The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > Law and Civil Rights

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old August 22, 2009, 07:30 AM   #376
MajorWhiteBoy
Member
 
Join Date: April 10, 2009
Posts: 70
i don't think i'd have the guts to basically get myself killed over my guns if someone came to collect them. just being honest with myself.
MajorWhiteBoy is offline  
Old August 22, 2009, 07:31 AM   #377
m.p.driver
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 25, 2009
Location: Ohio
Posts: 552
The average citizen would turn their weapons in in a heartbeat.They would follow the governments orders in the belief that it does what it does for the good of the people.Smells of 1933.Do me and my family know what to do?An army instructor once told "me we're not training you to be victims".My family once wore gray it looks good on patriots.
m.p.driver is offline  
Old August 22, 2009, 08:56 AM   #378
Tennessee Gentleman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 31, 2005
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 1,611
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hkmp5sd
Does anyone really believe that the 2nd Amendment currently protects us from an overbearing government?
Some here on TFL believe it and we have debated it frequently.

I do not believe it.

The message that is heard by John Q when those who do believe it say so, is that gun owners might use their guns to obtain what they can't get at the ballot box. That is treason and scary to John Q and does not further our rights.

I believe our democratic institutions (courts and free elections) protect us from an overbearing government.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hkmp5sd
The government does what it wants right now.
Who we elect. They couldn't do it if we didn't allow it. However, participation in the process is he only way to turn that around. No minority group of publicly totin' AR-15 owners can effect that change.

Remember, we get the government we deserve.
__________________
"God and the Soldier we adore, in time of trouble but not before. When the danger's past and the wrong been righted, God is forgotten and the Soldier slighted."
Anonymous Soldier.

Last edited by Tennessee Gentleman; August 22, 2009 at 09:04 AM.
Tennessee Gentleman is offline  
Old August 22, 2009, 10:34 AM   #379
jimpeel
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 11, 1999
Location: Longmont, CO, USA
Posts: 4,488
Hkmp5sd,

My answers are pure common sense logic determined by study of how such scenarios have played out throughout history. THIS is a good read with which to start.

Quote:
Does anyone really believe that the 2nd Amendment currently protects us from an overbearing government?
The right to arms existed prior to the Second Amendment. It "protects" nothing. Words on paper declaring the right to arms are no more effective than the words on a paper stating that the woman being killed by her significant other should not be killed by the person named thereon.

Quote:
The government does what it wants right now. How far do you let them go?
Americans are a fickle lot. There is no knowing where the tipping point would occur. One thing is for sure, though. There comes a point where they will no longer be pushed.

Quote:
Even if the government banned guns tomorrow, does anyone really plan on walking away from everything they own and their family to take up arms to defend themselves against the government?
You envision an army of citizen patriots marching on Washington or wherever. That is not how it would occur. It would be a guerrilla warfare effort led by those who have formed cadres of three to five people capable of training others. Attacks would not be some battlefield scenario. There would be numerous concerted attacks on infrastructure and personnel.

Quote:
If the answer is yes, do you have the skills required to survive in such an environment?
One simply goes about their usual routines until an action is determined. See above.

Quote:
Who do you attack?
Those who enforce the laws which are in contravention to the Supreme Law of the Land.

Quote:
Go you think the average US citizens would support you in such actions?
No more than supported those who fought the Revolutionary War.
__________________
Gun Control: The premise that a woman found in an alley, raped and strangled with her own pantyhose, is morally superior to allowing that same woman to defend her life with a firearm.

"Science is built up with facts, as a house is with stones. But a collection of facts is no more a science than a heap of stones is a house." - Jules Henri Poincare

"Three thousand people died on Sept. 11 because eight pilots were killed"
-- former Northwest Airlines pilot Stephen Luckey
jimpeel is offline  
Old August 22, 2009, 10:38 AM   #380
Glenn E. Meyer
Staff
 
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 15,843
The problem with the argument that the 2nd Amend protects our liberty is that we have not seen it actually do such in many cases. Not to insult folks but many of the classic gun culture have been quite supportive of many infringements of the liberties of citizens as those have clashed with a controlling social conservative world view.

It has been cultural change, legislation and the SCOTUS that have moved against the tyrannical impulses of social conservatives.

However, I believe that privately owned arms to act as an ultimate buffer against such oppression and potential genocidal actions. The history of genocides usually indicates that they are carried out against folks who can't defend themselves. Thus, I advocate that minorities and those not of the social conservative ilk should consider that they might have to defend themselves. Certainly, we have evidence of that in the African-Amercian community. The controversial actions of the Black Panthers (which social conservatives went nuts over) indicated that they used the 2nd to say no more.

