General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsThe government is not, repeat NOT scared of your guns. Here’s proof.
http://bluntandcranky.wordpress.com/2014/02/21/the-government-is-not-repeat-not-scared-of-your-guns-heres-proof/" The arms industry makes a pretty penny by scaring us into thinking that the Eeeeeevil Government is gonna take away our firearms. Indeed, they and their pet politicos would have us believe that our guns are the only thing stopping said evil gummint from imposing some sort of Satanic tyranny. This is fertilizer of the finest, and here is how we know its bulls***:
Go look for active legislative, judicial, or executive actions that seek to take away our right to keep and bear arms (RKBA for short). No rumors, no CT, no crap you heard at the bar or barbershop, we are talking actual government actions to violate our Second Amendment rights. You found nothing, right? Neither did I.
Now look for government actions to limit or take away your right to VOTE. You found a helluva lot, right? Yeah, me too.
Its not your bullets that the government fears, Gentle Reader: its your BALLOTS. Were they scared of our guns, theyd be trying to take them away, and they arent. Pretty clear, isnt it?
Want to scare your elected representatives? Get on out and vote, and show them whos boss."
Source info at the link.
wercal
(1,370 posts)badtoworse
(5,957 posts)riqster
(13,986 posts)Weak.
pipoman
(16,038 posts)Violate the 2nd amendment according to SCOTUS. Federal assault weapons bans and arbitrary magazine capacity limitations also have been nearly struck down for the same reason and would have been if the AWB had been re authorized.
rustydog
(9,186 posts)Uncle Sam ain't coming for anyone's artificial spine yet and they won't.
hack89
(39,171 posts)But the government tried.
pipoman
(16,038 posts)pipoman
(16,038 posts)Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)wercal
(1,370 posts)So a 2008 case strikes down parts of a 1975 law...and this is proof that there has been no governmental action against the RKBA?
If I stole your car, kept it for 33 years, and gave it back - would I still be guilty of theft?
Autumn
(45,120 posts)are worth a fuck against the military's weakest firepower? A mouse facing off against a hawk.
badtoworse
(5,957 posts)The Taliban have been fighting such a war for more than 20 years and aren't close to being beaten.
Autumn
(45,120 posts)Some militias here and there just won't do the trick.
badtoworse
(5,957 posts)It might start that way, but I think it would quickly spiral into something much bigger with a large portion of the population siding with the militias and helping them. That is how civil wars start. A scenario like that would be extremely difficult to contain.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)The US still cares somewhat about our reputation in Afghanistan, so we aren't being as brutal as we could be.
If the battle was for the US government's survival, as in your proposed civil war, they would unleash far more upon the rebels.
We'd be back to carpet-bombing cities and other massive destruction to break the rebellion. I'm not completely sure nukes would be off the table - they could get used as part of a last-ditch effort. Because it really doesn't matter if your government behaved relatively nicely when it no longer exists. Survival first, then deal with the backlash.
At which point the massively superior weaponry means your militia gets blown to smithereens, leaving an unorganized, low-grade insurrection. And that can be contained well enough to keep the government in power.
badtoworse
(5,957 posts)As brutal as they were, they could have been more brutal.
Fundamentally, the way insurrections like Afghanistan and Vietnam work is to make it painful enough for long enough that the superpower gives up and goes home. They are won by outlasting, not by out-fighting.
When the battle is already at home, that doesn't work.
badtoworse
(5,957 posts)If that happened, I think anyone who was on the fence would quickly make up their mind.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)So they deserved to be carpet bombed.
We're talking about a situation like Syria, not Afghanistan. Assad has bombed his own people. Including his supporters. And he's used chemical weapons. He's still got about half the country behind him. His government is fighting for survival, so they're willing to do ANYTHING to win.
In your theoretical new US civil war, if the government thinks it will lose it will do ANYTHING to win.
Travis_0004
(5,417 posts)First off, you are assuming that the US military would be willing to bomb US cities.
If that order was given, you would likely see a large portion of the military defect, and a lot would take their fancy equipment with them.
