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

[Nom de Forum]

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?

My view is that civil unrest is good for the Second Amendment in much the same way as the following:

Incidents of death by food poisoning and tainted medicine is good for reminding people to support strong FDA regulations.

Birth defects and fatal illness caused from pollution is good for reminding people to support strong EPA regulations.

People losing their homes, savings, and prosperous futures is good for reminding people to support strong SEC regulations and strengthening various Banking regulatory organizations.

People losing their jobs because corporations are outsourcing their jobs overseas is a good for reminding people to support regulation and laws to discourage corporations from outsourcing.

People loudly and if necessary violently protesting against discriminatory treatment is good for reminding people to support the civil rights and equal treatment of people who are different from themselves so that they themselves limit the possibility of ever needing to loudly and violently protest suffering discrimination.

My view is that civil unrest is potentially bad for the Second Amendment because it could it could evolve into long term civil anarchy and collapse requiring martial law that results in confiscation of privately owned firearms should a large enough segment of the population becomes outraged from not being sufficiently protected by a good Government from food poisoning, toxic medication, birth defects and terminal illness from pollution, discrimination, and inability to prosper due to the society destroying greed of a very small minority of people controlling most of the wealth in the country.

So ya, I agree bad things remind people of the need to maintain protections they may rarely need to use or even think about how they are protecting them, except that apathy can lead to the surprise of many seemingly unrelated bad things that accumulated to become an unstoppable avalanche into anarchy or tyranny. Perhaps it would be better to work to eliminate bad things so we can reduce our need for them to remind us we need protections from them. Many bad things have been eliminated that we have no problem remembering why we need to have protections from them.

 

[JTHunter]

Bobson said:

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?

The dictionary I have has a 1988 copyright date but it defines "loot" as 1- goods stolen or taken by force, as from a captured enemy city in wartime, or by a corrupt official, or by rioters; plunder; spoils. 2- the act of looting.

"Different from theft"? No. The "difference" is in the manner in which it is done. Looting is a "mob action" where the liklihood of capture and prosecution is greatly reduced.

 

[vaupet]

Coming from a country which is safe to the extreme (low crimerates, no natural disasters, no letal animals) since 1945 (thanks again), just two remarques on the side:

1) all those now buying firearms for protection in a hurry, with no or little training or firearms-knowledge at all, are just accidents waiting to happen and they are going to give the rest of you a bad name.
Semi automatic, military style rifles in the hands of panicking untrained people = recipy for disaster.

2) when I look at your policeforce, their equipment and tactics, I get realy worried. It reminds me of an occupational force or of some images from pictures such as 'the hunger games': all the better reason to treasure the RKBA, to protect yourself from your own government and its servants.
Looks to me the police is there to serve and to protect the government, not the people.

 

[Bobson]

Coming from a country which is safe to the extreme (low crimerates, no natural disasters, no letal animals) since 1945 (thanks again)...

You're welcome.

1) all those now buying firearms for protection in a hurry, with no or little training or firearms-knowledge at all, are just accidents waiting to happen and they are going to give the rest of you a bad name. Semi automatic, military style rifles in the hands of panicking untrained people = recipy for disaster.

I agree that having a huge number of untrained people wielding firearms they're unfamiliar with is an unsavory situation. I think the remedy for this isn't to eliminate the number of people with guns; but to emphasize training as much as possible, while simultaneously postponing the event where these guns need to be employed by those citizens in the manner for which they were intended (at least in terms of the concept behind the design) for as long as possible, which brings us to your next point about the purpose of the Second Amendment.

2) when I look at your policeforce, their equipment and tactics, I get realy worried. It reminds me of an occupational force or of some images from pictures such as 'the hunger games': all the better reason to treasure the RKBA, to protect yourself from your own government and its servants.

You're absolutely correct that we should both treasure and do everything in our power to preserve our RKBA; and the 2A is indeed about protecting the people from their government. Unfortunately there are many in America who either don't realize that, or turn a blind eye to it.

I believe most LEOs are just people who want to make a living doing something they're passionate about. I know there are those who will strongly disagree with that, some who will even laugh at my perspective and think I'm foolish for believing it, but my opinion isn't formed off of anything I saw in a fairytale; it's formed based on years of study of criminal justice, my own passion for CJ, and on the passion of the great majority of my peers during the time I spent studying law enforcement. I believe the "militarization" of most urban law enforcement agencies today is, while unfortunate, a necessary adaptation to the changes in American culture over the last thirty or so years.

Looks to me the police is there to serve and to protect the government, not the people.

