Gun-advocates threaten civil war to protect their guns.

[Gandalf]

If a bunch of these people are breaking the law, shouldn't the police be doing police stuff?

[Lonestar]

Honestly, its illegal if they don't have a carry permit, and the odds are good the majority of them do.

I saw a RVA cop ask someone if he had a conceal carry permit and the guy said yes. He didn't ask for verification.

[Lonestar]

Just trotting out the old NRA chestnuts. Every month in their publications the NRA trawls the police reports for cases of "responsible homeowner defends house against home invader with legally owned firearm" stories. Unsurprisingly they manage to conjure up a decent amount; some are even real, I imagine, given the sheer size/population of the US, statistically it has to happen every now and then.

I've been glad I had access to a firearm nearby in the past, so the how "well STATISTICALLY you don't need it" argument doesn't really fly with me personally. But if we start to do that, I'm statistically more like to be t+boned by a drunk driver than anything, but I don't think the solution is to really batten down the hatches on alcohol and driver's licenses.

What I'm more intrigued by is that some people on my FB (a highly critical source, I know) have been posting pictures of minorities marching with long-guns, ostensibly from the same march in Virginia. Cursory investigation (IOW, Googling) suggests that they're legit. I suppose they might be taking the 'gun rights matter to minorities too' angle, which honestly makes sense considering that minorities have been and are discriminated against in this regard.

(1) my take was that the groups that were organized enough to come by bus also told everyone to leave their Confederate/alt Reich stuff at home. Those who drove/convoyed in were more likely to have the good idea fairy tell them to bring Confederate flags and sing Dixie


(2) As far as I could tell the majority of POCs were VA residents. Black protestors were mostly from RVA, with a Desi/Asian contingent from NOVA. I ran into one of the guys from my Nova redditors Meetup group and his whole clan had came down. They are Parsi but probably passed as white in their winter clothing. I think that the POCs were also less likely to be wandering around with plate carriers and mags inserted, which may have meant fewer photos in the media. There was a very small JBGC contingent as well.

(2a) the notable exception to the above was OCT which had a bunch of Tejanos in it.

[The_Saint]

Just for kicks... as a non-american I'm not seeing any: sporting firearms (yes I know of 2-gun, 3-gun IPSC and the like but no biathlon? Olympic...... target firearms), no period firearms... oldest thing there looked to be an SKS ... where's the Garands, M1917's and anything blackpowder?

It's like those wanting to protest are only one subset of the firearms community?

[Lonestar]

I def saw SKSs, M1 Carbines, and some people with Mosins and Mausers.

I also saw someone with a A-Team special.

[Lonestar]

The media wanted to convey a certain image, is what I'm saying.

[Marko Dash]

the AR platform is the most common rifle in america at the moment, for several reasons.

Modularity: everything from .22 lr to .50 beowolf, and every type of cosmetic feature under the sun. they can be configured for any stature of shooter, from the teen plinking cans to the dedicated marksman chasing ever tighter shot groupings.

Price: can very immensely, but starts out at around $350 while even a reproduction Garand is around $1200

Hunting: while the base 5.56mm version isn't used for much more than varmits, versions like .300 blackout are very popular for wild hog hunting. I've taken my larger framed .308 on a few deer hunts.

Familiarity: every former military/national guard for 2-3 generations and recently most LEOs have had time behind one.

Iconically: it been around for nearly 60 years now. Movies, Games, etc. anytime you see a modern US presence an AR is there. It has come to be in the US what the AK is to Russia.

[The_Saint]

Fair enough. It just seems odd when from my perspective... even when semi-automatic ownership was ... less restricted .... the common platform was the bolt action rifle, either an ex-service rifle (SMLE) or something like say a Winchester Model 70. It's like ... you all freak out at the amount of things here in Aus that'll kill you but hey, my 100 year old .303 will deal with anything that needs dealing with.

I guess it all comes back to the same arguments I have to point out each time idiots here argue either for stupid or against smart firearms legislation. Here in Aus a firearm is a tool... of sport, trade, etc but in the USA it's a cultural icon that makes people feel emasculated at the belief that they might lose such.

Looking at Shep's pictures did make me chuckle out loud at the military cosplay. Sure there's a dark side to it and many of the individuals probably are ex-military (what you get when you create a multi generation war I guess) but it still seems more fetishistic than necessary.

[Raw Shark]

Honestly, I'm more afraid of Australia itself than its gun-owners. The most deadly species of five types in the world is native there, not to mention the climate (which is a shitshow even when it's not actively on fire). Bill Bryson, in his book, In a Sunburned Country, wrote, "Make no mistake, my friend, Australia is trying to kill you."

