Skip to main content

Handheld rocket-propelled grenade launcher
Clearly, freedom depends on this.
It's not uncommon for me to use my Twitter account to berate, mock and condemn conservative policies and causes. Normally, my tweets might draw the irate response of an occasional conservative here and there. In the wake of the horrific massacre in Newtown, however, my tweets about the reasons that conservatives are so dedicated to preserving the legality of such weapons of mass murder received a decidedly different reaction. Conservative ideologues and the National Rifle Association may continue to claim that there's never a good time to have a conversation about gun control in this country, but that certainly does not stop them from spreading their defenses about their interpretations of the Second Amendment.

Now, I know people who own AR-15s and similar weapons because they're gun enthusiasts and very much enjoy going to the range to hone their marksmanship skills. I have gone to the range with them, and sincerely appreciate their passion for their hobby. I won't lie: It is fun to shoot one. Consequently, I wouldn't deign to tar everyone who owns such a weapon or desires to with the same broad brush. But unless you are one of those people who simply loves shooting at spots of metal or sheets of paper at a well-regulated range, the only other reason to own one of these mass-casualty-inducing weapons is if you firmly believe that at some point, you will have the opportunity to use them.

I won't mince words: I firmly believe that many of the people who want to be prepared to kill a lot of other people are suburban and exurban whites who think they will get the opportunity to kill a lot of black people if and when the social order ever breaks down. While some may consider this outrageous, it's really not: All it takes is a brief visit to Free Republic or any other such outlet to see posters actively fantasizing about the breakdown in the social order so they can:

[...] deliver what they deserve, 9mm from a MAC-11. 900 RPM.
Perhaps brashly, I tweeted various things to that effect, and got a bunch of angry replies from conservatives who defended their arsenals on the grounds that the quite substantial quantities of bullets those arsenals could fire were not designed for black people, but rather to protect them against government tyranny. At this point, many rational people would have given up, rather than continuing to engage in conversation with people who believe that the massacre of dozens of people is but a routine inconvenience to preserve the fantasy of armed rebellion. I am apparently not one of them. I continued a string of conversations with people who advocated this notion, and asked them how they felt about the idea of killing members of the United States Armed Forces.

After all, let's examine some basic, common-sense provisos behind the "protection from tyranny" argument. If, as some right-wing conspiracy theorists fear, President Obama will declare martial law at some point in his second term and use that to impose the latest evil du jour (fascism, socialism, communism, Islamism, atheism or a combination of all of the above), it would stand to reason that the military would have to be summoned for the purpose: That is, after all, what martial law means. At this point, resisting this tyranny in the name of freedom would require being actively willing to kill soldiers of the United States. Even beyond that, however, there is a larger question at work.

(Continue reading below the fold.)

If children getting massacred is just a tragic consequence born of the necessity of keeping legal the types of weapons one would need to stand up for freedom, we obviously can't stop here: You're going to need much more than semi-automatic rifles if you're going to rebel and wage a full-scale insurrection against the might of the best fighting force the world has ever known. Recent history has unfortunately shown that any guerrilla force, well-regulated or otherwise, will need more firepower: Things like fully automatic weapons, explosives, rocket-propelled grenades, surface-to-air missile launchers and the like. Consequently, if the need to defend ourselves against internal tyranny really is the prime motivator of the Second Amendment, we are doing ourselves a disservice not to legalize those weapons. The amendment gives citizens the right to keep and bear arms, after all; and like Justice Scalia says, those arms are certainly portable, which means that their constitutionality is very much up in the air:

WALLACE: What about… a weapon that can fire a hundred shots in a minute?

SCALIA: We’ll see. Obviously the Amendment does not apply to arms that cannot be hand-carried — it’s to keep and “bear,” so it doesn’t apply to cannons — but I suppose here are hand-held rocket launchers that can bring down airplanes, that will have to be decided.

WALLACE: How do you decide that if you’re a textualist?

SCALIA: Very carefully.

But even broaching this line of argumentation with my conservative interlocutors would result in outrage; they support the military to the core, apparently, despite forcefully advocating for their ability to engage in armed insurrection. But when I would ask which government agency they would be using their assault weapons against, I never did get an answer. That's because there are only two possible alternatives: Either they realize they would have to kill our own soldiers in this fantastical "martial law" scenario, or they believe that there is some shadow agency that will be the vanguard of the operation (maybe the same one that brings the black helicopters?), so it won't constitute killing our own troops—or at least, not exactly.

So if the Obama administration lives up to its word and considers firearm legislation in the coming weeks, we'll have to prepare for an onslaught of people who claim that assault weapons with hundred-round drums are necessary for defense against their own government. Anyone making that argument should be promptly asked how comfortable they would actually feel killing an American solder in combat. After all, martial law doesn't impose itself.

Originally posted to Daily Kos on Sun Dec 23, 2012 at 06:00 PM PST.

Also republished by Repeal or Amend the Second Amendment (RASA).

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

  •  The well-regulated militia of the Second Amendment (154+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    CwV, suesue, ruleoflaw, NYmom, Hayate Yagami, Ckntfld, cfm, foresterbob, Navy Vet Terp, ramara, Ageing Hippie, Stwriley, verdeo, BarackStarObama, eve, dougymi, DefendOurConstitution, Thinking Fella, Hohenzollern, PeteZerria, chantedor, Robynhood too, belle1, Brian1066, blueoregon, MikeBoyScout, reflectionsv37, David54, J Orygun, Mimikatz, mtnlvr1946, SottoVoce, stone clearing, Alice Olson, Edward Adams, Sharon Wraight, MikePhoenix, mgoodm, Texknight, sharman, Publius2008, FiredUpInCA, Dhavo, dejavu, exiledfromTN, retLT, JeffW, kevinpdx, Bulldawg, KJG52, ipsos, defluxion10, dotdash2u, artmartin, floydgrant, nio, Monitor78, Shotput8, Egalitare, TomP, bear83, miguelmas1, ChemBob, GoldnI, Nebraskablue, Onomastic, signet02, StonyB, niteskolar, Paul Ferguson, YucatanMan, Habitat Vic, RJP9999, createpeace, Wes Clark Democrat, Alice Venturi, spunhard, sawolf, nolagrl, Aaa T Tudeattack, Ironic Chef, gtomkins, Neon Vincent, DJ Rix, mmacdDE, RadGal70, Theden, blukat, diggerspop, prettygirlxoxoxo, Pola Halloween, thomask, TKO333, randallt, Alexandra Lynch, Gneissguy, Miggles, ichibon, Angie in WA State, Paulie200, GeoffT, SoCalSal, gloriana, IdaMena2, Jeff Y, dansmith17, dkosdan, agincour, Its the Supreme Court Stupid, Hirodog, Involuntary Exile, Ralphdog, copymark, Loudoun County Dem, eeff, HCKAD, Geenius at Wrok, chipoliwog, pelagicray, leeleedee, mamamedusa, semiot, sodalis, a2nite, Justus, TX Freethinker, Desert Scientist, lyvwyr101, SME in Seattle, Crazycab214, hnichols, FindingMyVoice, CroneWit, Janet 707, GrannyOPhilly, Snarky McAngus, nominalize, Justin93, OrganizedCrime, Dick Woodcock, OhioNatureMom, airshipjones, dadadata, fayea, Matt Z, bobatkinson, mudfud27, ewmorr, BYw, maracucho, Calamity Jean, Tfill, Carol in San Antonio, Oh Mary Oh

    is simply the National Guard. And you can join the National Guard -- if you meet the requirements (I don't, too old) -- and shoot all kinds of lovely weapons.

    The idea that the provision of a militia in the Second Amendment to the Constitution is to allow for insurrection is ridiculous. The militia is there to put down insurrections, as it has again and again, starting with Shay's Rebellion in the Washington Administration.

    Mark E. Miller // Kalamazoo Township Trustee // MI 6th District Democratic Chair

    by memiller on Sun Dec 23, 2012 at 06:07:14 PM PST

  •  Good point. (5+ / 0-)

    If I ran this circus, things would be DIFFERENT!

    by CwV on Sun Dec 23, 2012 at 06:07:26 PM PST

  •  Cops first (10+ / 0-)

    First you have to shoot cops then they call the National Guard, but really you shoul ask how that worked out for Davud Koresh oe the Taliban AK47 vs. US Drones

    •  The diffrence is very simple... (6+ / 0-)

      The Taliban (at least in Pashtun areas) has broad support.  There are very few areas of the US that would provide insurgents with that sort support.  It takes passive support of many to support every insurgent in the field.  That's why they terrorized civilians into submission.  

      Secondly, there will be most of the rest of the country who will want to kill them.  

      If there are transport routes and public support, a insurrection can go on for years (take a look at Forest Brothers in the Baltic States).  

      We don't have the ingredients for this in the US.  What we have is a right that engages politically when they are in power and makes threats to engage in terrorism when they are out of power.  They are thankfully too scared to do anything except post paranoid screeds online.    

      Under capitalism man exploits man, under communism the roles are reversed.

      by DavidMS on Sun Dec 23, 2012 at 06:30:35 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I think you are a bit early in being thankful. (6+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Pluto, Halfton81, signet02, blukat, Miggles, BYw

        A system to enrage armed and ignorant people is still at work.

        This better be good. Because it is not going away.

        by DerAmi on Sun Dec 23, 2012 at 06:33:47 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  When push comes to shove... (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          dkosdan, chipoliwog, mamamedusa

          Enragement means showing up for a noisy protest with badly spelled signs.  Taking to the woods or mountains in the name of revolution is not likely.  They like creature comforts more than we do.  Conservatives don't do revolt or revolution too well, they try for coup d'état.  

          Can you see conservatives trying to pull an Occupy?  

          Under capitalism man exploits man, under communism the roles are reversed.

          by DavidMS on Sun Dec 23, 2012 at 06:54:01 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Look at the Confederacy - (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Calamity Jean

            Robert E. Lee, in discussing the decision to surrender, said that he couldn't live the life of a "bushwhacker," ie, a guerilla.
               When Gen. Sherman was marching through Georgia, so many Southerners came forward to join his army that he had to turn most of them away.
              The Confederate South was hampered by internal dissent, including large areas of Alabama, Florida, and Mississippi that did not agree tosecession and carried on resistance to the Confederacy.
               An armed insurrection against the US government would run into massive resistance from the public. It would have no chance.

          •  Exactly. (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            DrPlacebo, Calamity Jean

            Remember when they wanted to secede after Obama won again? They wanted to leave the country without having to get up off the couch.

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

            by nominalize on Mon Dec 24, 2012 at 09:01:06 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

        •  Well then it would turn out as Jefferson said. (0+ / 0-)

          If they can't pull their heads out of their asses they'll get put in their place by force. Frankly I'm tired of all the crazy right-wing tirades and conspiracy theories; I'd rather they just act and be dealt with.

  •  Im frustrated. (27+ / 0-)

    The House of Representatives is NOT going to let any gun control legislation pass. NONE. So when Republican after Republican comes out in favor of sane gun control, they know full well nothing will pass. And by knowing this, it gives them cover so as to appear sane. So they can go out and talk about sane laws because they know they won't pass. It is all lip service.

    The NY Post recently came out criticizing the NRA and calling them nuts. But they also know that this is just lip service. NOTHING will get passed. Congress will postpone and postpone and by April America will have forgotten. Or at least enough of America will have forgotten.

    And by the 2014 midterm elections America will have so forgotten that they'll send numerous tea partiers and pro gun nuts back to Washington yet again.

    Call me a cynic.

    •  Reality is not cynicism. (7+ / 0-)

      You seem to have good cognitive powers.

      Denial is a disease.



      Folks, they are "war rations."
      Can we all refer to food stamps by their proper name?

      by Pluto on Sun Dec 23, 2012 at 06:22:01 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  not cynical, you have it about right. Having our (6+ / 0-)

      political conversations shifted so far to the  right edge means nothing gets done, ever. As Ronald Reagan opnly statedt, the goal was and is to bring the federal government to such a state of financial destitution and ideological gridlock that it can do nothing.  The revolution already happened, the NRA was a vital part of overthrowing our government and replacing it with a psudo-fascist state.  That they themselves don't understand this shows just how narrow minded and stupid they are.

    •  States can however. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      ontheleftcoast, Boris49

      You have exactly 10 seconds to change that look of disgusting pity into one of enormous respect!

      by Cartoon Peril on Sun Dec 23, 2012 at 06:29:26 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Prius: You ARE a cynic. True, many things conspire (9+ / 0-)

      ... to defeat good causes. Time and lack of media attention, to name a few.

