ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2014 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Wednesday, January 23, 2013

A Day of Resistance

If the Rabbit People are frightened over the exposure of a single fake book reviewer, this announcement of a large scale public protest by gun owners should have them seriously popping pellets:
While Barack Obama is calling for Americans to give up their freedom, their rights, and their guns, we’re calling for Americans to resist. We’re calling on Tea Partiers, moderate Republicans, Libertarians and even moderate Democrats to stand up one month from today, on the 23rd of February and say, “No more!” Right Wing News is joining Dustin Stockton, Western Representation PAC and The Tea Party.net in calling for rallies all across the nation next month on the 23rd. It’ll be a Day of Resistance where gun owners and patriots can peacefully gather and show Barack Obama, the media, and the knockkneed Republicans in Congress that we may have lost a battle last November, but we haven’t lost the war. Don’t meekly give up your 2nd Amendment rights when you can stand with us and RESIST!
Tea Party II, this time with guns.  What is not to like?  You can almost hear the theme from Muse playing already.

Labels: ,

80 Comments:

Anonymous raggededge January 23, 2013 10:46 AM  

If this goes as well as the original Tea Party movement, we should be disarmed within a year.

Anonymous Josh January 23, 2013 10:48 AM  

If this goes as well as the original Tea Party movement, we should be disarmed within a year.

Okay, you can't win the thread with the first post. That's poor form, old boy. But nicely done. Nicely done indeed.

Anonymous raggededge January 23, 2013 10:50 AM  

Muchas Gracias, even a blind squirrel finds a nut every now and then.

Anonymous Red Comet January 23, 2013 10:53 AM  

If this goes as well as the original Tea Party movement, we should be disarmed within a year.

Actually, the Tea Party got people elected. Not a real shock that old business owners and professionals good at money would be able to do that.

As far as discontent with it goes, I think the Tea Party was just never the libertarian revolution you may have believed it to be at one point.

Anonymous DonReynolds January 23, 2013 10:57 AM  

It is extremely difficult to get conservatives to participate in "peaceful protest". Unlike ethnic minorities and the Left, conservatives KNOW that such protests are ineffective. They also know, the powers that be are not going to pay any attention to anything until it has blood on it. Once there is violence, you have everyone's attention. If it is violent enough, even the police back away.

It is not easy to get conservative WASPs to parade around and make noise, carry signs, and walk slowly.....particularly is there is no food and there is no booze. Think about it. They love to go clubbin' where they can eat and drink and make merry. How many of them would show up to sit still in the dark, with no music, no food, and no alcohol? (That would be worse than a high school dance.) Sure, a few will show.

Anonymous raggededge January 23, 2013 10:59 AM  

Actually, the Tea Party got people elected.

So what? Since they got elected, taxes have gone up and deficit spending has gone up. Great job there.

As far as discontent with it goes, I think the Tea Party was just never the libertarian revolution you may have believed it to be at one point.

My discontent is that there wasn't any difference between an R, D or T, all politicians are lying scumbags.

Anonymous Boetain January 23, 2013 11:00 AM  

The second amendment places restrictions on gov. And reminds us that the right exists. Calling it "2nd amendment rights" makes the right sound much smaller than it is, like it was granted by the gov or something. If you let them think they grant the right, then they also think they can take it away.

Anonymous Mina January 23, 2013 11:02 AM  

The Tea Party and their subsequent re-alignment of values with the traditional Republican Party reminded me of a planet falling out of orbit and into the Sun.

Blogger Joshua_D January 23, 2013 11:14 AM  

You can almost hear the theme from Muse playing already.

I was thinking that song you linked to a while back with the rocker in the red outfit. I can't remember the band name.

Anonymous Stilicho January 23, 2013 11:14 AM  

The Tea Party grew from a bunch of old farts gathering at Kountry Kitchen Buffet to complain that Obama was going to take away their health care subsidy. Foundations of sand and all that.

Anonymous Mr. Nightstick January 23, 2013 11:23 AM  

I am actually thinking about going for once. Maybe it's time for the ilk to show some backbone instead of just being tough talkers in the Internets.

Anonymous RINO January 23, 2013 11:23 AM  

Irrelevant group doing irrelevant things. Remember the 1 day tax protest in 2009? Yeah. First comment has it right.

Blogger The Great and Powerful Oz January 23, 2013 11:25 AM  

Lots of people gathered this past Saturday at state capitols to protest Obama's renewed attack on the 2nd Amendment, so claiming that it is hard to get conservatives to show up is obviously not true. I spoke with several people who drove a couple of hundred miles to be there.

