"Assault Weapons" Confiscation Turn Violent in Boston
 

"Assault weapon" confiscation turns violent in Boston

Scores Killed, Hundreds Injured As Para-Military Extremists Riot

CNN - BOSTON, April 20 - National Guard units seeking to confiscate a cache of recently banned assault weapons were ambushed on April 19th by elements of a para-military extremist faction. Military and law enforcement sources estimated that 72 were killed and more than 20 injured before government forces were compelled to withdraw.

Speaking after the clash, Massachusetts Governor Thomas Gage declared that the extremist faction, which was made up of local citizens, has links to the radical right-wing tax protest movement. Gage blamed the extremists for recent incidents of vandalism directed against internal revenue offices.

The governor, who described the group's organizers as "criminals," issued an executive order authorizing the summary arrest of any individual who has interfered with the government's efforts to secure law and order.

The military raid on the extremist arsenal followed wide-spread refusal by the local citizenry to turn over recently outlawed assault weapons. Gage issued a ban on military-style assault weapons and ammunition earlier in the week. This decision followed a meeting in early April between government and military leaders at which the governor authorized the forcible confiscation of illegal arms. One government official, speaking on condition of anonymity, pointed out that "none of these people would have been killed had the extremists obeyed the law and turned their weapons over voluntarily."

"Government troops initially succeeded in confiscating a large supply of outlawed weapons and ammunition. However, troops attempting to seize arms and ammunition in Lexington met with resistance from heavily-armed extremists who had been tipped off regarding the government's plans.

During a tense standoff in Lexington's town park, National Guard Colonel Francis Smith, commander of the government operation, ordered the armed group to surrender and return to their homes. The impasse was broken by a single shot, which was reportedly fired by one of the right-wing extremists. Eight civilians were killed in the ensuing exchange.

Ironically, the local citizenry blamed government forces rather than the extremists for the civilian deaths. Before order could be restored, armed citizens from surrounding areas had descended upon the guard units. Colonel Smith, finding his forces overmatched by the armed mob, ordered a retreat.

Governor Gage has called upon citizens to support the state/national joint task force in its effort to restore law and order. The governor has also demanded the surrender of those responsible for planning and leading the attack against the government troops. Samuel Adams, Paul Revere, and John Hancock, who have been identified as "ringleaders" of the extremist faction, remain at large.

Colonial News Network (CNN) April 20, 1775
-----------------------------------------------------


Food for thought.

Imagine if they were Texans...

it's always the civvies that get hurt eh?

What's the lesson for today? Should we encourage armed resistance to weapons bans or the ATF? Are we talking revolution? Is this about the seizure of weapons from Iraqi citizens?

Funny lesson but the story could still be interpreted either way honestly

It's a bit of background as to why we have the 2nd Amendment.

I understand the 2nd amendment and it's historical roots, but phrasing the story in modern terms definitely evokes the memories of Waco and other occasions that federal agents were murdered while attempting to reign in right-wing fringe elements. This may be the intent of the original author.

I certainly hope that if such a confiscation were to take place today that there would be similar violent resistance by the law-abiding gun owners.

..from our cold dead hands. :)

You may interpret it though whatever ideological filter you choose. To me, it underscores the notion that "a government that fears an armed citizenry is a government to be feared."

So you support the murder of federal agents? What if they were rounding up automatic weapons or explosives? How about pre-ban Tec-9's? How illegal does a weapon have to be before it's seizure no longer excuses murder?

I have a sneaking suspicion that the NRA does not endorse this view.

You are focusing upon the wrong aspects. The point which strikes me is that citizens in arms against an oppressive government will be portrayed as criminals.

I do admit, however, that if I had been at Ruby Ridge, I would have had no issue with taking out the agent that shot Weaver's wife in the head while she was holding her baby.

Does this apply to all banned weapons?

I wouldn't be so flippant when discussing the murder of a federal agent. This is the same dangerous line of thinking that inspired Timothy McVeigh.

I've admitted to supporting the 2nd amendment in other threads, but that doesn't mean that I endorse the kind of inflammatory language that leads to the death of law enforcement officers.

Mrs. Weaver was brutally murdered by a federal agent while doing nothing more than holding her baby. My comment was not meant to be flippant. Weaver had every right to shoot in self-defense.

I know the details of Ruby Ridge and what the FBI did was reprehensible. Romanticising Randy Weaver or attacks on federal agents is still irresponsible.

I knew exactly what the story was about when I saw a reference to Governor Thomas Gage. Does that make me a nerd?

Nope, not unless you also can draw significant parallels between his life and Obi Wan Kenobi's.

Well both Gage and Kenobi were.... oh wait ;)

Anyways I hate to nitpick but if people want to view it through their own ideological filter, then why suddenly say they are viewing the wrong aspects wonder?

I would not support the killing of federal agents if this were to officially banned weapons - if its the law against illegal weapons (like rocket launchers as a way out example) then I would support the federal agents.

However, usually that doesn't happen. If they were doing this on a whim, then yes, I would hope those agents think better and don't let that happen.

Anyways I'm still in wondering at some things - on the one hand there is always the "trust the government" side of people then on the other, they support killing them in other issues.