      But the NRA is a paper tiger. Their paper is, in part, currency, to be sure, but if enough Congressmen and Senators stand up to be counted in favor of meaningful gun legislation, it will be much harder for the NRA to target them all. (Right now, the proponents are like the ducks in a carnival; they keep coming one by one and can be picked off accordingly.) And the NRA is doing what the GOP did in the run up to the 2012 election: they are being themselves and preaching to their crowd and sounding even more extreme and unrealistic as they do it ... and thereby making unforced errors so basic to their nature that they don't even realize how they sound to others.

      It's up to us to keep this pot boiling. If we don't, we deserve the Nothing the nation will get down the road on the most dangerous legally approved weapons.

      2014 IS COMING. Build up the Senate. Win back the House : 17 seats. Plus!

      by TRPChicago on Sun Dec 23, 2012 at 06:35:49 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Most sensible comment on this topic anywhere (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      happymisanthropy

      On the other hand, if it does pass, we will have a repeat of 1994.  President Clinton could comment on that one.

      We can have change for the better.

      by phillies on Sun Dec 23, 2012 at 06:45:54 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  It's almost funny. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Sychotic1

      Surely someone at the NRA knows that no gun legislation will pass the House. And knowing that, they still sent LaPierre out there to rant. They could've simply issued some vague statement about their possible support for common sense legislation, but they went full crazy. It boggles the mind.

      •  well, what he said (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        DrPlacebo

        would have been counterproductive if his goal was to rally support from wavering Republicans.  But it was pitch-on for keeping the extremists whipped to a frenzy.  So I think that, alone, tells us all we need to know about what the NRA is thinking.

        States' rights? Corporate rights? Militia rights? Government rights? Hell no! Only individuals have rights. Proud lifelong human supremacist.

        by happymisanthropy on Sun Dec 23, 2012 at 09:03:03 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  Tipped for great perspective (10+ / 0-)

    We own guns, both for recreational and defensive purposes, but we would never consider (ab-)using them against police or military personnel.

    We are skeptical that current "gun control" proposals will happen, or that they would have any significant effect on crime, but we don't claim that they would affect our "defense against tyrrany" plans... because we have no such plans.

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

    by Tom Seaview on Sun Dec 23, 2012 at 06:11:02 PM PST

  •  Not every gun nut plans to kill black people (22+ / 0-)

    My wing nut brother think that there will be a rebellion of Hispanic people.

    He listens to Michael Savage and Glenn Beck and is prepping for the collapse of civilization.

  •  I'm going to go back and read the rest but you (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    43north, PavePusher, happymisanthropy

    kind of lost me when you said you like to go shoot an AR 15 and you and your buds are all nice folks but anyone who is different than you politically is some sort of racist who dreams of killing black people. You can't post that kind of stuff where you might come into contact with regular people and not expect some uh... differing views.

    I'm going back to re read and finish but my gosh. Never can tell what you'll find here at the DK.

    How big is your personal carbon footprint?

    by ban nock on Sun Dec 23, 2012 at 06:13:19 PM PST

    •  no, that's actually not what I said (7+ / 0-)

      I said that there are plenty of people out there who are sport shooters, and unless that is the only interest you have, then you imagine that you will actually have occasion to use them.

      The sport shooters that I know who own these guns keep their weapons locked up, in a separate place from their ammunition, which is also locked up. Those guns are useless for home defense.

      oops. I hope the gate wasn't too expensive.

      Twitter: @DanteAtkins

      by Dante Atkins on Sun Dec 23, 2012 at 07:08:17 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Shooting competitions happen every weekend that (0+ / 0-)

        the weather is good.  Millions of rounds are fired.  Add on top of that all of the shotgun leagues that are almost as plentiful as bowling leagues and it's a massive financial enterprise.  

        One of the reasons that the AR-15 is so popular is the high accuracy and low recoil nature of the rifle.  The adjustable stock fits women competitors well without need for custom work at a gunsmith.

        I know that many will say that the competition sports will just have to suck it up for the safety of our children.  That's not gonna happen.  

        Most of these folks are not NRA members.  They are shooters and they love their sport.

        It is often easy to negotiate with ourselves and win.  In the real world, changing the gun laws is a sisyphean task.

  •  I made this earlier. It seems relevant (34+ / 0-)

    After hearing once too often that the 2nd Amendment was to "protect against government tyranny", I decided that I'd had it, and came up with a simple visual aid.



    Link goes to a higher-res version

    "He who fights monsters should see to it that he himself does not become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you."

    by Hayate Yagami on Sun Dec 23, 2012 at 06:13:33 PM PST

    •  Everyone of these insurrection/secessionist (16+ / 0-)

      whack jobs, most of them Southern, live in a fantasy world where the South almost won the Civil War. The only hope they'd have in a new civil war against the might of the MIC would be getting supplied by a nation like China or Russia. Could you imagine the likes of Palin asking Putin for weapons?

      To me progress is not so much a goal as it is a process and I believe it will not follow a straight course. Remember, the drops of water that form the river may not take the shortest path but they will still reach the ocean.

      by ontheleftcoast on Sun Dec 23, 2012 at 06:28:38 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Just ask the Chechnyans (10+ / 0-)

      there's a good example of armed local militias trying to overthrew their superpower government.

      I believe one account mentioned that a major city in Chechnya was bombed by the Russians to the point that you could walk for miles and never see anything more than 3-4 feet above the ground.

      Doesn't matter what weapons they had; they couldn't possibly defeat the former soviet air force.

      And we never really did find out how many people died there, either.

    •  yes, what's needed for an insurgency to succeed. (5+ / 0-)

      A mere increase in rifle firepower, would not  support an insurgency.

      So, I think, to be consistent the NRA needs to be against the "military industrial complex" and advanced sensing and weaponry that could be turned against the "tyrannical" government.   In addition to weapons,  the NRA against laws an policies which would give the government an intelligence advantage.

      To be consistent they have to be for things things like what we now tolerate in the war against terror: measures against IED's,  against strong cryptography, against the powers granted to the government by the patriot act, against night vision goggles, against counter-insurgency training, and oh yes, against drones.  

      Their position is so intellectually rotten -- and all these things are not supported by their base, I'd guess.  Why can we not get some leader to point out these things stand against this turd of an argument?

      NRA what crap -- the gun maker's lobby, what a return on investment for gun manufacturers for the $16M they threw in for this years election, in order to gain a market.

      so I think what's the deal -- can't ONE of our politicians call them on all of this?

    •  Exactly (5+ / 0-)

      The found fathers didn't believe in a standing military.  The gun nuts should first focus on having the military disbanded.  Only then would their rebellion talk make sense.

    •  Try to use any of those... (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      fuzzyguy, annieli, happymisanthropy

      when you can't get fuel transported to them.

      "asymetrical warfare" and "logistics".  Look 'em up.

      •  Considering your location and occupation (0+ / 0-)

        I assume you're working at DMAFB. I further assume you guys have enough fuel on hand to keep your planes in the air for at least a flight or two?
        Also, it doesn't seem like there were too many supply issues in Iraq and Afghanistan, either. At least, I don't remember hearing any stories about how operations were canceled because vehicles couldn't be fueled, even after Pakistan closed its borders.

        "He who fights monsters should see to it that he himself does not become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you."

        by Hayate Yagami on Sun Dec 23, 2012 at 07:26:41 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Actually, it became a real issue of concern. (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          fuzzyguy, happymisanthropy

          And neccesitated rather a lot of logistics juggling.  Our airlift capability is stretched to the limit.  And having to fly fuel in is damn expensive and requires a lot of flights.  Truck convoys get hit easily and often.

          •  Point is, it worked. (5+ / 0-)

            Unless people want to make AA missiles and such available to the public, they're not going to stop The Empire from blowing them up. The armchair commandos and their fantasies of fighting The Empire are completely detached from reality.

            "He who fights monsters should see to it that he himself does not become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you."

            by Hayate Yagami on Sun Dec 23, 2012 at 08:16:14 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  It worked temporarily.... (0+ / 0-)

              until ground routes could be restored and sufficiently secured.  

              It was not a long-term-operations solution by any means.

              •  And if you have The Empire (0+ / 0-)

                do you think it would care? You'd have forcibly secured routes in a hurry, and civilian weapons would barely dent anything, until the US Rebels fell to the state of the Iraqi insurgency. And even then, we saw how well that worked out, right?

                "He who fights monsters should see to it that he himself does not become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you."

                by Hayate Yagami on Mon Dec 24, 2012 at 10:39:33 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Yes. We declared victory and left. (0+ / 0-)

                  Hmmmm....  

                  No offense intended, but I don't think you actually know much about war, insurgency, civil war, logistics or another issue I haven't brought up yet, aircraft maintenance.  

                  That last is rather my specialty, y'see.  If you want to resupply by air, long-term, you'll need a lot more planes, manpower, and even more of those vulnerable supply routes.

                  We've got a lot more territory than Afghanistan, more people, far higher tech base, and a lot of folks in the general population with post-doctorate level practical knowledge in guerilla warfare.  Most (70+ %) of the military are not combat troops.  The Navy would be near-useless in an internal conflict.  You can't bomb your own infrastructure with the Air Force, or you ruin your own sources of supply and further inflame and increase your opposition....  And our current Army/Marines aren't a big enough force to secure the country.

          •  Logistics (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            mamamedusa, Hayate Yagami

            There were real problems in maintaining logistics chain to Afghanistan and there were examples of British bases coming close to running out of ammunition and were on reduced food rations as their logistic chain is much weaker.

            But the example of reaching the depths of Central Asia is about the most difficult logistic challenge possible and has being met for a decade, moving resources around the US against an internal rebellion, if it was required, would be easy in comparison.

            •  Not so easy. (0+ / 0-)

              How many miles of road to defend convoys on?  How many mountain passes, tunnels, bridges, drainage ditches and culverts?

              What distance between bases and fuel refineries?  Between bases?  Where are your food-stocks coming from?  Maintenance parts?  Ammo?  Replacement troops?

              That challenge has been met... barely.  With a more concerted effort at our supply lines, we'd be on our asses.  This is no secret.  

      •  Logistics work both ways (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Hayate Yagami

        Your local Walmart won't have food on the shelves for very long after the trucks stop running.

        Maybe you can live off the land up on a mountaintop somewhere but you're not going to overthrow the government from up there.

        Just ask the F.A.R.C.

        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 Mon Dec 24, 2012 at 06:35:33 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Except we're not talking about supplying WalMart. (0+ / 0-)

          We're talking about supplying military bases.  

          •  Military raids of WalMart? (0+ / 0-)

            Many military bases are in cities. Unless you starve the city, you're not going to starve the bases.

            "He who fights monsters should see to it that he himself does not become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you."

            by Hayate Yagami on Mon Dec 24, 2012 at 10:42:53 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  And what affect on a revolt do you think... (0+ / 0-)

              that would have?

              Seriously?

              As a side note, it's a well published fact that most cities are about 3 delivery days away from empty shelves, without any actual panic-buying in effect.

              A week to missed meals for most urban households.

              My USAF base has about 6000 active duty personnel, and not enough side-arms or ammo for every one.  (I'd guess less than 35%.)  We are in a metropolitian area of approx. 1 million people, surrounded by desert, 120 miles away from the next major military base, on the other side of another major urban area.

          •  So what are your revolutionaries going to eat? (0+ / 0-)

            Is my point.

            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 Mon Dec 24, 2012 at 04:50:00 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Sigh.... (0+ / 0-)

              What do the insurgents in Afghanistan eat?  The same things all the rest of the populace does.

              Guerillas don't really stand out unless they want to, or get careless.  How do you tell which person shopping at the grocery store set off the IEDs that took out the military supply trucks?

              •  I don't recall (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Calamity Jean

                anyone on the right back in 2001 saying

                "We can't invade Afghanistan because they're got, like, rifles and pistols and we can never succeed."

                Think how much tax money we can save on military spending. I mean, if the local gun club can repel any invasion and prevent government tyranny to boot.

                Certainly makes no sense to spend money on F-35s or M-1 tanks then.

                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 Mon Dec 24, 2012 at 06:38:32 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

    •  I agree, rifles won't even work... (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Hayate Yagami, dkosdan

      ...against the National Guard, let alone the regular army.  However, they might be useful for another form of "fighting tyranny"--intimidating people into voting the way you want or at least not voting.  That's one way they could be used to prevent a government not to the gun nuts' liking from taking power or getting one they don't like voted out.

      No, I don't think that's likely, but then I didn't think the Michigan legislature would ever vote for Right to Work For Less, either.