Anonymous paradox January 23, 2013 11:33 AM  

Million Magazine March on DC.

Anonymous A Visitor January 23, 2013 11:35 AM  

You can almost hear the theme from Muse playing already.

You mean this theme?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BTDwIN9oLvY

Or this theme?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vtj4cDs2LKE

Unfortunately, no one seems to have told the Republicans in Congress that because they’re looking for any excuse they can find to roll over for him like whipped dogs. Meanwhile, many conservatives are moping around because they seem to have concluded that if Barack Obama could win in 2012, then it’s all over.

On that first point, I couldn't agree more. Watching the testimony of Clinton before the Senate today proves it (as does the net $320 billion increases, the coming surrender over the debt ceiling, and amnesty). On the second point, even if it is all over (in my young opinion, it is), it doesn't mean that we can't carry on our way of life. We can and should.

2/23/2013, looking forward to this!

Anonymous Noah B. January 23, 2013 11:38 AM  

"What is not to like?"

Large groups make easy targets for airstrikes. Just sayin.

Blogger swiftfoxmark2 January 23, 2013 11:41 AM  

Republican leaders in Congress are just as much behind the gun control laws as Democrats are. They just can't say it because they'd lose a huge voting bloc if they did so.

Such a shame they aren't more honest.

Anonymous Full Fledged Fiasco January 23, 2013 11:41 AM  

Vox, did you see this?.

Anonymous paradox January 23, 2013 11:42 AM  

A Visitor

More like this Muse song.

Anonymous Tad January 23, 2013 11:46 AM  

@Vox Day

Tea Party II, this time with guns. What is not to like?

They only thing the Tea Party contingent and their representatives in Congress have done is given President Obama a second term, guaranteed they would not take the senate back and last ground in the House.

By all means, get the Tea Party back in the Game. For us Democrats, they are the gift that keeps on giving.

Anonymous Stilicho January 23, 2013 11:46 AM  

Republican leaders in Congress are just as much behind the gun control laws as Democrats are. They just can't say it because they'd lose a huge voting bloc if they did so.

Such a shame they aren't more honest.


Gun owners are to the GOP what blacks are to the DNC.

Anonymous Google January 23, 2013 11:51 AM  

"
They only thing the Tea Party contingent and their representatives in Congress have done is given President Obama a second term, guaranteed they would not take the senate back and last ground in the House. "


You are seriously discounting the power of free ObamaPhones.

Anonymous Google January 23, 2013 11:56 AM  

"Tea Party II, this time with guns. "

How about we stop marching around like Leftist idiots, with giant puppets and signs, pretending we're doing anything other than wacking off...

And instead, BUY GUNS. And ammo.

And if we're REALLY SERIOUS THIS TIME... let's talk about putting our State Legislators to work.

Nullification. Or Secession. Or something productive.

Remember when InternationalANSWER stopped the War in Iraq? And "Occupy Wall Street" stopped Obama from colluding with Wall Street? Good times...

Anonymous Buckeyecopperhead January 23, 2013 12:06 PM  

I believe a few hundred thousand well-armed "protestors" suddenly showing up in D.C. and various uncooperative state capitals would be a very effective means of communicating displeasure with the current state of affairs. Much more effective than catchphrases on signs and petitions.

Blogger Cogitans Iuvenis January 23, 2013 12:20 PM  

I don't thinking marching around does much good, the only reason the civil rights movement protests had any affect was because the authorities acted so viciously to peaceful protest. And that is the key I think. The protests now are basically just a challenge to the govenor of New York. Either he enforces the law, which will be difficult, expensive, and probably have major political backlash. Or he does nothing and exposes his legislation for the charade that it is.

Frankly, attempted consfication might be the best thing for guns rights activists provided they don't start shooting. I know this sounds strange, but I am working off of the assumption that what worked for the civil rights movement will work for the 2nd amendment supporters. When Americans start seeing large groups of law abiding middle class Americans, rather than some drugged out millenial OWS or aging hippie, I think people will react that same way when they saw peaceful black protestors beset with fire hoses and dogs.

After so many uncle Neds and Grandpa Bills get hauled away in cuffs you will see the families and friends protest and people react. The people this law attacks are often blue collar individuals as well. Frankly the govenor gave 2nd amendment civil rights activists a gift.

Anonymous Tadlet January 23, 2013 12:25 PM  

"After so many uncle Neds and Grandpa Bills get hauled away in cuffs you will see the families and friends protest and people react."

