Open Carry

[UscGhost]

---

Members do not see this ad.

Not following what you mean.

Well, you said 2A is supposed to be a check on tyranny. Clearly, some Senators and millions of "No Kings" protestors think we are under tyranny.

So how does the process work? Armed uprising "Battle of Athens" style? Or just prefer fully armed protestors and hope for the best?

 

[DocMcCoy]

Well, you said 2A is supposed to be a check on tyranny. Clearly, some Senators and millions of "No Kings" protestors think we are under tyranny.

So how does the process work? Armed uprising "Battle of Athens" style? Or just prefer fully armed protestors and hope for the best?

Well I guess I don’t believe they REALLY think that or they have no idea what tyranny is. It’s fun to say I guess. Maybe some do. Millions were able to peacefully protest with active media coverage and zero interference on the ground from a Trumpiam gestapo. I think that’s proof in itself this isn’t tyranny.

 

[UscGhost]

Well I guess I don’t believe they REALLY think that or they have no idea what tyranny is. It’s fun to say I guess. Maybe some do. Millions were able to peacefully protest with active media coverage and zero interference on the ground from a Trumpiam gestapo. I think that’s proof in itself this isn’t tyranny.

So they are protesting en masse because they have nothing better to do? NONE of them thought they were under tyranny despite the protest specifically being about anti-tyranny?? Hardly realistic

They are protesting against corruption, authoritarian policies, etc. Athens protestors were protesting the same things

Battle of Athens protestors jumped into armed violence pretty quickly. Is that how we know if protestors are serious or not?

Just trying to figure out how the 2A is supposed to be utilized to check tyranny. Seems like your saying that a peaceful protest isn't serious unless there is violence from the protesters first (Athens)...and thats how progress is made?

Should the "No Kings" protestors come armed to the next protest then since they didn't get the results they wanted? Or is it peaceful protest first, and then if you are met with police violence, then you get to bust out the AR15s? But then at Athens, the protestors were violent first.

And then there was Jan 6.. certainly those protesters thought there was election fraud, corruption and they seemed more "serious" given the violence. Should they have brought guns to express their 2A rights?

Trying to figure this out

 

[DocMcCoy]

So they are protesting en masse because they have nothing better to do? NONE of them thought they were under tyranny despite the protest specifically being about anti-tyranny?? Hardly realistic

Pretty much. It was a bunch of old retired white people, wasn’t it 😉?

I don’t think the protest fits your narrow definition. It was multifaceted. It boils down to complaints against loss of democratic norms, worry of authoritarian tendencies, immigrant and lgbtq rights, and the billionaire class’s increasing political influence. Lot going on.

They weren’t protesting for the right to vote, they weren’t protesting against the slaughter of innocent citizens, they weren’t protesting quartering soldiers in their homes, Hell, they weren’t even protesting over excessive taxes.

More importantly, they were able to exercise their first amendment to the fullest extent without be squelched by the nonexistent Trumpian gestapo. Some may have been exercising their 2nd amendment as well. There were some carrying in my town.

The irony is pretty thick.

They are protesting against corruption, authoritarian policies, etc. Athens protestors were protesting the same things

So was it a protest against corruption and authoritarian polices, or a protest against tyranny? I mean if you can’t define it how am I supposed to define it for you?

Just trying to figure out how the 2A is supposed to be utilized to check tyranny. Seems like your saying that a peaceful protest isn't serious unless there is violence from the protesters first (Athens)...and thats how progress is made?

I guess you haven’t been paying attention to what im saying. Peaceful protests work great. When a democratic system is up and running. When the institutions are intact, they can lead to progress and change. Do you think a no kings protest in China would go down the way it did here? Or even be possible under Xi? Guns are for when the system doesn’t work the way it should.

hould the "No Kings" protestors come armed to the next protest then since they didn't get the results they wanted? Or is it peaceful protest first, and then if you are met with police violence, then you get to bust out the AR15s? But then at Athens, the protestors were violent first.

Did they not get the results they wanted?

You are the one telling me we are under a tyrannical regime. You tell me when it’s appropriate. Why would I think it’s appropriate, I’m “part of the problem”. I mean if they want to start doing that they can. We can find out real quick if the court of public opinion thinks it’s justified or not.

nd then there was Jan 6.. certainly those protesters thought there was election fraud, corruption and they seemed more "serious" given the violence. Should they have brought guns to express their 2A rights?

Right. Those protestors. A group of 1000 idiots. I mean do you think they should bring ARs next time? Most Americans think j6 was wrong. Because there wasn’t really fraud and corruption (tyranny) they were protesting against. See the theme yet?

If the day comes there really is widespread ILLEGAL voter fraud and rigged elections, and the system isn’t doing anything to stop it, or is enabling it, sure, oil up your guns.

Trying to figure this out

It’s not that hard. If you can mobilize millions of people nationwide to protest freely, you most likely aren’t living under tyrannical rule.


Edit:
Still wondering what kind of gun laws you support? What are the goals of gun laws? Do you support assault weapons and high capacity magazine bans, and why?

 

[UscGhost]

Pretty much. It was a bunch of old retired white people, wasn’t it 😉?

I don’t think the protest fits your narrow definition. It was multifaceted. It boils down to complaints against loss of democratic norms, worry of authoritarian tendencies, immigrant and lgbtq rights, and the billionaire class’s increasing political influence. Lot going on.

They weren’t protesting for the right to vote, they weren’t protesting against the slaughter of innocent citizens, they weren’t protesting quartering soldiers in their homes, Hell, they weren’t even protesting over excessive taxes.

More importantly, they were able to exercise their first amendment to the fullest extent without be squelched by the nonexistent Trumpian gestapo. Some may have been exercising their 2nd amendment as well. There were some carrying in my town.

The irony is pretty thick.





So was it a protest against corruption and authoritarian polices, or a protest against tyranny? I mean if you can’t define it how am I supposed to define it for you?




I guess you haven’t been paying attention to what im saying. Peaceful protests work great. When a democratic system is up and running. When the institutions are intact, they can lead to progress and change. Do you think a no kings protest in China would go down the way it did here? Or even be possible under Xi? Guns are for when the system doesn’t work the way it should.




Did they not get the results they wanted?

You are the one telling me we are under a tyrannical regime. You tell me when it’s appropriate. Why would I think it’s appropriate, I’m “part of the problem”. I mean if they want to start doing that they can. We can find out real quick if the court of public opinion thinks it’s justified or not.




Right. Those protestors. A group of 1000 idiots. I mean do you think they should bring ARs next time? Most Americans think j6 was wrong. Because there wasn’t really fraud and corruption (tyranny) they were protesting against. See the theme yet?

If the day comes there really is widespread ILLEGAL voter fraud and rigged elections, and the system isn’t doing anything to stop it, or is enabling it, sure, oil up your guns.



It’s not that hard. If you can mobilize millions of people nationwide to protest freely, you most likely aren’t living under tyrannical rule.


Edit:
Still wondering what kind of gun laws you support? What are the goals of gun laws? Do you support assault weapons and high capacity magazine bans, and why?

I don’t think the protest fits your narrow definition. It was multifaceted. It boils down to complaints against loss of democratic norms, worry of authoritarian tendencies, immigrant and lgbtq rights, and the billionaire class’s increasing political influence. Lot going on.

All forms of tyranny. Not worthy of a 2A "check against tyranny"?

Athens protestors were protesting fewer things and had less people, and basically went straight to direct violence...somehow a better use of their 2A rights?

Most people didnt think that there was election fraud?? The entire Republican party, President Trump, fox news, and what, 45% of the country thought so? Certainly more than at Athens. Heck, even the election fraud nutjobs in maga tried to file lawsuits...the folks at Athens just went straight to direct violence

I dont think its ever justified to use the 2A to fight tyrannical rule, because its unrealistic to expect that anyone would agree on when to use it, it wouldn't work anyways, and its infinitely more likely to result in senseless violence and vigilante social justice than it is to prevent tyranny

You yourself cant even define when we would he under tyranny, who gets to decide that, when and how we figure out when to use the 2A for that, what happens if half the country disagrees..etc

2A as a check on tyranny is a fantasy with no practical applications

 

[DocMcCoy]

Athens protestors were protesting fewer things and had less people, and basically went straight to direct violence...somehow a better use of their 2A rights?

And in this example it was effective.

Most people didnt think that there was election fraud?? The entire Republican party, President Trump, fox news, and what, 45% of the country thought so? Certainly more than at Athens. Heck, even the election fraud nutjobs in maga tried to file lawsuits...the folks at Athens just went straight to direct violence

You are making a really bad comparison.

The entire Republican Party? Even if they were true 45% isn’t most people. And there was no proof of widespread election fraud. Nowhere akin to Athens.

Athens saw it happening right in front of them, in the moment, on election day. Force was ultimately used to secure the ballot boxes. And it worked.

I dont think its ever justified to use the 2A to fight tyrannical rule, because its unrealistic to expect that anyone would agree on when to use it, it wouldn't work anyways, and its infinitely more likely to result in senseless violence and vigilante social justice than it is to prevent tyranny

There are numerous cases of armed resistance being effective. Discussed at length. You’ve even accidentally given several great examples that contradict your argument.

Everyone doesn’t have to agree when to use it. Thats not how it works.

You yourself cant even define when we would he under tyranny, who gets to decide that, when and how we figure out when to use the 2A for that, what happens if half the country disagrees..etc

You are the one that thinks we under tyrannical rule. Corruption and authoritarian policies doesn’t equate to tyranny. Just because you can’t define it doesn’t mean I can’t.

I’ve define it several times. When the democratic systems are in place, and the checks and balances are in place, armed resistance is rarely needed. You keep forgetting that 2A is a crucial part of those checks and balances, it is ALWAYS “being used”. Why do tyrannical regimes target guns?

For example, if the government starts mowing down citizens peacefully protesting “no kings” hey I’m 💯 supporting armed resistance. Let me know when we have our Tiananmen Square moment.

When the systems fail, armed resistance becomes one of the few effective avenues to affect change. That is infinitely easier to do with a robust 2nd amendment enshrined in the constitution.

Still like to hear your opinion on gun laws.

 

[UscGhost]

And in this example it was effective.



You are making a really bad comparison.

