Louis Farrakhan Belches

[Andrew D]

Apart from the ridiculous remoteness of the possibility of a ground invasion ....

Then what kind of invasion were you referring to when you wrote:

No invasion is going to be repelled ... with anyone's personal firearms.

?

It bears observing that invading a country is one thing; successfully maintaining an occupation of the invaded country is quite another. Viz., Afghanistan.

[Andrew D]

This is actually my point. We should be having a real and substantive national debate about repealing the Second Amendment. We need to de-mystify repeal and truly decide as a society whether we really want every idiot in the nation to have a "right" to any kind of gun he can procure. What are the reasons we should keep the Second Amendment? What are the countervailing reasons we should junk it? There may be legitimate arguments on both sides, but we will never know if the only response is "it can't be done." FFS, not that long ago sufficient public support was generated to prohibit alcohol, and then to repeal that prohibition. That affected a whole lot more of the population than the radical gun nuts we have today.

But the Second Amendment, despite what the NRA gun industry's lobby claims, does not guarantee any right of "every idiot ... to have ... any kind of gun he can procure." The Supreme Court has held merely that a government (US, State, or local) (1) cannot ban the possession of handguns in the home and (2) cannot require that firearms kept in the home be (a) unloaded and disassembled or (b) bound by trigger locks or similar devices.

And the Court explicitly observed that its opinion (in Heller) should not "be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms."

So much for the "every idiot" strawman.

It is worth observing that the laws at issue in the Court's decisions were aimed principally at handguns. I think that that is because the people running DC and Chicago and Oak Park recognize an important fact which seems to have escaped most people who are -- with perfectly good reason -- exercised about gun control:

"Military style" weapons, "assault" weapons, and large-capacity magazines are not the principal problem.

Mass shootings make the news, and they rightly horrify all of us, but the overwhelming bulk of gun homicides are not committed with those weapons or those magazines. Banning such weapons and magazines may be a good idea -- and as I have said repeatedly, I have nothing against it -- but the notion that such measures will make a big dent in the number of gun homicides in the US is pure delusion.

[oldr_n_wsr]

Don't know but I will go down fighting. I will not be a sheep. (not that I am saying anyone here will be a sheep, just that I will not).

Exactly who is it that you are fighting and why? What is the benefit to your "go[ing] down fighting"?

Anyone trying to deny me my right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness.

[Guinevere]

Don't know but I will go down fighting. I will not be a sheep. (not that I am saying anyone here will be a sheep, just that I will not).

Exactly who is it that you are fighting and why? What is the benefit to your "go[ing] down fighting"?

Anyone trying to deny me my right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness.

You'll notice our founders listed life first. Hmmmm, I wonder why?

[oldr_n_wsr]

As did I. But living under tyranny and/or oppression is not really living (at least to me).
As NH license plates say, Live Free or Die.

[Gob]

What freedom do you envisage may be lost mate?

Could you live in Australia for instance, or would that lack too many freedoms?

[Lord Jim]

You'll notice our founders listed life first. Hmmmm, I wonder why?

Well the answer to that is pretty obvious...

Without that, none of the others matter....

Which is why it is altogether appropriate that the right to have reasonable means of self defense to protect your life and that of your love ones should be guaranteed , (as it is) in the Constitution....

That having been said, I would like to once again address this argument, (which I have addressed previously with an appropriate level of mockery) regarding the idea that a person, (or group of persons) may realistically be able to arm themselves sufficiently to ward of "the government"...

Let me begin (in order to save myself unnecessary typing) by repeating what I said previously:

Unless you believe that the government is suddenly and without legitimate cause going to descend on your home in battalion strength, (and if you believe that you probably should be denied the right to own a gun on mental illness grounds....I know an electrician in Vermont you can bunk in with...) there is absolutely no legitimate justification for it.

And even in that situation, a 100 round magazine, or even multiple 100 round magazines, won't protect you....(See Koresh, David...the government has tanks, planes, missiles...if they're determined to get you, you're going to get got....you can't "hold out"...no matter how much ammunition you have, trust me on this; the government has more)

But it occurs to me that what I'm describing there, only relates to the idea of the government coming after someone specifically....

The scenario that I've seen expressed, (by some here, and in the media, and quotes from the blogasphere) is larger than that; it's some vague, ill defined notion that the government will somehow become "tyrannical" in a general sense, and attempt to impose a dictatorship...

