To what extent, if any, do you believe the right to arms has secured the American people

[jmg257]

against tyranny or usurpation by their own government?

Do you think the ‘fear of an armed populace’ has affected our elected officials in such a way as to keep them from enacting what might be considered oppressive laws?

I am not thinking about voting blocks or lobbyists keeping laws from being passed, I am thinking about enactments that could have occurred, but didn’t due to govt fear of the people.

FWIW, I do think something like a new federal AWB would be met with at least some fierce & violent opposition if enacted, and I think at least some politicians would/could be considering that possibility. IS such a possibility a viable deterent from getting it passed? Cuomo obviously had no worries in NY, although it hasn't been backed up state actions - yet.

Thoughts?

[iiibbb]

1. Irrelevant question given the fact that the government has never done anything to warrant

revolution.

While voting still works, it's pure conjecture. We've never had a despot. Surprisingly this country does a pretty good job of keeping the relative peace in spite of the differing views and social levels.

For many of Americans' faults... there is still a lot to be admired.

[jmg257]

2. There is HUGE step between 'being a deterent' and 'needing a revolution', hopefully

anyway.

If you consider it irrelevant, I take it you don't feel, so far anyway, having an armed populace has mattered much.


After I posted I was thinking about prohibition, and wondering if the levels of violence which resulted had an influence on getting the law retracted. Not just by organized crime, but by moonshiners or whatnot.

edit:

also thinking about post-Constitution rebellions like the Whiskey Rebellion, where arms allowed for insurrection (against a tax), where private arms were used to prevent officals from collecting the tax. These were handled as mandated and the laws enforced by the Militias, but all this AFTER the laws were written.

[iiibbb]

5. I just think the question is difficult to answer.

Last edited Fri Feb 8, 2013, 02:07 PM - Edit history (1)

There was an earlier time when we were more likely to be in a nuclear war with Russia because we didn't see nuclear bombs as a deterrent; there were those who thought a nuclear war was winnable.

Similarly, we cannot know what frame of mind future governments have about their chances if they really were to oppress the populace. I think it would be a gross miscalculation if they thought such a thing were "winnable".

There is a deterrent element to it I believe; but the state of our society doesn't really illustrate it.

It is a Schrödinger's chicken/egg thing.

[ThatPoetGuy]

3. An armed populace has always created oppression, not defended against it.

An armed populace overthrew Chiang Kai-Shek and replaced him with the brutal dictator Mao Tse-tung, who massacred countless individuals. An armed populace overthrew the Sandinistas and brought the corrupt, oppressive Somozas back to power, so they could operate their death camps and torture chambers.

An armed populace made the institution of human slavery widespread and effectively enforced.

Aside from idiotic fantasies, if everyone is armed, oppression is going to be more common, not less. If you and your kids go for a walk, and five guys with guns come at you, are you seriously going to pull your gun and try to shoot them, with your kids in the crossfire? Of course not.

Universal armature gives more power to the outlaw, since the outlaw has less to lose and travels in packs.

It is sad that our nation has been harmed so deeply by the fantasies of racist morons.

[iiibbb]

8. If you and your kids go for a walk, and five guys with guns come at you, are you seriously going to

...pull your gun and try to shoot them, with your kids in the crossfire?

Ummm... yes I am.

Could you please outline the other choices in this scenario?

[slackmaster]

4. Security against tyranny or usuration by our own government is just a big fat worn-out canard

The point of the Second Amendment is to protect the security OF the state, which includes the government and all of the people and every identifiable grouping of people.

[jmg257]

6. Agreed, yet there is a thread linking to an essay where

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1172109041

that notion is alive and well. And VERY MANY believe it is the case. To enpower the citizenry, balance the power etc. secure personal rights etc.

[gcomeau]

7. Since the end of the 19th century...

...to absolutely no extent whatsoever. The US has a real standing army these days. The militia was NEVER in and of itself expected to be a deterrent against US government tyranny. It was the militia *being the bulk of the military force at the governments disposal* that served that purpose. That is no longer even remotely true. The only thing dumping weapons into the general population accomplishes these days is getting lots and lots of Americans killed to no ends.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

18. You should read...

...Federalist #46 by Madison: http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa46.htm

...specifically the ninth paragraph.

