72 Killed Resisting Gun Confiscation in Boston

[dmancornell]

Absolutely, positively NOT.

We're leaving for a multitude of reasons that all fall under the general heading of "Problems of Nation Building in a Tribal Region". Militarily, Afghanistan was subdued within a few weeks of the invasion's start.

That's rich. The neocons are having trouble "nation building" because of armed resistance against their plans. Just like the Soviets and British encountered in the same region.

Did the USA win the Vietnam War as well?

 

[theotherwaldo]

We no longer have a Democracy.

We are not a democracy. We have never been a democracy. No democracy has ever lasted more than a couple of generations before becoming a tyranny, an anarchy, or being crushed by a stronger group. Democracies cannot make any decision except that they want more bread and circuses.

We are a REPUBLIC!

 

[MagnumDweeb]

As to resisting tyranny from our government I have pondered this greatly. Not actually doing it, since their is no quantum of tyranny at this time, but rather the response should there ever be a quantum of tyranny.

I've actually been writing a book about since two days after Sandy Hook, and was ready with all 140k words neatly edited and formatted for release on Amazon at the low price of $.99 (one fourth a designer coffee). Then as i was signing up for Amazon there was the Boston bombing and I cringed. What started from a place of anger, melded into intellectual exploration, the into careful authorship. Much of what I had learned in life I retracted from the book and spent more time on character development. Lessons in chemistry based on my background as a Chemistry Major (and hobbiest chemist), were for the most part removed, and the thorough descriptions of the devices used were made blander and simpler. It's still all very incredible I believe (intense, graphic, almost sociopathic). But it's much less a field manual and more a piece of fiction.

It's not a lone book either, it's the beginning of a series, and it is not a grandiose work either. It's focused, precise, and deals with exact instances. The focus of it thought is not taking on the government directly. Any real hope of resisting tyranny or a superior attacker/invader is not made in attacking them head on, or running away, but instead going after their ability to function while sapping the morale of their fighters and citizens. This we have seen with Iraq, Afghanistan, and Vietnam. When the supporters of tyrants and their families are directly in the line of fire, how long will their support last. Especially when that support is predicated upon the diminishment of a right that supporter will come to demand for themselves as a result of them being targeted (meaning limit the use of explosives to precise assassinations, and nix the use of firearms as much as possible, settle the scores with knives and blunt tools).

In that vein you wind up with asymmetrcial warfare where the backers (civilians) of tyranny are just as much if not more a target then the gunmen who implement their wants. To some extent this did happen during the revolutionary war even if it is not popularly recorded (a lot of Tories were murdered by revolutionaries and vice versa).

If fascists and tyrants were to come to power, direct resistance against the government would be foolish as far as I see it. I won't elaborate more because this is the highroad.

 

[Warp]

My main fear isn't mass confiscation attempts and battles vs the government. I truly don't think that will happen.
The gun grabbers know that an attempt to forcefully disarm the American public would end in bloodshed. They're not going to attempt it outright. They're going to keep clipping away little by little at our rights. There will be no defining moment in the process I don't think. It will just get more and more strict until one day, many years down the road, gun rights will be a thing of the past.

Look no farther than New York City.

Inch by inch.

 

[tomrkba]

Yea the jets, choppers, tanks, & smart bombs are quite the disparity. I'm not real sure how that would work today.

Erroneously drop one shell into the McMansions around here and there will be Hell to pay politically.

 

[yzguy87]

I think Flintknapper is spot on in post #11. I don't think a lot of Americans who verbally support the 2a are willing to use the 2a for its intended use.

 

[Warp]

I think Flintknapper is spot on in post #11. I don't think a lot of Americans who verbally support the 2a are willing to use the 2a for its intended use.

I think that is fairly accurate. Of both now, and 1775.

 

[Mike1234567]

I think Flintknapper is spot on in post #11. I don't think a lot of Americans who verbally support the 2a are willing to use the 2a for its intended use.

