patrick.net

Dan8267 says

The only person who defied the state using any kind of physical force and had any kind of success -- and by success, I mean inflicting some damage before committing suicide -- was the great, late Marvin Heemeyer, the tank hero of Granby, Colorado.

Yeah, that is a really sad story. It is kind of the American version of those monks who burn themselves in protest.

Dan8267 says

Why is the right not to be sexually assaulted and strip searched at the airport (or any place) not as sacred as the right to a gun?

The answer is, "Abstraction." People think they understand gun rights but miss the abstract societal elements that keep violence as integral to human experience. Other constitutional amendments are more obviously abstract, so they're easy to play without triggering the notice of those less aware.

robertoaribas says

FortWayne says

Crime doesn't wait 7 days to come and violate you.

pointless of course. Unless you advocate that every city must have a gun store open 24/7 so that the moment you feel threatened you can run and get one...

Texas has made gun shopping even easier:

This particular store is in Schulenburg which is just a few miles south of La Grange, the same La Grange from the song of the same name by ZZ top.

Guns, booze and hookers - Its a mans world in Texas!

Dan8267 says

The people should give government as much of a hard time on all our other civil liberties as we do about guns.

"The people" is too broad.

RKBA advocates are by and large, worshipful of authority and rigid structures and rules. All problems can of course be solved by people with guns. You want less illegals? Border guards with guns. You want less drugs? DEA agents with guns. You want peace in the Middle East, sell them lots of guns, and oh by the way sail the largest fleet in the world into the middle of it. School shooting? Teachers and janitors, with guns.

Much TALK of being against strong central governments, but it's not really meant. Oh yes but they do want an insurance policy in case shit goes down. For which the solution is.... lots of guns.

I'm sympathetic to RKBA myself, for decades I was an NRA member and staunch unyielding advocate who would have said "right on!" to LaPierre. However these days I feel like it's a group of people for which they have a hammer and every problem looks like a nail.

So ultimately, no most of them don't give two figs about online privacy or waterboarding or anything else in the civil liberties arena. They see RKBA as the ultimate insurance so don't worry about little infringements. It sorta NEEDS to get so bad and slide down that slippery slope so the militia can rise up, neh?

Vicente says

RKBA advocates are by and large, worshipful of authority and rigid structures and rules. All problems can of course be solved by people with guns.

Unfortunate, but true. And that is why the two sides will never see eye to eye.

Dan8267 says

This guy was so awesome, I'd have his babies if I could.

Marvin Heemeyer is a hero. When the government scum and corrupted scum pushed it too far, he did what had to be done.

Dan8267 says

No one in our country's history has ever, ever come even close to defeating the federal government, a state government, or even a local government using guns.

One being the operative word. However if things really went south, a small percentage would go a long way. Particularly snipers.

Mick Russom says

Dan8267 says

No one in our country's history has ever, ever come even close to defeating the federal government, a state government, or even a local government using guns.

One being the operative word. However if things really went south, a small percentage would go a long way. Particularly snipers.

Militia groups have fared far worse. Just ask David Koresh.

The fact is that legislation like the Patriot Act and the NDAA make it trivially easy for the government to label any militia a terrorist organization. And then you militia people have no rights. No rights to a trial, no right to a lawyer, no rights to charges, no right to contact anyone, no right to live. And yes, the government is going after any militia organization that pops up. And the only side of history told will be the government's.

http://www.fbi.gov/news/stories/2011/september/militia_092211

Last March, nine members of an extremist militia group were charged in Michigan with seditious conspiracy and attempted use of weapons of mass destruction in connection with an alleged plot to attack law enforcement and spark an uprising against the government.

It’s just one example of the dangers posed by so-called militia extremists—the latest topic in our series to educate the nation on domestic terror threats that the FBI investigates today.

Homeland Security: You’re All ‘Militia Extremists’ Now

It turns out that all those anti-civil-rights laws we liberals we're bitching about for the past 12 years, can also be used to disband militias and take away your guns.