      "The party of ideas has become the party of Beavis and Butthead." ~ Paul Krugman.

      by Neon Vincent on Sun Dec 23, 2012 at 09:13:43 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  ... Wow. Sir, I would shake your hand. (15+ / 0-)

    Rising up against martial law would involve killing American soldiers.  That has never occurred to me and it is SO BLOODY OBVIOUS.

    Thank you.

  •  If someone says that it is "too soon" (5+ / 0-)

    then we need to talk.

    This better be good. Because it is not going away.

    by DerAmi on Sun Dec 23, 2012 at 06:15:56 PM PST

  •  I too have tried that argument (10+ / 0-)

    On Twitter, Facebook, in person with all the ultra-"conservative" Okies I am surrounded by.

    I get pretty much the same response you get.  Nothing.  All this is just some wet dream fantasy of wingers who think they are ready to fight the Revolutionary War again.  Somehow they think this bestows the same kind of mythical patriotism on them possessed by the all holy Founding Fathers, whom they believe have super powers.

    "The bass player is always right"

    by BigOkie on Sun Dec 23, 2012 at 06:16:29 PM PST

  •  The NRA was outraged by my support of then (40+ / 0-)

    Some thirty years ago I argued that people needed guns to protect themselves from criminals.  And at the time more young men living in America's inner cities were victims of gun crimes than others.  So I suggested that the NRA should help young Blacks get defensive weapons.  For some reason the NRA was outraged.  

    Then somewhat later I suggested the NRA help Americans defend themselves since a government that was oppressing them.  So I asked if they wouldn't help train and arm American Muslims who were being oppressed by the American government in response to 9/11.  Again the NRA was outraged.

    Maybe the NRA really doesn't believe in self defense or resistance to tyranny.   I think they just believe is White Supremacy.

  •  Suitcase nukes are on the table! (14+ / 0-)
    SCALIA: We’ll see. Obviously the Amendment does not apply to arms that cannot be hand-carried — it’s to keep and “bear,” so it doesn’t apply to cannons — but I suppose here are hand-held rocket launchers that can bring down airplanes, that will have to be decided.
    Good old Scalia. Nice to see that the Supreme Court has a jobs program for the Cosa Nostra.



    Folks, they are "war rations."
    Can we all refer to food stamps by their proper name?

    by Pluto on Sun Dec 23, 2012 at 06:19:51 PM PST

  •  i am a previous owner of an ar-15 (9+ / 0-)

    i bought this gun to scare off a very abusive ex husband. he took the hint when he found out i legally had it.  i kept it and later welcomed it when i began working on private sailing yacts. one assignment was to go to columbia for a film prodcer who wanted to make a movie about a yacht appropriated by drug cartel. ham radio local advisors said to shoot first, ask later.  thankfully, this assignment broke down when we had to replace the engine in gibralat and we missed the eta deadline by several weeks.  so i am not an enemy to suc high powered guns.

    that said, on continental usa, i see little or no rason that we, the people, have one. chances are small we have a homicidal acute adversary.  chances are small crzed drug cartels are going to bust in our doors.  the ar-1 and its kin are killing machines, and meant for that purpose only.

    i am strongly in favor to restrict sales of these and like weaons, and large capacity cartridges, and secure background checks of poential buyers, and the confiscarion retroactively of these and like weapons.

    when the apocalypse comes, i will light a fire beneath my cauldron of stone soup.  but i will not take a bead and shoot on anybody.  

    reality and karma

    •  Group Charter To A Remote Area With Pirates (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      PavePusher, fuzzyguy

      Everyone brought an assault rifle or shotgun, and we had a watch posted at all times.  No problems.

      There’s always free cheddar in a mousetrap, baby

      by bernardpliers on Sun Dec 23, 2012 at 06:28:32 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Bullshit!!! (0+ / 0-)

        I don't believe one damn word you wrote there. Just what country, with pirates, did you and a group decide to go charter a yacht with the priviledge of bringing along your assault rifles. And which country was this that just welcomed you at the airport when you all climbed off the plane with your assault weapons.

        Frankly, I think you're completely full of shit!!

        Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity.

        by reflectionsv37 on Sun Dec 23, 2012 at 07:10:38 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Well Kindly Go Fuck Yourself Then (1+ / 1-)
          Recommended by:
          happymisanthropy
          Hidden by:
          Grizzard

          We went to the Cay Sal Banks a large uninhabited atoll off the coast of Cuba.  Although Bahamian waters, guys who had been there previously had been boarded by the Cuban Navy, who weren't hostile.   It's only about 90 miles from Florida.

          There’s always free cheddar in a mousetrap, baby

          by bernardpliers on Sun Dec 23, 2012 at 07:27:53 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  So you and a group decided to go... (0+ / 0-)

            on a yacht charter to a location known to have problems with pirates when there are so many other locations you could have chosen the same distance from Florida?

            Were you going on a yacht charter or a hunting trip?

            Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity.

            by reflectionsv37 on Sun Dec 23, 2012 at 07:35:06 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  And where did you clear customs... (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            mamamedusa

            in the Bahamas since you were sailing to an uninhabited atoll? Seems you have little respect for the immigration laws of other countries.

            Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity.

            by reflectionsv37 on Sun Dec 23, 2012 at 07:40:08 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Well This Was Pre 9-11 (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              happymisanthropy

              And I don't know what the rules were, but it was Ok with the guy that chartered us the boat in Big Pine Key, and we had our own captain who was a by-the-book guy.  And there were probably lots of Cuban fishing boats that went there (we didn't see anyone) and the Cuban navy was around, but they weren't administering anything.   I'm pretty certain the closest port was in Cuba.  I think the Bahamians just left the area alone.

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

              It was a dangerous area for a boat of any size to just be motoring around as many of the tiny  islands weren't even on the charts.  The bottom was carpeted with boat wreckage often from several eras scrambled together, including tool boxes, clothing, and anchors just a few weeks old (that's creepy).   i got a little ships bell, nothing special, but a nice memento.

              There’s always free cheddar in a mousetrap, baby

              by bernardpliers on Sun Dec 23, 2012 at 07:53:52 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  You might want to read... (0+ / 0-)

                this comment by pelagicray. You're fortunate you didn't end up in jail for thinking you can just sail on into to any country you want, unannounced, and bring your assault rifles with you. Pirates or no pirates, they don't care.

                And if you think the examples in that post are extreme, do some reasearch and see what happens if you do that in some of the countries in Southeast Asia.

                And by the way, you don't clear Bahamian customs in a Cuban port. Obviously, your "by the book" captain didn't know what he was doing. All of you illegal entered another country and illegally brought firearms into that country. Ever stop to think what would happen to a boatload of people from another country who showed up in US waters armed with assault weapons?

                Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity.

                by reflectionsv37 on Mon Dec 24, 2012 at 01:52:40 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

              •  Are you under the impression that before 911... (0+ / 0-)

                no other countries had immigration policies?

                Standard procedure for entering another country, and these date back 100's of years, is to proceed to a port of entry, raise your "Q" flag, a yellow quarantine flag and await instructions from officials. These rules were in effect back then primarily as a health issue so that the crews of these vessels couldn't  bring diseases into a country.

                These procedures are still in effect for nearly every country I've visited although some now require pre-authorized visas before you even get to this point.

                As an example, the country of Fiji requires all foreign vessels to arrive at one of 3, may be 4 now, ports of entries. Any vessel that even drops it's anchor in Fijian waters, even if they never step foot on land, before clearing customs is subject to severe penalties. I personally know of one vessel, back in the early 2000's that was fined $5000USD for doing just this.

                Before you and another group decide to sail into some other countries waters, it would behoove you to first read up on the rules of that country and make sure you properly clear customs according to the rules of that country. Failure to do so might just get you labeled as a "drug smuggler" or more appropriately, "armed revolutionary".

                Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity.

                by reflectionsv37 on Mon Dec 24, 2012 at 02:19:30 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

            •  And When I Say "Pirates" I Mean Drug Smugglers (0+ / 0-)

              Who would kill everyone on a pleasure boat and load it with drugs so they could openly sail back into US waters.

              There’s always free cheddar in a mousetrap, baby

              by bernardpliers on Mon Dec 24, 2012 at 07:43:04 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

        •  In the 80s, (0+ / 0-)

          boaters who went very far off the Florida coast usually took a chrome plate 357 and a chromed mini-14 as there were stories of drug smugglers stealing boats, and of people going out to sea and never coming back. I don't know how many times that happened, but everyone out there beyond sight of land was armed.

    •  Let me see... (5+ / 0-)

      if I have this right: it was all good for you to purchase and possess this weapon. But you support confiscation from... the rest of us?

      Doesn't that seem a bit inconsistent? And please tell me I misunderstood the part where you took it to Columbia???

      "A lie is not the other side of a story; it's just a lie."

      by happy camper on Sun Dec 23, 2012 at 06:38:56 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  I've spent the past 12 or more years... (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      cacamp, pelagicray, mamamedusa

      cruising. We've visited more than 25 different countries in Central America and all over the Pacific. I've owned firearms most of life. When we left to go cruising I sold all of my firearms with the exception of a Glock 9mm that I intended to take cruising. Less than a week after leaving San Francisco Bay, in Monterry Bay, I handed my Glock over to a friend and told him to deliver to my son.

      Although I would feel more comfortable with a firearm aboard the boat, in 35k miles, I've never felt like I needed on. And unless you plan to break the gun laws of virtually every country you visit, dealing with the paperwork and in most cases the seizure of your weapons when you are in these countries, they are way more trouble than they are worth. In some of these countries, mere possession will get you the death penalty.

      As I said before, we've never been threatened in any way and never felt the need. When you're in an area where no one has guns, why do you need one?

      Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity.

      by reflectionsv37 on Sun Dec 23, 2012 at 07:07:39 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Yep. And our Constitution doesn't apply beyond our (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        reflectionsv37

        territorial limits and inside someone else's territorial sea or inland waters. That applies whether you are aboard your personal craft or it is a corporate supertanker. If not very careful you get results like this:

        The captain of a cargo vessel was sentenced to R30 000 or 15 years imprisonment after the seizure of undeclared high-powered assault rifles on board his vessel. The captain of ‘MV Bow BAHA’ of the Nassau Port of Registry, voluntarily accompanied police to the Richards Bay police station following the discovery of four Browning 308 rifles with scopes and ammunition. The police found the weapons during a routine spot check of the tanker. The crew explained that the weapons were intended for self-defence in the event of a pirate attack, but the police say they have a duty to enforce the law without exceptions. ‘Although we are all aware that pirates are a very real danger, the weapons should have been declared properly. ‘Commercial vessels must declare the content of their cargo and obtain in-transit or import permits at least 21 days before entering the South African sea border. ‘It is not too difficult or cumbersome to obtain permits.’ Brian Morkel of Shepstone & Wylie Attorneys appeared on behalf of the captain on instruction of the Vessel Protecting and Indemnity Club.
        Only ships owned by a national government, naval or other vessels engaged in the nation's non commercial activity, have immunity.

        Of course, some thinking the Second Amendment follows the flag on their private vessel are outraged when this sort of thing happens:

        Here is an example of "tough on crime" legislation gone crazy.  A 72 year old man, sailing up to Alaska, stops into Canada.  He does not declare his weapons and is charged.  Under our "mandatory minimum" legislation, he is treated like a gang lord and is subject to the mandatory minumum sentence of 3 years in prison.  The judge in this case has no ability to give a reduced sentence.
        Though I have not checked the accuracy in detail FIREARMS and the CRUISER seems consistent with what I've found in the past on the subject, including the author's note "The author does not warrant or assume any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information disclosed herein."

        As for the Bahamas, current State Department Bahamas, The Country Specific Information notes under "Customs" (with my emphasis):

        The Bahamas’ customs authorities enforce strict regulations concerning temporary importation or exportation of firearms. U.S. citizens have been arrested and face stiff penalties for entering The Bahamas with firearms or ammunition, including so much as one forgotten bullet lost in a backpack. It is advisable to contact the Embassy of the Commonwealth of The Bahamas in Washington or one of the Bahamian consulates in the U.S. for specific information regarding customs requirements.  Tourists who plan to arrive by private boat may seek permission to declare firearms to Bahamian Customs and leave firearms securely on the boat for the duration of their stay in The Bahamas.

        The only foes that threaten America are the enemies at home, and those are ignorance, superstition, and incompetence. [Elbert Hubbard]

        by pelagicray on Mon Dec 24, 2012 at 06:43:17 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  "suc high powered guns" (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      annieli, fuzzyguy

      "the ar-1 and its kin are killing machines, and meant for that purpose only."

