How civil unrest, fears of war, or fears of gun bans effects the 2A

[leadcounsel]

I do NOT want to discuss the merits of any civil unrest.

This topic is whether civil unrest is good or bad for the 2A.

Perhaps 10 times or more in the last 25 years there have been threats of war, attacks on our soil, threats of gun bans, and serious civil unrest in the US.

In each of these instances gun sales soared to high levels and people hoarded guns, accessories, and ammunition. So clearly this is a reminder and/or wake-up call to people to defend themselves.

So this has been great for the 2A, right? But at what cost. Each of these instances has proven to be costly and divisive among the people.

Conversely, when society is doing 'well' as a whole, it seems that people are more willing to cast aside their 2A rights because civilized people don't need guns.

It's an interesting dichotomy that society needs to hit hard times to go back to basics. Of course nobody wishes for hard times, but those hard times are good for the 2A.

What's you view?

 

[readyeddy]

Civil unrest is a general term.

At its most extreme, you have civil war and a possible threat to the entire existing system of government that could result in the abandonment of the current legal system.

Milder forms of civil unrest would still place stress on the relationship between the government and citizenry, where the government's goal of control and stability will naturally move towards banning or confiscating guns.

The fact that people arm themselves in the face of unrest would tend to discourage the government from entering into armed conflict with the people and should increase the population of 2A supporters, but a crisis situation can turn volatile to the point of certain laws being suspended, as in the case of martial law being declared.

Is civil unrest good for the 2A? Maybe it is to the extent that civil unrest reminds us of why the 2A is essential and forces people to examine the issues relating to the amendment.

 

[DeepSouth]

It probably does some of both.

The antis will use unrest to exploit their agenda, showing graphic images and talking about how much the violence can be amplified when small arms are present. Therefore the "common since" solution is to restrict the availability of weapons.

While the other side will see the unrest as a need for greater availability for self preservation and defense.

Essentially, the antis will believe the unrest shows they are correct and their restrictions need to be broadened. While the pro freedom people (bias admitted) will see the need for more ways of defense and believe more people should be armed in order to protect themselves from such events.

More of the fence sitters will fall off, probably about equal ammonts on both side.


Basically, nothing changes other than people's current beliefs become more affirmed and intense. While a few fence sitters finally take a position.


I have often wondered if the reason for the over turn of so many waiting period laws wasn't a result of the anger of people unable to buy a firearm for protection during the Rodney King riots. I removed seeing lots of unhappy Californians on the news that waited to late to protect themselves.

 

[Sam1911]

If you want people to give up their right to self defense, just lull them into a sense of security by making them believe that we've "moved beyond" violence and live in a safe, non-violent world. Then, when most of society has decided that everyone in society is the same sort of herd animal they are ... ripe for the taking.

A little real-world, "I didn't believe it could happen here!," "where are the cops when you NEED them???," violence now and again seems to help remind the folks at home that it's better to have a gun and a smile than just a smile when making your wayin the world.

 

[denton]

A good friend of mine was working in the security business in California at the time of the Rodney King riots. He was very amused by the number of far left attorneys that called him, asking for the loan of a firearm so they could get home safely. He told them that would be a felony, and they were out of luck.

If you look at 2A sentiment over the long haul, our situation has gotten steadily better. According to Gallup, in 1990 78% of those surveyed thought gun laws should be more strict, and 2% thought they should be less strict. The following year, the numbers were 68% and 5%. Now, 37% say more strict and 13% say less strict. The graph over time gives more information that I can convey in a few words, so here's the link:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/1645/guns.aspx

Basically, the antis are on the losing end of a long and clear trend.

Riots are a bad thing. And, armed or not, if we see a riot, we ought to get the heck away from the scene. But for people who can't get away, or who choose to protect their business, I think the situation teaches the value of having legal and prompt access to firearms. MO gun sales show that very clearly.

 

[Onward Allusion]

Civil unrest neither benefit or damage the 2nd Amendment from a political and philosophical perspective. Most people don't think about the 2nd Amendment when there are barbarians at the gate. Nor will they take up activist roles when those barbarians are gone.

Folks are more concerned about saving themselves than making sure that others have protection. Most people are lazy and will forget in a single generation. Heck, it sometimes doesn't even take an entire generation. I know. I am a cynic.

 

[yzguy87]

I hope that poll is a true representation of people's beliefs


*this is off topic*
DeepSouth, your second signature is hilarious!

 

[40-82]

I am not convinced that the person who has never considered he needed a weapon for personal protection, who suddenly gets scared for whatever reason, and goes out and buys a gun or wants to and can't is necessarily converted to our side of the second amendment issue. I'd further guess that if we had the vote of every person who had a gun secreted somewhere just in case he might need it someday we would be politically safe. If we could count those who also employed armed guards as on our side, we'd have Chuck Schummer(possibly misspelled who cares?), Rosie O'Donnell, and Bloomberg.

