Alex Jones photographed a guy with a flag daring people to try to take his AR-15 away.
Ed. headline clarification: The headline is my interpretation. Alex Jones had nothing to do with it.
I know I will!
Rep David Linsky's gun bill requires semiautomatic rifles be stored in a vault at the local gun club. If that provisions remains, we may get to see the confrontation the sign holder invites.
There is a closely held belief among the most ardent but small minority of NRA members that the 2nd amendment exists to insure the right of the people to perpetrate armed insurrection against our tyrannical government.
I don't think there is merit to the argument from a Constitutional perspective but the belief is there and has been nurtured by the NRA and this is why people think they have a Constitutional right to own a semiautomatic rifle like the Bushmaster XM-15, which is the M-16 with modifications.
Even SCJ Antonin Scalia says quite clearly in the Heller decision that the 2nd Amendment has room to regulate which guns that can be purchased and owned by citizens and under what conditions.
that's right, anyone who thinks gun control laws are ineffective at stopping school shootings is a gun nut. Way to elevate the discourse
Indeed. After they come after the Second Amendment they'll go after the first. Hitler, Amin, Stalin, and Castro all agree: Gun control
Shocking, but true.
The UK is hardly a pillar of utopian society . They are reaping what they have sowed with all the immigrants they let in. The actual English who live there sure wish they were armed now . Place is screwed.
They are reaping what they have sowed with all the high-powered weaponry they let in. If only Adam Lanza's mother had had access to guns. Oh wait ...
Was it the ginnys, or those damn potatoes eating micks?
give it a rest you sad, racist fuck.
You don't see all the Liberals and gun grabbers so quick to emigrate to those 2 countries do ya?
Well, I'm a liberal, and I'd emigrate to the UK in a second if I had the opportunity. If you can help me out with that, then by all means, please do so. The reason I haven't left the US already has more to do with the difficulty of moving abroad and getting work as a foreigner. Their stance on firearms is an incredibly low priority for me.
I'm not so hot on Australia, though. All the wildlife is deadly, and I don't like the climate. New Zealand would be acceptable, however.
Every year, people risk their lives - and some die - by the tens of thousands to come into the United States to live. Any time you really wanted to leave, you could leave.
just pass immigration reform and a much easier path to citizenship for the vast majority of currently illegal immigrants who come to work, and live a crime free, hardworking life.
I've read conservative studies that doing so, and bringing them into our melting pot would add 40-50 billion to the US economy over the next 10 years. Economics, not being a zero sum game, means that's good for everyone.
By all means, keep a short leash on and deport those who commit crimes. But we need to realize they're the minority, and that we're shooting our self in the foot via our current thinly vied racist immigration policy.
What would this nation be without the shiploads of Italians, Irish, Germans and East Asians of the 19th centuries? My great grandparents sailed into Boston, got a health check, signed their name in a book, and moved to Fitchburg where they worked their asses off. 4 Generation later their great grandchildren are all college educated, and still successfully contributing to the economy and the Commonwealth.
Funny enough, I think the irrational Immigration debate ties into this gun debate. There's a passion subset that really believes race wars are coming, and they need those AR's for it. This country is still very much having a trouble debate on race and origin, the debate is just been lowered to a whisper in proxy battles, instead of a rebel yell.
Um...I think a lot of us would make that choice if visas were easier to secure. Personally, I'm choosing Sweden, because they stretch more towards socialism than any of the choices listed above, while still being a parliamentary democracy. More taxes in exchange for better services (including higher education for my daughter) and a society where my child is unlikely to ever SEE a gun, apart from Grandpa's hunting rifle? Sign me up! I should be settled there in the next 2-3 years.
Many people in Sweden own guns, most men (until 2010) were conscripted into the military. When their service was up they would bring their assault rifle home with ammo stored at a local armory. I believe the goal was to have a large number of armed men in case of invasion, Switzerland has a similar policy.
Also, hunting is very popular in Sweden:
But, neither country (Sweden & Switzerland) has the high percentage of shootings and violent crime as the US. I'm not sure what the reasons are, but I'd guess it's because the local authorities, such as the Police, have to approve one's gun license(s). Plus they have restrictions on where one can bring guns, and most people have to pass safety exams and have their guns locked up.
