:42 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  I'll answer it (6+ / 1-)

              Running around with a firearm on your hip is...

              It's assholery and arrogance.
              Assuming that you are the superior person, you will be the one to "protect" yourself and everyone around you is arrogance at it's finest.

              By wearing a firearm on your hip (back, ankle, whatever) you assume quite a few things:

              1. it won't be taken away from you and used against you
              2. you will have need of it at some point (otherwise why wear it?)
              3. when you have need of it
                   a. you will be the fastest draw (you have to be, otherwise what good is it?)
                   b. you will be on target at all times (because you have to take out the "bad guy" not some innocent person standing next to him, or a block away)

              You have to assume all of those things before you can even begin to rationally justify carrying a firearm around. Tell me that's not arrogance. If you don't assume all of those things, if you don't really believe them and you wear a firearm anyway- well then, you are just an asshole.

              The tyranny of a prince in an oligarchy is not so dangerous to the public welfare as the apathy of a citizen in a democracy. -Charles de Montesquieu

              by dawgflyer13 on Tue Feb 04, 2014 at 08:16:02 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  I make different assumptions. (8+ / 0-)

                I assume that what a person keeps in their home or on their person is their business.

                I assume that those whom are unable to to mind their own business are arrogant assholes.

                Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                by FrankRose on Tue Feb 04, 2014 at 08:26:50 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Frankie, Frankie, Frankie...you've not been (5+ / 0-)

                  paying attention, have you?

                  "See something, say something!"

                  We all must live in fear of everyone else.

                  :(

                  -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 Feb 04, 2014 at 01:10:37 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                •  I could be ok with that (3+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Glen The Plumber, coquiero, 43north

                  as long as you take responsibility for any "accident" or "mishap" you may have with the gun on your hip. In line at Walmart reaching for your wallet and accidentally pull the trigger on your gun, maiming the person behind you? Ya, I want you criminally charged for your "accident" and your gun rights suspended.

                  With rights come responsibilities. With responsibilities come accountability. Most gun "accidents" should be reported, classified and charged for what they are reckless endangerment, gross negligence, manslaughter, maiming, etc etc etc.

                  KOS: "Mocking partisans focusing on elections? Even less reason to be on Daily Kos."

                  by fcvaguy on Tue Feb 04, 2014 at 04:13:08 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Then you are in luck. (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Neo Control, theatre goon

                    Those laws are already in place.

                    Debate Over!

                    Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                    by FrankRose on Tue Feb 04, 2014 at 04:32:03 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  not quite (2+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      Glen The Plumber, coquiero

                      they indeed exist in many places, but generally not enforced. And because of our gun culture, more likely to be classified as "mishaps". Its very analogous to our drunk driving culture 30+ years ago. Until MADD came along, most drunk driving incidences were classified as "accidents". Not anymore. The drinking culture has changed dramatically. People think twice before they get behind the wheel. Thats what the gun culture needs right now. People would think twice before strapping on into Walmart.

                      KOS: "Mocking partisans focusing on elections? Even less reason to be on Daily Kos."

                      by fcvaguy on Tue Feb 04, 2014 at 04:47:14 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                  •  CHL classes emphasize that you will pay (0+ / 0-)

                    a serious price for

                    1) brandishing your gun if you are not in danger
                    2) carrying a gun while intoxicated
                    3) shooting someone even for legitimate reasons

                    If you shoot someone, even if your life is in danger, you will go to jail (not prison). You will pay a lot of money to defend yourself.

                    It isnt worth it to shoot someone for any reason except your life being in danger. The cost to defend yourself in court is much larger than just about any single asset most of us own. Probably a minimum of 50K and as high as 250K

              •  Not an answer (11+ / 0-)

                I asked if the commenter thought that mere ownership was assholery and arrogance (as well as endangering others). When you, as a person who has probably never owned or carried a firearm are done making assumptions and insults from a position of complete ignorance, perhaps you could get around to the actual question.

                As to whether wearing one on your hip meets those qualities, I'm pretty sure I am more responsible than the people who did this:

                Three passersby sustained direct gunshot wounds, while the remaining six were hit by fragments, according to New York Police Commissioner Ray Kelly. All injuries were caused by police, he said Saturday. One officer shot nine rounds and another shot seven. Link.
                Out of 16 shots fired, police managed to wound 9 innocent people. And since those yahoos still have their jobs and yes I do think I could have done better, then call me what you will. Just call them that as well.

                We can continue the discussion about taking away my ability to carry once you have taken care of theirs, since they are demonstratably less accountable for their actions than I currently am for mine in that sort of situation.

                P.S. I also think I'm a good enough driver that I do not need to rely on a trained professional bus driver to get me from point A to point B. So you need to come up with a new term for my double level of arrogance, since "arroganter" doesn't scan well.

                •  You know nothing about me (6+ / 0-)

                  So don't sit there and tell me what you think you know about me, you obviously don't.

                  I am a former LEO who was shot in the line of duty.  I have also taken a life in the line of duty. I have marksmanship medals from the Air Force and from the LEO Academy.  I was taught to shoot a Winchester 30/30 when I was 8 years old and a .22 when I was 10. I am qualified as an expert marksman on the M16, Beretta 9mil, Glock 22 and Mossberg Pump 12 gauge.. I have, at one point in my life, owned an AK47, a Smith and Wesson .40 cal, a Smith and Wesson .38, a Glock 27, a Glock 22 and assorted shotguns. I would say I qualify as an expert not

                  a person who has probably never owned or carried a firearm are done making assumptions and insults from a position of complete ignorance
                  Now that you've finished with the ad hominem attacks.

                  Police have no expectation to retreat, if they did then they could simply walk away from any situation which could put their lives in danger.  How do you think that would work out?  In this situation, they could have simply let the man continue shooting. Civilians SHOULD have that expectation...  And, if you think you could do so much better, why not join the force?  Strap a gun to your hip, but a badge on your chest (over your ballistic vest) and get in a patrol car to keep your community safe?

                  Do you know why there were so many civilians injured?  The reasons are two-fold:

                  1. There were so many there
                  2. Most LE Academy's only require a 70% score at the range to pass. Mine required 80%, but I think it should be 90 to 95%.

                  The reason the police are armed? There are many, many yahoo's out there with guns.

                  What does driving a bus have to do with it?  That sounds remotely like a straw argument. Argue the FACTS of an assertion, don't try to point people at this or that shiny object.

                  And, FYI, the police department and the City of NY are getting sued by the people who were shot.

                  The tyranny of a prince in an oligarchy is not so dangerous to the public welfare as the apathy of a citizen in a democracy. -Charles de Montesquieu

                  by dawgflyer13 on Tue Feb 04, 2014 at 09:08:44 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

              •  ok (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Crookshanks, theatre goon

                HR for personal insult.

                Things are more like they are now than they've ever been before...

                by Tom Seaview on Tue Feb 04, 2014 at 08:40:35 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

              •  For someone who claims to have carried a firearm (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                theatre goon, gerrilea

                around in the line of duty you sure miss a lot of marks about using one for self-defense.  I could pick them apart if I was so inclined, but what's the point?  You'll just make another appeal to authority, or skip the actual question you were replying to.  So I'll leave you with some grammar correction:

                Assuming that you are the superior person, you will be the one to "protect" yourself and everyone around you is arrogance at it's finest.
                That would be "arrogance at its finest", "it's" is a contraction for "it is" and I don't think that sentence makes a lot of sense with "arrogance at it is finest" at the end.

                There are four boxes to be used in the defense of liberty: soap box, ballot box, jury box and ammo box. Use in that order.

                by Crookshanks on Tue Feb 04, 2014 at 12:32:30 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Please, by all means point them out... (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Glen The Plumber, coquiero

                  and do so without correcting my grammar- it's really irrelevant because you clearly understood what I was saying, and it just makes you look like you are trying to tear me down without arguing the facts.

                  The tyranny of a prince in an oligarchy is not so dangerous to the public welfare as the apathy of a citizen in a democracy. -Charles de Montesquieu

                  by dawgflyer13 on Tue Feb 04, 2014 at 01:06:38 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  I don't need to argue with you. (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    not4morewars

                    40+ "shall issue" states, the ability to procure licenses in some of the rest, and only two real de-facto "no issue" (NJ and HI) states.

                    Your opinion on concealed carry is completely irrelevant, even if it wasn't totally nonsensical, which of course it is.  "You can't carry a gun unless you're 100% sure of ...."  Gosh, by that criteria even the Navy SEALs shouldn't be allowed firearms.  Here's a hint: If anything was 100% we wouldn't need firearms, because we'd be 100% certain of avoiding situations wherein our lives are in jeopardy.