Gays actually point to the Stonewall rebellion (a somewhat violent action) as the start of their movement to get out from under the social conservative oppression.

Thus, if we look for success - we don't see it in the classic gun world's stew of tin foil conspiracies or now popular cry to take our country back. You lost the election because of failed president - get over it. Have better candidates who are competent and not anti-intellectual, anti-science, morality controlling potential tyrants who really just want to make a buck for big firms.

Despite the wailing and lamentation - current gun rights are important as a last bulwark against a right that would institute a world view that is antithetical to liberty.

But, most changes today can be instituted by the electoral and judicial process. Stewing about armed revolution or how the 2nd brought major increases in liberty just are not true. I received the right not to be discriminated against on basis of religion because of the electoral and judicial process. I did not see one classic member of the conservative gun world rise in rebellion so my mother could get a job denied her because of religion. In fact, most of that group, in those times, would probably support the discrimination.

To conclude - I think that the gun carry was not an effective means of communication. Signs saying we support the 2nd Amend by large numbers of polite folks probably would work better. But we know the gun world isn't much for that. Organized demos are chortled about but don't come off. The NRA works more effectively and law suits like Heller work much better.

The 2nd and arms of the civilian are important to large groups of us as a last bulwark if we went the way of something like Reich. But the claim that the 2nd has brought about liberties in a major fashion isn't true now.

If this was too politcal - I should be scolded but I was trying to dispell the rash of cliches that are posted without real analysis of the claim.
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc.
http://www.teddytactical.com/archive...05_Feature.htm
Being an Academic Shooter
http://www.teddytactical.com/archive...11_Feature.htm
Being an Active Shooter
Glenn E. Meyer is offline  
Old August 22, 2009, 04:42 PM   #381
Tennessee Gentleman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 31, 2005
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 1,611
Glenn,
Well said! Even more recently I have asked many of the 2A absolutists if the fact that citizens of New Orleans being armed stopped Ray Nagin from taking their guns. Of course we know that an injunction from the NRA/GOA did so and no citizens violently resisted the confiscations.

Did the "people's militia" storm the NO Police warehouse and retrieve their illegally obtained property? Heck no, they waited for Ray No-guns to be held in contempt of court and that forced the NO Police to return the guns.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimpeel
There is no knowing where the tipping point would occur. One thing is for sure, though. There comes a point where they will no longer be pushed.
Here is what I know. Any person who takes up arms against a lawfully elected government commits treason and will face the full fury of the law. I for one would be one of the first to oppose with force if necessary any such action. If you don't like what the government does, vote 'em out as Glenn has said. You will not achieve with a gun what you cannot get at the ballot box.
__________________
"God and the Soldier we adore, in time of trouble but not before. When the danger's past and the wrong been righted, God is forgotten and the Soldier slighted."
Anonymous Soldier.

Last edited by Tennessee Gentleman; August 22, 2009 at 04:44 PM. Reason: spelling
Tennessee Gentleman is offline  
Old August 22, 2009, 08:00 PM   #382
jimpeel
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 11, 1999
Location: Longmont, CO, USA
Posts: 4,488
Tennessee Gentleman,

Quote:
Here is what I know. Any person who takes up arms against a lawfully elected government commits treason and will face the full fury of the law. I for one would be one of the first to oppose with force if necessary any such action. If you don't like what the government does, vote 'em out as Glenn has said. You will not achieve with a gun what you cannot get at the ballot box.
First, did you read the first line of my post?

Second, were THESE MEN men treasonous when they took up arms against the lawfully elected government? After all, the election was lawful; it was the results which were tainted.

So if our lawfully elected government started throwing prisoners off of tall buildings ala Iraq or;

The government started forming death squads ala Argentina or;

The government starts cleaning up the homeless with death squads ala Brazil or:

The government allows dissident militants to seize a foreign embassy and hold that country's citizens for 444 days ala Iran; would you simply stand and spectate?

That's what the people of these countries did; because they were forced to by their lawfully elected governments.

All of the above were "lawfully elected governments".

The elections were legal. The governments were lawfully elected. The electorate stood and watched. Those who tried to act disappeared.

Your post assumes that there will be elections. What do you do if there are not? What do you do if there is a collapse of the rule of law? What do you do if government anarchy ensues?

Do you flee your country as those who fled to America to escape the tyranny of their countries did? Problem: This is the last place left to flee. America is the last bastion for the oppressed. When that is gone ...

