Mike Malloy says buy a gun.

Even if you are an anti-gun person you need to buy a gun. Says that he is anti-gun and owns a gun.

Interesting.

better be armed to the teeth!

:nuke:

Maybe not next month,

Maybe not next year,

Maybe not next deacde.

But it is coming.

When you have essentially 50 % of the poulation that believes * was appointed by GOD, there can be little or no reconciliation.

All Mike is saying is be preapred for what is obviously coming down the pike.

against a handful of people who take Rush and his ilk too seriously, if the "Revolution" does come, one of two things will happen. Either the military will be on our side or they will be against us. If they are on our side, we won't need guns. If they are against us. Our guns will be useless.


If you truly believe that thing may devolve to the point were they start coming for us in mass, the only protection will be to have a quick exit plan.

//one of two things will happen. Either the military will be on our side or they will be against us. If they are on our side, we won't need guns. If they are against us. Our guns will be useless.//

this is a foolish view...when revolution comes , and it is coming. Guns will not not be useless against roving hoards.The amount of authorities it would take to restore order in a timely manner,simply do not exist,Or they don't care. Buy a clue from how long it took order to be restored in South central.Now imagine the interuption of the food supply that will surely accompany extended civil unrest.You have a right to protect your family and your food.How you plan to do that is your prerogative, but giving uninformad advice to others is not wise.

good for them, they knew what was going on. Morans who can't protect themselves from the Bush stormtroopers have no room to complain.

America is serious, if you respect the rights we have fought so hard to win, you'll be willing to fight to maintain them.

I have no fear; I have an exit plan.

No gun for me. If they want to shoot an unarmed family, well, so be it.

without batting an eye. Sad to say, but the barbarians are in control. Ask the folks in Afghanistan and Iraq, shoot families is just how business gets done. The war is coming and it will be the ugliest thing this country has ever seen.

move, like I'm going to do (well before it gets to the boiling point).
You know, people talk about being loyal to your country and fighting for it and all that, but government's an abstract thing. The only thing to be loyal to is your countrymen. And if my countrymen are acting like idiots, like the Republicans are, then I'm moving to another, perfectly good country in Europe where people are civilized, well-educated and have values similar to mine. And I'll have no regrets.
The US Constitution is a great document. It's led to many great things in the world (thank God). But, you know, this culture sucks. The people are stupid and easily manipulated by corporate fascists like Bush and Cheney and Rove. Eventually, when things get too shitty, you just gotta jump ship and let the idiots sink themselves. As long as there's good people to live amongst elsewhere in the world, it's no big loss.

I know how to use one. :)

I'm ready for the reugs militia when the come.....

I hope you're on my side.

That's his style. When the revolution comes, he'll the the one leading the charge on the Bastile.

has NEVER been about duck hunting...It's always been a matter of keeping the ultimate tool of power in the hands of the people, not exclusively in the hands of the government.

As Mao once said: "Power flows from the barrel of a gun."

Anyways, this is one of the very few points I agree with libertarians on. If we don't have guns available to us, who knows what kind of crap the govt. will pull? Having said that, I also find guns repugnant, have never owned one, have never fired one, hate gun nuts, am a dedicated pacifist, and abhor violence of all stripes.

I don't think the two ideas are contradictory. I believe that having the OPTION of owning a firearm should be available to any adult who can pass a rudimentary mental health exam, and that parents should practice gun safety, etc. I hate guns, but I want one if some shit goes down.

standards and testing, administered by the government against whom you wish to bear arms.

Don't work that way, Amigo.

My post was poorly worded, I'm sorry. Really, in the real world, I know this couldn't evr occur. But: a person's history in the mental health department ought to be a factor in whether he can receive a gun or not. If a person has a history of mental illness, domestic violence, suicidal ideation, etc, that ought to be taken into account by the gun dealer, possibly by means of consulting the doctor the potential gun owner sees regularly. The government wouldn't foot the bill, the dealers would work out a deal with the doctors.