Just because it's difficult to present an armed resistance against an oppressive government doesn't mean that it won't happen or that it won't be effective. The nature of such actions requires that the rebels be 100% committed, and to also realize that they will likely die in the attempt. It's the second or third wave of rebels that usually succeed, when the movement builds to numbers that can't be suppressed by government firepower. Across the world, when the people rise up in armed revolt, eventually soldiers join them and the government is overthrown. Why else would there be such a push right now for taking guns from the public?

Americans aren't completely stupid, though. More guns are being bought right now than at any time in the past couple of decades as people workout and previous interest in firearms are acquiring them now before the government takes away that right.

I predict a second civil war if our government decides, in its wisdom, to forcibly disarm the populace.
Libtards will be hiding in their basements, trying over and over to get their web pages to refresh. I say libtard because true liberals are practically extinct, an certainly could find no place in either party, especially not the democrat party.

Quigley says

Across the world, when the people rise up in armed revolt, eventually soldiers join them and the government is overthrown.

I'm not so convinced. Where's the uprising in Pakistan? Where's the armed revolt in Afghanistan? It's a different era. If you can get a 100% kill rate from miles away without standoffs and agents endangered, things can change. It becomes harder to find suicidal recruits. At least that's the theory we are operating under, that of attrition and demoralization and.... TERROR delivered to the terrorists. It's easier to convince Bobby Joe that at least when he's apprehended he can go down in a BLAZE OF GLORY and take out some hated black-suited agents with him. Now how about when he'd die while driving in a car, and never even see the UAV that killed him? Frankly I don't know where it will end in those countries but it seems the more time passes the more it just becomes a low-level conflict that 99% of people would rather avoid than join into.

IDDQD says

Leo is trolling here and you both know that. TSA is not kind of problem to be fixed with an armed rebellion. Pretending that it is would be similar to calling Bloomberg's ban on big drink containers "nazism".

The TSA sexually assaults people every day. If anyone resists, they or police at their beckoning, use violence against the person resisting. Whether or not "armed rebellion" is plausible is an entirely different issue than whether or not it is justifiable to use violence to defend oneself or others against violence.

I see nothing in Leo's posting that even remotely resembles trolling.

Vicente says

Where's the uprising in Pakistan?

Exactly. When people who have nothing to lose won't even rebel because the odds are so insane, then what is the chance that fat, lazy Americans are going to rebel under the same or worse odds?

The Professor says

I believe, if the government got too tyrranical, many in the police and armed forces would not support them.

The police are the most tyrannical part of the government. Armed forces come a close second.

Dan8267 says

Why is the right not to be sexually assaulted and strip searched at the airport (or any place) not as sacred as the right to a gun? Why isn't free speech as sacred as the right to a gun? Wayne clearly doesn't hold that freedom as important. Why isn't the right to privacy and the right to observe and record the police held as sacred? Why can these rights be watered down, compromised, and suspended, but not any gun rights?

All of these things I hold as equally important to the right to bear arms. No more, no less important. Guns yes, NRA yes (until all PAC's are BANNED), and NO I am not a "Nut". People STAND UP and UNDERSTAND / WORK for you Liberty!

The damn republicans and democrats need to stop arguing with each other like enemies and come together on the basic foundation of our gooberment! Stop worrying about all of those Piss Ant laws you're trying to get enacted and focus on getting the country back to what actually matters!

Quigley says

Libtards will be hiding in their basements, trying over and over to get their web pages to refresh. I say libtard because true liberals are practically extinct, an certainly could find no place in either party, especially not the democrat party.

I think there are more "libtard" gun owners on this board than "conservatard" ones.

leo707 says

FortWayne says

I'll play along, but how about a 7 day waiting period for free speech, would you like that?

Do you really think that it is a good idea to let untrained, scared and/or angry people to have instant access to guns?

leo ... those same folks can make a fist, grab a bat, grab a knife, get a rope, get in a car, put gas in a bottle with a rag top, put rat poison in some food, .... there's many other ways a person can react that are dangerous ... but it is a right for Americans to be armed if they so wish .. and as for the degree or size of weapon, I say the same weapons that are beared(born?) by those under Gov control is the MINIMUM that a law following AMerican citizen should have access to, and no other limits are acceptable. If the Obama National Forces foot soldier that is ordered to come take your weapon from you is able to carry a ACME FlameThrower 5000, then you too should have full access to that same weapon.

leo707 says

Quigley says

Libtards will be hiding in their basements, trying over and over to get their web pages to refresh. I say libtard because true liberals are practically extinct, an certainly could find no place in either party, especially not the democrat party.