Recent Swedish governments have been leaning more to the right and cutting back on social programs. I wonder have they also cut back on taxes are they using tax-payers money to bail-out their banks? :)
Yep, my partner was in the military in the early 2000s, though he didn't bring his weapons home. The country's general lack of gun violence is what is appealing to me, especially now that I'm having a child.
And yes, I've been keeping up with recent political developments there (I currently spend 2-3 months a year there) and they definitely are leaning more right. But their right is nowhere near as right as our Republican party, and the main right-leaning party (Swedish Democrats) only make up something like 5% of the parliament, if I remember correctly. Plus, there have been a series of scandals involving the leaders and higher-ups in the party, and many of them have been forced to step down. They just don't tolerate shenanigans the way our parties do.
Who knows what will happen with the tax rates in the next few years, but I sincerely doubt the Swedish people will give up their excellent health care, child care, and social programs geared towards families. In my conversations with people, they sometimes grouse about minor details within the system, but when they realize how much I pay for health insurance and THEN I hit them with the fact that I went $10K into debt (even with insurance!) for a brain tumor when I was 30, they're just…flabbergasted, and horrified that even a college-educated, gainfully employed citizen can't afford care when something goes really wrong. So…yeah. Still feels utopian to me in contrast to what is available for me here. :)
Unless you have Swedish citizenship you should move soon. Many countries won't accept economic migrants once they reach 40 or 50.
Marrying a Swedish citizen and currently pregnant with his baby, so I should be fine (even though I'll be 40 in 2 years)! We're also working on permanent residence for him here in the US (he currently has a three year work visa) but our choice will be to raise our family in Sweden.
The Second Amendment protects our right to own slaves.
But some guy who makes up a flag with a rendering of the assault weapon used at Newtown with the slogan "COME AND TAKE IT?" Yeah, he's a gun nut.
But as for guns and schools, there were two armed guards at Columbine. How'd that work out?
People exersizing their rights given by the constitution, and you call them nuts!!! Nice you are a true professional
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it.
This guy might be able to do this in his state without breaking the law. The store might even let him, without asking him to leave, as is their right.
But is it right? Is it proper and part of an adult conversation? Or is he just a nutty attention whore with very poor judgment? Treating a weapon as an accessory and a toy, like he would a fancy car.
Personally, I think the latter. His intention isn't a discussion, or a rational statement. It's a threat and a giant fuck you to civil people.
There's things you can do, but you shouldn't do. Walking around like an ass, for no reason, with an assault weapon strapped to your back like were in an occupied country is one of them.
I won't even get into the prospects that he's liable to get shot or be mistaken for pulling a stunt like this.
And I ask, in accordance with my previous posts on this issue:
If someone grabs that gun, and shoots everyone in the place, how can it be morally or legally acceptable that this man not be assessed some kind of liability?
I agree. Should we also do the same with stolen cars?
The sole reason an AR-15 exists is to inflict the most amount of human casualties in the least amount of time - that's it. It's not a weapon of self-defense, it's not a hunting rifle, it's only about laying waste to human life. A Newtown parent recounted how her child's jaw was blown clean off. On the other hand, a car, although potentially deadly, is a critical cornerstone to our economy and and provides economic opportunity and freedom to a vast majority of the citizens in our country and allows people to get to work, acquire goods needed for survival, and transport kids and adults to places where they are being educated or trained for jobs.
If the only function of a car was to annihilate dozens of lives in a matter of minutes, you would have a clever argument. But the embarrassingly stupid idea of comparing the destructive capabilities of guns to the destructive capabilities to cars is equivalent to comparing apples to paper clips.
Thank you for pointing out the obvious to that anon, which may or may not be the same one who continues trot out that same, tired and discredited NRA talking point.
As I have said before, the better analogy is to someone keeping and experimenting with a dangerous airborne pathogen in a shed in a suburban backyard or keeping 5,000 gallons of benzene in a garage in the middle of a subdivision. The attempt to use a car for the analogy is utterly laughable for the reasons that you gave, amongst others.
