The Second Ammendment Lobby and Police Safety

[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.

[TheCurmudgeon]

Slap,

So what you are saying is because the government makes an attempt to limit assault weapon ownership, that the reasonable response is that the people assume that limitation is based on an attempt to stifle their rights, in effect proving the argument that the people need assault weapons?

[Condor]

First off, the term "assault weapon" has dubious origins making it no more than a meme within the US culture. I served 13 years in the military and last I checked there was no weapons in our inventory that carried the nomenclature "assault weapon". You could ask a 100 different people what an "assault weapon" was and probably get a hundred different answers. It's pathetic really that people with no real knowledge are passing and dictating laws on a subject they don't even understand and don't make any effort too. Instead they use any and every tragedy to promote their political agenda.

In regards to legislating "assault weapons" there's already a ton of ink on the books. Not only do individual states make their own interpretations of the 2nd Amendment, you got counties and cities within those states making their own version of what the Bill of Rights supposedly means. Many places are very strict on what you can actually have. If you believe in the 2nd Amendment and actually live in a local that is supportive of the 2nd Amendment, you still can't go buy military grade hardware. It is off limits with the exception of those individuals who actually go through the process of gaining Class 3 status to own an automatic weapon which by the way isn't cheap, involves in depth background checks and even then if it gets approved, you better keep your i's dotted and your t's crossed because if you get found in violation you better be prepared to spend a lot of time behind bars.

The founding fathers, as a majority, saw firearms as an individual right despite what many "constitutional lawyers" will say to the contrary. One only needs to study the history of the US to see why they saw this as an important individual right.

In the end, laws are worth no more than the paper they are written on. I've been all over the world where there were "strict gun laws" but that didn't stop the "bad guys" from running around with all kinds of heavy armaments. To think that simplifying a complex world into the "well if we just banned this we'd have no more killings" screams of extreme naiveté. Kind of like thinking the US can just waltz into a foreign country with a different culture and expect to turn it into a "mini America" over night.

[TheCurmudgeon]

First off, the term "assault weapon" has dubious origins making it no more than a meme within the US culture.

The history of the term can be found on Wikipedia. I have already cited it, although the term clearly causes confusion.

In regards to legislating "assault weapons" there's already a ton of ink on the books.

The founding fathers, as a majority, saw firearms as an individual right despite what many "constitutional lawyers" will say to the contrary. One only needs to study the history of the US to see why they saw this as an important individual right.

I have already stated that this is not about gun rights or the second amendment per se. But, as long as you raise the issue, the founding fathers were simply following English tradition. They were demanding rights they expected as Englishmen and they built those same rights into our Constitution.

That the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law

This provision in the English Bill of Rights is the forbearer to the second amendment to the U.S. Constitution. It is based upon the premise that the best defense against tyranny is a well armed populace. Under Cromwell, the government was authorized to seize weapons from all Catholics or those that were deemed dangerous to the government.[15] In America, the possession of the arms by the general populace allowed for the creation of militias which ultimately overcame the English Army.

In both England and America, the right to bear arms has always been one of the most controversial of constitutionally guaranteed rights. England effectively reversed this privilege with the Firearms Act of 1920. That act required subjects to receive a certificate from the police in order to legally posses a gun, and that certificate was not granted as a simple ministerial act as it is with background checks in the United States. The ability of the English to possess weapons has been limited much further under subsequent firearms acts.

In the United States, the right to bear arms is protected much more strongly. The second amendment to the U.S. Constitution provides that, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” The meaning of this provision has been highly contested, and it is not generally viewed in an absolute

This was nothing new at the time.

For a quick overview of how the right came into existence in England see the history of the Glorious Revolution and the Bill of Rights of 1689.

[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.

[slapout9]

Slap,

So what you are saying is because the government makes an attempt to limit assault weapon ownership, that the reasonable response is that the people assume that limitation is based on an attempt to stifle their rights, in effect proving the argument that the people need assault weapons?

Yes. Some history. It is clear, at least to older Americans, that the founding fathers wanted the citizens to have firepower equivalent to the military in order to prevent or put a check on the executive branch of government in order to prevent some type of Executive Order/A King George's decree from ever taking place again. To resist by force if necessary. That is also why restrictions were placed on the Executive when it comes to Declaring War and also the Prevention of large standing Armies which were all considered present and future threats to a free and primarily self governing citizenry.

