"One rule for me, another for thee." Why do some see this as acceptable.

[Callisto32]

This is a question for those that think that the general populace should be disarmed, but the agents of the state should not.

Why?

Why should the state have a monopoly on force, especially when, as a group, states are incredibly likely to use that force in terrible ways?

[Deep13]

1. People instinctively believe authority figures are trustworthy.

This has no basis in fact, of course.

[spin]

38. Americans have always had a distrust of government ...

and it can be a good thing.

When Americans trust their government too readily, they tend to support policies that most liberals oppose. The post-9/11 period led to the greatest rise in political trust since Watergate, which helped George W. Bush make the case for what turned out to be a disastrous war in Iraq.

Professor Hetherington's research shows that declining trust decreases support for foreign-policy adventurism, and other scholars have shown that it also makes the public less likely to endorse restrictions on civil liberties.

In the '50s and '60s, high levels of political trust served as a presidential enabler, allowing unrestrained spying at home and unnecessary wars abroad. In 1971, just as Americans were beginning to wake up to the dangers of excessive trust in the federal government, the Watergate tapes captured an interesting exchange between Richard Nixon and his chief of staff, H.R. Haldeman.

The two were debating what to do about the impending release of the Pentagon Papers, a classified history of the Vietnam War that documented a host of government lies. Haldeman warned Nixon that the release would undermine the public's belief in "the implicit infallibility of presidents, which has been an accepted thing in America," and reveal that "people do things the President wants to do even though it's wrong, and the President can be wrong."

No American today could pronounce that phrase, "the implicit infallibility of presidents," without a smirk, and we should be very glad about that. Our Founding Fathers knew that no man was infallible.
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=10051

[maxsolomon]

2. because the daily toll of handgun death is unacceptable to them?

is the massive amount of illegal handguns circulating in america, and the attendant violence, an acceptable cost for the theoretical ability to resist, with light weapons, an american military armed with heavy weapons? how long do you think the best armed patriots, holed up in their idaho compounds, would hold out against even a modern police force, let alone the marines?

besides, what "incredibly likely" sequence of events do you see that would lead to the american goverment using force in terrible ways against the american populace? why don't the other western democracies worry about this as much as we do?

you're being hyperbolic - no one is asking for the populace to be "disarmed" - has anyone called for banning hunting rifles in america? there needs to be a 3rd way that allows a well-regulated militia, but addresses mass shootings, spousal killings, suicides, honor murders, and drug violence. i have no idea what it is.

[bossy22]

4. actually yes

when they talk about banning "sniper rifles" they are talking about hunting rifles too (since the two are one in the same; just like a "police interceptor" is the same as a crown victoria)

plus handguns are protected by the 2A

[TheWraith]

6. What do you think that "daily toll" is, actually?

It's about 35 people a day... or about as many people as will be killed by cigarettes in the next 45 minutes. Priorities?

And long experience has proven that once you cede the idea of banning one sort of firearm, the next is on the chopping block. Nor can people carry a hunting rifle as a credible form of self defense, so your option would leave them defenseless to criminals--who have proven that they will remain armed no matter the laws.

[maxsolomon]

20. the slippery slope argument again - we do ban some types of firearms, no? gatling guns?

and 35 deaths a day is unacceptable to SOME PEOPLE - you can understand why they might find it displeasing, no? but not me. i think it's clearly what americans have decided, collectively, IS acceptable. 35 needless gun deaths a day. 12,775/year. tra la la.

i wasn't aware that i advocated any "option". in fact, i said that i have no idea what could or should be done. this is intractable.

[jody]

34. Gatling guns are not banned. You can own one if you meet the requirements. n/t

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

41. Let us know when you come up with a way to stop criminals from shooting each other.

That's the source of the overwhelming majority of the gun deaths in this country.

[TheWraith]

47. Gatling guns are not banned, nor are other types of machine guns.

They're simply very, very expensive, since there's a limited supply. Since they're extremely valuable, they're very well protected and unlikely to be used in crimes.

And the "slippery slope" has been proven in the past--if you don't believe me, look at the Brady Campaign's internal memos after the "Assault Weapons Ban" in 1994, where they openly talked about their desire to try and ban handguns and repeating rifles as well.

The point you miss is that in a country of 300 million people, 35 people a day is statistically way down on the list. Cigarettes kill that many every 45 minutes, and smog kills as many in 4 hours or so, but some people choose to ignore things like that and fixate on firearms. They don't even fixate on the real cause of gun violence, to wit the prohibitionist policies that create a fertile black market for drugs and the consequent gang violence.

