The Second Ammendment Lobby and Police Safety

[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.

[Stan]

David,
I recall our SO-13/15 instructors telling us that "3rd world immigrants and their offspring" involved in gang wars posed the worst threat with firearm related crimes in 2009 increasing by nearly 50%.

There was even talk that white British children attending schools in London would soon be considered a minority.

I have not done my homework (I have a day job too), but would assume this has changed ?

[davidbfpo]

David,
I recall our SO-13/15 instructors telling us that "3rd world immigrants and their offspring" involved in gang wars posed the worst threat with firearm related crimes in 2009 increasing by nearly 50%.

There was even talk that white British children attending schools in London would soon be considered a minority.

I have not done my homework (I have a day job too), but would assume this has changed ?

Some short answers.

London certainly has a widespread problem with knife crime, gangs, drugs and more - the roots of which can be seen coming from immigration. Many of the offspring, let alone their parents, are now British-born and hold UK citizenship. I don't know any stats, but 95% of all murders in London are detected - the Met's Commissioner on BBC TV last week.

Locally firearms-related incidents have dropped off, with fewer fatalities, instead the preference is for "punishment" injuries and very few ever complain officially.

Nationally the prisons have a higher number of non-white (often called BME officially) inmates.

There have been numerous references, said with pride - except for a few - that London's population is now 40% non-British born. That does not mean non-white as the last ten years have seen large French (500k mainly in London & south-east) and Polish (1m plus across the UK) communities arrive. It has been reported, mainly using polling, that "new comer" communities are more loyal to Britain than the indigenous!

[TheCurmudgeon]

There have been numerous references, said with pride - except for a few - that London's population is now 40% non-British born. That does not mean non-white as the last ten years have seen large French (500k mainly in London & south-east) and Polish (1m plus across the UK) communities arrive. It has been reported, mainly using polling, that "new comer" communities are more loyal to Britain than the indigenous!

On a personal note, I am a first and a half generation American. My mother was born in a part of Poland that is now part of the Ukraine and my father was a first generation American who fought in WWII. My mother did not teach me Polish, much to my chagrin, because we were now Americans. And even though she hated Truman for selling out Poland in the treaties with Stalin, America was her home and we were Americans.

I always assumed this was an American thing, but I guess I can see it from any group that moves to a country they see as "Utopia".

[TheCurmudgeon]

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.

I built a couple of roads in Afghanistan. We would always go to the next village the road would pass through, meet with the elders, and explain who we were and what we were doing. It was always standard to ask if there was anything else we could do. In one village the elder said "No, you come you build your road, you leave. We don't want your religion or your culture." That is a bit of a paraphrase, but generally accurate. That is not too far from the feeling you are describing. Human nature is pretty standard across the species even if what we want is not always the same.

[TheCurmudgeon]

Jumping to the Social media, every now and then I see this.

[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.

[TheCurmudgeon]

120, I understand the power of the 10th amendment, even if the Supreme Court does not. I just feel that, whatever power it had died after the civil war. Even so, the conditions that exist seem ripe for an insurgent or counter-culture attack on the traditional seats of power.

[carl]

Hey 120mm! You're back. Glad to see you. Good post too. Where you been?

Now a general comment.

I am as concerned about militarization of state an local police as anybody but in the case of the riot police shown in the photo above I really don't see how you can get away with looking like anything other than a riot control officer. A helmet, face shield, gas mask, lots of padding and a big stick are sort of the minimum if you expect guys to stand there and take it, as riot officers are sometimes expected to do. And anyway I don't see how being dressed and equipped like that is provocative. The reason for that getup and equipment is to give the officers multiple options short of shooting when rocks are flying their way. Of course it doesn't take much to provoke people who want to be provoked, and the UNM hangers on want to be provoked.

David:

I think those guys in the photo are Bernalillo County sheriffs officers. That is what it looked like from all the photos I looked at.

[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.

[Kiwigrunt]

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.

Everywhere indeed. Not just in the US. But I think there may be another issue at play here as well. I think it may have as much to do with an over-bloated bureaucracy and judicial system - ever concerned with their own existence, expansion and importance - that have become so large, complicated and powerful that even our elected politicians cannot penetrate them.

