The Second Ammendment Lobby and Police Safety

[TheCurmudgeon]

Condor, I don't see this as a second amendment question. Let me try approaching this from a different angle.

Lets look at Weber's definition of a state:

According to Weber, a state is any "human community that (successfully) claims the monopoly of the legitimate use of physical force within a given territory.

Without using the meme, a specific class of firearm has been argued to be a requirement to keep the state from having that monopoly. No other weapon system (even large caliber weapons or automatic weapons) have been associated with the population's ability to challenge the state's monopoly on violence.

I know THIS argument is harder to comprehend then the simpler argument, but it is the same in certain ways. It is based on a distrust in the government to perform the basic functions it is founded to perform. The assault weapons argument takes that a step further, where the government not only can't perform its basic functions, but is now an active threat.

I personally don't think this is an industry argument to allow them to sell more AR-15s. This is not the "Commercial elite" controlling the "common people" with fear driven arguments that they must protect themselves. I think it is an argument that exists amongst the people that the industry has keyed in on. There is much distrust of the government that goes beyond a simple dislike of the current administration. It sometimes manifests itself in that form, but it is far more pervasive than that. I believe the thinking is part of a larger change in the culture of the US, but I can't put my finger on it. The larger questions raised here are the ones I am interested in.

In the incarnation I am referring to it shows up as a absolute requirement for the population to be armed. But not just armed with a gun, armed with a military style weapon. And not just armed for self protection against criminals, but armed for protection against the very state that the people created.

It is this total lack of trust in the government in a segment of the population that I am interested in. This argument for assault weapons is just the clearest form of it.

So again, the question becomes why do people feel this way in a free society. The British came to trust the system enough in the 1920's to restrict gun ownership. We never have. In the recent times there have been several groups who have tried to break away from the government or blatantly challenged it. This is not new. What seems to be changing is the INDIVIDUAL interest in the need to challenge the system, or at least be protected from it.

Is this a result of more aggressive policing? Have incidents like Rodney Kings cause a severe lack in trust of the police. Is it part and parcel to the release of documents that has demonstrated that your government spies on you? What makes people believe that they need military style assault weapons to protect themselves from their own government? What happens when they finally start to use them?

[TheCurmudgeon]

Another article arguing - again - American's need semi-automatic rifles on par with what the military has to defend themselves against their own government.

Vice President Joe Biden’s effort to convince the American people last year that a shotgun was much better protection than semi-automatic rifle probably won’t persuade the Venezuelan citizens who have had to run for cover from their own police and military.

[Condor]

First off you continue to use the term "military style assault weapons" when I clearly pointed out the military doesn't use the nomenclature "assault weapon" for any of their weapons (though on a side note the term has been adopted by so many within our culture that there are even people within the "profession of arms" who will use that term). It's kind of like the whole "clip/magazine" terms that constantly get interchanged within our culture despite the fact that a clip and a magazine are clearly different things.

Look, I'm not going to get bogged down in an argument over the term but I do believe when people start using terminology that isn't correct or of dubious origin it immediately sends warning signals up in my head that "here we go again, someone is going to lecture about the evil assault weapon" when as I clearly pointed out you could ask a hundred different people and get a hundred different answers. There are many firearms out there that can be dress up with fancy wood furniture, has a 5 round magazine, no flash suppressor and no bayonet lug and most people if shown a picture wouldn't give it pause. If you suddenly take all those features off the weapon and put on black plastic furniture, a 30 round magazine, flash suppressor and bayonet lug it immediately becomes an "assault weapon" to most people.

As far as the American public having access to military grade weapon systems, not going to happen anytime soon. Like I said, I spent 13 years in the military and last time I checked, local gun shops aren't selling M240s, M2s, Javelins, TOWS, MK19s, Stingers, etc. It is possible to own an automatic weapon but as I pointed out it takes a lot of money and hoops to jump through. So today the whole argument of citizens being just as well armed as their military becomes kind of a moot point.

With that being said, as you pointed out above, there's a large percentage of people who expect their government to live up to the founding principals of this country. I am well aware of the history of both this and the English country. I guess one could argue that our founding fathers did not imagine the advances that would take place in military weapons and equipment, so I can see where some could argue as I stated above that today the thought of the average citizen being as well armed to his military counterpart is a joke. With that being said, if people feel that government is stepping outside their moral (and legal) bounds then resistance will arise at some point. I think Colonel Jones has done a great job articulating how "insurgencies" start. Also keep in mind that despite all our military grade hardware, we are getting our butts kicked by a bunch of people who are still living in the 12th century. Of course we could blame that on lack of any type of long term strategic goals but alas that is a different subject.

By the way, there was just a recent home invasion near where I live and 10 "suspects" were caught and charged with the home invasion. People can sit there and say "but you don't need a 30 round magazine". Obviously these very same people have never been in a gunfight.

PS-I wouldn't take everything that is put on WikiPedia as gospel. Anyone can "edit" or put what they like on there, doesn't mean it's correct.

[TheCurmudgeon]

Look, I'm not going to get bogged down in an argument over the term but I do believe when people start using terminology that isn't correct or of dubious origin it immediately sends warning signals up in my head that "here we go again, someone is going to lecture about the evil assault weapon" when as I clearly pointed out you could ask a hundred different people and get a hundred different answers.

