Just to pick nits...
The War of Northern Aggression was started by the southern states attacking Ft. Sumter and the Confederates technically weren't US citizens. Previous to that they were still seeking a diplomatic solution to the secession.
The tank at Waco was driven by an FBI agent.
As for the other two, I seriously doubt that some army officer gave an order to shoot unarmed civilians. Things most likely just got out of hand -- if it were a massacre I would concede your point but they were both lawful acts (not the killing and wounding but their presence was lawful), immoral maybe but they weren't against the laws of the United States.
Hell, the last biggest use of federal troops in the US was to protect US citizens in the south during to Civil Rights Era to the best of my knowledge unless you want to count NOLA.
So none of those examples were cases where the government persuaded US troops to go against their oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States of America.
And yes, I do realize this isn't a libertarian position to hold but you were trying to demonize all troops when at least 99% of them wouldn't follow an illegal order and an even higher percentage of officers wouldn't issue one...on US soil.
Y'know when your an adult, folks don't seem to feel alright if your weilding your Red Rider(B.B.gun). My son and I, enjoy popping off a few rounds while games are loading. Soft air pistols rock that is, you can marksman inside kids. I am fond of games, in reality I am a pacifist that never admits to being one. I follow ones right to defend oneself, I just think that hurting anyone for any reason is a grievous task, that must be done sometimes, but only with responsibility. That is hard, to pull back on aggresion once triggered for me. I've been in fights that folks got to snap me out of my state before I cause fundemental harm. I never want to do that again, but it won't drive me to be a solitudinarian.
The second amendment deserves respect, the real kind, like this right shall be unabridged.
Individualism Rocks
Anonymous Coward:The War of Northern Aggression was started by the southern states attacking Ft. Sumter and the Confederates technically weren't US citizens. Previous to that they were still seeking a diplomatic solution to the secession.
No one was killed in action at Fort Sumpter. First blood in that war was drawn by federal troops firing at unarmed civilians in Baltimore. Maryland was still in the union so it was their own countrymen they were firing at.
And while I agree the Confederates were not US citizens, we would be taking two bites of the apple to allow the federal troops this excuse since Lincoln's whole justification for the war was that the Confederates were still US citizens acting in defiance of their government.
Anonymous Coward:As for the other two, I seriously doubt that some army officer gave an order to shoot unarmed civilians.
Douglas MacArthur ordered the raid on the bonus marchers. He told the troops the bonus army were communists trying to overthrow the government. His subordinate, George S. Patton ordered his troops to fix bayonets before entering the camp.
As for Kent State being a matter of troops getting out of control, I think that still proves my point which was that it is no difficult matter for the government to get troop to fire on civilians.
Anonymous Coward:And yes, I do realize this isn't a libertarian position to hold but you were trying to demonize all troops when...
No I wasn't. An assertion was made that it would be hard to get troops to fire on their own countrymen. History indicates otherwise.
I've got a few. I've got a Rock River AR-15 (M4-type), a Bulgarian made Arsenal AK-47 with a brand new peep sight, an old Mossberg .22LR and I just got my hands on a new Springfield Armory XD .45 ACP with the hi-cap 13 round magazines. Really nice man. One of these days I'm going to get my hands on a good bolt action. I'd like to get a fully kitted out Remington 700 .308 with a good Leupold scope but I'll probably settle on a cheaper Savage .308. They can still hit 1 MOA at 300+ yards if you use the right ammo. If I ever win the lotto I'm going to invest in a Barrett .50BMG for "large game hunting." I'm also going to try to stock up on more ammo, a few Mosin-Nagant rifles (for cacheing) and a good carry pistol for when I get my CCW permit. A shotgun would be nice but we'll see what happens. If I did get one I'd probably cut the barrel down, put on a pistol grip and use it for my home defense weapon. So I wont invest too much money into one of those.
"It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds. " -- Samuel Adams.
gplauche:Even in Russia, during the fall of the Soviet Union, Yeltsin was able to get enough soldiers to defect, through a show of non-violent resistance, to thwart an attempted military coup (iirc).
It was the leadership of the Red Army that failed to organize and carry out any action against Yeltsin. If the troops had been led they would have acted. The Red Army has a long history of action against civilians.
Napolean coined the phrase "a whiff of grapeshot" to describe his method of dealing with the Paris mob. I think it's very foolish to assume troops won't shoot you just because you speak the same language. It's all a matter of what the troops have been led to believe.
Anonymous Coward: Just to pick nits... The War of Northern Aggression was started by the southern states attacking Ft. Sumter and the Confederates technically weren't US citizens. Previous to that they were still seeking a diplomatic solution to the secession.
Technically the North fired the first shot at Sumter. Ft. Sumter was in Confederate territory and the North had already surrender a few other fort before this one. The Confederates ordered the Yankees to leave and gave them ample time to do so. Lincoln, on the advise of his advisers, dispatched reinforcements to the fort which was the main customs house in the South for goods arriving from Europe. Lincolns refusal to surrender the fort and dispatch reinforcements was a blatant act of aggression. So while the North didn't fire the first "literal" shot they did "fire" a shot by refusing to surrender a fort they had no claim to.