The entire Republican Party? Even if they were true 45% isn’t most people. And there was no proof of widespread election fraud. Nowhere akin to Athens.

Athens saw it happening right in front of them, in the moment, on election day. Force was ultimately used to secure the ballot boxes. And it worked.



There are numerous cases of armed resistance being effective. Discussed at length. You’ve even accidentally given several great examples that contradict your argument.

Everyone doesn’t have to agree when to use it. Thats not how it works.




You are the one that thinks we under tyrannical rule. Corruption and authoritarian policies doesn’t equate to tyranny. Just because you can’t define it doesn’t mean I can’t.

I’ve define it several times. When the democratic systems are in place, and the checks and balances are in place, armed resistance is rarely needed. You keep forgetting that 2A is a crucial part of those checks and balances, it is ALWAYS “being used”. Why do tyrannical regimes target guns?

For example, if the government starts mowing down citizens peacefully protesting “no kings” hey I’m 💯 supporting armed resistance. Let me know when we have our Tiananmen Square moment.

When the systems fail, armed resistance becomes one of the few effective avenues to affect change. That is infinitely easier to do with a robust 2nd amendment enshrined in the constitution.

Still like to hear your opinion on gun laws.

Athens saw it happening? No investigation, no court rulings, just their personal determination? Seems they just suspected election fraud, and wanted to to see the ballots...and shot everything up when they werent allowed. There we also plenty of cases where maga tried to get access to ballots..should they have shot everything up too?

I mean, the literal president of the USA told them there was fraud, he still says it..thats not enough of a call to arms?


45% not high enough? So whats the cutoff for tyranny? Certainly a higher percentage than the number of folks at Athens though

Athens folks bypassed the legal system, so they didn't even try the system of checks and balances. So are you saying it was effective but unjustified? So basically just anl case of vigilante justice where the ends justified the means?

Athens wasnt a tianamaen square moment at all. In fact, the Athens protestors were the violent aggressors. Neither was the Mexican or Spanish american war, or the slaughter of native americans. All instances where we basically started the conflicts...but you used those as your examples of effective use of 2A.

Or are we saying they are effective simply because the gun users got what they wanted? Is that the only metric? Unjust use of guns...but if they got the results they wanted, then its ok.

You havent defined tyranny yet. So corruption and authoritarian policies arent a part of tyranny. Thats a pretty uncommon sentiment. Usually those things are part of the main aspects of tyranny

Just trying to iron out when us citizens are supposed to know when to activate the 2A to fight tyranny.

 

[arkgal]

With the Battle of Athens, it's not that simple. Corruption went on for years and the system of checks and balances failed. This is from Wiki, but let's assume it's accurate on its face for discussion purposes.

"In 1936, the E. H. Crump political machine based in Memphis, which controlled much of Tennessee, extended to McMinn County with the introduction of Paul Cantrell as the Democratic candidate for sheriff.[1]: 115  Cantrell, who came from a wealthy and influential family in nearby Etowah, tied his campaign closely to the popularity of the Roosevelt administration. Cantrell rode FDR's coattails to victory over his Republican opponent in what came to be known as the "vote grab of 1936", which delivered McMinn County to Tennessee's Crump Machine.[1]: 115  Paul Cantrell was reelected sheriff in the 1938 and 1940 elections, and was elected to the state senate in 1942 and 1944, while his former deputy, Pat Mansfield, a transplanted Georgian, was elected sheriff those years.[1]: 115  A state law enacted in 1941 reduced local political opposition to Crump's officials by reducing the number of voting precincts from 23 to 12 and reducing the number of justices of the peace from fourteen to seven (including four "Cantrell men").[2] The sheriff and his deputies were paid under a fee system whereby they received money for every person they booked, incarcerated, and released.[2] Because of this fee system, there was extensive "fee grabbing" from tourists and travelers.[1]: 116  Buses passing through the county were often pulled over and the passengers were randomly ticketed for drunkenness, regardless of their intoxication or lack thereof.[2] Between 1936 and 1946, these fees amounted to almost $300,000.[1]: 116

Cantrell engaged in electoral fraud, both by intimidating voters who voted against him, and by allowing ineligible people to vote.[3] The U.S. Department of Justice had investigated allegations of electoral fraud in McMinn County in 1940, 1942, and 1944, but had not taken action.[2] Voter fraud and vote control perpetuated McMinn County's political problems.[need quotation to verify] Manipulation of the poll tax and vote counting were the primary methods, but it was common for dead voters' votes to be counted in McMinn County elections.[1]: 116  The political problems were further entrenched by economic corruption of political figures, who enabled gambling, bootlegging, and other illegal activity.[3] Most of McMinn County's young men were off fighting World War II, allowing appointment of some ex-convicts as deputies.[1]: 116  These deputies furthered the political machine's goals and exerted control over the citizens of the county.[1]: 116  While the machine controlled law enforcement, its control also extended to the newspapers and schools. When asked if the local newspaper, The Daily Post Athenian, supported the GIs, veteran Bill White replied: "No, they didn't help us none." White elaborated: "Mansfield had complete control of everything, schools and everything else. You couldn't even get hired as a schoolteacher without their okay, or any other job."[4]: 26

During the war, two servicemen on leave were shot and killed by Cantrell supporters.[1]: 116  The servicemen of McMinn County heard of what was going on and were anxious to return home and do something about it.[5] According to a contemporaneous article by Theodore H. White in Harper's Magazine, one veteran, Ralph Duggan, who had served in the Pacific in the navy and became a leading lawyer postwar, "thought a lot more about McMinn County than he did about the Japs. If democracy was good enough to put on the Germans and the Japs, it was good enough for McMinn County, too!"[1]: 116  The scene was ripe for a confrontation when McMinn County's GIs were demobilized. When they arrived home and the deputies targeted the returning GIs, one reported: "A lot of boys getting discharged [were] getting the mustering out pay. Well, deputies running around four or five at a time grapping [sic] up every GI they could find and trying to get that money off of them, they were fee grabbers, they wasn't on a salary back then."[4]: 18–19 [non-primary source needed]

In the August 1946 election, Paul Cantrell ran again for sheriff, while Pat Mansfield ran for the State Senate seat. Stephen Byrum, a local historian, speculates that the reason for this switch was an attempt to spread the graft.[1]: 116  Bill White, meanwhile, claims the reason for the swap was because they thought Cantrell stood a better chance running against the GIs.[4]: 24 [non-primary source needed] The GIs were more hostile towards Sheriff Mansfield and his deputies rather than against Cantrell, whose period as sheriff had been relatively benign.[4]: 24 [non-primary source needed]

McMinn County had around 3,000 returning military veterans, constituting almost 10 percent of the county's population. Some of the returning veterans resolved to challenge Cantrell's political control by fielding their own nonpartisan candidates and working for a fraud-free election. A meeting was called in May 1946; veteran ID was required for admission. A non-partisan slate of candidates was selected.[1]: 117

Veteran Bill White described the veterans' motivation:

There were several beer joints and honky-tonks around Athens; we were pretty wild; we started having trouble with the law enforcement at that time because they started making a habit of picking up GIs and fining them heavily for most anything—they were kind of making a racket out of it. After long hard years of service—most of us were hard-core veterans of World War II—we were used to drinking our liquor and our beer without being molested. When these things happened, the GIs got madder—the more GIs they arrested, the more they beat up, the madder we got ...[2]

The members of the GI Non-Partisan League were very careful to make their list of candidates match the electoral demographics of the county, choosing three Republicans and two Democrats.[6][7] A respected and decorated veteran of the North African campaign, Knox Henry, stood as candidate for sheriff in opposition to Cantrell.[2]

Large contributions made by local businessmen to the GIs' campaign ensured that it was well-funded, although many of McMinn County's citizens believed the machine would rig the election. The veterans capitalized on this belief with the slogan "Your Vote Will Be Counted As Cast".[1]: 117

Well aware of the methods of Sheriff Mansfield and his associates, the League organized a counterpoise. A "fightin' bunch" was organized by Bill White "to keep the thugs from beating up GIs and keep them from taking the election."[4]: 19 [non-primary source needed] White created his organization carefully; he later recalled: "I got out and started organizing with a bunch of GIs. Well spirits—I learned that you get the poor boys out of poor families, and the ones that was frontline warriors that's done fighting and didn't care to bust a cap on you. I learned to do that. So that's what I picked. I had thirty men and ... I took what mustering out pay I got and bought pistols. And some of them had pistols. I had thirty men organized".[4]: 19 [non-primary source needed] Sheriff Mansfield also organized for the upcoming election, hiring 200 deputies, most from neighboring counties, some from out of state, at $50 a day (equivalent to $806 in 2024).[2]"

Battle of Athens (1946) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

I am not saying the use of guns was justified to solve the problem, but these people were under a form of tyranny, and they fought back.

 

[cchoukal]

As for the J6 use of 2A, I remember thinking that it was the insurrection that represented tyranny, and I was disappointed that law-abiding, gun-toting citizens didn't recognize it as such and rise up with their guns against the J6 insurrectionists. To me, that was evidence that 2A, as a check against tyranny, was ineffective. But then I see the flip side of the coin that some revisionists feel that democrats election-stealing is the tyranny and that the J6-ers WERE the law-abiding gun-toting citizens rising up against the tyranny inflicted by the democrats trying to install an unelected president (Biden). So then I guess tyranny isn't merely in the eye of the beholder, but also heavily politicized. Which, to USC's point (I think) of when does oppression, erosion of norms, restriction of rights become tyranny? Only when the oppressed react with the armed defense of their point of view? Like, it isn't Tyranny (with a capital T) if it isn't so severe that the oppressed take up arms?

And what of the Don Lemon suggestion that POC buy guns in case they are snatched by the masked goons of ICE? Is the idea that if they see ICE approaching, they should brandish their arms? Should they point their guns at the ICE agents? Or is it more like PGG said above, that ICE would somehow know which neighborhoods had more guns and wisely stay out of those areas, as if 2A's check on tyranny were more an issue of statistical probability of the oppressors meeting armed resistance in certain parts of town, and avoiding those, rather than the actual use of arms?

 

[DocMcCoy]

Athens saw it happening? No investigation, no court rulings, just their personal determination? Seems they just suspected election fraud, and wanted to to see the ballots...and shot everything up when they werent allowed. There we also plenty of cases where maga tried to get access to ballots..should they have shot everything up too?