Again, this argument has nothing to do with the the assault weapons, or guns in general. It has to do with people, what makes them think and act in certain ways. Think of this as a look at the Human Domain, except we are looking at our own Domain, the American public.

[Condor]

Again, this argument has nothing to do with the the assault weapons, or guns in general. It has to do with people, what makes them think and act in certain ways. Think of this as a look at the Human Domain, except we are looking at our own Domain, the American public.

Well, focusing on the just the "human domain" as I pointed out I think there's a large percentage of people in this country (and possibly growing) who think that their government is getting out of control. As I also mentioned, this reality or perception whether it's true or not can and possibly will at some point lead to insurgency of some sort. One only has to peruse many of the "forums" on the internet or look at many of the bumper stickers on vehicles and one starts to realize that there is 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.

Companies (i.e. firearm companies) have also learned to vote with their feet by leaving states and locales that are no longer favorable towards them. So I do agree with you (assuming this is your point) that there are many out there who feel threatened and are thus pooling into a growing percentage of people why are "afraid" of their government.

[TheCurmudgeon]

Well, focusing on the just the "human domain" as I pointed out I think there's a large percentage of people in this country (and possibly growing) who think that their government is getting out of control. As I also mentioned, this reality or perception whether it's true or not can and possibly will at some point lead to insurgency of some sort. One only has to peruse many of the "forums" on the internet or look at many of the bumper stickers on vehicles and one starts to realize that there is 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.

Companies (i.e. firearm companies) have also learned to vote with their feet by leaving states and locales that are no longer favorable towards them. So I do agree with you (assuming this is your point) that there are many out there who feel threatened and are thus pooling into a growing percentage of people why are "afraid" of their government.

I started this thread with a question. I have been developing my thoughts and honing in on what bothers me as we go, so I apologize if the early statements seem random.

I don't see the gun companies as the problem. They are simply responding to the feeling of the people - providing them what they want. My question has more to do with why the people want these guns. They seem to have a specific reason to buy them and the demand is growing (or it appears that way).

I also cannot determine what the complaint is. There are a number of talking heads out there who play on this trying different avenues (its the immigrants, its the socialist leanings of the government, its the rich people) but none of them seem to hit the mark. In the past where there was a problem it could be turned into a political movement and then either addressed by the government or co-opted by those in charge. This doesn't seem to have coalesced on any one theme that can be politically addressed.

The only common thread is that the people feel the need to be armed with weapons they feel even their odds in a fight with the police or the military. That worries me. Assuming the normal political system cannot address whatever this is, I believe it is only a matter of time till someone actually starts shooting.

I could be overstating this, but I don't think so.

[Dayuhan]

This (cited in original post):

I need an assault rifle in the event that I might have to declare my independence from a tyrannical government... 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.)

sounds less like a manifestation of the right to revolution than a proclamation of a right to shoot someone if the government pisses you off. One wonders how exactly the author intends to declare his independence, and whom he intends to shoot, over any of the issues mentioned.

I have no desire at all to see the right to see the right to keep and bear arms excessively constrained, but at the same time rights come with responsibilities, and if enough of this sort of talk goes around for long enough, sooner or later somebody's going to act on it and somebody is going to get shot.

It is interesting, and to me a little disconcerting, to see how the gun rights discourse has changed over the last few decades.

[TheCurmudgeon]

This (cited in original post):



sounds less like a manifestation of the right to revolution than a proclamation of a right to shoot someone if the government pisses you off. One wonders how exactly the author intends to declare his independence, and whom he intends to shoot, over any of the issues mentioned.

I have no desire at all to see the right to see the right to keep and bear arms excessively constrained, but at the same time rights come with responsibilities, and if enough of this sort of talk goes around for long enough, sooner or later somebody's going to act on it and somebody is going to get shot.

It is interesting, and to me a little disconcerting, to see how the gun rights discourse has changed over the last few decades.

Maybe because this has been a slow burn I never noticed it. And there were always the fringe out there who hated the government. The guy who refused to pay income tax because he felt the founding fathers were against it, or the group that went off into the woods and declared themselves an independent nation, but it did not seem to have this same general appeal.

[carl]

Since the motivation for buying an AR or an AK seems to be an issue here, I would like to comment on the reason most people who I know who bought one of these weapons did so. First, a lot of people over the years have had an interest in those weapons but never felt the urge to buy one UNTIL the government started to talk about imposing restrictions on them. Then those people figured if they had any interest in having one they had better get it quick and the guns started flying off the shelves. This first started in the 1990s and has happened periodically since. In other words, not nearly so many weapons would have been sold if the gov had kept it's mouth shut.

Second, the guns are easy to shoot well and they are fun to shoot. That is a huge reason they are so popular, they're fun.

Third, the ammunition isn't that expensive. More expensive than .22 but not so nearly so bad as most center fire calibers.

Fourth, ARs are extremely versatile weapons. You can set them up to do anything from prairie dog hunting to long range target shooting to home defense.

Fifth, regardless of what the big city progressive types think, ARs and AKs give a person much more confidence that they can effectively defend themselves than Mr. Biden's double barrel. And they also give any potential criminal that much more pause.

Finally, throughout our history civilians have had free access to the same kind of rifle that the military has had, and in fact during times of technical transition they have had access to much better weapons than the military was equipped with. There is nothing unique here.