Also, in a civil war similar to the 1850's it be pretty safe to go in and bomb weapons factories, etc. But in a civil war like today, you might have one person who supports the revolution, living right next to a person against it. Are you going to bomb both of them?
former9thward
(32,129 posts)In the Russian revolution the Tzar had the support of all of his troops. Until one day he didn't. It was an almost bloodless takeover even though the Bolsheviks had almost no military at the time.
loli phabay
(5,580 posts)like all civil wars there would be mass disobedience and desertions from whatever stripe of government ordered them to carpet bomb US cities. as to this fantasy that all the rebels would be middle aged fat guys running around there are shit loads of combat hardened disaffected people ou there and other competent nutters to make a fight of it. we would see car bombs, infrastructure attacks and the whole nine yards if it ever came to it. also this glee that the US military woukd happily kill all the militia members, remember if they can kill all right wingers at the drop of a hat whats to stop a radically different government ordering them to kill all with a left political slant. it is scarey to see people wish for a civil war, and the fact that they would sit safely in their basement wishing death on their neighbours makes them no more different from the people tjey want destroyed.
Jesus Malverde
(10,274 posts)Drones are flying robots that kill.
They are nominally controlled by humans...for now.
loli phabay
(5,580 posts)and they will all crash back to a blue screen of death.
Jesus Malverde
(10,274 posts)They always have a weak spot!
jeff47
(26,549 posts)Some will believe it's wrong and defect.
Many won't. They'll believe the government's story and follow orders.
The problem is those don't work in an internal war.
Those work great when your goal is to stretch out the conflict long enough that the superpower goes home. Such as Vietnam and Afghanistan (x2). In those situations, the rebels only have to not lose for long enough.
Those don't work when your goal is to overthrow your government - the government is fighting for it's life, so it doesn't give up. Syria is an example of that. In those situations, the rebels have to win the war, as they did in Libya.
There is no glee. Just the acknowledgement that it would be a slaughter.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)At least, not enough of them to turn the war.
Electric Monk
(13,869 posts)badtoworse
(5,957 posts)Physical combat with guns would likely be a very small aspect of a confrontation.
marble falls
(57,461 posts)badtoworse
(5,957 posts)CANDO
(2,068 posts)I and many millions of gun owning liberals would be shooting your asses for trying to overthrow our government. We'd be helping the military. Bet you never considered that angle.
badtoworse
(5,957 posts)Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)And not just a liberal, corporate tool government..?
And I have to reiterate: if such a scenario really did include millions and millions of people, then there's no way in hell the military would be intact at that point.
CANDO
(2,068 posts)If we can't rely on democratic rule of law, we may as well just mail it in and bring on the apocalypse.
beevul
(12,194 posts)You're forgetting how a former cop named dorner and two scumbags named muhammad and malvo - three individuals - caused massive chaos in the areas in which they were operating.
Me, I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss what things might look like if it were say...a thousand people doing this nationwide, instead of just three individuals in two locales.
riqster
(13,986 posts)Hard to shoot your way to victory without water, communication or transport, innit?
The Taliban is not as limited in that manner.
badtoworse
(5,957 posts)The government also depends on the same infrastructure which is woefully insecure. I've worked in the electric power business for most of my career and know it well. It is very vulnerable to attack, both physical (e.g. damaging critical transmission lines and substations) and cyber attacks (disabling the controls that keep the power grid stable). There are thousands of people in the country with the knowledge to quickly bring the power grid down. The same is probably true with telecommunications. Do you think all of them would remain loyal to the government?
Sorry, civilians don't have a clue what battle is like. Everyone has watched too many movies. A bunch of soft, overweight, untrained, middle aged men, are no match for a highly trained team of professional soldiers. Just because the Afghani's have successfully waged a guerrilla campaign against two "superpowers", don't believe for a minute that that can be done anywhere. Remember that the Afghani's have been doing this for literally centuries.
Ticktock
(19 posts)What makes you think that the members of that military would blindly follow a government that mass numbers of citizens considers corrupt enough to take to arms against? Soldiers are people....dis proportionally patriotic in more fundamental ways (IE they swear to uphold the constitution, not the current government in power) and geographically from conservative areas.
I believe some of the first to take up arms would be the exact "professional soldiers" you assume will forget their oaths and fire upon crowds of citizens.
Diremoon
(86 posts)I think it is safe to assume that you never served in the military.