Yes. Exactly. Again I don’t know why you are using this. It’s a bad example for any point you’re trying to prove. It is literally textbook example of 2A, armed violent conflict, used successfully against a tyrannical government.

They didn’t suspect, they literally saw it and lived it. Review the events leading up to the battle.

Athens folks bypassed the legal system, so they didn't even try the system of checks and balances. So are you saying it was effective but unjustified? So basically just anl case of vigilante justice where the ends justified the means?

The system was broken, the people of Athens reacted. Effective and justified.

Athens wasnt a tianamaen square moment at all. In fact, the Athens protestors were the violent aggressors. Neither was the Mexican or Spanish american war, or the slaughter of native americans. All instances where we basically started the conflicts...but you used those as your examples of effective use of 2A.

You need to review your history. Your statements are categorically inaccurate.

Or are we saying they are effective simply because the gun users got what they wanted? Is that the only metric? Unjust use of guns...but if they got the results they wanted, then its ok.

Who said it was unjust?

You havent defined tyranny yet. So corruption and authoritarian policies arent a part of tyranny. Thats a pretty uncommon sentiment. Usually those things are part of the main aspects of tyranny

I have. Several times. Corruption and authoritarian policies can exist outside of tyranny. That’s a pretty common sentiment. For example, BJs in the Oval is pretty corrupt. Pardoning your extended family is pretty corrupt. Those aren’t examples of tyranny.

Just trying to iron out when us citizens are supposed to know when to activate the 2A to fight tyranny.

2A is always active against tyranny.

still waiting to hear your thoughts on gun control.

 

[DocMcCoy]

As for the J6 use of 2A, I remember thinking that it was the insurrection that represented tyranny, and I was disappointed that law-abiding, gun-toting citizens didn't recognize it as such and rise up with their guns against the J6 insurrectionists. To me, that was evidence that 2A, as a check against tyranny, was ineffective. But then I see the flip side of the coin that some revisionists feel that democrats election-stealing is the tyranny and that the J6-ers WERE the law-abiding gun-toting citizens rising up against the tyranny inflicted by the democrats trying to install an unelected president (Biden). So then I guess tyranny isn't merely in the eye of the beholder, but also heavily politicized. Which, to USC's point (I think) of when does oppression, erosion of norms, restriction of rights become tyranny? Only when the oppressed react with the armed defense of their point of view? Like, it isn't Tyranny (with a capital T) if it isn't so severe that the oppressed take up arms?

And what of the Don Lemon suggestion that POC buy guns in case they are snatched by the masked goons of ICE? Is the idea that if they see ICE approaching, they should brandish their arms? Should they point their guns at the ICE agents? Or is it more like PGG said above, that ICE would somehow know which neighborhoods had more guns and wisely stay out of those areas, as if 2A's check on tyranny were more an issue of statistical probability of the oppressors meeting armed resistance in certain parts of town, and avoiding those, rather than the actual use of arms?

If it was voted for in free and fair elections, and the needle is still free to move in the opposite direction in the next free and fair election, it isn’t tyranny.

There is some irony in Don Lemon’s comments. Presumably, if your states have strong castle doctrine and stand your ground laws, they would arguably be justified shooting unmasked and unidentified ICE agents breaking into their homes (which by all accounts isn’t happening). Look where the ICE raids are happening. In areas with weak self defense and gun laws. In that vein, there is an argument they are avoiding those areas and it’s a demonstration of 2A working. It’s also a critique of how states that have weakened the 2A may have made their citizens vulnerable. 🤷‍♂️

 

[cchoukal]

In areas with weak self defense and gun laws. In that vein, there is an argument they are avoiding those areas and it’s a demonstration of 2A working. It’s also a critique of how states that have weakened the 2A may have made their citizens vulnerable. 🤷‍♂️

As a person of science, I'm sure you can appreciate that stronger restrictions on guns isn't the only feature of places Trump is targeting with ICE raids.

 

[UscGhost]

Yes. Exactly. Again I don’t know why you are using this. It’s a bad example for any point you’re trying to prove. It is literally textbook example of 2A, armed violent conflict, used successfully against a tyrannical government.

They didn’t suspect, they literally saw it and lived it. Review the events leading up to the battle.



The system was broken, the people of Athens reacted. Effective and justified.



You need to review your history. Your statements are categorically inaccurate.



Who said it was unjust?



I have. Several times. Corruption and authoritarian policies can exist outside of tyranny. That’s a pretty common sentiment. For example, BJs in the Oval is pretty corrupt. Pardoning your extended family is pretty corrupt. Those aren’t examples of tyranny.





2A is always active against tyranny.

still waiting to hear your thoughts on gun control.

Saw it and lived it eh? Remind me, did they file lawsuits in local, state or federal courts? Nope

So clearly they didn't use the existing democratic systems of checks and balances established by the founders. They just chose a violent shortcut to end what they THOUGHT was tyranny. There was no judicial rulings in their favor, no determination by a neutral party that they were victims..

They wanted access to the ballots, because they SUSPECTED fraud and the sheriff denied them. Then they attacked.

So, by your example, all thats needed to justify a violent armed uprising is suspicion of election fraud and excessive fees? Seems a low bar.

Seems that the the Jan 6 rioters suspected election fraud at the presidential level, far more serious than a local small town election. Even the president, senators and congressman echoed the call to arms...along with 45% of the country. Not enough to justify a violent uprising? But a local group of citizens of Athens who suspect election fraud has the constitutional authority to start a violent uprising?

No kings protestors see a direct threat to our nation, from their perspective. Are they allowed to self determine whether or not its tyranny like the Athens GIs were?

Just trying to nail down what criteria are needed in order issue the call to arms to check tyranny. You seem to be dodging it. Or is it just that the 2A is a free for all, and citizens can arbitrarily pick choose when and where they see tyranny, or if they need to use the judicial system or just go straight to vigilant justice.

Maybe its a spray and pray situation? Give everyone as many guns as they can get their hands on, let them shoot at anything they think is tyranny without using the legal system, and then the rest of the country can determine later if they were right or wrong? Doesnt seem to be a plan thats applicable to future scenarios

Seems like thats a recipe for uncontrollable gun violence..oh wait..

Sensible gun control is good. Since clearly, there is no reasonable way to pre-determine if/when/how this mythical "check against tyranny" is supposed to be used. Then all thats left is self defense and hunting. Pretty easy to craft gun control regulations to meet those needs while reducing gun violence

 

[DocMcCoy]

As a person of science, I'm sure you can appreciate that stronger restrictions on guns isn't the only feature of places Trump is targeting with ICE raids.

Of course not. But in the current debate one would be remiss not to mention it.

 

[DocMcCoy]

Saw it and lived it eh? Remind me, did they file lawsuits in local, state or federal courts? Nope

So clearly they didn't use the existing democratic systems of checks and balances established by the founders. They just chose a violent shortcut to end what they THOUGHT was tyranny. There was no judicial rulings in their favor, no determination by a neutral party that they were victims..

I’d encourage you again, to go back and read the history. Another poster, I’d argue is more closely politically aligned with you than me tried to set it straight for you as well. This is not a good example for you to push all your chips on.

The DOJ investigated, the governors office was asked to intervene without response. The local government was completely tyrannical. On Election Day, would be voters were arrested and assaulted. The checks and balances failed except for the 2nd amendment. Even if you want to omit the justification, this is a clear cut example of armed conflict successful against tyranny.

They wanted access to the ballots, because they SUSPECTED fraud and the sheriff denied them. Then they attacked.

A decade of corruption. They attacked after voters were physically arrested and assaulted.

No kings protestors see a direct threat to our nation, from their perspective. Are they allowed to self determine whether or not its tyranny like the Athens GIs were?

They sure can. We’ve been through this. Timothy McVeigh thought he was acting against tyranny from his point of view too. If you give me a choice of the three, Athens, no kings, and McVeigh, I’m going to say Athens fits the criteria for armed resistance and is a great example of that. The other two not so much. I’m willing to bet most agree.

Just trying to nail down what criteria are needed in order issue the call to arms to check tyranny. You seem to be dodging it. Or is it just that the 2A is a free for all, and citizens can arbitrarily pick choose when and where they see tyranny, or if they need to use the judicial system or just go straight to vigilant justice.

If the judicial system works, they should use it. If the first amendment works, they should use it. If their elected officials are doing their jobs, they should use them. If there is a free press, they should use it. If all of those things are failing, that’s probably tyranny. If they still have a second amendment, then they should use it.

Maybe its a spray and pray situation? Give everyone as many guns as they can get their hands on, let them shoot at anything they think is tyranny without using the legal system, and then the rest of the country can determine later if they were right or wrong? Doesnt seem to be a plan thats applicable to future scenarios

Forgive me, in all my reading on gun violence, I missed all the deaths attributed to “spraying and praying” against tyranny. Thankfully, with the exception of a few outliers, due to a stable system of government with robust checks and balances including the deterrent of 100 million gun owners with a 2nd amendment, it hasn’t been necessary.

Sensible gun control is good. Since clearly, there is no reasonable way to pre-determine if/when/how this mythical "check against tyranny" is supposed to be used. Then all thats left is self defense and hunting. Pretty easy to craft gun control regulations to meet those needs while reducing gun violence

Again, The 2nd amendment as a check is very real. What type of legislation would you propose? How do you reduce gun violence and ensure the right of self defense and hunting? Curious what that would look like in your world.

 

[UscGhost]

I’d encourage you again, to go back and read the history. Another poster, I’d argue is more closely politically aligned with you than me tried to set it straight for you as well. This is not a good example for you to push all your chips on.

The DOJ investigated, the governors office was asked to intervene without response. The local government was completely tyrannical. On Election Day, would be voters were arrested and assaulted. The checks and balances failed except for the 2nd amendment. Even if you want to omit the justification, this is a clear cut example of armed conflict successful against tyranny.



A decade of corruption. They attacked after voters were physically arrested and assaulted.



They sure can. We’ve been through this. Timothy McVeigh thought he was acting against tyranny from his point of view too. If you give me a choice of the three, Athens, no kings, and McVeigh, I’m going to say Athens fits the criteria for armed resistance and is a great example of that. The other two not so much. I’m willing to bet most agree.