:rolleyes::crazy: :crazy: :crazy:

I described a pretty rare scenario, but it was an attempt to shed some light on the undercurrent of rage that runs beneath some of the rhetoric of the lunatic right. I know that no one here supports the murder of federal agents.

well, this is kinda funny---you had a colonial government reacting to revolt in 1775---lexington and concord--if you had supported the revolt in principle --not because they had guns---then breaking it woudl be a revolt. if not, you would have thought of it this way.
to make a martyr out of the militia types or out of david koresh by analogy means that you support them politically, in the case of the militia types, or religiously, in the case of david koresh. in which case you might argue that what got each of them killed was wrong.

fine.
but to go from that link--which seems to me only a link for people on the extreme right---to an argument for the continued relevance of the 2nd amendment as if the amendment was a platonic principle, is absurd. the fact that it is still operative has to do with its not having been voided by precendent or explicitly overturned by subsequent amendment--that is the fact of the matter, that's all there is to it--and that is a matter of political pressure not being brought to bear in an adequately sustained manner, to overturn it, or political pressure being brought to bear to defeat such attempts---there is nothing transcendent about it--no eternal proof that guns=freedom to be had by it. the equation of 1775 with 2004 on any other level is just arbitrary.

by that logic you would also have to argue for the eternal legitimacy of slavery.

what i find bizarre in more or less real time is the gradual assimilation of militia movement views into the mainstream of the republican worldview.
i remember the shift being repeated ad infinitum by the various am radio talking heads i used to listen to---after my previous fixation on militia radio waned....
how exactly did this happen though, beyond that?
how exactly did people not part of the militia movement in the early 1990s, say, who are now (to my amazement) not necessarily the lunatic fringe of the cultural expression of the republicans (whereas in the early 1990s they would have been) come to make a martyr of the ruby ridge people, for example?
do people see the cultural right being not seperate from these more extreme right positions? or only by a small spectrum?
how is that possible?

Roachboy,

Who are you addressing with your comments?

They are two different things. The aspect is the "object"; the filter is the lens through which it is viewed.

Well even I can see that different. They're viewing the same article but see a different conclusion/aspect.

Then again, who cares?

The article is interesting, particularly the use of "assault weapon." The US Governmetn has basically deemed an "assault weapon" to be a semiautomatic weapon that looks nasty. Placed in a colonial era, what would make one musket an assault weapon while another musket would be legal? Bayonets I guess?

I thought we didn't support posting a news article without adding commentary of our own? :)

In my mind it only serves to underscore how much the situation in the US has changed in 225 years and how archaic the second amendment really is.

See, here's the thing.
Constitutionally, there is NO SUCH THING as a "banned weapon." Doesn't exist, can't exist. Any person has the right to own any discrete weapon they chose to own, until they conclusively prove that they are evil and dangerous. This is not a right 'granted' by any Constitution, politician, or beurocrat ( sp? ); it is a Natural Right, ours by virtue simply of being human.
That being said, any Fed who tried to "confiscate" ( also known as STEAL ) one's weapons is no longer a Law Enforcement Officer. This person is now in violation of their Oath of Office and is committing a crime of violence. Therefore, any Fed who confiscates weapons is, IMO, fair game. It is no longer murder when a Citizen is defending their Freedom from attack. It is self-defense, and any Federal traitor who gets the hammer dropped on him got what he had coming.
Lest someone get the idea that I am a member of the "lunatic right;" I support the legalization of drugs and prostitution, the abolition of "victimless crime" laws, and the ouster of the entire Bush admin.
Someone will doubtless come back with some tired VPC claptrap about how "You just want to see the streets flooded with AK-47s and Uzis!" Nothing would make me happier. If average Citizens were suitably and openly armed, maybe Tom Ridge and John Ashcroft would think twice before passing/enforcing any more of the Patriot Act crap we've been flooded with for the past 3 years. If average Citizens were suitably armed, inner-city rioting such as we saw in Los Angeles ten years ago would be a thing of the past. There are countless videos and photographs of Korean shopowners successfully defending themselves and their livlihoods with "AK-47s and Uzis!!!" from roving mobs of thugs; check it out. It's quite informative.
The 2nd Amendment was written specifically to provide for armed Rebellion against a corrupt, oppressive Govornment. I cannot for the life of me understand why leftists, who are rightly upset about Ashcroft/Bush et al, don't get this concept. It was meant to allow us to protect ourselves from PEOPLE LIKE THEM!! ( Ashcroft, I mean. ) And you want us to disarm ourselves in the face of such tyranny?

PS:
Someone is now doubtless going to fly off and say "You support McVeigh and terrorism and murdering kittens!"
Nope, wrong, sorry. McVeigh was a murderous asshole at best. He intentionally attacked a target filled with "non-combatants" to use the military jargon, knowing he would kill them. This is criminal, and he rightly paid for his horrendous crime.
Defending yourself from Federal lawbreakers and blowing up a building full fo secretaries are entirely different things.

The_Dunedan,

I understand your point, but how far do you go with a strict interpretation of the 2nd amendment? Should private citizens have the right to possess heavy machine guns? Rocket launchers? Anti aircraft missles? Surely you draw the line somewhere. If not, than your belief is not in line with that of the average American. That doesn't make you wrong, per se, but it does illustrate the such a belief is in the vast minority.