With cheers.

Seriously, do you think white "blue collar" men are worth much to anyone nowadays?

Anonymous Daniel January 23, 2013 12:39 PM  

I think the gun-controller folks should just declare victory and go home. The Ft. Hood shooter, Batman shooter, and Sandy Hook shooter were already registered.

Registered Democrats, that is.

Anonymous Starbuck January 23, 2013 12:47 PM  

Seriously, do you think white "blue collar" men are worth much to anyone nowadays? - Tadlet

While I believe this was said in sarcasm, it did make me think.

And I have to say - no, they aren't worth anything these days to anyone. But, there are a hell of a lot of them. This could be a problem that someone wants to solve.

Anonymous cheddarman January 23, 2013 12:52 PM  

I am not going to be a pussy and do nothing. The minute men stood on Lexington Green. We need to stand now, or loose what remains of our rights.

sincerely

cheddarman

Blogger Conan the Cimmerian, King of Aquilonia January 23, 2013 12:52 PM  

And remember, don't fall for the slippery slope argument, and there is no incrementalism, and don't plan to confiscate:

“Shock claim: Obama only wants military leaders who ‘will fire on U.S. citizens’”

Anonymous Jake January 23, 2013 1:00 PM  

Totally unimpressed with the quoted text above. Reasons why:

"we may have lost a battle last November, but we haven’t lost the war."

As if the choice of presidential candidate is the issue here. This is just playing to the assumption of many on the left that the gun right's advocacy isn't about gun rights but the party/race of the president. Unfortunately for many of the tea-party crowd this may well be accurate.

"Don’t meekly give up your 2nd Amendment rights when you can stand with us and RESIST!"

I dislike the term "2nd amendment right"... not trying to be pedantic here, but the right doesn't come from the second amendment. Those who take their stand on "The 2nd amendment" are just setting themselves up for failure when the supreme court magically reverses itself on what the 2nd amendment means. We know from the past that when they want to the Supreme Court can "interpret" very clear language into something very different.

And "Resist?" please. I'm have no desire to sound anything like Asher, but this isn't "resistance". This is stating a position, showing that there are numerous motivated people who will combat the political process of taking away their gun rights, etc. Which is all well and good, but if politely asking the tyrant not to act so mean is "resisting" then we really are in trouble.

Anonymous scoobius dubious January 23, 2013 1:15 PM  

"When Americans start seeing large groups of law abiding middle class Americans, rather than some drugged out millenial OWS or aging hippie, I think people will react that same way when they saw peaceful black protestors beset with fire hoses and dogs."

You live in a dream. Americans are not the same people that they were in 1962. The historic American people have virtually ceased to exist.

This time around, when Americans see white GOP gun owners beset with hoses and dogs, they will cheer. They will applaud. They will smile and pat each other on the back. And they will pass a constitutional amendment making Obama President for Life.

Anonymous Tadlet January 23, 2013 1:16 PM  

YOU GUYS ARE JUST PARANOID!

---
On Monday, renowned author and humanitarian Dr. Jim Garrow made a shocking claim about what we can expect to see in Obama’s second term.

Garrow made the following Facebook post:

I have just been informed by a former senior military leader that Obama is using a new “litmus test” in determining who will stay and who must go in his military leaders. Get ready to explode folks. “The new litmus test of leadership in the military is if they will fire on US citizens or not.” Those who will not are being removed.

CITATION: http://proteinwisdom.com/?p=46824

When Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn led the domestic terrorist group Weather Underground in 1969, a chance meeting led Army veteran Larry Grathwohl into joining the group. Grathwohl served as a courier, running messages between the group’s leadership (called the “Weather Bureau”) and individual cells that were to carry out attacks.

Grathwohl was also an informant for the FBI.

In an interview from the 1982 documentary No Place To Hide that recently surfaced, Grathwohl discussed what the Weathermen intended to do after overthrowing the U.S. government, including what they would do with those Americans who refused to embrace communism.

I asked, “Well what is going to happen to those people we can’t reeducate, that are diehard capitalists?” And the reply was that they’d have to be eliminated.

And when I pursued this further, they estimated they would have to eliminate 25 million people in these reeducation centers.

And when I say “eliminate,” I mean “kill.”

Twenty-five million people.

I want you to imagine sitting in a room with 25 people, most of which have graduate degrees, from Columbia and other well-known educational centers, and hear them figuring out the logistics for the elimination of 25 million people.

And they were dead serious.