If the judicial system works, they should use it. If the first amendment works, they should use it. If their elected officials are doing their jobs, they should use them. If there is a free press, they should use it. If all of those things are failing, that’s probably tyranny. If they still have a second amendment, then they should use it.



Forgive me, in all my reading on gun violence, I missed all the deaths attributed to “spraying and praying” against tyranny. Thankfully, with the exception of a few outliers, due to a stable system of government with robust checks and balances including the deterrent of 100 million gun owners with a 2nd amendment, it hasn’t been necessary.



Again, The 2nd amendment as a check is very real. What type of legislation would you propose? How do you reduce gun violence and ensure the right of self defense and hunting? Curious what that would look like in your world.

Problem with omitting the justification...is that its then just vigilante justice...where the ends justify the means.

And that's entirely the problem. 2A is a free pass for vigilante justice in the name of "a check against tyranny".

Political violence is frequently based on the perpetrators perspective that they are victims of tyranny, government oppression, etc. If they end up correct, then its a Battle of Athens ..if they are wrong..then its just another example of political violence/extremism. If the judicial system rules against them...then its rigged of course... Thats simply not a realistic way to check tyranny.

Or are you advocating for a system where anyone that feels oppressed should stage active armed resistance? Certainly, blacks have/still are victims of police brutality, systemic racism, oppression. Gerrymandering takes away their voting influence systematically. Historically speaking, they were more oppressed than the folks of Athens. Are you advocating that they start an armed rebellion too?

We have order of magnitude more gun violence than any other civilized country.

 

[pgg]

Sensible gun control is good. Since clearly, there is no reasonable way to pre-determine if/when/how this mythical "check against tyranny" is supposed to be used. Then all thats left is self defense and hunting. Pretty easy to craft gun control regulations to meet those needs while reducing gun violence

"sensible"

"pretty easy"

Could you be more specific?

How will you protect hunting (which isn't a constitutionally enumerated civil right) when ordinary hunting rifles are objectively as powerful, or more powerful, than military "sniper" rifles?

 

[DocMcCoy]

Problem with omitting the justification...is that its then just vigilante justice...where the ends justify the means.

And that's entirely the problem. 2A is a free pass for vigilante justice in the name of "a check against tyranny".

I don’t think it’s vigilante justice when the other rights that are supposed to protect you fail. Actively using 2A (again I also believe it works effectively in a passive manner) is the nuclear option. And It’s not a free pass, it comes at great cost. One aspect you guys could have hit me with is when you look at the outcome of some of the examples we’ve used, like the Russian rebellion, and the events after Soweto, civilian casualties are high, much higher than state casualties in those examples. There is also a huge economic cost, and there is no guarantee it will work. All the founding fathers would have been hanged if we lost. That keeps the “spray and pray” mentality you alluded to in check.

And of course, I think violence Athens was justified. Nonviolent attempts were made, when all else fails, they fell back in the 2nd amendment, it worked out in their favor.

Or are you advocating for a system where anyone that feels oppressed should stage active armed resistance? Certainly, blacks have/still are victims of police brutality, systemic racism, oppression. Gerrymandering takes away their voting influence systematically. Historically speaking, they were more oppressed than the folks of Athens. Are you advocating that they start an armed rebellion too?

I would again argue that there are historical example of exactly this. 14th amendment in response to the black codes during reconstruction. The deacons of defense during civil rights. So where the system is failing, and legal avenues don’t work, armed resistance can be acceptable; and effective. Why violence wasn’t more widespread, is because in most cases the system worked. The institutions were intact. Exercising 1st amendment rights, like peaceful protests in conjunction with resistance efforts, with a free and fair press to spread information, and lawmakers and a judicial system working as intended, led to an avalanche of civil rights legislation.

It’s not just being oppressed. It’s denial the of the system to address the oppression as it is intended that can justify armed resistance.

We have order of magnitude more gun violence than any other civilized country.

We also have an order of magnitude more guns and gun owners.

*Among high income counties. The world
Is largely civilized. The countries that outpace us not surprisingly have a crime violence problem and on political instability. All with stricter gun laws than the US.

I wanted to pick apart the other guys study but he isn’t worth responding to. The other metric in addition to “high income” they like to use is a population of 10 million or more. I don’t think counties the size of LA county with a similar GDP and a homogeneous ethnic composite, are comparable to the US. Let alone our history. There really are no apples to apples comparisons.

 

[UscGhost]

"sensible"

"pretty easy"

Could you be more specific?

How will you protect hunting (which isn't a constitutionally enumerated civil right) when ordinary hunting rifles are objectively as powerful, or more powerful, than military "sniper" rifles?

Background checks
Red flag laws
Straw purchases/trade shows
Limits on bump stocks, ghost guns, ammunition and high powered weapons stockpiling

Lots of possible options.

If the goal is to keep guns out of the hands of criminals...then do that

 

[UscGhost]

I don’t think it’s vigilante justice when the other rights that are supposed to protect you fail. Actively using 2A (again I also believe it works effectively in a passive manner) is the nuclear option. And It’s not a free pass, it comes at great cost. One aspect you guys could have hit me with is when you look at the outcome of some of the examples we’ve used, like the Russian rebellion, and the events after Soweto, civilian casualties are high, much higher than state casualties in those examples. There is also a huge economic cost, and there is no guarantee it will work. All the founding fathers would have been hanged if we lost. That keeps the “spray and pray” mentality you alluded to in check.

And of course, I think violence Athens was justified. Nonviolent attempts were made, when all else fails, they fell back in the 2nd amendment, it worked out in their favor.



I would again argue that there are historical example of exactly this. 14th amendment in response to the black codes during reconstruction. The deacons of defense during civil rights. So where the system is failing, and legal avenues don’t work, armed resistance can be acceptable; and effective. Why violence wasn’t more widespread, is because in most cases the system worked. The institutions were intact. Exercising 1st amendment rights, like peaceful protests in conjunction with resistance efforts, with a free and fair press to spread information, and lawmakers and a judicial system working as intended, led to an avalanche of civil rights legislation.

It’s not just being oppressed. It’s denial the of the system to address the oppression as it is intended that can justify armed resistance.




We also have an order of magnitude more guns and gun owners.

*Among high income counties. The world
Is largely civilized. The countries that outpace us not surprisingly have a crime violence problem and on political instability. All with stricter gun laws than the US.

I wanted to pick apart the other guys study but he isn’t worth responding to. The other metric in addition to “high income” they like to use is a population of 10 million or more. I don’t think counties the size of LA county with a similar GDP and a homogeneous ethnic composite, are comparable to the US. Let alone our history. There really are no apples to apples comparisons.

Oh, i already talked about the tendency of armed populations to devolve into armed rebellions and civil wars in recent time. As well as the cost of gun violence in terms of hundreds of thousands and billions in damages.

Problem is, denial of free speech, free press, etc is entirely subject to perspective when the 2A allows each individual, mentally stable or not, to be judge/jury and executioner.

While it sounds nice, in a perfect world, that everyone would get together and agree that they are under tyranny..it doesnt work that way.

IF the federal government decided to impose tyranny, they would simply do it as they are doing now (suppression of the media, propaganda, turning populations against eachother) albeit, to anmore sustained and incrementally significantl degree, and it would simply devolve into civil war (already concerns from some about that)

Meanwhile, the excessive gun violence persists, with no expectations of any benefits in regards to preventing tyranny

 

[pgg]

Thanks for responding -

Background checks

No quarrel there, provided they are efficient and low cost.

Red flag laws

Devil's in the details there. So long as there's due process, penalties for knowingly false reports, and prompt return of confiscated firearms if the concerns are not proven, I could agree with some forms of red flag laws.

Straw purchases

Straw purchases are already illegal. What do you mean here?

trade shows

You mean universal background checks?

Limits on bump stocks,

What kind of limits? That's vague.

ghost guns,

What kind of limits?

ammunition and high powered weapons stockpiling

What kind of limits?

How do you define "high powered"?

What is a "stockpile" and how is a person who owns 10 or 50 guns more dangerous than a person with 2 guns?

Lots of possible options.

If the goal is to keep guns out of the hands of criminals...then do that

It's already illegal for felons to own guns. What exactly are you proposing we change?

 

[DocMcCoy]

Oh, i already talked about the tendency of armed populations to devolve into armed rebellions and civil wars in recent time. As well as the cost of gun violence in terms of hundreds of thousands and billions in damages.

Problem is, denial of free speech, free press, etc is entirely subject to perspective when the 2A allows each individual, mentally stable or not, to be judge/jury and executioner.

Sometimes the cost is worth it.

While it sounds nice, in a perfect world, that everyone would get together and agree that they are under tyranny..it doesnt work that way.

It seems like your argument is

1. There is no perfect definition of tyranny.
2. No one is going to come together and universally agree when they are under tyranny.

Therefore armed resistance is ineffective against tyranny?

Yet, we have already looked at several examples of armed resistance working. I don’t remember a qualification that said it has to be a unanimous decision.

IF the federal government decided to impose tyranny, they would simply do it as they are doing now (suppression of the media, propaganda, turning populations against eachother) albeit, to anmore sustained and incrementally significantl degree, and it would simply devolve into civil war (already concerns from some about that)

Well I’m glad we agree we don’t currently live under tyrannical rule. Is there a real threat? Yes!

The threat is a process much slower and more devious than a coup or just shredding the constitution overnight, because that won’t happen with the threat of 100 million Americans able to rise against it. It’s a damn big stick. I’d prefer to keep mine because if all else fails I don’t want to think the only hope will be foreign countries seeing our unarmed dead bodies at feckless protests on TV and hoping it’s enough to get them involved.

We should definitely worry about government encroachment. We should worry about Trump polices, we should worry about house speakers saying the government feeds us, we should worry about presidents saying we’d need F16s. And we should definitely worry when they start coming for the guns, especially in ways that do nothing to solve gun violence. Don’t vote for politicians and policies that erode your rights.

Meanwhile, the excessive gun violence persists, with no expectations of any benefits in regards to preventing tyranny

It works as both a passive and active check. We are never going to agree on there which is fine.

But, there is nothing in your vague common sense measures as proposed in your other post that would do much, if anything current law doesn’t do.

 

[UscGhost]

Sometimes the cost is worth it.