The reason that there will be no necessity for an armed uprising here in the United States is, unlike the countries cited above, the citizenry has the firearms; the citizenry has the ammo; and the citizenry has the wherewithal to keep the "lawfully elected government" in check by deterrence alone.

You can bet your sweet one that if this country's government started to openly operate like the ones mentioned above, regardless of party stripe, the American people would spend an endless amount of treasure to stop it. But if the law collapsed, elections were suspended, and dictatorship and anarchy ensued those same people would not take up arms to take over the government. They would take up arms to restore the government.

That is the difference. Know it, live it, love it.

Work with all of your heart, your mind, and your very being to make all of the above impossible. More and more Americans are becoming apathetic, lazy, uneducated, and greedy. That is your true enemy. The government is merely a reflection of that electorate.
__________________
Gun Control: The premise that a woman found in an alley, raped and strangled with her own pantyhose, is morally superior to allowing that same woman to defend her life with a firearm.

"Science is built up with facts, as a house is with stones. But a collection of facts is no more a science than a heap of stones is a house." - Jules Henri Poincare

"Three thousand people died on Sept. 11 because eight pilots were killed"
-- former Northwest Airlines pilot Stephen Luckey
jimpeel is offline  
Old August 22, 2009, 08:19 PM   #383
jimpeel
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 11, 1999
Location: Longmont, CO, USA
Posts: 4,488
Glenn,

Quote:
The problem with the argument that the 2nd Amend protects our liberty is that we have not seen it actually do such in many cases.
I have cited the Battle of Athens, TN so I will not link to it again.

Quote:
Not to insult folks but many of the classic gun culture have been quite supportive of many infringements of the liberties of citizens as those have clashed with a controlling social conservative world view.
Because the classic gun culture associations have taken the stance that if they "compromise" with the oppressors they will appease them.

1. A compromise means that both parties receive something. We give, they take, and we receive nothing in return but the next "good first step" legislation.

2. Appeasers throw everyone else to the lions hoping to be eaten last.

Quote:
Despite the wailing and lamentation - current gun rights are important as a last bulwark against a right that would institute a world view that is antithetical to liberty.
TG would disagree with you and has stated that he would take up arms against you. That is treasonous talk.

Quote:
But, most changes today can be instituted by the electoral and judicial process.
True.

Quote:
Stewing about armed revolution or how the 2nd brought major increases in liberty just are not true.
Only if you ignore the American Revolution and the War Between the States.

Quote:
I received the right not to be discriminated against on basis of religion because of the electoral and judicial process. I did not see one classic member of the conservative gun world rise in rebellion so my mother could get a job denied her because of religion. In fact, most of that group, in those times, would probably support the discrimination.
Two words: Mordechai Anielewicz. He did more in his short 24 years than most do in a long-lived lifetime. Maybe he was just an idealist.

Quote:
To conclude - I think that the gun carry was not an effective means of communication. Signs saying we support the 2nd Amend by large numbers of polite folks probably would work better. But we know the gun world isn't much for that. Organized demos are chortled about but don't come off. The NRA works more effectively and law suits like Heller work much better.
I agree with that in part. It may not have been the best way to demonstrate.

The problem is that those who advocate concealed carry and lament that "Our right to bear arms does not end at the <enter boundary here>" are some of the same ones who are saying that the right to bear arms ends when the wrong person approaches their location.

Quote:
The 2nd and arms of the civilian are important to large groups of us as a last bulwark if we went the way of something like Reich.
Which is what I was speaking to.

Quote:
But the claim that the 2nd has brought about liberties in a major fashion isn't true now.
Yet you mentioned the display of arms of the Black Panther Party. That one act, coupled with many others, forced attention on the civil rights movement which brought freedom to millions without firing a single shot.
__________________
Gun Control: The premise that a woman found in an alley, raped and strangled with her own pantyhose, is morally superior to allowing that same woman to defend her life with a firearm.

"Science is built up with facts, as a house is with stones. But a collection of facts is no more a science than a heap of stones is a house." - Jules Henri Poincare

"Three thousand people died on Sept. 11 because eight pilots were killed"
-- former Northwest Airlines pilot Stephen Luckey

Last edited by jimpeel; August 22, 2009 at 09:23 PM.
jimpeel is offline  
Old August 22, 2009, 09:09 PM   #384
OuTcAsT
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 8, 2006
Location: Nashville, TN
Posts: 1,212
jimpeel

An excellent analysis, and I tip my hat to you. Well Said !
__________________
WITHOUT Freedom of Thought, there can be no such Thing as Wisdom; and no such Thing as public Liberty, without Freedom of Speech. Silence Dogood