[gcomeau]

19. Done...

My point remains unaltered. In the 18th freaking century a bunch of half trained state militias composed of a bunch of people toting around personal firearms actually WERE the bulk of the military power available to be called upon in the US. At worst some government turned tyrannical forms a standing army which is far smaller and armed with essentially THE SAME WEAPONRY for the most part.

I repeat, that is simply no longer the case. The modern standing military would roll over the yahoos that think they're the modern day incarnation of those same militias with ease. It is not a bunch of gun toting doofuses with armories in their basements that prevent the government from turning tyrant. If you want a hint what does read all those paragraphs in front of the eighth and even the opening of the eighth itself a your own link where Madison was outright mocking people concerned about it happening.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

20. Just a few points.

I doubt that anyone would seriously argue that civilian irregulars with private arms would endure a campaign of protracted length or win against a trained, experienced and militarily equipped modern army. I would judge that of the 80,000,000 firearm owners in the US, about half are actually practiced and proficient. Further, of that 40,000,000 maybe 1% are what could be called warriors.

Those warriors, maybe as few as a few hundred thousand, they won't win a major battle and overrun Washington. They won't surround, attack and subdue the Pentagon. They will likely frustrate and greatly magnify the effects of attrition. Their actions will dilute the allegiance of the federal army and probably make morale problems both serious and unpredictable and, generally, spread paranoia and depression among the ranks of officers. That's even assuming that a domestic army would attack its fellow countrymen.

Warriors have operated in the worst situations. Both under-armed and outnumbered. They may become guerrillas, snipers, spies, saboteurs, assassins or suicide squads. They've operated in Hazarajat, Saratoga, Thermopylae, Burma, Pleiku, France and Sterling Bridge among others. They're called SEALs, Spetsnaz, Marines, RLI, Minutemen and Hoplites.

They would fight and die if need be, until a formidable ally joined them. In the Revolution it was the French; in Pleiku it was the Americans.

All that aside, you should read a bit more about the Revolution.

[gcomeau]

23. And one in return.

"All that aside, you should read a bit more about the Revolution."

And you should read a bit more of those first few paragraphs of Federalist 46 I pointed you at last post... since you seem to have simply ignored the suggestion first time around based on what you wrote there.

The idea that the US is safeguarded against tyranny because its population carries a bunch of guns is a longstanding *fantasy*. All your talk about warriors makes for great speechifying in some adventure novel, but that's about it. Yeah, warriors are big and bad. The Spartans at Thermopylae were bad asses. Send the SEALs into battle and they get things done. Etc. etc. etc.

What they *do not do* is stop the US government from turning tyrannical. Other things do that.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

24. I seems we differ...

...but I respect you and your opinion. Perhaps more discussion may occur in the future.

Thanks for sharing here in the gungeon.

[jimmy the one]

25. toss in taliban & al qaeda

dscntn: Those warriors, maybe as few as a few hundred thousand, they won't win a major battle and overrun Washington. They won't surround, attack and subdue the Pentagon. They will likely frustrate and greatly magnify the effects of attrition. Their actions will dilute the allegiance of the federal army and probably make morale problems both serious and unpredictable and, generally, spread paranoia and depression among the ranks of officers. That's even assuming that a domestic army would attack its fellow countrymen.

Kinda like what the tea party is doing today, eh? Tea party guerrillas - the GOPsters - are making such headway, after several years, eh? creating morale problems, wreaking havoc by spreading paranoia & depression, amongst the ranks of 'The Republican Party'!

Warriors have operated in the worst situations. Both under-armed and outnumbered. They may become guerrillas, snipers, spies, saboteurs, assassins or suicide squads. They've operated in Hazarajat, Saratoga, Thermopylae, Burma, Pleiku, France and Sterling Bridge among others. They're called SEALs, Spetsnaz, Marines, RLI, Minutemen and Hoplites.