Yeah, I know, implausible. Really I was just "blue-skying" (as they say on MST 3K) I know in reality this could never work, it's too complicated and broaches too many confidentiality agreements, and is open to forgery. So I'm an idealist, so sue me. I just think that right now, there's too many guns in the hands of insane people who fetishize violence, and I wish and hope for a way to rectify this problem.

or ANY established history of domestic violence, it's illegal for the person to possess a single round of ammunition, much less a firearm.

The 2nd amendment has never been about giving people power. If you read the Constitution, you'd see that the well-regulated militia was, in their minds, necessary in order to put down insurrections, not enable them.

And Mao wasn't a democrat. He starved an estimated 30 million Chinese in the Great Famine. But keep quoting him in defense of the Constitution. I'm sure that will only add to your credibility

was the entirety of the people able to bear arms. The Founders have expressed themselves in their opinions over and again that the armed populace was to create and inherent limitation on state tyranny.

and not your ordinary run of the mill "militia". And regardless of what individual Framers may have said (after all, they were politicians) the "well-regulated militia" is discussed in several places in the Constitution, and it clearly states that the militia is to be used to put down insurrections, not enable them. It seems odd that the Framers wanted people to have guns so they could revolt, but wrote the Constitution in a way that uses that well-regulated militia to stop insurrections.

Is this well armed, well regulated militia today?

and it's in Iraq.

How is the National Guard, created during the 20th century, the militia spoken of in documents written in the 18th century?

the Militia is everybody, except some elected officials.

"the Militia is everybody" but it's not the National Guard. I guess the National Guard is composed of "nobody"

Too bad the Constitution provides for a "well-regulated militia" and not just any ordinary run of the mill "militia", a point I raised earlier and which you, true to form, ignored due to your inability to refute it.

Would you care to define a "select militia" (which the National Guard is) and just the regular-old-run-of-the-mill "Militia"?

The National Guard isn't the entirety of the militia. And when they're acting as part of the standing army under Federal C&C, they're no longer militia. The National Guard troops in Iraq aren't on "militia duty", they're acting as soldiers of the US government engaged overseas.

and it's references to a well-regulated militia. Furthermore, "well-regulated" and "select" are not mutually exclusive terms. A militia can be both, just one, or none.

The National Guard troops in Iraq aren't on "militia duty",

I see! The "militia is everybody", but the NG is not. I guess the NG is composed of "nobodys"

between the "militia" and the "standing army". In Article 1 Sec. 8, there's a clear differentiation made between them.

Until you indicate the relevance of this difference, I could give a rat's ass about the difference between the "militia" and the "standing army".

If the National Guard is part of the standing army, and the militia is DIFFERENT AND DISTINCT (as Article 1 Section 8 indicates indirectly) from the standing army, then they bloody well can't be considered part of the militia, can they?

Once again, you are ignoring the fact that the Constitution refers to a "well-regulated militia", and not just any militia.

And if the NG is NOT a part of the militia, then you were wrong to say that "the militia is everyone". How do you square your statement that ""the militia is everyone" with your statement that the NG is NOT a part of the milita?

and the Militia is an entirely different beastie. If it was the same, why multiple references to it using different names within the context of Art. 1 Sec 8?

The Standing Army was viewed with a great deal of skepticism, which is why it's budget must be reauthorized every two years. In fact, standing armies were viewed as a direct threat to liberty, while the militia was seen as a counterbalance.

And if you're not "well regulated", you must live in a different country, or else you simply are unaware of the regulations you live under.

You say the militia composed of everybody isn't well regulated. What kind of regulations are we lacking? Hell, in my "militia unit" they go so far as to regulate the colors we can paint our privately owned "barracks". (I consider my "militia unit" to be my local community, and what I'm referring to as my "barracks" you'd call a "house" which is well regulated by things called "zoning laws" passed by the "command structure", also known as City Council.)

That's also the root meaning of 'regular army'.

If you look at all the docs written at the time of the Founding, they were filled with the idea of personal and social defence. The state was not considered to be a synonym for government, but rather the people separate from government. That was a notable departure from British common law, where 'gentlemen' were required by law to arm themselves and be prepared to defend the government.

you'll see that they were referring to a militia that was not only "well-trained" and "capable", but one that was also under the control of the govt, be it either the various State govts, or in times of insurrections and rebellions, the Federal govt.

