The Second Ammendment Lobby and Police Safety

[TheCurmudgeon]

Not sure if this is the right place, or if this would be better under the "Soft Sciences" but the Blog post on the latest Fort Hood shooting, tied to a recent article I saw on armed protestors made me raise a question:

"Has the Second Amendment/Assault Weapon Lobby become a destabilizing force in the US?"

Here is the thrust of the question. Has the need to justify ownership of military assault rifled pushed the lobby into playing the "right to revolution" card. Take for example:

The right of revolution requires the means of revolution and this is why the Second Amendment exists. Normally the ballot box is the only self-correction that is needed but they had no intention of giving up the same right that they exercised to give us freedom in the first place. Nor were they pious enough to assume that their correction would stay in place and that future generations would never need the more serious self-correction as they had.

http://www.libertyunderfire.org/2013...ssault-weapon/

or

Why do I need an assault rifle you ask? I don't need it for hunting. I don't need it for home protection from a single invader, or even two. So I echo the sentiment of many gun control advocates; Why do I need an assault rifle, with a high capacity clip no less?

Here is why. I need an assault rifle because I live under the rule of a government who thinks it has the right to take away my assault rifle; a government who dictates who I can marry, what I can eat, drink, and smoke; a government who uses force to take my money away from me, who charges me rent (property tax) to live in my own home: a government who commits acts of war without the consent of the people, who murders it's own citizens witout probable cause or due process; a government who has monopolized the currency with which I can trade my goods and services, then devalued that currency through inflation and taxation; a government which uses the tyranny of democracy rather than the freedom of a republic.

To put it bluntly, I need an assault rifle in the event that I might have to declare my independence from a tyrannical government. I'm statistically unlikely to ever shoot an intruder in my home. I'm statistically unlikely to ever be in the position to stop one of these rare mass killings at a school, as these things happen far less often than the media would have you believe. However, whether you are Democrat or Republican, you can easily find countless instances of the government stepping all over your rights, whether it be on social issues (marriage, gay rights, religious rights, etc.) or fiscal issues (taxation, property rights, business regulations, etc.)

http://www.dailypaul.com/266890/why-...-assault-rifle

The inevitable result is this:

Albuquerque Police Chief Gorden Eden shows a video of a protester wielding an AK-47 assault rifle during Sunday's protest held in response to the fatal March 16 shooting of a homeless man by police in the Sandia foothills. (Greg Sorber/Journal)

http://www.abqjournal.com/377167/new...ame-a-mob.html

This is the first incident that I have seen, but I would guess it will not be the last.

The question I am posing is not about gun rights. This is not a debate about the second amendment per se. It is a question about what we should do when (no longer if, now it is when) a protestor starts shooting policemen?

[carl]

Curmudgeon:

First you say "Has the Second Amendment/Assault Weapon Lobby become a destabilizing force in the US?". Then you say later in the same post "The question I am posing is not about gun rights. This is not a debate about the second amendment per se.". So I am a little confused, you say one thing then say you aren't saying that but when you said the first thing you used as tendentious a phrase as can be so it seems to me you are saying that.

And you have three unspoken premises, the first being that somehow rifles styled to look like military rifles are more suitable than say, a 7mm magnum or 30.06 elk rifle, the second being that it is inevitable that protesters will start shooting officers and the third that this is an especially dangerous situation for officers. I reject them all. If the desire was to shoot officers in some kind of riot it would be much more effective to snipe at them with a rifle of the aforementioned calibers from someplace on the periphery than to spray and pray from within the crowd if only because the other members of the crowd may take strong exception to murdering policemen and being placed in danger by the shooter. The members of the crowd in ABQ did just that, told the guy to put it away.

I don't see how protesters shooting at riot control officers is inevitable just because some UNM hanger-on show off decided to wave around his piece. Where all this happened was right close to UNM.

Third, the most dangerous part of an officers job is the traffic stop, and traffic accidents. That is where people die. If you look back at the incidents where large numbers of officers died, it is mostly traffic related incidents, accidents, terror attacks (OKC ad 9-11) and prison riots. Regular riots aren't in there.

I just so happen to have personal experience with a street 'riot' in ABQ. At that time it was mostly UNM types, students or not, having a good old socially concerned time. From looking at the photos of this incident the crowd appears to be the same type.

[TheCurmudgeon]

Curmudgeon:

First you say "Has the Second Amendment/Assault Weapon Lobby become a destabilizing force in the US?". Then you say later in the same post "The question I am posing is not about gun rights. This is not a debate about the second amendment per se.". So I am a little confused, you say one thing then say you aren't saying that but when you said the first thing you used as tendentious a phrase as can be so it seems to me you are saying that.

Carl, if you see this question as having to do with the Second Amendment than you are missing the point entirely. It has to do with propaganda and political rhetoric. It has to do with how far you can go to argue a point in a free society before you have crossed a line into creating a self-sustaining panic.

I think it is very telling that you can't see the forest for the trees.