 

[zorro45]

By news reports, a lot of folks have bought new arms with the current unrest. Surprisingly to me, Pres. O. made a statement about having to "rethink" the arming of civilian P.D.s with surplus military gear. For example, in one small city in my state they have a surplus Army helicopter in the DPW storage shed along with the snowplows.

 

[Sam1911]

I am not convinced that the person who has never considered he needed a weapon for personal protection, who suddenly gets scared for whatever reason, and goes out and buys a gun or wants to and can't is necessarily converted to our side of the second amendment issue.

Of course. And there are no guarantees. Even some "gun nuts" don't support RKBA and RKBA-sympathetic politicians as they really should.

However someone who does go buy a gun is a whole lot more likely to be favorable to our view of things than his neighbor who doesn't own a gun. If that gun gave them comfort, they're a little more likely to look askance at the next candidate to tells them gun owners are dangerous nuts. If they've got one sitting in the closet for "just in case" they're just that much more likely to be opposed to the jerk in the suit who's saying, "turn them all in."

There are never any guarantees, but getting folks personally invested is a big step.

 

[leadcounsel]

IMO anyone who has sought out to buy or get a gun for safety/security due to their fear is definitely open to the idea of the 2A being an individual right rather than a collective right. They are open to some ownership.

Then it's just a matter of degree.

And as Sam said, it's better than the person who will never own a *gasp* gun, or those that sell off all their guns when they have a baby for their safety... :banghead: This is a mentality I will never understand - as if a baby in the house can get on top of cabinets or open the gun safe.

 

[MagnumDweeb]

It's all a PR game. We have to harp that no one with a legally owned gun started shooting looters. But also that folks who had guns, who protected businesses, saw those businesses not suffer looting.

The antis won't believe for a second that folks have a right to self-defense.

 

[40-82]

Sam1911,

I hope you're right, and you may be. Your view is certainly a lot more hopeful than mine. It's disconcerting when I run into a gun owner who doesn't believe in individual rights, and more surprising when I encounter a person who for one reason or another who would never choose to own a gun himself, yet who supports the Constitution, the second amendment included.

 

[RustyShackelford]

Some points....

Here are a few points to consider;

A: Violent crime is way down in many states & urban areas. My state & local media recently put out a press release saying the crime stats are at the lowest levels in approx 40 years.
After the Travon Martin/George Zimmerman event in 2012, the Florida gov, Rick Scott(who gets a A rating from the NRA's ILA) set up a task force committee to see if any changes needed to be made re: lethal force events, guns. The group(made up of LE, church leaders, educators, civil rights leaders, etc) released the findings & suggested no major changes be made.
B: The general public bases opinions & views based mainly on media reports. When a riot or civil unrest does occur, many citizens in other areas only see what the 24hr news networks or newspapers choose to put out. It may or may not be the full or complete story.
Again, the Zimmerman-Martin case showed how details & facts were not released to the public in a timely manner. Protests & "outrage" were short sighted in my view. The general public didn't get information about the case until the Zimmerman trial in 2013.
A case could be also made for the way the Rodney King incident was handled in southern CA/LA in 1991/1992.
C: When civil disorders or riots/looting do occur it can be a mess for those directly involved. Stores are robbed or burned, people are beaten or shot, curfews or LE actions can prevent school or business from working. It's a disruption & problem that can cause long term damage.
D: I wouldn't take civil disorders or riots as a sign of major problems/unrest.
People had riots in the 1960s & 1970s, it didn't make every business close or every house burn down.

Rusty

 

[CoalTrain49]

S

o this has been great for the 2A, right? But at what cost. Each of these instances has proven to be costly and divisive among the people.

Personally, I don't see it as a 2A issue or having any effect on 2A. The constitution is more or less a dead document. All you have to do is look at how 4A has been ignored since 9/11. The gov't has declared a need to do away with your privacy and it disappeared. We have had a few 2A wins in our column recently but the states still hold all the cards and decide if you can carry and what you can own. Compare the laws in AZ with the laws in NJ. Same country, same constitution, but one has no restrictions and the other might as well be in China.

In the last 25 years we had a major riot (LA) and that didn't change anyone's views on 2A. We were attacked (9/11) and that didn't do anything but diminish our 4A rights and make every citizen a suspected terrorist. I happen to have first hand experience with that one. I don't think either of those two things changed much of anything for anyone. The big motivator seemed to be when the adm started talking about more restrictions. That didn't start a panic to go vote pro gun, it just started a buying panic and AR's and ammo flew off the shelves. But everything is almost back to normal now so we can breath easier. Except we have another small problem now but unless you live in or near St Louis you can just watch in on the big screen.