If you are going to keep things that are ultrahazardous to others (as much as the anons of the world want to say that it is, a car is not ultrahazardous in the manner in which an AR-15 is), you should be subject to the highest duty of care in that keeping, and you should be responsible for any breach of that duty which results in damage to others.
Again, this is the way that I think that pols and/or courts are going to handle this going forward.
I was actually being serious. I'm not saying a car is the same as an AR-15. I do in fact think it makes sense to make gun owner's civilly liable. But while a car isn't a gun, I find there to be similarities enough that I wonder if a car owner should also be civilly liable in some circumstances. Should a car owner whose car is stolen and then later used as a get away car bear any responsibility? Does it matter if the owner left their car locked or unlocked?
In both cases we are talking about the carelessness of the owner of a thing resulting in that thing being used to cause some damage.
A entry lock and a starter lock. How many stolen guns have gun locks or were stowed in locked safes?
In MA it's the law, but I can tell you from experience with friends it's rarely followed, and only enforced when something happens.
Plus it's just stupid to entertain the idea period, as cars are not killing tools. Gun are.
I don't see why civil liability should be limited to killing tools. The example I'm thinking of is an unlocked car being stolen and used as a get away car in some crime.
I wasn't comparing them as equals as I explain below. It seems to me to be a no brainer that gun owners should be civilly liable. Why should the reasoning of such civil liability stop there? While it's less clear that car owners should be liable, I don't think it is easy to dismiss.
This isn't supposed to be a pro operation. It's a blog, not a newspaper. I fully expect to see some opinion here and there.
Am I right, AdamG?
More like left wing NUT!
Ask anyone regularly out here - I'm not exactly a paragon of liberalism. But I agree on this one 1 million percent - guns do not belong stored in homes. Almost 30,000 people a year die due to accidents, suicides and murders - probably at least half or more would be preventable if there were no guns in homes. If you can't win me over with silly gun propaganda - in the long run I can assure you this is a losing proposition. As I said before, probably not in my lifetime - but someday we will live in a more sane and civilized GUNLESS (mostly) society.
Why are people who own guns, live by the same constitution that say freedom of press is a right, called nuts but the anti-gun people aren't called nuts when they protest?
You know those guys that hang outside Park St (among other places) and use their free speech rights to preach that the end of the world is nigh? They are nuts. Same as gun nuts. That the 1st amendment protects speech and that the 2nd amendment protects gun ownership does not mean one can't be a free speaking nut or a gun owning nut.
It's also an unfortunate reality that unreasonable "supporters" of the 2nd Amd. can impinge on others' 1st Amd. rights. Whether with explicit threats or implicit threats, it doesn't matter because the effect is the same.
It's the bullshit coming from their mouths about the government being illegitimate, fascists, and their right to overthrow it. Their goading to try to come and they'll put a bullet in someones head. Their fantasy to overthrow the legitimately elected government, because they have issues with it.
Asshole like this:
Assholes that need help, and make you really question if they should be handling weapons.
Their guy lost the election. When Bush was pres they didn't care a wink about rights or tyranny. PATRIOT Act anyone?
Can we start a UHub sponsored fund to relocate this vermin to be closer to his peeps in Rockingham County NH? I'm in for $50. Anyone else game?
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
You want free access to a AR15, go join the National Guard. Far too long we've misquoted this amendment. The People and the State are the same damn thing. You were t be armed, so that you could preform a civic duty and serve your community, your State.
Honestly, lets be true to the founders. Re-institute the draft at the federal level that requires national guard service at the least, and also requires proper safety and knowledge training on weapons before you're allowed to own them.
The second amendment is ingrained in civics, of community, and states rights and responsibility.
Something these blowhard weekend warriors could care less about, and have fantasies of actively revolting against.
That doesn't mean what you think it means. The militia (all able bodied men) is contingent on people owning guns, not the other way around.
And they are called to service with those weapons. It's about civic, the community and the protection of the State.
You want to own weapons, you have a civic duty to put in time to your fellow citizens as a protector of our state Constitution.
It reads pretty clear to me. There's an expectation of service to the State, the community, since everyone has a stake in it. Especially in colonial New England, where the individual states were much independent, and the federal union was much more loose.