                    By the by, your claim to have killed someone in the line of duty smells fishy to me.  I've met my share of people who have taken human life, soldiers, law enforcement, and a family member who was nearly raped.  They've all got one thing in common: They don't talk about it.

                    There are four boxes to be used in the defense of liberty: soap box, ballot box, jury box and ammo box. Use in that order.

                    by Crookshanks on Tue Feb 04, 2014 at 01:33:42 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  So rather than debate my point (2+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      Glen The Plumber, coquiero

                      You will simply call me a liar and be done with it.

                      I could pick them apart if I was so inclined, but what's the point?  You'll just make another appeal to authority, or skip the actual question you were replying to.
                      Really, because I haven't seen any of that, just a lot of name calling and mud slinging.

                      And, FYI, this is what an appeal to authority actually is

                      Argument from authority... where it is argued that a statement is correct because the statement is made by a person or source that is commonly regarded as authoritative.
                      Link

                      Something I never did...

                      I merely corrected the assumptions another person made about me by telling him who I was and what I have done.  

                      As far as I can tell, you want to wave your arms and make pronouncements, call people liars, say you can do this and you can do that, but never actually do it... because.

                      So

                      Either put up

                      Or

                      Shut up

                      The tyranny of a prince in an oligarchy is not so dangerous to the public welfare as the apathy of a citizen in a democracy. -Charles de Montesquieu

                      by dawgflyer13 on Tue Feb 04, 2014 at 02:22:53 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  You are a liar. (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        Kasoru

                        Your behavior is contrary to every person I've ever known who had to employ lethal force.  They don't talk about it.  It rips a hole into your soul and the last thing you want to do is talk about it, much less use it to prove a point in an internet argument.

                        You're also lying about not making an appeal to authority, because that's EXACTLY what you did.  You listed all of your credentials, even throwing out the tidbit about allegedly killing someone in the line of duty.  What was the point of all that if not to try and bolster your argument?  You even used the words "I would say I qualify as an expert" so best of luck trying to claim that wasn't an appeal to authority.

                        What's funny is I might be inclined to believe the bit about killing someone, if you had mentioned it as a way to tamp down on the gung-ho attitude frequently evidenced by people who haven't been there.  But you didn't do that.  You used it as part of an appeal to authority, which reinforces my belief that you're full of shit.

                        There are four boxes to be used in the defense of liberty: soap box, ballot box, jury box and ammo box. Use in that order.

                        by Crookshanks on Tue Feb 04, 2014 at 02:54:13 PM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                  •  Fair enough... I have a question for you. (4+ / 0-)

                    Are the police the only ones that should be allowed protect themselves with firearm?

                    And if you didn't notice my posting above.  Since you have no duty to protect anyone in the public, why would you need a weapon in the first place? Just for personal protection then?

                    And since that is the case, why would you deny said to others?

                    -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 Feb 04, 2014 at 01:39:33 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  This is RWNJ bs (2+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      Glen The Plumber, coquiero

                      and it is sad that you don't actually know that.

                      Once the police are engaged in a situation they do have a duty to protect.

                      But they can't protect you if they are not actually on-scene, can they?

                      And since your assertion is NOT actually the case- your argument is moot.

                      The tyranny of a prince in an oligarchy is not so dangerous to the public welfare as the apathy of a citizen in a democracy. -Charles de Montesquieu

                      by dawgflyer13 on Tue Feb 04, 2014 at 02:25:27 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Glad you recognize this: (5+ / 0-)
                        But they can't protect you if they are not actually on-scene, can they?
                        Which is one of the reasons why I carry. When seconds count, the police are only minutes (if not longer) away.
                        •  She recongizes it by being a member of the (4+ / 0-)

                          Repeal the 2nd Amendment group.

                          Awesome that, she acknowledges on one hand the deficiency in police protection, while using the other hand to deprive people of the most effective means of taking care of themselves until the police arrive.

                          There are four boxes to be used in the defense of liberty: soap box, ballot box, jury box and ammo box. Use in that order.

                          by Crookshanks on Tue Feb 04, 2014 at 02:56:03 PM PST

                          [ Parent ]

                      •  Dismissing my legitimate question and then (5+ / 0-)

                        personally attacking me is your idea of "honest discussion"?

                        It was a righ-wing Supreme Court that decided LEO have no duty to protect!  HOW it magically becomes a RWNJ bs is a bit of a mystery.

                        I know this, if I call the police, they do not have to respond, ever!  Hell, they don't even have to follow State Law that prompted the case listed above!

                        If the police are on scene, as they were in the NYC case, THEY HAVE NO DUTY TO PROTECT!  And they stated as such.

                        Answer the question, if you dare!

                        Since you have no constitutional duty to protect anyone, EVEN WHEN State law demands it, why the hell do you need a damn gun?

                        For personal protection, not to protect the public!

                        This is the reality every American needs to understand! I know I do...call me all the names you like, it doesn't change the fact we pay billions for "alleged police protection" but that's not in their actual job description!

                        It pisses me off to no end, I've never owned a firearm, falsely believing the police were there to protect me, when in reality they are only their to protect themselves.

                        Then you anti-rights activists won't allow anyone but yourselves the opportunity to defend themselves with the same weapons you have!

                        It's absolute insanity!  (And be clear here, your policy position, not you personally)

                        -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 Feb 04, 2014 at 03:02:02 PM PST

                        [ Parent ]

              •  I don't agree (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Glen The Plumber, coquiero

                I think there are a few legitimate reasons for a gun on the hip - police officer, air marshall, secret service agent (which I've actually seen, pumping gas at a gas station), and other officially designated law enforcement officials, or trained guards, brinks truck drivers etc.

                Regular civilians? No.

                KOS: "Mocking partisans focusing on elections? Even less reason to be on Daily Kos."

                by fcvaguy on Tue Feb 04, 2014 at 04:10:02 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

              •  Watch less TV. (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                theatre goon
                You have to assume all of those things before you can even begin to rationally justify carrying a firearm around. Tell me that's not arrogance. If you don't assume all of those things, if you don't really believe them and you wear a firearm anyway- well then, you are just an asshole.
                Quite honestly the character of John McClane played by Bruce Willis has no basis in fact.
                Neither did Miami Vice detectives Crockett and Tubbs document the real-life exploits of Florida Law Enforcement Officers.  Jack Lord?  Wasn't really a LEO on "The Big Island".

                Tactics, including cover and concealment, are used by persons carrying firearms.  
                It was one of the toughest lessons when re-training officers, back in the 1980s:
                A badge does not compel you to stand there, and play "the quicks draw".  To stand there, and take rounds.  To stand there, and look for a place to "police your brass" prior to reloading.
                Same lesson applies to civilians with firearms.

                So your "arrogant/asshole" list?  No basis in fact.
                No basis in current law enforcement curriculum.  
                At least none employed in the past 3 decades.

          •  Please. (5+ / 0-)

            My guns are locked in a safe, where only my wife and I can get to them easily. Am I misusing them?

            ‎"Masculinity is not something given to you, but something you gain. And you gain it by winning small battles with honor." - Norman Mailer
            My Blog
            My wife's woodblock prints

            by maxomai on Tue Feb 04, 2014 at 08:43:30 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

      •  And neither is a State monopoly on force (4+ / 0-)

        "It's not surveillance, it's data collection to keep you safe"

        by blackhand on Tue Feb 04, 2014 at 07:57:17 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Guns are consumer products, nothing more. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Glen The Plumber, coquiero

        Guns Are Property, Not Liberty

        The phrase "keep and bear" implies ownership and/or lawful possession, i.e., property interests. Firearms are consumer goods, mechanical killing devices manufactured and sold for profit on the open market. That's all they are. The "right to keep and bear arms" extends to ownership and/or lawful possession of those products, and no farther.

        •  Guns are property (6+ / 0-)

          The right to keep and bear them is liberty.

            •  Well I, the US constitution, the SCOTUS (5+ / 0-)

              240 years of US history, and 100 million plus people disagree with you.

              •  Well, no. (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                coquiero, Glen The Plumber

                The "right to keep and bear arms" was not adjudicated to be an individual "right" until 2008 (District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)). So take that "240 years of U.S. History" down to "5½ years of U.S. history," and you might have a point.

                The U.S. Constitution, as I've pointed out separately, does not state or indicate that the "right to keep and bear arms" is a liberty interest rather than a property interest, and "liberty" and "property" are listed separately in the 5th and 14th Amendments. Definitionally, "keep and bear" indicates ownership and/or lawful possession, which are property rights.

                I don't care how many people "disagree." Considering that "100 million plus people" think that pollution can't possibly affect the global climate, and that the Earth was created in 6 days by an invisible sky man 5,000 years ago, that's hardly proof that I'm wrong.

