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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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?

[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]

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.

[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.