Skip to main content

One county official in Texas wanted more money for the county sheriff’s office in 2012 because he felt the county needed those funds to repel armed outsiders—who would appear when Obama won the election.  Dude was way prescient, sort of.  

In 2014, armed invaders moved into a county in a southwestern state; they are armed to the teeth with assault-style rifles and high-capacity magazines; they set up checkpoints on public roads; they are terrorizing the citizens of that county.  They also have internal disputes in which they call each other traitors and muse about shooting each other for treason.

It has not yet been reported (I suspect because these invaders have no real respect for the amendment immediately preceding the 2nd Amendment), but I find it hard to believe that these outsiders did not bring along other foreign friends like Colonel Jim Beam and General Jack Daniels. I suspect they consult these heroes frequently.

Can they do such a thing because of the dastardly actions of the President from Kenya?  No, they can do it because the Nevada legislature worships at the feet (or pockets or zippers) of the NRA.  Nevada is one of the “gun-friendliest” states in the US. You can open carry; you can carry concealed (shall issue permit); you can carry pretty much anywhere (except schools, child care facilities, university property, and the place where state officials legislate that you can carry elsewhere). Oh, if you have a carry permit from another state, Nevada recognizes that and allows you to carry in Nevada.

Even if a place of business or a private space of some kind has a clear policy and visible notices indicating firearms not allowed, it is not against the law to carry in those setting.  But, if they ask you to leave and you don’t then you get popped for trespassing. That will certainly show them.

[NOTE:  Nevada does not allow you to shoot someone for asking you to leave because you are armed.  This is the case despite the fact that many consider such a confrontation a “stand-your-ground” situation because that person is attempting to deprive you of your sacred 2nd Amendment rights.]

In essence, the folks of Nevada got what they asked for. If you do not put common sense restrictions on the possession of deadly weapons, then this is what you get.  You have a place that fits Winston Churchill’s description of Russia immediately after WWI, a place (paraphrasing here)...” filled with ignoramuses almost all of whom have lethal weapons.”

I do not really think that when folks trumpet the NRA line, they are saying, “Hell, yeah. I want a bunch of heavily armed strangers with some passable strange ideas about appropriate behavior hefting their AR-15s and looking suspicious when my kid’s school bus goes past them on a public road.” That may not be what all you faithful friends of firearms meant to happen, but it has happened, AND IT WILL AGAIN.  

Look, this is so bad that one set of these dangerous kooks left for home because of all the armed crazies running around the militia camp.  Seriously, when these people start calling each other dangerous, then you know something is WAY OUT OF WHACK!

Oh, the leader of the gun-nerds who stayed says that those who left are traitors and cowards who deserted in the face of the enemy and (here we go) deserve to be treated as such.  

Statements like that let you know who really and truly is a threat to you and your family. It is not the UN; it is not some junkie who wants to steal your flat-screen TV.  It’s guys like this, whom legislators across the nation allow to have all the firepower they desire and to be able to take it damn near anywhere they want.

When Wayne LaPierre of the NRA says that we must save the 2nd Amendment in order to save the country—we need to ask Mr. LaPierre for whom and from whom are he and his heavily armed and well-financed fellow-travelers saving us.  It obviously is not from  people like those living in tents along a road in Nevada and discussing the best locations for sniper placement.  

However, it should be.  These types have been emboldened by the basic humanity of officialdom who decided that a bucketful of fees was not worth a shoot-out.  However, a shoot-out is what these people pray for.  In the near future, I fear there will come a confrontation between armed officials and armed citizens, where some wing-nut loses it and starts a firefight.  American blood will be shed; American women will be widowed; American children will be orphaned. Horribly, other Americans will do this.

Why will that happen?  Too many Americans have been fooled into worshiping at the feet of that false God, firearms.  Too many Americans have been told that hate and anger are something that you should carry with you every day and that you have a right to spew it out over whomever you don’t like—gays, liberals, immigrants, government employees, whomever. Put those two things together, and you have a tragedy waiting to happen.  

This post began with a much different tone.  I had no idea it would end here.  But it did, and I hope to God these last few paragraphs are completely wrong. I also greatly fear that they may not be.

Originally posted to ATexican on Sat May 03, 2014 at 05:26 PM PDT.

Also republished by Shut Down the NRA, Repeal or Amend the Second Amendment (RASA), and Firearms Law and Policy.

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

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

?

More Tagging tips:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comment Preferences

  •  Tip Jar (248+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    a2nite, FloridaSNMOM, dadadata, hotdamn, Rolandz, Navy Vet Terp, Hammerhand, kaliope, CwV, reasonablegunsplz, Illinois IRV, ZedMont, gfv6800, here4tehbeer, jacey, myrmecia gulosa, ruleoflaw, wilderness voice, PedalingPete, travelerxxx, deeproots, Gowrie Gal, schumann, i saw an old tree today, hamjudo, yawnimawke, GAS, weezilgirl, skepticalcitizen, alypse1, thomask, Smoh, Clive all hat no horse Rodeo, psnyder, Glen The Plumber, ranger995, wader, humphrey, oldpotsmuggler, pat bunny, reflectionsv37, martinjedlicka, Lost and Found, NJpeach, 88kathy, kurious, fcvaguy, zerelda, YucatanMan, kerflooey, MadGeorgiaDem, elpacifico66, otto, geebeebee, Radiowalla, Subterranean, fToRrEeEsSt, CFAmick, Steven D, wasatch, Pandora, Elizaveta, Lefty Ladig, jparnell, BYw, Rosaura, FogCityJohn, Jollie Ollie Orange, FindingMyVoice, Tunk, tofumagoo, theBreeze, commonmass, DerAmi, countwebb, soarbird, cal2010, TheDuckManCometh, maybeeso in michigan, Black Max, serendipityisabitch, BarackStarObama, deepeco, sea note, niteskolar, Timmethy, dull knife, dobleremolque, jadt65, katrinka, camlbacker, LinSea, bbctooman, smrichmond, asterlil, blueoregon, sawgrass727, AnnieR, dRefractor, twigg, Mimikatz, implicate order, tin woodswoman, Sandino, Linda1961, fumie, WakeUpNeo, Trendar, myboo, MartyM, Susan from 29, My Spin, fallina7, PinHole, begone, CanisMaximus, George3, emobile, tigerdog, LaFeminista, joynow, bigjacbigjacbigjac, rapala, koNko, caul, gramofsam1, onionjim, hwmnbn, wolf advocate, stevenwag, jimstaro, eeff, YellowDogInGA, spunhard, sodalis, Astonishingly Amused, sb, HeartlandLiberal, Mayfly, furrfu, golem, ATFILLINOIS, Emerson, buffie, Jim R, zbob, laurak, EMBA30, emmasnacker, Throw The Bums Out, karma13612, ginimck, nupstateny, Sherri in TX, Pat K California, HedwigKos, ban48, citizen dan, flatford39, Paddy999, nominalize, p gorden lippy, Mosquito Pilot, nancyjones, mslat27, tobendaro, Susipsych, lineatus, Sharon Wraight, jeanette0605, Tinfoil Hat, Proud Mom and Grandma, Wood Gas, Cedwyn, Sylv, mr crabby, JDWolverton, LookingUp, RichterScale, VPofKarma, GeorgeXVIII, mrsgoo, cybersaur, Matt Z, decisivemoment, Mother Mags, radical simplicity, mikeconwell, chicagobleu, deha, Hillbilly Dem, Plox, rlharry, Laconic Lib, The Hindsight Times, LilithGardener, createpeace, allergywoman, where4art, eru, ThatSinger, paz3, AllanTBG, The Eyewitness Muse, zmom, millwood, tgrshark13, leonard145b, realalaskan, bleeding blue, bewild, Little Lulu, Joe Bacon, majcmb1, wayoutinthestix, kjoftherock, PeteZerria, parse this, Hey338Too, puakev, tapestry, Paul Ferguson, eagleray, skod, nirbama, historys mysteries, Patango, john07801, rb608, nellgwen, PatConnors, GDbot, Observerinvancouver, chira2, ORswede, gnothis, melfunction, cskendrick, bluezen, Calamity Jean, nocynicism, StrayCat, ColoTim, splashy, Joy of Fishes, CenPhx, Piren, Oh Mary Oh

    The folly of mistaking a paradox for a discovery, a metaphor for a proof, a torrent of verbiage for a spring of capital truths, and oneself for an oracle is inborn in us." Paul Valery, French poet, essayist, philosopher, and curmudgeon, 1895

    by ATexican on Sat May 03, 2014 at 05:26:35 PM PDT

  •  Heh - I'd completely forgotten about that guy. (62+ / 0-)

    Thank you Google:

    Republican judge in Texas warns of ‘civil war’ if Obama reelected

    A Republican judge in Lubbock, Texas told a reporter on Tuesday that he and other officials are making plans for the possibility of “civil war” if President Barack Obama is reelected, warning that should the president cede control of the country to the United Nations, he’d prevent troops from entering the county.

    Ain't no such things as halfway crooks.

    by here4tehbeer on Sat May 03, 2014 at 06:22:56 PM PDT

  •  What I wish the President would say to these nuts: (38+ / 0-)

    Keep you guns.  I don't want them, I don't need them.  The Federal government already has more guns than it needs or knows what to do with.  Law enforcement has a hundred things better to waste its time and money on than taking your guns away.  Arm yourselves all you want and stockpile all you want.

    But for the love of God, and for the sake of your own children, do it all responsibly!  Store it all safely and out of the reach of small hands.  There's enough danger to their safety as it is without leaving lethal weaponry within easy and unsupervised reach!  

    And finally, don't think for a moment your arsenal will ever match what the federal government can bring to bear if you make yourself a menace to your fellow Americans.  I have the responsibility to ensure the safety and security of all Americans, and I will see that duty discharged.  So go ahead and buy all the guns you want, but always remember which of us has the bigger one.

    •  The House would have Obama up (6+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      AnnieR, MartyM, caul, Matt Z, gnothis, StrayCat

      on charges for impeachment if he ever said such a thing.  And Boehner would allow it to happen.

      "If you tell the truth, you'll eventually be found out." Mark Twain

      by Steven D on Sat May 03, 2014 at 08:39:22 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Those "nuts" won't believe him. (8+ / 0-)

      Especially when the "nut" conspiracy networks immediately discredit such a statement as a obvious lie designed to catch you with your guard down.  

      Most likely, it would have the exact opposite effect and lead to more paranoia, more stockpiling, and more "nuts".