It seems like your argument is

1. There is no perfect definition of tyranny.
2. No one is going to come together and universally agree when they are under tyranny.

Therefore armed resistance is ineffective against tyranny?

Yet, we have already looked at several examples of armed resistance working. I don’t remember a qualification that said it has to be a unanimous decision.




Well I’m glad we agree we don’t currently live under tyrannical rule. Is there a real threat? Yes!

The threat is a process much slower and more devious than a coup or just shredding the constitution overnight, because that won’t happen with the threat of 100 million Americans able to rise against it. It’s a damn big stick. I’d prefer to keep mine because if all else fails I don’t want to think the only hope will be foreign countries seeing our unarmed dead bodies at feckless protests on TV and hoping it’s enough to get them involved.

We should definitely worry about government encroachment. We should worry about Trump polices, we should worry about house speakers saying the government feeds us, we should worry about presidents saying we’d need F16s. And we should definitely worry when they start coming for the guns, especially in ways that do nothing to solve gun violence. Don’t vote for politicians and policies that erode your rights.




It works as both a passive and active check. We are never going to agree on there which is fine.

But, there is nothing in your vague common sense measures as proposed in your other post that would do much, if anything current law doesn’t do.

Armed resistance against a small local government tyranny..worked..once in Athens. Maybe. And that was only because they took a violent shortcut that no other protest movement appeared to need to accomplish their social justice goals.

And it's a system that couldn't be applied to any social justice movements now...and nobody would advocate for the violent methods they used anyway

Armed resistance against tyranny isnt ineffective because real tyranny isnt going to back down to a bunch of yokels. Waco comes to mind. Government could have eliminated them in a few hours if they wanted. The only thing holding them back was their own concerns was public perception. Which is why peaceful protest is far more effective

The common sense measures would do a lot. Evident in the fact that gun violence is highest in the states and countries with the loosest gun restrictions. But as usual, conservatives arent actually interested in solutions to the gun violence problems

 

[DocMcCoy]

Armed resistance against tyranny isnt ineffective because real tyranny isnt going to back down to a bunch of yokels. Waco comes to mind. Government could have eliminated them in a few hours if they wanted. The only thing holding them back was their own concerns was public perception. Which is why peaceful protest is far more effective

I couldn’t bring up Waco or Ruby Ridge. I’d be putting an ultra right target on my back. But you did so it’s fair game now. The government lost public perception in both instances. They were literally held back by a gunfight at ruby ridge. If the weavers didn’t have guns, the initial entry would have resulted in their arrest, and the story would be over. In the wake of the standoff, public opinion tanked, their methodology was forced to be fundamentally changed, ensuring they have to hold back in accordance with the law in the future. Randy weaver won millions while Kevin Harris got off from killing a fed. If there was no gunfight at Waco, the story would have been over before it started. These are a couple more examples of armed resistance being effective against tyranny. Arguably done more to impede the encroachment of an authoritarian government than any other events over the past 50 years. More than most peaceful protests. At least certainly examples of even when the systems are in place, when they stray outside the lines, armed resistance can put them back in check.

 

[UscGhost]

I couldn’t bring up Waco or Ruby Ridge. I’d be putting an ultra right target on my back. But you did so it’s fair game now. The government lost public perception in both instances. They were literally held back by a gunfight at ruby ridge. If the weavers didn’t have guns, the initial entry would have resulted in their arrest, and the story would be over. In the wake of the standoff, public opinion tanked, their methodology was forced to be fundamentally changed, ensuring they have to hold back in accordance with the law in the future. Randy weaver won millions while Kevin Harris got off from killing a fed. If there was no gunfight at Waco, the story would have been over before it started. These are a couple more examples of armed resistance being effective against tyranny. Arguably done more to impede the encroachment of an authoritarian government than any other events over the past 50 years. More than most peaceful protests. At least certainly examples of even when the systems are in place, when they stray outside the lines, armed resistance can put them back in check.

Ruby ridge?

Feds could have killed the guy whenever they wanted to. Held back? They sent negotiatiors in order to avoid killing the guy

If he had actually shown up to court, he would have been acquitted and his wife would be alive. Especially if it was entrapment.

If it was a tyrannical government, they would have smoked him and he wouldn't have even been newsworthy.

Its precisely because the government showed restraint and the guy chose violence instead of the legal system that he got his wife killed

It appears you like to advocate for a system where people just shoot it out with police instead of using the legal system. Wrong arrests happen all the time, victim sues, gets paid, and life goes on. Using Ruby Ridge as an example shows that your definition of tyranny would basically include every episode of excessive police force, false arrest/detainment. So checking that tyranny, as you suggest is a valid approach, would mean that every citizen should shoot it out with police every time they feel they are being falsely arrested... instead of seeking their day on court.

This would result in thousands of armed standoffs and utter chaos

Doesnt work at all in a civilized society

 

[DocMcCoy]

Ruby ridge?

Feds could have killed the guy whenever they wanted to. Held back? They sent negotiatiors in order to avoid killing the guy

If he had actually shown up to court, he would have been acquitted and his wife would be alive. Especially if it was entrapment.

If it was a tyrannical government, they would have smoked him and he wouldn't have even been newsworthy.

Its precisely because the government showed restraint and the guy chose violence instead of the legal system that he got his wife killed

Even tyrannical governments don’t just smoke everybody. Nobody wants to rule over the ashes. There is always fear of uprising, but the goal is to make that as hard as possible, which is why they take the weapons.

Feds were sneaking around his place unidentified. They shot first. Then his wife was murdered in cold blood carrying her child and unarmed. The events of which stained the agency, led to policy change, weaver getting off, and the government being held liable in civil court.

It appears you like to advocate for a system where people just shoot it out with police instead of using the legal system. Wrong arrests happen all the time, victim sues, gets paid, and life goes on. Using Ruby Ridge as an example shows that your definition of tyranny would basically include every episode of excessive police force, false arrest/detainment. So checking that tyranny, as you suggest is a valid approach, would mean that every citizen should shoot it out with police every time they feel they are being falsely arrested... instead of seeking their day on court.

This would result in thousands of armed standoffs and utter chaos

Doesnt work at all in a civilized society

I think what we are looking at now is a series of examples where the system was largely up and running, but armed resistance was still necessary. Battle of Athens, Deacons of Justice, Ruby Ridge, and Waco, examples where it’s worked quite well in a civilized society.

It historically hasn’t happened by the thousands, and never will, because the system largely works. It also comes with a lot of risk and personal cost in most cases. Doesn’t change the fact that it’s been selectively used very effectively. If and when the system fails to work, I wouldn’t be surprised to see it happen more often.

What happened at Waco and particularly at Ruby Ridge was far from garden variety excessive force and/or false arrest. Definitely a false equivalence. Most people don’t shoot back because they know they will have their day in court. Unidentified people came in his property and shot first. We have laws against how agents have to interact with suspects because of it.

If ICE commits another Waco or Ruby Ridge, could you imagine the public backlash? Imagine how that trial goes in LA county, or Boston, or Chicago? That would surely result in all three branches controlled by dems in 28. And you’d have the precedent of ruby ridge and Waco to thank.

 

[UscGhost]

Even tyrannical governments don’t just smoke everybody. Nobody wants to rule over the ashes. There is always fear of uprising, but the goal is to make that as hard as possible, which is why they take the weapons.

Feds were sneaking around his place unidentified. They shot first. Then his wife was murdered in cold blood carrying her child and unarmed. The events of which stained the agency, led to policy change, weaver getting off, and the government being held liable in civil court.




I think what we are looking at now is a series of examples where the system was largely up and running, but armed resistance was still necessary. Battle of Athens, Deacons of Justice, Ruby Ridge, and Waco, examples where it’s worked quite well in a civilized society.

It historically hasn’t happened by the thousands, and never will, because the system largely works. It also comes with a lot of risk and personal cost in most cases. Doesn’t change the fact that it’s been selectively used very effectively. If and when the system fails to work, I wouldn’t be surprised to see it happen more often. We kind of are. How many ICE and border patrol stations have been shot up?

What happened at Waco and particularly at Ruby Ridge was far from garden variety excessive force and/or false arrest. Definitely a false equivalence. Most people don’t shoot back because they know they will have their day in court. Unidentified people came in his property and shot first. We have laws against how agents have interact with suspects because of it.

If ICE commits another Waco or Ruby Ridge, could you imagine the public backlash? Imagine how that trial goes in LA county, or Boston, or Chicago? That would surely result in all three branches controlled by dems in 28. And you’d have the precedent of ruby ridge and Waco to thank.

You're right, tyrannical governments just put you in secret prisons instead

At ruby ridge, the police identified themselves and they shot the dog (common police practice if a dog is charging at them )

Kevin Harris then fired at them. Once that happens, all bets are off.

All avoidable if Weaver used the justice system the way it was intended. Instead he chose violence, which triggered violence from a superior force.

If iCE officers are shot at, you better believe they will shoot back. And you better believe that maga, trump and the rest will be fully supportive of ICE firing back

Same at Waco, feds served a search warrant and the residents resisted, and triggered an armed response. Then things go off the rails. Guns just serve to escalate the situation

They weren't garden variety excessive force, because normal victims of excessive force dont use 2A to justify shooting it out with police...like you seemt o suggest they should. They get arrested, go to court and win.

As you said, we dont have thousands of cases because the system works, when people USE THE SYSTEM. if they choose to go outside the system, then you get waco, ruby ridge and athens..all avoidable cases of violence

 

[DocMcCoy]

You're right, tyrannical governments just put you in secret prisons instead

Let me know when citizens are whisked away to these secret prisons without due process. I wouldn’t be surprised to see armed resistance in that case.

At ruby ridge, the police identified themselves and they shot the dog (common police practice if a dog is charging at them )

This is completely inaccurate. The DOJ concluded that they didn’t properly identify themselves and they fired the first shot. That was crucial to losing the case. And crucial as to why this is a good example for our discussion.

If iCE officers are shot at, you better believe they will shoot back. And you better believe that maga, trump and the rest will be fully supportive of ICE firing back

If ICE shoots first, unprovoked, you better believe every democrat under a rock, every independent, and everyone but the hardcore maga will be fully supportive of armed citizens returning fire.