CITATION: http://pjmedia.com/blog/eyewitness-to-the-ayers-revolution/

ALL IS WELL, CITIZENS. TRUST THE STATE! OBAMA MEANS YOU NO HARM!

Anonymous Signe January 23, 2013 1:22 PM  

"Second-Amendment right" is valid, I think, as long as it's shorthand for "right described in the Second Amendment." Differentiates from rights described in other amendments or the body of the Constitution.

If you can come up with a better term, though, I'm sure not going to argue.

Anonymous Porky January 23, 2013 1:31 PM  

The day the tea party becomes anti-republican we can take them seriously.

Anonymous Jake January 23, 2013 1:33 PM  

Signe,

I don't disagree. There's just way too many people who think the constitution was/is A: A positive step for the liberty and prosperity of the American people and B: a guarantor of their rights. Tying the right to keep and bear arms to the 2nd amendment is putting it into the hands of the government to reinterpret, amend, overrule, etc. And as long it's referred to as our "2nd amendment rights" people who aren't well educated on the language and the intent and the motivations behind the 2nd amendment are going to get the wrong idea.

Best way I know to say it is, in fact, the way it was phrased in the 2nd amendment. The right to keep and bear arms.

Anonymous civilServant January 23, 2013 1:47 PM  

And instead, BUY GUNS. And ammo.

Little remains.

Since this civil disobedience appears now to be organized perhaps RICO might be invoked.

Anonymous sprach von Teufelshunden January 23, 2013 1:56 PM  

And the Hegelian Dialectic goes up another notch...

Most interesting via Simon Black...

The world learned on Sunday that PGA all-star Phil Mickelson is considering ‘drastic personal changes’ thanks to the pitiful direction of America’s tax policy. According to Mickelson:

“If you add up all the federal and you look at the disability and the unemployment and the Social Security and state, my tax rate is 62, 63 percent. So I’ve got to make some decisions on what to do.”

Though politicians never understand, it’s obvious to the rest of us: everyone has a breaking point. When governments continue pushing, continue bleeding, and continue eroding freedom, people start hitting their breaking points. Apparently Phil has reached his.

So, it seems, has Glenn Beck. The popular media personality has recently announced that he is planning a $2 billion libertarian community somewhere in Texas that will generate its own power and grow its own food.

Beck sees the writing on the wall with respect to inflation, police state tactics, and erosion of freedom. He understands the West is full of corrupt politicians who are driving their countries into the ground… and of dim-witted citizens who believe they cannot exist without the government’s continued support. “Take our guns! Bail us out! Give us healthcare!”


The conclusion is simple. When you no longer share any core values with your neighbors, it’s time to get new neighbors.

Anonymous Unending Improvement January 23, 2013 2:12 PM  

I find myself agreeing with our syphilis-addled queer again. This is not good.

The Tea Party was a gift to the Democrats that kept on giving.

Anonymous sprach von Teufelshunden January 23, 2013 2:27 PM  

And since we are on the topic, I posted the following at youtube, re: Veteran Stands Up For 2nd Amendment At Chicago Anti-Gun Forum:

To the veteran who appears to be so astute of history. I have a question. Have you read "War is a Racket," by Maj. Gen. Butler? I'm a veteran myself (USMC). I don't need a Bill of Rights to guarantee my rights. My rights are given by my Creator. The Declaration of Independence affirms them. If I as an individual require a Tesla Teleforce weapon (scalar) to protect myself and my family from the tyranny of govt., then I so want to be affirmed that RIGHT! It is as simple as that. [posting as fooser77]

I don't need the 2nd Amendment, or the Bill of Rights to affirm my God given rights as an individual human being. However, it doesn't hurt. I examine the following:

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

First I examine arms:

arms

Weapons and ammunition; armaments
weaponry: weapons considered collectively


Seems like a pretty broad term. No specifics here. Who is to determine specifics? SCOTUS, Congress, or the Executive? None of the above? Whatever arms are necessary to guard against the "tyranny of govt?"

shall not be infringed

infringe

Actively break the terms of (a law, agreement, etc.)
Act so as to LIMIT or undermine (something); encroach on.


That seems pretty clear to the relatively educated mind.

What if the "tyranny of govt." is firing at me, and my family from a helicopter platform with a GAU-17/A? What am I required here to combat such an action, and provide and ensure a "balance of power?"

tadpole the asher ? Anyone? Anyone? Bueller?




-----------
[1] Could you imagine having the name -- Ferris? What other kind of cruelty can parents invent for a child?


Anonymous Tad January 23, 2013 3:15 PM  

@Sprach

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state...