I think there are more "libtard" gun owners on this board than "conservatard" ones.

not in terms of percentages, but in terms of total numbers

Dan8267 says

The Professor says

I believe, if the government got too tyrranical, many in the police and armed forces would not support them.

The police are the most tyrannical part of the government. Armed forces come a close second.

This is why I like you Dan. But, would you ammend "police" to say "law enforcement and legal system" so as to include to currupt judges and lawyers? I think most C.O.P.'s are pretty good guys, doing their best at a particular profession (like you and I do), but I think lawyers and judges are a big problem in America.

ForcedTQ says

All of these things I hold as equally important to the right to bear arms.

So, if you had to choose between your 14-year-old daughter be stripped searched, having a cop insert his hand into her vagina and ass, and lifting up her clitoral hood, or that daughter being denied possession of a semi-automatic rifle, then you would say, "ah, flip a coin to decide because it's a wash."?

I call bullshit on that.

Bap33 says

This is why I like you Dan. But, would you ammend "police" to say "law enforcement and legal system" so as to include to currupt judges and lawyers?

Yes. Most, if not all, judges are corrupt. Judges are lawyers who entered politics, and both lawyers and politicians are corrupt, evil scum.

Sure, there is a chance a person could enter law or politics with good intentions, but such a person rarely would advance far in his or her career. Elizabeth Warren is one of the extremely rare exceptions and in her case, her election was the result of a lot of public anger at corrupt bankers.

Bap33 says

But, would you ammend "police" to say "law enforcement and legal system" so as to include to currupt judges and lawyers? I think most C.O.P.'s are pretty good guys, doing their best at a particular profession (like you and I do), but I think lawyers and judges are a big problem in America.

Sure there are a lot of cops who are good guys, but it is one of those professions that attracts psychotic assholes--you know just like lawyers. Compassionate people, just trying to do what is right, are not equally distributed throughout professions.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/01/06/these-are-the-top-10-jobs-most-likely-to-attract-psychopaths-should-we-be-worried/

I thought you might like to check out this reference on the Blaze

Bap33 says

If the Obama National Forces foot soldier that is ordered to come take your weapon from you is able to carry a ACME FlameThrower 5000, then you too should have full access to that same weapon.

I'm very much in favor of the goal of citizens being able to rebel and overthrow their governments whether in the United States or any other country. I do not object to that goal.

However, I do not thing the goal is realistic. That's the point. The U.S. citizen militia isn't going to have access to the same weapons that the federal or even state government will have access to. No militia is going to have nukes, ICBMs, jet fighters, stealth bombers, land mines, tanks, armor personnel vehicles, drones with hellfire missiles, Apache helicopters, napalm, flame throwers, or the vast array of undisclosed weapons that our military has.

The only possible way a rebellion in the United States might work is if all the marines, sailors, and soldiers in all our armed forces under the rank of colonel all organized a rebellion and coordinated a mutiny at the same time. In the Information Age, such coordination could not possibly happen because all communication channels are monitored. The brass would find out about the plans before they could be carried out. So even this scenario is implausible.

You guys understand that the value of living in america falls to zero in the event of a tyrannical government triggering a civil war, right?

Even if you 'win' the result is a shitty place to live.

Kevin says

You guys understand that the value of living in america falls to zero in the event of a tyrannical government triggering a civil war, right?

Even if you 'win' the result is a shitty place to live.

Yes, I am extremely skeptical that any post revolution government setup by the NRA and Rupert Murdoch would be better than the tyrannical government that inspired the revolt.

leo707 says

I am not so sure.

loe, I was being PatNet specific in my comment.