      "and large capacity cartridges"

      Yeah, cool story.  But you have no idea what you are talking about.

      Good luck with that.

  •  You have to consider that... (12+ / 0-)

    ...the real troops - y'know, the ones Rush Limbaugh is always talkin' about - would never take orders from a Muslim Kenyan Marxist usurper.  Therefore, those troops that would in fact follow such orders can't possibly be real Americans. So it's okay to fire on them.

    Or something.  Don't worry - the lizard brain is not so easily thwarted...

    When you punch enough holes through steerage, the first-class cabins sink with the rest of the ship.

    by Roddy McCorley on Sun Dec 23, 2012 at 06:23:47 PM PST

  •  Civil war as existential frame (12+ / 0-)

    It is common and pernicious and part of the conversation.  It has been for a long time, however unlikely and absurd on the face of it.  We have all, I think, heard folks going off on this at length.  It is a fantasy which informs a lot of people.

    I don't know if "killing US troops" should be the cited harm though.  After all, if you've already bought into the whole paranoid frame, then it follows that the black helicopters will have some US troops in them.  And the frame ignores the small overlap with truth the black helicopter folks have mustered -- that they are citizens of an expedient and brutal empire, albeit in the form of a republic, and the military does not serve their interests and "freedoms", much.

    I think the harm is in civil war as a frame for civic life.  Even if it never happens, all the little in between interactions that make the life of a citizen possible, that make a commonweal possible, are overshadowed by the imaginary end times scenario of "us vs them".  Its an unspeakably grim possible future and a fantasy which poisons democratic participation.  

    One article I read described Lanza's mother as a "prepper" who was getting ready for the final breakdown of civilization.  In Connecticut.    While collecting a quarter million a year in alimony. The myths and stories we tell ourselves have terrible power.

    ...j'ai découvert que tout le malheur des hommes vient d'une seule chose, qui est de ne savoir pas demeurer en repos dans une chambre.

    by jessical on Sun Dec 23, 2012 at 06:24:23 PM PST

    •  After 150 years (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      jessical, happymisanthropy, Bisbonian

      ...I think we are finally very close to the end of the Civil War. Not there yet -- but at the rate that the Federal Government is being starved to death -- we are very close, indeed.

      Long live the South, I guess.



      Folks, they are "war rations."
      Can we all refer to food stamps by their proper name?

      by Pluto on Sun Dec 23, 2012 at 06:31:46 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  "3%" Directly Fantasize About Killing Neighbors (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      jessical, Fixed Point Theorem

      They always start with this shit "I took and oath to defend this country against enemies foreign AND domestic."

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

      This sort of thing

      John has it partially right firearms are for hunting and protecting your family, by hunting commies I AM protecting my family. It will soon be open season on these vermin and thousands will die. Not my fault, they are ones who have fomented this crisis. I stand ready to deploy, engage and destroy the enemies of the United States of America in close combat. Clean up America, kill a liberal.

      There’s always free cheddar in a mousetrap, baby

      by bernardpliers on Sun Dec 23, 2012 at 06:54:32 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Well (5+ / 0-)

        I live in the queerest, most densely populated part of a blue city in a blue state, and I have neighbors with armories suitable for a small squad of marines plus zombie apocalypse fantasies to match.  All of whom voted Obama, like myself.   If you feel completely disconnected from society -- like you have no stake in it and only the thinnest of connections to a thoughtless and cruel machine -- and you see little rationality in how things are managed going forward -- stocking up on ammo and thinking in terms of civil war of some kind is perfectly logical (also batshit, of course).    The folks you cite think about killing liberals, and my well armed neighbors think about killing them.  None of it will ever happen except in spurts, because it doesn't reflect military, economic, or civil reality (except insofar as it offers a last minute choice of suicide over incarceration).   But it's the myth and framework that many people live in, even as they move on with their ordinary seeming daily lives.  The disconnect between what people see as possible in society, and possible for themselves, and the way we talk about society in the media and in government, has become enormous.  Winner take all rhetoric has a cost and leads to real choices.

        Believing that civil society which includes everyone and kind of works requires profound courage, and fewer and fewer of us have that courage.

        ...j'ai découvert que tout le malheur des hommes vient d'une seule chose, qui est de ne savoir pas demeurer en repos dans une chambre.

        by jessical on Sun Dec 23, 2012 at 07:04:51 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  I started blogging on National Review, used my (15+ / 0-)

    same nom de blog as here, and I've been told on a number of occasions, in essence that that people like should be shot, that I am not part of the same country as other bloggers on National Review, etc.

    Some of these people itch for a time when they can shoot liberals.  

    Obviously the vast majority are sofa samurai, who pose no threat except to a bag of cheetos.  But a small number, particularly on Free Republic, where racism is overt, may well decide to start their own little Secessionstan.

    You have exactly 10 seconds to change that look of disgusting pity into one of enormous respect!

    by Cartoon Peril on Sun Dec 23, 2012 at 06:25:26 PM PST

  •  The Founders Did Not Endorse Domestic Terrorism (3+ / 0-)

    The Founders would no doubt agree that armed insurrection would be a logical result if the government ever abolished elections, the free press, and religious freedom.

    They did not endorse citizens becoming terrorists because they don't like the results of free elections or because they choose to embrace conspiracy theories.  

    While no wingnuts today endorse shooting up schools just for the heck of it, somehow many of them have concluded that the founders endorsed domestic terrorism.

    There’s always free cheddar in a mousetrap, baby

    by bernardpliers on Sun Dec 23, 2012 at 06:26:32 PM PST

    •  A far cry (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Sychotic1, happymisanthropy

      Probably worth remembering this part of the Declaration of Independence:

      Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.
      Losing an election is a far cry from being reduced to absolute despotism.

      The filibuster is a crime against democracy.

      by schuylkill on Sun Dec 23, 2012 at 07:07:50 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  as such (0+ / 0-)
      “Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined.”
      -Patrick Henry

      States' rights? Corporate rights? Militia rights? Government rights? Hell no! Only individuals have rights. Proud lifelong human supremacist.

      by happymisanthropy on Sun Dec 23, 2012 at 09:22:04 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  The idea that guns = potential freedom (12+ / 0-)

    from a tyrannical government is so patently absurd it's hard to fathom. If the hypothetical tyrannical government-- so far out of control that it was resorting to killing its own citizens with abandon-- was actually out to get you, do you really think being able to fire more bullets faster would make a difference?

  •  I had a twitter convo last week (6+ / 0-)

    with a guy who thought we shouldn't address firearms or gun control because we hadn't cured a particular type of cancer yet.  Apparently, until we cure that specific cancer, WE CAN'T WORK ON ANYTHING ELSE. NO, NOT EVEN THAT. OR THAT. OR THE OTHER THING.

    He's not a gun nut, but he's one of these guys that has bought into enough of the propaganda that he can't speak intelligently about the topic. It's truly a weird world out there right now.

  •  That's not what they think.. (6+ / 0-)

    They think that (somehow) the military will be dissolved and that instead (somehow) the United Nations Military will invade ...and THAT'S who they would be fighing.

    Minority rights should never be subject to majority vote.

    by lostboyjim on Sun Dec 23, 2012 at 06:28:39 PM PST

    •  It's not (0+ / 0-)

      unthinkable that the military would refuse to obey illegal orders and sit in their barracks rather than get involved in a constitutional crisis.

      Then what?

      States' rights? Corporate rights? Militia rights? Government rights? Hell no! Only individuals have rights. Proud lifelong human supremacist.

      by happymisanthropy on Sun Dec 23, 2012 at 09:23:41 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Oh wait-- just thought of a good reason to own an (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Pluto, Ender

    weapon.

    Ever seen Red Dawn?

  •  Second Amendment Remedies (7+ / 0-)

    The notion that guns would "protect them against government tyranny" has been inoperative since the Whiskey Rebellion, when one of our former Presidents sent the army to enforce the nation's excise tax laws.

    Nobody born since then has had any sane reason to expect that gun will protect them from government tyranny.

  •  I believe that the anti-tyranny folks (12+ / 0-)

    enjoy their fantasies about mowing down anyone coming for their guns, without considering who they might be.  United Nations soldiers armed with hundred-year-old rifles, perhaps?  Unarmed bureaucrats reading a decree to surrender all weapons?  Who knows?

    In the few times I've found myself facing a gun wingnut, I attempt to defuse the situation by saying "I own guns and I'm not the least bit worried about the government taking them."  And then I try to change the subject.

    Sometimes I am tempted to ask them to explain exactly how a gun confiscation law would get through Congress, or how it could be unilaterally declared by the President.  And after that, how exactly would it be carried out.  But I'm fully aware that a rational conversation with a wingnut is not in the cards.

  •  I've owned... (12+ / 0-)

    ... a hunting rifle, bolt action, to secure game, and a five-shot Charter Arms revolver... If you're worried about an assailant, learn how to shoot straight... One or two shots is all you should need... Same with hunting game... If you need more shots, you need to learn to shoot straight... Sorry NRA... This from an honorably discharged wartime vet and hazardous duty volunteer...

    PS: You guys are nuts...   (m.)

    •  Which is kind of ironic because the NRA (8+ / 0-)

      was founded to promote better, more accurate shooting of rifles. Shortly after the Civil War some folks were worried Americans were falling behind the Europeans. A sort of "rifle gap" had developed and they sought to correct it. Not by getting everybody and their dog armed to the teeth but by making folks better shots. As I understand it wasn't until 60+ years later that the NRA decided they needed to push a legislative agenda to "protect" the rights of gun owners.

      To me progress is not so much a goal as it is a process and I believe it will not follow a straight course. Remember, the drops of water that form the river may not take the shortest path but they will still reach the ocean.

      by ontheleftcoast on Sun Dec 23, 2012 at 06:40:25 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  All you nee is a .30-30, a shotgun, and a .357 (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      annieli, signet02, salamanderempress

      If you can't defend yourself from any mammal in North America with one of those you weren't going to win anyways.

      "Buying Horizon Milk to support organic farming is like purchasing an English muffin in an effort to prop up the British economy." -Windowdog

      by Windowdog on Sun Dec 23, 2012 at 07:28:14 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  My semi-auto hunting rifles.... (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      annieli, FrankRose, happymisanthropy

      of which on is an AR15, are all restricted to 5 rounds or less for hunting.  Just like my bolt-action rifles.  And have magazines for exactly that purpose.  I also have larger capacity magazines for other purposes.

      And I'm not nuts.  

      But I am 22+ years active duty USAF, and sometimes hazardous duty volunteer.

      •  AR 15s... (2+ / 0-)

        and any other semi-automatic rifles are still not allowed for hunting game animals in PA, my home state...

        Here's a link: http://www.rifleshootermag.com/...

        Many think they should be allowed... I'm not one of them... (m.)

        •  Why not? (0+ / 0-)

          What do you base your opinion on?

          •  I would say... (0+ / 0-)

            the whole picture and rationale of owning guns in the first place... The first would be to secure game... The second, to secure your home... Neither requires semi-automatic weapons; and semi-automatic weapons even negate the whole notion of home security... There's just too much incentive to discharge a weapon multiple times, when more care and a careful shot would be a better choice...

            As far as owning an assault rifle to protect against gov't intrusion, that's been covered [above] much better than I myself could ever articulate...

            The same applies to hunting... Stealth, and a well-placed shot trumps autoloaders and larger clips any day of the week... (m.)

            •  What keeps someone from discharging.... (0+ / 0-)

              a bolt-action weapon multiple times?

              You're making a lot of assertion/conjecture with no supporting evidence.

              (Seriously, what do you know about hunting?  Semi-auto's have been used in hunting for over 100 years.  And they use the same tactics as one uses with a bolt gun.  "Larger clips" aren't generally allowed for hunting anyway.)

  •  The weapons used for guerilla warfare (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jhop7, annieli, Bisbonian, dkosdan

    Are already illegal.  In the event of a coup d'etat, people won't be using civilian firearms.  They'd use the sort of arms the military uses - either supplied to them by foreign states opposed to the US dictatorship, or obtained from armories commanded by portions of the military who resist any such coup.  

    We've seen the script play out in plenty of countries, and it doesn't often involve the sort of firearms the courts deem protected by the second amendment - at least, not in a leading role.

  •  Sigh... (10+ / 0-)

    Checking in on what my Ron Paul friends have to say, they're extremely happy about gun sales going through the roof.