Vinnie From Indy
(10,820 posts)The hillbilly contingent in America not so much. That is not to say they could not learn the tactics of such fighting, but they will still be pikers compared to the Afghanis even after decades of learning such warfare.
imthevicar
(811 posts)Small arms fire can take down an Apache Helicopter. No Matter how many tools they field it's no match for 150 million armed Americans. It boils down to numbers.
Autumn
(45,120 posts)Rex
(65,616 posts)It is rather embarrassing to see it here on a progressive board. I expect that kinda talk from my uniformed neighbors and relatives.
imthevicar
(811 posts)that's what happened in Somalia. Why is repeating an historical fact, a face palm?
Vinnie From Indy
(10,820 posts)eom
Rex
(65,616 posts)The silly comment is just sad.
Autumn
(45,120 posts)I swear a few of my neighbors have like a thousand guns and shoot every weekend. None of them have been in the military but the way they act they could win a war single handed. My Husband and BIL, both Nam vets just laugh at them when this subject comes up.
Rex
(65,616 posts)That is EXACTLY what it is like here...neighbors that never served, but are all certified urban Rambos!
Autumn
(45,120 posts)Out east of this idiot. His wife was killed filming a show for The Military Channel .
https://www.dragonmans.com/
Rex
(65,616 posts)Have a good friend that lives in Denver and he said the state is divided up among hardcore democrats down south and crazy RWing preppers and that the preppers all live in North Colorado.
Autumn
(45,120 posts)pink with the taxes from it.
Rex
(65,616 posts)and all local convenient stores!
raven mad
(4,940 posts)I am SO stealing that phrase! It's a lot the same here, except we do have active military all over the town. They, however, don't generally celebrate a full moon by shooting their MP4's............
Rex
(65,616 posts)Well I will say there are a lot of normal ordinary hunters and farmers around here that really only hate the IRS...but mostly the gun nuts are a group all to themselves. What most of them believe goes way beyond anything I've ever seen posted here in seriousness. IE birthers and preppers. They eat up the shit that comes out of Alex Jone's and Glenn Beck's er mouth like it was candy on halloween!
If anyone wants to really understand the crazy mindset...google 'stormfront.org' but know beforehand it is a hate site.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)20,000 to 50,000 insurgents in a geographical area of a single, mid-sized US state without any countryside.
The US has approximately 150 million gun owners scattered across its entire area. In Connecticut alone as many as 100,000 citizens have openly defied the "assault weapon" registration law. The US Army currently has around 550,000 soldiers but less than 1 in 5 are "trigger pullers" -- assuming they want to pull the trigger as 3/4 to 4/5 tend to vote Republican.
kmlisle
(276 posts)The Taliban are not Family men either. They were raised and trained without their families and consider women and children as possessions. The result in Afghanistan has been horrific collateral damage in families caught in the crossfire with thousands of children killed and injured and orphaned.
But wait a minute, we have had 7 to 8 thousand American children shot since Newtown - many in their own homes where guns were left out. Maybe there is an American Taliban who value guns more than children.
beevul
(12,194 posts)Uh no.
That number is in the hundreds, not the thousands.
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/12/children-killed-guns-newtown-anniversary
kmlisle
(276 posts)whopis01
(3,530 posts)Every damn year this is what happens.
The number is not in the 100s. It is in the 1000s.
http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/4171208/
http://consumer.healthday.com/kids-health-information-23/adolescents-and-teen-health-news-719/children-and-firearms-684203.html
http://m.pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/133/2/219
CANDO
(2,068 posts)Don't assume "all" gun owning citizens would stand by while right wing nut jobs tried overthrowing our government. Of that 150 million, you can probably deduct 30% and figure on fighting them as well as the US Military.
Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)They believe everything is going to fall apart and people will start rioting, fires will burn, food riots, cannibalism, mutant hoards....
They have this fantasy of loading up the SUV with guns and heading for the hills until things calm down and mankind has deteriorated to the stone age and then they will come back as a warlord,...neigh,...a GOD to the primitives.
Their first act will be to have their pick of the women.
Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)One look at many places where a major disaster has occurred makes that obvious. A certain, not-insignificant percentage of the population goes feral. Civilization doesn't disappear (and more people try to work together to help than don't), but things definitely can take a very big step backwards.