                •  As has been pointed out many times in threads (4+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  FrankRose, theatre goon, gerrilea, DavidMS

                  You are incorrect on the history pre-Heller. The idea that it might not be an individual right is the very modern concept with only a brief history.

                  It's a "right"... given to the "people"... to perform an action ("bear")... that cannot be infringed. Sure sounds like a liberty to me.

                  •  "Bear" is not an "action" that a person (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    coquiero

                    can "perform," per se. "Bear" means to carry, hold or possess. "Keep" means to own, hold or possess permanently (or quasi-permanently). These are both property interests, by the very nature of what "property" is.

                    Again, and I hate to keep repeating this, but you pay for property; you don't pay for liberty. You can't have a "right" to own or possess something if you have to pay for it (i.e., give up property you already own) first; you can't have a "right" to own or possess something that someone else owns until you pay for the right to own or possess it. There is no other way to reconcile the fact that your "right to keep and bear Arms" is limited by your capacity to pay for them and the owners'/sellers' willingness to let you have the one(s) you want at a price you can afford. It can't be a liberty interest if it is limited that way; it can't be a liberty interest if you have to give something up before you can exercise it.

                    •  And again... (2+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      FrankRose, gerrilea

                      So the right to be secure in my home is not a liberty because it requires I buy/rent a home... The right to a free press is not a liberty because it requires buying means to disseminate what you have written or said... The right to an abortion requires you perform it yourself with a stick or it's not a "liberty" because otherwise it involves a commercial transaction (whether paid for by you, an insurance company, or the government).

                      •  No, your right to be secure in your (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        coquiero

                        "home" (which, again, is a word not included in the text of the Fourth Amendment, which guarantees the right to be secure in one's "persons, houses, papers and effects") is in no way dependent upon your ownership or possession of a "home" and in no way requires you to buy anything.

                        The right to a free press, to the extent that could be an individual right rather than a collective right, in no way requires you to buy anything. Whatever you choose to buy or feel the need to buy to exercise that right, is your business; the right itself has nothing to do with buying things.

                        The "right to abortion" (if you can call it that; I prefer the "right to choose," but OK) in no way requires anyone to buy anything. The purchase of medical services is incidental to the right; the right is the freedom to make the choice, not to purchase the service.

                        None of these rights includes a "right" to "keep and bear" any particular consumer product. The need or desire for goods and services is incidental. The "right to keep and bear arms" is the precise opposite; it does specify a product, and ownership/possession of that product is the explicitly enumerated right.

                        •  The desire for goods or services (2+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          gerrilea, FrankRose

                          is also incidental in the same way to my right to be armed. It may or may not involve some commercial transaction as a possible prerequisite (though not necessarily). The right is to be armed, not to have any particular arm. The right fundamentally involves a state of being, not an object.

                          •  You can't "be armed" without arms. (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            coquiero

                            "Keep and bear" has nothing to do with commercial transactions; as I said earlier, "keep and bear" does not mean "buy and sell," so this reference to commercial transactions is a non-sequitur. Moreover, commercial transactions are in the realm of contracts, not property.

                            "To be armed" is a state of being, yes. So is "to keep and bear arms." Thank you for acknowledging that your previous statement, that "to keep and bear arms" is an "action," was wrong, and also for acknowledging that your previous statement that "the right to keep and bear arms" "fundamentally involve[d]" an "action" was also wrong.

                            But "to keep and bear arms" does not mean "to be armed." Those are two different things. The Second Amendment does not say, "the right of the people to be armed". It says, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms". You're either saying that (1) the former and the latter mean the same thing, or (2) they do not mean the same thing, and the Second Amendment means the former even though it says the latter. Either way, you're wrong.

                            The right is to be armed, not to have any particular arm.
                            I see. So you would agree, then, that outlawing the manufacture or sale of a particular model or category of firearm would not infringe upon the "right to keep and bear arms," so long as there are some firearms available with which a person could "be armed," even if it's not the "particular arm" he wants?
                        •  I understand your desire (3+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          gerrilea, FrankRose, Neo Control

                          to justify your authoritarianism with a ludicrous parsing of the text. However, it isn't persuasive in the least.

                          •  And, ladies and gentlemen, we have our (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            coquiero, Glen The Plumber

                            first ad hominem attack. Thank you for playing; you've been a wonderful contestant. Bye, now!

                          •  That word... (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            theatre goon

                            I do not think it means what I think you think it means...

                            Argmentum Ad Hominem is committed when someone rejects an argument based upon the identity of the arguer, failing to address the argument made.

                            This did not just occur. Your argument was clearly rejected on it's own (lack of) merit.

                          •  It absolutely did occur. (0+ / 0-)

                            farmernate "reject[ed my] argument" based on "[my] authoritarianism" and "[my] desire to justify" same, not on any "lack of merit" which he utterly failed to demonstrate. He failed to refute the argument on its merits because he failed to understand its merits in the first instance, and thus deflected those failures onto me by accusing me of having and desiring to "justify" a specific character flaw.

                            That is, by definition, an ad hominem attack. Your failure to recognize it is of no concern to me.

                    •  Incorrect, "to bear" meant to "wage war". (0+ / 0-)

                      http://www.constitution.org/...

                      What the Second Amendment also does is recognize the right, power, and duty of able-bodied persons (originally males, but now females also) to organize into militias and defend the state. It effectively recognizes that all citizens have military and police powers, and the "able-bodied" ones

                      -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 Feb 04, 2014 at 01:49:26 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  I generally give conservative think tanks like (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        coquiero

                        The Constitution Society (constitution.org), and the writings that appear thereon and are disseminated thereby, the consideration and deference they deserve. Make of that what you will.

                        •  Ha! So, when presented with evidence (1+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          Kasoru

                          your definition of "bear" is both legally and historically wrong, you dismiss it as "conservative"?

                          What dishonest tripe!

                          -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 Feb 04, 2014 at 03:16:21 PM PST

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  I said I gave your source its due consideration. (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Glen The Plumber

                            Everything else, you made up.

                          •  Start here. (0+ / 0-)

                            A Dictionary of the English Language, 1792 edition

                            To BEAR. v. a.pret. I bore, or bared

                            1. To carry as a burden.
                            2. To convey or carry.
                            3. To carry as a mark of authority.
                            4. To carry as a mark of distinction.
                            5. To carry as in show.
                            6. To carry as in trust.
                            7. To support ; to keep from falling.
                            8. To keep afloat.
                            9. To support with proportionate strength.
                            10. To carry in the mind as love, hate.
                            11. To endure, as pain, without sinking.
                            12. To suffer to undergo.
                            13. To permit.
                            14. To be capable of ; to admit.
                            15. To produce, as fruit.
                            16. To bring forth, as a child.
                            17. To possess, as power or honour.
                            18. To gain ; to win.
                            19. To maintain ; to keep up.
                            20. To support any thing good or bad.
                            21. To exhibit.
                            22. To be answerable for.
                            23. To supply.
                            24. To be the object of.
                            25. To behave.
                            26. To impel ; to urge ; to push.
                            27. To press.
                            28. To incite ; to animate.
                            29. To bear in hand. To amuse with false pretences; to deceive.
                            30. To bear off. To carry away by force.
                            31. To bear out To support; to maintain.

                            To BEAR. v. n.

                            1. To suffer pain.
                            2. To be patient.
                            3. To be fruitful or prolifick.
                            4. To take effect ; to succeed.
                            5. To tend ; to be directed to any point.
                            6. To act as an impellent.
                            7. To act upon.
                            8. To be situated with respect to other places.
                            9. To bear up. To stand firm without falling.
                            10. To bear with To endure an unpleasing thing.

                            I don't see "to wage war" or anything resembling same anywhere in there.

                            Find me an 18th-century English dictionary or other contemporaneous primary source that includes "to wage war" in the definition of the verb "to bear", and I'll gladly concede your point.

                            Thank you and have a nice evening.

                          •  Here: (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            theatre goon

                            Second Amendment to the United States Constitution


                            Meaning of "keep and bear arms"

                            The phrase “bear Arms” also had at the time of the founding an idiomatic meaning that was significantly different from its natural meaning: “to serve as a soldier, do military service, fight” or “to wage war.”

                            We have a difference of opinion here, "to bear" meaning: to carry and "to bear" meaning: to use.

                            I will concede that it may be just "to own and carry"....but I find that a bit awkward given the actual history of this nation.

                            It's like saying: "You can have a free press but you can't actually print anything."

                            Or

                            "You can own and carry arms but you can't use them."

                            It makes no sense to me whatsoever.