       Walmart SELLS OUT of guns as Americans rush to stockpile weapons in aftermath of Sandy Hook massacre

    If you anti-gun/anti-freedom people think you'll win this one... Get fuckin real. Sorry that some of you can't understand what a simple concept like SELF-OWNERSHIP means. The best part... It's usually the people who know little to nothing about firearm education that tend to be the loudest in their opinions against guns.

    Someone else then asked him about Uzis and grenades.
    If an individual wants to have an uzi and grenades around for the hell of it, that's fine... Beautiful freedom would be every individual having the right to decide how they want to defend themselves. Not how the government deems you should protect yourself. Because if they were so right in ME not needing these things, then why do THEY need them? Hmm.

    Dude saying ban an AR-15 is not taking account REALITY. Reality is that guns are made up off different pieces of metal. AKs are illegal in California, but they're SUPER easy to buy all the parts and make...

    Let's ban weed. That will make people stop using it. Clearly BANNING things (of course, by coercion) doesn't make society a better OR safer place....

    What if I want 100 AR-15's in my house because I feel like that is personally what would make me safer? The fundamental principle is who are YOU to tell me how I can and can't defend myself? ;-)

    See?  It's "beautiful freedom" for every American to own an arsenal of grenades and machine guns... if they want to.  FREEDOM!!!

    (Actually, why do I have this image of him yelling "WOLVERINES!!!" after saying that?)

  •  Typical nutter response is there would be mutiny (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    foresterbob, Egalitare

    in the army who would support the secessionists (see, because the entire service is composed of secret secessionists) so they wouldn't have to, you know, kill people wearing an American uniform.

    You have exactly 10 seconds to change that look of disgusting pity into one of enormous respect!

    by Cartoon Peril on Sun Dec 23, 2012 at 06:40:37 PM PST

  •  Very interesting question (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Pluto, PavePusher, happymisanthropy

    Maybe you have a short memory, or maybe you didn't experence the news in real time the way I did.  I don't have any military style weapons myself, but when I hear this sort of question I transport myself back in time to the Kent State massacre.  Would I shoot a member of the US military that was firing on unarmed student protesters?  I don't know, but the answer is probably yes.

  •  You can't win a fight against the US army. (4+ / 0-)

    I wrote letters to 25 Republican members of the house [taken from the list of those who have renounced the no tax pledge]. I picked these guys [yes, all men] because they have demonstrated the ability to have some independent thought.

    Anyway, I pointed out in each letter that taking on the US military is useless. So what do we need assault weapons for?

    How effective these letters will be? Dunno. But I think it'll take more than 20-something Republicans to pass an arms control bill because of the Democratic gun lovers.

    But we try.

    •  You know... I beg to differ: (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      fuzzyguy, annieli, happymisanthropy
      You can't win a fight against the US army.
      The US army has lost every war it tried to fight for the past 60 years.

      And they had their asses kicked by folks armed with cell phones and explosives -- or the like.



      Folks, they are "war rations."
      Can we please refer to food stamps by their proper name?

      by Pluto on Sun Dec 23, 2012 at 06:58:46 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Given their paranoia about government... (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Pluto, foresterbob, defluxion10, Bisbonian

    shouldn't they be asking for both the military and police to be forcibly less well armed than the populace, you know, just in case Obama turns into Hitler?

    Disband the armed forces, give law enforcement BB guns, and save the M-16s for the true patriots, the civilian gun owners who will serve as our freedom protecting militia.

    The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. -- John Kenneth Galbraith

    by richardak on Sun Dec 23, 2012 at 06:42:49 PM PST

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

    Suppose the Libertarian Socialist party stages a coup and takes over the country. (with apologies to libertarians and socialists).

    And suppose these people you are going on about decide that this is a bad idea.

    Large numbers of them, like large numbers of other Americans, have taken careful note of how Iraqi patriots defended themselves after a foreign regime recently occupied their country.

    First of all, the Libertarian Socialists have a stack of challenges not faced in Iraq, notably that their entire logistics support base, etc. are not inaccessible behind an ocean.  It's all right here.  They need to defend their support base, their newspapers, television stations, bloggers, politicians, families of supporters, etc -- civil wars are really ugly -- from people who are sensibly morally rectifying soft targets, not soldiers.  Does this work?  Read Al-Jazeera English regularly.  Note all the fuel trucks driving up through Pakistan to Afghanistan that simply do not get there.

    Second, the Libertarian Socialists have the little issue that our Armed Forces -- unlike most people on this list, I am prior service, and remember taking the oath -- swear their loyalty to the Constitution, not the the Libertarian Socialist All-Highest of All D.C.*  That means that large numbers of those pretty pictures are not going to being doing what the All-Highest wants, even assuming he does not find cruise missiles coming up the corridors to visit.

    Third, I call your attention to the wise words of Japanese Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto, he who planned the Pearl Harbor attack, that an invasion of the United States is impossible, because there would be two riflemen behind every blade of grass.  Ignoring the severe desertion and mutiny issues in your highly implausible scenario, attrition and the end of effective recruitment rapidly cut militaries down to size.  For an example, look at the fate of the 1917 Imperial Russian Army.

    Incidentally, all of those pretty toys in your last photo work because they have huge maintenance staffs -- who are not bulletproof -- not to mention enormous spare parts chains, and your parts reliability just ran into issues.  

    It takes very few people to do that.  I am old enough to recall the late Vietnam war period, and the aircraft carrier that was basically taken out of commission for a considerable time by one unknown sailor and one hardened steel tool.  He threw it into the reducing gears, or so report has it.

    I haven't gotten yet to all the people who went through Vietnam, Iraq, etc etc etc who are good liberals, good moderates, etc. who will be happy to supply the military knowledge that other people lack.  

    Civil wars are really ugly, but I have already heard all this 'our military is invincible' stuff from far right groups posturing when the first resistance started in Iraq.  It was supposed to lose in two weeks.  And that was our military shooting at people they could readily depersonalize, not at their fellow Americans.

    No, I think you are massively wrong.  By the way, I could go on at half novel length (I have written several) making the point in far more detail.

    Having said all this, Merry Christmas.

    And for those of you who did not believe that I have written a novel http://www.amazon.com/... and it is a free Christmas etc etc etc present for anyone who wants a copy.

    *For this title, hat tip to E.E. Smith and the All-Highest of Ancient Eddore.

    We can have change for the better.

    by phillies on Sun Dec 23, 2012 at 06:44:02 PM PST

  •  Excellent points. These Tea Party idiots can't (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    dkosdan

    think for themselves so they'll depend on Fake News to give them their marching orders and Druggie Rush for their rallying cries, but mostly they'll shoot up little children and teachers and college students and post offices.  You know, real hot beds of tyranny.

    Damn.  So freaking insane that these brainless followers own all this fire power.  Insane.

    Best. President. Ever.

    by Little Lulu on Sun Dec 23, 2012 at 06:45:19 PM PST

  •  Wait ... if the government is powerful enough (3+ / 0-)

    to take away their guns ...

    How are their guns going to help them beat the government?

    The American Indian: Fighting Foreign Terrorism Since 1492.

    by penguins4peace on Sun Dec 23, 2012 at 06:47:55 PM PST

  •  You don't have to go (5+ / 0-)

    to Twitter, Free Republic, or any of the other RW and extremist sites where these folks congregate.

    We have at least one right here: in a comment to a diary last week, a self-proclaimed militia leader from the Chicago area argued that because of the experience of the Viet Cong in Vietnam, and the muj in Afghanistan, it would be perfectly reasonable to expect success of such an effort, or at minimum, a drawn out struggle which would "break the enemies' resolve" here in the US.

    He also offers advice on tactics:

    The light infantry concept (and this is a very short broad definition) is based in the fact that a team equiped with nothing but what they carry on their back can make hit and run strikes, seemingly appearing from nowhere and vanishing against it's enimies.  Certainly light infantry would be hard pressed to fight a tank but it can also easily choose to simply avoid that fight and perhaps go after the fuel depot.
    http://www.dailykos.com/...

    And just who the hell does he think would be operating that fuel depot, if not American soldiers?

    I challenged him, and was stunned that more folks did not do so....

    I am a warrior for peace. And not a gentle man... Steve Mason, 1940-2005

    by Wayward Wind on Sun Dec 23, 2012 at 06:52:09 PM PST

  •  From listening to extreme right-wing radio (3+ / 0-)

    My impression is that part of the fantasy involves "good" soldiers and police officers rebelling against their superiors and joining with the brave resisters.

    This all makes perfect sense.  For there is indeed an imminent danger of autocratic takeover in this country and others-- from extreme right-wingers.

    Psychological projection is not just an unfortunate phenomenon, it's a weapon used by corporate america and their pawns.

    •  Yes, a coup to establish right-wing dictatorship (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Miggles

      is by far the most likely scenario under which the gun nuts would finally get to satisfy their bloodlust.

       

      The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. -- John Kenneth Galbraith

      by richardak on Sun Dec 23, 2012 at 07:14:59 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Often Specifically Race War Fantasies (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      annieli

      The are careful to not say that out loud, but it is a theme of race war porn like The Turner Diaries.

      That's how they figure their side will get heavy weapons.

      And given the number of white supremacists that have infiltrated the armed forces it would not be all that farfetched.

      There’s always free cheddar in a mousetrap, baby

      by bernardpliers on Sun Dec 23, 2012 at 07:15:52 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  it's how insurgency works (not so well) (0+ / 0-)

        in Syria and Libya, so imagine the 'baggers who want Somalian libertarianism in the US coverting all their Ford f-150s into "technicals" / gun platforms

        yksitoista ulotteinen presidentin shakki. / tappaa kaikki natsit "Nous sommes un groupuscule" (-9.50; -7.03) 政治委员, 政委‽ Warning - some snark above ‽

        by annieli on Sun Dec 23, 2012 at 07:45:10 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  That's so unfair (5+ / 0-)

    You don't need to fight the military to rebel against the government.  Has it occurred to you that they actually want to simply engage in terrorism?  Actually, that would make more sense, since they can't really take on the US military.

    That's the right.  They are so mixed up.  They want "small" government but they love the military, even though the founding fathers said we shouldn't have a standing army.  Indeed, stockpiling guns for rebellion would make sense if they were consistent and stopped the government from forming a military.

    Indeed, LaPierre was on MTP this morning saying we need armed guards at every school and a national database of mentally ill people.  Lots of big government is what he wants.

  •  I never realized the real silliness of (0+ / 0-)

    Scalia's jurisprudence. He think the founders intended the scope of the 2nd amendment to turn on what weapons people could literally bear?  What nonsense.

    "To recognize error, to cut losses, to alter course, is the most repugnant option in government." Historian Barbara Tuchman

    by Publius2008 on Sun Dec 23, 2012 at 07:03:57 PM PST

  •  Even if law and order were to collapse, (0+ / 0-)

    the guns people own are only effective within... shooting distance.  So it's just as likely old animosities will erupt into personal feuds in neighborhoods across the land.
       Of course, there is bound to be quite a bit of the kind of white-on-black violence that occurred in the wake of Katrina, where white victims were "scavenging to stay alive" and any black "caught looting" would be shot. And who can forget the infamous Danziger bridge shootings, or the police blockade of the bridge from New Orleans to Gretna, where up to thousands of homeless, hungry people were forced back into the city by police forces who fired guns in the air to turn them back.
       We still lack a firm understanding of how these dynamics would map out with ad-hoc civilian martial activity.  If you combine that with our current rates of firearm violence, how can we accept the current status quo?

  •  So, basically (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    schnecke21, Bisbonian, Patango

    The NRA and their ilk are saying that the second amendment allows us to take up arms to protect us from our own armed forces. The same armed forces that the right are constantly reminding us are to never be spoken ill of or questioned because they represent the best of America and are next to perfection, with the possible exception of Jesus. The same Armed forces that are given carte blanche when it comes to funding, can never ever have any cut to their budget, even if it means bankrupting the nation when it comes to budget matters. So, on one hand, the armed forces are potentially our enemy and represent a threat to our liberties, so much so that we literally have to arm every last man woman and child in society to protect ourselves from them, because they represent such a grievous threat to our well being, but at the same time, we will spare no expense to make sure that they have an unlimited budget, and put on the highest pedestal possible and are never questioned.

  •  I'm frustrated. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    defluxion10, Patango

    The House of Representatives is NOT going to let any gun control legislation pass. NONE. So when Republican after Republican comes out in favor of sane gun control, they know full well nothing will pass. And by knowing this, it gives them cover so as to appear sane. So they can go out and talk about sane laws because they know they won't pass. It is all lip service.

    The NY Post recently came out criticizing the NRA and calling them nuts. But they also know that this is just lip service. NOTHING will get passed. Congress will postpone and postpone and by April America will have forgotten. Or at least enough of America will have forgotten.