To have a duty or obligation is not the same as to be compelled by force of law. A duty can be declined with only one's honor to be forfeit if to decline is wrong.
2nd amendment applies to personal ownership; in the Washington, DC case where the DC ban was overturned. The theory is that citizen militias would need to go home to get their guns. So the "it means the National Guard" argument has been definitively rejected.
It would just be simpler if we recognized the second amendment is antiquated, and is more of a threat to public safety than a legitimate protection of our freedom. I would support its repeal, but apparently I'm way in the minority on that one.
Has also ruled that corporations are people, and overturned citizens united. Apparently precedent means very little.
Their reading of the second amendment stretches sanity if you read the exact words above. The entire first half has been thrown out.
If the states and the people are "the same damn thing", why does the 10th Amendment say 'The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.'. You idiot.
The "nobody is gonna touch my gun" song?
A field day for the Freudians, this.
Where does he live. I'll stop by and pick it up!
I say they can have all the muzzle loaders they want. Everything else can go in a proper regulated and insured storage facility/shooting range. You want to hunt or take it somewhere else - sign it out.
Sadly not in my lifetime - but someday...
Go ahead Stevil. His name is in the photo .. Look him up and get in touch . I am sure that would work out real well for you .
But there are several Marchesis and none named Nick. Maybe he lives in his mommy's basement with his guns?
Seriously - what would he do - shoot me? That's exactly why people like that shouldn't have guns - and they are out there by the millions. (apparently some guy pulled a gun on Marlborough Street a couple weeks ago - they were making too much noise putting out trash or something!)
You have his address?
Why shouldn't he have a gun ? It's his right and he feels strongly about it. You obviously looked him up and didn't find anything related to crime or violence . The second amendment is not open to interpretation . It is clear and concise .
" A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
The national guard is not a militia . National guard members do not keep and bear arms . They are stored in a gun vault and they take them out on drill status . The people are the militia .
The government is seriously over stepping its boundaries here . What rights will the government take next?
Stevil Is nothing more just a mindless sheep .
Indeed. Pray tell what part of gun-owning America is "a well regulated militia?"
... these gun toting citizens show up to protect those attempting to exercise their first amendment rights to free assembly and free speech and all that from militarized police forces bent on preventing them from seeking redress of grievances, then I'll believe it is about freedom and protecting rights.
Funny how that hasn't happened - because you don't see the Second Amendment types showing much interest in more than talking about such actions - and only when it comes to protecting their narrow interpretation of second amendment rights.
This is what a well-regulated militia looks like:
A well regulated militia is not supposed to be a bunch of random citizens. They are neither well regulated, nor a militia.
The National Guard and career armed forces are the direct descendant of the militia concept, because it is not practical to keep your own tanks and cannons and helicopters. That is what armories are for.
In 1789 we had but a handful of field artillery pieces and ships in federal control. There were virtually no career armed forces to ensure "the security of a free state", and no money to support such. That's why they also wrote the third amendment. But there is now. So stop living in the past. Red Dawn is a work of fiction.
But it is kinda. All it that was meant by well regulated militia at the time the Constitution was written was all able bodies males. That was it. Perhaps the individual states could enforce actual regulation prior to the 14th amendment incorporating the bill of rights such that they applied to the states, but absolutely not afterwards.
Able bodied WHITE males.
I tried keeping my own M1 tank, but finding parking in Somerville was a bitch.
Never seemed to have any problems myself...
36-38 Eutaw Street, East Boston. Property owner lives in Wilmington and has the same surname, and a quick Veromi search links the owner to someone named Nicholas.
On another note, I wonder if they'd be calling the President a tyrant if he weren't brown. I am so sick of the f*cking thinly-veiled racism. Get over it people!
Calling out somebody on the internet from the comfort of your mom's basement must be really fun. Why don't you go knock on his door and ask him, now that you have the address (tough guy)?
It's illegal for him to have an AR15 in Boston. He doesn't need to worry about a knock on the door from me. I'm guessing BPD may want to have a chat with him though.
