The Second Ammendment Lobby and Police Safety

**slapout9** · 04-05-2014

Originally Posted by 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?

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** · 04-05-2014

Originally Posted by slapout9

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** · 04-06-2014

Originally Posted by TheCurmudgeon

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** · 04-06-2014

Originally Posted by TheCurmudgeon

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** · 04-06-2014

Originally Posted by TheCurmudgeon

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** · 04-06-2014

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.