    And by the 2014 midterm elections America will have so forgotten that they'll send numerous tea partiers and pro gun nuts back to Washington yet again.

    IMHO

  •  If my "passion for my hobby" is Rockets... (0+ / 0-)

    ...does it mean I could launch rockets whenever I want, wherever I want? I mean, it's not banned by the Constitution...

    What if it was explosives? Firecrackers?

  •  Try this on Twitter: #RepealThe2nd (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Agathena

    The Second Amendment is an anachronism of a time when communities lived on a frontier among an often hostile indigenous people that didn't like having their homes and fields burned, their people killed and all of that sorry history.  That no longer applies.

    It also comes from a political time when, in order to get the Constitution passed, local, regional and State power brokers prided themselves on their (mostly purchased) leadership of a civic militia.  These men were very suspicious of a strong central government, and the 2nd Amendment was included in the Constitutional package in order to appease them.  That no longer applies.

    There is a standing, established, armed and well-regulated militia for every State, now, and they're very effective at maintaining order when local police forces (that didn't exist when the 2nd was passed) lose their grip on civil peace.

    The time for the 2nd Amendment has passed, and it just clutters our debate with endless "chapter & verse" romantic blather whenever we try to come to grips with the armed carnage on our streets.

    It's time to get rid of the Second Amendment.  

    (BTW: a simple repeal will not take one gun off the streets or remove a single 100-round ammo drum from a "prepper's" house.  That is sold separately.)

    •  If we might not even have the votes (4+ / 0-)

      to get an assault weapons ban, how would we get 2/3rds of both houses of congress and 3/4ths of all states to go along with repealing the 2nd?  Fine idea, but very wishful thinking, IMO.

      Things work out best for those who make the best of the way things work out.

      by winsock on Sun Dec 23, 2012 at 08:01:25 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  The 'political' idea is come from the flank (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Agathena, winsock

        In the early Ninties, an assault weapons ban--outright ban on sales--was a "middle ground" compromise idea, and few were questioning the ability and correctness of the Federal government to establish limits on the type of weapons individual enthusiasts could own.  Now, after 20 years of "out of my cold, dead hands" propaganda, the thought that one person should not be armed with the whole arsenal of a SEAL team is seen as some radical liberal totalitarianism conspiracy thinkin'.

        I don't see a quick path to repeal of the 2nd Amendment in Congress.  No "popular" effort to change the Constitution has ever been quick ... a generation or two, often ... but having a nascent movement in that direction establishes a more ambitious "distant goal", and if I am the "gun control lunatic fringe", then more modest proposals at regulation look a whole lot more palatable to the pro-guns-everywhere voters.

        Besides, a focused campaign can draw off the Constitutionalist discussion into its own political eddy and leave the serious talk of regulating and restricting access to weapons of mass murder to a sober legislative effort.

  •  I say.... (0+ / 0-)

    that they know a bunch of AR-15's will NOT allow them to overthrow the government.

    They want these weapons to play out their assassination fantasies. These guys pictures themselves as scrappy white heroes that will potentially save our country from tyranny by killing our president or other elected officials when they disagree with the results of an election.

    The types of weapons that civilians are now able to acquire are TERRIBLE for trying to overthrow the government, but perfect for assassinations.

    •  well, which is it? (0+ / 0-)

      are they the semi-auto equivalents of the M-16s we arm soldiers with?  or are they terrible and obsolete?

      Are they too powerful, or not powerful enough?

      States' rights? Corporate rights? Militia rights? Government rights? Hell no! Only individuals have rights. Proud lifelong human supremacist.

      by happymisanthropy on Sun Dec 23, 2012 at 09:38:38 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  They're not as good as what the armed forces use, (0+ / 0-)

        and also too powerful for private citizens to safely own. Both can be true at the same time. You'll note the armed forces also have bombers and the like.

      •  Small arms are a drop in the bucket (0+ / 0-)

        compared to the amount of firepower the military can put on a target.

        We can escalate up to:
        Light machine guns and grenade launchers
        Heavy machine guns
        Light mortars
        Handheld rockets

        Then we can bring in the heavier stuff:
        Multiple Rocket Launchers
        Artillery
        Light armored vehicles
        Main Battle Tanks

        Need a bit more "oomph"?
        OK, how about a 2000 lb MK84 from an F-16? With the right seeker head on it they can put it through your bedroom window.

        Still not enough?
        We can put 50,000 pounds of whatever you want on a B-52. At 40,000 feet you'll never see 'em coming.

        Sure, I enjoyed "Red Dawn" as much as the next guy but it's pure fiction.

        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 Mon Dec 24, 2012 at 06:25:17 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  its not that they are terrible (0+ / 0-)

        it is simply that assault rifles alone are completely inadequate up against tanks, planes, helicopters, drones, some of the best trained troops etc.

  •  One question with no answer (yet): Would the Troop (0+ / 0-)

    s We Support, carrying or deploying weapons We the People bought and paid for, wearing the uniforms we provide, eating the food we underwrite, would those grunts or whatever they call themselves these days lock and load and "light up" a bunch of civilians?

    There's this, http://www.time.com/... (they weren't just Black troops, there were others who refused and took the consequences, I happened to be one after my own year in Vietnam), and this, http://www.workers.org/....

    And of course that young fella who lectured the NY cops taking down the Occupy folks on the meaning of oaths to support and defend the Constitution, http://www.opposingviews.com/... and the guy who survived Imperial deployment only to be shot in the face with a "non-lethal round" in Oakland. http://www.examiner.com/...

    The all-volunteer forces we have now, many of whom are there because there are no economic alternatives, where psyops are used against the troops to keep them in line, and where the "right" has done so much work to institute their kind of groupthink throughout the military, starting at the top of course and up from the bottom  too, might do, well, who knows what?

    But if you shoot at people who have by training and horrific experience been programmed to shoot back, and to protect their unit, and to take revenge, well, who knows what might happen?

    "Is that all there is?" Peggy Lee.

    by jm214 on Sun Dec 23, 2012 at 07:14:02 PM PST

  •  Urban Hordes (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Square Knot

    Thank you Dante for crystallizing into language what I've been feeling for a long time - that a certain strain of "survivalism" has at its roots an inherent racism and xenophobia:

    I won't mince words: I firmly believe that many of the people who want to be prepared to kill a lot of other people are suburban and exurban whites who think they will get the opportunity to kill a lot of black people if and when the social order ever breaks down. While some may consider this outrageous, it's really not: All it takes is a brief visit to Free Republic or any other such outlet to see posters actively fantasizing about the breakdown in the social order so they can:

        [...] deliver what they deserve, 9mm from a MAC-11. 900 RPM.

    As a father with a small family, I have taken the responsibility of preparing according to the Department of Homeland Security recommendations of having 2 weeks of water, provisions, etc. on hand in case of natural disaster or unrest.  When you delve into the survivalist literature, you can't help but run into this radical white supremacist streak whose greatest fear are the "urban hordes" that will come for their food (and women, I guess) when society collapses.  

    Being a white man, married to a black woman and with two black sons, and having grown up in inner city Detroit, I find it laughable that the inclusive African American culture, that has descended from a historical one which opened their homes, such as they were, to slave children left behind when their parents were sold off, and for which the tradition continues today with economically disadvantaged people that without question will take in a niece, nephew, cousin or grandchildren in need, because African American culture is much more inclusive - that these people would constitute the "urban hordes" that haunt the fever dreams of NRA propaganda writers and the fools who believe them.

    Long ago I realized that if society fell, I would much rather be around black people, simply because I am most comfortable around African Americans because African American culture is inherently more caring and inclusive.  I think blacks would be too busy checking in on their neighbors, cooking and passing out mouth-watering foods, and displaying the resourcefulness, grounding, and ability to overcome that has been the hallmark of African American history in this nation, than to be "gang-banging" out in the whitey suburbs - these utterly ridiculous notions of the suburban and exurban whites who's murderous fantasies require blacks to come after them.

  •  One thing we should require (0+ / 0-)

    On the first purchase of a firearm, the purchaser should be required to sign a loyalty oath.

    Spare me the complaints about McCarthyism. It is far more justified in this instance than it is for teaching at a public school or holding a government job.

  •  The Second Amendment says what it's purpose is. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    richardak

    "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state..." And that 'well regulated militia' is described in Article I under Congress' powers. Congress can regulate the militia, and arm it, for the purpose of suppressing rebellions (the opposite of fomenting revolution):

    To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
    To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
    Therefore, any 'constitutionally protected' weapon must be at the service of, and regulated by, the well regulated militia that the Congress (and president) can control.

    You can't rationally believe that the purpose of the 2nd is to allow the people to forment rebellion against the government created by the Constitution. That's not 'the security of a free State'...that's the DESTRUCTION of a free State.

    And, why would they say 'well regulated' militia when, in their secret heart, they actually meant 'rag tag band of rebels who seek to overthrow the government'? Any time a legal document uses a term once, it is presumed that the term mean the same thing throughout the document...so, yes, if we read the 2nd's reference to 'well regulated militia' in light of the 'regulated militia' created in Art. I...it seems pretty clear that if you want to use a weapon as part of an insurrection, then you will be facing the 'well regulated militia' who will be sent to put down your 'insurrection' (as well as the 101st Airborne).

    Liberals: Taking crap for being right since before you were born. - Driftglass (and the amazing Professional Left Podcast at http://professionalleft.blogspot.com/)

    by briefer on Sun Dec 23, 2012 at 07:20:16 PM PST

    •  backwards (0+ / 0-)

      Congress can regulate militias, congress can disband militias, but Congress can't foreclose the possibility of reorganizing the militia in the future by disarming the militiamen.

      States' rights? Corporate rights? Militia rights? Government rights? Hell no! Only individuals have rights. Proud lifelong human supremacist.

      by happymisanthropy on Sun Dec 23, 2012 at 09:42:26 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  The thinking of a gentlemanly man of the (0+ / 0-)

    Enlightenment, say a Jefferson, in considering allowing the citizenry to protect itself against a tyrannical government
    (perhaps a Napoleon?), is I'd say a mite different from the yahoos who yearn for a race riot so they can deploy their gats.

    "They come, they come To build a wall between us We know they won't win."--Crowded House, "Don't Dream It's Over."

    by Wildthumb on Sun Dec 23, 2012 at 07:30:56 PM PST

  •  watch out for them Star Wars clones (0+ / 0-)

    seems to have been devised to distance the viewer from the cinematic mass carnage of humanoids

    Either they realize they would have to kill our own soldiers in this fantastical "martial law" scenario, or they believe that there is some shadow agency that will be the vanguard of the operation (maybe the same one that brings the black helicopters?), so it won't constitute killing our own troops—or at least, not exactly.

    yksitoista ulotteinen presidentin shakki. / tappaa kaikki natsit "Nous sommes un groupuscule" (-9.50; -7.03) 政治委员, 政委‽ Warning - some snark above ‽

    by annieli on Sun Dec 23, 2012 at 07:41:30 PM PST

  •  When Second Amendemnt was written, gun owners (0+ / 0-)

    had muzzle loading muskets.  I saywe could still let the gun loving nuts have all the muzzle loading muskets the want.  Anything newer isn't covered in the Bill of Rights or the Constitution.

    •  Then the internet wouldn't be covered by the 1st (0+ / 0-)

      Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

      by FrankRose on Sun Dec 23, 2012 at 09:18:50 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Can people please stop trying to use this argument (0+ / 0-)

        This is complete stupidity.  Most websites you can browse without ever having to register to it but if you want to interact with the site you have to register and agree to terms and conditions just like here.  So if you say something that someone doesn't like you can see yourself bounced off the site without warning (facebook pages, sports blogs, etc).  So this whole internet = 1st amendment is BS.  Even if you were to develop a website of whatever you wanted if the hosting company didn't like it then they could shut you down.

        If at first you don't succeed, vote Teapublicans out and try again. You have to be persistent if you want anything out of life.

        by Final Frame on Mon Dec 24, 2012 at 07:33:40 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  It is complete stupidity (0+ / 0-)

          Trying to suggest that with every development in technology the Bill of Rights need to be amended is absurd.

          "they could shut you down"
          The 1st deals with what the Government can't do. Not privately owned companies
          Using your analogy, newspapers aren't covered by the 1st because an editor can fire journalists.

          Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

          by FrankRose on Mon Dec 24, 2012 at 02:11:14 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Oh (0+ / 0-)

            Websites can't ban you without giving you a reason?

            Stores can't tell you to leave without giving a reason?