You forgot to analyze this element of the amendment.

Anonymous Tad January 23, 2013 3:17 PM  

@Unending

I find myself agreeing with our syphilis-addled queer again. This is not good.

The Tea Party was a gift to the Democrats that kept on giving.


I think you are referring to me. But if so, you are doing so incorrectly. I'll cop to "queer", but I've never had Syphilis, nor gonorrhea, nor HIV.

Also, it's OK to agree. I do all the time.

Anonymous Anonymous January 23, 2013 3:18 PM  

_I'll cop to "queer"_

Shocka!

Blogger Conan the Cimmerian, King of Aquilonia January 23, 2013 3:20 PM  

militia = citizens

regulated = prepared / trained

Blogger Conan the Cimmerian, King of Aquilonia January 23, 2013 3:20 PM  

Come on Tad, been bug chasing lately?

Anonymous Tad January 23, 2013 3:22 PM  

@Conan

Come on Tad, been bug chasing lately?

Not since you and I went on that last expedition.

Anonymous WaterBoy January 23, 2013 3:31 PM  

I see a bad outcome to this in those places which allow neither open carry nor concealed carry (DC, I am looking at you).

From my cold, dead hands just took on a more ominous tone. Well, blood of patriots and all that, I suppose.

Anonymous nordicthunder January 23, 2013 3:38 PM  

militia = citizens

regulated = prepared / trained


Conan beat me to it,

please Tad, do feel free to use your own mad a$$ google-fu skills to look into the usage of the above words at the time they were written, I believe it was Madison (could be wrong) who went on to further explain that militia was "the whole of the people" the only military provided for in the founding documents was a small Navy for border protection.



all attribution for "goole-fu" goes to VD, (as i'd never seen it before, but it cost my keyboard it's life earlier today)

Anonymous nordicthunder January 23, 2013 3:39 PM  

aww crap - google-fu

Blogger Giraffe January 23, 2013 4:11 PM  

Not since you and I went on that last expedition.

Hmmm. I think he's insinuating that you are homosexual, Conan. Based on the context, I think he meant it as an insult. Ladies and gentlemen, we have a homophobe queer.

Anonymous Edjamacator January 23, 2013 4:26 PM  

Ladies and gentlemen, we have a homophobe queer.

Given the self-destructive lifestyle, couldn't you say they all fit that label?

Blogger Conan the Cimmerian, King of Aquilonia January 23, 2013 4:31 PM  

Giraffe:
I think he's insinuating that you are homosexual, Conan.


The Mrs. cried and said, "You are Conan, The Cimmerian, you won’t cry. So I cry for you."

Blogger Giraffe January 23, 2013 4:35 PM  

Given the self-destructive lifestyle, couldn't you say they all fit that label?

Depends on if they are self destructive because they hate that they are gay.

I guess really though, homophobe is rabbitspeak. It only applies to non-rabbits. Just like gun laws don't apply to liberals like David Gregory or Joseph Moressy.

Anonymous civilServant January 23, 2013 4:40 PM  

What if the "tyranny of govt." is firing at me, and my family from a helicopter platform with a GAU-17/A? What am I required here to combat such an action, and provide and ensure a "balance of power?"

Anyone?


Can you afford the equipment necessary to achieve such parity?

Anonymous WaterBoy January 23, 2013 4:48 PM  

civilServant: "Can you afford the equipment necessary to achieve such parity?"

Very few people could at artificially inflated, FedGov-sustained monopoly levels. But open the market up and just see what happens to those SAM prices....

Anonymous WaterBoy January 23, 2013 4:57 PM  

Of course, there's always the option of paying black market prices.

It's the law that precludes ownership, not cost.

Anonymous Anonymoose January 23, 2013 5:10 PM  

The "Litmus Test" rumor is probably false. Here's who started it: http://research-china.blogspot.com/2012/03/review-of-jim-garrows-pink-pagoda.html

As to whether the 2nd Amendment covers the ownership of private arms, to an extent this has already been decided. However, a quick historical overview, one that includes the opinions of various founders (who disagreed on the issue) seems to lean towards the private ownership of military grade personal weapons (emphasis on the "personal" part) by the general populace. Regulations aren't out of the question, but they should be such that the average person might be able to acquire an AR-15 or similar assault rifle without too much paperwork.

http://www.guncite.com/journals/hardhist.html

The text is somewhat long but if you have an hour or two to kill I would recommend it. Obviously some regulation isn't out of the question, but a legal right to military personal arms seems indisputable to me.