A couple you didn't mention, the taliban, al qaeda, ku klux klan, tory militias (americans btw). Then the martyrs, the maquis & the jewish atop their particular mountaintop plain (masada for jewish, vercours or slt french) along with the alamo... you sure american 6 pack guzzlers would go out in a battle to the death?

They would fight and die if need be, until a formidable ally joined them. In the Revolution it was the French; in Pleiku it was the Americans.

my bet is they'd go home as soon as they ran out of pizza.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

31. my bet is...

...you don't make a living by betting

[Progressive dog]

26. Federalist #46 was written to sell a Constitution

without any amendments.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

30. In the OP...

...the question was asked about whether the RKBA is an aid in securing the US against tyranny. The post to which I was replying was a response averring the current obsolescence of that right for that purpose due to the existence of our current standing army and its relative invincibility.

The post to which I replied took the position that the presence of a standing army negates that the militia's role in becoming the US Army. I hold that the RKBA protects the common people's individual right. By that same right, skill at arms and ownership thereof is not reserved to a special group or class. It has by years and decades fallen out of fashion to refer to or think of the position of individuals relative to any established, organized and active militia.

I argue that while not a requirement for service, experience and proficiency with a firearm will not be a detriment to anyone deciding to serve and would likely enhance their abilities. Some notable individuals in the armed forces had established proficiency at shooting before their enlistments. A favored principle among many armed forces is that everyone is a rifleman first. Having an experienced corps of people familiar with firearms from which to draw recruits is a military advantage. Having those skills as a right to all is a step toward preventing the establishment of a privileged class.

Federalist #46 specifically addressed the concurrent existence of a federal army and an armed militia (neither specifically registered nor organized). Madison's estimate of 1% of the population being sustainable in military service is realistic. I doubt that the US has exceeded that ratio at any recent time except possibly for short periods during a war.

I today favor a smaller military for a few reasons. First, a standing army is an expense and the bigger the army, the greater the cost. Second, there is a tendency to favor most that which one is most heavily invested. It seems that while ultimately adequate in capacity to protect national interests, the US military has become the tool of diplomacy and a foundation for foreign policy. It is vital when negotiating, on any scale, to do so in good faith. Many people in other countries have the not unfounded concept that failing to accept US policies would invite reprisals. A carpenter may have plenty of sandpaper and varnish but, if he has spent half his budget on hammers, it's hard to resist the urge to hit something.

Reducing our military and strengthening a militia is a concept that serves everyone. Simply maintaining the capacity for a military is the proper state of things. The existence of the Bill of Rights and specifically the 2A does not negate any of these ideals. There was not a change in the nature of the militia as mentioned in #46 by Madison and the militia of the 2A.

If there is a point apart from what I've inferred here, I apologize for not seeing it.

[Progressive dog]

32. The militia is defined in the Constitution

I only see multiple contradictory points. When we refer to a document that was used to sell the constitution as a basis for explaining an amendment to that Constitution, it makes no sense and is unexplainable.
Reducing our military and strengthening our militia was a concept that was proven wrong multiple times and opposed by most of our Presidents and military commands starting with Washington. It is obvious why.
Did Jefferson send the militia to stop the pirates in Tripoli?
Did the militia stop the British from burning Washington?
Did Lincoln continue to use militia to defend the nation?
Did the militia fight WWI or WWII for the US?

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

33. Lacking here...

...is the separation of two ideas. The actual right to keep and bear arms exists apart from the second amendment and the Bill of Rights. The BoR serves to protect the rights of individuals from government.

The BoR was developed to sell the Constitution just as #46 was written for the same purpose. You don't seem to have a correct understanding of the scope of the militia. I don't believe that a militia should ever operate in place of an army, navy or air force.

[Progressive dog]

34. Lacking here is the idea that cause must precede effect

1)The actual right to keep and bear arms does not exist apart from the amendments except for the common law understanding, which evolved as weapons evolved. 2) The bill of rights are not necessarily individual rights. You night want to read some besides the 2nd. 3) What part of the army, navy, and air force should the militia replace, or if they are not replacements, explain how they save money as you did claim.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

35. more points

1) Necessarily false.
2) The BoR must when read as a whole name individual rights.
3) While decreases in manpower of the Navy and Air Force would be less than what may be required of the Army and Marines, any payroll reductions will save money. The militia is viable to staff the military when needed.