The serve and protect phrase is just a slogan popularized largely by Hollywood. Not now or at any time in the past were the police intended to "protect" the general population in the way that most people today think they were. Instead, police, by definition, exist to police the people; to react to the actions of criminals and serve as a first step toward achieving justice. It wasn't until the mid-1980s (which is still recent in terms of the history of law enforcement) that criminologists developed the mindset to attempt to adopt, within law enforcement agencies, a more proactive approach to criminal justice. And despite that major shift in mentality, which is both honorable and praise-worthy, you would find it enormously difficult to find a law enforcement agency that will officially express the stance that they exist to protect anyone. Law enforcement agencies exist to bring criminals to justice - and in doing so, people are protected (in theory) as a result of getting scumbags off the streets. So you see, protection is a theoretical result, and indeed a desirable result; but it's not the primary goal - and it never was.

The reason you find so many people today who believe the police exist to protect the public is because this is a concept that, frankly, gives Americans a warm, fuzzy feeling inside. Yes, we've reached that low.

 

[BSA1]

I believe most LEOs are just people who want to make a living doing something they're passionate about.

Emphasis on make a living. When a officer have a mortgage to pay, raising a family, keeping food on the table that paycheck becomes mighty important. So to keep that paycheck coming in they follow orders, regardless of whether you think it is right or wrong.

I believe the "militarization" of most urban law enforcement agencies today is, while unfortunate, a necessary adaptation to the changes in American culture over the last thirty or so years.

The Police is the most visible representative of the Government which, as recent events show with IRS, NSA, BATF and with local politicians, is corrupt, willing and actively ignoring the rights of American citizens. America is rapidly moving towards a socialist society with the inherent loss of civil liberties and embracement of national police force. Oh you don't believe we already have a National Police force. What do you think the Department of Homeland Security is?

"Those who desire to give up freedom in order to gain security will not have, nor do they deserve either one." - Benjamin Franklin

It wasn't until the mid-1980s (which is still recent in terms of the history of law enforcement) that criminologists developed the mindset to attempt to adopt, within law enforcement agencies, a more proactive approach to criminal justice

Your CJ Instructor has it wrong. Up into the 1960's the Police Officers regarded themselves and by others as citizens of the community there to serve and protect their neighbors and members of that community. In times of emergencies the Police turned to the citizens for help and to reinforce their ranks. When the crisis was over citizens went back to doing their normal routine.

In the 1960's we saw the rise of the attitude the only the Police are trained enough and capable to deal with crime. TV shows like Dragnet and Adam-12 showed citizens as being incapable of fighting back against criminals and when they did the citizens came out on the short end of stick.

One of biggest barriers to police officers being approachable to citizens is air conditioning in their cars. Officers drive around at 30 mph with their windows rolled up, a/c blasting while listening to tunes on the radio. Or in high crime understaffed departments spending their time going form call to call.

Now the Police where flak vests, are heavily armed, look like and consider themselves as soldiers ready to do battle with anyone and are equipping themselves with armored vehicles.

Many small town departments have never abandoned being part of the community.

p.s. I have a couple of degrees, graduated honors in CJ, lifetime of law enforcement experience and am qualified to teach CJ and Psychology classes and yada, yada, yada.

 

[HRnightmare]

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.

That gives me heartburn against the NRA. He was a coward and cowtailed to the media and people during the GZ / Trayvon Martin cluster and then cowtailed to the people fighting against FL's Castle Doctorine. He is weak and indecisive...unfortunately Charlie Christ seems like he is coming back a Democrat with a real bone to pick with the GOP and has done an EXTREME side step to the far left.

That and the population shift that FL is experiencing / will experience exponentially, FL is screwed. They will be New New York in ten years.

 

[RustyShackelford]

Post #31, Hammer Time!.....

Florida is blessed to have Marion Hammer.
She is a former NRA president & deeply involved in Florida's gun-2A issues.
Hammer spoke in favor of allowing Florida citizens & gun owners/license holders(W) to carry in times of declared(state or federal) emergencies.
The LE unions & sheriffs' groups opposed these new bills.
The plans didn't go Hammer's way but she's still in there fighting.

Marion Hammer is older now so Florida will in time, need a new voice in gun/2A issues.
I personally don't see FL going the New New York route(btw: isn't that from Futurama www.imdb.com ?
Florida leads the USA in CCW licenses and crime/drug gangs led many residents to own or carry firearms. Hunting & fishing are very popular too as many people enjoy the outdoors in Florida.

I'd add that Florida's Lt Gov, Jennifer Carrol(a immigrant & retired US Navy officer) led the special task force. Carrol(check spelling) had a A+ rating from the NRA, .
She had to step down due to a scandal that involved a veteran's charity & her PR firm. IMO, she wasn't really at fault or acted unethically but it was a big mess. She chose not to get sucked into it & left public office. Honesty, I would have voted for her over Rick Scott.