Anonymous Tad January 23, 2013 5:16 PM  

@Giraffe

Given the self-destructive lifestyle, couldn't you say they all fit that label?

Depends on if they are self destructive because they hate that they are gay.


And yet here I am and have been, not destroyed, openly gay, successful, happy, loved by friends and family, in a long term relationship.

It's all good.

Anonymous Signe January 23, 2013 5:22 PM  

And yet here I am and have been, not destroyed, openly gay, successful, happy, loved by friends and family, in a long term relationship.

It's all good.


Aren't we just a special snowflake?

Anonymous civilServant January 23, 2013 5:25 PM  

Can you afford the equipment necessary to achieve such parity?

Of course, there's always the option of paying black market prices.

It's the law that precludes ownership, not cost.


Very well you have your Igla. Your opponent suspects you may have an Igla and now sends two GAU-17/A with a drone on overwatch at 15000 feet at a time of their choosing. Can you afford the equipment necessary to achieve parity?

Anonymous WaterBoy January 23, 2013 5:34 PM  

civilServant: "Can you afford the equipment necessary to achieve parity?"

Does it matter? If I can only take out one of them, neither one will want to be the one to come into range first, will they?

BTW, the GAU-17/A would be the minigun mounted on the gunship, not the helicopter itself.

Anonymous civilServant January 23, 2013 5:51 PM  

Does it matter? If I can only take out one of them, neither one will want to be the one to come into range first, will they?

If one discounts the question's conditions and assumes things turn out perfectly for oneself then yes stop-loss considerations may come into play. In which case having attracted sufficient attention by launching an Igla they will simply operate from 15000 feet and drop one or more low-collateral-damage bombs upon the location at issue. In fact for them this last option is considerably cheaper than sending anything else at all. So. Can you afford the equipment necessary to achieve parity against such opposition?

The point of the question is to point out that militia parity with an 18th century limited military is possible but militia parity with a 21st century military funded by $400 billion and having decades of experience in urban guerilla warfare is ... problematic.

Anonymous Anonymoose January 23, 2013 6:05 PM  

I agree with civilServant, the parity argument doesn't work. However, the point that the 2nd Amendment, at the time of ratification, did imply parity shows that the interpretation of the amendment did not limit citizens to the ownership of highly powerful and dangerous tools specifically because they feared their use against the government. Although I'm sure the difficulty of enforcement and the unpopularity of any such legislation played more of a role than anything in limiting government restrictions on the ownership of arms.

Anonymous WaterBoy January 23, 2013 6:08 PM  

Did any single Minuteman ever have enough ammunition to hold off the entire British military?

It doesn't matter whether or not one individual can achieve parity with the entire military -- the point that Fletch up there was trying to make is that the weapons available to that one individual need to be on the same level. As he said, to ensure a balance of power.

One person with a singular MANPADS wouldn't be capable of combatting the government individually, no. But thousands of people would certainly inflict enough damage to give pause to gunships firing on civilians on the ground, never knowing when a missile might be flying up their ass.

The way you talk makes it seem as though you're saying since I can't take them all on, that I'm better off with a musket and a bayonet than I am with an AR-15 and a Stinger. If so, I strongly disagree.

Anonymous WaterBoy January 23, 2013 6:11 PM  

That was @ civilServant.

Anonymous The Great Martini January 23, 2013 6:21 PM  

Peacefully gather? You guys can't even get through "Gun Appreciation Day" without blowing holes in someone.

Anonymous Joel P. January 23, 2013 6:37 PM  

"What is not to like?"

What's not to like? This:

"we may have lost a battle last November, but we haven’t lost the war."

The implication being, of course, that if the leftist liberal, gun-control advocate Mitt Romney had won, then so would have patriots. This is typical Republican controlled nonsense. Sure, it might make a good show, but like the past incarnations of the Tea Party movement, it'll also prove to be entirely worthless. These clueless idiots are still stuck in Democrats vs. Republicans mode.

Anonymous civilServant January 23, 2013 6:39 PM  

Did any single Minuteman ever have enough ammunition to hold off the entire British military?

No ....

It doesn't matter whether or not one individual can achieve parity with the entire military -- the point that Fletch up there was trying to make is that the weapons available to that one individual need to be on the same level. As he said, to ensure a balance of power.

... and no individual however armed can be on the same level as an organized military ....

One person with a singular MANPADS wouldn't be capable of combatting the government individually, no. But thousands of people would certainly inflict enough damage to give pause to gunships firing on civilians on the ground, never knowing when a missile might be flying up their ass.