                            -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 Feb 04, 2014 at 04:35:54 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  An 18th century English dictionary is a (0+ / 0-)

                            primary source. Wikipedia is a secondary source at best, and more generally a tertiary source. It is not authoritative. Primary sources are authoritative.

                            In addition, the blockquote you cited here from the Wikipedia page is actually a quotation from the Heller decision, which is itself a secondary source vis-à-vis the meaning of words in 1789.  And the blockquote omits what immediately followed in the text of the decision:

                            But it unequivocally bore that idiomatic meaning only when followed by the preposition “against,”. Every example given by petitioners’ amici for the idiomatic meaning of “bear arms” from the founding period either includes the preposition “against” or is not clearly idiomatic.
                            D.C. v. Heller,  128 S. Ct. 2783,  2794 (2008) (Scalia, J.)

                            In other words, Justice Scalia is not saying that the verb "to bear" meant, in the 18th century, "to wage war." Neither is he saying that the phrase "to bear arms" meant "to wage war." He is saying that the phrase "to bear arms against [someone or something]" was an idiom that meant "to wage war". That is a far, far cry from your original claim, which has now been thoroughly discredited.

                            You stated that the verb "to bear" -- not the phrase "to bear arms", let alone "to bear arms against" -- meant "to wage war," not "to own, carry, hold or possess." You have provided no authoritative evidence, indeed no evidence whatsoever, to support that statement. You have now, when presented with actual evidence, authoritative evidence of the actual contemporaneous meaning and usage of the verb "to bear" -- which the evidence shows is precisely what I said it is -- backed off of that original statement by, inter alia, pretending that our "disagreement" is instead over whether "to bear" means "to carry" or "to use."

                            I think an apology for being smug and obnoxious whilst entirely wrong is in order, before we proceed any further.

                          •  A pointless mistake on my part. (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            theatre goon

                            "to keep and bear"....ARMS....I didn't know the high school game being played here required I complete that which was obvious.  "to keep...arms"  AND "to bear....arms".

                            That was the context I was actually thinking and defending and understanding....it was an assumption on my part.

                            That said:

                            Do you agree or disagree, when I substitute your definition of "to bear" into "to carry", it would then negate the entire premise of the amendment itself?

                            As I've shown:

                            "You can keep and carry arms."  

                            And since this new statement says nothing about actually "using" then it could mean exactly that we cannot ever use them but only keep and carry them.

                            Either we have a protected right to use force or we don't.  

                            Either we can wage war or we can't.

                            I did present evidence, you declined to accept it.

                            Here ya go:

                            http://dictionary.reference.com/...

                            noun versus verb:

                            verb (used without object)
                            3.
                            to enter into a state of hostility or of readiness for war.
                            In any analysis, the final part of said amendment does unequivocally state:

                            "Shall Not Be Infringed"

                            Making our debate truly moot.

                            ;)

                            To keep and carry vs. to keep and use/wage war

                            Either one: shall not be infringed.

                            -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 Feb 04, 2014 at 06:04:30 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  This is not an apology: (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            coquiero
                            I didn't know the high school game being played here required I complete that which was obvious.
                            Simply saying what you actually mean will suffice. When you say things that are untrue or wrong, expect to be challenged. When you are proven wrong, as you have been here, be magnanimous, accept it and learn from it rather than passive-aggressively deflecting blame.

                            You did not present evidence, and here you continue to present "evidence" that is not evidence, that neither says nor means nor proves what you think it does.

                            The blockquote cited here from the page you linked is a definition of the verb "to arm," not the verb "to bear," and not the phrase "to bear arms." It is also a modern definition, not a contemporaneous 18th-century definition. Moreover, that very page which you linked, but I am compelled to wonder if you actually read, in fact does define the idiom "bear arms," thusly:

                            a. to carry weapons.
                            b. to serve as a member of the military or of contending forces[.]
                            Not only is your "evidence" not evidence, it says, means and proves the precise opposite of what you claimed. You cannot expect me or anyone else to simply accept "evidence" which you yourself have not bothered to examine with any degree of care or diligence.

                            Further, I never claimed or implied, anywhere, that "no one can ever use a firearm." You made that up as well. What I did say, and explained in great detail, was that the "right to keep and bear arms" is a property interest, not a liberty interest. In order to understand this, you would first have to understand the nature of property rights. What is of critical importance here is that regardless of whether "to bear" means "to carry" or "to use," use is a property interest as well.

                            Property rights have been described by many scholars as a "bundle" of rights, which apply to real estate, chattels (personal property), and intellectual property (works of authorship); different property types have different bundles of rights, and which specific rights apply depend on many things, including whether the property is owned by the bearer or merely lawfully possessed (as in a leasehold estate or bailment).

                            Property rights with respect to chattels include inter alia the right to physically possess the chattel, to transport it, sell it, give it away, convert it, alter it, use it, exclude others from using it, and destroy it. The right to use a chattel is one of the property rights that the owner/possessor has in that chattel. And a gun is, indisputably, a chattel. Accordingly, to say that "the right to keep and bear arms is a property right" is not to say that "the right to keep and bear arms does not include the right to use arms," because use is a property right.

                            As magnanimity escapes you, I believe we're through. Goodnight.

                          •  Lecturing me on what you want me to do? (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            theatre goon

                            You can't be serious.  Wow.

                            "to bear arms" is not a property right, it is an act. We have the preexisting right to act with our arms that we possess.

                            There are two parts of this amendment, "to keep" or possess or own and then "to bear"....arms...

                            You are correct on the first part but not the second.  You cannot rewrite settled law here.  We've always had the right to use force...to wage war... be it for self defense or defense of others or for defense of our Nation/State...that "use of force" is only restricted to lawful purposes...note I do not say "legal" purposes.

                            Your argument that this right is exclusively a property right is null and void:

                            The Ratification Documents:

                             
                            http://memory.loc.gov/...

                              "A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms".

                                This declaration of rights, I take it, is intended to secure the people against the mal-administration of the Government; if we could suppose that, in all cases, the rights of the people would be attended to, the occasion for guards of this kind would be removed. Now, I am apprehensive, sir, that this clause would give an opportunity to the people in power to destroy the constitution itself. They can declare who are those religiously scrupulous, and prevent them from bearing arms."

                            As I outlined in the diary above, "to bear arms" wasn't just to mean "to carry" but to use arms to kill others with or to wage war.

                            If this concept is foreign to you, might I suggest you read that very well documented diary I wrote quite a long time ago.  The original version of the 2nd A was modified to omit the final phrase of protecting religious people like the Quakers whom will not wage war.  For the reasons Mr. Gerry outlined in the quoted section above.

                            The concept of others "bearing arms" in place of those religiously scrupulous was also discussed and debated:

                            19th. That any person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms ought to be exempted upon payment of an equivalent to employ another to bear arms in his stead.
                            See how this works???

                            To Keep and Bear Arms was to protect liberty, both individually and collectively and our very First Congress understood this all too well.

                            -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 Feb 04, 2014 at 08:43:43 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  You cannot "prove" with secondary and tertiary (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            coquiero

                            sources that which is disproven by primary sources. That is especially true when every secondary/tertiary sorce you've cited so far, when examined with even a modicum of scrutiny and diligence, demonstrates the precise opposite of what you are claiming.

                            "to bear arms" is not a property right, it is an act.
                            That makes no sense whatsoever. Your difficulty with English grammar and syntax is second only to your difficulty with sourcing. The "right to bear arms" is a property right. "To bear arms" is to exercise that right.

                            You've provided absolutely no authoritative, primary-source evidence whatsoever that the phrase "to bear arms" means anything other than "to carry weapons" or "to be a member of the military," now or in the 18th century. There is no "act" contained in the meaning of that phrase, no matter what the various right-wing think tanks upon which you apparently rely exclusively for everything you "know" are telling you, no matter how much the NRA and the gun industry are  paying them to tell you. Simple English grammar and syntax prove otherwise.

                            I know how much you despise pointing out that which should be obvious, but murder is an "act." So is robbery. So are assault, vandalism and extortion.  Surely you do not have a "right" to "use" your "arms" to commit murder, robbery, assault, vandalism or extortion. Of course not, and of course you did not mean to suggest otherwise. You did use the phrase "lawful purposes," but (1) the phrase "lawful purposes" does not appear in the text of the Second Amendment, and (2) the Second Amendment does not enumerate what those "lawful purposes" are, nor specify which "acts" (let alone "purposes") are "lawful" and which are not. In other words, the text of the Second Amendment does not by its terms provide a "right" to any particular "act," except to carry weapons or to be a member of the military.