            Lets be honest, what you think the Bill of Rights does and how its been defined over the decades are two completely different things.

            If you just want to dig into the Government because its the boogie man you want to make it then maybe this isn't the country for you....

            If at first you don't succeed, vote Teapublicans out and try again. You have to be persistent if you want anything out of life.

            by Final Frame on Mon Dec 24, 2012 at 07:32:14 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  sigh (0+ / 0-)

              "Websites can't ban"
              Sure they can. This isn't an example of a 1st Amendment infringement. We are talking basic High School level civics here.

              "what the Bill of Rights does & how its been defined over the decades are two completely different things"
              True. I didn't support Warrantless Wiretaps, Gitmo nor torture, because they are blatant infringements on Constitutional Rights. I assume you had the same blase attitude when those Constitutional Rights were infringed.

              "If you just want to dig into the Govt"
              Absolutely not. The Government is of, by and for the People, with certain inalienable rights protected by the Bill of Rights.
              That there are some--whether the right-wing with the 4th, or you with the 2nd--that would sacrifice those Rights for perceived security, does not change the intent nor the purpose of the Bill of Rights.

              The Bill of Rights, more than anything else, defines this nation. If you are not a fan of one, you are not a fan of the other.

              Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

              by FrankRose on Mon Dec 24, 2012 at 08:36:43 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

  •  A diary based on a twitter feed........ (3+ / 0-)

    Way to really sock it to those 'gun fetishists and their weapons of mass murder'
    Thank god the GOP didn't have twitter when they were using pretend-words to talk about 'Islamo-fascists and their weapons of mass destruction', while insisting on warrantless wiretaps, torture & Gitmo.
    If they had a twitter feed their use of pretend-words in order to sacrifice of Liberty in the pursuit of perceived security would have seemed totally reasonable.

    47% of US households have guns.
    But how could dismissing and insulting 47% of the US go wrong, amirite?

    Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

    by FrankRose on Sun Dec 23, 2012 at 07:42:21 PM PST

    •  Isn't the number dipping closer to 30%? But (0+ / 0-)

      even using the 47% figure, the fact that the US is under 5% of the world while having 50% of the guns means that right around 2% of the people on the planet own half of the guns.  That kind of concentrated ownership and fetishization is pretty fucked up.

      •  Households are 47%, (0+ / 0-)

        individuals is 34%

        "concentrated ownership"
        The US also has 5% of the world population and 21% of World GDP...so what is your point?

        "fetishization"
        Oh for pete's sake.
        Kos invents the nonsense pretend word 'gun fetishist' and now everyone regurgitates some variation on it.
        Were you a big fan of 'Islamo-facist' when the GOP came out with it, when they wanted to infringe on the 4th amendment?

        Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

        by FrankRose on Sun Dec 23, 2012 at 11:16:13 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  I just glanced at wiki... and it does seem like (0+ / 0-)

    the second amendment is partly about a tyrannical government. There's an attorney who works on behalf of DK he'd be a good one to ask but wiki seems pretty straightforward that to protect the citizenry against the govt was part of the deal.

    How big is your personal carbon footprint?

    by ban nock on Sun Dec 23, 2012 at 07:53:31 PM PST

  •  Another glaringly obvious 2nd Amendment fact: (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Agathena

    "No right is absolute." Antonin Scalia

  •  What the hell is that (0+ / 0-)

    ...in that picture?

    "Doing My Part to Piss Off the Religious Right" - A sign held by a 10-year old boy on 9-24-05

    by Timbuk3 on Sun Dec 23, 2012 at 08:07:55 PM PST

  •  Worries (0+ / 0-)

    How did Rhodesia the bread basket of Africa become what it is today (Zimbabwe)
    Why is that not the future of South Africa and eventually the US?
    Why not be prepared?

    Those are the questions being asked by gun owners....

    •  Maybe they want Somalia... (0+ / 0-)

      where there are no gun laws, other than "the people with the guns make the laws."

      That's a burning question I would like to ask gun owners.

      (P.S. I own guns.  I'm NOT worried about having to go to war with my government, in spite of the fact that if we ever do end up with a fascist or repressive state that we need to overthrow, it will be at the hands of the far right and their dupes in places like the NRA and the TeaParty.)

  •  Excellent diary on this topic (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    annieli

    which has been almost completely ignored on this site. This is incredibly similar, moreover, to the exact conversation which I had with my spouse on this topic recently. The issue of fearful white militias is no joke. I can think of a few reasons why people own guns, ranging from a desire to protect themselves (this is not uncommon in some urban areas, and I recall a female friend who lived in the Tenderloin armed herself for this reason), to shooting sport as you mention, to hunting, to protecting livestock, all of which really are decent reasons to own guns and why I will never support a ban, only increased regulation and certain restrictions on the type of guns owned, and this very much combined with de-militarization of police, institution of better mental health policies, education, and access, and getting rid of the gun lobbyists. Plus, increasing regulatory oversight of gun manufacturers and importers, and closing various current loopholes which currently exist.  

    But the issue of fearful racist white militias are absolutely real. This breed of gun owner most certainly exists in California, which is a haven for MinuteMen and a few other weird, fringe-y groups who are probably sitting around worshipping at Breivik's altar somewhere as we speak.

    And how do we deal with that? Good question. Great question. I'm glad to see this asked on the front page here. I do also think to Malcolm X's response, and I have to consider that as well in context of this conversation.

    Click the ♥ to join us on the Black Kos front porch to review news & views written from a black pov - everyone is welcome.

    by mahakali overdrive on Sun Dec 23, 2012 at 08:27:04 PM PST

  •  They're pretty much all convinced that Obama (0+ / 0-)

    will be deploying Russian and Nato troops to take over the country, and that 99.9% of the US military will rise up and join the fight against these communist/socialist invaders. Even otherwise reasonable sane III%ers, as they like to call themselves, fantasize about getting a blue helmet in their crosshairs.

  •  2d Amendment (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Paulie200, a2nite

    With respect to arming oneself against the government itself, didn't the suppression of the Whiskey Rebellion and the attack of the Confederate States pretty much resolve that notion?

  •  Repeal the 2nd Amendment (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Agathena, a2nite

    I don't know why I have not seen more talk about repealing the 2nd Amendment.  I suggest the following:

     Section 1. A well regulated Militia no longer being necessary to the security of a free State, the second article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.
    Section 2.  Congress and the states shall have power to regulate the ownership and use of Arms by appropriate legislation.

    I don't believe that guns should be banned, but they should at least be treated like we treat automobile use and ownership.  Driving is a privilege, not a right.  Guns should be viewed the same way.

  •  I keep my AR for more than target practice. (0+ / 0-)

    But I don't anticipate killing anyone with it.  I hope it never comes to that.

    But in case it does, my AR has just as much of a place in home defense as my shotgun or my pistol; with lightweight fragile bullets it is safer to shoot indoors than either my shotgun or my pistol.

    I don't see myself condoning any new sort of gun ban, and unfortunately that's most of what I hear around here.  Too bad we aren't having a rational debate about background checks, training, or 10 day waiting periods.....I might be with most of the rest of my fellow Kossacks on the issue of gun control if were that the case.

    •  I'd just like to see guns usage regulated as well (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      VectorScalar, Paulie200, dkosdan, Agathena

      as car usage is.

      When you come to find how essential the comfort of a well-kept home is to the bodily strength and good conditions, to a sound mind and spirit, and useful days, you will reverence the good housekeeper as I do above artist or poet, beauty or genius.

      by Alexandra Lynch on Sun Dec 23, 2012 at 10:18:07 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Depending on how you define that... (0+ / 0-)

        ....we might reach some level of agreement.  I think some sort of training/testing is in order (as long as it isn't too costly or onerous), and have no problem with closing background check loopholes, but can't support a new ban on guns or accessories.

        If I pass a safety/handling test, a background check and 10 day waiting period, do you think I should be able to keep and bear an AR with a normal capacity magazine (i.e. not restricted to 10 or fewer rounds)?

    •  Lighweight fragile bullets? (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      dkosdan

      What, exactly, are you shooting?  Because of the three you mentioned, the weapon MOST likely to NOT be safe (or effective) indoors is the AR.

      By "fragile" I assume you mean most likely to stop inside the target, and to not penetrate walls, floors, ceilings?

      I think you need to read up a bit on the 5.56 boattail bullet dynamics. Unstable, and likely to end up damn near anywhere after it hits something? You bet!  "Fragile"? Not so much.

      The typical 5.56 is a full metal jacket bullet propelled by a charge intended to give it lethal killing power beyond 300 yards.  It has a muzzle velocity of over 3000 ft/sec... over THREE TIMES that of a hot  .38 special pistol round.

      And double "0" shot from a shotgun will not have much force after one layer of dry wall, much less two.

      Soft hollow points are the defacto pistol round of choice for a home defense situation.  They are designed to give up the maximum amount of kinetic energy to the first moderately dense item they hit.  (i.e. Badguy, or  drywall.)

      Hell, in modern construction you might even kill your neighbor inside his house if you shoot your AR inside your house, something almost impossible with the shotgun, and highly unlikely with a pistol firing modern hollow points.

      The LAST weapon I would choose to defend my house with is an AR.   The first? A pump action shotgun.  There's nothing like avoiding a fight in the first place... and that distinctive "ka-chunk" of a pump action... followed by a loud, but polite "Who's there?" (odds are that it's someone you know and love) is going to convince ninety nine percent of the bad guys to go out the way they came in.

  •  I don't believe it will ever come a point in this (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    dkosdan, annieli

    country, short of a global conflict, that we will ever deal with a massive pan-US insurgency.

    Having said that, to deny that such a group can be successful is to forget about Vietnam and what is really going to happen to Afghanistan after we leave.  

    This isn't the diary for this discussion, since it's more about "libs making fun of Bubba".

    But, for those of us who lived through Vietnam, and those who have returned from Southwest Asia, the perspective is somewhat different about the wherewithal to fight an occupying force with little more than small arms.

  •  CRAZY (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    dkosdan

    As a Canadian I think that your obvious misinterpretation of the 2nd is so sad...written 250 years ago when muzzle loaders were the only gun at the time, if anybody feels the right to own an assault rifle it is only for selfish reasons period.

  •  I will host a party... (0+ / 0-)

    when Scalia kicks the bucket.

    There's gonna be dancing, singing and drinking...

    "Ding dong Scalia's gone!" We will all sing.

    Ugh. --UB.

    "Daddy, every time a bell rings, a Libertaria­n picks up his Pan Am tickets for the Libertaria­n Paradise of East Somalia!"

    by unclebucky on Mon Dec 24, 2012 at 12:31:19 AM PST

  •  Civil War and US media (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Agathena, Major Kong

    There are 2 issues I would add to the conversation,

    1 is the obvious civil war issue, at the time of writing the constitution there was a real debate over whether the Federal Government should have a standing Army at all, there was a fear of the Federal Government becoming as powerful as the Kings Government, so the local militia could protect against tyranny or secede.
    The problem is in the 1860's a group of people took the view the federal government was a tyranny, they took up arms as local militia and they secededed. The Federal Government responded by building up a significant standing Army and crushed them. In the 150 years since the Federal Governemt has become enormously more powerful. The idea that any future rebellion would succeed is a joke.

    The other issue that is strange about the US entertainment media is that it is full of shows which assume this is a likely scenario. The total breakdown of civilisation and so you are dependant on no one but yourself, be it Red Dawn, or invasion by Aliens in Independance Day or other more recent fare, or post apocalyptic Jehrico, or the Zombies come to life. There are parts of the world were invasion by neighbours are a real fear, but since that is impossible in the US the Entertainment industry has spent decades inventing fake enemies so people can play out fantasies of defending their homes, and a small % of people have come to believe it is true.

    they are just movies people!!!

  •  They will also need drones, nukes, b2 bombers, (0+ / 0-)

    robots, etc. Logically we cannot draw the line their either. I.e. in order to effectively fight the govt they will need access to the same advanced weaponry.

    If... the machine of government... is of such a nature that it requires you to be the agent of injustice to another, then, I say, break the law. ~Henry David Thoreau, On the Duty of Civil Disobediance, 1849

    by shigeru on Mon Dec 24, 2012 at 01:35:52 AM PST

  •  Obsession, Society and our Troops abroad. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Agathena

    Those same people hate it when I call their gun collecting a HOBBY or an OBSESSION. Because it really is just that. They don't intend to actually point them at their State Police, Sheriff, or someone in a military uniform. They fear and they fear some more. But what they fear is something in the realm of fantasy than fact.