[jimmy the one]

39. Rawle on bill of rights

discntnt: The BoR must when read as a whole name individual rights.

Wm Rawle was cited several times by scalia in heller; here is how Wm Rawle defined the admendments - the bill of rights - in 1825, in his 'A View of the Constitution'.

Rawle: Of the amendments already adopted, (for which see the appendix,) the eight first in order fall within the class of restrictions on the legislative power, some of which would have been implied, some are original, and all are highly valuable. Some are also to be considered as restrictions on the judicial power.
The constitutions of some of the states contain bills of rights; others do not. A declaration of rights, therefore, properly finds a place in the general Constitution, where it equalizes all and binds all.
http://www.constitution.org/wr/rawle_10.htm -- nearer the top, top third

Rawle cont'd: The preceding article {1st Amendment} expressly refers to the powers of congress alone, but some of those which follow are to be more generally construed, and considered as applying to the state legislatures as well as that of the Union. The important principles contained in them are now incorporated by adoption into the instrument itself; they form parts of the declared rights of the people, of which neither the state powers nor those of the Union can ever deprive them.

The British today contend that, in heller, scalia misrepresented their english bor 1689 and their 'have arms decree' (rkba equiv); They contend their 'have arms' decree pertained to an invididual right to belong to militia, which was surely how the founding fathers intended 2ndA to be.
A bill of rights is usually considered to be both a limitation on 'congress' or fed power, as well as conferring individual rights. When taken as an individual rkba to belong to militia, it makes perfect sense, either way the american bill of rts is interpreted.

(Rawle did believe that at least some of the amendments could be applied to states, which was reversed a few years later, then the 14thA came along. But still an individual right to belong to militia, was the initial intent).

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

40. The 2A...

...does not say that you have a right to belong to a militia.

The British today can contend as they please because they extensively limit the RKBA and their courts are unable to correctly interpret that due to the principle of legislative supremacy. The US holds to judicial interpretations.

[jimmy the one]

45. english have arms decree

dscntnt: The 2A...does not say that you have a right to belong to a militia.

Yes it does, you just don't understand it.

The British today can contend as they please because they extensively limit the RKBA and their courts are unable to correctly interpret that due to the principle of legislative supremacy. The US holds to judicial interpretations.

You missed the point, I feel intentionally, since this has been posted elsewhere & surely you've read it; that scalia, in heller, cited the british 'have arms' decree as the precursor to the 2ndA, upon which the 2ndA was based. The british have pointed out to scalia & scotus that by citing the english have arms decree as an 'individual right disconnected from militia' they were wrong, & misrepresenting the english bill of rights.
If you cite something in error as a basis for something else, doesn't that invalidate something somewhere? What if the british misinterpreted some aspect of the US constitution?

.. contrary to discredited scholarship upon which Heller relied, the right to “have arms” embodied in the English Declaration of Rights did not intend to protect an individual’s right to possess, own, or use arms for private purposes such as to defend a home against burglars (what, in modern times, we mean when we use the term “self-defense”). Rather, it referred to a right to possess arms in defense of the realm.
.. The “have arms” provision in the {1689} English Declaration of Rights .. provided two protections to the individual. First, the right to “have arms” gave certain persons (qualified Protestants) the right to possess arms to take part in defending the realm against enemies within (i.e., Catholics) as well as foreign invaders.
.. Second, the grant of a right to “have arms” was a compromise of a dispute over control of the militia that gave Parliament concurrent power (with the sovereign) over arming the landed gentry. It allowed Parliament to invoke its right of “self-preservation” and “resistance” should the sovereign usurp the laws, liberties, estates, and Protestant religion of the nation.
..The Supreme Court correctly found that the English right to “have arms” was an expression of the same right that has “long been understood to be the predecessor to our Second Amendment.”
.. Where the Court erred was by interpreting the quoted terms in a manner divorced from their historical context, reading “individual” to mean “private,” “defence” to mean “defense against harm by private individuals acting for private purposes” and equating “self-preservation” with the modern usage of the term “self-defense.” In doing so, the Court relied heavily on the scholarship of Joyce Lee Malcolm. The overwhelming consensus among leading English historians, however, is that Malcolm’s work is flawed on this point.
http://www.oyez.org/sites/default/files/cases/briefs/pdf/brief__08-1521__22.pdf