Reluctantly, and sadly, I must admit this is probably true. Even I no longer care enough to take action... even if I still could.

 

[goon]

I think that is fairly accurate. Of both now, and 1775.

As I recall, the breakdown is thought to have been about 20-30% patriot, maybe 30% loyalist, and the rest were somewhere in the middle... depending on who controlled the region they lived in.

Also, the American Revolution was not just a glorious uprising. It was outright civil war in some places with old family feuds being savagely settled under the guise of a fight for liberty. It wasn't something that anyone with any sense would wish to repeat.

All this talk about "us vs. the gov't!" never ceases to amaze me. Have you all lost faith in democracy? We have a major election every two years where we get to fine tune the gov't to our liking.

I would think that the revolution would take place at the voting booth LONG before it ever came to arms.

The ballot box is by far preferable to any other means of altering our government.
And for what it's worth, conflict and disagreement have always been present in our government. That's why the Bill of Rights was created in the first place - because of a very big disagreement about the power of government and how to protect the rights of the People.

 

[barnbwt]

but instead going after their ability to function while sapping the morale of their fighters and citizens

Which we can fortunately do through peaceful means like open debate, moving the means of production out of their hands (gun companies will inevitably tire of dealing with the BS out East and develop their facilities on more favorable ground), and ramming court decisions down their throat when all else fails

Also, the American Revolution was not just a glorious uprising. It was outright civil war in some places with old family feuds being savagely settled under the guise of a fight for liberty. It wasn't something that anyone with any sense would wish to repeat.

So true. Even with all the antebellum and post-WWI focus on how terrible war is compared to the old images of Chivalry, people fail to realize that conflicts before those eras were just as terrible (if not more so due to the numbers of soldiers and stupidity of tactics) and brutal. Hard for Americans to imagine entire cities being burned, but they certainly were back then.

I think Flintknapper is spot on in post #11. I don't think a lot of Americans who verbally support the 2a are willing to use the 2a for its intended use.

As with all military conflicts, I imagine a great majority of those people who were prepared to take up arms (the active militiamen) never honestly believed they would have to come to blows. I do however believe that today's more fractured societal structure at the local level will make it very difficult to organize, let alone resist, if things get bad enough a govt clamps down things like the Internet (as they surely would.)

Do you know offhand who in your community would be a confidant, brother in arms, double agent, or traitor? With no one knowing their neighbors' names any more, it seems laughable that any uprising beyond mindless rioting could form spontaneously. The "founders" had cobbled together a cabal of some of the most talented, educated, resourceful, and intelligent individuals living at the time years before "things got bad," and many even had extensive government service backgrounds that made running the new country a shorter learning curve (compare this to say, Egypt or Afghanistan). Moreover, these guys were also fans of this cool thing going on called The Enlightenment, in which philosophy and the study of human nature were very hip topics among the cool kids; perfect recipe for a competent governing structure that isn't designed solely to keep itself in power. Fat chance finding much beyond variations on fascism in popular American political thought, these days :banghead:

TCB

 

[0to60]

That's rich. The neocons are having trouble "nation building" because of armed resistance against their plans. Just like the Soviets and British encountered in the same region.

Did the USA win the Vietnam War as well?

Armed resistance? A few AK's and leftover Stingers pose absolutely no threat to the American military machine. Civilian casualties, bad press and huge price tag, now we're talking! Add "lack of a clear mission" and "no way of quantifying success" and the voters (the REAL power in the US) elect a politician who promises to pull the plug.

Losing interest one way or another and walking away is TOTALLY different than being beaten.

 

[Tony k]

We are not a democracy. We have never been a democracy. No democracy has ever lasted more than a couple of generations before becoming a tyranny, an anarchy, or being crushed by a stronger group. Democracies cannot make any decision except that they want more bread and circuses.

We are a REPUBLIC

do you mean like the Peoples REPUBLIC of China? Or the Union of Soviet Socialist REPUBLICS?

