The Second Ammendment Lobby and Police Safety

[Kiwigrunt]

Yes, but I drew faster and with a .45

Well, yes. It took me a while to load 30 rounds in a mag.....

[Stan]

Well, yes. It took me a while to load 30 rounds in a mag.....

Well put !

And you obviously loaded at least two mags aka American mode, then taped them together aka African style

[Kiwigrunt]

Well put !

And you obviously loaded at least two mags aka American mode, then taped them together aka African style

Yup. M193 in one and SS109 in the other. In case I may need to defeat body armour. Also made sure my back-up sights are zeroed in...just never know!

[Kiwigrunt]

I agree with Dayuhan. This whole gun discourse in the US seems like a self-perpetuating avalanche. And it seems increasingly difficult to separate it from other areas of discourse, in the sense that the ferocity of the narrative sets a tone that vibrates through society.

From my vantage point on this side of the puddle, I perceive two main areas of discourse that seem to be getting increasingly heated and extreme in the US. That is guns / 2nd amendment, and religion.

So the original thread question of "Has the Second Amendment/Assault Weapon Lobby become a destabilizing force in the US?" can perhaps be answered with a "yes".

How far 'out of control' does the govt need to get before a well armed militia storms the White House? Or in what way does the 'we need to be able to defend ourselves against our govt' crowd think that guns provide the solution to whatever wrongs they perceive the govt to be inflicting?

Obviously, I am looking at all of this from the outside in. I am not an American. Condor, when you say that 'a sizable portion of people who feel this country is going down a path that is divergent from what our founding fathers put into their framing of this country', can you give some examples of what topics you think are at the core of this perception? What are these people afraid of? Does it have to do with things like employment, healthcare, education etc.?
From here, it looks like they may just be afraid of loosing their guns…

[Stan]

Obviously, I am looking at all of this from the outside in. I am not an American. Condor, when you say that 'a sizable portion of people who feel this country is going down a path that is divergent from what our founding fathers put into their framing of this country', can you give some examples of what topics you think are at the core of this perception? What are these people afraid of? Does it have to do with things like employment, healthcare, education etc.?
From here, it looks like they may just be afraid of loosing their guns…

I have to say that people in rural America fear the worst of everything, not just firearm ownership.

The core perception of the Obama administration (and to an extent, the Clinton era) is that our rights are dwindling. However, Obama did a better job of riding that fine line without saying anything.

If the general perception where I grew up in rural America is that our rights are slipping away, it could be corn on the cob today and firearms tomorrow, etc, etc. While I could care less about owning an AR15 or AK and it's too easy for me to dismiss those so-called rights to ownership, the remainder of rural America doesn't see it that way and would argue with me that by not giving a Sierra about this issue, will eventually translate into everything under the sun being restricted. These are some serious farmers with no military background !

[TheCurmudgeon]

I have to say that people in rural America fear the worst of everything, not just firearm ownership.

The core perception of the Obama administration (and to an extent, the Clinton era) is that our rights are dwindling. However, Obama did a better job of riding that fine line without saying anything.

If the general perception where I grew up in rural America is that our rights are slipping away, it could be corn on the cob today and firearms tomorrow, etc, etc. While I could care less about owning an AR15 or AK and it's too easy for me to dismiss those so-called rights to ownership, the remainder of rural America doesn't see it that way and would argue with me that by not giving a Sierra about this issue, will eventually translate into everything under the sun being restricted. These are some serious farmers with no military background !

Stan, the funny thing is that American's, as a group, have more rights (or more correctly, fewer governmental restrictions) than they did fifty years ago. Segregation is one example, marihuana, profanity, along with interracial marriage, birth control, and any number of other "blue laws" that have been relaxed. I am not sure that people today would recognize the America of the 1950's. Now on the flip side of that, and in line with Carl's comments on religion, many of these blue laws had a religious basis. It is not so much that people are becoming less free as it is that the traditional religious based restrictions on society are falling away, perhaps creating a feeling of being lost, without a harbor in the storm of social change. I really can't say. But it could be a contributing factor.

[slapout9]

Stan, the funny thing is that American's, as a group, have more rights (or more correctly, fewer governmental restrictions) than they did fifty years ago. Segregation is one example, marihuana, profanity, along with interracial marriage, birth control, and any number of other "blue laws" that have been relaxed. I am not sure that people today would recognize the America of the 1950's. Now on the flip side of that, and in line with Carl's comments on religion, many of these blue laws had a religious basis. It is not so much that people are becoming less free as it is that the traditional religious based restrictions on society are falling away, perhaps creating a feeling of being lost, without a harbor in the storm of social change. I really can't say. But it could be a contributing factor.