      America, where a rising tide lifts all boats! Unless you don't have a boat...uh...then it lifts all who can swim! Er, uh...um...and if you can't swim? SHAME ON YOU!

      by Back In Blue on Sat May 03, 2014 at 09:40:42 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  As long as they store their stockpile responsibly (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        FrankRose

        who gives a fuck?

        You have watched Faux News, now lose 2d10 SAN.

        by Throw The Bums Out on Sun May 04, 2014 at 05:38:38 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Is it possible (4+ / 0-)

          to store a stockpile responsibly?

          This is the country of those three great rights: freedom of conscience, freedom of speech, and the wisdom never to exercise either of them. -- Mark Twain.

          by JJustin on Sun May 04, 2014 at 09:48:12 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Yes it is, the same way you store any other (0+ / 0-)

            set of firearms.  In a gun safe, unloaded, with the ammo in a separate metal box (if not a separate safe).  Sure, it might require a larger safe or multiple safes depending on the size but there is no reason why it couldn't be done.  Might want to coat some of them in Cosmoline or similar if they are going to be stored for a long time (as in decades) without cleaning and use.

            You have watched Faux News, now lose 2d10 SAN.

            by Throw The Bums Out on Sun May 04, 2014 at 10:16:47 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  And what, pray tell, is the need for a "stockpile" (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Back In Blue

              -- may I use "arsenal" -- under any circumstances, let alone to keep them in storage for years without using any of the constituent elements of it?

              My question was rhetorical, because the answer is: No, it is not possible.  It is irresponsible to have one in the first place -- there is no legitimate need for it -- and irresponsibility is the undermining of whatever excuse one might have for having an arsenal.

              This is the country of those three great rights: freedom of conscience, freedom of speech, and the wisdom never to exercise either of them. -- Mark Twain.

              by JJustin on Sun May 04, 2014 at 11:21:38 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  You are right, there is no need. But as long (0+ / 0-)

                as it is stored safely and securely then does it really matter if they have a bunch of weapons that never get used?

                Of course, we both know that they won't be satisfied with simply having a stockpile in a bunch of gun safes (or even a full blown bunker) and will almost certainly use at least part of their stockpile in an irresponsible manner.

                You have watched Faux News, now lose 2d10 SAN.

                by Throw The Bums Out on Sun May 04, 2014 at 10:20:07 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

          •  Yes, it is but there should be an Arsenal License (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            CenPhx, a2nite

            above a certain number of guns. I don't know where the boundary should be, but somewhere in the 8-12 range.

            Bear in mind that a family of 6 with 2 adults and 2 teens who hunt could easily own 20 guns and pose little risk to anyone but themselves.

            But at some point there should be inventory requirements and laws like mandatory reporting of lost or stolen guns, and we need a law that prohibits parents from installing gun safes in their teenagers bedrooms, etc.

            "The pessimist complains about the wind; the optimist expects it to change; the realist adjusts the sails.” — William Arthur Ward

            by LilithGardener on Mon May 05, 2014 at 07:44:08 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  During at least the early decades of the Original (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              LilithGardener, a2nite

              Thirteen colonies, there were two parts to the touted "requirement" that all white males between 16 and 45 (or 60) have guns in order to fulfill that part of their militia DUTY.  (Being a member of the militia was never a "right": the exercise of rights is not subject to fines and other punishments for failure to exercise the right.)

              1.  Said males not only had to have their guns -- it wasn't a right, it was an obligation, a responsibility -- but also were required to keep them in working order, subject to penalty for not doing so.

              2.  The gov't knew the location of every gun within its jurisdiction, so it could periodically inspect them to ensure that their owners were keeping them in working order.

              And that's only one instance of how gun control operated.  But the private ownership of guns, and militia duty, were only related or connected when and as determined by the gov't, as stipulated in law.  

              As the law evolved (gun-nuts reject evolution) it eventuated in the US Constitution, provisions in which govern the militia, including the ARMING of the militia BY CONGRESS.  If Congress stipulates that private individuals must own guns suitable for militia DUTY, then that REQUIREMENT is not a "right".  And if Congress stipulates that the militia will be armed by some other means -- which is the fact -- then that is how the militia will be armed.

              There is no connection between the Second Amendment -- the subject of which is well regulated militia -- and any private, individual right, except as Congress might declare it.  And when the Congress decided to arm the militia by other means, the connection between militia and private, individual ownership of guns ceased to exist.

              Moreover, the Second Amendment -- the subject being well regulated militia -- "right of the people" refers not to the general population but to the general pool of those those eligible for militia DUTY.  And that general pool is also giverned under law: in order to SERVE in the militia, one must either enlist, or be drafted.  One is not militia simply because one claims to be.

              Gun-nuts are among the emptiest of actual knowledge, and the fullest of imagined-up self-serving BS.

              This is the country of those three great rights: freedom of conscience, freedom of speech, and the wisdom never to exercise either of them. -- Mark Twain.

              by JJustin on Mon May 05, 2014 at 02:37:55 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Well said - should be a diary (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                a2nite

                Please check your Kosmail.

                "The pessimist complains about the wind; the optimist expects it to change; the realist adjusts the sails.” — William Arthur Ward

                by LilithGardener on Mon May 05, 2014 at 06:00:29 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  You might like to check out (0+ / 0-)

                the Firearms Law and Policy group, here at Daily Kos.

                Here's a link to our group blog: http://www.dailykos.com/...

                Here's is our most recent diary; http://www.dailykos.com/...

                It's our fourth on the Drake v. Jerejian case challenging NJ's gun permit law. SCOTUS denied the petition today. This diary discusses the national implications of the dog that didn't bark.

                "The pessimist complains about the wind; the optimist expects it to change; the realist adjusts the sails.” — William Arthur Ward

                by LilithGardener on Mon May 05, 2014 at 06:08:22 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  I could contribute to the "Firearms" -- (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  a2nite, LilithGardener

                  My problem with such groups, though, is that they usually get bogged down in debates over case law decisions -- and distractions into out-of-context and distorted snippets of irrelevant non-law -- so that the fundamental legal history, the constitutions and legislative history and enactments -- get lost in the shuffle, even though they are the primary legal authority.

                  Thanks for the tip, though.  What caused me to begin posting (after years of reading) was the recent presentation about the Connecticut constitution.  It was relatively well done, but there was a key failure of reading, and an omission, which fundamentally change the conclusion asserted.

                  Otherwise:

                  "The pessimist complains about the wind; the optimist expects it to change; the realist adjusts the sails.” — William Arthur Ward
                  But the idealist works for change.

                  This is the country of those three great rights: freedom of conscience, freedom of speech, and the wisdom never to exercise either of them. -- Mark Twain.

                  by JJustin on Mon May 05, 2014 at 07:09:26 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  I'll take that as a compliment (0+ / 0-)
                    What caused me to begin posting (after years of reading) was the recent presentation about the Connecticut constitution.  It was relatively well done, but there was a key failure of reading, and an omission, which fundamentally change the conclusion asserted.
                    I'd welcome that input, either in the comments or via Kosmail.

                    I could revise and republish it with an update.

                    "The pessimist complains about the wind; the optimist expects it to change; the realist adjusts the sails.” — William Arthur Ward

                    by LilithGardener on Mon May 05, 2014 at 07:53:02 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  I responded to your Kosmail with the two (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      LilithGardener

                      issues I saw on scanning the Connecticut constitution diary.  My research in legal history has stayed with Federal and state constitutions, legislative histories, and statutes, and the evolutions of state constitutions (etc.) into the Federal.

                      I've posted a few other comments with primary legal history; I assume clicking on my name would locate those.

                      This is the country of those three great rights: freedom of conscience, freedom of speech, and the wisdom never to exercise either of them. -- Mark Twain.

                      by JJustin on Mon May 05, 2014 at 08:10:18 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                •  In FLAP we have worked hard to create open space (0+ / 0-)

                  for people to study and discuss gun law and policy.

                  There is no ideological test to join. We have members who hate the 2A and think it should be repealed and members who think Heller is too narrow. We have members who grew up with guns and members who never have and never will even hold one, let alone own one.

                  We don't have an editorial position other than this: We encourage each author to write on topics of interest to them and report on what is true from their own perspective. We offer editorial support, help to find and vet sources, and give feedback on what works and how to tone down what is inflammatory.

                  Our common bond is a desire to help ourselves and each other know and understand gun law and policy. We go out of our way to define basic terms and concepts so newbies don't run screaming from the room.

                  In our group editorial threads we challenge each other, and help new authors develop their ideas. And we work hard in the comments to be welcoming to diverse points of view.

                  Tempted? You are always welcome to join us in the comments even if you don't join the group.

                  "The pessimist complains about the wind; the optimist expects it to change; the realist adjusts the sails.” — William Arthur Ward

                  by LilithGardener on Mon May 05, 2014 at 08:00:43 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

              •  Please turn that comment into a diary (0+ / 0-)

                IF you don't join us, please do give us a heads up so we can republish it right away.

                "The pessimist complains about the wind; the optimist expects it to change; the realist adjusts the sails.” — William Arthur Ward

                by LilithGardener on Mon May 05, 2014 at 08:02:29 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  You're welcome to use the comment. (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  LilithGardener

                  Also look for my other comments -- in some of which I've posted statutes, and in one of which I posted a clarification of the Second Amendment from the debates of the writing of it, and a timeline showing that AFTER the Amendment was ratified the Congress enacted a series of Militia Acts regulating the subject of the Amendment: the well regulated militia.

                  That substantiates, at very least, that the Second Amendment is not a bar to regulation.  That it does not protect FROM regulation whatever is declared to be within its scope.  

                  That means, of course, that it is irrelevant to the issue of regulation of private, individual gun ownership: the militia is not an individual, is a public institution, and is armed with public arms.

                  This Militia Act, enacted during the "revolution," is useful to refute gun-nuts' substitution of imagined up self-serving fantasies for actual history:

                  At a General Assembly begun and held at the Public Buildings in the City of Richmond, on Monday the 21st day of October, in the Year of our Lord 1782.

                  Chap. XII.  

                  An act for the recovery of arms and accoutrements belonging to the state.