 

[Schwing]

While I don't think any civil unrest is a good thing, I do believe that the contemplation of such events are, inevitably, a good thing. I remember watching that cheesy show "Jericho". My wife and I probably doubled our food storage and emergency supplies during the few weeks we watched it. It made me run through some scenarios in my head that I hadn't even considered.

I also think that the fear of losing our 2A rights is a huge factor in gaining converts to pro 2A causes. Look no further than the last presidential election for an example here. While I am not happy he was elected to a second term, this one event did more to INCREASE gun ownership in America than anything else over the last few decades.

As far as local PD's being equipped with military hardware, I have NO problem with my PD doing this. Of course, my local sheriff was one of those who signed the pledge sent to D.C. vowing NOT to enforce any federal gun laws they deemed unconstitutional nor allow federal agents into our county to do so either. I actually have a fair amount of trust in my local law enforcement. Now if I lived in NY or CA....????

 

[MTO]

I have read through the 32 comments posted so far, and outside of 40-82's calling out high-profile antis with armed security in comment #8, I do not think anyone has mentioned that there is a sizable chunk of people in this country who make no connection between RKBA and their own personal ownership of guns. Hypocrisy is rampant, and it is a mistake to assume that somebody who owns or would own a gun for whatever purpose supports any other person's right to own guns.

 

[JTHunter]

vaupet said:

Coming from a country which is safe to the extreme (low crimerates, no natural disasters, no letal animals) since 1945 (thanks again).....

Before too much longer, your country and the rest of Europe will wish they had such equipment.
You have a "cancer" eating them away from within and you only have yourselves to blame for what is to come.

 

[CoalTrain49]

The Police is the most visible representative of the Government which, as recent events show with IRS, NSA, BATF and with local politicians, is corrupt, willing and actively ignoring the rights of American citizens. America is rapidly moving towards a socialist society with the inherent loss of civil liberties and embracement of national police force. Oh you don't believe we already have a national Police force. What do you think the Department of Homeland Security is?


"Those who desire to give up freedom in order to gain security will not have, nor do they deserve either one." - Benjamin Franklin

To add to this there seems to be a disconnect when it comes to citizens understanding their responsibility to pay attention to what the gov't is doing. I read where there was a 20% voter turnout in St Louis county and about 10% in the city of Ferguson in the last election. That tells me that people don't really want to take any responsibility for their gov't, at least in St Louis County. By default minorities get white gov't because they don't vote. The trend in this country is to let the gov't take care of us and forget about trying to take care of yourself. When that happens you get huge gov't agencies like DHS. I always thought the defense dept was supposed to take care of homeland security. It's a sad fact that America is truly moving to a socialist society and a national police force. Whatever happened to federalism where states called the shots and the fed took care of defense, commerce and public land.

 

[Bobson]

Deleted.

 

[RustyShackelford]

Votes, political action.....

I agree that 2A supporters & CCW holders should be registered voters & politically active.
Local & county officials don't want citizens to raise objections or rally against the status quo.
In my metro area(before the MO/Brown event) a large group of protestors complained to the city/city council about a aggressive LE response to a civil rights/peace rally that had no violence or injuries.
The patrol div was upset that a few blocks had traffic issues.

FWIW, I'm not fully against the "militization" of CONUS law enforcement. I served four years on active duty in the Military Police so body armor, Hummers/HMMWVs/MRAPs, working dogs, etc aren't scary or as un-nerving as other private citizens.
To use surplus weapons or vehicles is okay but these smaller PDs & sheriffs offices need better training/accountability.

My issue, is that if new laws or statues come out, due to the riots & unrest in MO, the big losers will be the fire departments & fire safety/wildlife/search & rescue agencies.

They can use surplus milspec vehicles, trucks & water containers(trailers) for wild fires, forest fires, floods, rescues, missing persons, natural disasters, etc.

 

[The Narrator]

Debated for a long time on joining this thread. I'm a new gun owner but have been thinking about this sort of thing for awhile.

Crime was never really part of my motivation for buying a gun. I define crime as, "violation of agreed social norms as written into law." In other words, in our society pretty much everyone agrees that someone taking a car you didn't pay for, chopping it up, and selling the parts for your own gain is doing wrong and the law just wraps that agreement in written words to make it easier to argue about degree and nuance. (What if the car was parked without permission on property owned by the taker? What if...)

Civil unrest actually is a big part of my reason for wanting to own guns. Maybe not those words, but, "Disagreement as to the social norms whether written or unwritten". Disagreement about what civilization should be.

I think the level of fundamental disagreement about what is right in the US is amazing. I have friends who think that voter records from the 2008 elections should be used to round up everyone who voted "wrong" (not for Obama) and, "Dump them in Arizona and keep them there where their crazy ideas can't hurt anyone else." They seriously talk about how much of the US they would be willing to give up in the form of, "reservations." At the same time there are people in the US who have multiple wives and believe honor killings are sensible. There are others who honestly don't think ANY form of civil marriage should exist. Some people think that employees are owed a share of the value they create, others think employees are owed a share of the value their employer creates (regardless of their contribution), others think employees are owed a share of what the US as a whole creates (regardless of the size or health of the company employing them). There are racial divisions, religious divisions, educational divisions, geographic divisions...and increasingly disagreement is seen as a character flaw or sign of mental incompetence.

If everyone disagrees, passionately, about the fundamental rules of society, civil unrest is inevitable. If people decide that the laws don't reflect their values, they feel justified in breaking the laws and attacking the system of laws.

My interest in owning guns comes from that. I don't think I will ever be faced with getting into a gun fight over a car...not because people don't steal cars, but because if it is just a car I can walk away. Nor do I think I will be forced to defend myself from a jealous X. I think it is possible I will be faced with a gun fight because someone considers attacking me to be aiding his or her cause of social justice. In fact I have been attacked for just such reasons. The people attacking me were following the rules of their society (though not the laws of the land) and in their minds (and under the laws they would have written) they were doing nothing wrong. The attack wasn't a crime in the "doing something you know is wrong" sense, it was civil unrest on a small scale.

Civil unrest (or whatever the right term is for carrying on what should be polite political debates through violence) is a big part of why I own guns and support the 2A. If a group of people disagree with my right to exist, I want to own at least one weapon to make it painful if they try to take action on their views.

 

[Arizona_Mike]

This may be a little off topic, but I think we are one failed bond auction from settling the debate over the size of government in a hurry and I fear people won't behave. I think it is a very real possibility and given recent events, "Occupy Wall street" could become occupy everything.

I have been a critic of "militarization" of police since the early '90s and when the NRA's infamous 4-page add came out my response was "about time". The NRA periodically picks up this issue when things get really bad and it usually results in Nixon or Bush Sr. resigning form the NRA. Perhaps we are finally ready for this debate? However, for me the debate is about tactics, expansion of no-knock warrants, etc. not equipment.

The equipment and appearance issues are due to the massive downsizing of the military and simple economics and I don't think they should be conflated with the debate over tactics. Besides, whether most people realize it or not the AR/MSR pattern has become standard (civilian sales started in 1963-some are legally C&R/antiques!) and is very useful in law enforcement applications.

Now as far as what equipment police should bring to a riot, why are we even asking this question??? The answer is whatever they can carry. Kent State, after all was largely the result of the National Guard lacking any kind of shield, face shield, body armor, or less-than-lethal weapons.

There is nothing like civil unrest to unify the silent majority and I have no doubt that it will strengthen the support for the 2nd Amendment. I recall reading about how the usually shunned folks at Petersen Publishing Company were suddenly everyone's best friend during the LA Riots. The ultimate effect of Kent State and other civil unrest was the Presidential Election of 1972 (the last time the Republicans actually ran with a liberal candidate):


Mike

 

[CoalTrain49]

I think the level of fundamental disagreement about what is right in the US is amazing. I have friends who think that voter records from the 2008 elections should be used to round up everyone who voted "wrong" (not for Obama) and, "Dump them in Arizona and keep them there where their crazy ideas can't hurt anyone else." They seriously talk about how much of the US they would be willing to give up in the form of, "reservations." At the same time there are people in the US who have multiple wives and believe honor killings are sensible. There are others who honestly don't think ANY form of civil marriage should exist. Some people think that employees are owed a share of the value they create, others think employees are owed a share of the value their employer creates (regardless of their contribution), others think employees are owed a share of what the US as a whole creates (regardless of the size or health of the company employing them). There are racial divisions, religious divisions, educational divisions, geographic divisions...and increasingly disagreement is seen as a character flaw or sign of mental incompetence.

We already have a pretty good system (federalism) where people can enjoy the political climate that they feel best represents their ideas. The system however is starting to fracture due to a growing fed gov't that thinks that they should be in everyones business. The thing that will probably save us though is their uncontrolled spending and an ever increasing displeasure with the problems they create and not solving the problems they don't. Most if not all of the different viewpoints that you described can be found in one state or another where the laws reflect and support those ideas, more or less. Those states will naturally attract the more passionate ideologist among those who you describe. Presently the fed seems to be at war with the citizens of it's own country judging from a DHS budget that is about 70% of the entire defense budget of Russia.

 

[Tirod]

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.

Starting with two false assumptions doesn't make them facts to compare.