However, if someone who's trying to prepare for such a scenario is stocking up on bullets instead of food (and seeds/cultivation equipment/etc., if they believe the problem is long-term), they they're Doing It Wrong. If someone is a situation like that finds themselves getting into firefights often enough to need thousands of rounds of ammunition, then no matter how good they are, the odds are going to catch up with them. At some point, they're going to stop a bullet (and in a situation in which modern trauma care probably won't be available). If they're not avoiding violent conflict and trying to find people to band together with and start fixing things, then they're unlikely to survive.
But so many of that sort have failed to think things through, quite possibly because they harbor the sort of infantile fantasies you describe.
Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)But it DOESN'T.
People are very patient after a disaster to get the comforts of civilization BACK.
There is this myth popular amongst white people that they INVENTED civilization and the other races are little more than trained primitives. It's the mindset of the "Great White Hunter" and the Apartheid Government in South Africa. We had people like Cheney claiming is was nonsense to think black people could govern themselves. On the contrary, according to the mindset, those types should be under constant guard to prevent an uprising.
Face it. A LOT of this "civilization falling" is just CODE for a race war that bigots WANT because they dream of the day when white people will take to the streets and execute all non-whites on sight.
Such a thing has happened before in this country.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tulsa_race_riot
Then there's this gem of history:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bear_River_Massacre (Read the section: Massacre and actions of U.S. soldiers)
As far as the whole "reverting to savages" it seems white people are the ones to do it and all this talk of "freedom" is the freedom to run amok.
Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)As I said, "a certain non-insignificant percentage" does indeed abandon civilized behavior in disaster situations. To argue otherwise is to deny that looting (etc.) takes place under these conditions. That's absurd.
Are the majority disinclined to do this? Of course. I already stated that.
You seem more interested in making this a racial discussion, though. While that's certainly a legitimate area of discussion (and one in which I suspect we'd have little disagreement), it's not the focus of my point, nor is it a conversation I'm particularly interested in having.
So I guess we're done. Best wishes!
Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)Ticktock
(19 posts)It seems to me the only one fantasizing about a race war is you. No idea where this became about "white people" claiming to invent civilization and hoping it will fail in a masked code to start a race war.
Take off your race-themed tinfoil hat.
Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)oldhippie
(3,249 posts)You use your small arms to kill the pilots as they leave their houses in the morning. Or other things I won't even mention due to some of the faint hearts around here.
Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)Against a few "rebel" yahoos in the hills, that's what we'd see. Against a much broader insurrection? Nope. A fractured military would fall out on both sides of the conflict (as in the majority of civil wars).
That's all speculation with little chance of actually occurring, of course. We're far to complacent and distracted by bullshit to actually take that sort of action. That's not such a bad thing, given the horror of war (especially civil war). But with the democratic process so utterly corrupted by the plutocrats, I don't see meaningful change coming from within the system, either. I think for those of us who find the status quo intolerable, the real choices are emigration or hunkering down and waiting for the current nation to fragment into smaller polities in a relatively peaceful manner (Soviet-Union-style).
Yeah, feeling a bit of despair today... =(
Shemp Howard
(889 posts)JoeyT
(6,785 posts)it would be from things like launching a bomber and having it do a U-turn and carpet bombing the air field.
There are almost as many armed liberals as there are right wing yahoos*, so it's quite probable it would be multiple factions of citizens shooting at each other while factions of the military shoot at one another. Which would be just about the biggest mess imaginable.
*They tend to have a different kind of guns entirely, but an AR-15 with 30 rail attachments, a 200 round drum, and a holographic American flag paint job with Bible verses is still going to lose to a bolt action 30.06 if you don't know it's coming.
Warpy
(111,429 posts)even when the military has not been called in: http://www.democraticunderground.com/1017176946
And if you think the cops and/or military will intervene on the side of the people against the 1%, think again. They're paid to keep things orderly and rebellion is not orderly.
Autumn
(45,120 posts)intervene on the side of the people against the 1%.
Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)It's pretty hard to keep trumpeting that one when not a single shot has been fired over the last 25 years while the corporations and their whores in DC have completely crushed democracy.
Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)We're pretty much fucked (until the nation breaks up into smaller polities...the only "reset button" I can think of that needn't be bloody).
Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)i favor the multi-state solution, but the ward states are the ones whose governors and other "reps" are always threatening to secede, as if they would detach themselves from the gravy train.
