I think people underestimate the potential. There are more guns in civilian hands, 500mil by some estimates, than all the world’s military and police combined among some 100-120 million gun owners. If even a small fraction, say 1%, of those resist would that not be a bit of a problem? Hell, we can’t control gangs now and they aren’t organized for resistance against the government.
of course. but folks see tanks and cruise missiles and drones and think the state is unbeatable, so why not use it to crush the rednecks? i think the occassional reminder that the rednecks are running the working arm of that machine before we get too carried away...
They have risen up for far less, often trying to burn down entire cities in protest of a minority individual being killed by law enforcement, because they considered the death to be unjustified. Molotov cocktails, improvised explosive devices, rocks, and a myriad of other weapons have all been deployed against not only law enforcement, but the people who live in these cities that played no part in the death.
Gun confiscation is not sufficient to cause a serous rift in our government, do we not forbid felons to own firearms? But they seemed to be non organised efforts for the most part.
You obviously never served in the U.S. Military, any 90 day wonder can tell you, the U.C.M.J. defines orders as legal or illegal, and a Soldier must refuse any direct order that violates the U.C.M.J. or international accords, Geneva etc... The Constitution.... This is why higher ranks exist, to prevent illegal and improper orders, and to continue established Military procedures in all matters great and small.
Felons give up their Rights by violating the Rights of others, just as you would not allow a convicted Rapist to marry your Daughter, you would inform her she was marrying a Rapist.
Theres the meat right there. If the government is going to make criminals of a large chunk of the population and treat them as felons simply because they value self defense, that large chunk loses whatever loyalty it had to that govt. In such a case, such people become subjects instead of citizens. Theres still a lot of americans that would rather fight and die to try and live free than be subjects or be ruled.
Remember the movie Red Dawn ? The Russians used the 4473 forms to see who had guns. In real life, the U.S. would step into Countries, Haiti, Dominican Republic for example, and ban guns and install a provisional Government. See ? nice & neat.
Unfortunately for anyone who now wants to legally purchase an AR in MA can't. U.S. District Judge William Young in Boston ruled that assault weapons and large capacity magazines covered by the 1998 law were most useful in military service and fall outside the scope of the Second Amendment’s personal right to bear arms. “In the absence of federal legislation, Massachusetts is free to ban these weapons and large capacity magazines,” Young wrote. He also rejected a challenge to an enforcement notice Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey issued in 2016 to gun manufacturers and dealers clarifying what under the law is a “copy” of an assault weapon like the Colt AR-15. Young acknowledged that the plaintiffs had cited the semi-automatic AR-15 rifle’s popularity in arguing the law must be unconstitutional because it would ban a class of firearms Americans had overwhelming chosen for legal purposes. “Yet the AR-15’s present-day popularity is not constitutionally material,” Young wrote. “This is because the words of our Constitution are not mutable. They mean the same today as they did 227 years ago when the Second Amendment was adopted.”
Miller would protect any firearm "most useful in military service", which the AR-15 is not. The military doesn't own a single semiautomatic AR-15, while civilians have owned them since 1964, which pre-dates even the military's adoption of the M16. I postulate that any firearm that the military doesn't own, and never has, can't be said to be "most useful in military service", especially any AR-15/10 chambered in a caliber not support by military logistics. Such firearms could not be supported in combat nor maintained. Present day popularity maps perfectly into "in common use", so why this jurist thinks he can ignore the meaning of both Heller and Miller is a mystery.
AFTER they have been convicted if a crime, sure. That's not under discussion here, and so you argue apples v oranges.
Then take such matters up with the legislature that decided felons gave up their constitutional rights by committing certain crimes.
Meaning the judge in question is not only intentionally, but also deliberately ignoring binding, legal precedent that has been set by the united state supreme court.
They, ( the victims ) suffer too. There are no victimless crimes, the final cost of crime to society is high.
You want to start talking about crimes to society because someone doesn't work or doesn't work hard enough or is intoxicated and so not working at peak efficiency? You one of those Commies McCarthy was always on about or something? Liberty is not about safety, security, or costs to society. I stand by my statement, you're as bad as ron is. You're both tyrants willing to oppress the ever loving **** out of people "for their own good" with the approval of your own conscience, to paraphrase C.S. Lewis.
Stop the truncation of my posts, it violates forum rules. I posted: They, ( the victims ) suffer too. There are no victimless crimes, the final cost of crime to society is high.