That's not quite the same thing as an ordinary militia.

And can you give me a pointer?

Still: can you give me a pointer to what you're seeing? Because I'm not seeing it.

and do a search for the militia. You'll see that the 2nd Amendment is not the only place where militias are referenced in the Constitution.

There were 2 levels of militia defined, one--the 'unorganised' militia--being less formal than the other (vaguely comparable to today's 'inactive reserve', only with more expectation of continued competence). Both were 'under the control' of government in the sense that the civil authority could demand service even of the one that was 'jes folks'. The analog was Britain at that same time, where civil authority could demand that all 'gentlemen' turn out with their weapons, a holdover from the knightly obligations in feudal times. In the US, since allegedly everyone was equal (except for women, Black people, indentured White men, redskins, and other low-lifes, of course), 'everyone' had the obligation.

But even a busted clock is right twice a day.

but you must admit he had his shit together regarding insurgency...the only one better was Che.

that he had a great fashion sense.

"I ask who are the militia? They consist of the whole people, except a few public officers." --George Mason

If the Second Amendment wasn't about giving people power (or, specifically, to make sure that the people had access to guns) then what was it about? Giving the Government power?

Mao certainly was a leftist, and he knew more about the application of power in practical terms than most anybody else in the 20th century...

The Breaking News is that George Masons opinions are not decisive in interpreting the Constitution. In addition, as is your extremely unlawyerly habit, you have once again ignored the legal fact that the Constitution refers to a well-regulated militia, and not just any ordinary run of the mill militia. You wouldn't be trying to distract us from the weakness of your "militia" argument by misleading us into thinking the Constitution refers to all militias, and not just well-regulated militias? That would be unethical, wouldn't it?

If the Second Amendment wasn't about giving people power (or, specifically, to make sure that the people had access to guns) then what was it about? Giving the Government power?

Yep. If it was about giving people power, why did they give the Fed govt and the Stae govts the power to order the well-regulated militias to put down rebellions and insurrections?

Mao certainly was a leftist, and he knew more about the application of power in practical terms than most anybody else in the 20th century...

And that probably explains why under Mao, China remained a third-world nation, beset by all the ills of poverty. Next, you'll argue that starving 30million is a sign of Mao's power.

"The Breaking News is that George Masons opinions are not decisive in interpreting the Constitution."

You're right, it's not decisive. But his opinion is much more persuasive than yours.

Have you read the Militia act? And if the Militia isn't well regulated, whose fault is that? Doesn't Congress have the power and obligation to regulate us? And have you taken a good look at the CFR lately? If that's not "well regulated", what is?

"Yep. If it was about giving people power, why did they give the Fed govt and the Stae (sic) govts the power to order the well-regulated militias to put down rebellions and insurrections?"

The Constitution set up very specific limits on the Federal Government, reserving the rest of the power to the states or the people, respectively. I'm sure you remember that part of the Constitution, don't you?

You're right, it's not decisive. But his opinion is much more persuasive than yours.

Which is why I reference SCOTUS decisions, and not sangha's decisions.

Have you read the Militia act? And if the Militia isn't well regulated, whose fault is that? Doesn't Congress have the power and obligation to regulate us? And have you taken a good look at the CFR lately? If that's not "well regulated", what is?

For one, I have no idea what you think the relevance of the Militia Acts is in relation to this issue. Secondly, the Constitution places no "obligation to regulate militias" (of any kind) on Congress. It does give them the power to regulate, but there is no requirement to do so.

And what does CFR stand for? Campaign Finance Reform?


"sangha:Yep. If it was about giving people power, why did they give the Fed govt and the Stae (sic) govts the power to order the well-regulated militias to put down rebellions and insurrections?"

DNR:The Constitution set up very specific limits on the Federal Government, reserving the rest of the power to the states or the people, respectively. I'm sure you remember that part of the Constitution, don't you?