Macho vitriole that speaks wistfully of "dropping the hammer" on "any Federal traitor" is drifting uncomfortably close to the rhetoric of white seperatists and other murderous extremists.

cthulu--it was kinda late when i wrote that post above of mine--i was reacting to the strange strange exchanges that involved wonderwench and you, for the most part. not so much your part in the exchange, but to tell you what i was thinking about---i was just trying to figure things out.

kadath made the central point more directly than i managed.

i get really baffled by the kind of claim that makese the 2nd amendment into some platonic form simply becuase it had not been overturned.

but the bizarre thing is the drift of republican cultural politics into militia-type stuff over the question of guns.....that occurred to me as i was writing, and i really dont understand it---so that part was addressed to whomever could help me understand it.
it seems germaine, for lots of reasons.......

A key element excluded from this amusing article is of course the underlying motive of this (<b>right wing?! </b> :confused: )tax protest movement - being "no taxation <b>without representation</b>".

Being that modern Bostonians are indeed represented in the US Congress by those they elect, I don't see the connection.

It's a fun article but that's where the analogy really neglects reality.

Roachboy,

Is your logic selectively applied to the 2nd amendment or does it stand for all of the Bill of Rights? One could also say that free speech is only seen as inviolate because the 1st amendment has not yet been overturned. Although the meaning of the 2nd amendment has been stretched absurdly by the power of modern weapons, it is dangerous business to begin striking down parts of the Constitution and Bill of Rights. This opens the door to all sorts of kooks who may not agree with you on what rights should be stricken.

I agree that extremist language has been leaking into mainstream conservative thought about guns, and I think that it is a dangerous trend. My posts here have tried to illustrate this trend and it's logical conclusion.

cthulu--the argument came out of the posts that preceded it, actually--normally i woudl not have made it that way, because you are right about its implications.
on the other hand, given that we live in a precedent-based legal system, consitutional features are constantly modified....i suppose that i should have been clearer about that....i was thinking about prohibition, etc.

and on the other matter--yes, i agree--but i was thinking about how that leaking happened....am really not sure.....

cool name, btw--there is something kinda cool about talking to cthulu. you would expect noneuclidian arguments from him, though.......

I don't think the Founding Fathers intended to let Joe Average have access to Weapons of Mass Destruction; back then the most damage a person could do was shoot one person at a time. As times change so does the need for revised laws. And it's at that point that our problems arise.

It all depends on how you interpret the 2nd Amendment. I personally feel that citizens should be prevented from owning explosives and weapons that incorporate explosives (such as rocket launchers), and restricted (requiring registration) from owning automatic weapons. Everything else should be permitted included short-barrel shotguns, silencers, pistols, and anything else that is neither explosive or fully automatic in nautre.

I think that the militia-esque vitriole began appearing in mainstream thought after Ruby Ridge and Waco. Some of the government's actions at RR and Waco were indefensible (one can look to the treatment of leftists in the 60's to see earlier examples of federal malfeasance towards radicals), which inflamed the sensibilities of mainstream gun advocates as well as fringe elements. Although this anger was justified on many levels, it did have the unfortunate side effect of bringing the language of extremists into more common usage.

I agree with DelayedReaction. Small arms should be legal as it was looked upon as the right of citizens to own them and to equip a militia. Cannons, rockets and like could be argued but I would be against the average person owning them.

One of the arguments against the 2nd amendment concerning guns is the argument "what small arms would do against a government armed with tanks?" One has to only look at what our founding fathers used against the vaunted British fleet, which in many cases was nothing more than a rowboat with a cannon in it.

but i dont think having a gun makes you free.

guns are commodities like any other.

at one level, it would be like arguing that having a nice hat makes you free.

on the other hand, guns can kill people. so in a kind of flintstone way, they make it more possible to separate yourself from your environment.

but if you are not thinking about what this freedom thing might be, what kind of order would enable it, and whether this is or is not that order, then you are not free because you have a gun.

you are just like everyone else who you might see as a willing servant of the existing order, except that you are an armed willing servant of the existing order.

and i do not see how you are thinking if you simply turn round and round within the circles set for you by the dominant ideology, even if you do some subversive shopping and isolate certain features that you like--nation, "the real america"--if you cannot step outside those terms and consider why they operate for you..

otherwise, your politics are a form of consumerism.
and buying shit does not make you free.

freedom, if such a thing is possible under the present economic and social regimes, is a politics.
a gun is a thing, an object.
there is nothing magical about it.

Oh my goodness. Given how the scope and power of the federal government has exceeded the darkest fears of the Founders, the 2nd Amendment is more necessary than ever.

RB,

A gun is a tool. In and of itself it does not make one free. What makes us free is our willingness to defend our liberty. Action defines us.

Being a servant of the existing order is volitional; I do not choose to live in that manner.

Given how great the military has already gone up, do you really think giving people guns would make it harder for the government to suddenly decide to take it all over?

Knowing the destructive ability of the military machine first hand, I'd tell you that even arming people with rocket launchers wouldn't do much good - its more likely the soldiers decide to fight for freedom rather than the oppressive government.

Of course that is all hypothetical.

Anyways I have little issue with people owning small arms. Hell I have some of my own. I don't like the thought of people owning rocket launchers, RPGs, cannons, and machine guns though - not what I'd like to see driving down the street anyways.

And to be honest, most everyone is living under the existing order. Heck, wanting to live under one branch / style is still living under another. I'm not so concerned about revolting against the government right now though in so much I am concerned about them deciding to monitor everything.

There are more issues far more likely to take away our freedoms with an air of legitimacy than an illegitimate move to take over the country.