There are ALWAYS going to be deaths. And there will always be people who shout that one death is too many. But in the real world, where nobody is immortal, deaths from guns, from smoke, from choking on a steak are ALWAYS going to happen even if we take pains to minimize them.

[jody]

9. You need to read D.C. v. Heller where SCOTUS said RKBA for handguns is an individual right “[t]his

is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence."

RKBA is primarily about self-defense and only secondarily about defense of state.

[maxsolomon]

23. i don't need to read it. i accept it.

the OP wants to know why "some people" think that the state should have a monopoly on force.

no one thinks that. it's hyperbole.

[jody]

32. Your post only addressed defense of state whereas the OP talked about RKBA in general.

Your reply was a straw man in that it ignored the simple fact that RKBA is primarily about defense of self and a distant second is defense of state.

[Callisto32]

54. Yes, "some people" think that.

If you look around here enough, "only the police and military should have guns" is a sentiment you seen fairly often.

What is the rationale behind this?

Using absolutes like "no one thinks that" is hyperbole.

[Dappleganger]

14. Actually, in my city police shootings outnumber BG shootings. nt

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

15. The American government could never easily or quickly "defeat" The People.

Hell, we can't easily flush out a couple of goat fuckers hiding in the hills of 3rd world sandboxes.
There are nearly 300,000,000 guns and 80,000,000 gun owners. Americans also tend to "blend in" with each other...
Even 1% of gun owners forming a resistance is over 2X as large as the US armed forces.

Is the US going to nuke america? LOL. Are they going to bomb cities? Unlikely. It's our own turf.
So what good are all the nukes, planes, submarines, and battleships? Useless.
The only for the Government to actually win is to engage in asymmetric ground warfare... while vastly outnumbered.
Even then, what makes you think american troops will fully comply with the orders.
You expect troops, who swore to uphold the constitution, to fight Americans in America for a tyrannical government?
Soldiers are citizens too - with American families and friends.

[maxsolomon]

17. my point is that your paranoid scenario is unlikely

i DON'T think a tyrannical USA government trying to "defeat the People" is at all likely.

[PavePusher]

22. Likely? No.

Possible? History says "Yes".

I recall a line somewhere about "eternal vigilance"...

I don't think there was ever a nation that said "We're going to have a few elections, then slide in a despotic government. Yeah, that sounds good....".

[SteveM]

25. So, the founding fathers were paranoid? Which ones were not?

When the Bill of Rights was drawn up, were all those people involved paranoid? Please tell us which of our revolutionaries was NOT paranoid and voted against the Second Amendment.

[maxsolomon]

28. is it the 18th century?

are we in immanent danger of invasion by the British Empire?

[SteveM]

30. So, what do you want to do? Declare what the founders did "obsolete?"

Read carefully the debate over the Second and you will see that the right guaranteed is for people to defend themselves from ALL manner of threat, including invasion. (Please note that Germany wanted to outflank the U.S. in WWI by enlisting the support of Mexico, and that Japan just went right ahead and bombed our fleet.) So, an exclusive threat from Britain is straw.

"Foolish liberals who are trying to read the Second Amendment out of the Constitution by claiming it's not an individual right or that it's too much of a safety hazard... They're courting disaster by encouraging others to use the same means to eliminate portions of the Constitution they don't like." -- Alan Dershowitz, as an ACLU national board member (The Great American Gun Debate, Kates & Kleck, Pacific Research Institute for Public Policy, 1997, p. 16.

So much for obsolescence as we move into the 21st Century.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

40. He said it was unlikely in his post. So that would mean you guys agree.

[SteveM]

21. Prohibition is addiction: No one is ever satisfied with the last score.

Concerning the massive amounts of illegal handguns circulating," please note that the violent crime rate is down and has been going down since the mid-90s.

"...theoretical ability to resist, with light weapons, an american military armed with heavy weapons?"

Clearly, you have forgotten that Americans have the right to keep and bear arms period. That they may use them as well to resist unlawful or dictatorial authority is but one reason to have them. (You do recognize, of course, that one's RKBA is NOT contingent on militia duty.) Concerning "resistance," please check out Cuba, Algeria, Ireland, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc. It matters not if anyone can think of a scenario where the "american government" uses force against the population; one needn't provide a recipe or business model for every eventuality in the future.

The proposed expansion of the "assault weapons ban" by the DNC (it is STILL in the Party platform) calls for the outlawing of more weapons -- including a number heretofore considered "hunting rifles."