The examples I give, particularly the second one, make it clear that this has nothing to do with gun ownership. It has to do with how an argument has been crafted to support the ownership of a specific class of guns. This class of guns is being associated with a fear of political tyranny. That the justification for owning this class of weapon is to protect our civil liberties. Now, when the class of weapon is used in a protest against perceived tyranny, are the people who made the argument responsible? Does the potential for such a response create a justification for limiting the argument? Who, if anyone, is liable and who, if anyone, should act?

I have been watching the rhetoric on news shows as reasonable people make the argument that the people must have military style assault weapons if they are going to protect themselves from the government. I don't think this is an academic question any longer. So I pose it to the council.

[carl]

Curmudgeon:

Which is it? Is it about protesters shooting policemen or is about regular type flyover American people having 'military style assault rifles? And what is a military style assault rifle, an M-1 Garand, an M-1 carbine, an M-1A with a 10 round magazine, a .303 Enfield with a 10 round integral magazine, a Ruger 10-22 with 25 round magazine or what? Any of those properly handled in the right situation is a quite deadly weapon.

When you are walking through a forest you had better be looking at the trees otherwise you will bump into one.

[TheCurmudgeon]

Carl,

a definition in common, American terms:

In discussions about firearms laws and politics in the U.S., assault weapon definitions usually include semi-automatic firearms with a detachable magazine and one or more cosmetic, ergonomic, or safety features, such as a flash suppressor, pistol grip, or barrel shroud, respectively

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_weapon

The most common one supported by these arguments are AR-15s with 30 round magazines because they tend to invoke a patriotic slant, unless you are supper afraid of the government, in which case you might prefer an AK-47.


Yes, the question has to do with the potential of protestors to shot policemen (or soldiers, or any representative of the government) because they have been convinced that the normal options of political protest are no longer available to them. That voting or rallying people is not enough of a protection any more. The only way an individual can protect him or herself from perceived government tyranny is by armed rebellion and the only way tot do that is with an assault weapon.

The ultimate questions are more broad. The first round that came to mind is how far can you really go with political speech before you cross a line into screaming fire in a theater?

As I thought about it more, a second series of questions emerged. Why does this argument work? How have a free people been convinced that the freedoms they have no longer function to protect them and they must resort to defending themselves against their own government? That free speech, free association, and the vote are no longer enough.

Perhaps I see the problem differently because I am from New Hampshire where the people's right to rebellion is written into the State Constitution. In all my time there I never felt that my right to rebellion was tied to a specific weapon system.

[slapout9]

Curmudgy,
I think the short answer is the law makers do not follow the law. The 2nd amendment plainly says the right to bear arms shall not be infringed......... at which time the lawmakers proceed to infringe upon their right. To the average person Congress and the President lack any credability.

[Kiwigrunt]

"Has the Second Amendment/Assault Weapon Lobby become a destabilizing force in the US?"

Here is the thrust of the question. Has the need to justify ownership of military assault rifled pushed the lobby into playing the "right to revolution" card.

I'll add some questions to this original one. Mine may expound on this question, if I understand it correctly.

Do US citizens truly own 'assault weapons' (what a horrible term to use in a civilian context) to defend their rights, and to defend themselves against a wayward government (rather than just home intruders)? Or is the actual ownership of those weapons in and off itself the ultimate manifestation of those rights? Can it be that the right to defend against a wayward govt has become a straw-man for the ownership of (these) guns? With other words, have the means become the end?


If the distinction between different classes of guns was never made, would the conversation still exist? I should think so. But would it be just as heated, or do these distinctions serve to concentrate and perhaps increase the heat in one direction?

[TheCurmudgeon]

I'll add some questions to this original one. Mine may expound on this question, if I understand it correctly.

Do US citizens truly own 'assault weapons' (what a horrible term to use in a civilian context) to defend their rights, and to defend themselves against a wayward government (rather than just home intruders)? Or is the actual ownership of those weapons in and off itself the ultimate manifestation of those rights? Can it be that the right to defend against a wayward govt has become a straw-man for the ownership of (these) guns? With other words, have the means become the end?


If the distinction between different classes of guns was never made, would the conversation still exist? I should think so. But would it be just as heated, or do these distinctions serve to concentrate and perhaps increase the heat in one direction?

Kiwi,

I am not sure I would have noticed the pattern unless it had been tied to a specific weapons system. Americans have always tied gun ownership to liberty, but this seems somehow different.

It also does not seem to be tied to any one complaint. Just a general feeling of government oppression. That is the part that scares me. It seems like a "Rebel without a Cause" type of thing.

So if I am seeing this correctly, there is a general dissatisfaction with the American government. A portion of the population is beginning to feel that the normal means of dealing with government dissatisfaction - free speech and the vote - are no longer adequate to deal with the problem. To top it off, they are don't seem to be able to articulate what the problem is.

At first I would have thought of it as a straw man argument for ownership. That is what I had thought for some time. But now it seems like people "believe the hype" so to speak.