And we have now expressed the diamterically opposed views of this argument. I feel you and I have little or nothing left to say on this issue.

I don't think the 2nd Amendment is archaic, and I certainly don't think our government has gone away from what the Founders intended. As a whole the Constitution is intact, and like any successful civilization America has changed with the times.

The reason I believe citizens should be allowed to be armed is because I have yet to hear a valid argument for revoking this freedom. Any restriction that is placed upon a people without a valid reason is an unnecessary, and should be abolished. The NFA of 1934 is an example of a restriction with valid support; civilians are not subject to the threat that would require a defense in the form of armor piercing rockets. But I have yet to see a valid reason to ban all guns in general.

Although I believe in the 2nd Amendment there has to be limits placed on it. We have established limits on just about all of the other rights granted by the BOR:

1. You can't yell "fire" in a movie theater
3. Child pornography is not allowed
3. Pornography can be deemed "obscene"
4. The FCC can enforce arbitrary "descency standards"

That's just 4 general examples of limits to the 1st Amendment, there are many others. They were not part of the original constitution because they were not considered to be an issue at the time or techology was not developed that would be relevant to the issue. Just about every other Amendment has it's own limitations. Why should the 2nd Amendment be any different?

When establishing a limit to the 2nd Amendment, two key issues need to be addressed. To what extent would this weapon be used for self defense or sporting and how much collateral damage can result from the use of this weapon or its ammunition?

When you consider high power weapons capable of firing ammunition at a high rate you put people who are not involved in your dispute at a higher risk. It only takes one well placed shot to kill an attacker. Obviously more than one shot may be necessary but if you fire 30 rounds at someone there's 20 something rounds extra that have the ability to harm people that are not involved in your dispute. Your life is no more valuable that the other innocent person on the street or in their house.

Explosive devices are also way beyond the realm of self defense and sporting.

What about the people that just flip out one day and start shooting people at random? Right now people who do that are usually limited to handguns and rifles. What if next time it's some psycho with MP5's and a bag full of grenades?

If M-60's are available to the general public, what's to keep a team of bank robbers from setting up machine gun nests in case the cops get there before they leave?

I understand that the term "assault rifle" is poorly defined. That needs to be addressed. However the 2nd Amendment is like all the other Amendments with respect to how limits may need to be placed as time and technology advances.

Freedom cannot be bought like a gun but it can be taken away without one. A disarmed public is no threat to a government and is easier to control. If several 9/11 style attacks occurred and martial law was declared indefinitely even after terrorism was stopped/defeated what would make the super empowered politicians give back the power they usurped? Hopefully peaceful protesting could get it done but if not there is always the threat of force. In more ancient times garden implements would have been used but guns at least even the playing field some.

The argument about 10 round mags limiting damage doesn't make much sense. If some nut case takes an assault weapon in a shopping mall and starts firing can you run away far enough in the 5 seconds it takes to change the mag? The sniper in Washington was a good example. He was armed with a M16 knockoff with a post ban 10 shot mag. His kills were all with 1-2 shots. He might as well have used a single shot muzzleloader.

sighes.

wonder, i really wish you read things more carefully at times.....

When it comes to freedom of speech issues, many of those things are just as hotly contested as the 2nd Amendment. Child pornography and yelling "fire!" in a theater are outlawed because they actively endanger innocent people (meaning the act itself causes harm), but obscenity laws are being contested.

People can say "fire" in certain circumstances, and not in others. The trend in terms of the 2nd Amendment is much more severe; it would be like banning use of the word fire altogether.

I agree with your key points regarding whether or not a weapon should be banned.

You can use the same argument to ban cars, chainsaws, axes, and a host of other items that have been used by psychopaths. Extreme situations such as that, while a valid concern, are outside the realm of the government's control. Removing a tool does not solve the problem.

Quote:

I understand that the term "assault rifle" is poorly defined. That needs to be addressed. However the 2nd Amendment is like all the other Amendments with respect to how limits may need to be placed as time and technology advances.

I agree that legislation must be used to address changing times. The problem is that much of the legislation (including the AWB) does not address changing times, it utterly violates an established right. Assault weapons are not poorly defined; the AWB provides specific descriptions. An assault weapon is defined as a semi-automatic weapon (meaning one shot per pull of the trigger) that contains specific cosmetic items such as a pistol grip on a rifle or a flash suppressor. The ban has had no effect on crime, as many of the weapons are available in other formats without the cosmetic changes. In essence our government banned weapons that look nasty.

Should children be allowed to own machine guns? Of course not. Should criminals be able to walk into Wal*Mart and buy a missile launcher? No. But law-abiding citizens should be allowed to own and purchase any small arm that they desire, and be allowed to carry that weapon (concealed or openly displayed) on public property.

If someone wants to own a gun, they should be allowed to request and obtain a license. They should need to go through proper safety training and complete demonstration (just like getting a drivers license), and register their firearms in the same manner that they register a car.

Actually, I read it carefully and I STILL don't understand what you are trying to say.

Your reasoning is without proper thought/morals behind owning a weapon it doesn't make you free which is true. However unless you live in some social uptopia without any weapons a disarmed populance is at the mercy of its leaders who are so equiped. A monk in China could have dreams of freedom but without something to threaten the government back he will end up as a tread smeer on a tank.

This isn't necessarily addressed to your post but this is in general:

A gun still won't knock out a tank. Nor will a single person with a gun threaten a 'government.'