                  I.  Whereas sundry arms and accoutrements belonging to the public in the hands of individuals, who have neglected to return them to the proper officers; and it is necessary that such arms and accoutrements should be recovered as speedily as possible: Be it enacted, that the Governor do, on the passing of this act, issue his proclamation, enjoining all persons having in their possession any arms or accoutrements whatsoever, belonging to the state, to deliver them without delay to the Lieutenant or commanding officer of the county for the time being; and the sheriff of each county within this commonwealth, shall cause copies of the said proclamations, which shall be transmitted to him by the Executive, to be fixed up in the most public places in his county, and if after one month from such public notice having been given, any person possessing any such public arms or accoutrements, shall be convicted of having failed to deliver them up as aforesaid, such person shall, upon every such conviction, be liable to the penalty of twenty pounds, to be recovered by action of debt, bill, plaint, or information, in any court of record within this commonwealth, one half of which penalty shall go to the informer, on conviction of the offender, and the other half shall be applied in aid of the county levy where such offender shall reside.  And the Lieutenant, or commanding officer of each county, shall make returns from time to time, to the Executive, of all arms and accoutrements so delivered to him, and also deliver them to the order of the Executive, under the penalty, if he fail in all or any part of his duty, of fifty pounds, to be recovered as aforesaid, and applied in diminution of the county levy.  Provided always, that where muskets and bayonets have been by order of government placed in any county on eastern or western frontier for defence against incursions of the enemy, it shall be lawful for the Lieutenant or commanding officer to return such muskets and bayonets to the militia, taking a receipt from each person for what shall be so returned.

                   

                  A Collection of All Such Public Acts of the General Assembly, and Ordinances of the Conventions of Virginia, Passed since the year 1768, as are now in force; With a Table of the Principal Matters (Richmond: Thomas Nicolson and William Prentis, 1785); The First Laws of the State of Virginia (Wilmington, DE: Michael Glazier, Inc., "The First Laws of the Original Thirteen States," 1982), Compiled by John D. Cushing, at 176.

                  This is the country of those three great rights: freedom of conscience, freedom of speech, and the wisdom never to exercise either of them. -- Mark Twain.

                  by JJustin on Mon May 05, 2014 at 08:59:15 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

        •  Because they're "nuts". (0+ / 0-)

          Stockpiling is concerning.  Just take the "nuts" who've more or less taken control in Craven Bundy's neighborhood.  Do you think it's a good idea for these types to have large stockpiles of weapons?

          America, where a rising tide lifts all boats! Unless you don't have a boat...uh...then it lifts all who can swim! Er, uh...um...and if you can't swim? SHAME ON YOU!

          by Back In Blue on Sun May 04, 2014 at 07:50:11 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  No, I don't. They are clearly nuts enough to use (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            a2nite, Back In Blue, CenPhx

            them.  The only people I would be willing to trust with such a stockpile (other than the military who often mothball huge stockpiles of weapons just in case) are the collectors of rare and/or antique guns as they aren't going to want to use them much if at all even for target practice to avoid wear and tear as well as the risk of damaging them.

            You have watched Faux News, now lose 2d10 SAN.

            by Throw The Bums Out on Sun May 04, 2014 at 10:24:40 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

    •  No, no, you have it backwards (7+ / 0-)

      He has to tell them all to make sure they are armed at all times, that they should make sure their guns are always in easy reach.

      Since they automatically do the opposite of what Obama says, that would ensure that they leave their guns at home and all go out and buy gun safes.

      Hell, they might even get rid of their guns altogether, since Obama wants them armed.

  •  Excellent diary, Texican (19+ / 0-)

    Did Perry get his wish for guns at UT?

    If I wasn't Bob Dylan, I'd probably think that Bob Dylan has a lot of answers myself. Bob Dylan

    by weezilgirl on Sat May 03, 2014 at 07:17:28 PM PDT

  •  What I'm hoping is happening (40+ / 0-)

    in Bundyland is that while the authorities are wisely avoiding confrontation, they are assiduously collecting all the evidence they will need to arrest and try those bozos when they break up and go home, as they inevitably will.

    Marx was an optimist.

    by psnyder on Sat May 03, 2014 at 07:39:50 PM PDT

  •  "Firearms fetish" is the symptom, but the mindset (26+ / 0-)

    is the true disease. And how virulent it all is in a country where we refuse to accept self restraint.

    This RKBA foolishness is absolutely divorced from how from how we, now, help to guide the body of humanity into a longer term place of prosperous repose.

    There can be no protection locally if we're content to ignore the fact that there are no controls globally.

    by oldpotsmuggler on Sat May 03, 2014 at 07:51:24 PM PDT

    •  ***whispering foolishly*** what's RKBA? (8+ / 0-)

      "I did not have sex with that bridge"

      by Scottsdalian on Sat May 03, 2014 at 09:13:09 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Acronym stands for Right to Keep and Bear Arms. (25+ / 0-)

        It's also a group on this site for faux liberal/progressive gun nutz who mostly spew NRA talking points whether as actual members or those with a similar world view.

        Some may well be hangin' out with Cliven and their brethren in firearm fetish right now, hopin' for that moment...

        You show a little grit and you lands in jail.

        by cal2010 on Sat May 03, 2014 at 09:36:30 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  There is a Daily Kos group named RKBA. (38+ / 0-)

        Right to Keep and Bear Arms.

        You will notice them by their argument that the Right to Keep and Bear Arms is a sacred right and is more important than anything else in all of humanity. There are no massacres of children big enough to warrant any discussion about firearms regulations. And besides, there are 300 million guns already in private hands in the USA so whatever you would want to try is just way too hard. Don’t forget that is any Democratic politician utters even one syllable in support of gun regulation he or she will most certainly never be elected for any public office. The RKBA group is able to use all of these arguments because of part of the 2nd Amendment. The other part of the 2nd Amendment is to be ignored.

        You don't have to find them. They will find you as soon as you speak out for gun regulation.

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

        by DerAmi on Sat May 03, 2014 at 09:42:43 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  This argument: (35+ / 0-)
          whatever you would want to try is just way too hard.
          gets me every time.

          Who would ever have thought you would hear Americans saying that the United States couldn't do something, anything, because it was "too hard".

          The other logical fallacy is that it isn't worth doing ANYTHING, unless that one thing you do is a complete solution to the entire problem.

          So ... don't address Campaign contributions because rich people will still have a louder voice.

          Don't legislate on Healthcare because some folk will remain not covered.

          Don't fix a pothole, because there will still be traffic congestion.

          They say that any new rules are "the thin end of the wedge" ... You are damn right they are, and the faster we get to the thick end, the safer we all will be.

          I hope that the quality of debate will improve,
          but I fear we will remain Democrats.

          Who is twigg?

          by twigg on Sat May 03, 2014 at 11:28:48 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I think Former Australian PM John Howard (16+ / 0-)

            Is the most persuasive and eloquent spokesman on that because, as a conservative politician in a gun owning country more rural than the US he came to the realization that having assault weapons available to the general public was simply a danger to a peaceful society and so he took a principled stand to can for banning them, and was NOT driven from office but actually increased his popularity because people who didn't vote for him saw him doing something good and using his office and position to LEAD.

            There are a bunch of issues I could disagree with him on (or my wife for that matter) but I want to hold him up as an exemplar of good politics, i.e., seizing a moment to practice "the art of the possible".

            Nothing impossible about it.

            And John Oliver's interviews with Howard et al covers it remarkably well (thought that guys was supposed to be a comedian, not a journalist):

            Gun Control Whoop-de-doo
            Gun Control & Political Suicide
            Australia & Gun Control's Aftermath

            No one is coming to save us, the future is in our hands.

            by koNko on Sun May 04, 2014 at 02:58:30 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  two things (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              FrankRose

              our population dwarfs that of australia

              the australian constitution has nothing comparable to the second amendment -- whole lot easier to ban guns without that.

              may we please stop comparing apples to oranges?

              Please don't dominate the rap, Jack, if you got nothin' new to say - Grateful Dead

              by Cedwyn on Sun May 04, 2014 at 07:54:06 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  1. 2A has to go for us to move ahead on this. If (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                koNko, i saw an old tree today

                and when it does, that will be apples to apples.

                2. Unless Ausatralia is just far more of a "police state" than is the U.S., the population point is a non starter. Government resources per capita would be a far more relevant criteria.

                There can be no protection locally if we're content to ignore the fact that there are no controls globally.

                by oldpotsmuggler on Sun May 04, 2014 at 09:58:43 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  Get your head out of the NRA/gun industry's ass -- (6+ / 0-)

                a posture which keeps you in the dark.

                This is the first -- Madison -- draft of the Second Amendment, clarified as to the false claim that it protects an "individual" "right" to own guns:

                "The right of the people [as in "We the people"; it is not, "We the individual," or, "I the people"; a militia is not an individual] to keep and bear arms [in well regulated militia] shall not be infringed; a well armed, and well regulated militia [not "individual"] being the best security of a free country [not "individual"]: but no person [INDIVIDUAL] religiously scrupulous of [AGAINST] bearing arms [in well regulated militia], shall be compelled [INVOLUNTARY] to render MILITARY SERVICE [in well regulated militia] in person."
                Creating the Bill of Rights: The Documentary Record from the First Federal Congress (Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press, Paperback, 1991), Edited by Helen E. Veit, Kenneth R. Bowling, and Charlene Bangs Bickford, at 12.  

                That final clause is the ONLY "individual right" -- the right NOT to "bear arms" -- debated concerning the Amendment, the premise and purpose of which Amendment was NATIONAL DEFENSE, as the following substantiates.

                Nor -- as the following also substantiates -- is the Second Amendment a bar to regulation.  That is, it does not protect FROM regulation, as shown by this clear and conclusive chronology, by date:

                9/25/1789: Congress submits proposed bill of rights, consisting of twelve proposed amendments, to the states for consideration and ratification.  

                12/15/1791: Ratification of bill of rights completed.  The first two of the twelve proposed amendments having been rejected, the third became the First, and the fourth became the Second.

                05/02/1792: Congress enacts Militia Act regulating the militia of the Second Amendment:

                Chap. XXVIII.--An Act to provide for calling fourth the Militia to execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions.

                That implements Art. I., S. 8., C. 15 of the Constitution, which reads in full:

                "The Congress shall have Power To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute [enforce] the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections, and repel Invasions."

                When not Federalized, the militia always had, and has, exactly the same purposes from the beginnings of the colonies, and under state constitutions and militia acts.  See "Shays's" rebellion for a generally well known example, suppressed under the Articles of Confederation by the state militia.

                5/8/1792: Congress enacts Militia Act regulating the militia of the Second Amendment:

                Chap. XXXIII.--An Act more effectually to provide for the National Defence by establishing an Uniform Militia throughout the United States.

                As Congress' debates of its writing of the amendment (see Veit, et al.) conclusively show, the premise and purpose of the Second Amendment was NATIONAL DEFENSE.

                The debate was simple and straightforward, the question being whether to rely for national defense on a standing army, or on militia.  The Founders viewed standing armies as a threat to self-gov't, but viewed well regulated militia as composed of loyal patriots.  That they chose to rely on well regulated militia is substantiated by the existence and express language of the Second Amendment itself.  

