highthief

As I understand the reasoning behind the Right to Bear arms, it was mostly driven by the fact that Americans had felt oppressed by unjust British governments and US citizens would have the right to bear arms, partly to reduce the risk of another government attempting to lord it over the people unjustly.

My question is: has there ever been a time in US history (aside from the Civil War which was led by another government anyway) when there has been a genuine need or situation where the people should have risen up in some form of armed statement? A situation that might have been resolved in a more satisfactory manner than negotiation or acquiessence (or whatever did eventually resolve the situation) had the people pulled out their rifles and protested against the government in such a fashion.

__________________
Si vis pacem parabellum.

Seaver

The quick settlement of lands from the coast to Pacific coast was made possible only by gun ownership. While it lead to the total defeat of Indian tribes, it was fundamental in the developement of what America is today.

Many of our regiments all the way up to the 21st Century were based almost entirely on an individual's experience with weaponry. Scouts, snipers, even entire regiments were volunteer basis supported completely by prior experience with guns. From the Revolution, to the various settlement wars, to 1812... in every single engagement even up to today.

Very few people join the military without firing a gun previously. While this can easily be trained, prior experience with weaponry is a great aid.

To your question about has there been any time where an armed statement. It's not about whether there has been a successful one, but whether we should have at least some sort of ability of resistance.

dksuddeth

Tough question and the answers you'll receive are only going to be based on the individuals perception. Some of the most recent ones would be the Waco and Ruby Ridge incidents. Another one 'could' be the Elian Gonzalez episode.

Some other incidents further back would be the columbine mine massacre and the ludlow massacre where striking miners were attacked by the colorado state police and the colorado national guard, respectively.

There is also the 'bonus army protest' in washington DC.

edit: Now that i've had more time to think about this issue....

The people of California should have gathered and fought back against the state assault weapon ban and then the confiscations afterwards.

The people in chicago and its suburbs when the handgun ban was instituted in 1983. Then again when Daley ordered the police to no longer register guns in chicago, even those that had been 'grandfathered', and then when Daley instituted 'CAGE' units and ordered confiscations.

People in New Orleans when the police/national guard started confiscating weapons after katrina.

Kent state, maybe?

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

kutulu

Yes Waco and Ruby Ridge. Upstanding citizens just minding their own business. Elian Gonzalez, parental rights shouldn't apply when the parent is a communist....

dksuddeth

not to start the thread off topic, but Randy Weaver was entrapped by agents in to selling a shotgun with a barrel 1/4 of an inch under the legal limit, yet the FBI/ATF sent in snipers and an assault team, killed his son and his wife. Yeah, that was warranted.
David Koresh and the compound was raided under false pretenses, yet when it came down to it all, the only charge that was valid was not paying a tax on a weapon. All other charges were deemed not valid AFTER those left in the compound were gassed, burnt, and crushed by federal agents in armored vehicles and bradley tanks outfitted with gas dispensing apparatus'. 80 some people dead for $200. Yeah, thats warranted also.
Elian Gonzalez, that case was STILL working its way through the court system when the house was raided by armored and armed INS agents. Sure was warranted there, eh?

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

The_Jazz

DK - you're using your 20/20 hindsight glasses again. Weaver was suspected of selling illegal weapons. Any prudent person would assume that there are other weapons (legal and/or illegal) on the premises. Sending in snipers and an assault team is the prudent way to approach that situation. To argue otherwise is equivalent to saying that the police should be unarmed completely - criminals will often fire at the police in an attempt to escape. And make no bones about it, as soon as you fire at a policeman, you are a criminal.

David Koresh and the Branch Davidians had the same issues in that they were suspected of having a large stockpile of weapons and a will to use them. Should the ATF have shown up with a bouquet of flowers instead?

Elian Gonzalez's grandfather made several well-publicized statements about being willing to shoot anyone trying to take the kid and there were many threats in the Cuban community to the same effect. If an unarmed CPS social worker showed up with the lawful authority to take the kid were shot by someone in the house, what would your reaction be?

Just because some of the information turned out to be questionable AFTER THE FACT, that doesn't mean that using armed officers wasn't warranted at the time. Unless of course you have some sort of ability to see into the future and tell if folks are unarmed when you show up. In which case, please look into next week and see if they have the sports page laying around so that I can get some bets down.

__________________
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin
"There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush
"We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo

kutulu

Yes, lets forget the fact that Weaver was protecting Arayan Nation assholes. Or the fact that they were patrolling their property with weapons and promised to shoot anyone who came near them. They were white trash separatists and got what they brought upon themselves.

Was anyone killed in the raid to get Ellian?

magictoy

Your statement differs wildly from the official documentation of the incident, and quite frankly, "the white trash who got what they brought upon themselves" seems quite bigoted to me. As was proven in court, Randy Weaver was only attempting to mind his own business.

He was approached by federal agents, who asked him to sell them (I believe two) shotguns.

When he agreed, they requested that he saw off the shotgun barrels to a couple of inches under the legal limit. When he did, they identified themselves as feds and threatened to charge him unless he infiltrated the local Aryan Nation group, which he was not affiliated with. Weaver told them to go to hell.

He was charged and given a court date, but the notification he received specified an erroneous date (to be honest, he didn't go to court on the date it said, either).

His failure to appear was used as the "justification" to carry out the atrocities at his shack. I will post more details of that attack, if someone doesn't beat me to it.