The best thing going for this 'government' though is that the 'government' is made up of people.

At any rate I only find it silly because, in the end, guns or not, you're not going to stop the modern military unless the people running it are on your side.

If the entire military were robots, then yes, do fear indeed for they may be controlled at the whim of one mad man.

Which is another reason why I find the guns versus government argument to be a bit off in the modern day. Do they protect you from government? If you mean immediate government, sure, though you really shouldn't be needing if lest you commit a crime. Then, in which case, who is more wrong? Surely, it would depend on the nature of the crime.

But against the modern military? This is one of those catch-22s and double edged blades. The stronger you want the military, the less likely you have a chance at stopping it. It's just a simple fact and a good reason why revolts don't happen at the rates they do today in nations without military support.

But in the end, that's probably the least of my concerns right now. It's far easier to slowly take away our rights one by one through means deemed legitimate than to take away our rights illegally in force.

In your attempt to shoot down my arguement that assault weapons are poorly defined you only supported it.

Anyways, the arguement that we NEED M60's and rocket launchers in order to defend ourself against an oppressive government is ricockulous. I don't care how many machine guns or conventional explosives the population has, the Amry could smash any real threat to the "oppressive government" if they needed to. The Armed Forces have tanks, missile batteries, artillery, helicopters, fighter jets, bombers, aircraft carriers, battleships, submarines, and a whole mess of other means of disposing of insurgents.

What is too far? Should a militia with the funding be able to maintain it's own air force? We'd surely have to shoot down Air Force jets if we fought back against the oppressive government. They'd also need their own tanks and artillery. Should my neighbor keep a M1-A tank in the garage? How about something more simple like 3 tons of C4?

Look at Iraq. The insurgents have whatever automatic weapons and RPG's they need to arm themselves. They have not brought down the military yet. They are a bug in our ass that causes mayhem and kills people at random but they aren't driving us out of the country. It would be the same situation here if people were trying to fight an "oppressive government"

A stable government needs the ability to destroy insurgents. Right now half of the country doesn't like Bush and thinks he's the biggest theat to national security. They think he's enacting laws that are oppressive. Does that mean the citizens should storm the White House as an attempted coup? I sure as hell don't think so.

We have the proper channels to deal with a President or other govt agency when they cross the lines. In the event that the govt was imposing dictatorship like practices there would be a huge struggle in the military. You wouldn't be able to get the entire military to turn on its neighbors.

I understand your logic. People need the ability to defend themselves if needed. The 2nd Amendment was written with the intent that citizens should be able to overthrow an oppressive govt if needed. However, in the age of modern weaponry where the military gets half of our tax dollars, there is no way to overthrow the govt without heavy involvement from the military and/or other nations that support insurgent ideals.

It's time for the 2nd Amendment to be interpreted in a way that the needed defense is against criminals that threaten the lives of individuals. M60's and RPG's are not needed for that. The chance for collateral damage is way too high.

What kind of scenario are you thinking of?

If you're walking down the street and someone tries to mug you are you going whip out your 9mm or will you need the Uzi?

If there is a home invasion are you going to run to the machine gun trenches in the living room?

Remeber, even Rambo was caught and he was a super-soldier.

Thank you. I agree.

And RB - It would be nice if you did not mistake disagreement with your positions as lack of reading them carefully.

actually, i was reacting to your rhetoric from earlier in the thread.
your position seems to be that the gun in itself, the possession of it, guarantees your "freedom"===i think that argument is idiotic.

it is also a routine argument made by far-right fringe elements who imagine that gun control will lead to slavery for "real americans" at the hands of some international conspiracy, which usually ends up being the un. these guys like to wear camo and play paintball in the woods.
since you do and say nothing to differentiate your position from that one, but instead rehearse elements of that line, what exactly do you imagine someone reading your posts is to think?

in addition--and this is directed at you in particular, wonder--you routinely ignore arguments you do not like and act as though repeating your position functions as a rebuttal.
you should make some consession to the fact that this is a written board and at least present the appearance of taking other positions seriously. and given that this tendency of yours is systematic, someone who wants to engage in a debate is left trying to explain why this situation obtains. and thinking that you do not read carefully is one such conclusion. if that is wrong, then my apologies--but it would really help if you would at least try to indicate that arguments that oppose yours register at some level at some time. otherwise, once again, there is no conversation, no debate, and no point in wasting time on this politics board.

and cosmo--what moral argument do you see me making?
what i was trying to say is that what matters is the politics that frames not only gun possession but also thinking about gun possession. so it seems that you are repeating my point, in a kind of invert, paranoid way.

i also said that picking the signs (words, images) that structure the dominant discourse, especially conservative discourse, without showing at any point that you can think about these signs except in conventional ways, means that you are not free, but rather that you are trapped in a closed little world--one that i would and could argue is wholly self-defeating, but that is a seperate matter, another thread maybe..

the same argument would apply to my own position too, btw---i try to think about these matters--i dont know if i am always equally successful,--but i try to do it.
i

if i find myself incomprehending of conservatives, it is in the main because they refuse to consider that they are not absolutely correct, that their terms are eternal truths, etc....

if you are stuck in repetition of empty terms, no number of guns will free you.

if you imagine yourself somehow part of a dangerous movement, which is an old trotskyite tic as well, btw---which more often than not is a way of adding drama to a life of total political insignificance---- then the problem is probably psychological and again no number of guns will get you out of it.

if you are planning a revolt, i would be interested to hear about what political viewpoint motivates you. then i could see why you would worry.

having a gun because you are waiting for some undefined eventuality just means that you have a gun while you wait for some undefined eventuality.

if you see a level of chaos around you such that you feel unsafe, you probaly should think about the problems posed by capitalism in its relatively unregulated form for an explanation---a single person asembling an arsenal in his basement isnt going to change anything.

if having a gun is therapeutic for you, then have a great time with it. that sort of relationship is not political, and is not of the slightest interest to me.