Answer the question. If the 2nd Amendment was about giving people power, why did they give the Fed govt and the State govts the power to order the well-regulated militias to put down rebellions and insurrections?

Pointing out that the Constitution reserves certain powers for the States and/or people does nothing to answer my question. This is just another attempt by you to sidestep inconvenient facts, just as you have never responded to fact that the Consitution speaks about "well-regulated militias" and not just any ordinary run of the mill militia.

I guess I'll just put you on ignore now, you're not worth wasting my time on. Either you don't have the basic knowledge necessary to converse intellegently, or you're lying about not knowing what it means. In both cases, I consider you no longer worthy of my time. Good day.

join me and we shall survive, and make the world a better place

... keeping even a pair of M-16 assault rifles are not going to protect you from all out gov't oppression. Not a chance. Well-regulated militias and individuals simply cannot finance them.

Guns are for protection against a smaller level threat, not the government in this day and age. Besides, all out wars are not the way you control people; you do that through TV, print, and radio. Much cleaner and more effective.

it seems that he is one of the people that SHOULD be running to become President.

after all, I can only use one at a time.

You can "rent" one of mine for a small fee, say, paid in installments of beer.

I am a Democrat and think the 2nd is the most important in these times.

Back in the early days of the 'net, most discussion boards were dominated by libertarian gun loons. Repugs weren't far behind them, and bringing up the rear was the somewhat sane liberal voice which called for reasonable gun control and sensible laws concerning licensing and registration. Guess who won out?

I'm still not a gun loon or someone worried about Bill and Hillary trying to grab my guns. I'm just an average person who worries about the fascist state I see us heading towards.

be you a liberal or a conservative, that the 2nd was put there for a reason. To protect us from ourselves. As a Conservative visitor, I will say I'm suprised to see this attitude as prevalent as it is here at DU, and it's a (sigh) "pleasant" suprise. Bad guys come in many forms, it seems. Many of us at the gun forums think that the Dems will come get the guns when they someday take office again. Many here think the Repubs will come get them at any given time. What the hell, maybe we're all both correct.....

Labels are labels, I guess...some call me "paranoid". I call me "prepared". I look at it this way. Even if I'm wrong, I have lots of cool stuff!!

...just as the Conservative don't have absolutely everything right all the time, neither do we have absolutely everything wrong all the time.

There are going to be some on the board who disagree with the tenor of this thread. Ya know what? They aren't wrong. The issue is way too complex to be a simple "black and white" answer.

With that kind of attitude, I suggest you stick around. You might hear other things that you agree with. You know, we're not going to take your guns away. Like I said, I HATE guns, but I want the option of owning one avilable to me at any time. I'm sure that strikes you as sane, right? We're not "wacko," jame. We just know that there are no absolutes in this world.

no longer apply. All who value liberty face a common threat. The second amendment ultimately means that political power belongs to the people. That said, some people are just to wacked out to be trusted with anything more lethal than a banana. And that said, you might enjoy http://www.gunguys.com/

It's just that. Rosie O'Donnell crusades against "gun nuts" and for gun control while she has her two bodyguards apply for concealed carry permits here in NY. :mad:

No argument there. However I still find it interesting.

It is.

...I am pro gun and always have been.

:) . Being for gun rights is the LIBERAL/PROGRESSIVE position to take, just like for abortion rights and gay rights.

Which is bunk. The aim of liberalism is to maximize life and liberty for the individual, and to expand that to the maximum number of people using cooperative means. This doesn't work in an atmosphere of violence and fear.

Conservatism is about territoriality, heredity and property taking priority over the above. They consider liberty to flow from the practice of these values, so by extension the less restricted the wealthy are, the 'freer' the country is.

Placing safeguards on the excercise of power is necessary at all levels in our society. Getting caught-up in the desire for absolute freedom or restriction one way or the other is setting us up for a pattern of extremism.

.

she was very vocally anti-gun. I think it's fair to say she HATED guns. This was while her bodyguard had a CCW permit and carried a gun to protect her and her family. She's since modified her position.