[The_Saint]

Eh, you get used to it. The funny part is ... of all the things here that will actively try and kill you .... a firearm isn't useful against 99% and if you encounter the other 1% and aren't prior prepared you done fucked up and deserve whatever the velociraptor cassowary does to you.

Really ... bush pigs would be the prime contender for needing heavy weight semi-autos. We don't have bears, bison, moose or anything like the larger African beasties.

[The Romulan Republic]

If a bunch of these people are breaking the law, shouldn't the police be doing police stuff?

Because if the police tried to arrest thousands (or even dozens) of gun owners at a Second Amendment protest, it would be met with forcible resistance and possibly start the civil war that the more radical elements were hoping it would.

You can decide for yourself whether letting gun protesters flout the law with impunity to avoid violence is prudence or cowardice which encourages more extremism.

But they sure as hell wouldn't handled black people or Occupy protesters with kid gloves like this, that's for sure.

[Beowulf]

If a bunch of these people are breaking the law, shouldn't the police be doing police stuff?

Because if the police tried to arrest thousands (or even dozens) of gun owners at a Second Amendment protest, it would be met with forcible resistance and possibly start the civil war that the more radical elements were hoping it would.

You can decide for yourself whether letting gun protesters flout the law with impunity to avoid violence is prudence or cowardice which encourages more extremism.

But they sure as hell wouldn't handled black people or Occupy protesters with kid gloves like this, that's for sure.

There's also the fact there's a giant exception: if you have a carry license, the law doesn't apply to you.

[Gandalf]

I saw a RVA cop ask someone if he had a conceal carry permit and the guy said yes. He didn't ask for verification.

There's some quality law enforcement.

Did you see any more license checking going on?

[Lonestar]

Nah.

Here's the thing: the odds are good that someone who shows up to a rally like that is gonna have a carry permit anyway, so, you know, it's kind of a waste of time to ask. I wonder if the RVA copper did it just for the going through the motions.

[The Romulan Republic]

Just for kicks... as a non-american I'm not seeing any: sporting firearms (yes I know of 2-gun, 3-gun IPSC and the like but no biathlon? Olympic...... target firearms), no period firearms... oldest thing there looked to be an SKS ... where's the Garands, M1917's and anything blackpowder?

It's like those wanting to protest are only one subset of the firearms community?

Indeed. I don't think its the sports shooters or hunters or harmless hobbiests, by and large, who open-carry weapons to political rallies (something that, in my view, amounts to an act of intimidation/threat to their political opponents). Its people who view their guns as weapons to be used on other people, and their gun "rights" as something to be used to resist the government.

And to be fair, that is more or less the intent behind the Second Amendment. It protects the right to bear arms specifically for the purposes of allowing the country to quickly raise a militia to resist an enemy, either a foreign invader or a domestic tyrant (the US, as a product of its revolutionary origins, is probably the only country on Earth which has deliberately written what amounts to a violent self-destruct clause into its Constitution, an article that is there specifically to facilitate armed revolt against the state should the people deem it necessary).

Unfortunately, the Framers of the Constitution obviously could not have known that America might one day be a nation which faced no realistic threat of foreign invasion, one which relied on a world-class professional military to defend it rather than a militia of farmers with muskets, that there might be firearms which would allow one man to wipe out hundreds in the space of minutes, or that people might take "defending ourselves against oppression" to mean "commit acts of terrorism because we don't like the current duly-elected government".

[Ralin]

or that people might take "defending ourselves against oppression" to mean "commit acts of terrorism because we don't like the current duly-elected government".

I mean. That's more or less what they'd just done themselves.

[The Romulan Republic]

or that people might take "defending ourselves against oppression" to mean "commit acts of terrorism because we don't like the current duly-elected government".

I mean. That's more or less what they'd just done themselves.

Eh, the Founders did a lot of ugly shit, but one of the main points of contention for their rebellion IIRC was that the government they were rebelling against was not duly-elected- that the colonies had no vote for the British Parliament (and obviously not for the King). There's a reason the slogan "no taxation without representation*" is so iconic, over-simplistic as it is.




*Note to libertarians, Randists, and "sovereign citizens": its "no taxation without representation", not "taxation is theft, no taxation ever". You assholes have representation, except for the people Republicans take it away from with gerrymandering and restrictive voter ID laws, etc.