And that all the folks with dozens of assault rifles and hundreds of hundred round magazines will somehow form a type of "resistance movement", a "rebel underground", that will fight valiantly against the dark forces of the tyrant and ultimately emerge triumphant...

It's this particular romanticized paranoid fantasy that I would like to take a few moments now to address, and hopefully inject a few notes of reality to...

Let's game this out, and consider step by step the mechanics of how this would work, (paranoid conspiracy theorists hate it when you do that....they're really big on tossing out over arching theories, but when you take them deep on specifics, they get really annoyed...I first learned this in my exchanges with US Labor Party types years ago, and saw it again in dealing with Steve)

Let's assume a worst case scenario:

Let's assume a hypothetical, crazed, maniacal President who for whatever reason, has decided that he or she will try to establish a tyrannical dictatorship over the United States....

To shutdown the press, dissolve the Congress, arrest the Supreme Court, start rounding up and tossing into labor camps all political opponents, or anyone who dares to speak out or oppose them....

What happens next?

Well, that person then has to give orders through the chain of command, (since in the US we have no SS or "Praetorian guard" with the equipment and manpower to carry out those orders) to have those orders imposed....and everyone involved would have to go along with it....

And that is what makes this scenario so wildly implausible....

The fact of the matter is that if we had a crazy President like that, our greatest defense in preventing their evil scheme wouldn't come from some group of head shaved, tattooed, iron pumping yahoos with gravely voices and ZZ Top beards playing commando....

It would come from the shared, deeply ingrained values that we have as a society, (including those members of our society in the military, from the most humble GI Private to the most high ranking members of the brass) that hold that such a thing is not permissible; and therefore, those charged with implementing this "tyranny" would not carry out those orders....

And even if a few unscrupulous did, they would soon be overwhelmed by those who wouldn't....Whole military units would defect en masse, Governors would stand up their National Guards in opposition, local police forces would refuse to comply....

And that is where the real "fire power" would come from to put down any effort by some crazed lunatic, regardless of their position, if they attempted to establish a "tyrannical government"....

So, to those who are truly concerned that something like this might actually happen, I would suggest that they invest more effort in reinforcing the values and traditions we have, rather than in building bunkers and waiting for the black helicopters....

[Andrew D]

Let's assume a worst case scenario:

Let's assume a hypothetical, crazed, maniacal President who for whatever reason, has decided that he or she will try to establish a tyrannical dictatorship over the United States....

To shutdown the press, dissolve the Congress, arrest the Supreme Court, start rounding up and tossing into labor camps all political opponents, or anyone who dares to speak out or oppose them....

That, unfortunately, is another strawman.

Tyranny does not require the executive to dissolve the legislature or to arrest the judiciary. The Alien and Sedition Acts did not require the President to dissolve Congress: Congress enacted them. Jackson did not need to arrest the Supreme Court in order to create the Trail of Tears; he needed only to ignore the Supreme Court's decisions. FDR did not need to dissolve Congress or to arrest the Supreme Court in order to send tens of thousands of Japanese Americans -- most of whom were not FDR's political opponents at all -- to internment camps.

The last example illustrates the largely empty nature of the "chain of command" argument. FDR ordered the forcible internment of tens of thousands of Americans -- which amounted to life sentences for many of them and permanent confiscation of property for almost all of them -- for no other reason than their Japanese ancestry (and their happening to live in the western part of the US). And the "chain of command" went along with it.

It is pleasant to believe that

those charged with implementing this "tyranny" would not carry out those orders....

And even if a few unscrupulous did, they would soon be overwhelmed by those who wouldn't....Whole military units would defect en masse, Governors would stand up their National Guards in opposition, local police forces would refuse to comply....

but history shows us otherwise.

More recently, we have had the indefinite detention, without charges or trials or even the assistance of counsel, of hundreds of people whom we know about. And who knows how many thousands of others? We have had the torture of detainees with no available redress. We have had the "rendition" of who knows how many thousands of people to regimes which are perfectly happy to do things which we claim -- falsely as it turns out -- to be opposed to.

The idea that an armed populace is a bulwark against governmental oppression is not irrational. It is largely anachronistic, but it has a respectable pedigree in American constitutional theory. And the idea that an armed populace can eventually overthrow tyranny even after that tyranny has initially been established is part of that constitutional theory. No less a constitutionalist than Joseph Story -- hardly an anti-government extremist -- put it:

The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them.