Does not morality imply the last clear chance? - WildAlaska -
OuTcAsT is offline  
Old August 22, 2009, 09:22 PM   #385
Wildalaska
Junior member
 
Join Date: November 25, 2002
Location: In my own little weird world in Anchorage, Alaska
Posts: 14,174
Jim enough with the polemics already, this isnt 1944 Generalgouvernement, 1920's Cicero or 1940s Tennesee. The JBTs arent coming, nor the Black helicopters. A bunch of armchair commandoes with personal weapons aint gonna fight off the government, hasnt happened in the past and wont happen in the future. The 2nd Amendment didnt win the War of Independence or the Civil War. We have all sorts of judicial and political remedies. Lets deal with reality here

WildanddontgetmestartedaboutmordecaiAlaska TM

Last edited by Wildalaska; August 22, 2009 at 09:36 PM.
Wildalaska is offline  
Old August 22, 2009, 09:33 PM   #386
jimpeel
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 11, 1999
Location: Longmont, CO, USA
Posts: 4,488
MWB,

Quote:
i don't think i'd have the guts to basically get myself killed over my guns if someone came to collect them. just being honest with myself.
Just sittin' here cogitatin' and not meaning to slam you; but there is a saying that goes with that thinking:

You can die on your feet; or live on your knees.

Your, and only your, choice.

Submission brings no notoriety. Resistance makes the headlines.

You don't have to die to do either.
__________________
Gun Control: The premise that a woman found in an alley, raped and strangled with her own pantyhose, is morally superior to allowing that same woman to defend her life with a firearm.

"Science is built up with facts, as a house is with stones. But a collection of facts is no more a science than a heap of stones is a house." - Jules Henri Poincare

"Three thousand people died on Sept. 11 because eight pilots were killed"
-- former Northwest Airlines pilot Stephen Luckey
jimpeel is offline  
Old August 22, 2009, 09:37 PM   #387
Wildalaska
Junior member
 
Join Date: November 25, 2002
Location: In my own little weird world in Anchorage, Alaska
Posts: 14,174
Quote:
You can die on your feet; or live on your knees.
Wolverines

WildibtlAlaska TM
Wildalaska is offline  
Old August 22, 2009, 10:00 PM   #388
MajorWhiteBoy
Member
 
Join Date: April 10, 2009
Posts: 70
in a case like new orleans, i do beleive an outright refusal to surrender your weapons would require a stand where someone would die. i don't have a strike team on standby and a bunch of armor...
MajorWhiteBoy is offline  
Old August 22, 2009, 10:03 PM   #389
jimpeel
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 11, 1999
Location: Longmont, CO, USA
Posts: 4,488
Wild,

Why is it that every time someone posts a rhetorical scenario based upon history people like you paint them as wild eyed heavily armed wackos, with a grenade pin in their teeth, heading out the door to do battle with the government?

Yes, this is none of what you posited which, by the way, you left out 1920s Tulsa, OK, 1923 Rosewood, FL, and 1917 East Saint Louis, IL.

I don't use the term JBT and I don't believe in black helicopters. You simply made that up and threw it out there to use as a disparagement against me. Nice ad hom, though.

This forum was created because of the people who got the L&P forum closed forever. Posts like yours were the reason.

Do you have any lucid, thoughtful, respectful contentions to actually counter what I have posted?
__________________
Gun Control: The premise that a woman found in an alley, raped and strangled with her own pantyhose, is morally superior to allowing that same woman to defend her life with a firearm.

"Science is built up with facts, as a house is with stones. But a collection of facts is no more a science than a heap of stones is a house." - Jules Henri Poincare

"Three thousand people died on Sept. 11 because eight pilots were killed"
-- former Northwest Airlines pilot Stephen Luckey
jimpeel is offline  
Old August 22, 2009, 10:09 PM   #390
Wildalaska
Junior member
 
Join Date: November 25, 2002
Location: In my own little weird world in Anchorage, Alaska
Posts: 14,174
Quote:
Why is it that every time someone posts a rhetorical scenario based upon history people like you paint them as wild eyed heavily armed wackos, with a grenade pin in their teeth, heading out the door to do battle with the government?
Because thats what they sound like.

Quote:
This forum was created because of the people who got the L&P forum closed forever. Posts like yours were the reason.
LOL....whatever

Quote:
Do you have any lucid, thoughtful, respectful contentions to actually counter what I have posted?
Yeah...