    We live in a stable Democratic country. Guns are purely optional here. What if we lived in Syria? Or one of the African countries that is constantly having wars? Then a gun would likely be a necessity. If they really want to keep such amounts of firepower that they end up looking more like a Taliban Militant then perhaps they should be sent over to Afghanistan to join up with THEM. Because their obsession is doing nothing for OUR safety inside the United States.

    We have troops overseas fighting to keep US safe at home. To protect us from, let's use the term Terrorists for the conservative's sake. But what we have at home are terrorists in that they have the same amount of firepower, unrestrained and ending up killing innocents. Gun Owners by and large are very responsible and would welcome some commonsense regulations on their more fanatical fringe friends. It's time we answered their plea and stopped the rampaging Walmart style Black Friday buyers of Assault Rifles in their tracks. It's already too late for many of us. But it's time it was done.

    "I think it's the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately." -- George Carlin, Satirical Comic,(1937-2008)

    by Wynter on Mon Dec 24, 2012 at 01:47:20 AM PST

  •  ban deign specs, not weapons (0+ / 0-)

    Trying to ban specific weapons, models of manufactured weapons, magazines, etc. is a start (Pelosi's original "assault weapons" ban), but it was always DESIGNED to fail (not by Pelosi, but by the amenders at the bidding of their NRA masters). The gun makers just modified their weapons to fit or confound the built-in loopholes.

    The only way to actually do gun control is to control the OUTCOMES of weapon design.

    No more than 'X' shots per load

    No more than 'X' rate of fire

    No larger than 'X' calibre

    No greater than 'X' muzzle velocity/muzzle energy

    Therefore:

    I would limit magazine/round capacity to nore more than 12 for hand guns, 6 for revolvers, and five for rifles and shotguns.

    I would limit rate of fire to semi-automatic only (this restriction already exists, limiting fully auto weapons)

    I would limit calibres to 10mm or .40 for handguns, .30 for rifles, no solid/sabot loads for shotguns.

    I would limit muzzle velocities to under 1,200 fps for handguns and under 2,000 for rifles.

    The desired/functional OUTCOMES would be that high-powered and high-capacity weapons be outlawed. The remaining weapons and future weapons manufactured under these guidelines would be more than adequate for personal defense and hunting.

    Ownership of, or modification of, weapons exceeding these specs would be illegal. NO Grandfathered weapons without special licensing. So we get rid of the Desert Eagles, .50 cal sniper rifles, etc. I would not object to keeping .45 ACP rounds under 1,000 fps muzzle velocities, which would allow people to keep their 1911-style .45's.

    No individual may own more than 2 of any given weapon model. Nor may multiples of any model of weapon be stored by any group, organization, club, etc. without special licensing and 6-month regular inspection (i.e. No private arsenals.) Gun clubs, ranges, movie armorers, etc. may get such special licensing.

    Obviously these numbers should be open for debate and will (quel horreur!) demand that gun and ammo makers modify their offerings.

    Also, many existing weapons would become illegal to own, transfer, sell, borrow, keep disassembled in your basement, etc.

    Legitimate collectors (how could Todd Akin, et al, not agree to that terminology?) could get special licensing to be renewed every year.

  •  I also have friend like that. Some are veterans. (0+ / 0-)

    They have calculated that they just need a 1% of gun owners to do it. For example:

     

    I believe you underestimate the overwhelming  resolve of an American patriot who has been forced (in such a scenario) to defend his country from government rogues subverting the Constitution. (Aka a Domestic Enemy)

    Do you have any idea how many Vietnam vets have and are proficient with sniper rifles, David? Gulf War vets? All other vets now back home? A bunch.

    And that number is dwarfed dramatically by the number of dedicated citizens who can hit a paper plate at 500 yards. Less can make that shot at 1,000 yards.

    But I've met a whole bunch of folks who can do it, and that just makes me feel better about this here conversation.

    If 1% of the 92,000,00 armed citizens just took one well aimed lone wolf shot each it'd be a rather lopsided overwhelming pounding. Only I doubt anyone believes there are that many traitors worth the bullet and time it'd take to do it.

    Well unless they counted all these citizens who keep demanding to steal more if our rights. Only most of you are harmless generally and just seem to want a reminder about why we are armed and "well regulated."

    And no true American would take such a shot at anyone other than a true undisputed domestic enemy. Even a patriotic American who'd waste a traitor has honor and a code. It's called being American, bro.

  •  Apparently they think (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    annieli

    that Nancy Pelosi is going to personally come to their house to confiscate their guns.

    Take a look at how militarized your local Sheriff's department is these days - then think about the State Police, FBI, ATF, National Guard and finally the active duty military.

    If it came down to me and my out-of-shape, overweight buddies from the shooting range versus the 82nd Airborne supported by a tactical air wing - I know who I'd bet on.

    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 Mon Dec 24, 2012 at 06:10:33 AM PST

  •  Foreign mercenaries (0+ / 0-)

    There is historical information on the question of what happens when a government decides to put down its own citizens. Troops from the country itself may be reluctant to fire on people like themselves, so whenever possible leaders bring in "foreign" troops. For example Franco started the Spanish Civil War with Moroccan troops. To put down the American colonists' rebellion the British used a large number of German (Hessian) Troops, and even British soldiers had no ties to America so they could be regarded as foreign and so regarded the colonists. The US has essentially no foreign mercenaries, or even those from very different ethnic areas (as Russia and the Soviet Union had), so even the idea that US troops would be used to put down citizens is pretty fantasic.

    •  Think of recent history (0+ / 0-)

      When I mean recent think of what has been happening domestically for the last couple of years.  How many people we've had in society that have open fired on other people.  The idea of that troops won't fire on civilians is probably on the same level as thinking that responsible gun owners don't do anything wrong.  They are only responsible until they decide not to be.  

      If at first you don't succeed, vote Teapublicans out and try again. You have to be persistent if you want anything out of life.

      by Final Frame on Mon Dec 24, 2012 at 07:40:22 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  It seems to me (0+ / 0-)

    that the protect us from our own Government argument is an absurd paranoid fantasy.  It isn't guns that keep our Government in check, it's the consent of the Governed.  In the event we have an actual constitutional crisis, and the consent of the Governed is lost, it won't be hillbillies with AK-47s that tilt the balance, it will be the military itself that must restore the constitution.

  •  People should read this (0+ / 0-)

    Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them,or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.  --U. S. Const. Art. III, Sec. 3.

    Doesn't that describe firing on U. S. troops or supporting or enabling people who do?

    "The test of our progress is not whether we add to the abundance of those who have much. It is whether we provide enough to those who have little. " --Franklin D. Roosevelt

    by jg6544 on Mon Dec 24, 2012 at 07:48:20 AM PST

  •  Lol (0+ / 0-)

    (maybe the same one that brings the black helicopters?)

    Haha, "black helicopters" never gets old.

    I could be told that I have testicular cancer, but if someone said "black helicopters".....I'd probably still let out a chuckle.

  •  Wasn't it Chairman Mao that said (0+ / 0-)

    "power comes from the barrell of a gun?"  He and Mr. LaPierre may have more in common than we might realize.

    Everyone is crying out for peace; no one's crying out for justice...

    by mojave mike on Mon Dec 24, 2012 at 09:01:39 AM PST

  •  More gun-deaths- (0+ / 0-)

    The Onion says----scholars have discovered---the Mayan word for "Apocalypse" in fact---translates more accurately as: "Time of pale obese gun monsters."

    by lyvwyr101 on Mon Dec 24, 2012 at 09:08:43 AM PST

  •  Fighting the government? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Calamity Jean

    Most of those "guerilla" or "insurgent" groups fall into one of two categories.

    1. Groups with no territorial ambitions (Al Queda); these are often fronts for organized crime who decided that branding for a cause was useful (and a good excuse for maintaining a private army).

    2. Groups that are proxies for national armies.  In some cases (Syria, Libya) they are proxies for the United States and Europe (and other factions are proxies for other well armed players in the Middle East).  These people can take on a national army because someone else's national army is equipping and training them.

    I'm curious where all these armchair warriors plan to get air support and satellite reconnaissance, not to mention a supply chain to keep those 100 round drums full of ammunition.

  •  Most of the insurrectionist types (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Calamity Jean

    answer the question by saying that the military would switch sides and join them.

    The question to ask them, then is: if the military's going to take your side, then why do you need the guns?

  •  in the unlikely event of a civil war... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Calamity Jean

    Sadly, history shows us that the global arms industry is more than willing to meet the demand from both sides whenever and wherever a civil war breaks out.  You don't really need to stockpile weapons now.  You can afford to wait and see whether you end up on the government's side or the insurgents' side.

    Here in the USA, we also have the world's largest standing army and a vast network of law enforcement agencies.  The millions of men and women in those two institutions all have weapons training, but it is unlikely that they will all take the same side of a civil war.  So there will be plenty of people to show you how to use your newly acquired weapons.

    In any case, a civil war is very unlikely--- which is good, because civil wars are the ugliest of all wars.

  •  The right doesn't get it (0+ / 0-)

    It's much more likely that the NRA types would be deputized to hunt down the gays, union members, and other "undesirables".

    I suspect there would be so many volunteers that they would have to institute a waiting list.

    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 Mon Dec 24, 2012 at 06:44:10 PM PST

SME in Seattle, Pat K California, Ed in Montana, Angie in WA State, vicki, glitterscale, Liberal Thinking, Geenius at Wrok, Roger Lamb, NYmom, BigOkie, liz, eeff, red moon dog, Bryce in Seattle, hnichols, Paulie200, rasbobbo, Zinman, stevej, liberaldregs, mrblifil, Dhavo, retLT, jalbert, PeteZerria, Bill Roberts, splashy, Chrisfs, fluffy, revsue, Texknight, Nag, Teduardo, Kentucky DeanDemocrat, exiledfromTN, agincour, Ender, JimWilson, Bulldawg, niteskolar, Sychotic1, defluxion10, sgoldinger, Daniel Case, Sembtex, hayden, Pola Halloween, lyvwyr101, Sybil Liberty, llellet, J Orygun, sawgrass727, Crazycab214, Ckntfld, ichibon, SherwoodB, Alice Venturi, david78209, YucatanMan, EJP in Maine, Overseas, rb608, spunhard, Shotput8, FindingMyVoice, Pluto, Ian H, Orinoco, tommymet, Kimball Cross, dopper0189, ruleoflaw, arlene, bren, Turbonerd, CA Nana, blueoregon, Mr Horrible, MadScientist, Aaa T Tudeattack, BentLiberal, tonyfv, bear83, Habitat Vic, beneldon, Loudoun County Dem, drmah, CenterLeft, gloriana, flumptytail, Strabo, jhop7, journeyman, Ralphdog, vet, TomP, GANJA, rogerdaddy, JeffW, angry hopeful liberal, weegeeone, Involuntary Exile, Bill Prendergast, Sharon Wraight, KJG52, Jeff Y, shigeru, venger, suesue, GrannyOPhilly, fayea, legendmn, AVillamil, prettygirlxoxoxo, artmartin, Neon Vincent, ewmorr, bobatkinson, Carol in San Antonio, Nebraskablue, ebrann, CamillesDad1, Cuseology, DefendOurConstitution, petral, Cats r Flyfishn, stevenwag, BlueOak, FogCityJohn, Interceptor7, Polly Syllabic, RJP9999, womankind, tellthestories, shenderson, OnlyWords, Publius2008, Oh Mary Oh, nosleep4u, Mac in Maine, Onomastic, annieli, redlum jak, allenjo, ozsea1, ToeJamFootball, afisher, stone clearing, jm214, vahana, AtomikNY, OhioNatureMom, jakewaters, Alice Olson, mrsgoo, burana, thomask, BarackStarObama, createpeace, bluedust, ratcityreprobate, SoCalSal, weinerschnauzer, Tom Seaview, thepothole, Azazello, Sister Inspired Revolver of Freedom, miguelmas1, DeadHead, StonyB, Siri, pimutant, a2nite, dandy lion, lartwielder, Buckeye54, Wes Clark Democrat, Glen The Plumber, Kansachusetts, dotdash2u, artmanfromcanuckistan, Marjmar, Bisbonian, mdetrano, Robynhood too, Hammerhand, The Geogre, KingTag, simple serf, 6ZONite, remembrance, SanFernandoValleyMom, mtnlvr1946, aresea, Jollie Ollie Orange, paccoli, LaraJones, bob152, Grandson named me Papa, Chocko Rocko, sparkysgal, Brian1066, northcountry21st, Batya the Toon, MsLCB, Ticorules, Reasonable Doubt

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site