Lebell

"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.

__________________
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis

The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU!

Please Donate!

Seaver

Imagine if they were Texans...

apeman

it's always the civvies that get hurt eh?

__________________
pain is inevitable but misery is optional - stick a geranium in your hat and be happy

cthulu23

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?

Zeld2.0

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

wonderwench

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

cthulu23

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.

seretogis

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.

__________________
seretogis - sieg heil
perfect little dream the kind that hurts the most, forgot how it feels well almost
no one to blame always the same, open my eyes wake up in flames

wonderwench

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."

cthulu23

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.

wonderwench

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.

cthulu23

Does this apply to all banned weapons?

cthulu23

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.

wonderwench

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.

cthulu23

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.

MSD

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

cthulu23

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

Zeld2.0

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.

cthulu23

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.

roachboy

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?

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

cthulu23

Roachboy,

Who are you addressing with your comments?

wonderwench

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

Zeld2.0

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

Then again, who cares?

DelayedReaction

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?

__________________
If ignorance is bliss, you must be having an orgasm.

Kadath

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.

__________________
it's quiet in here

The_Dunedan

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?

__________________
"I personally think that America's interests would be well served if after or at the time these clowns begin their revolting little hate crime the local police come in and cart them off on some trumped up charges or other. It is necessary in my opinion that America makes an example of them to the world."

--Strange Famous, advocating the use of falsified charges in order to shut people up.

The_Dunedan

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.

__________________
"I personally think that America's interests would be well served if after or at the time these clowns begin their revolting little hate crime the local police come in and cart them off on some trumped up charges or other. It is necessary in my opinion that America makes an example of them to the world."

--Strange Famous, advocating the use of falsified charges in order to shut people up.

cthulu23

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.

roachboy

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 gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

Macheath

A key element excluded from this amusing article is of course the underlying motive of this (<b>right wing?! </b> )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.

cthulu23

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.

roachboy

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.......

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

DelayedReaction

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.

__________________
If ignorance is bliss, you must be having an orgasm.

cthulu23

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.

cosmoknight

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.

roachboy

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.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

wonderwench

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.

wonderwench

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.

Zeld2.0

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.

Kadath

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.

__________________
it's quiet in here