Jim enough with the polemics already, this isnt 1944 Generalgouvernement, 1920's Cicero or 1940s Tennesee. The JBTs arent coming, nor the Black helicopters. A bunch of armchair commandoes with personal weapons aint gonna fight off the government, hasnt happened in the past and wont happen in the future. The 2nd Amendment didnt win the War of Independence or the Civil War. We have all sorts of judicial and political remedies. Lets deal with reality here

Put the tricorns away kiddies, personal weapons meant very little in the War of Indepence and mean little as a check on the government now. I'll take my chances with the Courts and keep voting. Give me a ring when Habeas Corpus gets suspended as well as the right to vote.

WildanddemonstrationsareoutlawedandthenetshutdownAlaska TM
Wildalaska is offline  
Old August 22, 2009, 10:23 PM   #391
JohnKSa
Staff
 
Join Date: February 12, 2001
Location: DFW Area
Posts: 18,566
Quote:
Yet you mentioned the display of arms of the Black Panther Party. That one act, coupled with many others, forced attention on the civil rights movement which brought freedom to millions without firing a single shot.
Again, the disconnect is astounding.

First of all, there were shots fired both by and at the Black Panthers. One shootout with police took place on October 28, 1967. An officer was killed and another was badly injured. On December 28 of the same year there was another armed encounter with police resulting in injuries to 13 officers. That's just two of the more notable incidents where Black Panthers were involved in shootings with the police.

Second, open carry by the Black Panthers resulted in the the introduction of legislation RESTRICTING open carry, just the opposite of what we want. Look up the Mulford Act.

They are HARDLY a group that we should emulate; (or cite as an example of the benefits of open carry as protest) among other things they demanded that all black men be exempt from military service and that ALL black men in local, state or federal prison be released summarily.
Quote:
Why is it that every time someone posts a rhetorical scenario based upon history people like you paint them as wild eyed heavily armed wackos, with a grenade pin in their teeth, heading out the door to do battle with the government?
Perhaps because in this case the person in question held up as a group to be emulated an organization (the Black Panthers) that could very accurately be characterized as "wild eyed heavily armed wackos, with a grenade pin in their teeth, heading out the door to do battle with the government".
__________________
Did you know that there is a TEXAS State Rifle Association?
JohnKSa is offline  
Old August 22, 2009, 10:52 PM   #392
vranasaurus
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 16, 2008
Posts: 1,175
The point at which I would find armed action against the government acceptable is the point when all of our democratic institutions have broken down. As long as we still get to vote you will have much more sucess and a much easier time acomplishing your goals at the ballot box.

You will find it much easier to convince a majority of people to vote for your ideas than you will convincing a sufficient number to follow you to revolution.

If you can't convince enough people to vote for your ideas what makes you think you can convince enough people to fight and bloody themselves for your ideas?

What percentage of the population supporting an armed revolution do you think would be necessary for it to be successful? And if you say anything less than a majority aren't you essentially saying that a minority of the population would impose its will on the majority. Isn't that tyranny? And if you say a majority isn't it unnecessary as that is what is required at the ballot box?
vranasaurus is offline  
Old August 22, 2009, 10:53 PM   #393
Tom Servo
Staff
 
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 10,630
Yeesh. So this thread started as a post about a guy openly carrying a rifle to a political event, and now we're down to discussing the 2nd American Revolution.

Whenever open carry comes up, it turns into this. The same tiresome cliches get trotted out yet again. Let's bring up Auschwitz, Pol Pot and Chairman Mao as shaky analogues to what could happen. In fact, let's claim that it's going to happen right here tomorrow unless someone takes radical action.

I've probably had this same conversation dozens of times this year alone. It's always the same. Carrying a gun isn't activism. The gun is a weapon, nothing more and nothing less. In the eyes of gun people, it's nothing scary, but to the people we're supposed to be converting, it is.

Activism takes a great deal of boring and tedious legwork. It's not sexy, and it doesn't make for good soundbites on the evening news. Sorry, but that's the way it is. Skip the Unintended Consequences book club meeting and use that time to research pending legislation and court cases. Write some letters. It'll do far more good.

The plain fact is, the guy isn't a symbol of anything. His actions will lead to no change in policy or law. He's just someone who thought it was a good idea to walk around a political function with an exposed firearm. The vast majority of observers scratch their heads and wonder what he was trying to achieve. I'm one of them.
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change.
--Randall Munroe
Tom Servo is offline  
Old August 22, 2009, 10:59 PM   #394
Al Norris
Staff
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,322
And with that, we're done.

Thanks for the well reasoned responses. 'Til next time....
__________________
National listings of the Current 2A Cases.
Al Norris is offline  
Closed Thread

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:15 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2014 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.14859 seconds with 7 queries