Anonymous Coward: The tank at Waco was driven by an FBI agent. As for the other two, I seriously doubt that some army officer gave an order to shoot unarmed civilians. Things most likely just got out of hand -- if it were a massacre I would concede your point but they were both lawful acts (not the killing and wounding but their presence was lawful), immoral maybe but they weren't against the laws of the United States. Hell, the last biggest use of federal troops in the US was to protect US citizens in the south during to Civil Rights Era to the best of my knowledge unless you want to count NOLA. So none of those examples were cases where the government persuaded US troops to go against their oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States of America. And yes, I do realize this isn't a libertarian position to hold but you were trying to demonize all troops when at least 99% of them wouldn't follow an illegal order and an even higher percentage of officers wouldn't issue one...on US soil.
I can agree with some of this but the military for the last few years has been training to suppress the population in this country. I've known several former soldiers who attended military training where they were taught how to disarm Americans and given the reasons why. None of which were Constitution but which they agree, even to this day, is the right thing to do.
Also, if you remember the Draft Riots in NYC during the War for Southern Independence? The US Navy shelled NYC to quell the riots killing dozens and wounding more.
Governments have for centuries used their militaries to suppress or kill their own people to hold on to power. The sad fact of the matter is that a good soldier will do what a good soldier ought to do -- follow orders. Now, I am in no way disparaging soldiers or the work they do, but history has proven time and time again this to be true. To say that this can't happen in the United States is crazy talk. The US isn't immune to the affects of power and corruption and our leaders aren't some kind of all knowing and caring bunch who are only looking out for our best interest. There will come a time when the US military (and possibly foreign militaries ) will be used to suppress the population of this country when it finally slides into all out despotism.
Used to have a .22 Winchester carbine (for shooting vermin) and a 12 gauge Franchi (inherited by my grandfather) but got rid of both because of much stricter gun control laws and much, much stricter laws on hunting. Plainly put I have had enough of the nanny-state already without all the headaches of gun ownership. Also new gun control laws will require mandatory (and of course, expensive) psychiatric checks. My grandfather was a fully licensed hunter for over fifty years. He was never involved in politics, he never had any troubles with the law etc. Yet the local police station kept a huge dossier on him, just because he had three (licensed) shotguns and as such was considered a "sensible" subject.
Should gun control laws change (and they will, simply because despite all those policemen the State will not be able to guarantee our safety, read Martin van Creveld''s books) I will gladly head straight to a store and buy myself a rifle.
Yes, it's time for the Dr Goebbels show!
Yes. I don't usually leave home without one, either. I have my old California CCWs framed, and I will never live in Massachusetts or New Jersey again.
Everyone, or at least every household, should have a .22, one good shotgun, one good rifle, and one good handgun. In an emergency, it is possible to adapt to the situation that way. Preferably, if there is more than one competent shooter in the house, they should be able to complement each other which might mean more than one of something.
"Children" need to learn the how and why of guns the same way we teach them to stay away from the lawnmower blades, hot stove and streets with moving cars. Pretending guns are "nasty", while cops carry them, is to create a contradiction.
Guns are tools, no more and no less. Used wrongly, people will get hurt, just like any other tool. I would no more not teach someone how to use a gun than I would not teach someone how to use a car or a checkbook.
To anyone who thinks they might like to get a gun at some point, don't wait. And don't skimp. A good sized handun won't hurt your hand when you really need it, and when the time comes that you need a gun of any kind, it is too late to go and get one.
Just trying to buy a gun is an education in government bureaucracy and stonewalling you will never forget.
Three 9mm pistols and one .22 pistol; an M1, a Lee-Enfield No4MkII, a Savage .30-06 bolt action, a Saiga 7.62x39, a .25 lever-action Marlin, a 12-gauge and some .22 rifles.
The Smitth & Wesson M&P 9mm is on my person at all times.
--Len.
I own a shotgun. Mainly because I live in middle of the woods and am tired of coyotes and racoons. As for anybody trying to come in my house, I have a 130lb Rottweiler
Sometimes "majority" simply means that all the fools are on the same side
I live in New York City. Technically I cannot walk around carrying a sock filled with sand, so no guns for me. If I did get something it would have to be for my apartment and I would also be obliged to have something incapable of accidentally fireing through walls and hurting my neighbors, so I would have to get a shotgun.
But short barreled ones are illegal as well and my apartment is small. A pistol with Glaser slugs would be the best choice but handguns are nearly impossible to legally own even for your dwelling.
The New York City council, which bans everything, often allows themselves to conceal and carry. A few years ago a CC-ing coucilman was murdered by a CC-ing aid.
http://www.comebackalive.com/phpBB2 Travel, Adventure Travel, Arguments, Recipes.
Twirlcan:I live in New York City.
Chief Justice Scalia once gave and interview recalling how he used to ride the New York subway with his .22 when he was a boy.
I didn't know that gun control laws differed so much from state to state. Their is a clear difference between blue and red states, I take it? Or is it usually more of a difference between city folks and country folks?
"Try to imagine a regulation of labor imposed by force that is not a violation of liberty; a transfer of wealth imposed by force that is not a violation of property. If you cannot reconcile these contradictions, then you must conclude that the law cannot organize labor and industry without organizing injustice." — from The Law
It's not exactly blue state vs. red state, but the most restrictive states do tend to be blue. The most liberal gun laws in the US are in Vermont though. Here's a link to map that shows the status of each state. I especially like the little note on the map that says "Tax on right to keep arms: 4 states and Cuba."
DBratton: It's not exactly blue state vs. red state, but the most restrictive states do tend to be blue. The most liberal gun laws in the US are in Vermont though.
It's not exactly blue state vs. red state, but the most restrictive states do tend to be blue. The most liberal gun laws in the US are in Vermont though.