This guy stood out in public holding a sign and gave his name to the press. The address info is public record. It doesn't seem like anyone's being a "tough guy" to me.
with you deciding what "they" can have is that maybe you believe passionately in something that someone else doesn't think you can handle responsibly. Maybe I think that nobody who lives within three miles of a T stop "needs" to have a car and that if they want to use one they can rent one, so long as it's not more than 50 horsepower. After all, nobody needs a muscle car or a sports sedan, or needs to go 70 miles per hour. Maybe someone else has too many books (what's wrong with the books the library sees fit to lend you when they're open?), or too many DVDs (something wrong with good old American broadcast television, Comrade?), or too much porn (evil, evil, porn).
Unless this guy is killing people with it, it's none of your business what kind of firearms he owns, just like it's none of my business to say what kind of car you should should be allowed to own.
"gun nuts"? smdh
This is not about guns its about "RIGHTS" If they were restricting free speech i would be there to help. Stop picking and choosing witch right to fight for. we need them all.. I'm going to call you all free speech nuts for your negative comments.
What is the right exactly? Not what the law is, but rather what the right is and how it should be reflected in law. A right to personal defense? A right to defend against tyranny? A right to own a personal arms cache unregulated and unrestricted for the reason of fuckall?
These gun nuts should have the right to keep and bear AR-15's!
The same way those little babies had the right to expect that no one was going to come into their school and use one to shoot them in the back. I would love to ask any one of these morons if they would have liked to have been one of those poor first responders who had to remove the bodies from that classroom.
AR-15s are already prohibited in Boston by municipal ordnance. They can be owned in the rest of the Commonwealth, subject to restrictions, if you're very careful about following all the rules.
The legislation proposed by Deval Patrick would limit magazine capacity to 7 rounds and restrict gun purchases and transfers to one per month, among other things. 7 round magazines do not exist for most modern semiautomatic firearms, so this is a way to cripple semiautos and ban their effective use without banning them outright. And by semiautos, I mean pistols too. It's just Deval trying to be like Andrew Cuomo in NY.
The one gun per month rule is an excellent way to prevent your son from being able to inherit your gun collection.
Today it's 10 rounds. Tomorrow it's 7. Next year, 3? The year after that, a single round? Then, why do you need guns at all? That's why people are protesting today - to stand their ground.
And is claiming to live in Boston. Is that probable cause for BPD to pull a search warrant and make sure he doesn't have one?
Do magazines exist that are less than 7 rounds for semiautos? How is it that say a mag of 6 is crippled but a mag of 7 or more is not?
I'm guess that inheriting something is considered different than buying and would not run afoul.
They do not exist, because most modern semiautomatic guns were designed to hold at least 10 rounds.
Don't guess, because you're wrong. Read the legislation and find out for yourself.
If the governor thought he could get away with it, he would have just outright banned semiautomatic weapons. Thus is his sneaky, underhanded next best option.
Also: the State Police detail that guards him has real assault weapons (fully automatic). Wonder if he wants them to give them, up too?
Where is it listed in the legislation? I did a search for "inherit" and "estate." It came up blank.
That State Police detail is well regulated in a sense that you do not want to be beholden to. Would you agree to be well regulated to the extent they are in exchange for their the same gun privileges they have?
Gun owners in the Commonwealth are well-regulated, too. They have to be screened by the police, trained in firearms safety, fingerprinted, and individually interviewed. In the end, a police chief can just deny them the ability to own large capacity weapons (for which you need a Class A license) at his own whim.
If we agree that it's the guns that are inherently evil and dangerous to society as a whole, then how can we trust the State Police with them? What if somebody breaks into a Statie's car and steals one? What if they commit suicide with them? We have to stop our police officers from being corrupted by their assault weapons! Think of the children!
Ridiculous argument? Of course! But so is the assumption that guns are inherently dangerous. Yes, they were designed to kill people with, because every so often mankind decides to start wars. That's the point. I own guns and possess the self-control to not kill people. It's not that hard.
Because the monthly restriction is specifically on those who "purchase, rent or lease." It makes no mention of inheriting.
One thing I've noticed this week among the right-wingers on gun control and left-wingers on Aaron Swartz is that neither wing of extremists has a monopoly on just making stuff up. They make the other side look bad at first glance, but make themselves look like liars to anyone who scratches the surface.
