The Second Ammendment Lobby and Police Safety

[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.

[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.

[Stan]

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.

Carl,
While I tend to agree with you, I have some reservations herein...

Having hunted my entire life and 23 years in the Army, I personally have no need for an AR15 nor a Kalashnikov. I think both are mass produced inaccurate firearms. If I go bird hunting I take my O/U 16 gauge, if I go deer hunting I take my 30.06 with just three rounds, and if I go skeet shooting, I take my 12 gauge and 25 rounds of 9 shot. Details, details. But the point is, any seasoned hunter or shooter could perform the same amount of damage with an 8-round .45 pistol than someone with an AR or AK. They became exotic due to hype from the anti gun types in our government. How ironic

However, I do agree that most feel that their rights are being infringed upon and some feel the immediate need to scarf up on a firearm that may end up on the endangered species list soon.

Stan,
Condor has a point and your posted link to Wiki says it all.

The definition of Weapon vs Rifle and how those definitions ended up so stifling in the public eye. The govt. provided the hype, the gun manufacturers provided the thrill, and the public went shopping.

If they ban my Colt Commander tomorrow because it has now been determined that an 8-round magazine semi-automatic pistol in the hands of a sharp shooter can kill LEO and harm to others, the general public will scarf those firearms up too.

The current limitations and bans on specific firearms (due to some fruitcake that blew a brain fuse in a shopping mall or on Ft. Hood) are too politically charged without sufficient justification. It's also illegal to possess a hand grenade. Wait til that day comes when the possessor employs it in a shopping mall !

[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.

[Stan]

Added: Stan and I replied at the same time.

Yes, but I drew faster and with a .45

[Kiwigrunt]

Yes, but I drew faster and with a .45

Well, yes. It took me a while to load 30 rounds in a mag.....

[Stan]

Well, yes. It took me a while to load 30 rounds in a mag.....

Well put !

And you obviously loaded at least two mags aka American mode, then taped them together aka African style

[Kiwigrunt]

Well put !

And you obviously loaded at least two mags aka American mode, then taped them together aka African style

Yup. M193 in one and SS109 in the other. In case I may need to defeat body armour. Also made sure my back-up sights are zeroed in...just never know!

[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 !

[carl]

Kiwi:

Perhaps if there is any de-stabilization going on it is because of the phenomenom (sic) you experienced yourself, sort of. The gov and segments of the polity seem determined to eliminate the right spelled out by the Second Amendment and people react to that.. So maybe you should look at the "Second Amendment"/scary looking like a movie weapon' lobby as a reaction to a provocation.

One of the most disturbing elements of the elite liberal establishment's attitudes is the hostility toward religion. This is being played out in some court cases now. THAT is very dangerous, far more than they know. The US is a very religious country and if the gov seriously tries to mess with that there will be trouble. Serious trouble.

Stan:

ARs, at least 5.56 mm/.223 ones aren't meant for hunting much more than prairie dogs. They are used for all kinds of other things and are good at those things.

There are really good shooters. And then there are not such really good shooters...like me. We started out with 8 shot .45s and when we switched to 16 shot Glock 31s I felt a whole lot better about things. As I felt a whole lot better with the AR up front and the 12 gauge in the trunk.

[Stan]

Stan:

ARs, at least 5.56 mm/.223 ones aren't meant for hunting much more than prairie dogs. They are used for all kinds of other things and are good at those things.

There are really good shooters. And then there are not such really good shooters...like me. We started out with 8 shot .45s and when we switched to 16 shot Glock 31s I felt a whole lot better about things. As I felt a whole lot better with the AR up front and the 12 gauge in the trunk.

Carl,
Spent most of my youth on a PA farm using my Uncle's 22-250 (basically a 5.56 with some extra umph !). My point was however that while I see no need for an AR nor AK, that's just me and the basic problem in this thread are in fact those that do want an AR or AK in the trunk and right now that should be OK. Why they want one is not an issue.

Regards, Stan

[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.

[davidbfpo]

I have been watching this discussion, which is of interest although I am "over the pond" in the UK where civilian possession of an 'assault weapon' has been illegal for many years - after mass shootings - and we have no constitution too. Caveat aside now.

However in my reading I came across this, which adds a certain poignancy to the discussion:

Eden (Albuquerque police chief) showed a video of one protester – clad in body armor – armed with an AK-47 assault rifle. The man loaded the weapon and urged onlookers to “use force against the police officers,” Eden said....Police know the assault rifle was real because officers had seen it and a review of video of the man – who put the rifle back into a van after the crowd disapproved of his actions – confirmed it. The man disappeared into the crowd, Eden said, and was not arrested

There was another protester with an AK47.

To say the least there is a mass of context to this event within a protest over a mentally ill male being shot dead by the police. If interested the officers video is available:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JwytoxMuk4U#t=14

It does illustrate the dangers posed to US LE in such a situation, one where it is the police who are the target of the protest.

Link to local press report:http://www.abqjournal.com/377167/new...ame-a-mob.html

The BBC coverage of the protest:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-26814976

[TheCurmudgeon]

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?

I doubt we will see armed militia's attacking the White House soon. From what I can tell, the automobile seems to be the weapon of choice for attacking the White House, but shooting incidents are on the uptick. It seems like the first was in 1975, then 1994, then they ramp up in the 1990 and the last decade, but I can be sure. I cannot find a comprehensive compilation of the attacks.

I do think that there has been a change in attitude. Voting and political action used to be a popular method for creating political change. Even riots and throwing rocks. Now it appears that guns are becoming an acceptable, if not patriotic, option.

[TheCurmudgeon]

I have been watching this discussion, which is of interest although I am "over the pond" in the UK where civilian possession of an 'assault weapon' has been illegal for many years - after mass shootings - and we have no constitution too. Caveat aside now.

David,

Has the question of private ownership of Military Style Semi-Automatic weapons ever been reconsidered in a political context in England since the ban was put in place?

[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