They weren't garden variety excessive force, because normal victims of excessive force dont use 2A to justify shooting it out with police...like you seemt o suggest they should. They get arrested, go to court and win.

You suggested we would be seeing spray and pray everywhere. We don’t. The reason we don’t is because the system largely works, and it absolutely should be used when it does! That’s why they usually use the courts and don’t scream everything is tyranny.

When the courts don’t work anymore, or when the system is failing them in the moment, then they do the calculus. When they deem the benefit greater than the risk, they might be inclined to shoot back. That seldom has to happen, sans a couple examples like we’ve discussed, in the amazing system we have.

As you said, we dont have thousands of cases because the system works, when people USE THE SYSTEM. if they choose to go outside the system, then you get waco, ruby ridge and athens..all avoidable cases of violence

Sometimes we use the system and it doesn’t work, or it doesn’t work in the specific moment of the scenario. Also, sometimes machines break. It would be ridiculous to think just because we have the greatest system of government now means we will have it forever.

Were they avoidable, maybe. Necessary, maybe. But, when the Feds wrongly open fire first, I’d sure be grateful to have a means to fight back in the moment. Waiting for the justice to come after they air my dead body on the internet and TV doesn’t do me a lot of good.

 

[arkgal]

Even tyrannical governments don’t just smoke everybody. Nobody wants to rule over the ashes. There is always fear of uprising, but the goal is to make that as hard as possible, which is why they take the weapons.

Feds were sneaking around his place unidentified. They shot first. Then his wife was murdered in cold blood carrying her child and unarmed. The events of which stained the agency, led to policy change, weaver getting off, and the government being held liable in civil court.




I think what we are looking at now is a series of examples where the system was largely up and running, but armed resistance was still necessary. Battle of Athens, Deacons of Justice, Ruby Ridge, and Waco, examples where it’s worked quite well in a civilized society.

It historically hasn’t happened by the thousands, and never will, because the system largely works. It also comes with a lot of risk and personal cost in most cases. Doesn’t change the fact that it’s been selectively used very effectively. If and when the system fails to work, I wouldn’t be surprised to see it happen more often.

What happened at Waco and particularly at Ruby Ridge was far from garden variety excessive force and/or false arrest. Definitely a false equivalence. Most people don’t shoot back because they know they will have their day in court. Unidentified people came in his property and shot first. We have laws against how agents have to interact with suspects because of it.

If ICE commits another Waco or Ruby Ridge, could you imagine the public backlash? Imagine how that trial goes in LA county, or Boston, or Chicago? That would surely result in all three branches controlled by dems in 28. And you’d have the precedent of ruby ridge and Waco to thank.

If 2A is needed to protect against state-imposed tyranny, how does the rest of the democratized first world seem to flourish without it. You don't have to look further than Canada as an example. They have limited gun ownership, mainly for hunting and sport shooting. But no 2A. Canadians don't live in fear of their government reigning down tyranny on then.

Most of western Europe has been stable since WWII. Same goes for Japan. South Korea, Singapore, Australia, and New Zealand. Chile, an
up and coming progressive country, has a true government for the people. People trust their government, and their elected officials work for the betterment of their citizens. Poland does fine. You know what all of them don't have? Thousands of gun deaths and citizens saying their lives sacrificed are worth it to prevent tyranny. India is also up and coming.

 

[DocMcCoy]

If 2A is needed to protect against state-imposed tyranny, how does the rest of the democratized first world seem to flourish without it. You don't have to look further than Canada as an example. They have limited gun ownership, mainly for hunting and sport shooting. But no 2A. Canadians don't live in fear of their government reigning down tyranny on then.

I had to google it out of curiosity, Canada has had several armed standoffs against the government within our lifetimes. Mainly over government encroachment over land. One of the drivers resulting in fewer instances and fatalities is the government reluctance to engage tactical assaults. A lesson our government didn’t learn till after Ruby ridge.

It’s true they have fewer guns and no 2nd amendment. But, they get arrested for mean tweets too, so there is that.

 

[UscGhost]

Let me know when citizens are whisked away to these secret prisons without due process. I wouldn’t be surprised to see armed resistance in that case.



This is completely inaccurate. The DOJ concluded that they didn’t properly identify themselves and they fired the first shot. That was crucial to losing the case. And crucial as to why this is a good example for our discussion.



If ICE shoots first, unprovoked, you better believe every democrat under a rock, every independent, and everyone but the hardcore maga will be fully supportive of armed citizens returning fire.



You suggested we would be seeing spray and pray everywhere. We don’t. The reason we don’t is because the system largely works, and it absolutely should be used when it does! That’s why they usually use the courts and don’t scream everything is tyranny.

When the courts don’t work anymore, or when the system is failing them in the moment, then they do the calculus. When they deem the benefit greater than the risk, they might be inclined to shoot back. That seldom has to happen, sans a couple examples like we’ve discussed, in the amazing system we have.



Sometimes we use the system and it doesn’t work, or it doesn’t work in the specific moment of the scenario. Also, sometimes machines break. It would be ridiculous to think just because we have the greatest system of government now means we will have it forever.

Were they avoidable, maybe. Necessary, maybe. But, when the Feds wrongly open fire first, I’d sure be grateful to have a means to fight back in the moment. Waiting for the justice to come after they air my dead body on the internet and TV doesn’t do me a lot of good.

Incorrect. DOJ didnt determine that.

There are conflicting accounts on whether officers identified themselves at Ruby Ridge. According to the marshals' version, they identified themselves and called for a surrender before shots were fired by Kevin Harris. However, Kevin Harris stated he only heard them identify themselves after he had already taken cover from shots fired by a deputy.

Problem with your examples of waco and ruby, is that the perps specifically chose NOT to go to court. They refused search warrants lol..and started gun fights

So, you seem to argue that its ok for a person to just oppose a search warrant with gunfire. Without even going to court. So i guess that means every search warrant is automatically tyranny worthy of a 2A armed opposition.

Its absolutely ridiculous

Weaver could have just shown up to court. Or he could have let himself be arrested....and then showed up to court (like everyone else who doesnt show up to a court date...or do we get to skip those?)

But instead, he chose violence

Same with waco, feds were investigating weapons and child abuse charges. If they were innocent, then they should get a lawyer and fight the charges. You dont get to refuse, fire shots and then claim tyranny

Nuts

 

[DocMcCoy]

ncorrect. DOJ didnt determine that.

There are conflicting accounts on whether officers identified themselves at Ruby Ridge. According to the marshals' version, they identified themselves and called for a surrender before shots were fired by Kevin Harris. However, Kevin Harris stated he only heard them identify themselves after he had already taken cover from shots fired by a deputy.

It was conceded in the official report, confirmed in the senate hearings, and used as evidence in Kevin Harris trial, not at anytime was clear identification made.

Problem with your examples of waco and ruby, is that the perps specifically chose NOT to go to court. They refused search warrants lol..and started gun fights

So, you seem to argue that its ok for a person to just oppose a search warrant with gunfire. Without even going to court. So i guess that means every search warrant is automatically tyranny worthy of a 2A armed opposition.

Its absolutely ridiculous

LOL you are going to love this…

Weaver was set up by the ATF to buy illegal guns. He was entrapped with the intent to flip him as an informant. That alone, reason enough to be weary the system is going to work for him.

The HUGE irony is he missed the court date for the guns because they sent him the wrong one! He planned to appear March 20, when they told him to, but his real date was feb 20! That’s what led to the warrant in the first place! He has no idea a warrant (not a search btw, a failure to appear) had been issued! Then he stumbled on random camouflage men in his yard one day and firefight ensues after they shoot his dog. A standoff after they kill his son and murder his wife.

All of the weapons charges, and all other serious charges dropped in the end. He also had no history of not complying with court orders. He didn’t choose not to go to court. That choice was made for him. There is literally no better example of the system NOT working as intended.

 

[UscGhost]

It was conceded in the official report, confirmed in the senate hearings, and used as evidence in Kevin Harris trial, not at anytime was clear identification made.




LOL you are going to love this…

Weaver was set up by the ATF to buy illegal guns. He was entrapped with the intent to flip him as an informant. That alone, reason enough to be weary the system is going to work for him.

The HUGE irony is he missed the court date for the guns because they sent him the wrong one! He planned to appear March 20, when they told him to, but his real date was feb 20! That’s what led to the warrant in the first place! He has no idea a warrant (not a search btw, a failure to appear) had been issued! Then he stumbled on random camouflage men in his yard one day and firefight ensues after they shoot his dog. A standoff after they kill his son and murder his wife.

All of the weapons charges, and all other serious charges dropped in the end. He also had no history of not complying with court orders. He didn’t choose not to go to court. That choice was made for him. There is literally no better example of the system NOT working as intended.

You'll probably love this even more.

He failed to appear at his ORIGINAL court date of feb 19
Failed to appear at the rescheduled court date of feb 20 (of which you are referring to)
His wife sent multiple letters saying he wouldnt participating in the legal process
He refused to surrender for 18 months, after multiple attempts by US Marshalls to get him to surrender peacefully.

"Lawless Government" Letter: According to Randy Weaver's testimony, around March 5, 1991, the family sent a letter to the U.S. Marshals Service, signed by all family members, stating, "Whether we live or whether we die, we will not obey your lawless Government". He explained

Thats why he was still found GUILTY of not appearing at court. Jury found that he repeatedly displayed a willing refusal to obey court orders

The guy was a aryan nation white supremacist. He was also found GUILTY and served 18 months.

This was a guy who completely refused to take part in the justice system...armed himself...and created the whole situation that led to his wife's desth. Because he self determined that he was a victim of tyranny and took matters into his own hands.

Its precisely the problem with 2A. It enables folks to become their own judge/jury/executioner and completely ignore the legal system if they feel like it.

 

[DocMcCoy]

You'll probably love this even more.

He failed to appear at his ORIGINAL court date of feb 19
Failed to appear at the rescheduled court date of feb 20 (of which you are referring to)
His wife sent multiple letters saying he wouldnt participating in the legal process
He refused to surrender for 18 months, after multiple attempts by US Marshalls to get him to surrender peacefully.