Of course I'm being sarcastic but in all honesty there are those that are prepared and those who aren't. Maybe we will get another civil rights bill and cops will have to start wearing cameras but I don't see much on any 2A issues.

 

[JTHunter]

You want to talk 2A and "civil unrest" - - look at the looting going on in Ferguson, MO AND the adjacent communities! Last night, the Dellwood Market was broken into by some people SHOOTING OUT THE WINDOWS when bricks and concrete chunks failed to work. After looting the store, they tried to burn it.

Where were the po-pos?

In the neighborhoods where they anticipated trouble! The locals thought the state police or NG had the stores covered (they didn't!).

With the history of the L.A. riots back in the 90's and how shop owners and friends banded together to protect their stores from looters, it boggles my mind as to WHY these shop owners failed to take precautions!

 

[leadcounsel]

Here are a few points to consider;

A: Violent crime is way down in many states & urban areas. My state & local media recently put out a press release saying the crime stats are at the lowest levels in approx 40 years.
After the Travon Martin/George Zimmerman event in 2012, the Florida gov, Rick Scott(who gets a A rating from the NRA's ILA) set up a task force committee to see if any changes needed to be made re: lethal force events, guns. The group(made up of LE, church leaders, educators, civil rights leaders, etc) released the findings & suggested no major changes be made.
B: The general public bases opinions & views based mainly on media reports. When a riot or civil unrest does occur, many citizens in other areas only see what the 24hr news networks or newspapers choose to put out. It may or may not be the full or complete story.
Again, the Zimmerman-Martin case showed how details & facts were not released to the public in a timely manner. Protests & "outrage" were short sighted in my view. The general public didn't get information about the case until the Zimmerman trial in 2013.
A case could be also made for the way the Rodney King incident was handled in southern CA/LA in 1991/1992.
C: When civil disorders or riots/looting do occur it can be a mess for those directly involved. Stores are robbed or burned, people are beaten or shot, curfews or LE actions can prevent school or business from working. It's a disruption & problem that can cause long term damage.
D: I wouldn't take civil disorders or riots as a sign of major problems/unrest.
People had riots in the 1960s & 1970s, it didn't make every business close or every house burn down.

Eh, we haven't really had a violent CRIME problem in America, compared to the rest of the world. Sure, there are periods of mobsters, drug wars, notorious criminals, but as a whole most of America is and always has been safe from violent crime. Yet people always perceive violence. Today, America is a bastion of safety and freedom in general, and the envy of much of the world. Yet, people perceive violence. No matter where and when in the world, violence can always occur.

It's largely perception, a human condition. Poor disenfranchised people here would be considered rich in most of the world because they have clean water, shelter, police, food, civil rights, etc. which are luxuries in much of the world. Rich people in 2nd and 3rd world nations would be considered impoverished in the United States. The same goes with relative safety, crime, and civil unrest.

Access to guns in America is one of those luxuries that most people globally don't enjoy and may not even understand.

Perception of violence rarely meets reality. Perception of fear rarely meets reality. Rights have been temporarily removed and later restored at various times in American history, such as when Japanese citizens were interned during WWII.

Point is - it seems that when Americans are too comfortable, we surrender some rights (such as the AWB in the prosperous 1990s).

But when we are too scared, we also surrender some rights (such as gun bans during various times when we were worried about organized crime or gangs such as the 1960s or 1980s), or the Patriot Act following 9/11/01.

It almost seems that for freedom to continue, Americans need to feel slightly threatened but not overwhelmingly so... on the tipping point, but not too far in comfort or fear...

 

[Bobson]

You want to talk 2A and "civil unrest" - - look at the looting going on in Ferguson, MO AND the adjacent communities!

With the history of the L.A. riots back in the 90's and how shop owners and friends banded together to protect their stores from looters, it boggles my mind as to WHY these shop owners failed to take precautions!

I don't understand the term looting as it's usually used these days. EG, in reference to the looting in Ferguson; or the many, many looters when Hurricane Katrina hit.

Why do we call it looting instead of stealing? To me, the term looting seems to suggest that the things being taken are like spoils of war - to the victor they go. Almost as if the person doing the taking has somehow earned a right to the property he's taking - whether by dominating the owner or simply being willing to take it when the owner is away.

How is looting different from theft, legally? Aren't the penalties the same? Do police usually not investigate and prosecute looting cases? I mean, I understand that there are other things going on, and it's a crime of opportunity, but what about after the fact?

 

[Trent]

At the periods in our society when Rule of Law breaks down, and we're left to fend for ourselves, I'd much rather have a rifle than get transferred to the FBI when I call the cops.

Which is exactly what happened in Ferguson after the riots started; the local police # was transferred over to federal jurisdiction, and the FBI was answering the phones. (Presumably to track down people making death threats and other such nonsense).