Interesting clip from Bill O'Riley(4/4/14) on why Americas is drastically changing. This to has some history to it because it was the Christians that landed at Plymouth Rock not Muslims or Jews and an important part of a self governing nation is a common moral grounding (Jefferson may have said this? not sure) but it is an important part of the concept of American exceptionalism, which is why Marx made it such an important point to destroy Religion in America. The people would be groundless with no primary moral basis for decision making, we would lack judgement, and we would be very vulnerable to internal collapse from moral decay......just like we are now.
http://www.billoreilly.com/video?chartID=556

[Stan]

Stan, the funny thing is that American's, as a group, have more rights (or more correctly, fewer governmental restrictions) than they did fifty years ago. Segregation is one example, marihuana, profanity, along with interracial marriage, birth control, and any number of other "blue laws" that have been relaxed. I am not sure that people today would recognize the America of the 1950's. Now on the flip side of that, and in line with Carl's comments on religion, many of these blue laws had a religious basis. It is not so much that people are becoming less free as it is that the traditional religious based restrictions on society are falling away, perhaps creating a feeling of being lost, without a harbor in the storm of social change. I really can't say. But it could be a contributing factor.

Stan,
Not near as funny as just strange. Where I spent my youth just south of Reading, and to this day, no alcohol sales on Sunday. You're right though, doesn't seem to matter and perhaps even a false sense of security. The Amish still do their thing, everyone gets along.

However, if we were to one day tell all those folks they could no longer hunt, use a firearm, etc. that would be something I would dare to witness. You may end up going into the forest to find them, and would indeed be met with stiff opposition if not shot.

[120mm]

Stan, the funny thing is that American's, as a group, have more rights (or more correctly, fewer governmental restrictions) than they did fifty years ago. Segregation is one example, marihuana, profanity, along with interracial marriage, birth control, and any number of other "blue laws" that have been relaxed. I am not sure that people today would recognize the America of the 1950's. Now on the flip side of that, and in line with Carl's comments on religion, many of these blue laws had a religious basis. It is not so much that people are becoming less free as it is that the traditional religious based restrictions on society are falling away, perhaps creating a feeling of being lost, without a harbor in the storm of social change. I really can't say. But it could be a contributing factor.

And the good citizens of the Soviet Union had far more rights than those of the US, back when they were around. Most of the new "rights" are embodied in "restrictions" of course.

What you're missing, is even a rudimentary understand of the American political system. For all these "new rights" to be brought about, the Federal government had to wipe their *sses with the 10th Amendment of the US Constitution.

The 800 pound gorilla that no one appears to be noticing in the room is that local government and state government is being steam-rollered in nearly every aspect of our lives by the Federal government, thereby effectively dis-empowering local governance. This, of course is how big government statists inadvertently create insurgencies.

It's so bad that local schools have their lunch menu dictated to them by an unelected tyrant whose only job qualification is having sex with the President. Never mind that the mere existence of a Federal Department of Education is a violation of the 10th Amendment, as well as others.

On the militarization of the police: We no longer have police forces that do police work. Talking to officers in our small (7500 - 25,000 population) towns in Iowa, they are all either ON the tactics team or just biding their time on patrol until they GET on the tactics team. Our 15,000 person town just got their first MRAP, and a neighboring town of 20,000 just used their Tac Team to tear up a house in order to make a $1000 credit card fraud arrest. Which they failed to make, since the perpetrators didn't live in that house.

What we are creating in the US, as urban centers become more powerful, the federal government becomes more centralized and tied to "control" is the perfect storm for an insurgency. A state of affairs which has happened before, with near boring regularity as central governments cease being responsive and viewed as legitimate. Personally, I doubt the legitimacy of Michele Obama to dictate that a First grade girl and a senior boy on the football team eat exactly the same 1700 calorie a day diet.

Blaming the armed protestors and the AR/AK enthusiasts for the Fed government screwing up governance is getting it exactly backwards, imo.