(Commentaries on the Constitution, Sec. 1890.)

And the "rulers" whose "usurpations and arbitrary power" can be resisted and triumphed over are not just the Presidents who, one at a time, may happen to be in power. On the contrary, tyranny can result as well from the acts of Congress -- especially if approved or acquiesced in by the Supreme Court -- as from the acts of a President. As Jefferson trenchantly observed, "173 despots would surely be as oppressive as one." (Notes on the State of Virginia, Query 13.)

US history has shown that what Adams, and later de Tocqueville, called the "tyranny of the majority" is more to be feared than is some modern-day Napoleon. To deny that danger is folly.

The challenge for those of us who favor reasonable restrictions on firearm possession is not to try to convince people who believe that their firearms are necessary to fight off potential tyranny that they are wrong. That is a battle born to lose.

The challenge, rather, is to persuade them that reasonable restrictions on firearm possession do not threaten their ability to fight off potential tyranny. That can, I hope, be done. But it requires careful, sensitive, and respectful engagement.

[Sue U]

As great a scholar as Justice Story may have been, Andrew, he died in 1845 -- 15 years before the Gatling gun was even invented. The argument for an armed populace as a bulwark against governmental tyranny is thoroughly eroded by the advances in military technology over the last 170 years.

As you yourself note, tyranny often comes cloaked as sensible and necessary measures for national security. And from what I have seen of the rabid Second Amendment crowd over the past few years, they seem to be the most likely to support it.

The challenge for those of us who favor reasonable restrictions on firearm possession is not to try to convince people who believe that their firearms are necessary to fight off potential tyranny that they are wrong. That is a battle born to lose.

The challenge, rather, is to persuade them that reasonable restrictions on firearm possession do not threaten their ability to fight off potential tyranny. That can, I hope, be done. But it requires careful, sensitive, and respectful engagement.

I see that approach as simply pandering to a deluded but vocal minority of extremists, who should not be permitted to control the terms of a national debate nor dictate policy on gun control.

[Econoline]

As you yourself note, tyranny often comes cloaked as sensible and necessary measures for national security. And from what I have seen of the rabid Second Amendment crowd over the past few years, they seem to be the most likely to support it.

Exactly.

FDR ordered the forcible internment of tens of thousands of Americans -- which amounted to life sentences for many of them and permanent confiscation of property for almost all of them -- for no other reason than their Japanese ancestry (and their happening to live in the western part of the US). And the "chain of command" went along with it.

[...] More recently, we have had the indefinite detention, without charges or trials or even the assistance of counsel, of hundreds of people whom we know about. And who knows how many thousands of others? We have had the torture of detainees with no available redress. We have had the "rendition" of who knows how many thousands of people to regimes which are perfectly happy to do things which we claim -- falsely as it turns out -- to be opposed to.

And where were the "people who believe that their firearms are necessary to fight off potential tyranny" when these things occurred? Kinda proves that the Second Amendment and the "well-regulated militia" and the "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" are useless in these sorts of situations, doesn't it?

[oldr_n_wsr]

What freedom do you envisage may be lost mate?

Can I keep my rifle and go hunting/shooting?

Could you live in Australia for instance, or would that lack too many freedoms?

I think I could, again, can I keep my rifle and go hunting/shooting?

[Lord Jim]

I think one thing that's going on is that there are a lot of folks nowadays who have a pretty low bar when it comes to defining "tyranny" or "tyrannical"....

For example, on one end of the spectrum, you've got a bunch of Screaming Mimis worked up in to a dither over the nonsensical belief that The Patriot Act somehow represents the government becoming "tyrannical"...

At the other end, you've got a gang of chuckleheads who believe exactly the same thing about Obamacare....

I would invite all of these palookas to go and spend some time in a genuinely tyrannical society, (say Cuba, or North Korea, or the PRC) maybe then they would have a better appreciation for what real tyranny looks like....

[oldr_n_wsr]

I just wanno go hunting.

[Andrew D]

A tyranny need not be absolute. Tyranny includes "Arbitrary or oppressive exercise of power ...; an instance of this." (The New Shorter Oxford English Dictionary.) Can anyone seriously suggest that the indefinite detention of people without charges, without trial, and without access to counsel is not an arbitrary or oppressive exercise of power?