In court, the feds were demonstrated to have lied repeatedly, as well as to be lawbreakers in regard to their orders to shoot. Weaver received a settlement of $3 million. I wonder if this is what you meant by "white trash who got what he brought upon himself." Many people think he should have received quite a bit more.

This is all off the top of my head. I can research it and quote exact details if necessary.

The_Jazz

magictoy, all that doesn't change the fact that officers on the raids had every reason to suspect an armed response. Their tactics were completely justifiable even if the evidence was not.

__________________
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin
"There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush
"We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo

dksuddeth

so we should all assume that anyone who sells marijuana also sells heroin, crack, and hemlock? OR that someone who passes off a bad $20 check is also embezzling billions from the world bank? see how far fetched that is?

And since you didn't follow my other post about militarized police, this would make sense. But innocent people are MURDERED by law enforcement agents because of YOUR mentality....and that's ok because the 'greater good' is served.

Nobody suggested that the police go unarmed, but even YOU have to admit that there is such a thing as overkill. A man sold ONE short barreled shotgun and we should assume he has grenades, claymores, and RPGs????

As far as firing at a policeman making someone a criminal?? Where is the fine line between a homeowner enjoying a quiet night at home with has family and shooting at a suspected home invader or a cop????

The Davidians had an ongoing contract with a local gun dealer to convert ar-15s to M16s via a government contract. This was known to the government. The ATF ALSO knew that Koresh made DAILY trips in to the town and could have picked him up at anytime. The raid was done to show the 'usefulness' of the ATF and to allow Clinton to avoid having their budget cut.

First, it was Elians uncle, not grandfather. Second, they were protecting a family member, whose case was STILL being heard by the courts. Third, the INS was given an ILLEGAL order by the AG (RENO) to take him. Every american would have had every legal right to shoot and kill ANY federal agent that tried to take him at that point in time.

Shooting at a cop does NOT make you a criminal, if it's within the law.

The constitution is the law. The law is the law. The government is NOT your friend. Get something straight jazz, they are NOT here to help or protect you. If they are violating the constitution, you are well within your RIGHTS to shoot back, kill them if necessary. Yes, you'll be prosecuted (if you're not already dead) but it's because of viewpoints like the one you espouse that perpetuates their power, not ours.

First, no charge or warrant was detailed that accused weaver of protecting 'aryan nation assholes'. Second, ANYONE can patrol their own property with weapons. I can do it here in Texas, Most anyone can do it anywhere, with the exception of a few totalitarian gun hating states. Unless a cop is coming up my driveway with warrant in hand ANNOUNCING that he has a warrant, I could warn him of trespassing and then shoot him. Did Weavers 14 year old son get what was coming to him? what about his wife? Everything else you've said is just ad hominen attacks for your unwillingness to accept whats real.

Amazingly not. Does it make any difference whether the LAW was broken or not?

SWAT teams and officers on raids have ONE, I repeat ONE, objective.....to go home at the end of their shift. I ask you, why are THEIR lives worth more than YOURS?? Worth more that YOU shouldn't be allowed to defend your life or that of your families, for the simple FEAR that a law enforcement officer could be shot or killed in the event of an accident or mistake? Personally, I think EVERY officer should expect an armed (heavily armed) and extremely violent response. Maybe that way police and politicians might take the rights of peacable citizens more seriously.

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

scout

Justifiable? Since when is it justifiable for Federal snipers to show up and hide in the woods behind your home. Since when is it justifiable for the Feds to shoot first and announce who they are later? Since when is it justifiable for the Feds to show up with trigger happy snipers, a warrant based upon trumped up lies and to kill your wife and son before making it clear who they are? Respectfully Sir, I haven't any idea where you are coming from or how in the world you can find anything about that justifiable or even remotely constitutional. The fact he won 3 million from our beloved central government should tell you something. How in the world can you find anything about this justifiable? Just think, your home, your wife and your child could be next, all it takes is a phone call to the local police with some BS story about drugs.

highthief

I am not familiar with this - did the police shoot people and take away their guns or something?

__________________
Si vis pacem parabellum.

dksuddeth

No, back in the late 90s, AG Lockyear started requiring registration of certain weapons with the institution of the state assault weapons ban. The ban had a grandfather clause in it and as long as those weapons were registered before a certain date, they were to be considered 'safe' to own. A few years later, using a bad interpretation by the State supreme court, Lockyear had state police go door to door at these houses that followed the law and registered those specific weapons, and confiscated them. The state assault weapons ban was contested as well and it was the traitorous justice reinhardt who delivered probably the most bogus opinion about the collective rights theory ever.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/.../0115098ap.pdf

The denial opinion by Justice Kozinski is probably the best opinion EVER written by a sitting justice concerning the second amendment.

http://www.keepandbeararms.com/silveira/enbanc.asp

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

highthief

So did these people get their guns back or is it still before the courts on appeal?

__________________
Si vis pacem parabellum.

dksuddeth

Silveira v. Lockyer was denied a rehearing en banc (means that the full panel of the ninth circuit denied the rehearing) and was denied cert by the supreme court, so any weapon that was confiscated is gone for good with zero recompense by the government.

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

American

This response is totally emotional, and not based on law or logic.

If there has never been a need to take up arms, maybe it's because the 2nd Amendment exists.

__________________
American
A Conservative in your face