                And those facts are sufficient to make conclusively obvious that the Founders DID NOT intend that the militia be used to "defend against" self-gov't, as was already stipulated in the Constitution at Art. I., S. 8., C. 15:

                "The Congress shall have Power To provide for calling forth the Militia to . . . SUPPRESS INSURRECTIONS..

                2/28/1795: Congress enacts Militia Act regulating the militia of the Second Amendment:

                Chap. XXXVI.--An Act to provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrections, and repel invasions; and to repeal the act now in force for those purposes.

                This Act was in direct response to the "Whiskey" rebellion, which was suppressed -- exactly had been Shays's -- pursuant to Art. I., S. 8., C. 15, by use of the well regulated militia of the Second Amendment, Federalized pursuant to Art. I., S. 8., C. 16, and lead by George Washington, pursuant to Art. II., S. 2., C. I., which reads in relevant part --

                "The President shall be Commander in Chief . . . of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual service [Federalized] of the United States."

                The President is not going to use the militia to "defend against" his own gov't.  And as on the state level the governor is the commander-in-chief of the militia, the governor is not going to use the militia to "defend against" his own gov't.

                7/6/1798: Congress enacts Militia Act regulating the militia of the Second Amendment:

                Chap. LXV.--An Act providing arms for the Militia throughout the United States.

                Which implements US Con., Art. I., S. 8., C. 16, which reads in relevant part --

                "The Congress shall have Power To provide for . . . ARMING . . . the Militia."

                The Constitution, as supreme Law of the Land, is dispositive on the point: the militia shall be armed by Congress, not by and at the whim of the private individual.  

                3/2/1803: Congress enacts Militia Act regulating the militia of the Second Amendment:

                Chap. XV.--An Act in addition to an Act entitled, "An Act more effectually to provide for the National Defence, by establishing an Uniform Militia throughout the United States."

                "Uniformity" included stipulating the specific weaponry to be used by the well regulated militia.  Consistent therewith is Miller, the facts of which are uncomplicated and uncontroversial:

                1.  Miller was arrested with a sawed-off shotgun, possession of which was illegal.  He claimed that his possession of it was legal because his possession of it was protected by the Second Amendment.

                2.  The Court reviewed the Militia Act legal history (which began with the foundings of the several colonies) and based thereon held:

                No.  The sawed-off-shotgun is not a militia weapon, therefore possession of it is not protected by the Second Amendment.

                This is the country of those three great rights: freedom of conscience, freedom of speech, and the wisdom never to exercise either of them. -- Mark Twain.

                by JJustin on Sun May 04, 2014 at 10:28:36 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Thanks for this history, JJustin. (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  GDbot

                  Kinda shoots holes in their understanding of #2. damn facts.

                  "I did not have sex with that bridge"

                  by Scottsdalian on Sun May 04, 2014 at 01:39:48 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Note that the Militia Acts regulate the (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    FogCityJohn, CenPhx

                    SUBJECT of the Amendment:

                    The Militia.

                    I'm a legal professional.  And as such I've been confronting these loons, and researching the actual legal history, for more than twenty years.

                    The volume cited is the debates of the writing of the Bill of Rights.  It was written by Congress -- including the Senate -- not by House member James Madison.  It isn't complicated: the issue was establishing national defense, and whether to rely for that on standing army or militia.

                    The standing army was viewed as a threat to self-gov't -- therefore the choice was made for militia, which was not viewed as such.  I.e., the Constitution already stipulated the purposes of the militia, and the authors of the Amendment were being consistent with that.

                    This is the country of those three great rights: freedom of conscience, freedom of speech, and the wisdom never to exercise either of them. -- Mark Twain.

                    by JJustin on Sun May 04, 2014 at 02:31:17 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                •  get your head out of your own ass (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  FrankRose

                  nowhere did i say the second precludes regulation.  i would really expect a legal professional to grasp that  ban != regulation.

                  anyhoo, care to elucidate as to which of these does not speak to individual rights;

                  Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

                  The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

                  Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

                  The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

                  ta!

                  Please don't dominate the rap, Jack, if you got nothin' new to say - Grateful Dead

                  by Cedwyn on Sun May 04, 2014 at 07:11:37 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  It isn't complicated: (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    CenPhx, Piren

                    The first three words of the Constitution are,

                    "We the people".

                    They are not, "We the individual".

                    Or,

                    "I the people".

                    "We" is plural.  "People" is plural.

                    No, the Second Amendment is obviously not a bar to regulation; it does not protect FROM regulation.  And, no: regulation is not banning.  Regulating your use of a motor vehicle is not banning your use of a motor vehicle.

                    But you are ignorant of the fuller legal history as it illustrates the Founders/Framers' actual views on, in this instance, guns.  The equivalent of this statute was enacted in each of the Original Thirteen, at the urging of the Continental Congress.  The "non-associators" to which it refers were those who  failed or refused to sign the Founders' "oath of loyalty to the Cause":

                    An Ordinance Respecting the Arms of Non-Associators.

                      Whereas the non-associators in this state have either refused or neglected to deliver up their arms according to the resolves of the honorable Continental Congress and the assembly of Pennsylvania, and effectual measures have not been taken to carry the said resolves into execution:
                      [Section I.]  Be it therefore ordained by the authority of this Convention, That the colonel or next officer in command of every band of militia in this state is hereby authorized, empowered and required to collect, receive and take all the arms in his district or township nearest to such officer which are in the hands of non-associators in the most expeditious and effectual manner in his power, and shall give to the owners receipts for such arms, specifying the amount of the appraisement; and such as can be repaired shall with all possible dispatch be rendered fit for service, and the value according to the appraisement of all such arms, together with the repairs and transportation, shall be paid to the officers by the treasurer on the order of the council of safety for the use of the owners and defraying the charges.
                      [Section II.]  And be it further ordained, That the same arms shall be appraised by any three reputable freeholders appointed by the commanding officer; but if the owner of any arms shall neglect or refuse to apply for such money within six months the same shall be applied towards the repairs of the arms; and the colonels are hereby authorized to draw for the necessary sums of money for the purposes aforesaid on the council of safety.
                      [Section III.]  And it is further ordained, That the colonels aforesaid shall arm the associators with the said arms and keep an account to whom they are delivered and return the same to the council of safety; and every associator shall be answerable for such ares of the value unless lost or destroyed by some unavoidable accident or in actual service.
                      [Section IV.]  And be it further ordained, That in case any arms so collected shall not be worth repairing, the same shall be laid by until such time as may be thought proper by the committee of the county to return them to the owners.

                     

                    Passed July 19, 1776.  Statutes at Large of the State of Pennsylvania, Vol. IX.

                    In fact, the Founders/Framers engaged in every degree of gun control, the legitimate overriding concern being public safety.

                    This is the country of those three great rights: freedom of conscience, freedom of speech, and the wisdom never to exercise either of them. -- Mark Twain.

                    by JJustin on Mon May 05, 2014 at 02:16:24 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  ignorant? bite me (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      Achillios0311

                      what in dog's name does a pre-second amendment law enacted in colonial america -- for the express purpose of disarming those loyal to king george -- have to do with the topic at hand?

                      and please do answer my question about which of those rights designated "to the people" are not individual rights.  we're all ears.

                      Please don't dominate the rap, Jack, if you got nothin' new to say - Grateful Dead

                      by Cedwyn on Tue May 06, 2014 at 10:37:03 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

              •  Where does the 2nd amendment (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                oldpotsmuggler

                Allow high powered assault weapons?

                Please show me.

                And what the hell does population have to do with it?

                Do you actually know the circumstances under which Howard undertook this?

                Hardly apples/oranges.

                Do you anything resembling a substantive argument or are your just blowing smoke?

                No one is coming to save us, the future is in our hands.

                by koNko on Sun May 04, 2014 at 11:21:08 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  i never claimed the second amendment did that (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  FrankRose

                  but it's a whole lot easier to ban an entire class of guns when there is no constitutional right to bear arms, n'est-ce pas?  but you're right; that one's more like apples to kumquats.

                  as to what does population have to do with it, it's much easier to get 10 people to consensus than 100, n'est-ce pas?  completely apples to oranges, unless one imagines, say, ohio, is comparable to california.

                  Please don't dominate the rap, Jack, if you got nothin' new to say - Grateful Dead

                  by Cedwyn on Sun May 04, 2014 at 07:01:49 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

            •  Australia is one of the most urbanized nations (0+ / 0-)

              in the world.
              Far more urbanized than the USA.

              Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

              by FrankRose on Sun May 04, 2014 at 10:28:56 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

          •  I'm boing to piggy back on that one (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            twigg, oldpotsmuggler, ThatSinger

            "So we don't address the road because there will just be more cars sold next year?"

            "The pessimist complains about the wind; the optimist expects it to change; the realist adjusts the sails.” — William Arthur Ward

            by LilithGardener on Sun May 04, 2014 at 09:53:43 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  How many freedoms are you willing to strip away (0+ / 0-)

            from innocent people for your version of 'safety'?

            Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

            by FrankRose on Sun May 04, 2014 at 10:30:56 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  "RKBA" is the acronym for the ahistorical (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        oldpotsmuggler

        appropriation of the phrase, "right to keep and bear arms," from the Militiary/Militia Clauses in the several state constitutions.

        What is omitted is actual knowledge of the actual legal history: the "right to keep and bear arms" was for the purpose of arming the militia, which was/is regulated UNDER law -- to prevent military overthrow of civilian gov't -- as an arm of gov't, and the arms are public -- publicly-owned -- and in gov't-controlled arsenals.

        This is the country of those three great rights: freedom of conscience, freedom of speech, and the wisdom never to exercise either of them. -- Mark Twain.

        by JJustin on Sun May 04, 2014 at 09:58:38 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Damn! They overlooked that... (8+ / 0-)
    NOTE:  Nevada does not allow you to shoot someone for asking you to leave because you are armed.  This is the case despite the fact that many consider such a confrontation a “stand-your-ground” situation because that person is attempting to deprive you of your sacred 2nd Amendment rights.
    I'm sure their legislative bodies will take that up next time around.

    I ♥ rock crushers.

    by fly on Sat May 03, 2014 at 08:04:01 PM PDT

    •  In other words, gun-nuts jabber about (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      schumann, Calamity Jean

      defending private property rights -- except when a person asserts his private property rights by disallowing guns on his private property.  At that point the gun-nuts assert a "right" (a "right to bully," and confiscate private property") to negate that property right.  In contrast, that bully's claim was addressed -- and rejected -- in Vermont's first constitution, written by the Founders, and adopted in July, 1777:

      Chap. II., S. XXXIX.  That the inhabitants of this State, shall have liberty to hunt and fowl, in seasonable times [hunting was regulated, which is a form of gun control], on the lands they hold, and on other lands (not enclosed;) . . . under proper regulations, to be hereafter made and provided by the General Assembly.
      Note (also) that gun-nuts, while claiming to be more-law-abiding-than-thou, reject the half of Heller that correctly holds that gun control regulation is Constitutional, despite the evidence for that being overwhelming.