"Lawless Government" Letter: According to Randy Weaver's testimony, around March 5, 1991, the family sent a letter to the U.S. Marshals Service, signed by all family members, stating, "Whether we live or whether we die, we will not obey your lawless Government". He explained

Thats why he was still found GUILTY of not appearing at court. Jury found that he repeatedly displayed a willing refusal to obey court orders

The guy was a aryan nation white supremacist. He was also found GUILTY and served 18 months.

This was a guy who completely refused to take part in the justice system...armed himself...and created the whole situation that led to his wife's desth. Because he self determined that he was a victim of tyranny and took matters into his own hands.

Its precisely the problem with 2A. It enables folks to become their own judge/jury/executioner and completely ignore the legal system if they feel like it.

Dude. The system completely and repeatedly screwed the guy over.

He didn’t create the situation. The ATF did on bogus charges.

The senate acknowledged the failure to appear was largely due to clerical error, not intent to flee.


Initial weapons charge.
Murder.
Conspiracy.
Harboring a fugitive.

Not guilty.
Millions awarded in civil trail.


Sometimes the system fails. If you think he deserves it because hes an aryan nationalist white supremacist, well that’s not how the system is supposed to work either.

The government screwed up. Leading to a textbook example of armed resistance (thanks to 2A) leading to systemic change.

 

[arkgal]

I had to google it out of curiosity, Canada has had several armed standoffs against the government within our lifetimes. Mainly over government encroachment over land. One of the drivers resulting in fewer instances and fatalities is the government reluctance to engage tactical assaults. A lesson our government didn’t learn till after Ruby ridge.

It’s true they have fewer guns and no 2nd amendment. But, they get arrested for mean tweets too, so there is that.

Armed conflict with the government doesn't necessarily mean there was oppression or tyranny. It usually means some individual or group decided to use guns to solve their problems. Is there evidence that the Canadian federal government or any of the provincial governments imposing tyranny (or avoiding tyranny) because of an armed populace? Canada has now banned the sell of handguns. Their citizens aren't up in arms about it.

You ignored my question. There are dozens of countrie that have had flourishing democracies for decades, without guns, and without tyranny. Why do we need guns to prevent tyranny when other countries do fine without them? Japan is a good example.

 

[UscGhost]

Dude. The system completely and repeatedly screwed the guy over.

He didn’t create the situation. The ATF did on bogus charges.

The senate acknowledged the failure to appear was largely due to clerical error, not intent to flee.


Initial weapons charge.
Murder.
Conspiracy.
Harboring a fugitive.

Not guilty.
Millions awarded in civil trail.


Sometimes the system fails. If you think he deserves it because hes an aryan nationalist white supremacist, well that’s not how the system is supposed to work either.

The government screwed up. Leading to a textbook example of armed resistance (thanks to 2A) leading to systemic change.

Senate didnt acknowledge anything.

The dude wrote letters, signed them, stating he had no intention to cooperate. He testified to that! He has zero intentions of showing up...hence he was found guilty. Not sure how much more cut and dry it needs to be.

He served time for failure to appear (jury verdict)

He didnt even use the system. He resisted from day 1. He was too busy going to anarchist meetings.

IF he had sought his day in court, as the founders intended, then justice would have prevailed and the same verdict would have been reached, he would not have been guilty for failure to appear. He would not have resisted arrest. His wife and son would be alive.

Instead, he chose to use guns to fight what he decided was tyranny..and caused immense damage.

Just imagine if everyone did this....

The government paid a settlement for his wife and son. They were unfortunate collateral damage. But as you say, all worth it right?

[td width="268.306px"]

The Senate Judiciary Committee holds hearings on the Ruby Ridge case. Weaver testifies and says, "If I had it to do over again, I would come down the mountain for my court appearance."​

[/td]​

​

 

[DocMcCoy]

You ignored my question. There are dozens of countrie that have had flourishing democracies for decades, without guns, and without tyranny. Why do we need guns to prevent tyranny when other countries do fine without them? Japan is a good

It’s a trade off. All of those countries don’t have rights to the extent of America. Those rights can easily be infringed as the government sees fit. Define doing fine without them? you want to live in Poland under the thumb of the Catholic Church? A country that makes our abortion laws look tame? For god sake you used Singapore as an example. You want to live under the government of Singapore because they have less gun violence??? No thanks. Personally, I’ll take 2A and the freedom to not be worried about being arrested for posting something mean on SDN.

 

[DocMcCoy]

Senate didnt acknowledge anything.

The dude wrote letters, signed them, stating he had no intention to cooperate. He testified to that! He has zero intentions of showing up...hence he was found guilty. Not sure how much more cut and dry it needs to be.

If you aren’t going to acknowledge the ATFs role in getting the ball rolling in charges that were ultimately thrown out, not much more to talk about.

If you aren’t gong to acknowledge the correlation between the clerical error with the court date and the issuance of the bench warrant for failure to appear (not a search warrant), really not much more to be said.

If you aren’t going to acknowledge the correlation of the failure of Feds to adequately identify with the shootout, I guess we are done.

IF he had sought his day in court, as the founders intended, then justice would have prevailed and the same verdict would have been reached, he would not have been guilty for failure to appear. He would not have resisted arrest. His wife and son would be alive.

Would it?


And the Feds would still be using illegal ROE, and shoot first approaches with limited oversight.

Instead, he chose to use guns to fight what he decided was tyranny..and caused immense damage.

Just imagine if everyone did this....

Show me in the 50,000 yearly gun related deaths, how many are related to armed action against tyranny? It isn’t even a measurable statistic. Stop acting like 2A leads to widespread vigilante justice. It doesn’t for the previously discussed reasons. However, it has been used effectively in the rare instances it’s needed.

 

[UscGhost]

If you aren’t going to acknowledge the ATFs role in getting the ball rolling in charges that were ultimately thrown out, not much more to talk about.

If you aren’t gong to acknowledge the correlation between the clerical error with the court date and the issuance of the bench warrant for failure to appear (not a search warrant), really not much more to be said.

If you aren’t going to acknowledge the correlation of the failure of Feds to adequately identify with the shootout, I guess we are done.




Would it?


And the Feds would still be using illegal ROE, and shoot first approaches with limited oversight.




Show me in the 50,000 yearly gun related deaths, how many are related to armed action against tyranny? It isn’t even a measurable statistic. Stop acting like 2A leads to widespread vigilante justice. It doesn’t for the previously discussed reasons. However, it has been used effectively in the rare instances it’s needed.

ATFs role is irrelevant. Weaver was going to anarchist meetings, white supremacist meetings, he wasn't exactly a boy scout. If you are arrested, you get your day in court and prove your innocence. Plain and simple. A cop can pull you over today, maybe its legit, maybe it's not. You are innocent until proven guilty. You DONT get to refuse to go to court and shoot it out when the cops come to execute a warrant.

Clerical error was irrelevant. And the jury agreed it was irrelevant. He had plenty of chances, and 16 months to turn himself in before the siege. He refused, and wrote letters saying he wasnt going to show up to anything. The clerical error was meaningless...he NEVER INTENDED TO SHOW UP AT ALL! He didnt even show up on march 20th lol.

Or....you do what every other person does (assuming you arent a heavily armed anti government anarchist), you use a lawyer and you present evidence of the incorrect date, and guess what, you get the charges dropped

Feds said they identified. He says they didn't. No proof either way. Thus irrelevant.

2A against tyranny isn't a big cause of death. I never said it was.

Your argument is that 2A is a good check against tyranny, by using examples that are vigilantes who didnt use the legal system...or actively refused to. Not what the founders intended

And therein lies the problem. These gun nuts dont need to play by the rules that anyone else in society does. They just decide on their own. It would be chaos

Good to know though, that everyone resisting arrest and shooting it out with cops is fighting tyranny?

On a side note. What should James Comey do?

Certainly, he is more of a victim of tyranny than Weaver was. After all, the president is basically open about his desire to exact revenge, regardless of guilt.

So, since Weaver is a 2A hero of yours. Should Comey use the same playbook? Should he refuse to show up to court? Refuse arrest warrants? Shoot it out with Fed Marshalls? Hole up in his house and prepare for a siege? Tyranny is knocking on his door..

Or should wait for his day in court. He needs to make the decision asap. Can't wait until the conviction/acquittal to decide in hindsight. I personally think he's being hosed..but he should still go through the legal process regardless

 

[DocMcCoy]

ATFs role is irrelevant. Weaver was going to anarchist meetings, white supremacist meetings, he wasn't exactly a boy scout. If you are arrested, you get your day in court and prove your innocence. Plain and simple. A cop can pull you over today, maybe its legit, maybe it's not. You are innocent until proven guilty. You DONT get to refuse to go to court and shoot it out when the cops come to execute a warrant.

That’s the same failed case the government tied to make against him. The jury didn’t buy it either. Like it or not, being an anarchist and or white supremacist isn’t a crime. How is the ATF irrelevant? He was coerced into committing a crime that started the whole ball rolling. What was his criminal record before the ATF had the bright idea to try and turn him informant?

Getting arrested by Feds pretending to be stranded motorists, taken before a magistrate that admittedly lied and threatened his home and property, given the wrong court appearance date that set the stage for the warrant. Feds that decided sneaking around property unidentified was a better plan than kidnapping his kids, when they probably should have just knocked on his door. Start a fire fight and in the process kill the man’s dog, his son, and then murder his wife? Why were they so scared of this guy they had more guns right??

lerical error was irrelevant. And the jury agreed it was irrelevant. He had plenty of chances, and 16 months to turn himself in before the siege. He refused, and wrote letters saying he wasnt going to show up to anything. The clerical error was meaningless...he NEVER INTENDED TO SHOW UP AT ALL! He didnt even show up on march 20th lol.

He’d been lied to several times already by several branches of government. Why on earth would he think he would get a free trial?

And therein lies the problem. These gun nuts dont need to play by the rules that anyone else in society does. They just decide on their own. It would be chaos

What do you mean it would be chaos? When is the chaos supposed to happen? What do you mean they don’t play by the rules. 100 million gun owners, the VAST, VAST majority play by the rules. We’ve had the 2nd amendment for over 200 years, people aren’t shooting it out left and right in the name of tyranny because the system works almost all the time. With the few exceptions, when the system fails and it can work.

On a side note. What should James Comey do?

Certainly, he is more of a victim of tyranny than Weaver was. After all, the president is basically open about his desire to exact revenge, regardless of guilt.