[Ralin]

Eh, the Founders did a lot of ugly shit, but one of the main points of contention for their rebellion IIRC was that the government they were rebelling against was not duly-elected- that the colonies had no vote for the British Parliament (and obviously not for the King). There's a reason the slogan "no taxation without representation*" is so iconic, over-simplistic as it is.

I've never been very sympathetic on that point given that the taxes in question were 1) lighter than most people in the UK paid 2) specifically intended to pay for the massive cost of defending them in a recent war, at the colonials' invitation. And also that those were the terms of representation the colonies were set up under. It seems very much like the least oppressed European colony ever deciding to take it upon themselves to try and justify every other colony being watched like a hawk.

[The Romulan Republic]

Eh, the Founders did a lot of ugly shit, but one of the main points of contention for their rebellion IIRC was that the government they were rebelling against was not duly-elected- that the colonies had no vote for the British Parliament (and obviously not for the King). There's a reason the slogan "no taxation without representation*" is so iconic, over-simplistic as it is.

I've never been very sympathetic on that point given that the taxes in question were 1) lighter than most people in the UK paid 2) specifically intended to pay for the massive cost of defending them in a recent war, at the colonials' invitation. And also that those were the terms of representation the colonies were set up under. It seems very much like the least oppressed European colony ever deciding to take it upon themselves to try and justify every other colony being watched like a hawk.

A lot of the revolutionaries' grievances were entitled, self-serving bullshit. That they lacked Parliamentary representation (which, yes, is a grievance a lot of other colonies shared) is nearly the only one I have much sympathy for, but it does draw a distinction between the position of the Founders, and that of their would-be successors today, who do have elected representation, are generally from the side of the political spectrum that has the most representation, and still consider themselves entitled to revolt because they don't get their way, because they have to pay taxes, or because they don't like how many black people there are.

[Gandalf]

A lot of the revolutionaries' grievances were entitled, self-serving bullshit. That they lacked Parliamentary representation (which, yes, is a grievance a lot of other colonies shared) is nearly the only one I have much sympathy for, but it does draw a distinction between the position of the Founders, and that of their would-be successors today, who do have elected representation, are generally from the side of the political spectrum that has the most representation, and still consider themselves entitled to revolt because they don't get their way, because they have to pay taxes, or because they don't like how many black people there are.

Considering that their subsequent independent government considered slavery and mass disenfranchisement cool, I would posit that the whole thing about representation was a fig leaf for a squabble among well off white guys.

[The Romulan Republic]

A lot of the revolutionaries' grievances were entitled, self-serving bullshit. That they lacked Parliamentary representation (which, yes, is a grievance a lot of other colonies shared) is nearly the only one I have much sympathy for, but it does draw a distinction between the position of the Founders, and that of their would-be successors today, who do have elected representation, are generally from the side of the political spectrum that has the most representation, and still consider themselves entitled to revolt because they don't get their way, because they have to pay taxes, or because they don't like how many black people there are.

Considering that their subsequent independent government considered slavery and mass disenfranchisement cool, I would posit that the whole thing about representation was a fig leaf for a squabble among well off white guys.

To an extent, yes, probably, although it should be remembered that there was a diversity of opinion on slavery among the Founders.

[Gandalf]

To an extent, yes, probably, although it should be remembered that there was a diversity of opinion on slavery among the Founders.

And when it came time to put beliefs into action, they decided that some people are better as property. Fuck 'em.

[The Romulan Republic]

To an extent, yes, probably, although it should be remembered that there was a diversity of opinion on slavery among the Founders.

And when it came time to put beliefs into action, they decided that some people are better as property. Fuck 'em.

Again, I think you are judging a group of people with very diverse views as if they were a homogenous block, which is an oversimplified narrative. They weren't, which explains a lot of America's problems.

None of that whatsoever, of course, excuses those who owned slaves- especially those like Jefferson and Washington who were clearly aware that it was wrong, but did it anyway out of self-interest.

[loomer]

It is a fact of history though that the Founding Fathers who opposed slavery didn't feel strongly enough about it to start a second revolution. There's no getting around the fact that, however strong their feelings on the matter may have been, they felt it wasn't something worth more blood to prevent. Given that this was a cabal of men who were willing to shed enormous amounts of the blood of their countrymen in another cause, that says something.

[The Romulan Republic]

It is a fact of history though that the Founding Fathers who opposed slavery didn't feel strongly enough about it to start a second revolution. There's no getting around the fact that, however strong their feelings on the matter may have been, they felt it wasn't something worth more blood to prevent. Given that this was a cabal of men who were willing to shed enormous amounts of the blood of their countrymen in another cause, that says something.

True enough. They made their deal with the devil, and we're still paying for it.