      This is the country of those three great rights: freedom of conscience, freedom of speech, and the wisdom never to exercise either of them. -- Mark Twain.

      by JJustin on Sun May 04, 2014 at 10:37:55 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  The tragedy you speak of... (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Steven D, twigg, koNko, caul

    Has it not already happened time and time again? The people your describing have been basically fucking up for the rest of us our plans for a nice, peaceful, stress-free, life and for a long time. That's a life that in this country we certainly ought to be free to have. If the tragedy here is the law finally steps in and does what it ought to do (disarm, arrest. whatever it has to do to remove these people from sniper positions or roadblocks or whatever it is they seem to think they have every right to doing) well yes, that confrontation could easily turn tragic. But no more tragic than firefighters being burned, a policeman being shot, etc. It IS tragic. But it is also why many of us consider those people who are willing to fight the good fight heros.

  •  -They shouldn't be surprised (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    twigg, caul, a2nite

    They have no intention of trying to solve this problem, so I hope they don't act surprised when other people have to do the heavy lifting, and they get left out of the convo.  

    Streichholzschächtelchen

    by otto on Sat May 03, 2014 at 08:28:45 PM PDT

    •  What is that intended to mean? (0+ / 0-)

      Are you proposing a morally superior faction of lawless gun-nuts "take up arms" against a perceivedly morally-inferior faction of lawless gun-nuts?

      This is the country of those three great rights: freedom of conscience, freedom of speech, and the wisdom never to exercise either of them. -- Mark Twain.

      by JJustin on Sun May 04, 2014 at 10:40:23 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Gun-wackos are America's very worst (16+ / 0-)

    They tend to be the most un-American creeps in the U.S., and one of the biggest reasons we are decades behind Europe, insofar as societal advancement.

  •  Darwinism. (0+ / 0-)
    Why will that happen?

    "I did not have sex with that bridge"

    by Scottsdalian on Sat May 03, 2014 at 09:07:48 PM PDT

  •  Right on, ATexican, or maybe I should say (6+ / 0-)

    Write on.  I appreciate the post.   To me the most amazing thing about the confrontations thus far is that none of the heavily armed nut cases has felt emboldened to fire on the authorities as of this time.
    These fools remind me a lot of me and my friends when we were 8-12 years old.   I don't have any hope of them growing out of it.
    At one point my friends and I did advance to rock-throwing battles.  We found out that it hurt a lot.

    Ignorance is a virus. Once it starts spreading, it can only be cured by reason--Neil deGrasse Tyson

    by theBreeze on Sat May 03, 2014 at 09:47:12 PM PDT

  •  The situation will change (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    AnnieR, koNko, caul, nellgwen

    soon as the casinos start losing high rollers. Bunkerville is in the same county as Sheldon Adelson's money machine.

    Was this a planned thing? Bunkerville, Bunker hill sounds almost conspiratorial.

  •  Nevada gun laws look similar to Washington (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    My Spin, koNko, ban nock
    Nevada is one of the “gun-friendliest” states in the US. You can open carry; you can carry concealed (shall issue permit); you can carry pretty much anywhere (except schools, child care facilities, university property, and the place where state officials legislate that you can carry elsewhere). Oh, if you have a carry permit from another state, Nevada recognizes that and allows you to carry in Nevada.

    Even if a place of business or a private space of some kind has a clear policy and visible notices indicating firearms not allowed, it is not against the law to carry in those setting.  But, if they ask you to leave and you don’t then you get popped for trespassing.

    In Washington you can carry open without a permit or concealed with a permit. We recognize permits from those states that recognize ours and meet our background check requirements. Since we have no training requirement Nevada doesn't recognize a Washington permit and we, in turn, don't recognize theirs.

    We can carry into the legislature with a permit. Carrying in bars is prohibited, but is allowed in restaurants that serve alcohol (only prohibited in those areas off limits to persons under 21 years old.)

    Like Nevada, it is not against the law to carry into a business even if posted. If asked to leave you must, or you can be nailed for trespassing. As a practical matter very few places post no guns allowed.

    We have similar laws but very different results.

    To be first in the soil, which erupts in the coil, of trees veins and grasses all brought to a boil. -- The Maxx

    by notrouble on Sun May 04, 2014 at 12:10:41 AM PDT

    •  Seems like a good reason to stay away from Vegas (8+ / 0-)

      I wonder if visitors to Las Vegas know that:

      Nevada is one of the “gun-friendliest” states in the US. You can open carry; you can carry concealed (shall issue permit); you can carry pretty much anywhere (except schools, child care facilities, university property, and the place where state officials legislate that you can carry elsewhere). Oh, if you have a carry permit from another state, Nevada recognizes that and allows you to carry in Nevada.
      •  Seems like a good reason (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        nellgwen, My Spin

        to stay out of Florida, Georgia, Nevada, Washington, and other states which are governed by violent private gangs of lawless morons.

        This is the country of those three great rights: freedom of conscience, freedom of speech, and the wisdom never to exercise either of them. -- Mark Twain.

        by JJustin on Sun May 04, 2014 at 10:43:29 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  To your knowledge has the State or local officials (0+ / 0-)

      checked the permits, of all the out of state people who are carrying guns in "Bundyville", to determine if they are operating within the law?

      •  Probably not (0+ / 0-)

        that would be gubmint intrustion on their precious rights. Plus, they might get shot.

        The civil rights, gay rights and women's movements, designed to allow others to reach for power previously grasped only by white men, have made a real difference, and the outlines of 21st century America have emerged. -- Paul West of LA Times

        by LiberalLady on Sun May 04, 2014 at 05:12:35 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  issue with the terminolgy here... (8+ / 0-)

    They are NOT gun nerds -

    they are gun NUTS.

    •  You're right. Gun nuts is more accurate. (0+ / 0-)

         Or even gun fetishists. But I'd be willing to bet that they would loathe being called 'nerds' while they'd take 'gun nuts' as a badge of honor. So 'nerds' is fine with me.

      The Republican motto: "There's been a lot of progress in this country over the last 75 years, and we've been against all of it."

      by Hillbilly Dem on Sun May 04, 2014 at 09:32:24 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Some PRETEND to be gun-nerds (0+ / 0-)

      when they want to avoid the social context in which they act on their gun-nut psychoses.

      This is the country of those three great rights: freedom of conscience, freedom of speech, and the wisdom never to exercise either of them. -- Mark Twain.

      by JJustin on Sun May 04, 2014 at 10:44:39 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  OK... (9+ / 0-)

    As a Resident of Nevada, I want to take issue with a couple of inaccuracies in your post.

    No, they can do it because the Nevada legislature worships at the feet (or pockets or zippers) of the NRA.
    This is not true.  The legislature last year passed a universal background check bill which was vetoed by Governor Sandoval, a Republican.  Would a body worshipping at the feet of the NRA pass such a bill?
    Oh, if you have a carry permit from another state, Nevada recognizes that and allows you to carry in Nevada.
    This is inaccurate.  Nevada only recognizes a permit from another state if that state has a permitting process that meets the requirements of Nevada.  For example if you had a Utah permit, it would not be valid in Nevada.  This is because Utah does not meet the minimum classroom time required in Nevada to obtain a permit.

    Nevada has looser gun laws than many states for a variety of reasons.   That is fine for what was a very rural state for most of it's history and still is for much of the state now.  But Clark County also has a handgun registration law which exceeds the requirements in most states.

    As for your statement that Nevada is

    filled with ignoramuses almost all of whom have lethal weapons
    Really? This statement adds nothing to your diary. First, I doubt almost all of the residents own guns.  Second, calling the residents of Nevada ignoramuses is just being derogatory...why?
    •  Well this the price of being a poster child (7+ / 0-)

      For (excuse my language) ignorant, racist, gun-toting fools like Bundy & Co. so suggest you think of this as an opportunity to share the shame and name names.

      Kind of like I'm perpetually embarrassed to live in a country with the greatest number of executions (and people but not even close to the highest rates of execution or incarceration), something I'm morally opposed to.  

      So every year when the finger points, I sure feel embarrassed and that's a motivator to speak out.

      No one is coming to save us, the future is in our hands.

      by koNko on Sun May 04, 2014 at 02:08:40 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  We did't... (5+ / 0-)

        sign up to be the poster child for "ignorant, racist, gun toting fools".  However, somethings are beyond our control. Bundy and his gang have brought shame and disgrace to the state but most residents are not supporters.

        Yea, I am a little embarrassed that these people have not been arrested.  However, I don't know what is going on behind the scenes.  The few statements that have been made indicate that arrests will be made.  So, I don't think the lawbreakers will go unpunished.  Perhaps then we can sign up to be the poster child for the state that upheld the law without violence breaking out.  I would be for that.

        •  Can't they freeze their bank accounts? (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          MrJersey, cowdab

          Like they do with other enemies?

          "Without deviation from the norm, progress is not possible" --Frank Zappa

          by Paddy999 on Sun May 04, 2014 at 06:31:32 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  I know this story where I live (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          ThatSinger, Patango, StevenD56

          We New Yorkers get tarred with a broad brush every time there is any discussion of gun violence, gun rights, gun permits, etc. It's not possible to really talk calmly about NYC's success in bringing down the shootings and murder rate. Efforts get attacked on any of the many excesses of our racist authoritarian police and Bloomberg.

          I stopped even bothering because I didn't want to cope with accusations that I supported Bloomberg's view that the NYPD were his private army.

          I'm delighted to learn we have a great writer from Nevada who can help us understand what laws work for Nevada, and what reforms they might want to take on.

          "The pessimist complains about the wind; the optimist expects it to change; the realist adjusts the sails.” — William Arthur Ward

          by LilithGardener on Sun May 04, 2014 at 10:07:14 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  What are you doing -- actively -- (0+ / 0-)

          vis-a-vis your elected officials addressing this issue, and enforcing the law beyond rhetoric or the indecision induced by campaign contributions (in the forms of cash and death threats)?

          This is the country of those three great rights: freedom of conscience, freedom of speech, and the wisdom never to exercise either of them. -- Mark Twain.

          by JJustin on Sun May 04, 2014 at 10:48:25 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I wrote... (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Patango

            an email to the Clark County District Attorney asking him to charge those who pointed guns at people.  I have not heard back, and really didn't expect to.  I think people will eventually be arrested.   I think they have a plan. I don't know for sure,  but the statements from  officials so far indicate that they do.