Point being, there *was* no police response available because they were all busy doing other things.

Ultimately, it is the responsibility of every US citizen to be able to fend for themselves.

I don't know why so many people don't take this lesson to heart and actually spend a little time and effort preparing - even a little - for things like this. ESDA in the State of Illinois runs frequent radio ads telling people to keep a supply of food, water, weather radio, medicines, etc on hand.

Even the CDC created the legendary "Zombie Apocalypse" page to get people to think about preparing for a shut-in emergency quarantine. http://www.cdc.gov/phpr/zombies.htm

They even have a "teachable moments" blog that runs in parallel to the Walking Dead series.

http://blogs.cdc.gov/publichealthmatters/2012/02/thewalkingdead/

Now they don't go so far as to recommend weapons; in another news release they said they'd leave that recommendation to law enforcement agencies;

"That was one of the first things we got from the zombie crowd ... 'What weapons do you guys recommend?'" Daigle said. "Remember, we're a public-health center, so we're not going to recommend weapons. ... Doctor Khan says we'll leave that to the law-enforcement folks."

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics...evelop-a-plan-for-a-zombie-apocalypse/239246/

BUT, the point is.. the Federal and State governments around the US have reminded Americans over, and over, and over again to prepare for civil disruptions - whether pandemic, social unrest, weather related, terrorism, etc.

And people still don't listen.

Keeping weapons on hand for last-resort use in a period of disruption of government is one of those ultra-rare use-roles that personal defensive weapons fall in to. E.g. you are more likely to be assaulted, and need a gun, than see a massive civil disruption within your lifetime. (And the risk of being assaulted is about 1 in 2 lifetimes, according to some statistical analysis I did about 6 months ago using FBI crime data, so even THAT is a long shot).

BUT... we don't have the luxury of picking the time and place of when we will have to defend ourselves. (If we could, we'd simply avoid it and there'd be no more violent offenses!). Which is why we keep and bear arms....

 

[Art Eatman]

Much like homeowner's insurance: The odds for need are low but the stakes are high.

 

[Drail]

The entire concept of "civilized people" is totally absurd. People are animals whether they admit it or not. Animals developed defense mechanisms for a reason - to survive. As did people.

 

[herkyguy]

It's a double edged sword. On the one hand people can't avoid asking the question: what would they do if subjected to widespread violence? Most will opt to prepare themselves and for the majority of them the idea of personal gun ownership is seen in a good light.

On the other hand, unrest provides ammo (no pun intended) for the gun grabbers to get all riled up and target it.

I do think 2A rights fare better when folks see a valid reason to own firearms.

 

[BSA1]

I define "Civil Unrest" in two ways.

The first category is non-violent peaceful mistrust and protesting of Government Policies and actions. Mistrust takes the form of individuals taking steps to become less dependent on the Government, becomiing more self-reliant, reducing their debt, etc. protesting is lawful activities like becoming politically active, writing to your Congress person, VOTING, talking to friends and neighbors.

The second category is violent Civil Unrest such as we have been seeing on TV. What we are seeing now is nothing like what on in the 1960's. In the '60's the was a lot of use of firearms by radicals against the police.

It is notable that most of people rioting are not using firearms. Their weapons of choice are rocks, clubs and firebombs. However Firebombing is used to lure firemen into traps where they can be shot at.

All this actually puts use of firearms in a positive light as it is common citizens coming together to protect their property and community.

edit; I am reading that the Police in Ferguson have been coming under "heavy gunfire." I wonder how many gangbangers are involved in this?

 

[Drail]

All of the reports I am seeing on St. Louis gun shops say sales are up. One store owner said that people are coming in with "fear in their eyes". Imagine that. While the majority of rioters don't seem to be shooters that could change fairly soon if the situation is not brought under control.

 

[barnbwt]

Brief, localized civil unrest (usually called 'crime') deterred or stopped by the arms of private citizens is good for the 2nd amendment, and the country in general. The same being dealt with to the point of deterrence by law enforcement is, as well. Serious events requiring the brief, focused use of outside resources to bring things under control before being withdrawn are more helpful than harmful to peace and civil liberties, being harmless reality checks to all but the few people involved. Helps get our priorities clarified.


Widespread or lasting unrest requiring or ceded to the efforts of outside enforcers (martial law) is an existential crisis for any society, and will yield little but increasingly harsh and clumsy action from desperate and frustrated authorities, ultimately tending toward either tyranny, anarchy, or a return to something in the middle. The rules become fluid in times of such turmoil, so it is hard to say whether the result will harm or benefit anything in particular, but it is overwhelmingly likely to not be in the peoples' favor (the US revolution was one such rare circumstance, the French and Russian revolutions, not so much, the Iranian revolt some years back ended up more or less a wash for country at large, but very bad for those caught being involved)

TCB