[carl]

Stan, the funny thing is that American's, as a group, have more rights (or more correctly, fewer governmental restrictions) than they did fifty years ago. Segregation is one example, marihuana, profanity, along with interracial marriage, birth control, and any number of other "blue laws" that have been relaxed. I am not sure that people today would recognize the America of the 1950's. Now on the flip side of that, and in line with Carl's comments on religion, many of these blue laws had a religious basis. It is not so much that people are becoming less free as it is that the traditional religious based restrictions on society are falling away, perhaps creating a feeling of being lost, without a harbor in the storm of social change. I really can't say. But it could be a contributing factor.

No, I think you are wrong. We have much more sexual licence now than in the past along with much more widespread legal drug use. None of those things mean much at all to the vast center of the Americans. In the things that matter to them, us, things are much less free.

The best example of that I can give is something I read about the length of the official US Government manual for the establishment of an airport, just a little country airport. The current edition is about 900 pages long. The previous edition was, I read, about 90. Anyway you cut it, that is less free. And that I think is happening everywhere.

[carl]

Kiwi:

Perhaps if there is any de-stabilization going on it is because of the phenomenom (sic) you experienced yourself, sort of. The gov and segments of the polity seem determined to eliminate the right spelled out by the Second Amendment and people react to that.. So maybe you should look at the "Second Amendment"/scary looking like a movie weapon' lobby as a reaction to a provocation.

One of the most disturbing elements of the elite liberal establishment's attitudes is the hostility toward religion. This is being played out in some court cases now. THAT is very dangerous, far more than they know. The US is a very religious country and if the gov seriously tries to mess with that there will be trouble. Serious trouble.

Stan:

ARs, at least 5.56 mm/.223 ones aren't meant for hunting much more than prairie dogs. They are used for all kinds of other things and are good at those things.

There are really good shooters. And then there are not such really good shooters...like me. We started out with 8 shot .45s and when we switched to 16 shot Glock 31s I felt a whole lot better about things. As I felt a whole lot better with the AR up front and the 12 gauge in the trunk.

[Stan]

Stan:

ARs, at least 5.56 mm/.223 ones aren't meant for hunting much more than prairie dogs. They are used for all kinds of other things and are good at those things.

There are really good shooters. And then there are not such really good shooters...like me. We started out with 8 shot .45s and when we switched to 16 shot Glock 31s I felt a whole lot better about things. As I felt a whole lot better with the AR up front and the 12 gauge in the trunk.

Carl,
Spent most of my youth on a PA farm using my Uncle's 22-250 (basically a 5.56 with some extra umph !). My point was however that while I see no need for an AR nor AK, that's just me and the basic problem in this thread are in fact those that do want an AR or AK in the trunk and right now that should be OK. Why they want one is not an issue.

Regards, Stan

[davidbfpo]

I have been watching this discussion, which is of interest although I am "over the pond" in the UK where civilian possession of an 'assault weapon' has been illegal for many years - after mass shootings - and we have no constitution too. Caveat aside now.

However in my reading I came across this, which adds a certain poignancy to the discussion:

Eden (Albuquerque police chief) showed a video of one protester – clad in body armor – armed with an AK-47 assault rifle. The man loaded the weapon and urged onlookers to “use force against the police officers,” Eden said....Police know the assault rifle was real because officers had seen it and a review of video of the man – who put the rifle back into a van after the crowd disapproved of his actions – confirmed it. The man disappeared into the crowd, Eden said, and was not arrested

There was another protester with an AK47.

To say the least there is a mass of context to this event within a protest over a mentally ill male being shot dead by the police. If interested the officers video is available:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JwytoxMuk4U#t=14

It does illustrate the dangers posed to US LE in such a situation, one where it is the police who are the target of the protest.

Link to local press report:http://www.abqjournal.com/377167/new...ame-a-mob.html

The BBC coverage of the protest:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-26814976

[TheCurmudgeon]

How far 'out of control' does the govt need to get before a well armed militia storms the White House? Or in what way does the 'we need to be able to defend ourselves against our govt' crowd think that guns provide the solution to whatever wrongs they perceive the govt to be inflicting?

I doubt we will see armed militia's attacking the White House soon. From what I can tell, the automobile seems to be the weapon of choice for attacking the White House, but shooting incidents are on the uptick. It seems like the first was in 1975, then 1994, then they ramp up in the 1990 and the last decade, but I can be sure. I cannot find a comprehensive compilation of the attacks.

I do think that there has been a change in attitude. Voting and political action used to be a popular method for creating political change. Even riots and throwing rocks. Now it appears that guns are becoming an acceptable, if not patriotic, option.