[TheCurmudgeon]

Yes. Some history. It is clear, at least to older Americans, that the founding fathers wanted the citizens to have firepower equivalent to the military in order to prevent or put a check on the executive branch of government in order to prevent some type of Executive Order/A King George's decree from ever taking place again. To resist by force if necessary. That is also why restrictions were placed on the Executive when it comes to Declaring War and also the Prevention of large standing Armies which were all considered present and future threats to a free and primarily self governing citizenry.

That is the most reasonable argument I have heard. Although it is clear that the restriction on declaring war or on standing armies has long since gone by the wayside. It would also mean that the restrictions on automatic weapons and on large caliber weapons, those above .50 cal. are also unconstitutional. I have never heard that argument made in relation to maintaining our freedom, at least not in the mainstream media.

[slapout9]

That is the most reasonable argument I have heard. Although it is clear that the restriction on declaring war or on standing armies has long since gone by the wayside. It would also mean that the restrictions on automatic weapons and on large caliber weapons, those above .50 cal. are also unconstitutional. I have never heard that argument made in relation to maintaining our freedom, at least not in the mainstream media.

Curmudgy you might enjoy this article by Colonel Michael D. Wyly USMC ret. on 4GW and the Constitution. I have posted it before on a similar topic on shooting sprees. It may explain a lot as he was/is an extremely far sighted Officer.
http://www.dnipogo.org/fcs/wyly_4gw.htm

[slapout9]

I have never heard that argument made in relation to maintaining our freedom, at least not in the mainstream media.

I doubt if you ever will hear it on the mainstream media out side of FOX news. I come from the era when the responsibilities of American Exceptionalism (meaning Good Citizenship) was taught from the first grade onward. Sadly those days are gone due to Cultural Marxism/Political Correctness.

[Dayuhan]

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.

My memories may also be defective... but my memory of the late 70s is that the gun world was overwhelmingly focused on hunting and the outdoors; with competitive and recreational target shooting also in the mix. Accuracy and ease of handling were what people looked for in a firearm. I spent way too many hours on ranges, shooting and listening to the talk, never held or fired an AR or AK or similar... I don't recall ever seeing one. Lots of modified Springfields and Garands around but those were the only weapons of military pedigree you'd see around. Home defense was of course discussed, with shotgun and handgun camps prominent, and some of politically fringe characters would occasionally speak darkly of the imminent need to defend against the Commie sympathizers and their darker skinned allies if the Guvvermint failed to do its duty. Why these nefarious groups would march out of their urban haunts and head straight for our little rural enclave was never quite explained, but it was never something too many people took seriously..

I don't recall ever hearing anyone speak, or reading anything written, about the possibility of having to fight the government, and I think any talk of having to use armed force against the police would have been smacked down very quickly.

I think you're right that there have always been people around who disliked government, even hated it, but I don't think there were so many people then who feared it. That may be because government is more fearful today... but is there really any special reason for that to be so? I recall not long ago seeing photos of rows of retired MRAPs stored in a lot in the southwest being circulated as evidence of imminent government intent to declare martial law and seize absolute power. That sort of paranoia seems to me relatively new, though of course that's a very subjective observation.

I don't think people are buying AR or AK type weapons (or whatever we want to call them) with the intent to secede, revolt, or commit mass shootings... but the same qualities Carl cites as making these weapons highly suitable for defensive use even by relative non-experts also makes them equally suitable for aggressive use by relative non-experts. Given the recurrence of mass shootings and the kind of rhetoric we've discussed here... that's bound to make some people nervous. What the solution to that is, I really don't know. I'm not sure there is a really good one, and there sure isn't one that's going to make everyone happy.

[Kiwigrunt]

Carl, I fully agree with you. Except for point three. But that is a result of point two.
It has been said that Obama is the best gun-salesman the US has ever had. And it has even blown over to NZ. I have bought two of the buggers in the last two years (actually, they really just followed me home) as a result of a failed attempt by police to tightening guncontol here. I never had any intention to get any. Go figure. 'Something must be done' syndrome can indeed suffer from the law of unintended consequences.


Added: Stan and I replied at the same time.

Yup, words matter. And 'assault weapon' is a very poor choice. It is far too emotive. I think it does both sides of the argument more harm than good.
The distinction between evil guns and sports guns was made here in 1992 after….you guessed it, a massacre. But fortunately our police / law makers were wise enough to use a less emotive term. We call them MSSAs (Military Style Semi Automatic).
To point out that the function of the gun has little to do with the looks is fair enough. However, I think that over here, the distinction was made based more on the looks than anything else. It is thought that the very looks of these guns is often what can pull the massacre fuknuckles over the edge.