            •  The county DA is not the only official (0+ / 0-)

              having an interest and responsibility to protect public safety.

              There are also state and Federal-level officials who have a responsibility to protect public safety by enforcing the laws.

              I don't don't the BLM, and other Feds, are working on the issue behind the scenes.  But I'd be holding the locals' feet to the fire -- especially if Republican'ts, and especially if doing so will tend to cause public "discussion" which will alert and inform citizens in the area.

              Gun-nuts do not have carte blanche under the Constitution (and the Second Amendment is irrelevant to the issue).  And state laws which give them that latitude need to be challenged on Constitutional grounds.  Our system of laws is based on a BALANCING of interests -- not an EITHER I have rights OR YOU have rights.

              This is the country of those three great rights: freedom of conscience, freedom of speech, and the wisdom never to exercise either of them. -- Mark Twain.

              by JJustin on Sun May 04, 2014 at 12:58:57 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  State laws... (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                88kathy

                were broken, specifically NRS 202.290.  This law makes it a crime to point a gun at a person, loaded or not.

                I believe there is some coordination going on behind the scenes between feds and local law enforcement..  One deputy sheriff made a comment that laws were broken and they do not intend to let it go.

                From reading a few comments in local newspaper articles, I think the sheriff's office has been hit heavy with calls and emails.  Harry Reid has called them domestic terrorists; my congressman, Steven Horsford,  has asked the sheriff to investigate the checkpoint harassment and called for a united front from all Nevada officials.  People here have not turned a blind eye to what has happened.  

                •  My problem is that I don't get any information (0+ / 0-)

                  about what's going on outside the Internet (specifically DailyKos).

                  The national media used to be on these things during the 1990s.  Perhaps they stopped becasue they saw it as causing copy-cats.

                  This is the country of those three great rights: freedom of conscience, freedom of speech, and the wisdom never to exercise either of them. -- Mark Twain.

                  by JJustin on Sun May 04, 2014 at 02:22:38 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

        •  Can you share links? (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          CenPhx

          I have not heard or read this anywhere:

          The few statements that have been made indicate that arrests will be made.
          And I'd be so happy if it happened!

          The civil rights, gay rights and women's movements, designed to allow others to reach for power previously grasped only by white men, have made a real difference, and the outlines of 21st century America have emerged. -- Paul West of LA Times

          by LiberalLady on Sun May 04, 2014 at 05:14:50 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Here is a link... (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            CenPhx

            Local tv news story

            The pertinent statement is:

            Metro Police officials told the I-Team, they felt the crowd at Bundy's ranch, including armed militia, posed a threat that day and will face consequences. They did not elaborate on what that would be
            .

            I've read at least one other statement, but can't find it right now.  It said essentially the same thing.

    •  Thanks for this factual comment Steve (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      oldpotsmuggler, StevenD56, 88kathy

      This comment could be expanded into a diary summarizing Nevada gun laws for Firearms Law and Policy, something summarizing current law and recent reform efforts, for a broad readership.

      And, btw, every state in the country takes its turn as poster child for assholes/extremism. Living in NYC, we get scapegoated all the time, except for a brief honeymoon after 9/11 and after Hurricane Sandy.

      "The pessimist complains about the wind; the optimist expects it to change; the realist adjusts the sails.” — William Arthur Ward

      by LilithGardener on Sun May 04, 2014 at 10:02:22 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  A little Ani DiFranco - To The Teeth (7+ / 0-)

    Tracy B Ann - technically that is my signature. If I had Bill Gates money, I'd buy Detroit.

    by ZenTrainer on Sun May 04, 2014 at 12:40:30 AM PDT

  •  Maybe this needs to happen. (5+ / 0-)

    Maybe this needs to get splashed across network TV and beamed around the world until Congress gets the point that the small minority that controls them on this issue is making the USA look like a backward country run by corrupt, clueless idiot that only know the way to their next corn dog chomping fundraiser.

    Keep the cameras on them 24/7. Give this all the publicity it needs.

    No one is coming to save us, the future is in our hands.

    by koNko on Sun May 04, 2014 at 01:56:09 AM PDT

  •  Statement from President Obama and friends (7+ / 0-)

    speaking about our disappointment then, and about what a sizeable majority of Americans still hope and wish for today.

    From the White House Rose Garden, just over a year ago:

    President Obama Speaks on Common-Sense Measures to Reduce Gun Violence

    ( About twenty minutes long but well worth viewing, re-viewing and sharing.)

    --

    --

    View at YouTube

    Read the transcript online and/or Download mp4 (674MB) | mp3 (44MB)

    The White House
    Office of the Press Secretary

    For Immediate Release
    April 17, 2013

    Statement by the President

    Rose Garden

    5:35 P.M. EDT

         MR. BARDEN:  Hello.  My name is Mark Barden.  Just four months ago, my wife Jackie and I lost our son, and our children, James and Natalie, they lost their little brother Daniel.  Daniel was a first-grader at Sandy Hook Elementary School.  Our sweet, 7-year-old Daniel was one of 20 children, six adults lost on December 14th.  I have to say it feels like it was just yesterday.

         In our deepest grief, we were supported by the love of our families and comforted by the love and prayers we received from millions of America, from every corner of the country.

         What happened in Newtown can happen anywhere.  In any instant, any dad in America could be in my shoes.  No one should feel the pain.  No one should feel our pain or the pain felt by the tens of thousands of people who’ve lost loved ones to senseless gun violence.

         And that's why we're here.  Two weeks ago, 12 of us from Newtown came to meet with U.S. senators and have a conversation about how to bring common-sense solutions to the issues of gun violence.  We came with a sense of hope, optimistic that real conversation could begin that would ultimately save the lives of so many Americans.  We met with dozens of Democrats and Republicans and shared with them pictures of our children, our spouses, our parents who lost their lives on December 14th.

         Expanded background checks wouldn't have saved our loved ones, but still we came to support the bipartisan proposal from two senators, both with “A” ratings from the NRA -- a common-sense proposal supported by 90 percent of Americans.  It‘s a proposal that will save lives without interfering with the rights of responsible, law-abiding gun owners.

         We'll return home now, disappointed but not defeated.  We return home with the determination that change will happen -- maybe not today, but it will happen.  It will happen soon.  We've always known this would be a long road, and we don't have the luxury of turning back.  We will keep moving forward and build public support for common-sense solutions in the areas of mental health, school safety, and gun safety.

         We take strength from the children and loved ones that we lost, and we carry a great faith in the American people.

         On behalf of the Sandy Hook Promise, I would like to thank President Obama, Vice President Biden for their leadership and for standing strong and continuing to fight for a safer America. I would like to thank Senators Toomey, Manchin, Schumer and Kirk on coming together to seek common ground on legislation that would keep guns out of the hands of criminals and save lives.

         And I would like to thank Connecticut’s Senators Blumenthal and Murphy.  They’ve been right with us.  They stood by us right from the very beginning.  From the first few hours after this tragedy they were with us.

         We will not be defeated.  We are not defeated, and we will not be defeated.  We are here now; we will always be here because we have no other choice.  We are not going away.  And every day, as more people are killed in this country because of gun violence, our determination grows stronger.

         We leave Washington hoping that others, both here and across the country, will join us in making the Sandy Hook Promise, a pledge that we'd had great hope that more U.S. senators would take literally.  I'd like to end by repeating the words with which the Sandy Hook Promise begins:  Our hearts are broken.  Our spirit is not.

         Thank you.  It is now my great pleasure to introduce the President of the United States of America, Barack Obama.  

    THE PRESIDENT:  A few months ago, in response to too many tragedies -- including the shootings of a United States Congresswoman, Gabby Giffords, who’s here today, and the murder of 20 innocent schoolchildren and their teachers –- this country took up the cause of protecting more of our people from gun violence.

    Families that know unspeakable grief summoned the courage to petition their elected leaders –- not just to honor the memory of their children, but to protect the lives of all our children.  And a few minutes ago, a minority in the United States Senate decided it wasn’t worth it.  They blocked common-sense gun reforms even while these families looked on from the Senate gallery.

    By now, it’s well known that 90 percent of the American people support universal background checks that make it harder for a dangerous person to buy a gun.  We’re talking about convicted felons, people convicted of domestic violence, people with a severe mental illness.  Ninety percent of Americans support that idea.  Most Americans think that's already the law.

    And a few minutes ago, 90 percent of Democrats in the Senate just voted for that idea.  But it’s not going to happen because 90 percent of Republicans in the Senate just voted against that idea.

    A majority of senators voted “yes” to protecting more of our citizens with smarter background checks.  But by this continuing distortion of Senate rules, a minority was able to block it from moving forward.

    I’m going to speak plainly and honestly about what’s happened here because the American people are trying to figure out how can something have 90 percent support and yet not happen. We had a Democrat and a Republican -– both gun owners, both fierce defenders of our Second Amendment, with “A” grades from the NRA -- come together and worked together to write a common-sense compromise on background checks.  And I want to thank Joe Manchin and Pat Toomey for their courage in doing that.  That was not easy given their traditional strong support for Second Amendment rights.

    As they said, nobody could honestly claim that the package they put together infringed on our Second Amendment rights.  All it did was extend the same background check rules that already apply to guns purchased from a dealer to guns purchased at gun shows or over the Internet.  So 60 percent of guns are already purchased through a background check system; this would have covered a lot of the guns that are currently outside that system.

    Their legislation showed respect for gun owners, and it showed respect for the victims of gun violence.  And Gabby Giffords, by the way, is both -- she’s a gun owner and a victim of gun violence.  She is a Westerner and a moderate.  And she supports these background checks.

    In fact, even the NRA used to support expanded background checks.  The current leader of the NRA used to support these background checks.  So while this compromise didn’t contain everything I wanted or everything that these families wanted, it did represent progress.  It represented moderation and common sense.  That’s why 90 percent of the American people supported it.

    But instead of supporting this compromise, the gun lobby and its allies willfully lied about the bill.  They claimed that it would create some sort of “big brother” gun registry, even though the bill did the opposite.  This legislation, in fact, outlawed any registry.  Plain and simple, right there in the text.  But that didn’t matter.

    And unfortunately, this pattern of spreading untruths about this legislation served a purpose, because those lies upset an intense minority of gun owners, and that in turn intimidated a lot of senators.  And I talked to several of these senators over the past few weeks, and they’re all good people.  I know all of them were shocked by tragedies like Newtown.  And I also understand that they come from states that are strongly pro-gun. And I have consistently said that there are regional differences when it comes to guns, and that both sides have to listen to each other.  