Weaver is no hero of mine, but he is a clear cut case of armed resistance used effectively against government over reach. And he was DEFINITELY screwed over by the government, which resulted in the change of federal ROE, increased oversight, and deemphasis of direct action intervention. While he was ultimately released for time served and awarded a couple million dollars. You disagree?

Trying to equate Weaver and Comey is nonsensical. Even if it were a case of trumped up charges and an overzealous prosecutor. They aren’t even in the same universe. I missed the part where Trump hired a goon to coerce and entrap Comey into committing a crime. I missed where a magistrate admittedly made false statements that Comey would loose his personal assets in order to pay for his trial. I missed where they obfuscated all his court dates. I missed where they recon’d his house unidentified in full camo and suppressed weapons with the intent of shooting his dog. I missed where they didn’t ADEQUATELY identify themselves before initiating a shoot out. I missed when they murdered his wife using unconstitutional ROE.

Are you saying the things are likely to happen to Comey? I think he would be wise to use the system until those events happen to him too.

 

[UscGhost]

That’s the same failed case the government tied to make against him. The jury didn’t buy it either. Like it or not, being an anarchist and or white supremacist isn’t a crime. How is the ATF irrelevant? He was coerced into committing a crime that started the whole ball rolling. What was his criminal record before the ATF had the bright idea to try and turn him informant?

Getting arrested by Feds pretending to be stranded motorists, taken before a magistrate that admittedly lied and threatened his home and property, given the wrong court appearance date that set the stage for the warrant. Feds that decided sneaking around property unidentified was a better plan than kidnapping his kids, when they probably should have just knocked on his door. Start a fire fight and in the process kill the man’s dog, his son, and then murder his wife? Why were they so scared of this guy they had more guns right??



He’d been lied to several times already by several branches of government. Why on earth would he think he would get a free trial?



What do you mean it would be chaos? When is the chaos supposed to happen? What do you mean they don’t play by the rules. 100 million gun owners, the VAST, VAST majority play by the rules. We’ve had the 2nd amendment for over 200 years, people aren’t shooting it out left and right in the name of tyranny because the system works almost all the time. With the few exceptions, when the system fails and it can work.



Weaver is no hero of mine, but he is a clear cut case of armed resistance used effectively against government over reach. And he was DEFINITELY screwed over by the government, which resulted in the change of federal ROE, increased oversight, and deemphasis of direct action intervention. While he was ultimately released for time served and awarded a couple million dollars. You disagree?

Trying to equate Weaver and Comey is nonsensical. Even if it were a case of trumped up charges and an overzealous prosecutor. They aren’t even in the same universe. I missed the part where Trump hired a goon to coerce and entrap Comey into committing a crime. I missed where a magistrate admittedly made false statements that Comey would loose his personal assets in order to pay for his trial. I missed where they obfuscated all his court dates. I missed where they recon’d his house unidentified in full camo and suppressed weapons with the intent of shooting his dog. I missed where they didn’t ADEQUATELY identify themselves before initiating a shoot out. I missed when they murdered his wife using unconstitutional ROE.

Are you saying the things are likely to happen to Comey? I think he would be wise to use the system until those events happen to him too.

Jury found him guilty

Weaver was found guilty of the original federal firearms charges of failing to appear and violating his bail [!1, !2].

Sentencing and release: Weaver was sentenced to 18 months in prison for these lesser offenses, but he had already served 14 months [!2]. He was released from jail shortly after, in December 1993 [!2, !7].

 

[PpfSuxTube]

This is such a wierd thread.

Randy weaver being a clear case of armed resistance being used effectively is just absolutely bananas.

The guys son, wife and dog were shot dead in front of him.

Do you guys even speak english? Where in the english language is this effective?

2 of his family dead, his friend critical, vs 1 agent dead. He went to jail.

Guns got a crazy religious aryan wierdo into a bind, Guns killed his family and failed to do anything useful for him.

And you fruit loops think this is a reason for it to be common sense anyone who wants an ar15 can have one?? Its absurd

 

[PpfSuxTube]

Does anyone ever talk about the "well regulated militia" part of 2a? Well regulated means training, goals, discipline, lack of being crazy, background checks. No one talks about this? Its just blow past straight thru to let anyone who wants buy a tank

 

[rowsdower88]

This is such a wierd thread.

Randy weaver being a clear case of armed resistance being used effectively is just absolutely bananas.

The guys son, wife and dog were shot dead in front of him.

Do you guys even speak english? Where in the english language is this effective?

2 of his family dead, his friend critical, vs 1 agent dead. He went to jail.

Guns got a crazy religious aryan wierdo into a bind, Guns killed his family and failed to do anything useful for him.

And you fruit loops think this is a reason for it to be common sense anyone who wants an ar15 can have one?? Its absurd

The argument (correct me if I'm wrong) is that had guns not been involved, the Weavers might have had a more positive outcome. But thanks to the presence of their guns, the injustice the Weavers suffered is worth it for the long term changes in FBI policy.

Very utilitarian in my interpretation.

Granting the assumption that those policy changes were worth the cost of a few lives, it still leaves open the possibility that those policy changes could have been achieved through less traumatic means.

 

[PpfSuxTube]

The argument (correct me if I'm wrong) is that had guns not been involved, the Weavers might have had a more positive outcome. But thanks to the presence of their guns, the injustice the Weavers suffered is worth it for the long term changes in FBI policy.

Very utilitarian in my interpretation.

Granting the assumption that those policy changes were worth the cost of a few lives, it still leaves open the possibility that those policy changes could have been achieved through less traumatic means.

Is it better to be dead with a gun or alive?

This guy wasnt Nelson Mandela let's be honest. His "protest" wasn't to save anyone or anything except his own white supremacist ass

 

[DocMcCoy]

Jury found him guilty

Weaver was found guilty of the original federal firearms charges of failing to appear and violating his bail [!1, !2].

Sentencing and release: Weaver was sentenced to 18 months in prison for these lesser offenses, but he had already served 14 months [!2]. He was released from jail shortly after, in December 1993 [!2, !7].

He was not found guilty of the initial firearms change.

 

[DocMcCoy]

Guns got a crazy religious aryan wierdo into a bind, Guns killed his family and failed to do anything useful for him.

You are focusing on a small part of a much larger discussion over the past two weeks. It’s been best to death quite honestly.

The government put him into a bind. You disagree explain why.

The entire incident again, led to not guilty on every charge except failure to appear, 4 million dollars in damages, landing term change of agency procedures. Highly doubtful of the incident didn’t happen. And he didn’t go looking for trouble.

 

[DocMcCoy]

The argument (correct me if I'm wrong) is that had guns not been involved, the Weavers might have had a more positive outcome. But thanks to the presence of their guns, the injustice the Weavers suffered is worth it for the long term changes in FBI policy.

I’d say it’s a little more complicated than that. If an authoritarian ATF didn’t try to coerce him into committing a crime, there may have been a more positive outcome.

If the government didn’t further sow distrust in the weavers by setting him up for an arrest, having a magistrate make false statements about potentially losing his home, and a clerical error resulting in the wrong court date and the subsequent failure to appear warrant, there may have been a more positive outcome.

If government had properly identified itself, and didn’t have a shoot first mentality using illegal ROE, there may have been more positive outcome.

Granting the assumption that those policy changes were worth the cost of a few lives, it still leaves open the possibility that those policy changes could have been achieved through less traumatic means.

Possible? I guess. You could literally make that claim about anything. What evidence is there to support that? There was no impetus for the policy to change organically. Maybe one day there could have been? Could say that about slavery and the civil war as well I suppose. Probably a better argument since there was an organic drive for change in the north.

 

[UscGhost]

He was not found guilty of the initial firearms change.

You are focusing on a small part of a much larger discussion over the past two weeks. It’s been best to death quite honestly.

The government put him into a bind. You disagree explain why.

The entire incident again, led to not guilty on every charge except failure to appear, 4 million dollars in damages, landing term change of agency procedures. Highly doubtful of the incident didn’t happen. And he didn’t go looking for trouble.

He was guilty of failure to appear and violating his bail,as i said.

Government didn't put him in a bind..he didn't show up..he refused to show up after..wrote letters saying that he wouldn't show up...and then still didn't surrender for 16 months. He later testified that he would have surrendered if he had to do it over...so even he realized it was an error

Guess what would happen if anyone else in the USA didn't show up to a court date...you get a warrant issued. Its the law, not tyranny. You are innocent until proven guilty...IN COURT

So he used guns to initially oppose what he thought was tyranny (his initial arrest and failure to show), which isnt anything close to tyranny....then that use of guns (instead of using the legal system which later ruled in his favor on some of the charges and he would have been let go ) led to the death of his wife, son and a deputy.

Its exactly why people arent allowed to take justice into their own hands (resulting in 3 excess deaths) and they are given access to the legal system to make their claims. Using 2A to justify the unnecessary deaths is madness and, thankfully, most dont subscribe to that madness, otherwise everyone would be shooting it out with cops

 

[DocMcCoy]

He was guilty of failure to appear and violating his bail,as i said.

But he was not guilty on any firearm related charge, as you said.

Government didn't put him in a bind..he didn't show up..he refused to show up after..wrote letters saying that he wouldn't show up...and then still didn't surrender for 16 months. He later testified that he would have surrendered if he had to do it over...so even he realized it was an error

So he used guns to initially oppose what he thought was tyranny (his initial arrest and failure to show), which isnt anything close to tyranny....then that use of guns (instead of using the legal system which later ruled in his favor on some of the charges and he would have been let go ) led to the death of his wife, son and a deputy.

You are grossly oversimplifying the details to fit your argument.

ts exactly why people arent allowed to take justice into their own hands (resulting in 3 excess deaths) and they are given access to the legal system to make their claims. Using 2A to justify the unnecessary deaths is madness and, thankfully, most dont subscribe to that madness, otherwise everyone would be shooting it out with cops

Yes the legal system works wonderfully in MOST cases. That’s why everyone isn’t shooting it out with the cops. Tell me you believe it works well in every case.

Do you or do you not agree that the government was in the wrong in any capacity?

Because I find it insane that anyone could look at what ICE is doing now and label that authoritarian/tyrannical enough to warrant protesting, but could look at Ruby Ridge and say NBD.