I understand the argument for the right of people to own guns, but to urge others to get guns? In my case, the thought of me owning a gun is laughable.

There's two things that need to be balanced here. First, I didn't hear the show but it seems like this is about defending ourselves from a fascist takeover.

This threat is balanced against the many unfortunate deadly accidents that happen due to people having guns, tragedies like the one Bob Barr narrowly avoided in his basement, and which claim the lives of less lucky people all the time.

I think the second factor is much more real than the first. I don't think it's really worth it for most people to get guns.

with a gun and a few boxes of ammo?

I'd like to buy a 9mm.

but I'll get another, if nobody tells lies behind my back ever again!!! :grr:

I posted one on gun bargains in the Justice/Safety AKA "Gun Dungeon". I would have a minimum of a reliable military center fire rifle, spare basic parts, slings and ammo pouchs, and at least 500 rounds of ammunition. Next, the most reliable handgun one can afford with at least 200-300 rounds of ammunition.

I AM advising people to buy weapons AND to obtain the necessary safety training. Firearms safety is important and saves lives. Next, train, train, train to use the weapons effectively. Marksmanship is fun and does not have to be expensive.

from all the shows I have heard.

guns that is and I think it is advisable at any time to own one. I've never used one to even kill an animal of any kind.....but if you need it and you don't have one well now that would suck......wouldn't it?

but the only situation I really think I would need it in is if Bush won 2k4 and this country went all out fascist and a civil war broke out... then, say I own a handgun... what side would the national gaurd be on? *shivers*

shivers is right.....the possibilites my mind goes to are not the ones that make for a good night sleep.

if it ever gets to that, you need something better than a handgun. The only good thing about a handgun is it's size making it practical to carry with you. But a person with a handgun faced by a person with a rifle at more than 5 paces is going to be dead.

Believe me, I am afraid for this country and the road it's been taking too. But I'm just trying to imagine in what situation (short of a statistically highly-unlikely robbery) I will need to defend myself and my family with a gun. *shrug*

As an aside, I respect everyone's right to own a gun, I just don't want one in my home. And even if I did own one, I don't think that I'll need to be shooting anyone in defense of myself anytime soon.

by rightwing nut jobs.

Watch the movie Talk Radio sometime it was
based on a true story that happened in Denver
in the eighties.

He has every right to defend himself as much
as we all wish a better world existed where such
worries didn't exist.

But he's urging others to buy a gun as well. Do people really think that the country will erupt into a civil war or something? And as strange as it is that all these formerly inconceivable things have happened in this country, it's just amazingly inconceivable to me in this day and age there will be mass chaos and anarchy run amok which would require dems to carry weapons for protection.

I would prefer to be able to protect myself.

Do I expect that "mass chaos" will break out? No.

I am glad that the 2nd amendment gives me that right.

I do think that if times become more messed up
at the same pace that they have for the last 3 years
anything is possable.

I hope to see a turn around soon.

guns are very handy things to have if you know how to handle them safely.

could be foolishly worked up against you for things that look controversial that you may or may not support but could be identified with. Foolish people physically lash out at things don't understand or can't answer back in a way to that seems reasoned. When people are enraged they mostly don't have much cognitive capacity anyway.

Other than giving a false sense of security, weapons are useless for protecting humans in the long run. The US is the biggest gun toting nation in the world, does that make you feel safe? Fire arms held by normal people are more for intimidation or a crutch than for real self protection.

Would I care if everybody owned a fire arm but me, not in the least? If it makes you feel safe, that's your business.

Personally, I don't "respect everyone's right to own a gun." I find that kind of silly. I''d respect everyone's right to own a toilet or a way to get to work before I'd respect their right to own a gun. I think that's U.S. B.S., but whatever. Guns have never really solved anything, despite the hype. They just add to the mayhem.

Aside: I agree as well. I couldn't use one; crime experts say if you can't and WON'T shoot to kill, a gun will be more than likely be used against you. I couldn't shoot to kill.

If it comes to this point, I'm seeking political refuge in Canada.