    But the fact is most of these senators could not offer any good reason why we wouldn’t want to make it harder for criminals and those with severe mental illnesses to buy a gun.  There were no coherent arguments as to why we wouldn’t do this.  It came down to politics -- the worry that that vocal minority of gun owners would come after them in future elections.  They worried that the gun lobby would spend a lot of money and paint them as anti-Second Amendment.

    And obviously, a lot of Republicans had that fear, but Democrats had that fear, too.  And so they caved to the pressure, and they started looking for an excuse -- any excuse -- to vote “no.”

    One common argument I heard was that this legislation wouldn’t prevent all future massacres.  And that’s true.  As I said from the start, no single piece of legislation can stop every act of violence and evil.  We learned that tragically just two days ago.  But if action by Congress could have saved one person, one child, a few hundred, a few thousand -- if it could have prevented those people from losing their lives to gun violence in the future while preserving our Second Amendment rights, we had an obligation to try.

    And this legislation met that test.  And too many senators failed theirs.

    I've heard some say that blocking this step would be a victory.  And my question is, a victory for who?  A victory for what?  All that happened today was the preservation of the loophole that lets dangerous criminals buy guns without a background check.  That didn’t make our kids safer.  Victory for not doing something that 90 percent of Americans, 80 percent of Republicans, the vast majority of your constituents wanted to get done?  It begs the question, who are we here to represent?

    I've heard folks say that having the families of victims lobby for this legislation was somehow misplaced.  "A prop," somebody called them.  “Emotional blackmail,” some outlet said.  Are they serious?  Do we really think that thousands of families whose lives have been shattered by gun violence don’t have a right to weigh in on this issue?  Do we think their emotions, their loss is not relevant to this debate?

    So all in all, this was a pretty shameful day for Washington.

    But this effort is not over.  I want to make it clear to the American people we can still bring about meaningful changes that reduce gun violence, so long as the American people don’t give up on it.  Even without Congress, my administration will keep doing everything it can to protect more of our communities.  We’re going to address the barriers that prevent states from participating in the existing background check system.  We’re going to give law enforcement more information about lost and stolen guns so it can do its job.  We’re going to help to put in place emergency plans to protect our children in their schools.

    But we can do more if Congress gets its act together.  And if this Congress refuses to listen to the American people and pass common-sense gun legislation, then the real impact is going to have to come from the voters.

    To all the people who supported this legislation -- law enforcement and responsible gun owners, Democrats and Republicans, urban moms, rural hunters, whoever you are -- you need to let your representatives in Congress know that you are disappointed, and that if they don’t act this time, you will remember come election time.

    To the wide majority of NRA households who supported this legislation, you need to let your leadership and lobbyists in Washington know they didn’t represent your views on this one.

    The point is those who care deeply about preventing more and more gun violence will have to be as passionate, and as organized, and as vocal as those who blocked these common-sense steps to help keep our kids safe.  Ultimately, you outnumber those who argued the other way.  But they're better organized.  They're better financed.  They’ve been at it longer.  And they make sure to stay focused on this one issue during election time. And that's the reason why you can have something that 90 percent of Americans support and you can't get it through the Senate or the House of Representatives.

    So to change Washington, you, the American people, are going to have to sustain some passion about this.  And when necessary, you’ve got to send the right people to Washington.  And that requires strength, and it requires persistence.

    And that's the one thing that these families should have inspired in all of us.  I still don't know how they have been able to muster up the strength to do what they’ve doing over the last several weeks, last several months.

    And I see this as just round one.  When Newtown happened, I met with these families and I spoke to the community, and I said, something must be different right now.  We’re going to have to change.  That's what the whole country said.  Everybody talked about how we were going to change something to make sure this didn't happen again, just like everybody talked about how we needed to do something after Aurora.  Everybody talked about we needed change something after Tucson.

    And I’m assuming that the emotions that we’ve all felt since Newtown, the emotions that we’ve all felt since Tucson and Aurora and Chicago -- the pain we share with these families and families all across the country who’ve lost a loved one to gun violence -- I’m assuming that's not a temporary thing.  I’m assuming our expressions of grief and our commitment to do something different to prevent these things from happening are not empty words.

    I believe we’re going to be able to get this done.  Sooner or later, we are going to get this right.  The memories of these children demand it.  And so do the American people.

    Thank you very much, everybody.

     END                5:55 P.M. EDT

           

    Thank you ATexican for your diary and the opportunity to share this.
  •  The situation in Bundistan is unstable. (10+ / 0-)

    Quarrelling over leadership and tactics, if these reports I read yesterday are true, and they do sound viable, is going to lead to shots. I would not be suprised if they start shooting each other or just leave in a short period of time.

    A true craftsman will meticulously construct the apparatus of his own demise.

    by onionjim on Sun May 04, 2014 at 03:19:58 AM PDT

    •  Can we deport other knuckledraggers to (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      cowdab

      Bundistan? Then build a big, high wall around it, after letting the locals out?

      And God said, "Let there be light"; and with a Big Bang, there was light. And God said "Ow! Ow My eyes!" and in a flash God separated light from darkness. "Whew! Now that's better. Now where was I. Oh yea . . ."

      by Pale Jenova on Sun May 04, 2014 at 08:15:12 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Well, as awful as this may sound... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      PatConnors

      I'm hoping that they do get in a shooting war among themselves. It would be news everywhere and would demonstrate with horrible clarity just how out of control these people are. Maybe then, the general populace would finally wake up, the NRA would shut the fuck up, and lawmakers would reflect on the damage their actions have caused.

      •  I feel the same as you, (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        nellgwen, PatConnors, onionjim

        however, after thinking it through to the logical conclusion, it seems it might go more like this:  Shooting begins between the different factions of militia.  We must remember the crossfire depending on where it takes place.  The law enforcement people cannot allow this so they move on the militia.. more shooting ensues.....  eventually the aggressors  are overpowered.  
        The next move depends on time lapsed at this point but assorted other nut cases will respond with violence against someone or someplace.  It may be other crazies, who knows.  Again, government must respond, be it local, state or federal.  This brings more nuts out but probably not in the open as they are very cowardly.  They thought nobody had guts enough to take 'em on.  They are mightily pissed.  
        This could  well lead to some degree of ongoing gorilla war right here in the USA.  If this seems too far out, consider what most of us thought might happen when these militias began forming decades ago.  Then ask yourself, "Where are we now?"    

    •  I wonder at the effect on their supporters -- (0+ / 0-)

      who are watching from a distance.

      Hopefully what they are seeing is dispiriting.

      This is the country of those three great rights: freedom of conscience, freedom of speech, and the wisdom never to exercise either of them. -- Mark Twain.

      by JJustin on Sun May 04, 2014 at 11:13:16 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  I am insulted. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Mayfly, FrankRose
    Nevada is one of the “gun-friendliest” states in the US.
    Pennsylvania is WAY more friendly to guns than Nevada.
    •  I donno, Jay from PA--re guns there is a race to (5+ / 0-)

      Crazyland right now, and it is hard to see who is in the lead. Certainly Georgia is in the running.

      In Georgia, acting the fool with a gun is not only legal, it is encouraged by the governor and the state legislature.

      by Mayfly on Sun May 04, 2014 at 04:39:41 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Piffle. (6+ / 0-)

        Georgia requires fingerprints to give folks a carry permit.
        PA - Nope.

        Georgia requires a permit to open carry.
        PA - Nope.

        Georgia is actually a "may issue" state according to O.C.G.A. § 16-11-129 (a)
        PA - Nope.

        Georgia - voted for romney
        PA - Nope.

        Georgia is a piker regarding gun laws.

        •  The GA lege just recently passed & Gov Deal signed (3+ / 0-)

          a law that I've been told is the loosest in the country.  That was on Friday a week ago.  The next day some fool showed up at a little league game in an Atlanta exurb and scared the kids and parents.

          There were 20 something 911 calls and the police came out but said they couldn't do anything.  The police did remark that the gun-carry guy's behavior was "inappropriate."

          In Georgia, acting the fool with a gun is not only legal, it is encouraged by the governor and the state legislature.

          by Mayfly on Sun May 04, 2014 at 09:24:19 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Yeah. Doesn't matter. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Mayfly

            From what I could tell, they didn't change anything I noted.

            However, you reminded me of one thing they did change. So let me add....

            Georgia - Fee of $30
            PA - Fee of $20
            Booyah!

            Georgia also just removed bars from the places that carrying was prohibited, but PA has had that for years. PA is somewhat like GA in that there are a LOT of wide open miles and miles of spaces with just a few somewhat urban areas that still don't have much in the way of taxi cabs - so there has been a solid need for a Designated Driver. Now that Sober Designated Driver is allowed to carry while sipping those rum-and-coke-without-the-rum all night.

            But on the "carry in bars" topic, did anyone else see that front page of the NY Post? Or was it the Daily News? The other day that told about that NYC Police Officer who was in the middle of an alcohol blackout and just started shooting the guy in the next car at the traffic light. WTF?!?!

    •  I'm from AZ (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      CenPhx

      One of the three gun friendliest states in the nation, nobody is more lax.

      Concealed carry without a permit baby...fuck the shall carry...just carry.

      "Empty vessels make the loudest sound, they have the least wit and are the greatest blabbers" Plato

      by Empty Vessel on Sun May 04, 2014 at 05:26:32 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Thanks but they're a gang of armed thugs, (8+ / 0-)

    a menace to the neighbors of the monster aka Bundy.

    They are NOT a militia.

    nosotros no somos estúpidos

    by a2nite on Sun May 04, 2014 at 05:43:52 AM PDT

  •  It is going to get worse. The gun-freaks think (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    WakeUpNeo, Cedwyn, a2nite

    they can open-carry and everyone else will act as they always have before.  That works if open-carry is a unicorn to most people - something everyone has heard about but no one actually has ever seen.  But once open-carry becomes common, it is a whole different ball game.  It is a bad down-hill slope, nothing I want to be around for.

    People who think politics is stupid are doomed to be ruled by stupid people.

    by ban48 on Sun May 04, 2014 at 06:07:03 AM PDT

  •  Whoa there. I am highly offended (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Cedwyn, Pale Jenova, Mayfly

    ... that you would describe Jim Beam and Jack Daniels as "foreign".

    These are two fine examples of the US's long history and culture of makin' fine bourbon (even if JD won't call it that).

    They're also two of our biggest cultural exports in the domain of alcohol.  

    So I don't cotton' to you callin' 'em "foreign," ya hear?

    But right on about the gun stuff.  