... and thus comes the next point. Only an organized army can fight an organized army on a parity basis. So. To extend the question. Can you afford the equipment and organization and command and control and ROE to achieve this parity? And (perhaps to extend the question too rapidly) if you could afford it then in what way would it be different from our existing standing army?

However, the point that the 2nd Amendment, at the time of ratification, did imply parity shows that the interpretation of the amendment did not limit citizens to the ownership of highly powerful and dangerous tools specifically because they feared their use against the government.

Yes and no. At the time of ratification the militia was intended to be the army. But at this time that is not and cannot be the case both because of the present character of the citizens and because of the extreme cost and extensive long-range lethality of modern weapons.

Blogger Desert Cat January 23, 2013 6:56 PM  

So it would appear that the problem is as much, if not more, the existence of a standing army, including militarized police forces, capable of tyrannizing the people.

Anonymous Tad January 23, 2013 7:11 PM  

@Signe

Aren't we just a special snowflake?

Clearly a little more special than you, Signe.

Anonymous civilServant January 23, 2013 7:12 PM  

So it would appear that the problem is as much, if not more, the existence of a standing army, including militarized police forces

Perhaps "a" problem rather than "the" problem. After all given modern warfare it is impossible to start from scratch and build a modern force only if and as needed. It must be standing to be effective.

capable of tyrannizing the people.

Can an effective military and police not be so capable? Consider the mexican drug cartels' ability to fend off the Mexican Army. Is this a good thing?

Anonymous WaterBoy January 23, 2013 7:31 PM  

civilServant: "Only an organized army can fight an organized army on a parity basis."

I think you're discounting 4G warfare too much, as numerous others here have argued for many times.

civilServant: "So. To extend the question. Can you afford the equipment and organization and command and control and ROE to achieve this parity?"

See above. Less centralized organization and C&C in a 4G scenario, but similar capabilities weapon-wise -- at least enough to neutralize some advantages (and specifically, the scenario advanced by Fletch). For example, you don't need to overcome tanks if the fighting occurs in areas where tanks are at a natural disadvantage. Of course, all bets are off at the nuclear level.

civilServant: "And (perhaps to extend the question too rapidly) if you could afford it then in what way would it be different from our existing standing army?"

The difference would be in that one side would be using them to enforce tyranny and the other side would be using them to resist it. Initially (until the tyrannized become the new tyrants).

However, even if FedGov were to allow us simple peons similarly capable weaponry, it still wouldn't do so for the simple reason that weapons in citizens' hands automatically means weapons in enemies'¹ hands...and that they will not do. The fact that Stingers are even available on the black market at all bears this out, and that was merely from letting friends² have them.

¹ For various values of "enemy".
² For various values of "friend".

Blogger Longstreet January 23, 2013 8:17 PM  

Aren't we just a special snowflake?

Well, that's what it's claiming....

Anonymous Desiderius January 23, 2013 8:30 PM  

"The Tea Party was a gift to the Democrats that kept on giving."

Just as "nigger-lovers" were once a gift to those who opposed the Civil Rights Movement.

I don't see the arrogant bigotry toward/ignorance of the Tea Party ending much better, but I tend toward the overly optimistic.

Truth will out, but often enough she takes just enough enough time to get under one's skin.

Anonymous Jake January 23, 2013 11:22 PM  

Peacefully gather? You guys can't even get through "Gun Appreciation Day" without blowing holes in someone.

Ha, I read about that and thought to myself "wow they're really digging deep trying keep the propaganda mill turning."

Let's examine the 3 incidents you are making reference to:

1st, safety officer checking the shotgun a show attendee is bringing in and somehow the thing fires. Obviously a serious failure there on the part of the attendee and the person making sure weapons are cleared before they're allowed through. BUT, anyone with a lick of common sense practices redundant safety procedures. The 12 gage shotgun loaded with buckshot fired unintentionally and only minor injuries occur. This suggests very strongly that even if someone was sloppy with their hands near the trigger they did at least keep the muzzle pointed in a safe direction. If buckshot out of a 12 gage had hit someone directly you'd most likely be reading about manslaughter charges no minor injuries.

The 3rd, a guy buys a gun at a show, and later shoots himself in the foot while showing it to a friend or something. I thought it kind of funny that the article says "3 shootings at gun shows" and goes on to explicitly say this WASN'T at a gun show. This is unfortunate but not shocking, the anti-gun push of the past month has motivated many people who were on the fence to go ahead and buy something, many of them probably haven't done the studying or taken the safety training always recommended to a first-time buyer. The guy made a careless mistake, one I've known TWO police officers in my small home town to make in just the past 15 years (yes, they shot themselves, same deal, pulled the mag and forgot to clear the chamber). Funny I bet you're not saying the police should be disarmed, though statistically they're more likely to shoot themselves or a bystander than a private owner.