How did I support it? The Assault Weapons Ban lists what weapons are considered "assault weapons" quite clearly. It's a junk term that has no meaning outside of politics.

Incidentally, did you actually read my post? I agreed with most of your points, including the one that states that average citizens should not own machine guns. At the moment that is the law; the National Firearms Act of 1934 specifically prohibits fully automatic and explosive weapons from being sold to unlicensed individuals. Which is good, and the way it should be.

It's when we get into crap such as the AWB (which does not ban machine guns, tanks, or rocket launchers), which only addresses cosmetic features, that I disagree.

Lebell that had the most profound effect on me.
I didn't realize it was old news until the second time I read the article...

I think this deserves to be posted in general discussion so more people can see it.

I meant that the definition being a junk term without a good measure is what makes it a poor definition. That's what I meant.

The rest of my post was directed more at people who have the thought that they need those weapons to overthow oppressive governments (such as cosmoknight and wonderwench). I didn't want to name name's because I didn't want to come off as attacking anyone. I should have either made a separate post or made the thought transition more clear. My apologies.

I'd never want to ban all firearms. I don't even think they all need to be registered. I just want reasonable limits in place that limit the amount of firepower from the weapons that citizens can purchase.

If owning a firearm is an inalienable right, why would you support barring people who have been convicted of a crime in the past from owning a gun in the future?

That position seems inconsistent to me and I'd like you to explain how you come to that conclusion.

I generalized the use of the word criminal, and never declared what you suggest.

There are people who lose the ability to drive after failing to operate their vehicle in a safe manner. I see no reason why guns should be any different, but the mere presence of a criminal past (particularly a nonviolent one) should not bar someone from getting a gun.

What I would like to see is a world where guns are treated in the same manner as cars are. If you want to use a gun, you need to have taken a training course and demonstrated proficiency and knowledge of safety. A license would be issued allowing the individual to bear and use firearms (including concealed carry). It could even be an addition to the driver's license, a sort of notation in the same manner as heart donors are noted.

Once you have your license, you would be free to own and carry any weapon that is not fully automatic or purely military (rockets, grenades, etc) in nature. Acquiring fully automatic weapons would require an effort similar to how things are now.

I don't see any logical reason why guns should be regulated much differently from vehicles, either.

Of course, we should both recognize the extra dynamic of weapon portability. That is, I can't really hide a car in my coat.

Current laws restrict felons from owning firearms for life. I think support of those current restrictions are inconsistent with the notion of inalienable rights to gun ownership. I wish other people shared your views regarding this topic.

History has many examples of poorly armed groups defeating a much better equiped force. Just to name a few. The Viet Cong never fielded tanks yet they defeated them by ambushing the crews. Present day Iraqi insurgents use IED's made from pipe bombs and other assorted explosives mostly handmade to kill tanks. Revolutionary war we had no navy to speak of yet with personal weapons we captured a few ships which allowed us to build a Navy from scratch.

If looking at the context of a civil war within the US. The first thing I would try for would be the National Guard Armories to gain access to heavier weapons. A personal rifle would greatly help in that. I also believe that the National Guard would not inheritly back the US government in a popular rebellion as they would be made up of locals having to fight their neighbors never a sure fire thing. Also factor the US military is mostly based over seas and is not equiped to put down a rebellion in a country of this size. What targets would a B2 bomber really have or our vaunted Navy? Plus this would be all urban warfare. With the size of force in Iraq they can barely control the cities with 130,000 troops. We simply don't have enough troops to even fully secure LA and New York without factoring in rural America.

Can't you get your civil rights reinstated? I thought you could.


You cannot compare warfare in revolutionary times to current warfare. There is absolutely no need for citizens to have automatic weapons.

There is no need for the government to prevent law abiding citizens from owning (fully) automatic weapons.

With that said, it is impossible to argue need. Fact: you must have water to survive. Fact: you must have water to survive. Fact: you do not need your car. Fact: you do not need your internet access.


Edited to correct type in quote tag

A gun is merely a tool invented to equalize differences in our makeup. In nature the strongest lion gets to mate the weaker ones are subject to banishment or death. Man has just adapted a way to equalize the playing field so that the bully factor is marginalized fighting nature with technology something that makes us different. Removing technology you revert back to a time when muscle and primitive weapons ruled the day. Take away guns they will use knives or clubs. If someone has the urge to kill an semi-automatic or full auto won't really make a difference they will still kill being mentally defective. Thankfully those few make up less than 1% of gun owners unfortunately it can't be said the same of that even greater killer the automobile which isn't even mentioned as a Constitutional Right.

A gun is only as good as the person who uses it and for what reason...

And anyways, I don't want to get into too much detail cosmoknight, but the people have to really be motivated and united enough to do something like what the VC did in Vietnam.