Dan8267 says

So, if you had to choose between your 14-year-old daughter be stripped searched, having a cop insert his hand into her vagina and ass, and lifting up her clitoral hood, or that daughter being denied possession of a semi-automatic rifle, then you would say, "ah, flip a coin to decide because it's a wash."?

I call bullshit on that.

Why are you creating a choice situation like that out of me agreeing that all amendments are of equal importance (And by the way should not be watered down as you previously posted)? They have NO bounds to do the search, nor deny her the possession of a semi-automatic rifle.

Can't figure out how you'd hide a semi-auto up either orifice anyhow!

Call it Crazy says

Well, if you have a well armed civilian population, wouldn't that be a deterrent to the .gov from triggering a civil war or trying to take more freedoms away??

Aren't we already living under tyranny? I've been hearing that sort of talk for about 4 years. Perhaps the American Freedom Militia got lost on their way to the insurgency.

I find that the TSA officers get a mite uneasy if I moan in pleasure at their pat downs. If they grab your junk just say, "I'll give you ten minutes to quit that!"

Call it Crazy says

If Feinstein's bill goes through, maybe that will be the "trigger"....

It won't.

However, it may inspire a Byron Williams or Martin Hohenegger type to murder some "libtards" who they imagine are oppressing them.

They will meet the same level of success that Timothy Mcveigh met when trying to inspire revolution.

ForcedTQ says

Why are you creating a choice situation like that out of me agreeing that all amendments are of equal importance

1. All amendments are not of equal importance. The Eighteenth Amendment sure as fuck isn't as important as the First Amendment.

2. That is not what you said. You said that all rights are equally important, and that certainly is not true. Exhibit A:

ForcedTQ says

Dan8267 says

Why is the right not to be sexually assaulted and strip searched at the airport (or any place) not as sacred as the right to a gun? Why isn't free speech as sacred as the right to a gun? Wayne clearly doesn't hold that freedom as important. Why isn't the right to privacy and the right to observe and record the police held as sacred? Why can these rights be watered down, compromised, and suspended, but not any gun rights?

All of these things I hold as equally important to the right to bear arms. No more, no less important.

3. The statement I made stands true. Basic human rights involving control over one's own body and human dignity are way the hell more important than the question of which firearms you can possess and which you cannot.

leo707 says

They will meet the same level of success that Timothy Mcveigh met when trying to inspire revolution.

Yep, to this day Timothy McVeigh is called a terrorist, not a hero, and he was one of our troops, you know the people all politicians pay lip service to.

Granted McVeigh was a racist, like almost all militia / survivalist people, and he didn't care about collateral damage (i.e., innocents people being killed) just like everyone in our armed forces. So one can surely make the point that he's no hero, but even if he had the morals of Superman, he'd still be written down as a terrorist in history.

The article says:
"This fear of slippery slopes is why gun-rights advocates seem so unreasonable — they are unwilling to compromise today because they do not trust that the terms of their deal will be honored by the public and by gun-rights opponents in the future. The British and Australian experiences with gun-rights legislation actually supports this sense of paranoia. In both countries, the politics following several mass killings have led to remarkably restrictive gun-rights regimes that most Americans would oppose. If America's gun owners concede even small things now, they risk further erosions of rights later."

The article is right. We have no intention of honoring the terms of any deal that allows any gun in the hands of the average joe.
Chipping away at the worst guns at any given time is our strategy. Everyone knows it, and no one including the NRA can do anything about it.
It's just a matter of time my friends.

Raw says

The article is right. We have no intention of honoring the terms of any deal that allows any gun in the hands of the average joe.

Chipping away at the worst guns at any given time is our strategy. Everyone knows it, and no one including the NRA can do anything about it.

It's just a matter of time my friends.

So the proud royal tomb builders boast about the technical excellence of their handiwork and how secret the entry ways are . . . just before they are sealed inside alive, to keep the secret, well, secret.

Call it Crazy says

Kevin says

You guys understand that the value of living in america falls to zero in the event of a tyrannical government triggering a civil war, right?

Well, if you have a well armed civilian population, wouldn't that be a deterrent to the .gov from triggering a civil war or trying to take more freedoms away??