Some people make that suggestion, and many of those people purport to be serious. But for the patriots among us -- we who continue to believe that "[t]he writ of habeas corpus is the fundamental instrument for safeguarding individual freedom against arbitrary and lawless state action" -- that suggestion is not merely nonserious. It is odious.

[Andrew D]

The argument for an armed populace as a bulwark against governmental tyranny is thoroughly eroded by the advances in military technology over the last 170 years.

Your claim is plausible but far from a given.

Again, look at Afghanistan. Tens of thousands of US troops. All the high-tech military gizmos that money can buy. And still, despite having easily invaded the country, we cannot control it.

Armed with IEDs often made from pesticides and fertilizers, outdated machine guns, World War II relic bolt-action rifles, semi-automatic pistols, and the occasional piece of modern military weaponry, the Taliban have successfully prevented the US from establishing effective control over Afghanistan for more than a decade.

Suppose an armed resistance to the US government consisting of 10% of the American population -- some 30+ million armed resisters concentrated in, say, the Rocky Mountains. Could the US government annihilate that resistance? Of course.

But assume that the US government would be no more inclined to nuke the Rockies than it is to nuke Afghanistan. Could the US achieve and maintain effective control over that region in the face of that resistance? Assessment of the US's military power in the abstract says "yes". But assessment of what military power the US would be likely actually to employ says "maybe not".

In my estimation, such an armed resistance against the US government would ultimately fail. But it might well last for decades. So many of the resisters would die of old age while successfully maintaining that resistance. And to them, that would be victory.

[Andrew D]

As you yourself note, tyranny often comes cloaked as sensible and necessary measures for national security. And from what I have seen of the rabid Second Amendment crowd over the past few years, they seem to be the most likely to support it.

Well, the grossly misnamed "Patriot" Act has engendered opposition from the right -- even the far right -- as well as from the left. For example, Rand Paul has proposed legislation to nullify President Obama's executive orders regarding gun control. But he has also stridently opposed the "Patriot" Act.

I see no evidence that people who oppose even common-sense limitations of the right to keep and bear arms are more likely than Americans as a whole to support the Patriot Act and other such tyrannical measures. If you have such evidence, please feel free to adduce it.

[Andrew D]

The challenge for those of us who favor reasonable restrictions on firearm possession is not to try to convince people who believe that their firearms are necessary to fight off potential tyranny that they are wrong. That is a battle born to lose.

The challenge, rather, is to persuade them that reasonable restrictions on firearm possession do not threaten their ability to fight off potential tyranny. That can, I hope, be done. But it requires careful, sensitive, and respectful engagement.

I see that approach as simply pandering to a deluded but vocal minority of extremists, who should not be permitted to control the terms of a national debate nor dictate policy on gun control.

I see it as accommodating the views of those with whom I disagree in an attempt to achieve a workable compromise. And I see your approach as elevating virtuous absolutism over pragmatic efficacy.

Virtuous absolutism is not, in itself, a bad thing. It is, after all, virtuous. But at some point, getting something done should prevail over advocating everything while achieving nothing.

In my estimation, persuading people that the most important component of reasonable limitations on the right to keep and bear arms -- universal background checks -- will not interfere with their ability to oppose tyrannical government (regardless of how deranged their desire to oppose tyrannical government may or may not be) is a more productive approach than is deriding them as lunatics (even if they are).

[Gob]

Could you live in Australia for instance, or would that lack too many freedoms?

I think I could, again, can I keep my rifle and go hunting/shooting?

Of course you can!

AusHunt acts as a central place where all hunters can meet and explore the diverse styles of hunting Australia has to offer. Our site provides many interactive features allowing hunters to share their experiences, to learn, to discover, and to connect with and feel a part of a community that shares the joys of hunting in the great Australian bush.

All of our stories are told in their own words by Aussie hunters of all ages, from beginners to advanced. You dont have to be a professional writer to tell your story here, just a true blue attitude and a couple of decent pics and your away.

From top end big game hunters to channel country pig chasers, high country deer stalkers or plains fox and rabbit shooters, AusHunt has it all! So if you want to see what it's like to hunt downunder, AusHunt is the place for you.

http://www.aushunt.com.au/new/