Issues like gun control, compliance with the ACA, SP HC, union rights, and so on seem like and excellent platform for the real American to decouple the red states. Probably our best hope to not turn into Haiti.
raven mad
(4,940 posts)we even have an established political party in the state that promotes (and has for 40+ years) secession.
Duck Dynasty, anyone? Of all states - we are SO diverse, seriously - to have as rabid a RW Fundy bunch..........
This is also to address post #9 - because blatant laws removing a citizen's right to vote would cause some outrage, the RW uses more insidious methods.
MO_Moderate
(377 posts)about government actions to take away the right to vote.
GoneOffShore
(17,343 posts)Suspension or curtailment of same day registration, early voting.
Hmm... which country do you live in?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voter_ID_laws_in_the_United_States
MO_Moderate
(377 posts)Those laws do not specifically state they are to take away the right to vote. That the end result of those laws will take away the right to vote is nothing but opinion.
Thought the post said it didn't want rumors, CT or bar talk?
jeff47
(26,549 posts)Lots of voters did not get to cast their ballots in 2012, thanks to those laws. It wasn't enough to change the outcome of the presidential election, but they're already disenfranchising people.
But please, tell us about how they are needed to desperately fight the evil scourge of in-person voter fraud.
MO_Moderate
(377 posts)The OP basically states that there are no laws with the intent to 'come for the guns,' and that it is dumb to believe the end results will lead to them taking guns. But then, they want us to blindly accept their opinion that the end result of voter ID will lead to them taking our voting rights.
Point is, the 'sky is falling' tactic isn't more valid simply because you support the persons position on an issue.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)Have all sorts of reasons to go get a drivers license so they can vote.
Oh, a state ID instead? Well, the DMV is the one that issues that, and it's across town, and only open during 'business' hours. And since that's when you're working, and your boss will fire you if you say "I need to take a day off to go to the DMV", getting that ID is super-easy.
And the fee for either ID is nothing like a poll tax.
Show a utility bill instead? Why do you assume all over-18 people pay utility bills? Live with your parents, and you won't be paying the electric bill. Or have a lease to show.
People have already lost their right to vote due to voter ID laws. This is not 'the end result will be'. The end result already is.
Additionally, the laws in question are not just voter ID laws. Laws to take away early voting and reduce the number of precincts in Democratically-aligned areas have also cost people their right to vote. Remember the stories about the many-hour lines in FL in 2012? You think no one had to give up and go to work, or pick up the kids, after hour 4 in line?
raven mad
(4,940 posts)it's basically the same as the Jim Crow laws in the South - you are required to be able to read and write, etc. In some states? Recite the constitution/state poem/whatever. These are RESTRICTIONS, granted - but blatant, obvious ones, and are precisely and specifically designed to do one thing - deny a person a vote. The law has since been struck down:
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
DILLINGHAM, AK--A state court today struck down Alaska's English-Only law, saying that it prevents government officials from communicating with the public in violation of basic free speech rights.
The Alaska Civil Liberties Union, one of the groups that challenged the law, hailed the ruling as a hard-won victory.
""This ruling confirms what our Alaska Native plaintiffs in the villages have known all along: that the Constitution protects all Alaskans' right to freedom of speech, regardless of what language we speak," said attorney Eric Johnson, who argued the case last October for the Alakayak plaintiffs represented by the AkCLU, the Native American Rights Fund, and the North Slope Borough.
https://www.aclu.org/free-speech/victory-alaska-natives-and-other-non-english-speakers-court-declares-english-only-law-un
TexasProgresive
(12,164 posts)That wouldn't stand up in any court. There is no other reason for these laws as there has been little to none voter fraud in this country. These laws are no different than the poll taxes.
In my town they moved the DPS (drivers' license) office out on the northern edge of town. There are plans to move the tax office (in charge of voter registration) to the far south end of town. There is limited public transit here so how does one get the pile of paper work necessary to have a photo id when they do not drive?
MO_Moderate
(377 posts)But, just as you have done here, the pro 2nd Amendment side can come up with their own justifications as to why they believe gun control laws are meant to take guns from the people.
Instead of arguing that it is ok in one instance, but wrong in another, we should be arguing that it is wrong on both.
GoneOffShore
(17,343 posts)It's a variation on the old poll tax or literacy tests which were used to keep people from voting.
Which country is it that you live in?