"Have another hit of California sunshine" Quicksilver Messenger Service.

[maxsolomon]

27. i didn't forget jack shit

i understand the 2nd amendment. it's not that hard or long. i understand the interpretations of 'well-regulated militia'. i understand that it is about personal protection. i understand that it is as absolute as if Yahweh carved it on mt. sinai.

i still think the 'red dawn' scenario of lightly armed patriots resisting a fascist, despotic american government armed with modern weaponry is laughable, and has a theoretical possibility only slightly less than that of the Rapture. 90% of these theoretical patriots will be rooting FOR a fascist american government, if not actively turning in their neighbors.

[PavePusher]

31. Who said anything about "lightly armed"?

And do you ever watch the news? You did know there is a war on, right?

Against "lightly armed" people? How's that been going?

[SteveM]

33. "90% of these theoretical patriosts will be rooting for fascist govenment." THAT's paranoia.

And a curiously well-detailed prediction for one who disparages the possibility of future oppression.

You have been sufficiently answered concerning the problems ANY government would have if it tried to effect a take-over or keep its despotic reign over its people. Small arms would be the WEAPONS OF CHOICE by any insurgency; I mean, why waste money on drones, helicopters, out-dated jets with antique avionics, destroyers, howitzers, ICBMs, etc.

Seriously, why do you think the U.S. keeps getting bogged down in years-long (and usually unsuccessful) military campaigns against small, weak governments? Because they seem to believe the same "Rapturous" stuff as you.

[TPaine7]

36. Welcome to the fold, brother...

i understand the 2nd amendment. it's not that hard or long. i understand the interpretations of 'well-regulated militia'. i understand that it is about personal protection. i understand that it is as absolute as if Yahweh carved it on mt. sinai.

There is more rejoicing over you than over ninety and nine long-time true believers.

[onehandle]

39. Red Dawn mentality is alive and well at DU. nt

[Euromutt]

46. Actually, you're the only one who keeps bringing it up.

I guess you don't have anything more substantial to say.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

51. Onehandle has a crush on C. Thomas Howell.

[gorfle]

43. Some points.

is the massive amount of illegal handguns circulating in america, and the attendant violence, an acceptable cost for the theoretical ability to resist, with light weapons, an american military armed with heavy weapons? how long do you think the best armed patriots, holed up in their idaho compounds, would hold out against even a modern police force, let alone the marines?

First, the answer to your question, in my view, is "yes". The consequences of living in a society with relatively free access to small arms means that we will have to suffer the consequences of those who abuse that right, and in my view, it is worth that cost. First of all, very few firearm owners abuse their right to keep and bear arms - less than 5%.

Secondly, as has been hashed many times here before, yes, it is entirely possible for numerically and technologically inferior forces to successfully resist superior forces. See the US vs. Vietnam, USSR vs. Afghanistan, US vs. Mogadishu, US vs. Iraq, and US vs. Afghanistan.

The last two are, of course, still underway, but I suspect most people around here agree that these wasteful wars in the end will accomplish nothing and we will leave, in the end, as the Soviets did, after a long and painful war of attrition that finally breaks our will to carry on the fight.

besides, what "incredibly likely" sequence of events do you see that would lead to the american goverment using force in terrible ways against the american populace? why don't the other western democracies worry about this as much as we do?

Perhaps you missed the last 8 years? Bush cut wide swaths through our liberties, and put us on a terrible course to the precipice of tyranny. The suspension of habeus corpus for anyone the government says. Extraordinary rendition. Torture. Pervasive Domestic Surveillance.

Frankly, when you consider that the American Revolution was set off by a tax on tea, it's astonishing that these things I mentioned above hardly elicit any response at all. That is, until you consider that most people are entertained and don't look much harder at their politicians than to see if they claim to love Jesus or not.

The real question is not "What, if anything will spark a revolution?", but instead, "What recourse will you have in case of one?"

you're being hyperbolic - no one is asking for the populace to be "disarmed" - has anyone called for banning hunting rifles in america? there needs to be a 3rd way that allows a well-regulated militia, but addresses mass shootings, spousal killings, suicides, honor murders, and drug violence. i have no idea what it is.

Pro-firearm folks have heard this all before, and our eyebrows immediately go up whenever someone claims, "Nobody is out to ban your hunting rifles!"

First of all, the second amendment is not about hunting! The second amendment is about equipping the people with military-grade small arms so as to either be able to eliminate the need for, or at least counter, federal infantry forces.