Amici Curiae are scholars and professional historians whose collective expertise covers the following areas: the history of Stuart England, the Restoration, the 1689 Glorious Revolution, the American Revolution, the Early Republic, American legal history, American Constitutional history, and Anglo-American history. Each has earned one or more advanced degrees in history, political science and/or law. The depth of knowledge they bring to the Court’s inquiry in this case is reflected in the biographical information provided in the accompanying Appendix.

I. THE SUPREME COURT SHOULD REEXAMINE PRIOR FINDINGS IN LIGHT OF SOUNDER SCHOLARSHIP WHEN INTERPRETING RIGHTS IN THE CONSTITUTION ..The Court “throughout its history has freely exercised its power to reexamine the basis of constitutional decisions.”
II. THE ALLOWANCE OF A RIGHT TO “HAVE ARMS” SET FORTH IN THE 1689 DECLARATION OF RIGHTS WAS THE PRECURSOR TO THE SECOND AMENDMENT.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

46. The debate about the RKBA...

...will no doubt continue as the various opinions find support for their views from historical and current writings. Many people today hold and relate their own views on the nature of the right. I respect your opinion and certainly accept as reasonable those historical facts, quotes and writings which you site. For myself I hold as follows:
The RKBA is a personal individual right apart from service to an organized militia or military.
The scope of the RKBA includes personal defense of yourself or another being assaulted.
The RKBA like other individual rights is protected in the US Bill of Rights.
The RKBA is an extension of the individual right to life.

In the Declaration of Independence the Jefferson wrote, and many of the Founders gave assent to, that among the rights of all people were life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. This claim, while imperfectly expressed and even less perfectly exercised in deeds, laws and judicial findings of the time, sets as a goal the respecting of these rights in their ideal for and by everyone. The controversy concerning the RKBA here is a microcosm of that expressed in the Declaration.

For me, the right as explained in Heller agrees with my inductive conclusion, based on the right to life, that there is a right to self defense. Rights are not, in the American view, "granted". They may be acknowledged or protected by law but they exist native to a person. They may properly be limited and restricted by judicial due process. The exercise of any rights for profit, protection, survival or simply the pursuit of happiness is nature of man.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

47. BTW...

...I should have said that the RKBA is not principally purposed to provide for a militia.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

37. By your...

...non-response I can only infer your assent to the points I listed in:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=109411

I was curious about what else the Bill of Rights detailed and hope to hear from you.
Either way, have a nice day.

[Progressive dog]

38. I don't under stand how unsupported claims become points

Why would I reply to "necessarily false".

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

41. It is a simple matter...

...to inductively reason that the existence of a right to life implies a right to self defense.

[jmg257]

42. I don't think many people at all argue against a right to self defense.

It is often considered a natural right. And as a justification for homicide.

Yates, Brutus 2

"To effect this end, it was necessary that a certain portion of natural liberty should be surrendered, in order, that what remained should be preserved: how great a proportion of natural freedom is necessary to be yielded by individuals, when they submit to government, I shall not now enquire. So much, however, must be given up, as will be sufficient to enable those, to whom the administration of the government is committed, to establish laws for the promoting the happiness of the community, and to carry those laws into effect. But it is not necessary, for this purpose, that individuals should relinquish all their natural rights. Some are of such a nature that they cannot be surrendered. Of this kind are the rights of conscience, the right of enjoying and defending life, etc."

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

43. A rather concise phrasing...

"...the right of enjoying and defending life...".

I like it.

[Remmah2]

9. Loaded question, more of a squibb.

The Second Amendment guarantees our right to protect ourselves against enemies domestic and foreign.

Has the government of the United States ever used arms against it's citizens? The answer is yes.