Yes Minister may be more relevant now then ever before.

[Dayuhan]

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.

Certainly annoying, but hardly terrifying, and it's hard to see that as sufficient cause to start fondling weapons and dreaming of a personal secession. Whom would one shoot over such a complaint anyway?

I think Curmudgeon has a point... the restrictions on freedom experienced not so very long ago by those who happened to be born into a racial minority, or gay, or female (all of these exist in Middle America too, believe it or not) were orders of magnitude above the annoyances of excessive regulation or (gasp) paying taxes. While we're certainly not absolutely free, I don't see a serious argument that freedom has seriously degenerated. Progress in some areas, less in others... as usual.

[TheCurmudgeon]

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,

I don' think that is anything new. Reagan bemoaned it back before the end of the Cold War. It is also not unique to the US. I think the British have complained about bureaucracy for much longer and far more than we do.

What seems to be uniquely American is how we react to it. Perhaps that is a because of our national mythology of the rugged individual. Perhaps, as 120 has also noted, the complexity and centralization of the federal government acts to create the impression of powerlessness. We are a big country. It is not easy to go to Washington and complain in person, even if you could figure out who to complain to.

But this problem has found a political voice in the Libertarian movement. So it would seem like the normal release valve for tensions around the issue of a complex and unresponsive federal system is either not working or is not truly keying in on the problem.

A scarier thought is that electoral democracy, as practiced in the United States, is no longer functioning. This is not the government of the founding fathers. They had a healthy distrust of both the common people and those in power. Originally, neither Senators nor the President were directly elected by the people. The checks on power of the President, like having to go to Congress to get permission to take the country to war, have been eroded in the name of expediency. But if that is the case, I am not hearing any arguments about what to replace the system with. The Libertarians want less government but not a different one. We seem to know what we don’t want more than we know what we want.

[carl]

Curmudgeon:

That the girdle of red tape restricting our freedom is tightening is not new is beside the point. It is tightening and it is getting to the point that degrees in difference are becoming degrees in kind. It doesn't matter that you and Dayuhan don't think so, millions and millions do. Can you start up a business making incandescent light bulbs? Nope. Can you smoke in any but a tiny few public places? Nope. Can you give your brother a 16 round magazine in Colorado? Nope, not without being a criminal. All those are restrictions of individual freedom whether some minimize them or not. Can the Little Sisters of the Poor refuse to pay for somebody else's contraception? The federal government says no, they can't. We'll see. The last is of crucial importance because the gov is perceived by millions and millions as going after religious freedom. That is very dangerous because it can be perceived as the gov breaking the social contract that is the Constitution.

How does political dissatisfaction finding a political voice in a political movement constitute a normal release valve not working? That seems as if it is working exactly as designed. Same thing with the Tea Party.

That reminds me. This whole thing got started because some UNM probable hanger on show off waved a weapon around at a demonstration and was told by the other demonstrators to knock it off and put it away. You thought that significant. We don't even know if it was real and I think it quite probable cops were very close by. That doesn't seem so significant, at least not compared to the late 60s and 70s when there were bombs going off, cops being murdered and genuine riots in the streets.

[carl]

Curmudgeon:

I forgot your last paragraph above. If you don't know what Libertarians want you haven't been reading enough. People like Ron Paul are quite explicit.

[TheCurmudgeon]

That reminds me. This whole thing got started because some UNM probable hanger on show off waved a weapon around at a demonstration and was told by the other demonstrators to knock it off and put it away. You thought that significant. We don't even know if it was real and I think it quite probable cops were very close by. That doesn't seem so significant, at least not compared to the late 60s and 70s when there were bombs going off, cops being murdered and genuine riots in the streets.

Very true. The ultimate question is are we headed that way now? If we are, can it be defused?

As for the Libertarians, I used to be one, we parted ways over the gold standard and certain foriegn policy stands, so I am aware of most of thier policy demands. But unless things changed dramaticly, they are not planing on replacing the current electoral system that I am aware of.