Problem is, at this point in time, most people aren't motivated enough and/or split. There will be loyalists and rebels and neutrals if the attempt at taking over were even seen as credible in a bit.

And either way, I just don't see this coming.

True I believe it would take a watershed moment for the people to even consider that option something I think is far off. However our forfathers realized it could happen and placed that clause for just such a event. The motivating factor would be the key to how much support a revolt would get. If you look at our Revolution the same percentage as todays politics still rings true. One third supported rebellion, one third King George and the remaining neutral willing to go with the victor.

Yeah it could possibly follow the Revolution's lines

I don't want to get too technical though I will say this:

It would have to be at least 50% supporting the revolt. Why?

Given the fact that this is an insurrection within the nation, the modern fast transportation of soldiers, modern intelligence, and modern equipment, having *just* 1/3 support would mean it could be crushed pretty easily.

One could argue man for man but then again, strategic bombers don't make things man for man.

Anywho, i cannot see this coming anytime soon if ever so the point is moot.

I disagree. Fully automatic weapons are orders of magnitude more dangerous than semi-automatic or manual firearms, and as such deserve extra controls. Not banned from civilian ownership, but restricted. As it stands now it takes considerable effort to own a fully automatic weapon, and as a result you rarely see one used in crimes.

It's the same reason why people can't own explosives or rocket launchers without a license and a significant amount of paperwork.

Before people suggest that banning semi-automatic weapons would do the same, remember that the 1934 NFA was initiated before fully automatics were truly widespread. Banning semi-autos now would not help because there are already so many in circulation.

Wearing camo and playing paintball have nothing to do with warfare. Paintball is nothing more than a glorified version of tag or capture the flag. I really hope you aren't trying to say that paintball is a harmful activity.

Aww, you guys don't know your history :P

Guns don't create freedom, any more than cheap steel made the Roman conscripted free, or the longbow made the English peasants free.

They DO allow you to defend yourself against a certain type of infringement on your freedom, and that is a forceful, external control which can be personified in a single person or group. In other words, they can protect you ONLY IF you have a target to shoot at.

Think about it: If the government sends a search and siezure party into your home and you have a gun, you can force them to leave because you can match their force. Thus, you have protected your freedom.

Meanwhile, your daughter wants you to spend 200 dollars to buy her the right pair of athletic shoes so she can fit in with the Cool Kids. She's being controlled, she's being prevented from making her own decision about what she wants to wear, but no gun will help you here.

In other words, freedom is a lot more complicated than just protecting yourself from armed intrusion. But, it's nice to be able to protect yourself in case a situation that requires a gun every arrives.

The Founders were also wise enough to realize the optimal structure of government to check abuses of power - and the necessity of the Bill of Rights to ensure that The People hold the real power of liberty. The 2nd Amendment does have a "deterrent" effect we should not ignore.

Order of magnitude?
Bare handed to a firearm is an order of magnitude difference.

Full auto vs. semi-auto AK makes pretty much no difference. The full auto will result in a lot of wasted ammo and not much else.

/Has shot and was not impressed by full auto firearms

You're kidding, right? The advent of automatic weapons revolutionized warfare, and dramatically decreased the skill required to kill a man. The machine gun changed the face of battle in World War I; it brought about trench warfare.

The only reason the MG had the effect that it did was that when it emerged, armies were still fighting in basically Napoleonic fashion; line up, slug it out, he who gets to go home wins. In the modern context, machine guns are nowhere near as impressive, because nobody's polite enough to cross open terrain in skermish-lines anymore. The MG hasn't been a battle-winner since WW2, when "fire-and-maneuver" tactics became paramount, and the personal MG ( aka Assault Rifle ) is mostly only good for clearing out enclosed spaces. At anything over about 50 yards, most people have so much trouble keeping a hand-held MG on target as to make "Group Therapy" an expensive exercise in making noise.
Machineguns are hardly the "magic wand" of the movies. They require considerable skill to use well and efficiantly, and the "spray and pray" method tends to only serve to burn up ammunition.

Actually, he's not.

The dunedan is right regarding marching lines into machine gun fire, which why there were horrible casualities during some of the WW1 trench battles, but Americans learned in Vietnam that full-auto was not the panacea people seem to think it is, which is why they invented the "burst" version of the M16 (the A4?).

This allowed multiple shots per trigger pull without wasting a lot of ammunition.

I have also shot full-auto and while it is fun, I found it useless for trying to hit a single target, as I couldn't sufficiently control the weapon.

Nothing except for collateral damage.

You disagree with what I said, then endorse what I said.

What I said was:
I did not disagree with the controls that are currently in place. Also I qualified the statement with law abiding, this does not include every Tom, Dick, and Leroy that goes out selling dope on the corner or doing drive by shootings.

If the bad guys can easily get their hands on full autos and shoot my house up, I should be able to fairly easily get them to defend myself. (Although I'd probably use a semi-auto for better shot placement)

The three round burst M16 came around the A2 version.

The ones in Vietnam (A1s) for instance, had full automatic and semi-automatic modes.

As we found out, however, it was realy spray and pray. I don't remember the statistics but it was rare for a person to hit anything unloading a 20 round magazine into the jungle.

After that, when they came out with the A2, they removed full auto and put in the three-round burst to give a good spray that is manageable (3 rounds is pretty effective). They also increased the magazine to 30 rounds.

Believe me, war has changed a lot.