Under the legislation, you would have to transfer all of your dead father's guns to yourself at a licensed gun store. The store would report each transaction to the state. The state would review the transactions, find that you have suddenly acquired more than one gun in the allowed one month window (OH NOOOES) and prosecute you, while simultaneously revoking your suitability to own guns and confiscating them all. The only alternative would be to pick one gun and be forced to sell the rest.
The point is to marginalize civilian gun ownership and chip away at the rights of current gun owners. If we have fewer guns and fewer people owning them with every generation, that's what will happen.
And for all of you fantasizing about a peaceful world with no guns: I invite you to move to Mexico, where civilian gun ownership is illegal. Tell the drug cartels I said hi as they hold a gun to your head and chop you into little pieces.
Seems to be the same argument every time new legislation is proposed. And when proven false, you get the standard "But next time!"
Here is what the legislation says:
"No person, other than an exempt person as defined in this subsection, shall purchase, rent or lease more than 1 rifle, shotgun, firearm, machine gun, large capacity weapon or large capacity feeding device in any 30-day period."
This seems to be explicit that the limitations are on purchasing, renting, and leasing. Would you please point out the language about inheriting? I'm not saying it's not there, just that I can't find it.
Appearing in lots of places in this thread, and all over the place these days (example), is the so-called "insurrectionist" argument/underpinning/reason for/justification of or whatever you want to call it for the Second Amendment.
I think that it is a legitimate argument that the Second Amendment was drafted to allow citizens to keep guns as a last ditch way to stop a tyrannical government. That is a legitimate explanation for why the Second Amendment was drafted. Was drafted. In the late 18th Century.
The question I have had for a long time regarding the insurrectionist idea follows.
Today, the U.S. government has machine guns, tanks, fighter and bomber aircraft, drones that can more or less fire a missile through a window and up someone's ass. Did I mention nuclear weapons? The U.S. government also has nuclear weapons.
Can someone please explain how the insurrectionist argument/justification/etc. for keeping an AR-15 or even 15,000 AR-15s in your basement as a way to fight off a tyrannical government passes the laugh test in view of the arsenal that the federal government has amassed (that is, the arsenal that we The People have allowed and even paid for the federal government to amass)?
If those who are advancing the insurrectionist argument/justification/etc. are serious, shouldn't they also be advocating for depriving the federal government of all of these weapons, or at least advocating for their "right" to keep and bear hellfire missiles and their own nuclear warheads?
Our popular government has often been called an experiment. Two points in it, our people have already settled,--the successful establishing and the successful administering of it. One still remains,--its successful maintenance against a formidable internal attempt to overthrow it. It is now for them to demonstrate to the world that those who can fairly carry an election can also suppress a rebellion; that ballots are the rightful and peaceful successors of bullets; and that when ballots have fairly and constitutionally decided, there can be no successful appeal back to bullets; that there can be no successful appeal, except to ballots themselves, at succeeding elections. Such will be a great lesson of peace; teaching men that what they cannot take by an election, neither can they take it by a war; teaching all the folly of being the beginners of a war.
Abraham Lincoln. In his first message to Congress, July 4, 1861
How odd, I don't recall Lincoln being a founder.
And to this day some view the savior of the union as a illegitimate fascist. He'd probably get a kick that most of them align themselves with the decedents of his party.
One of Washington's first acts was to put down the Whiskey Rebellion.
The original founder of the National Revolver Association would have had these Red Dawn Fantasy nutters drawn and quartered for treason.
How did David Koresh fair against the government tyrants?
Also, taking hypotheticals to the extreme, who is going to win: Wayne Lapierre and his shitty gun club, or "tyrant" Barack Obama and Seal Team 6?
The US Government got Saddam and Osama; it doesn't matter what penis-extending gun you own, trained swat teams/standard infantry units/special forces all will be - even if they are outgunned (which is doubtful) - so much better trained than your little militia and they will systematically destroy you.