                            Moreover, even if we stipulate that "to bear arms" means "to act using arms" -- which again, you have failed to prove -- then the phrase "shall not be infringed" is negated by the concept of "lawful purposes." The latter is a qualifier that limits the former. What you end up with is, "shall not be infringed, so long as those arms are borne and used for lawful purposes."

                            Which, indeed, is perfectly reasonable; the law has always picked up where the text of the Constitution leaves off. That's what the law does; that's its purpose. The Constitution doesn't tell us what those "lawful purposes" are, so the law fills in the blanks. Whether the law gets it right, is a separate argument.

                            Any "right" that exists to commit any "act" (other than "to carry weapons" or "to be a member of the military") does not derive from the text of Second Amendment. Whether such "rights" exist or not, and what they are, is not the point. The Second Amendment provides only for property rights in "arms." Anything more than that has been added to it and grafted onto it by the law, and by interested parties.

                            I'd like to continue, as this is actually quite interesting, but based on your comments I rather doubt you've actually read anything I've written here, and I am thus wasting my time.  Hence I'll finish here and allow you the last word, if you like.

                            Q.E.D.

                          •  Word salad...I've read what you've claimed (0+ / 0-)

                            I do not agree with your semantics.

                            If "to bear arms" didn't mean "to wage war", why did our First Congress debate that specific point?  That is a primary source...it shows their intent and what they believed "to bear arms" actually meant in the context used.

                            As for the red herring about "stealing, assault, vandalism", etc...that's all it is...misdirection.  The difference you fail to accept here is "lawful" vs "legal".  Lawful would be what the citizens understand and believe.  Legal would be the acts of our representatives.  The two different meanings do battle in our courts when juries are made to understand the actual authority they have.  As in the case of the "pot guy" in New Jersey being acquitted of drug charges.  I'm sure you've heard of the concept of "jury nullification".  This is where, We The People, have the ultimate authority to decide what is lawful or not.  I do recall a DA in the midwest couldn't get grand juries to indict their fellow citizens for drug charges, for years, those citizens understood their ultimate power to deny arbitrary "legal" definitions.

                            I do not believe any jury would acquit me if I used a weapon to assault, murder, steal or vandalize a neighbor.  I would be "waging war" that was not lawful.

                            So that you can understand the difference. Here's another example, a father in Texas beat to death a man raping his 4 yr old daughter, he was never charged by a grand jury for the murder, hence his act of war, was lawful.  And in this instance, he used his bare hands as "arms".

                            What you authoritarian anti-rights activists are attempting to do here is move the goal posts to restrict the 2nd A to what you want it to mean.  And then to move public policy to such an extreme point that it means the opposite from what our common law system has already established.  This is what you wish, in a nutshell:

                            "You can only "keep and carry arms", but you can never use them.  

                            And you never read what I actually wrote.  Why did our First Congress debate, "to bear arms in their stead"???

                            If they weren't talking about "waging war"???  The Quakers do "bear arms" as in wearing them, they do kill livestock as needed but the will not "bear arms" in war.

                            As for the unusual theory that the 2nd A grants me the right to be part of the militia, I find that unsupported in any of the historical documents I've ever read anywhere.

                            The constitution does not grant us anything, it does grant our creation limited authorities.

                            As for your "purpose of the law", might I suggest this most excellent interview, so that you can expand on your understandings of what the law has become, despite your naive beliefs?

                            "Noam Chomsky and Glenn Greenwald on how the law is used to destroy equity and protect the powerful"

                            -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 Wed Feb 05, 2014 at 09:33:11 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                  •  I should clarify: (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    coquiero

                    You can't have the "liberty" or the "freedom" to own or possess something that you first have to pay for (i.e., give up property you already own); you can't be "free" to own or possess something that someone else owns until you pay for the right to own or possess it.

                    •  Both missing the point (4+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      FrankRose, theatre goon, gerrilea, DavidMS

                      One can "keep and bear arms" with no more than a pointed stick, one can have a right to free speech with nothing more than a voice and one can have the right to be secure in their home even if it is nothing more than a shoebox in the middle of the road.

                      Having money to spend lets you improve the quality of how you express these rights, and being able to do something better because you have more money to spend on it is simply common sense.

                      The right to keep and bear arms does not require the government give you a weapon any more than your right to free speech requires the government to buy you a printing press. In both cases, you do have the right to spend money to acquire these things as a means of expressing that right.

                      The debate is merely the extent to which you can do so and under what conditions.

                      •  I think you mean "exercising," not "expressing." (0+ / 0-)

                        The phrase, "expressing that right" doesn't make sense, so I'll assume you meant "exercising that right."

                        The right to free speech does not include a right to own, hold, carry and/or possess any consumer product. The text of the First Amendment simply does not say that.

                        The Second Amendment, however, does explicitly and specifically provide a "right" to own, hold, carry and/or possess a particular consumer product. It does not give you the right, be it a positive or a negative right, to do any particular thing, let alone do any particular thing with that product. (Except perhaps take part in a state militia, but that's a separate topic and discussion I don't really want to have.)

                        The right to keep and bear arms does not require the government give you a weapon any more than your right to free speech requires the government to buy you a printing press.
                        All that is true. But it's neither here nor there. Ownership and possession of things, be they guns or printing presses, are property interests. The First Amendment does not protect property interests, viz., it does not state that "Congress shall make no law abridging" the ownership or lawful possession of any particular product. The Second Amendment does do that, explicitly.

                        Moreover, neither the First nor the Second Amendment, nor any other part of the Constitution for that matter, provides for a "right to spend money," let alone to do so for any particular purpose. The "right" to engage in commerce, like the right to vote, is generally understood to exist, but like the right to vote, it is not explicitly enumerated anywhere in the Constitution.

                    •  So there is no freedom of the press... (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      theatre goon

                      because a printing press must first be purchased?

                      Your logic, applied to the first amendment, fails spectacularly.

                      •  I've explained the difference at length, (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        coquiero

                        including the inaptness of the analogy, elsewhere in this thread. If anyone's "logic" "fails spectacularly," it is not mine.

                        The First and Second Amendments are not the same. The "rights" they respectively create and protect are not the same. The way they respectively create and protect them are not the same. Start from there.

          •  If it were, (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Glen The Plumber

            you wouldn't have to pay for it before you can "keep and bear" it, as a precondition thereof. You don't acquire property rights in that gun until you buy it. If it's a homemade gun, you have to buy the raw materials and tools and invest in the skills needed to manufacture it.

            Acquiring, owning and/or possessing property is not in and of itself a liberty interest. The Fifth (and Fourteenth) Amendment protects "life, liberty [and] property" separately. You pay for property; you don't pay for liberty.

            And "keep and bear" does not mean "buy and sell."

            •  So (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              FrankRose, theatre goon, gerrilea

              Freedom of the press is not a "liberty" because you must buy pen, ink, paper, web server, printing press, or other means of disseminating the material?

              The right to be secure in my home from unreasonable search is not a liberty because first I have to buy a home?

              •  Wrong again. (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                coquiero, Glen The Plumber

                Freedom of the Press is a liberty interest because it protects a right to do things; it does not protect or include any "right" to acquire, own or possess any particular consumer product. Whether certain consumer products are needed to exercise the right is incidental and irrelevant; in any event, it's not in the text.

                As with firearms, if the "right" included a "right" to acquire and possess whatever consumer products one wished to use to produce his newspaper, TV show, etc., that "right" would be infringed by, e.g., the price of those products being beyond his capacity to afford them. You pay for property; you don't pay for liberty. Liberty, viz., the existence of liberty, is not dependent on property ownership.

                The "right to keep and bear arms" does the precise opposite; it does specify in the text a particular consumer product (or category of products) that is the subject of the "right," but does not explicitly provide any "right" to do any particular thing, let alone to do any particular thing with that product.

                The Fourth Amendment does not contain the word "home;" it provides a right to be "secure" in one's "persons, houses, papers, and effects". That right is in no way dependent on what, if anything, you "own" or what, if anything, is your "home." As with other liberty interests, owning property or other consumer products is incidental. The "right" exists irrespective of what you own or possess.

      •  Also, firearms mean loss of life and happiness. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        coquiero

        There aren't a lot of freedoms to enjoy when you're dead.

    •  There is also security (0+ / 0-)

      And in this society we seek to strike a balance.

      •  True enough (7+ / 0-)

        But I do not recall running into any gun control advocates here who have ever said "if we reach this level of balance, no further gun control laws of any kind will ever be needed", nor have I run into any who think "we have already reached the proper level of balance" or "I think this gun control law went too far and should be repealed".

        For them, the "proper" level of gun control is like "tomorrow", in that "we're never quite there".