Has the United States Government ever used arms against unarmed citizens? The answer is yes.

Has the United States government ever committed genocide on US soil? The answer is yes.

People should read more American history and world history and spend less time on Face Book.

In NY, Cuomo snuck the bill in for a vote, the senators/legislatures were NOT allowed to discuss it with their constituents, public review and comment was not allowed. The governor gave the legislature/senate 24 hours to vote on it. The bill was crafted by a pack of Cuomo insiders, a back door deal. There are many many more abusive sub section of Cuomo's law that abuse people way beyond the AW restrictions.

Many of the Sheriff's departments have indicated they do not support the law. Many towns, county clerk offices, town police departments and a host of other public officials have spoken out loudly against the law and the method by which it was passed. This is NY, a hard core true blue state. If the government can pass laws without representation of it's citizens what kind of country have we devolved too?


When I hear the gun grabbers say they want meaningful discussion and sensible laws I say they're lying. Cuomo is an anti gun extremist and his actions have endangered the passing of violence/crime legislation that could be useful.

I pity New Yorkers and feel sorry for them.

[jmg257]

10. Seems a simple question. Maybe not easy to answer 'for sure', as iiibbb

pointed out.

But I thought it is fairly straight-forward, and NOT meant to trick people up or whatever, as a 'loaded question' might be thought to. squibb???

You brought up examples of actions of corrupt states, but none showing state fears of an armed populace... no thoughts at all that it has occured in the past, might in the future?

[iiibbb]

11. You can't prove a negative

What evidence will you find of a state taking no action because it fears the populace? Wouldn't that be unknowable since our only "known" quantities are states that do take action against the populace?

States don't fear a populace (armed or otherwise).... they underestimate them.

[jmg257]

13. Probably not much (evidence). Thoughts about it though would be interesting.

When it might have happened, when it might in the future.

Maybe not, though.


As I stated previously, I do think the threat of violence by theose who disagree is/may be affecting state interest in a new AWB. That argument is used all the time - 'how would you enforce it?', 'who would volunteer for the confiscation squads?', 'gorilla warfare', 'molon labe' etc.

Seems a perfect example of this type of...'balance' - if it is actually occurring.

[jimmy the one]

15. NY approves, 65%

remmah: In NY, Cuomo snuck the bill in for a vote, the senators/legislatures were NOT allowed to discuss it with their constituents, public review and comment was not allowed. The governor gave the legislature/senate 24 hours to vote on it. The bill was crafted by a pack of Cuomo insiders, a back door deal. There are many many more abusive sub section of Cuomo's law that abuse people way beyond the AW restrictions.

Thanks, inspector clouseau, but: feb 4 2013: Siena's poll showed a large majority of New York voters – 65% - support the new gun laws, compared to 30% who oppose the laws and 5% who aren't sure.
56% of voters said they would support Cuomo for re-election in 2014, while 36% said they would vote for someone else.
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/02/04/polls-vary-on-how-n-y-gun-laws-affect-cuomo/

remmah: Many of the Sheriff's departments have indicated they do not support the law. Many towns, county clerk offices, town police departments and a host of other public officials have spoken out loudly against the law and the method by which it was passed.

You know, when you use the word 'many' & the term 'a host of' in a case like this, it means practically nothing. Using numbers & percentages are so much better, like: a large majority of New York voters – 65% - support the new gun laws,

This is NY, a hard core true blue state. If the government can pass laws without representation of it's citizens what kind of country have we devolved too?

Why do you contend it's not representative?: a large majority of New York voters – 65% - support the new gun laws, What would you rather, the tail wag the dog?

rem: When I hear the gun grabbers say they want meaningful discussion and sensible laws I say they're lying. Cuomo is an anti gun extremist and his actions have endangered the passing of violence/crime legislation that could be useful. I pity New Yorkers and feel sorry for them

New york's more republican area is the northern part, referred to as upstate. But I doubt too many of them care that you pity & feel sorry for them.
Oooops, I used that word 'many' dint I? means practically nothing I guess.