Here's a link - http://www.advancementproject.org/issues/voter-protection/pages/protecting-the-vote
And another - https://www.aclu.org/voting-rights
MO_Moderate
(377 posts)don't state that their intention is to take guns from the people either, but many people have links "proving" that is their intent. Your links and opinions are no more valid than theirs.
Apparently, I live in a country full of hypocrisy.
GoneOffShore
(17,343 posts)But we guessed that.
riqster
(13,986 posts)Start here for actual government actions to implement that agenda:
http://www.brennancenter.org/analysis/election-2013-voting-laws-roundup
More info here on how to protect your right to vote:
http://www.lwv.org
Meanwhile, there is no comparable effort to take away our guns.
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)The gun banner-controllers have been politically smash-mouthed enough (with significant collateral damage to the Party), that only the loudest yappers keep pushing their prohibition. IOW, even a barroom brawler knows when to stumble out the door.
Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)The plutocrats' corruption of the democratic system continues apace, and your vote becomes less meaningful all the time.
PatrynXX
(5,668 posts)when Republicans have a chance they actually do take those guns away...
Imagine this. To Norway and a friend of my dads said America has the most liberal <----- rules in the world on guns. Conservatives would take this away.. Have no idea why I have Zombies who think otherwise. Although it's really not funny walking into a gun show and having almost every table say if I'm a democrat I will not be served. So who's banning guns??
ffr
(22,676 posts)No kidding! That's right!
Rex
(65,616 posts)has Alex Jones on the brain! Of all the STUPID things I've heard over the years, that ranks in the top 10!
WovenGems
(776 posts)I will protect the constitution from all enemies foriegn or domestic. So the government has no fear at all from 2nd amendment crackpots.
loli phabay
(5,580 posts)One is also obligated to ignore an illegal order as the Nuremberg Defense is not valid at all.
liberal N proud
(60,352 posts)Look at the fire power the US has and look at the guns you have.
TheKentuckian
(25,035 posts)Pure damage dealing? No comparison. Actual control and profit though cannot be accomplished with high tech navies, or fighter planes and bombers, and even the heavy armor is of only limited use.
Wipe us out? Yes. Subjugation? Not so much.
I guess gorilla warfare is tough for Americans to really think about. Maybe that is why we seem to always lose such things despite being a significant reason we won our own independence from the world superpower of that day.
pablo_marmol
(2,375 posts)Highly credentialed/regarded liberal criminologist Dr. Gary Kleck is the LAST person you could honestly describe as a "crackpot" or conspiracy theorist:
http://saf.org/journal/13/AbsolutistPoliticsinaModeratePackage.pdf
He is, in fact, the voice of reason in this debate.
Otherwise, my views on this subject have already been aired - so no need to expound further.
riqster
(13,986 posts)But it does not provide evidence of active governmental activity to take away our guns.
pablo_marmol
(2,375 posts)An entire chapter of a book and a long read -- but required reading for anyone who claims to have an adequate working knowledge of this debate.
The video was provided to provide a window into Kleck's scientific disposition w/regard to this contentious debate.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)Voting by those who does not normally have a drivers license, etc by imposing a photo I'd presented at voting is a problem. Republicans claim voter fraud but do not produce evidence, has their party convinced the reason Democrats win is because of fraud. The GOP pushes for voter photo id but will vote down sensible gun control. They sponsor anti-abortion laws but vote down healthcare and food stamps. They claim to err on the side of life but no health care. The worst thing is people voting for Republicans against their own interest.
hack89
(39,171 posts)hack89
(39,171 posts)It is a golden age for gun rights with state after state liberalizing their gun laws. Of course government is not scared of gun owners or their guns.
sadoldgirl
(3,431 posts)If the government wants to control the population, it may be already there. Loss of the fourth amendment, NSA information and, yes, possibly drones may do the trick. As a matter of fact we have seen it some time ago working just fine against the OWS groups everywhere. If those people or the civil rights groups had carried guns, do you really think the government would not have reacted differently? The civil rights marches forced the government to cave in precisely because the blood of unarmed peaceful people was spilled and seen on TV by millions. The fear of an overly intrusive government should direct us rather to stop the NSA spying and return to the 4th, 5th, and 6th amendment. You don't need to control all 300 millions, you just take out the probable "trouble makers". And the government can do that very quietly and even peacefully.