        •  Nor would you (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Neo Control

          There's always room for improvement.  But if you're looking for the end game, then the proper level of gun control is the complete disarmament of the civilian population.  We balance this with liberty interests by ensuring a strong system of checks and balances on public officials at all levels of government.  We know this is possible because there are dozens of OECD countries in which people enjoy considerable liberty without having to secure it for themselves.

          •  Disagree, but points for honesty (6+ / 0-)

            People who disagree with you but are causing you no harm need to be coerced by the government into following your beliefs. Right. I find that to be a very unique interpretation of the word "balance", i.e. "balance: you get nothing that you want and I get everything that I want."

            Membership applications for those who hold this philosophy can be found here.

            We know this is possible because there are dozens of OECD countries in which people enjoy considerable liberty without having to secure it for themselves.
            Since there are also plenty of OECD countries where firearms ownership is common or even sponsored by the government itself, that argument would seem to have some inherent flaws.
            •  Except they are causing harm (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              FutureNow

              Not directly, not even at a close remove.  But the fact remains that the absence of freely held firearms (as opposed to say Switzerland or Israel) in stable democracies correlates to lower levels of violence.  Note that I said absence rather than availability, because as best as I can tell there is no smooth, continuous relationship between the two variables.  Our Western neighbors and certain qualifying East Asian countries have benefited from long histories of civilian disarmament, and achieved stability within that context.  The US, of course, is very much an outlier, and excluding it from the data set shows a considerably understated (and disputed) relationship between firearm availability and violence.  In fact, within the US itself, the correlation across geography only holds with a questionable proxy for firearms ownership and an equally dubious method for defining clusters.

              A civilian ban is the first step in addressing that harm; by setting a cap on the capacity of civilians to do violence to one another.  The next step is draining the swamp of God knows how many weapons are out there.

              •  Utterly unrealistic (6+ / 0-)

                The core of your argument is basically "my idea works except in the countries where it has shown that it doesn't, so we'll just ignore them and assume I'm right."

                But rather than demolish that in depth and detail, let me just ask this:

                Which of these other countries with the level of government control you desire also have superior freedom of speech, government accountability, open government, robust civil liberties, and a fair and equitable legal system? Surely there is one of them where all of these qualities are better than here and they have removed the guns from the civilian population? Since we only have two "western neighbors", I'm especially interested in your take on Mexico in this context, since they have very strict gun control and only one gun store for the entire country. They are doing much better than us in all those measures, right?

                Top-down government control of people's lives cannot and will not limit itself to just the things you want the government to control.

                •  That's not the core of my argument at all (0+ / 0-)

                  In fact, I'm not sure how you figure that I'm ignoring any country. Absence of firearms isn't the only determinant of gun violence; there's political and social stability, economic opportunity, etc.  So the question is all other things being roughly equal (which means Mexico [and arguably the US] falls out of the sample), what is the relationship between firearms and violence?  

                  I'm not shopping around for superior liberties in other respects, although I'd say that most of our European neighbors provide adequate protection in those areas.

                  •  Then I misunderstood (6+ / 0-)

                    Please accept my apology if I mischaracterized your position.

                    While all the OECD nations have more restrictive firearms laws than the United States, some of them are far more tolerant and accepting of firearms ownership as a society than we are. Switzerland has limits on some types of firearms, but also has state-sponsored marksmanship training in public schools, and open carry of an assault rifle by someone in civilian clothes is assumed to be a reservist going to practice, even if the reservist stops for groceries or the Apple store on the way there or back. Compare that to the fauxtrage if someone did the same at a JC Penney in the United States. The Czech Republic has varying gun permit levels based on knowledge and competency, and they allow national concealed carry. Belgium has an exception in its laws to allow collectors to buy fully functional machineguns. Finland allows ownership of silenced firearms. Germany has no region with high-capacity magazine bans. Etc., etc.

                    So, you really have no evidence that a coerced gun-free society is any better than what we have here. England comes closest, and their record on civil liberties is abysmal and their non-gun violent crime rate is several times ours.

                    I do agree with you that there are many factors involved other than gun laws, so much so that you cannot simply state "they are better than us because of their gun laws". But that works both ways. If Mexico breaks the mold because of cultural differences and makes direct comparison of gun laws invalid, so then does England, Singapore, Japan, Australia, and so on.

                    Violence is reduced when people stop being violent and that is a matter of education, not prohibition. Taking away particular items just changes how the violence is done.

                    •  I wouldn't be falsely outraged if I saw someone (0+ / 0-)

                      carrying a rifle at the grocery store.  I'd be genuinely terrified, even if the person was wearing military fatigues and presumably had come from National Guard training, because I'd wonder why someone was walking around with a gun in a grocery store instead of, say, leaving the gun in the trunk of his/her car.  

                      And before you assume that I live in an urban area where people use public transportation and thus have no cars in which to leave firearms, I live in a small town where everyone drives.  

                      Is it different where you live?  I'm not trolling, I'm genuinely curious, since different areas have different standards for what is normal and what is not.  A grocery shopper with a carbine slung over her back would not be normal in my town, but obviously this isn't the case other places.

                      This isn't freedom. This is fear - Captain America

                      by Ellid on Tue Feb 04, 2014 at 11:32:55 AM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                    •  I don't think any of them are as tolerant (0+ / 0-)

                      as the US when it comes to firearm ownership.  Switzerland is one giant police station, and gun ownership within the home and out and about is strictly regulated.  There is a duty rather than a right to keep and bear arms.  The same can be said of Israel.  That said both countries also have gun ownership out of the context of conscripted service, but you'll find that regime to be very similar to the rest of the West.  I wouldn't necessarily find such an arrangement unappealing--there's a ton of health and educational benefits in conscription--but it's probably not an idea that would fly in the US.

                      The Czech Republic is indeed as libertine in its gun laws as you suggest.  It also has fewer guns per capita than Canada.  The same goes for Belgium.  Germany and Finland have higher rates of gun ownership (30 and 45 percent respectively), but also much stricter, shall issue licensing and registration.  I also suspect a degree of non-compliance with existing gun laws is at play. You can be sure that I at least will never argue that gun laws themselves reduce gun violence.  

                      I do agree that education plays a principal role in reducing violence, but properly structured prohibition can as well by merely reducing the number of implements available for use.

          •  Ah yes... I remember this. (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            theatre goon, gerrilea

            Northern Ireland Catholics.

            But if you're looking for the end game, then the proper level of gun control is the complete disarmament of the civilian population.
            As an OECD, "of course" this statement was true*:
            We balance this with liberty interests by ensuring a strong system of checks and balances on public officials at all levels of government.
            *for bonafide Protestants. Those Congregants and Communicants of the Church of England.
          •  tip'd for honesty. (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            theatre goon, gerrilea

            And this is why we will continue to oppose any substantial curtailment of firearms rights.

        •  Perhaps it's because circumstances change (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          coquiero

          and society evolves?  Setting absolute bars of any sort is counterproductive.

          This isn't freedom. This is fear - Captain America

          by Ellid on Tue Feb 04, 2014 at 11:27:22 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  I don't want guns confiscated (9+ / 0-)

      I live in a rural area and count farmers among my friends.  They need guns, and I have absolutely no problem with that.  What I do have problems with is people toting around handguns in their pockets, like the former police officer who blew away a guy who had the audacity to fling popcorn in his face.

      We regulate speech (and no, liberals do NOT normally advocate this unless you are referring to hate speech), we regulate religious practice (just ask a Santerian about animal sacrifice), we regulate freedom of assembly (parade permits, buffer zones at abortion clinics), we regulate just about everything in the Bill of Rights.  The Second Amendment shouldn't get a free pass on this, at least to me.

      YMMV.

      This isn't freedom. This is fear - Captain America

      by Ellid on Tue Feb 04, 2014 at 07:29:14 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  it's funny to watch all those militia kookers (19+ / 0-)

    waving their AR-15s holed up in their "compounds" bragging about how they can beat the ZOG . . . and then the cops roll right over them like they're not even there.

    And that's without even the fighter-bombers and the drones that can blow your entire "compound" into dust from ten miles away.

    "Red Dawn" isn't real life.  (shrug)

    In the end, reality always wins.

    by Lenny Flank on Tue Feb 04, 2014 at 05:00:38 AM PST

  •  Think you ought to get a better set of friends (10+ / 0-)
    I have friends who actually think that they can hold off or even topple the government if they don't like it.
    I think you ought to  change your social circle, you're liable to get caught in the crossfire

    Happy just to be alive

    by exlrrp on Tue Feb 04, 2014 at 05:18:01 AM PST

  •  Northern Ireland probably provides a more apt (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    KVoimakas, theatre goon, AoT, The Jester

    analogy than Syria or AfPak.  And Syria and AfPak, while no longer enjoying a state monopoly on violence and firepower, have still largely disarmed populaces--preyed upon by both government and militia.