Second of all, how do you define a "hunting" rifle?

Third of all, what about the fact that since the Assault Weapons Ban, "assault weapons", that is, AR-15 clones, have become the most popular centerfire target rifle in the country?

Fourth of all, firearm violence continues to decline, as it has for years. Accidental deaths due to firearms have been declining for over 100 years.

But as for what the solution is, I DO know what it is. Most firearm murders are committed by people with extensive prior criminal histories:

http://www.cardozolawreview.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=138:kates201086&catid=20:firearmsinc&Itemid=20

Probably in excess of 90% of people who commit firearm murders have extensive prior criminal backgrounds, and thus cannot even legally own the firearms they use to commit murder with. The answer then, obviously, is to make laws that target this portion of society. The answer obviously is NOT to pass laws that largely impact law-abiding people and have zero impact on the non-law abiding's access to firearms.

The way to do this is to implement an FOID (Firarm Owner ID) system, similar to what is in place in Illinois, with the exception that it should be opt-out, rather than opt-in, so as to preserve anonymous firearm ownership. In this way no firearm could be legally sold to someone without recording their FOID number for some number of years, and it would be incredibly dangerous and foolish to do otherwise since the firearm would be highly likely to be used in crime and thus traced back to the previous, law-abiding owner.

[X_Digger]

52. Ahh, a 3rd way'er.. how'd that third way work out in '94? n/t

[Callisto32]

53. States are incredibly likely to go to war.

War is terrible. It is a use of arms. The use of force I speak of does not have to be limited to the American populace. It is just as wrong to be killing/maiming/stealing from people anywhere.

[benEzra]

57. Why do prohibitionists keep bringing up the hunting canard?

Fewer than 1 in 5 U.S. gun owners hunts at all, and a majority of hunters probably also own nonhunting guns.

The majority of gun violence is committed by people who are ALREADY banned from possessing firearms of any type, under laws already on the books. Piling additional pointless restrictions on the lawful and responsible (like restrictions on rifle stock shape, 19th century capacity limits, elites-only CHL policies, banning the most popular target rifles) doesn't do a damn thing about criminal violence.

http://crimelab.uchicago.edu/gun_violence/report.shtml

Research in criminology consistently finds that 6 percent of each birth cohort accounts for up to half of all crime and two-thirds of all violent crime (see, for example, Tracy, Wolfgang, and Figlio, 1990). People who have been arrested at least three times have more than a two-thirds chance of being arrested again. The disproportionate concentration of crime and violence among a relatively small subgroup suggests that changing the behavior of even a small share of the highest-risk youth could generate a notable drop in the overall volume of gun violence.

Gang involvement appears to be one characteristic of this highly criminally involved subset of all youth, particularly in Chicago. What should count as a “gang” remains the topic of ongoing debate among criminologists and sociologists. But when the United States Department of Justice surveyed arrestees in different cities in 1996–97, 20 percent of Chicago arrestees said they were currently in a gang and 45 percent said they had been in a gang at some point. This is a far higher rate than in the median city in the sample, which had 3 percent of arrestees report current gang involvement and 15 percent report lifetime involvement. Los Angeles was the only city that came close to Chicago’s level of reported gang activity.<6>

In recent years, the Chicago Police Department (CPD) has reported that roughly 45 percent of homicides in Chicago are related to gang altercations or narcotics. The CPD also reports that 90 percent of all homicide offenders and nearly three-quarters of homicide victims have prior arrest records, which suggests that involvement with gangs, drugs, guns, or other illegal activities is associated with an increased risk of violence and victimization as well as offending.<7>

[onehandle]

3. Do you honestly see the 'state' using force on us?

I don't need to hear teabagger-like fear mongering at DU.

Obama isn't going to 'come git yer guns.'

[TheWraith]

7. Okay, do you believe that police officers NEVER abuse their position?

Seriously? You don't need an act of Congress for an armed officer of the state to act like a totalitarian.

[onehandle]

8. I don't think that's what the OP meant.

'especially when, as a group, states are incredibly likely to use that force in terrible ways?'

[TheWraith]

12. A state entity, when it comes down to it, is made up of individual people.

When those people are bad people, you get George Wallace, Kent State, Danziger Bridge.

Someone being an officer of the state does not automatically make them any more noble or deserving to handle a deadly weapon than the public at large.

[Callisto32]

56. War is terrible.

States decide to go to war, all the time.

[Deep13]

10. I'm thinking of the violence against civil rights activists...

...the suburban police who blocked the escape of Katrina refugees, jim crow and state sponsored terrorism of Blacks, union busting, oppression of Japanese Americans and native extermination.