Anonymous Jake January 23, 2013 11:23 PM  


Why'd I skip the 2nd, well the second isn't clear, I've read two different articles and gotten two different stories. The most recent says a dealer accidentally fired a gun AT A SHOW after forgetting to clear the chamber. I have a couple very serious issues with this claim. First, that a dealer, someone who's life work is the safe handling of firearms, would take a weapon from someone and not check that it was completely unloaded. It's a bit like saying a crane operator forgot to confirm that the lift he's about to make is within the capacity of his equipment and rigging. The second, even less likely, part of this story is that someone was handling a loaded weapon at a show. Maybe some shows are different, but I've never been to one where every weapon on display or brought in by an attendee wasn't cleared and rendered inoperable before it was allowed in. So, we either had multiple very odd failures of standard procedure... OR the story presented doesn't actually align with the facts of the matter. I highly suspect the latter based both on the conditions just described and the fact the writer of the article seemed to be hedging his bets from the get go, saying somethign along the lines of "apparently this happened"... which seems like (at best) very sloppy and lazy reporting... did it happen or did it not? Isn't it your job as a reporter to find out? (Not if you're just writing propaganda I guess)

And even with 3 (actually two at most since one wasn't at a show, maybe just one since the facts of the 2nd case are disputable) incidents and no life-threatening injuries.... so what? How many people do you think were at gun shows last weekend? I bet you had more people suffer serious injuries DRIVING TO/FROM THE SHOW than occurred at these shows. And as I've already pointed out, you had undoubtedly a record number of people who are first time attendees/buyers and a record number of people who might have been thinking "I'll take a class and then go shopping" decide "I'd better get it while I can, the class can wait". It was probably the most dangerous weekend ever to be a a gun show, and you have one clear case of an incident.

Based on the news here in Atlanta, going to a pro sporting event is far more dangerous. And driving to a pro sporting event, or a gun show, or anywhere else, probably at least an order of magnitude more dangerous.

Anonymous Jake January 24, 2013 12:00 AM  

After all given modern warfare it is impossible to start from scratch and build a modern force only if and as needed. It must be standing to be effective.

If your talking "effective in maintaining a global empire" then yes I'd tend to agree. A standing army is most definitely NOT necessary to effectively defend the homeland from attack. Just look at Afghanistan if you doubt this. So now you should go about showing us why we should want to maintain a global empire. Doesn't seem to be working out all that great to me. Get rid of the standing army, get rid of the global empire. Let the 100-150 million people who want them own military-pattern rifles and lots of ammo and see if anyone is stupid enough to mess with us.

Blogger ajw308 January 24, 2013 12:17 PM  

Of course, there's always the option of paying black market prices.
When we started delivering Stingers to the Afghans it was less than a week before one was purchased in a sting operation in Florida (Miami, I think).

Just goes to show weapons will always be available and the prices will come down.

Blogger ajw308 January 24, 2013 12:21 PM  

Just remember, your chances of getting shot at a gun show are far far less than getting shot at a Chicago high school basketball game.

Anonymous civilServant January 24, 2013 2:15 PM  

After all given modern warfare it is impossible to start from scratch and build a modern force only if and as needed. It must be standing to be effective.

If your talking "effective in maintaining a global empire" then yes I'd tend to agree. A standing army is most definitely NOT necessary to effectively defend the homeland from attack. Just look at Afghanistan if you doubt this.


To achieve an Afghanistan result requires an Afghanistan situation. Were the United States to disband its standing forces and then be invaded I cannot see how it could achieve an Afghanistan result. And most in the United States would find an Afghanistan result unacceptable even were they to achieve it. It would be a hard life.

So now you should go about showing us why we should want to maintain a global empire. Doesn't seem to be working out all that great to me. Get rid of the standing army, get rid of the global empire. Let the 100-150 million people who want them own military-pattern rifles and lots of ammo and see if anyone is stupid enough to mess with us.

Were the United States to disband its "global empire" I suspect that shortly there would remain no-one capable of "messing with" the United States. The concurrent effects upon the United States itself should be obvious. One may or may not want this.

Post a Comment

NO ANONYMOUS COMMENTS. Anonymous comments will be deleted.

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts