The Great Gun Hypocrisy

[NickEllis]

Regarding the arming of Syrian rebels, I have to say, I'm fundamentally uncomfortable with our government arming groups of religious fanatics who make the Westboro Baptist Church look reasonable by comparison.

+1

Not sure why we would even take a side in a war that has no benefits for our national security, fought between two sides representing a primarily religious divide (shiite v. sunni) both of whom have demonstrated amble capacity for war crimes.

 

[0to60]

Regarding the arming of Syrian rebels, I have to say, I'm fundamentally uncomfortable with our government arming groups of religious fanatics who make the Westboro Baptist Church look reasonable by comparison.

I totally agree with you. We should let the middle east work out its own problems. Tweaking the middle east to our liking has been an ENORMOUS distraction since the 50's. Now that it looks like the US will become a major oil exporter, I see no reason for further US influence in the middle east.

 

[Potatohead]

Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, wondered Tuesday if.....

"Anyone know if President Obama intends to perform background checks on the Syrian rebels before providing them weapons?"

thats hilarious. put 'em on a list too!

 

[Potatohead]

You may want to correct the spelling errors first ... or maybe not.

thats what i was thinkin

 

[Potatohead]

Dont pull the plug Al! this is a good one!

 

[0to60]

While this would admittedly be difficult to prove beyond a doubt, it is highly probable that recent attempts to pass a sweeping gun control bill failed mostly because a voting majority of legislators realized that the voting public would punish them for supporting such a bill, not because the majority of lawmakers really don't want it. We helped make that happen.

I believe that a majority of our federal legislators would utterly ban firearms from private ownership if they found a politically viable way to do it. Why? Firearms in private hands are an obstacle to power in government hands, and they know it. So that's not a tin-foil hat perspective--it's completely rational.

I think you give politicians too much credit. To me, it looks like MOST politicians are carefully watching voter sentiment and then voting accordingly. Look at what just happened in the senate. These guys are typically anti-gun, but given the enormous interest in guns these days, the measure hit a brick wall (and only after being pared down quite a bit by Harry Reid). How many current senators were senators that voted for Clinton's AWB? Does anyone know? I wouldn't be surprised if it were a lot.

I think a handful of politicians are driven by some sort of personal mission, but again, if they aren't in touch with voters, they won't be in office for long.

Why? Firearms in private hands are an obstacle to power in government hands, and they know it. So that's not a tin-foil hat perspective--it's completely rational.

This is just naive. The gov't would have absolutely no problem quelling an uprising of a buncha gun nuts with their stockpiled .22LR. If you think that the 2A is all that stands in the way of complete gov't takeover, you need to start watching the Military Channel or something.

 

[Agsalaska]

I totally agree with you. We should let the middle east work out its own problems. Tweaking the middle east to our liking has been an ENORMOUS distraction since the 50's. Now that it looks like the US will become a major oil exporter, I see no reason for further US influence in the middle east.

I 100% agree with this statement. It is the worst legacy of our post WW2 strategies.

 

[beatledog7]

The gov't would have absolutely no problem quelling an uprising of a buncha gun nuts with their stockpiled .22LR.

In terms of weapons technology, yes. Unfettered by political considerations, yes.

But remember, the average government office holder wants nothing more than he or she wants votes. Would you vote for a legislator or chief executive that decided to deploy jet fighters and tanks against his or her own constituents?

 

[JustinJ]

But remember, the average government office holder wants nothing more than he or she wants votes. Would you vote for a legislator or chief executive that decided to deploy jet fighters and tanks against his or her own constituents?

If the legislator or chief executive is still abiding by the electoral process it's hard to imagine a valid justification to attempt an armed overthrow to begin with. I certainly wouldn't want to be governed by a leader who forcibly took power from a democratically elected one.

 

[0to60]

In terms of weapons technology, yes. Unfettered by political considerations, yes.

But remember, the average government office holder wants nothing more than he or she wants votes. Would you vote for a legislator or chief executive that decided to deploy jet fighters and tanks against his or her own constituents?

First of all, I think its very unlikely that civil unrest in the US would proceed to the point where the president orders jet fighters. I think that our system is working pretty good. We have demonstrations and "marches" and stuff like that, the press hypes it up, it becomes an issue/talking point and politicians campaign accordingly. We have an election every two years, so any movement would have less than that to "foment". I can't see a large scale "movement" gaining enough traction to actually take up arms against the gov't.

In other words, the power of the vote trumps the 2A all day long as far as keeping the gov't in check.

 

[danez71]

Hey Danez71, I understood what he meant from the beginning. I would imagine the other 99% of the readers did too. Can we move on now?

Sure. I guess its just the way I'm reading it that seemed like playing both sides.

Sorry 0to60.

 

[beatledog7]

0to60, you might want to clean those rose-colored glasses and look again.

 

[0to60]

0to60, you might want to clean those rose-colored glasses and look again.

Look for what? Gimme an example of what you're talking about. Tell me where armed citizens in the US checked an overreaching federal (or state, for that matter) gov't.

I don't get it, its like you WANT to be unhappy. Haven't you been paying attention since Sandy Hook? The gun control people lost, you won. But you're still suspicious. What would have to happen to make you feel better? You got the outcome you wanted: no new gun laws, but you're still unhappy and distrustful of the system.

There's just no pleasing some people.

 

[The_Armed_Therapist]

The last time I read the constitution (about 2 weeks ago), that is also a fundamental right guaranteed by the constitution.

LOL... Voting is NOT a fundamental right in the Constitution. Only progressives push for so-called "voting rights." Liberty lovers don't need to vote, because liberty cannot legitimately be voted away. Only progressives and statists look to voting as a solution, as they can convince the people to want what they don't actually want.

 

[JustinJ]

LOL... Voting is NOT a fundamental right in the Constitution. Only progressives push for so-called "voting rights." Liberty lovers don't need to vote, because liberty cannot legitimately be voted away. Only progressives and statists look to voting as a solution, as they can convince the people to want what they don't actually want.

Liberty lovers don't need to vote? I'm sorry but that is utterly absurd. So what is it exactly that liberty lovers are supposed to do to protect their rights?

Voting is actually a constitutional right, regardless of whatever definition of "fundamental" you make up.

 

[danez71]

Haven't you been paying attention since Sandy Hook? The gun control people lost, you won. But you're still suspicious. What would have to happen to make you feel better? You got the outcome you wanted: no new gun laws, but you're still unhappy and distrustful of the system.

I think that comes from the fact the .gov is already revisiting the same things they failed to pass. They haven't given up.

And rather than wanting their party to vote how their constituents want them to, they continue to bully their own party with the "political hell to pay if you don't vote our way" comments.

 

[silicosys4]

LOL... Voting is NOT a fundamental right in the Constitution. Only progressives push for so-called "voting rights." Liberty lovers don't need to vote, because liberty cannot legitimately be voted away. Only progressives and statists look to voting as a solution, as they can convince the people to want what they don't actually want.

This directly contradicts what I believe is one of the most intelligent points that I have seen a moderator has made in this forum.
I can't remember the moderator or the exact quote, so hopefully I'm not misquoting or taking the statement out of context, but the gist was:

Anybody living in a democratic society who desires liberty, and is willing to pick up a gun to defend their idea of liberty, should be willing to put in EVERY effort through legal and peaceful political means, and work hardest to achieve results through the vote. By picking up the gun, they are resorting to the wrong course of action and have lost the battle to improve their society.

As long as there is an effective political arena to work within, the gun should be avoided at ALL costs. From what I've seen, civil war is hell on earth, and nothing better than what we have now would arise from it.

 

[beatledog7]

Tell me where armed citizens in the US checked an overreaching federal (or state, for that matter) gov't.

1776 (first shots were fired even earlier), pretty much all over the 13 colonies and beyond. Many said it was crazy to rise up and that the British armed forces would easily prevail. It wasn't, and they didn't.

1946, in Athens, TN (county and state issues), at a time when Federal forces could easily have intervened and would have been much better armed than the citizens. They didn't.

Edit: In both of these cases, the use of arms was the last resort; every non-violent option had been explored and exhausted.