    So no. I won't be sharing this with my gun-totin', tough-talkin' acquaintances.  Because it's a naive, sneering slap in the face at tens of millions of people, but mostly because it has nothing to do with gun control and in fact undermines the argument.

  •  Oh, I KNOW I can't hold off the government. (8+ / 0-)

    By myself.

    With one gun.

    And an easily Identifiable base.

    See, having read my Che and Mao, I understand that in order to win with inferior force...

    Oh wait, right, my revolutionary fantasies are less macho and more based off successful revolutions...

    /snark

    I don't blame Christians. I blame Stupid. Which sadly is a much more popular religion these days.

    by detroitmechworks on Tue Feb 04, 2014 at 06:07:58 AM PST

  •  I just want to know... (12+ / 0-)

    how big an asshole you have to be to mock Philip Seymour Hoffman’s tragic death simply because he helped provide a voiceover in a commercial for Mayors Against Illegal Guns in the past, as if he’s some kind of hypocrite for not wanting illegal guns flooding the market.

  •  Not "blood of tyrants," just tears of parents (10+ / 0-)

    You keep hearing the right wingers quote the phrase that the "Tree of Liberty needs to be watered with the blood of tyrants," yet the liquids that usually flow from gun ownership are the blood of children who find a parent's gun and spouses who are on the wrong side of arguments,  or the tears of families who lost loved ones to gun violence.  The crocodile tears of impotent politicians of all parties do not count.

    Repeal the Second Amendment.

  •  Curious. (12+ / 0-)

    Based on this:

    Remember Waco, Texas? I know, it was a long time ago, and memory isn't America's strong suit. It was just 21 years ago. The Branch Davidians even had MACHINE GUNS!!!. So Manly. Oh boy. Big deal. The smallest, weakest armored vehicle we have, and we aren't talking about a REAL tank, killed them all. So much for toppling the government with guns.
    it sounds like you expect set piece battles. Big military force on one side, bunch of crazy nutjobs holed up in a bunker. Drop a bomb or send in a tank and POOF. Problem solved.

    The reality would be distinctly different.

    Assassinations. Car bombings. IEDs. Sabotage. I'm not saying the bad guys would win against the government but it would not be a happy little civil war, over in days. We don't have a great track record dealing with guerrilla warfare.

    (Nothing above should be construed as support or encouragement of rebellion against the government of the United States.)

    •  And let's not forgot the diarists' implication (4+ / 0-)

      that Waco amounts to a good model for dealing with extremists.

      •  Your inference, not an implication (5+ / 0-)

        I re-read the diary and detect no implication.  What I read is sarcasm that the Waco situation was positive for anyone.

        However, you're free to read into the diary whatever bias you might have.  

        •  Then let me quote relevant portion. (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Crookshanks, AoT, Tom Seaview
          Remember Waco, Texas? I know, it was a long time ago, and memory isn't America's strong suit. It was just 21 years ago. The Branch Davidians even had MACHINE GUNS!!!. So Manly. Oh boy. Big deal. The smallest, weakest armored vehicle we have, and we aren't talking about a REAL tank, killed them all. So much for toppling the government with guns.
          It's riddled with gleeful delight in a situational mismatch that left 87 Branch Davidians dead.  Not a single mention of the 4 agents killed or sixteen wounded, or even discussion of the event's contribution to the Oklahoma City Bombing two years later.  That's not to say the diarist is purposefully insensitive; I imagine this passage's callousness stems more from ignorance than malevolence.

          The good news is that Justice and ATF didn't gloat over Waco, and immediately went to work compiling lessons learned and instituting changes to ensure such a farce never happened again.

    •  Yep (7+ / 0-)

      Iraq, Afghanistan, the Philippines, the anarchist movement in this country in the early 20th century, the historical precedents pretty much go on and on. Let's hope it never happens, but those that poo poo it are deluding themselves. Anybody who thinks a couple million or even a few tens of thousands of committed guerrillas couldn't make things very difficult for many years is deluding themselves.

    •  Depraved Curiousity (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Kevskos, coquiero

      Yes, the reality would be different. Still a devastating hellscape, in whatever flavor.

      "When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro." - HST

      by DocGonzo on Tue Feb 04, 2014 at 07:08:35 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  How do you think general population would react? (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Matt Z, Kevskos, greengemini, Ellid

      The nutjobs "fighting the government" might perpetuate their holy little war for a little while, but they won't just be fighting the government.  Yes, we don't have a track record of fighting foreign guerrilla wars, but we already have domestic versions that turn out differently.

      Recall the national outpouring of grief and shock after the Oklahoma City bombings?   Or on a smaller scale, the grief whenever a police officer or other first responder is killed in the line of duty? Then include the reaction if there are collateral civilian casualties.

      If ever a pattern of organized violence by paramilitary were to occur, my expectation is that we'd have another 9/11 reaction in this country--outrage and an overwhelming public sentiment to shut it down by whatever means possible.  Basically, we are a society that looks for military solutions to problems, and I believe a domestic war against domestic terrorists would be quelled faster than you seem to expect.

      •  I think if you're talking about RWNJ domestic (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        AoT, theatre goon, gerrilea

        terrorists, you'd probably get more support from the right wingers now than previously. How long have they been talking about this, some of which is urged on by Fox news?

        Your statement also doesn't take into account those in power who would support such actions. Whether that be local government (police chiefs, state government) or support from rouge military groups OR support from inside the government itself.

      •  And what if that paramilitary action (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        gerrilea

        was directed against corporations? Especially corporations that are engaging in obviously harmful actions? Or if it grew from a poverty stricken area. Lets not beat around the bush, what we call gangs are functionally almost identical to what we call militias in other countries. And we haven't managed to stop gang violence. And when we do stop it we don't do it through overwhelming violence. That's what a real American insurgency would look like. The right wing is fooling itself if it thinks it has any chance of winning any sort of war against the government. They won't even start a war against the government. A real insurrection will be like LA, not like Red Dawn.

        If knowledge is power and power corrupts, does that mean that knowledge corrupts?

        by AoT on Tue Feb 04, 2014 at 08:37:10 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  But none of these people are talking about (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      greengemini, Glen The Plumber

      coordinated efforts. These gun nuts spouting their mouths off are anti-cooperation, which is why they are anti-government. You can't have a coordinated effort without some form of leadership, which is generally goes along with some form of government. Every man out for himself doesn't go anywhere, but that's what these people claim to want.

  •  Maybe so, but but but... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Glen The Plumber

    Skittles and popcorn are no match for them…

    Baby, where I come from...

    by ThatSinger on Tue Feb 04, 2014 at 06:29:28 AM PST

  •  an entire population finds itself caught in a (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    allensl

    crossfire. if even half the people that champion this weaponization of the populace had ever suffered a survivable gunshot wound or had to recover from a stab wound they would really think harder about these completely idiotic wolverines! wet dreams. it just ain't what they think it is, period.

    bring your own petard.

    •  Wars aren't fought (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      AoT

      by armies in which half have been wounded in combat.  People stumble into war healthy and whole, and it takes healthy and whole bodies to fuel the fire. If you ever find yourself with half your troops bleeding, your combat power is all but broken.

  •  Agree with the premise but a correction (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    rduran, AoT

    In the Waco siege, what killed most of the people was fire, not gun fire.  

    But I agree with the basic idea that "holding off the government" using violence is most likely to conclude with the deaths of the bunkered persons.  Seems to happen nearly every day that there's a standoff by someone with a gun, and when that person threatens the police, he or she is shot to death.  Even the fellow in Alabama a year ago who did have a bunker and young boy as a hostage was killed.  

    But no amount of logic will convince a person who has already decided he or she wants to be a self-immolating martyr.  

  •  I'm not talking weapons (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    CarlosJ

    But if We, the People can't hold off or topple the government when necessary we have an ENORMOUS problem.  "When in the course of human events, it becomes necessary to sever the bonds..."  If we can't "sever the bonds" we are doomed to permanent bondage the moment one powerful entity with "access" decides to use their "access" for that purpose.

    "Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will." ~Frederick Douglass

    by ActivistGuy on Tue Feb 04, 2014 at 07:21:02 AM PST

    •  No need to worry then (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      AoT, FrankRose

      No government over any sufficiently large population is impervious to successful insurrection, not even ours.  On the other hand, the beauty of our system is that we're remarkably resilient to dislocations due to political disagreements.  There are so many other outlets, and the base quality of life is sufficiently satisfactory, that violent revolution is unlikely in the foreseeable future.