    Nobody deserves poverty.

    by nominalize on Sun May 04, 2014 at 06:20:26 AM PDT

    •  They can always take the Night Train (0+ / 0-)

      Or just guzzle Walmart boxed wine. Known as "The Big Red Gulp."

      And God said, "Let there be light"; and with a Big Bang, there was light. And God said "Ow! Ow My eyes!" and in a flash God separated light from darkness. "Whew! Now that's better. Now where was I. Oh yea . . ."

      by Pale Jenova on Sun May 04, 2014 at 08:13:14 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Fav question for NRA (15+ / 0-)

    You say you need guns to protect our liberties?

    Where were you and your guns when citizens peacably assembled for redress of grievances and were pepper sprayed and arrested?
    Where were you when Quakers were infiltrated for planning anti-war demonstrations?
    Where were you when people were arrested for anti-Bush anti-war statements on their t-shirts?
    Where were you when Snowden had to flee the country?
    That's the first amendment in four examples, compadres.

    Where were you when asset forfeiture was first used against accused drug dealers?
    Where were you when AT&T and Verizon became spying apparatus for the state and Naccio was imprisoned for Quest not playing along?
    Where were you when abduction and torture and detention without charge or trial became the law of the land?
    That's the fourth amendment compadres.

    If you wont stand up with your guns for those liberties, you're not worth a small bucket of spit.
    Face it, you don't want guns to protect liberties.  You want guns because you are fearful, insecure bedwetters.  You will never stand alongside Kurt Russel and Arnold behind an overturned car at the end of your block and defeat the gubmint.
    STFU

    We kidnap. We torture. It's our policy. Embrace it or end it!

    by Mosquito Pilot on Sun May 04, 2014 at 06:32:50 AM PDT

    •  And if a group of open carry, armed-to-the-teeth (4+ / 0-)

      young black men (let's about 200 or so, physically fit and in their mid-20s, dressed in full paramilitary camo) came into their neighborhood (to defend their constitutional rights, of course) would these NRA nuts (a) cheer and join in or (b) shit their pants? I thought so.

      The Republican motto: "There's been a lot of progress in this country over the last 75 years, and we've been against all of it."

      by Hillbilly Dem on Sun May 04, 2014 at 09:40:43 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  I wonder how many of those "patriots" (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Hillbilly Dem, Dirtandiron, nellgwen

    are sitting in their tents while collecting welfare and unemployment.

    Perhaps cut off their "entitlements" - after all they are employed by Bundy now.

    Politics is the entertainment branch of industry. Frank Zappa

    by Da Rock on Sun May 04, 2014 at 08:17:03 AM PDT

  •  I just thought of a riddle: "What do you get when (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Dirtandiron, nellgwen

    you match up "Open Carry" with "Stand Your Ground"?

    Answer: A Darwin Award.

    In Georgia, acting the fool with a gun is not only legal, it is encouraged by the governor and the state legislature.

    by Mayfly on Sun May 04, 2014 at 09:28:25 AM PDT

  •  On the apparent relationship between First (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Dirtandiron, FogCityJohn

    and Second Amendments:

    There is a gun-nut Internet fiction that the Second Amendment was placed after the First Amendment in order to back up the First Amendment.  "Attractive" and "religious" in its sentiment, it is nonetheless imagined-up nonsense.  Here's the relevant bit of the timeline:

    9/25/1789: Congress submits proposed bill of rights, consisting of twelve proposed amendments, to the states for consideration and ratification.  

    12/15/1791: Ratification of bill of rights completed.  The first two of the twelve proposed amendments having been rejected, the third became the First, and the fourth became the Second.

    1.  The "order" of the proposed amendments was random happenstance.  

    2.  The first and second of the twelve proposed amendments were rejected, making the third proposed the actual First, and the fourth proposed the actual Second.

    (There is also a right-wing assertion -- common among more "knowledgeable" gun-nuts -- that the Bill of Rights was a single document, thus avoiding the fact that it was not: in fact, the states were free to choose or reject any or all of the proposed amendments.  Several states ratified all, several states rejected all, a majority of states ratified some.)

    This is the country of those three great rights: freedom of conscience, freedom of speech, and the wisdom never to exercise either of them. -- Mark Twain.

    by JJustin on Sun May 04, 2014 at 09:34:05 AM PDT

  •  Have to read to end of diary: (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Patango

    You're right, quite a change of tone, but it's all good. Recced.

    Schedule permitting, PROOF WILL BE PROVIDED ON HOW I AM BEING "CONSTANTLY CALLED OUT" AND "UNIVERSALLY RECOGNIZED" FOR BEING BAD. Moreover, the dossier on my activities during the Bush administration will have an appendix concluding that I am Wrong.

    by Inland on Sun May 04, 2014 at 09:34:49 AM PDT

  •  In view of the fact that these armed illiterates (5+ / 0-)

    are NOT militia, the use of that term in reference to them should be avoided.  And when it cannot be, should be put in quotes, as: "militia".

    There is only one legitimate militia; and that is governed under law, as an arm of gov't, with the commander-in-chief the governor (with the state's legislature), and or the President of the United States (with the Congress).

    Neither the governor nor the President, together or individually, is going to "take up arms" against himself.

    And:

    US Con., Art. I., S. 8., C. 15.  The Congress shall provide for calling forth the Militia to execute [enforce] the Laws of the Union [on the state level the state laws], [and] suppress Insurrections.

    This is the country of those three great rights: freedom of conscience, freedom of speech, and the wisdom never to exercise either of them. -- Mark Twain.

    by JJustin on Sun May 04, 2014 at 09:40:27 AM PDT

  •  Daniels and Beam (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    createpeace, notrouble, GDbot
    but I find it hard to believe that these outsiders did not bring along other foreign friends like Colonel Jim Beam and General Jack Daniels. I suspect they consult these heroes frequently.
    The Colonel and the General are non-partisan. I know at least one Kossack has discussed issues with them before posting here. ;)

    Where are all the jobs, Boehner?

    by Dirtandiron on Sun May 04, 2014 at 09:50:49 AM PDT

  •  These gun nuts wanting to "protect" themselves ... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Mr Stagger Lee, a2nite

    from the government sort of reminds me of an episode of Star Trek (Next Generation) when Data had to explain (and demonstration) to the citizens of a primitive village who wanted to fight an upcoming planetary alien invasion of the futility of staying.

    Basically, Data fired a phaser and destroyed their water supply and told them as easily as he pressed that button and disintegrated that well, those alien invaders will also press a button and do that to them and their entire village ... and they'll do it from orbit and the villagers will never see the invaders and the invaders will never see them. The village and the people will just be gone.

    The war between the government and those yokels has already been decided - yokels you lost -and its just a matter whether some technician presses a button or not.

    That said, while the yokels can't win that fight, they certainly can extract a cost in lives, time, resources and of course to the 1%ers - money.

  •  They better hurry with their civil war because... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    a2nite

    otherwise they'll be rebelling from their motor chairs.

  •  Gun Nerds? (0+ / 0-)

    I prefer Gun Geek, thanks.

Bob Johnson, Pat K California, Sylv, fcvaguy, Radiowalla, decisivemoment, mwm341, Trendar, Pandora, Emerson, Sherri in TX, mslat27, eeff, 88kathy, cskendrick, otto, CanisMaximus, splashy, admiralh, wader, asterlil, psnyder, ranger995, niteskolar, flatford39, emobile, eodell, zerelda, Hillbilly Dem, Wife of Bath, Mosquito Pilot, Steven D, Black Max, Gowrie Gal, sb, humphrey, kbman, maybeeso in michigan, historys mysteries, Tinfoil Hat, NoMoreLies, caul, jparnell, YucatanMan, Navy Vet Terp, reflectionsv37, eru, bleeding blue, jimstaro, where4art, Inland, Little Lulu, RichterScale, Sandino, kaliope, PinHole, Tunk, spunhard, sodalis, snoopydawg, tigerdog, Jim R, ThatSinger, MadGeorgiaDem, martini, golem, myboo, Kingsmeg, cybersaur, Arabiflora, mr crabby, cookseytalbott, koNko, ruleoflaw, Rolandz, deha, TalkieToaster, global citizen, StrayCat, twigg, The Hindsight Times, Rosaura, katrinka, plf515, Zwoof, onionjim, Clive all hat no horse Rodeo, blueoregon, NancyWH, MadScientist, AllanTBG, sea note, HM2Viking, PatConnors, john07801, anotherdemocrat, JohnMac, LiberalLady, camlbacker, bigjacbigjacbigjac, ColoTim, paz3, puakev, yoduuuh do or do not, jeanette0605, HeartlandLiberal, deepeco, Back In Blue, millwood, Timmethy, leonard145b, fallina7, skod, bewild, DBoon, Counselor730, JDWolverton, GAS, wayoutinthestix, Sixty Something, dadadata, Ronald England, smrichmond, Sharon Wraight, mikeconwell, Calamity Jean, tofumagoo, hwmnbn, triplepoint, elpacifico66, Piren, BYw, Mayfly, billybam, dmhlt 66, LaFeminista, Fiddlegirl, Celtic Merlin, buffie, zmom, Throw The Bums Out, nchristine, LinSea, WakeUpNeo, mkor7, fToRrEeEsSt, geebeebee, stevenwag, sfarkash, astral66, nocynicism, LookingUp, Lefty Ladig, commonmass, parse this, FogCityJohn, p gorden lippy, NJpeach, serendipityisabitch, gramofsam1, Susan Grigsby, Observerinvancouver, piers, kjoftherock, Proud Mom and Grandma, Lost and Found, ATFILLINOIS, DerAmi, ban48, melfunction, nawlinscate, nirbama, Oh Mary Oh, ZedMont, fiercefilms, tgrshark13, kerflooey, matercarol, implicate order, MaryinHammondsport, deeproots, PedalingPete, boomerchick, mrsgoo, Jasonhouse, thomask, BarackStarObama, createpeace, TRPChicago, chira2, myrmecia gulosa, kaylaspop, Ranger1, jadt65, allergywoman, wolf advocate, jacey, nominalize, i saw an old tree today, bluezen, leathersmith, nellgwen, AnnieR, a2nite, FloridaSNMOM, martinjedlicka, chicagobleu, MartyM, doh1304, oldpotsmuggler, Glen The Plumber, George3, Hammerhand, Illinois IRV, countwebb, Linda1961, YellowDogInGA, Joy of Fishes, HedwigKos, Alhambra, ggfkate, ORswede, Smoh, Hey338Too, k9kiki, Patango, Jim Domenico, skepticalcitizen, TheDuckManCometh, nancyjones, hamjudo, eagleray, gnothis, VPofKarma, ginimck, theBreeze, lcmoye, cowdab

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site