I'm primarily a First Amendment absolutist, and, while I'm no firearms fetishist, I've come to recognize that the Second is there for a reason, and I don't buy the bull-hockey rationalizations that many on the left apply to it. There is no ambiguity in the language of the Second Amendment. Of course, I still believe in sane gun control (e.g. if you've proven yourself to be nuttier than squirrel shit, or you have a record of violent crime, you're out of luck).

That being said, can anyone point me in the direction of a reputable firing range in the Southern California area, one that will show me the ropes of safe gun use/ownership? If Ann Coulter or any of her wannabes want to come for me for being a damn treasonous liberal, I want to be able to plant one right between her reptilian eyes, in a safe and responsible manner.

Guns will be useless against any sort of government, and if you think otherwise, you're sorely mistaken.

of course, the Second Amendment fanatics are wrong about it defending the rest of the Bill of Rights; the 4th has pretty much been reduced to asswipe, with no insurection from the gun crowd.

However, I do believe we're heading for a violent, desperate era, with a war between the left and the right. Liberals have been so dehumanized by the right, that I have no doubt many of them would put a bullet in any one of use without a second's thought, much like they'd put a "sick" animal out of its misery. That's what I believe we can defend ourselves against.

Apparently the Hungarians in 1956, the Vietnamese (1941-75), the current Iraqis, or even the American Colonies circa 1776 did not get that memo. You're right, governments are unstoppable and if some sort of open police state asserts itself, we should report to the local mustering point to be shipped off for re-education.

sheesh

Hmmm, let's see, a group of motivated irregulars using scavenged weapons including World War 1 bolt action rifles made an entire half of a country a powderkeg with heavy loss of life on the part of the occupying army.

Let me offer a more recent example. Ireland is roughly the size of Arkansas. Guns are regulated to death because of the Republicans; that is they must be stored outside the home and anyone with the slightest hint of Republican sympathies can not own one. There are about 400 active members and a few more supporters. The entire organization has, according to Jane's Defense Weekly, a couple of thousand small arms (Kalashnikov variants, sporting arms, pistols, etc. supplemented with some heavy and light machine guns). This group with minimal arms has effectively fought the Royal Army to a standstill in the North and despite continued action is still a threat. It takes little in military resources to make an area ungovernable. Look at Somalia; those militias in Mogadishu were LIGHTLY ARMED compared with the number of guns in the USA. Imagine even a fraction of the 70 million plus gunowners acting in a guerilla capacity against targets of opportunity. It would be utter chaos.

with tanks and artillery, and Chinese support.

Or how about that Iraqi army that was oblitered in relative minutes, twice, or Waco, lot of good their guns did eh? How about Ruby Ridge? He had a bunch of guns, but ended up scraping his wife's brains off the wall. Guns sure did a lot for a crowd celebrating a wedding in Afghanistan, surprisingly cluster bombs seemed to edge out the upper hand though.

Open desert= easy targeting. Try those weapons in a semi-wooded area and see how effective they are.

The Viet Cong was effectively supplied by less than 18 tons of munitions per month. Now, given the size of South Vietnam's waterways, you can see why their supply line was never interdicted as the thousands of boats for hire easily supplied them. Same principles here.

unless of course, gun owners here in the states have stockpiles of RPGs and .50 cal machine guns. Besides, most of your examples involve a military fighting civilians (and most of them with covert military backing) a long way from home, in numbers not even remotely close to the true strength of said military.

Our only genuine hope is that our good old boys decide that their leaders are full of shit and turn against them.

Typically, when told to follow orders will do so immediately with remorse as an afterthought. If you are counting on their goodwill if a portion of the country is labeled as "terrorist", then you are making a fatal mistake.

Especially if the potential harm is more probable for the enforcers. I shudder to think of the possibilities of an honest civil war.

When worked into a rage by hate radio.

Think about the past of lynching it was usually
a mob, not the government, that commited that acts
of rightwing terrorism.

someone has common sense.