No.

IDDQD says

See, this is what I'm talking about: inflation of big words. Nobody takes the word "nazi" seriously nowadays for this exact reason. You calling patdown at the airport (to which you don't really HAVE to go in the first place) a "sexual assault" doesn't make it even close to real sexual assault a.k.a. rape. Ask any victim of real rape if these things are the same.

Your ignorance is disguising. Here's a few links you should read. I have about ten thousand others.

http://www.susiecastillo.net/blog/2011/4/25/my-tsa-pat-down-experience.html

http://www.10news.com/news/poway-woman-claims-she-was-sexually-assaulted-by-2-female-tsa-employees

"It's just nothing that you want to have happen to you," she said. "I mean, it is sexual assault. It's humiliation. It's embarrassment. It's horrendous."

The second pat-down then occurred. Buckenmayer said by this time, both male and female TSA agents were standing around talking about her genitalia.

"This one was akin to sexual assault... how she touched me," said Buckenmayer.

http://www.youtube.com/embed/-NOBY1ZkRQU

http://www.youtube.com/embed/X6hvUWv2CsY

IDDQD says

to which you don't really HAVE to go in the first place

That's your fucking answer? We, the people, now have no right to travel and must give up our rights to human dignity for the privilege of traveling? We have to accept suffering sexual indignation in order to go to our sibling's wedding, our niece's birth, our parent's funeral? If that's your answer than double fuck you.

We, the people, allow the government to regulate the airline industry. The government has no fucking rights except what we the people bestow on it. So I say, we take away the rights of government to regulate air travel and let us build our own fucking planes. Eliminate the barrier to entry and then we'll have a real choice about whether we want to go through a TSA "protected" airline or one that doesn't have TSA agents. Guess what, everybody will choose the non-TSA airline even if it's run by Bob and Sons.

And everyone will die in plane crashes.

I'm no fan of the TSA and security theater in general, but to say that we don't need regulation in air travel is ridiculous.

TSA doesn't prevent plane crashes. You're thinking of the FAA, and most pilots say the FAA doesn't prevent plane crashes either.

I'll take my chances with a pilot over a TSA sexual predator any day.

I don't believe it is ridiculous to say we don't need regulation by the Federal government in air travel. The current danger in flight these days is that someone will blow up the plane or crash it in some random location - not that they will fly a plane loaded with diesel fuel into thousands of people.

The days of hijacking planes is over. Over. No group of passengers will ever again sit peacefully while vigilantes fly them to oblivion (or Cuba - whichever comes first). The most the terrorist can hope for is to kill the people on the plane and a few others who are unlucky enough to be under the falling metal.

The individual airlines would need to convince me that they are safe enough for my patronage. I'm sure they would do that if the Feds did not interfere.

For me it is all about individual liberty. All I see however is the end of such liberty for the benefit of a "common good". Red or Blue colored Keynesianism. What's the difference between the hues? I see few signs that the republicans will safeguard my individual liberties any more than the democrats. Both sides in the whitehouse have been quite happy with the Patriot Act.

My family and I have a right to certain liberties. Popular vote will not rob me of them. We all have lines we draw in the metaphorical sand that indicate the boundaries out of which we will allow invasion.

What's happening now is that the federal government is treading close to many people's lines in the sand. People love their country but no longer believe the government is "of" them. The country they love is the ground they stand on and the common belief that there is a check and balance for every entity that acts in the country's name.

I see no check or balance on the military.

Call it Crazy says

Kevin says

You guys understand that the value of living in america falls to zero in the event of a tyrannical government triggering a civil war, right?

Well, if you have a well armed civilian population, wouldn't that be a deterrent to the .gov from triggering a civil war or trying to take more freedoms away??

huh? what?

We had a well armed civilian population before our Civil War.

Dan8267 says

So I say, we take away the rights of government to regulate air travel and let
us build our own fucking planes

Dan8267 says

TSA doesn't prevent plane crashes. You're thinking of the FAA, and most
pilots say the FAA doesn't prevent plane crashes either.

You said take away the right of government to regulate air travel. That would obviously include the FAA.