WW1 and even the American Civil War showed huge casualties for at that era, technological achievements had outpaced thinking in war. WW2 changed all that with the Blitzkrieg and other methods of fighting. Fire and manuever became the doctrine.

To an extent it is true to this day too. A machine gun can be a fearsome weapon if used right and positioned right, but as one is taught, there is always a flank and always a way to knock it out.

hrdwareguy, I do agree that law abiding citizens should not be prevented from owning automatic weapons. I already stated that in previous posts; I was addressing your comment about how deadly automatic weapons can be relative to semi-auto.

I suppose I should clarify myself a little bit. When I say automatic weapon, I mean ANY weapon that can fire multiple rounds with a single pull of the trigger. The M16, with its 3-round burst capability, is an example of an automatic weapon.

So in essence we're arguing about semantics, while the original point of the debate was agreed upon and left in the dust a couple of days ago. :)

There is one situation (and this is what I was thinking about; I apologize for not being more specific) where a fully automatic weapon would be far more dangerous than a semi-auto, and that's in a crowd situation. If your goal is indiscriminate killing of a large group of people, firing full auto into a crowd will accomplish that.

Either way, we're all on the same side here.

A shotgun would do pretty good also at close range.

Agreed.

Now what I want is fully automatic, belt-fed shotgun. I would dub it the Sandblaster.

Just imagine the climb and the broken bones.

I never said it would be practical, but imagine what it would do to a watermelon. R. Lee Ermey would be proud.

This makes me realize... it's so pointless to have guns at this point in time.

Let's just say that the govt decided to do something that sparked a revolution of sorts... do you HONESTLY think that those bearing arms will stand a chance against this military?

This govt doesn't fear its citizens, and it certainly doesn't fear any weapons they have.

Very interesting.

Honestly?

Yes.

As to the govt. fearing guns in the hands of citizens, then why is private gun ownership heavily restricted in other countries, especially dictatorships?

Why was it heavily restricted in Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia and communist Cambodia?

As Mao once said, power comes from the barrel of a gun.

Honestly? Yes but only if we have the support of a part of the military itself.

It's true that guns were restricted in dictator countries such as Nazi Germany and Sovit Russia and other nations.

But at the same time, take a look at how far technology has come since then.

Movements are tracked with satellites. You can't hide in buildings with modern surveillance and thermal imaging as just one example.

Guns versus modern armor? Planes? A flight of B-52s could level cities if they wanted to with carpet bombing. Don't even get started on nukes.

Again which is why I would say it is hard to overthrow a government in modern times against a modern army (the best, no-less) unless the people in the military themselves were on the revolutionaries' side.

If you are simply fighting police agencies (local police, FBI, ATF, etc.) it's far more effective than trying to take on the 1st division or the airborne.

I would agree that this is a sine qua non for a successful revolution, but this has always been the case, in modern times and in olden.

Well of course because ultimately, a government itself has no power to enforce without a military.

To be honest, I don't think guns are going to affect the national scene as much as the local scene. That's just my stand though - defends your rights from local intrusion more often that it will affect the national government. Its when you have massive support though, then they better watch out!

If all of America's technology is so amazing, why are insurgents so effective in Iraq? Those who hide among a civilian population are extremely hard to root out. The government does not fear it's citizens because it works FOR them, and is a body made up of elected legislators. If the government truly feared its citizens, we would not be armed.

And there is much more to owning a gun than being able to defend against some far-fetched revolution. Were I allowed to (I fucking HATE Maryland's CCW laws!), I would carry a weapon for self defense. Handguns are also extremely fun to shoot, and many people are actively involved in sporting events.

I have a better question; why shouldn't civilians be armed?

I don't think you can compare a situation in Iraq versus a situation in the United States itself in a hypothetical revolution that will most likely not occur anytime soon. Not to mention that the weapons that are being used is far more than the average American could or would own. (Given that you don't exactly find RPGs, mortars, explosives, AK-47's, etc. out on the streets).

Again I don't want to get into specifics but this is something you have to see with heavy use of military equipment and doctrine.

And I hope that question you're asking isn't directed at me considering I own many handguns and a rifle myself. I'm just saying its not going to be an effective way to stop a military juggernaut.

Well, it was more a general question aimed at someone who doesn't believe we should be armed. It was actually directed towards Stompy.

And while the average American doesn't have access to milspec weaponry, I still think the comparison stands. It's extremely hard to root out resistance when it's hidden within a civilian population, no matter how well they're armed.

I also think it's safe to assume that any kind of action that would result in citizens defending themselves from American soldiers would also have soldiers in it that don't want to fire upon civilians. In that context it's entirely plausible that milspec weaponry would be placed in civilian hands.

Again, this is a purely hypothetical situation. But still a fun one to debate.

Not everyone has these thing readily available to them. Some do.

As far as explosives go, these could be manufactured with a large enough degree of safety they could be effective. I'm not talking about building a factory to do it, I'm talking about people doing it in their homes.

Many of those who don't own full auto guns could have theirs converted to full auto relatively easily if the need arose.

Just because these things aren't out on the streets now doesn't mean they couldn't be in a very short amount of time.

Explosives, you have not been around a farm in the Mississippi delta, big business blowing beaver dams.

Ak-47s- there are some out there, and in a full outbreak of fighting more would come.

Anyway a friend of mine hunts Prairie Dogs, what he can do with a hand loaded 220 swift bolt action is scary.