Being a democracy and being a republic are NOT mutually exclusive. Don't let contemporary, partisan connotations of "republican" and "Democrat" throw you off.

We are a republic because the affairs of state are supposed to be the business of the people, not the exclusive domain of a separate ruling class who hold power through divine right, thuggery, tyranny, or inheritance (or at least that was not the intent of the Founders).

Unlike the ancient Greek City States, we are not a pure democracy. The Greek city-states definately turned to crap within a few gernerations in exactly the ways you mentioned.

Our Founding Fathers studied the ancient Greek models and were well aware of the shortcomings of pure democracy. The Founders also knew that a pure democracy left individuals subject to the "tyranny of the majority," which is pretty much the antithesis of their desire to create a nation (a republic) founded on individual liberty. Our form of government is a beautiful (IMHO) example of representative democracy, which is a form of liberal democracy.

Again, don't let contemporary partisanship color your opinions of the words "liberal" and "democratic." Those words were not always associated with tyrannical control freaks like they are today. In fact, I think it's ironic in a very sad way that the word "liberal", which used to be associated with freedom and liberty, has been so badly twisted and corrupted as to basically be euphamism for totalitarianism.

 

[0to60]

The ballot box is by far preferable to any other means of altering our government.

And for what it's worth, conflict and disagreement have always been present in our government. That's why the Bill of Rights was created in the first place - because of a very big disagreement about the power of government and how to protect the rights of the People.

Yup. And we also have a Supreme Court that decides the constitutionality of laws brought before it.

People complain about the system all the time, but it works. We've got 300 million people to appease. Not everyone is gonna get their way. In fact, prolly NO ONE is gonna have it exactly their way. But we've come up with ways that keep the majority of us happy most the time. And things are constantly being tweaked and adjusted.

Has humanity ever done better at governing itself? Not in recorded history. If one feels the US isn't good enough, maybe one's problem is really with mankind's flawed nature.

 

[dmancornell]

Armed resistance? A few AK's and leftover Stingers pose absolutely no threat to the American military machine. Civilian casualties, bad press and huge price tag, now we're talking! Add "lack of a clear mission" and "no way of quantifying success" and the voters (the REAL power in the US) elect a politician who promises to pull the plug.

Enough of a threat such that the US government cannot control the Afghan population outside the safety of their fortified military bases.

Losing interest one way or another and walking away is TOTALLY different than being beaten.

Same end result. War is the violent impression of a government's will, walking away means they failed to do so. Your distinction is nothing more than meaningless, Patton-esque hubris.

 

[Palehorseman]

Same here, until Governor Gage's name appeared;

 

[Palehorseman]

do you mean like the Peoples REPUBLIC of China? Or the Union of Soviet Socialist REPUBLICS?

Being a democracy and being a republic are NOT mutually exclusive. Don't let contemporary, partisan connotations of "republican" and "Democrat" throw you off.

We are a republic because the affairs of state are supposed to be the business of the people, not the exclusive domain of a separate ruling class who hold power through divine right, thuggery, tyranny, or inheritance (or at least that was not the intent of the Founders).

Unlike the ancient Greek City States, we are not a pure democracy. The Greek city-states definately turned to crap within a few gernerations in exactly the ways you mentioned.

Our Founding Fathers studied the ancient Greek models and were well aware of the shortcomings of pure democracy. The Founders also knew that a pure democracy left individuals subject to the "tyranny of the majority," which is pretty much the antithesis of their desire to create a nation (a republic) founded on individual liberty. Our form of government is a beautiful (IMHO) example of representative democracy, which is a form of liberal democracy.

Again, don't let contemporary partisanship color your opinions of the words "liberal" and "democratic." Those words were not always associated with tyrannical control freaks like they are today. In fact, I think it's ironic in a very sad way that the word "liberal", which used to be associated with freedom and liberty, has been so badly twisted and corrupted as to basically be euphamism for totalitarianism.

