Signs of the times

[Ibby]

US News and World Report ran an article yesterday making the case that these militias are not actually legal, but that broadly summarizes the rationale for allowing them to exist:

Yet the groups go largely unchecked because law enforcement often does not enforce anti-militia laws due to a number of overlapping reasons, most based in ignorance or misunderstanding, analysts say. Law enforcement is sometimes simply unaware of state statutes that define and prohibit private militias and paramilitary activity.

That ignorance can be tied, McCord says, to a widely held "mythology" that the Second Amendment protects militia-like activity – an expansive understanding of the amendment's protections that has been promoted by cultural forces like the National Rifle Association, which in recent years has championed "stand your ground" laws in states across the U.S. and characterized guns as a protection against tyranny.

"I think the NRA and other Second Amendment absolutists have been remarkably successful over the last several decades at sort of just convincing people that the Second Amendment protects private militia activity, especially in open carry states," McCord says, referring to statutes that allow residents to openly carry firearms in public and in some cases permit the display of long guns like semi-automatic rifles.

The line between a citizen legally carrying a weapon in public and what constitutes illegal paramilitary action, therefore, often goes unrecognized by law enforcement.

(i'm not really sure I agree with their conclusion - that these are roundly illegal, that is - but i also don't really care a whole lot about arguing what some two-hundred-year-old document really means anyway so)

[tw]

Same attitudes brought about something called the Nazi party. Complete with justification because jews, et al were a threat to all. They were told that. So it must be true.

They need assault weapons to protect themselves using same reasoning. Adults who are still children. Nazi party targeted (recruited) same type people.

[Urbane Guerrilla]

Originally Posted by tw

Same attitudes brought about something called the Nazi party. Complete with justification because jews, et al were a threat to all. They were told that. So it must be true.

They need assault weapons to protect themselves using same reasoning. Adults who are still children. Nazi party targeted (recruited) same type people.

I see your chiefest function in a gunfight will be that of a sandbag. Presumably you are built rather like a sandbag, with shoes.

[Griff]

I'm not really sure death threats are appropriate here. It does illuminate the truth that some gun nuts are armed for intimidation not self-defense.

[BigV]

Originally Posted by Griff

I'm not really sure death threats are appropriate here. It does illuminate the truth that some gun nuts are armed for intimidation not self-defense.

Yes, the emphasis on "obliged to respect" kinda seals it, doesn't it?

Our founding documents state

“We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness….”

and nothing about a subset of those men who are armed, y'know, so others are obliged to respect them.

What widespread gun possession does is reduce the margin for error to the length and force of a trigger pull. Bad decisions are executed faster, more emphatically, more fatally. Being armed does not exempt one from making bad decisions, that's a human trait we all share.

The news is overflowing with reports of shootings that did not need to happen. Can the term unjustified be used? Yes, in the vernacular; no, in the strictest legal sense in many cases. And not just in the horrific stories about overreactions by police. Civilians are just as liable to make rash choices that have tragic consequences.

Let me ask you about Jake Gardner, you can google that name and see the news stories where it appears. He had the right to a fair trial but that's moot now that he's dead. How did a gun oblige others to respect his rights? Of course it didn't. All it did was accelerate the consequences of a bad decision.

Let me ask one more thing. When has using your power to kill ever obliged someone to respect your rights?

[Urbane Guerrilla]

Originally Posted by Griff

I'm not really sure death threats are present here. It does illuminate the truth that some gun nuts are armed for intimidation not self-defense.

Brought you round to accuracy. I recollect having gotten on your case before. As is evident between your lines, you value your fear more than you value your liberty. I don't.

You must intimidate tyrants. Or they'll feel free to kill you. I think you'd find that awkward.

[Griff]

Originally Posted by Griff

I'm not really sure death threats are appropriate here. It does illuminate the truth that some gun nuts are armed for intimidation not self-defense.

Let's play a quick game of find the potential tyrant. I suspect you won't be there to help remove him if he pretends the election was invalid. Who is the potential tyrant in this picture?

[Griff]

.

[fargon]

Originally Posted by Griff

.

What Griff said.^^^