I'd be remiss (unfair & unbalanced like a fox) not to include this: Siena poll - 58% of New York voters approve of the job Cuomo is doing, down from 60% at the beginning of last month. But a Quinnipiac.. showed a sharper drop in Cuomo's approval rating, from 74% in December to 58% at the end of January{2013}.

[Remmah2]

28. Do you think 65% of the NY's polled actually read and comprehended the bill?

Or are they reading the hype that the Newspapers and Blogs posted?

[iiibbb]

36. On paper the wait for a pistol permit is a couple of months.

In practice it's now 2 years and getting longer. I wonder how long until the wait for a permit exceeds the length of time the permit is valid?


So if you went to the average person and said what the law is, they'd call it reasonable.

Is 2 years to be vetted by the state reasonable?

There's paper, and there's practice.

[twn]

12. Battle of Athens

Google the Battle of Athens!

[jmg257]

14. Sweet! Thank you! nt

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Athens_(1946)

"The Battle of Athens (sometimes called the McMinn County War) was a rebellion led by citizens in Athens and Etowah, Tennessee, United States, against the local government in August 1946. The citizens, including some World War II veterans, accused the local officials of political corruption and voter intimidation. The event is sometimes cited by firearms ownership advocates as an example of the value of the Second Amendment in combating tyranny.[1][2][3][4]
...
Citizens of McMinn County had long been concerned about political corruption and possible election fraud.[5] The U.S. Department of Justice had investigated allegations of electoral fraud in 1940, 1942, and 1944, but had not taken action...

Polls for the county election opened August 1, 1946. About 200 armed deputies turned out to patrol the precincts—the normal complement of 15 deputies significantly augmented by reinforcements from other counties. A number of conflicts arose before the polls closed, the most serious of which was when deputy CM Wise shot and wounded a black man who was trying to vote.[7]

As the polls closed, deputies seized ballot boxes and took them to the jail. Opposition veterans responded by arming themselves and marching there. Some of them had raided the National Guard Armory, obtaining arms and ammunition.[9] Estimates of the number of veterans besieging the jail vary from several hundred[9] to as high as 2,000.[7]

When the men reached the jail, it was barricaded and manned by 55 deputies. The veterans demanded the ballot boxes but were refused. They then opened fire on the jail, initiating a battle that lasted several hours by some accounts,[7][9] considerably less by others.[10] In the end, the door of the jail was dynamited and breached. The barricaded deputies—some with injuries—surrendered, and the ballot boxes were recovered.

During the fight at the jail, rioting had broken out in Athens, mainly targeting police cars.[7][9] This continued even after the ballot boxes were recovered, but subsided by morning.[10]
...

[ileus]

16. It secures my family and I everyday.

[jmg257]

17. From the government, or just in general? nt

[jimmy the one]

21. subcultural & kkk

jmg: What evidence will you find of a state taking no action because it fears the populace? Wouldn't that be unknowable since our only "known" quantities are states that do take action against the populace?

.. I've thought of several 'ideas' and even started to post a couple but cancelled since afterthoughts made them seem far too subjectively conjecture on my part. The only thing I can think which might have substance (excepting civil war of course) is the kkk in the early 20thcentury, KKK was considered mainstream america back then, accepted by whites, & white politicians & police were sometimes cowed, or 'obliging' towards them.

States don't fear a populace (armed or otherwise).... they underestimate them.

Or think them a sub culture.

[ileus]

22. In general, 42 years and Uncle Sam still hasn't threatened me personally.

He may have threatened and removed rights / freedom (see patriot act, old AWB) but he's never knocked on my door.

[Progressive dog]

27. No extent

In order to win an argument that only those with mental problems should not have any kind of guns they want, enough people with guns will violently oppose our government to force it to back down. That seems to be the new argument from the 'My gun rights trump all your rights' crowd.

Didn't work well in the 1860's, did it?

See, in a representative democracy, your neighbors get to vote and choose the representatives that can take your assault weapons away. No one gets to make their own laws, no one gets to interpret the existing laws their way.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

29. to the full extent of the law since 1789.

[Eleanors38]

44. Who can say? If the American experiment stays half-way acceptable...

I don't really want to find out.