We are a constitutionally limited representative democratic republic.

 

[goon]

Yup. And we also have a Supreme Court that decides the constitutionality of laws brought before it.

People complain about the system all the time, but it works. We've got 300 million people to appease. Not everyone is gonna get their way. In fact, prolly NO ONE is gonna have it exactly their way. But we've come up with ways that keep the majority of us happy most the time. And things are constantly being tweaked and adjusted.

Has humanity ever done better at governing itself? Not in recorded history. If one feels the US isn't good enough, maybe one's problem is really with mankind's flawed nature.

And Congress has listened to the population pretty clearly a couple of times recently. First, no new gun control even made it out of the Senate, even at the height of the panic. Second, a lot of Reps and Senators in both parties are openly attacking the NSA's recently exposed surveillance habits. Both of these are heavily influenced by the People pushing their elected reps to act (or not act).
Maybe it ain't perfect, but it's about as good as I can expect right now.

And this fellow Americans, is how the American Revolution began, April 20, 1775...

The American Revolution began long before the first shots were fired.
It began with anger over a lot of little things - the colonies being expected to pay for the cost of the French and Indian War, colonists being offended and horrified by the brutal discipline of British Regular forces, the Crown's unwillingness/inability to take a step back and breathe and look for pragmatic solutions, smugglers who didn't like that the British were now trying to clamp down and make money on shipping taxes - a lot of things went wrong before a shot was ever fired. And a lot of Americans considered themselves proud British subjects well into the 1770's.
For those uneducated on the subject, look up the Boston Massacre and its outcome... not the engraving by Paul Revere, but the real outcome. It paints a little different picture than the one you may be used to hearing.

 

[barnbwt]

"We are a constitutionally limited representative democratic republic."
Way to make us sound like the Glorious Democratic Peoples' Republic of Korea (btw, it's none of those things )

What separates a Democracy from a Republic is that the "people" are not the sole wielders of power, although many today seem to miss this. That's why they end in a tyranny of the people, just as a govt with a single executive ends with a dictator. A Republic organizes govt organs into groups headed up by various ruling groups; the people, an executive/military, a popular congress, a geographic congress, legal authority; and nowadays we've added business interests, global partnerships, and secret activities. Most of our govt growth/power issues stem from those last three not being checked & balanced enough by the previous arrangement we'd been following.

The purpose of a Democracy is to give the people representation. The purpose of a Republic is simply to govern well, and to do that requires input and protection of all contributing members. I imagine the founders, being experience government officials themselves, absolutely abhorred a return to the mind numbing incompetence and corruption of a centrally run system like they used to work in, and were determined to craft a system that wouldn't result in them hating their future jobs as much

TCB

 

[SouthernBoy]

Interesting that the OP posted this since many, perhaps most, Americans do not know what the spark was that ignited the American Revolution. It was gun control as described in the opening post.

 

[Trent]

Interesting that the OP posted this since many, perhaps most, Americans do not know what the spark was that ignited the American Revolution. It was gun control as described in the opening post.

Yes, it was. And that major fact doesn't even appear as a FOOTNOTE in my children's history books they brought home from school.

I checked.

 

[SouthernBoy]

That comes as no surprise to me. A truly sad state of affairs. The fact is, this is no accident. It is deliberate, planned, and well thought out.

 

[0to60]

Same end result. War is the violent impression of a government's will, walking away means they failed to do so. Your distinction is nothing more than meaningless, Patton-esque hubris.

You can look at this however you want, and if you choose to think that the US got whooped, go right ahead.

The simple fact of the matter is that voters (like me) are sick and tired of spending money in the middle east. Yeah, there are some that really wanted to see a glorious crusade that resulted a proper christian democracy in Afghanistan (and Iraq, for that matter) and those people are now thinking we're gutless and weak. But look at the facts. Obama campaigned on "I'll end these wars". He got elected, and then reelected. When he wanted to up the ante in Syria, he got TONS of resistance from the voters.