The Second Amendment to the Constitution of The United States, "the right to bear arms", has easily been the single most misinterpreted amendment in the history of this nation. In order to understand its true meaning one must see it in the context of the time it was drafted. During the colonial era in the future United States, the upper limbs of the mammals of the family Ursidae were virtually indispensable for their myriad practical uses. For example, their ability to facilitate back scratching were then, as now, unmatched. They were also highly useful in getting things off high shelves. Also, in rare but important instances, they were known to be used to swat annoying persons. In fact, they were so highly valued in colonial times that the founding fathers felt the right to own them, these miraculous upper limbs of mammals of the family Ursidae, these bear arms, should be be made an absolute right. Thus, the Second Amendment came to be, and has been being misinterpreted ever since.
Yup, our federal government has all those weapons. How long have the insurgents been putting up a fight with rifles and homemade bombs? Laughable, really?
If the U.S. armed forces really wanted to eliminate all of those insurgents, without regard for the safety of those not involved, do you really think it would take more than a week?
The insurrectionist argument/justification/reasoning/etc. presupposes precisely this, that the tyrannical government is coming for the citizenry without regard for those not involved. Those holding their guns as a defense, along with the rest of us, would all be gone in less than a week.
Red Dawn Fantasy nutter seem to supposed that this Tyrannical, Fascist government is going to play by the rules of the democratically elected Republic we have.
Fat chance fatty.
Take a look at one autocratic, third world shithole after another. A fascist government that doesn't care about liberty, rights rights, or the rule of law will not care about inflicting collateral damage on it's own citizenry.
Which really brings in the nutters supposition into focus. They're looking for a time when they can overthrow the democratically elected ballot they don't like, not overthrow a Tyrant. A time coming very soon. It's also the basis for the nutty succession talk.
Read it and weep.
Display weapons in public. Sorry, but if I'm standing next to "Mr. Upright Citizen" in the Kwik-E-Mart, with his gun strapped to his back, I don't feel safe. Is it a gun phobia? No, not at all. You want to strap a sword to your back and go buy a bag of Doreetos I'm not going to feel safe next to YOU either. The issue is that frightened, fear based personalities feel the need to display their protection even when there's very little around to be afraid of. In the end, it gives them their ego boost, because, presto! they're the ones people need to be afraid of. Instant bad ass, tough guy with a small purchase of a gun. Sorry, the guy isn't doing a thing to prove freedom reigns, he's proving he's a jackass who's afraid of his own shadow.
but if you had a gun you would, liberal Patsy
For the photographer, a question: these photos and other footage I saw on Channel 7 and Channel 5 seemed to show that the crowd was entirely made up of white men. True?
Awesome lily ... Now here comes the " these gun nuts are racist too ! " . Get off it . Race has nothing to do this discussion . And btw there were quite a few minorities at the rally . Probably equally represented at the rally as they are in society . Race has nothing to do with this . Go away.
Guns are safe but not in the hands of minorities or poor people because they might kill someone with money or who is white. Unless they kill another minority or poor person, then it's okay because they're supposed to be killing each other.
It warms the cockles of my heart to see people whipped into a frenzy by a couple of choice words on the internet.
What's your point?
these photos and other footage I saw on Channel 7 and Channel 5 seemed to show that the crowd was entirely made up of white men
NO! It should read old, fat, white men. You know, sportsmen!
and hunters take offense at that. Many are in good health, and of sound mind, and responsibly own their hunting and marksmen gear.
It's the Tactile Reality and Red Dawn Fantasy nutters who tend to align with the 101st fighting "cheetos" keyboardists.
but on my list of people I really don't care about offending, people with guns are right at the top. Sportsmen,my ass.
But they do exist.
VT and Canada land are good example of places where guns and gun culture can be sane, safe, and normal. The problem, like the Republican Party, is the debate has completely been taken over by monied interests and tiny, nutcase minorities fueled by them.
If we could just get current MA Law enacted in all 50 states, it go a very long way to dealing with the issues at hand.
From the Globe story (paywall): http://bostonglobe.com/metro/2013/01/20/gun-rights-advocates-rally-against-proposed-legislation-governor/RAdC20pc3I62Rqe3x4aghK/story.html
The 1st speaker was a guy named Yang Li, a Chinese immigrant who's now a naturalized citizen and gun owner. So no, they weren't all white guys.