You bet I'm suspicious. Beyond it, in fact. I'm certain the federal government is on a decades long power grab of epic proportions. It's war on 2A is just the example we talk about here.

Do you read about anything else?

 

[0to60]

1946, in Athens, TN (county and state issues), at a time when Federal forces could easily have intervened and would have been much better armed than the citizens. They didn't.

Ok, fair enough! If you are concerned about another incident like that, then I see where you're coming from. Personally, another Athens seems very improbable these days, but I see your point.

 

[0to60]

I think that comes from the fact the .gov is already revisiting the same things they failed to pass. They haven't given up.

And rather than wanting their party to vote how their constituents want them to, they continue to bully their own party with the "political hell to pay if you don't vote our way" comments.

I think we're disagreeing over the origin of the anti gun measures. You're assuming that it has to come from a cabal within the gov't that seeks to subjugate the populace and strip us of our liberties. What I'm asking you to consider is that maybe there really are some citizens that honestly feel we could be safer with more gun laws. IF that were possible, it would explain why this issue pops up occasionally, and we wouldn't need to invoke conspiracy theories that marginalize us and make us look like crackpots.

 

[dfunde01]

This is an interesting thread. There are two points on which I will comment.

Please quote the section and verse of the constitution that gives all citizens a constitutional right to vote. The qualifications for voting are left to be determined by the states. For example, a state could restrict the right to vote to real property owners as long as there was no restriction as regards, sex, religion, age, etc.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_rights_in_the_United_States

The 2nd amendment right to bear arms was clearly intended to serve as a final line of defense against a repressive federal government and as a counter balance to a standing federal army. The simple fact that the populace is armed is an effective deterrent.

Dave

 

[0to60]

The 2nd amendment right to bear arms was clearly intended to serve as a final line of defense against a repressive federal government and as a counter balance to a standing federal army. The simple fact that the populace is armed is an effective deterrent.

Dave

Granted, that's a popular opinion about the intent of the 2A, but it doesn't say that exactly. "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state" could mean many things. Taken in the context of a buncha yokels that just fought off the Brits with their muskets, it could easily mean a Red Dawn kinda thing.

At any rate, the answer to the question "can we fight an oppressive gov't with glock 19s and ARs?" can be found in the crates that we'll be sending to the Syrian rebels.

 

[danez71]

I think we're disagreeing over the origin of the anti gun measures. You're assuming that it has to come from a cabal within the gov't that seeks to subjugate the populace and strip us of our liberties. What I'm asking you to consider is that maybe there really are some citizens that honestly feel we could be safer with more gun laws. IF that were possible, it would explain why this issue pops up occasionally, and we wouldn't need to invoke conspiracy theories that marginalize us and make us look like crackpots.

Its both... and I know it; I'm not assuming it.

Theres people like my step mom that believe that. When we've talked about it, she admits it would take all of the guns to disappear... and she would vote for that if there was a magic way of making them disappear.


And there is groups in the government that are wanting to strip guns from the populace. There's people like Feinstein that are open about it and there are others in the Govt that are sneaky and get caught talking about it when their mic's are on and they didn't realize it.

http://www.examiner.com/video/confiscation-nj-senators-caught-mocking-gun-owners-committee


There's proof that its real and to not recognize it is playing ostrich.

 

[happygeek]

This is just naive. The gov't would have absolutely no problem quelling an uprising of a buncha gun nuts with their stockpiled .22LR. If you think that the 2A is all that stands in the way of complete gov't takeover, you need to start watching the Military Channel or something.

Depends, when you say "a bunch of gun nuts" are you talking about the Branch Davidians or are we talking about a critical mass of the population as in late 1860/early 1861?

For that matter are we talking about rebels trying to fight conventionally or are we talking about insurgents using every dirty trick in the book (i.e. leaving 'night letters', assassinating local government officials, leaving IEDs all over the roads, in other words doing everything they can to deny the government effective control of an area and then just waiting them out)?

 

[Justin]

Sorry, but this one's just going around in perpetual circles. Let's move on to something more productive.