Plain and simple, American voters are sick and tired of expensive military operations in stupid foreign places. We've got enough problems of our own to solve without volunteering our $$ to help others solve theirs, ESPECIALY when those people are tribal, sectarian bickerers who won't stop until their culture evolves past that.

 

[powder]

Wasn't it last year that the decendants of those brave 18th century Bostonians allowed themselves to be locked in their homes under govt. order, then allowed the same govt. to force them out of their homes at gun point for warrantless searches?
These same decendants then stood in the streets and cheered and thanked those who raped them of their constitutional rights.
Who among them stood up and physically fought against the intrusions? Anyone?

Yes it was, and by the photos I recall they had MRAP armored vehicles as patrolling support, for the teams when going door to door, with a SAW gunner popped out the top of the vehicle. They did not call it martial law, but some other more "friendly" term. It was a test: How much resistance will there be?

Shut down, what was it, 25 square miles of Boston, for a search and seizure exercise? Just to see what would be tolerated: how much "strength of presence" is necessary to get them to lie down?

This is termed to be the reclamation period which we are in now, wherein private property and our overall sovereignty goes to the highest corporate bidder(s).

Yes, whoever it was who pointed out the political alignments of our forefathers was correct: the forefathers would today be pigeon-holed as liberal/Democrats, fighting the tyranny. That discussion is only a divider, not a THR avenue...

Here in WI the Koch Brothers backed Gogebic Mining Corporation has unleashed a reclamation exercise: claim public property for an out of state mining corporation, authorized a Security team from AZ to "guard" the wooded 3500 acre area in full battle gear, AND acquire the "set-aside" CRP tax benefits of keeping land out of farming with fast-tracked legislation passed just last month. How much will you swallow?

 

[mgkdrgn]

Erroneously drop one shell into the McMansions around here and there will be Hell to pay politically.

I think it might be quite difficult to convince the military to turn it's full wrath against it's own people.

 

[goon]

Interesting that the OP posted this since many, perhaps most, Americans do not know what the spark was that ignited the American Revolution. It was gun control as described in the opening post.

The Revolution didn't really start with spark. It was more of a long smoldering fire that finally caught flame after Lexington and Concord. But even after that, there were those who tried to find a peaceful solution. It took over a year for the Declaration of Independence to make its appearance after Lexington and Concord. Though Patriots get all the press, there were just as many people who were loyalists and a lot of people caught in the middle who'd have gladly ignored the whole thing if they could have. Speaking honestly, the majority of Americans weren't among the Patriots.

Remember, at the end of the French and Indian War in 1763, colonists thought of themselves as English subjects who'd just proven their loyalty to their sovereign with their service in the war. George Washington himself cut his teeth in that conflict, first with ill-fated commands of his own (Google Jumonville Glen and Fort Necessity), then by serving under General Braddock in 1755 (that also did not go so well).
Just a dozen years later, colonists were shooting at British Regulars in Massachusetts. It wasn't just a drive for independence that got us there, but also a lot of mismanagement by the British. Had they been better administrators and a little more pragmatic, we'd have probably been flying their colors for a whole lot longer.

Think of it like this - would you rather be a tiny little country with no military strength (like we were at the end of the Revolution) or under the protection of one of the most powerful nations on earth at the time? It had to take some pretty drastic stuff to drive us toward independence... because it was really not an ideal solution.

The simple fact of the matter is that voters (like me) are sick and tired of spending money in the middle east. Yeah, there are some that really wanted to see a glorious crusade that resulted a proper christian democracy in Afghanistan (and Iraq, for that matter) and those people are now thinking we're gutless and weak.

Similar circumstances also contributed to the success of the American Revolution. Trying to control another nation from halfway across the world was just as challenging and expensive then as it is now, and just as many people watched as time went on and began to wonder what was to be gained by all of it.