Bring Your Sidearms To The Banks of the Potomac.

[23]

Meanwhile, a police force which increasingly answers to the federal government (and its corporate masters) rather than my local community drives around armed with M4s, the same assault rifles which troops are using in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere.

If I don't agree with funding those wars and refuse to pay my taxes in protest, armed thugs from the IRS will soon be arriving at my house.

The CIA recently declared that it is more than happy to assassinate American civilians, and pretty much every year the federal government passes another law affirming it's right to kidnap anyone and torture them to death in secret.

But yes, by all means, let's make sure the government is the only one with guns.

It's a beautiful thing, I think.

Sheep trusting their shepherds to be the only ones to be armed to keep the wolves at bay.

It's a beautiful thing indeed.

[JackRiddler]

Meanwhile, a police force which increasingly answers to the federal government (and its corporate masters) rather than my local community drives around armed with M4s, the same assault rifles which troops are using in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere.

If I don't agree with funding those wars and refuse to pay my taxes in protest, armed thugs from the IRS will soon be arriving at my house.

The CIA recently declared that it is more than happy to assassinate American civilians, and pretty much every year the federal government passes another law affirming it's right to kidnap anyone and torture them to death in secret.

But yes, by all means, let's make sure the government is the only one with guns.

They are. Compared to the force they muster, everyone else has toys. A gun can kill a policeman, but it can't defeat the police. Although it should be added the state extends beyond "the government" and includes varieties of private security forces that will continue to be authorized. It's more true to say the ruling class is the only one with guns, or in charge of an army, and there's no outgunning them. One day these forces may lay down their arms in the face of a popular uprising, but it won't be because an uprising defeats them militarily, and attempts to do that would very likely backfire and strengthen the state's authority to apply even greater violence.

How does this increasingly violent state justify itself, gain legitimacy, grow? By pointing to the lesser violence, often merely symbolic, that is directed against it. You understand how 9/11 was an enabling event, but why? Because people believed it was an armed attack, and support retribution reflexively.

On this issue I've swung back and forth and back again in my life. I have at times shared the thought that "If guns are outlawed, only the authorities will have guns." It's a complicated issue; I wouldn't want to force gun control on Texas, or to have it removed in New York. (The automatic penalty of 3 years in prison here is an evil.) I think you're simplifying it for yourself by believing in a fantasy that the modern state can be fought or changed through the individual ownership of firearms.

[Maddy]

Yeah, countries like the UK certainly don't have any trouble with their gov't having the weapons while they don't. They just have more surveilance per square foot than Carter had liver pills.

Then again, there's Canada, and they seem to get along just fine without them. I'd like to hear more Canadians' opinions on this topic. Then again, they also have better health care *cough*.

Pity we have to live in a country where we feel we have to arm ourselves against our own government... like so many other countries. But just because one may feel that way, doesn't dismiss the fact that its the criminals who usually get the weapons, and the underground element of dealing with weapons, even though they're legal. Nor the fact that people have them who are irresponsible, and do end up harming themselves and others accidently - including children.

Or the crazies who get ahold of them and gather in places to thumb their nose at the government and ask for trouble which could affect us all.

I dunno. Its a tough call.

[barracuda]

I have nothing against gun ownership, in fact there might be one or two lying around here someplace. But this isn't a really sounding like a second amendment rally. From the website:

"[we will] show our elected servants in DC and the state capitals that we will not stand by idly while their corruption, dishonesty, and outright violations of our country’s founding principles destroy the American Republic.
...

Our civil rights demonstration today has nothing to do with the skin color or racial background of any of the statists in all three branches of government who are bringing totalitarian socialism to America."

Oh yeah. The "socialist statists" are the problem.



I have a few predictions:

- There will be no incidents.

- The elected servants across the river won't "get the message".

- There won't be a dark-skinned individual for miles around Gravelly Point Park.

- You'll see lots of these floating around:

[Maddy]

I'm not anti-gun. I'm anti-idiot and anti-irresponsible. Can't stop idiots and irresponsible people from having guns.

[barracuda]

Right - the "anti-idiot" special interest group. I understand they have a severely under-funded lobby.

[23]

I can handle an irresponsible idiot with a gun if my right to carry was unabridged. That's the role of proper training and licensure which rightfully accompanies that right.

But an irresponsible idiot who wears a badge or a military uniform is quite another story.

[beeline]

Don't know if you guys are aware of this, but the price of bullets is much more expensive nowadays, due in part to UN-ATF involvement:

http://anarchangel.blogspot.com/2007/06/why-is-ammo-so-expensive.html

On edit; It's the Chris Rock approach to gun control:

[Canadian_watcher]

I could have (and would have) taken the time to thoughtfully articulate my feelings about gun ownership and the danger of same up until about 7 years ago.

At that point I realized that I not only believed in citizen gun ownership but suddenly wanted one (or three) myself. It's the point about the government that gets me. I do not want us to be outgunned by them.

I would also like to be able to hunt & defend my family should there ever be a breakdown of this thing we call society.

[Maddy]

Bullets will run out.

Already considered that.

[Canadian_watcher]

yeah, but not until they do...

[barracuda]

It's the point about the government that gets me. I do not want us to be outgunned by them.

This is why I believe every citizen has a god-given right to an F/A-18 Hornet, a quiver of assorted tactical ballistic missiles, and an impenerable force-field.

[Maddy]

Actually, learning things such as trapping and how to makeshift handmade traps is a Good Thing, if you're thinking survivalism. Handmade anything, for that matter, including weapons out of basic, natural materials. Sure, they don't have the "oomph" and "boom!" of a gun, but when the bullets runs out, what are you going to do, hit someone (your eight-prong adversary?) over the head with it? Bows/arrows, blowdarts, slings and stones! Simple weaponry is fine for small game hunting. Where are you going to keep that huge buck anyhow?

[justdrew]

It's the point about the government that gets me. I do not want us to be outgunned by them.

then you'll need to get few tanks and attack helicopters while you're at it.

[beeline]

It's the point about the government that gets me. I do not want us to be outgunned by them.

I would also like to be able to hunt & defend my family should there ever be a breakdown of this thing we call society.

I feel ya.