[onehandle]

11. LOL!

That's what the 'gun activists' of today have in mind when they show up at Obama events packing heat.

'I'm doing this for oppressed minorities.'

LOL!

The gungeon cracks me up.

[PavePusher]

24. Ah! So oppresion is O.K....

as long as it is on a small, local scale.

Gotchya.

[SteveM]

29. For your reading enjoyment...

www.georgiacarry.org

Search locally in legal activities for the brief submitted to the SCOTUS on behalf of Heller. You'll get a good edumacation on the origins of gun-control/bans in this country. Frankly, it should be abundantly ironic -- even to you -- that an organization based in Georgia should give such a thorough account of what gun-control is really all about, yet speak on behalf of those who were grossly oppressed.

But you seem to support ol' Jim Crow, now that he caught the last train to the North so that he may lay his stink down on the usual suspects, all in the name of "liberalism," of course.

[Deep13]

37. I'm only responding to your comment about abusive force from the state.

That part happens.

I wasn't commenting on teabaggers or anything else.

[PavePusher]

18. It has been done in the past.

Or did you skip most of history class?

[SteveM]

26. Strange, you should talk about fear-mongering...

President Obama has proposed all manner of gun-control/bans, and so has the Party. READ THE PLATFORM. The only thing which keeps Obama and many in the Party from proposing and enacting new bans is the unquestioned ability of 2A advocates to beat down their opposition. Any decision to "come git yer guns" is grounded in political pragmatism; the cat has bitten and clawed the controller/banner to such an extent that they have -- for the time being -- decided against such a dumb-ass and unconstitutional action.

[jody]

44. ROFL at the analogy, what anti-RKBA group thought was a kitten is really a mad as hell lion. n/t

[hex29a]

42. There was a time when King George III was "the state"

I seem to recall some history about 'redcoats'

[onehandle]

49. Tell me more about taking arms up against the state.

Obama's FBI finds all of this very interesting.

[Euromutt]

48. If you don't need to hear it...

Then maybe you need to stop imagining that you do.

Are you even capable of coming up with a statement that is not an ad hominem, a straw man, or a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy?

[Callisto32]

55. Your understanding of the sutiation is shallow.

The state, meaning the corporate entity that creates and enforces laws, uses force upon us all the time. Carry pot, put you in jail. Cross the street "incorrectly" steal your money. If you don't willingly give up that money, go to jail. State wants to build a road, they take your property. All of these things are force.

[onehandle]

58. So you Are suggesting that we gun up and fight law enforcement.

Got it.

President Obama's FBI will be at your home shortly.

[Callisto32]

59. So, you put words in my mouth.

Violence against the state gets you nothing but dead, it simply isn't expedient. I could decry it based upon that alone, let alone other reasons.

The president does not own the FBI, just sayin'.

I'm pretty sure you are just baiting. Go find a bridge, or take part seriously.

[Callisto32]

61. No response when you have nothing rediculous to say.

Typical.

[TheWraith]

5. Same reason some people believe in controlling what others can smoke, drink, eat...

What colors they can paint their houses, who they can fuck, when they can water the lawn, and on. Many people--including some Democrats--have an impulse towards authoritarianism. They crave the certainty of the government enforcing their particular opinions as law.

[rrneck]

13. The people should not be afraid of government,

the government should be afraid of the people.

Armed resistance is less important than the awareness that people would be willing to use it whether it will be effective or not. The continuum of force holds true for police officers, individual members of the general public and for entire societies as well.

[spin]

16. The middle class is disappearing and we are returning to a feudal society ...

where there will be two classes of people, the privileged and the serfs.

As in the older feudal society, the privileged will have knights to protect them and to enforce their rules.

[Glassunion]

19. Are those the same officers

That raided an elderly couple's house because the may have had illegal orchids? You know flowers. FUCKING FLOWERS!

http://radioviceonline.com/federal-tactical-team-raids-home-in-search-of-illegal-orchids/

[jody]

35. Agree "feudal society" and with more gang against gang violence a "feuding society". n/t

[jody]

45. Thanks for the OP. It presents an opportunity to educate those with minimal knowledge of RKBA. n/t

[Callisto32]

60. Unfortunately, this has turned into just the typical cluster-fuck.

The usual suspects show up and spout nonsense, we RKBA types show them how they are wrong and that their "arguments" are logical fallacies, nothing changes.

Sad.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

50. Because they are scared little hypocrites.