      •  That's true (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        rduran

        I'll point out I specifically excluded the use of weapons.  As with Occupy, the use of personal violence would strictly be by the state.  As to your more general point:  We can watch tv and play video games while the Scott Walkers of the nation redesign our society and economy.  We don't have to pay any attention, the way we've ignored 40 years of rollbacks of median standards already.  In case we haven't noticed, in between Netflix "seasons" of "The Twerking Dead" is that the process is accelerating.

        "Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will." ~Frederick Douglass

        by ActivistGuy on Tue Feb 04, 2014 at 07:43:46 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  I don't get the pie fights. (8+ / 0-)

    The Second Amendment is not going away anytime soon.   I will still have my guns and ammo, to protect my home and my family, and anti-gun haters will post a diary a day on DKos proposing the repeal of the Second Amendment.  

    Let them have their fantasy.  Some people think Elvis is still alive, too.   They can't hurt anything, especially if you ignore them.  

    Save the pie.  

    “Most people are willing to take the Sermon on the Mount as a flag to sail under, but few will use it as a rudder by which to steer.” ― Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr.

    by SpamNunn on Tue Feb 04, 2014 at 07:27:25 AM PST

    •  They are worth responding to... (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      gerrilea, FrankRose, DavidMS

      ...on the off-chance that there's someone out there reading them that actually thinks something on DKos is the default Democratic stance on the issue.

      It's always worth pointing out, in my opinion, that there are Democrats that do not support the continued gutting of the Bill of Rights, even supporting the 2nd Amendment.

      That said, it's not worth taking a lot of effort responding to the same debunked points time after time after time, but a standard rebuttal is a reasonable thing, and it really doesn't take that much time or effort to rebut these things -- they're the same-old anti-gun rhetoric we've all seen torn apart repeatedly.

      What's five minutes of someone's time to point it out...?

      "No amount of belief makes something a fact." --James Randi

      by theatre goon on Tue Feb 04, 2014 at 01:25:35 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  And 5 minutes after we overthrew the government (7+ / 0-)

    We'd split into multiple armed factions and start killing each other off over who gets to form the new government.

    Oh won't that be fun?

    If the pilot's good, see, I mean if he's reeeally sharp, he can barrel that baby in so low... oh you oughta see it sometime. It's a sight. A big plane like a '52... varrrooom! Its jet exhaust... frying chickens in the barnyard!

    by Major Kong on Tue Feb 04, 2014 at 07:35:26 AM PST

    •  That'll start up long before then (0+ / 0-)

      In vast swaths of the country where the lack of any level of government invites anarchy.  By the time DC falls, it will have been just one more tough guy on a whole block full of tough guys.

  •  Waco (7+ / 0-)

    Actually, Waco didn't have machine guns, but good job parroting the ATF party line.  Local law enforcement had already been allowed to inspect the relevant pieces of weaponry, they gained access by knocking on the door instead of conducting a raid in force.  They concluded that the relevant weapons were lawfully possessed.  As I recall, the County Sheriff attempted to relay this information to ATF but was rebuffed.  ATF also had ample opportunities to arrest Mr. Koresh when he was in town, but declined to take them.

    Now I don't think it was a deliberate plan by jackbooted thugs to oppress the American people.  I tend to go with the saying, "Never attribute to malice that which can be attributed to incompetence."

    Still, it's pretty sad that you've not only got your facts wrong but you seek to use such a tragedy to further a political objective.  Sick.

    There are four boxes to be used in the defense of liberty: soap box, ballot box, jury box and ammo box. Use in that order.

    by Crookshanks on Tue Feb 04, 2014 at 07:41:04 AM PST

  •  Not entirely related, but... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    AoT
    ...and one cheap drone they can't even shoot down bombs wherever and whenever it will.
    ..drones aren't cheap. The current generation of Reaper drones are running about $16,000,000 each.

    I think what these things look like is widely misunderstood. They aren’t like model airplanes. The Reaper has a 66’ wingspan and 900shp engine. It’s basically an unmanned turboprop plane. Sort of like a regional commuter plane but with a smaller fuselage. They are slow relative to jet aircraft but they can operate at high altitudes. You would need actual anti-aircraft weaponry to have a chance of taking one down.

    Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read. - Groucho Marx

    by Joe Bob on Tue Feb 04, 2014 at 08:10:55 AM PST

    •  scale of economies (0+ / 0-)

      plus crush the unions and we could probably get that price per a unit down to $10M or so.

      They have one hanging in the Smithsonian Air and Space museum at the National Mall.  It is a big bird.

      What makes the drones cheep is that we do not need to incur the cost associated with training pilots to physically fly them.  I imagine that flight training for a drone pilot is probalby 1/20th of the time necessary to train a combat pilot.  

      Additionally they can stay afloat for half a day and carry Hellfire ATG missiles.  

      What should be noted is that bshhhhh-kaboooom is greater than pew-pew-pew.

      •  Couple of points (0+ / 0-)

        Using slave or non-free labor isn't too bright for weapons production.  Just ask the Nazis about the quality of work produced in their concentration camps.  

        Secondly, the issues with drones is the kill chain is the problem.  Guerrillas don't mark their camps on maps.  But drone bases are quite vulnerable to attack.  

        Third, cheap cruse missiles can be manufactured in small workshops.  

        Finally, even unsuccessful guerrilla conflicts sputter for years.  Look at the Marquis in Spain who finally were crushed in the early 60s and the Forest Brothers in the Baltic States who were crushed in the 50s.  

        Please read Orwell's "You and the Atomic Bomb"   Its pretty clear to me that the technology of a people's war is becoming cheaper and more available relative to the ability of a great power to subjugate a foreign country.  Think rifles, machineguns, RPGs, 107mm rockets and IEDs.  

        I don't ever want to see such a conflict at home.  I know enough about the terrible price everyone would pay.  My worst fear is that the falangist / Dominist right will resort to armed revolt because of their theology.  

        I'm a 4 Freedoms Democrat.

        by DavidMS on Tue Feb 04, 2014 at 08:06:51 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  If squashing insurgencies is so easy why is (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    DavidMS

    is Afganistan taking so long.

    Rivers are horses and kayaks are their saddles

    by River Rover on Tue Feb 04, 2014 at 08:43:52 AM PST

  •  Well done; important mesage! (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    coquiero, jan4insight

    "extreme concentration of income is incompatible with real democracy.... the truth is that the whole nature of our society is at stake." Paul Krugman

    by Gorette on Tue Feb 04, 2014 at 09:54:48 AM PST

  •  Ummm, yes and no, no one in the US military is (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Texas Lefty, 43north

    going to side with the Taliban.

    Also, the Taliban is winning, in case you missed it. They run rampant around Afghanistan, constantly attack our bases and their "base" includes a large part of Pakistan. We have never actually "gone to war" with them, because it would involve war IN Pakistan. When we leave, the Taliban will hang Karzai and be back to 2000 as if we never came in the first place, enjoying their continued civil war.

    Yes, if we did actually fight a REAL WAR with the Taliban they'd be annihilated, but politically the US has chosen not to do that. And we end up with the pathetic waste of men and material for the last 13 years that we have.

    My suspicion is, we WILL have to fight a real war with the 8th Century, eventually. I'd rather end it NOW but the American people don't want to bother, yet.

    Domestically, in the US, remember that our soldiers ARE also Americans and you cannot just assume that the military will do whatever the "gubment" orders them to do.

    If a fascist dictatorship were to try and rise in DC for example, and the people chose to fight it, you cannot just assume the military would side against the people. ... the 150+ MILLION firearms toting people. If the military is divided, the "Gubment" is the one who would not stand a chance.

    Analogy. Your FOOT is very big and very powerful, and can crush a zillion ants with a single stomp. However, best of luck trying to stomp a Fire Ant nest into oblivion with your boots. Sheer numbers with tiny little stingers will crawl up your legs and sting you to death. So much for F16's vs millions of protesters, let alone protesters armed with AR15's and shotguns.

    I'm not advocating, I just have to laugh, after all the Arab springs, and rebellions over the last century, that anyone would think an errant US government ... or Texas secessionist government, etc, etc .... could actually stand up to an armed US populace.

    The founding fathers had good reason to want the people armed to a certain extent, historical reasons they had just lived. The weapons really are irrelevant.

    An F16 is pretty useless if the operating base is over run by the opposition and the planes burned. Just look at Syria, they are making "barrel" bombs because the actual bomb factories were over run and captured by the opposition forces, so they can't make more actual aerial bombs. The restless natives have fought  what was regarded as a major military power in the region to a standstill, and that was from a population that was NOT armed, in fact prohibited by law under a military dictatorship, and still has kicked Syria's military's ass ... because the military itself divided against itself.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site