You all let me know how your rifle stands up to a B2 bomber, tank, apache, guided missle, chemical weapon, or other armored vehicle. If the gov ever did decide to "come for you" these weapons would most certainly be primary. (if things have really gotten that crazy the nuts might even go nuclear on places like CA)

Unless you can buy your self a tank you'll be graveyard dead before you even realized what was coming.

Fortunately this is so unlikely you need never worry about it... at least not for a long time.

Remember Mogadishu? Armored Blackhawk helicopters taken with small arms. Ditto in Iraq and Vietnam. Tanks? Vulnerable as HELL in urban areas. Collapse a wall on one and see how effective it is or even better, lure one on top of a timed or pressure triggered charge. B1 bombers? On take off and final approach as vulnerable as an infant in a crib and more so on the ground. How much value are those B1 bombers in Iraq now with widespread attacks performed with extremely low tech weapons? I prefer to be a pragmatic optimist rather than a defeatist.

The government would not be able to bring the full might of the US military against it's own people without seeing massive defections form its' volunteer forces. Many of the defectors would bring they heavy-duty toys with them. And as pointed out in a post above, if only 5% of gun owners were resolved to violent confrontation that would be a force of nearly 4 million. That’s quite a bit larger than any military force on the planet.

Jay

And after you've had your orafices searched and plugged, any hint of offbeat opionins or activities you held would be blown up into a scary profile of terrorist sympathies and rage, and then you would be a non-person/scary-thing to America.

Lockheed would be thrilled at the chance to triple the nation's prison capacity. They've already helped swallow about 1/3 of the black male population, beginning with Black Panthers (who were about arming blacks more than anything)... all the gov't had to do was lie and make up phony coloring books that said "kill whitey". This time around, they would build them specifically for "the ideologies of terrorism" and you (and bystanders you pull into your wake) would spend most of your days as non-persons with a black kevlar bag over your head.

what in the hell are you talking about?

Soldiers are human beings like anybody else. Put a .308 round through their skull, and they'll do a hell of a lot more than "bruise"...and "NO!", a PASGT will NOT stop a .308 round...

...and no d.u. bullets. How about them odds?


Do you remember MOVE in Philadelphia?

No?

Neither does anyone else.

along with other odds and ends (water filtration device, gas mask, LBE stuff, sleeping bag, food, etc) and a rifle in a caliber proven to be effective in Iraq and several thousand rounds of FMJ ammunition for it. And in case you didn't realize this, NOBODY uses DU rifle rounds. DU is exclusively used in large caliber weapons like the main guns on tanks and the Navy's CIWS (pronounced "Sea-whiz"

I remember MOVE in Philly....and I remember the 80+ OTHER residences that were destroyed during that incident. They operated in a stupid manner, trying to fortify a fixed position with railroad ties, which are made of wood soaked with creosote, which are quite flammable.

But otherwise, sounds like instant freedom to me.

</sarcasm>

I do have to wonder: Is this about YOU, or a greater cause?

One armed person confronting the government will be cut out from the herd and culled. It's a lot harder to cut out and cull 4 or 5 million armed people confronting the government.

I was referring to mass insurrection rather than low intensity police operations (hence the discussion of heavy weaponry). If things just kinda festered with a couple of incidents here and a few stand offs there then you could be quite right.

Jay

Marine, Coast Guard, and Navy personnel were given a survey in 1994-95 asking if they would fire on Americans who refused to turn in their weapons. The soldiers were disgusted, which is good. The problem is the overzealous "us VS. them" mentality of some segments of Federal law enforcement. This attitude caused Waco and Ruby Ridge and all the other raids where innocents were killed in the War on Drugs.

It is simply bullshit.

handguns and rifles are of limited utility against supersonic bombers dropping chemical or nuclear bombs. Of course, in a civil war kind of situation, where the fighters are "swimming in a sea of peasants", it's kind of hard for the nuclear bomb to take out the fighter without taking out the peasants. History has shown that kind of action turns the surviving peasants into fighters, exacerbating the Government's problems.

One other point: rifles don't generally do much damage to armored vehicles. But they can be really tough on armored vehicle crews when they get out of their vehicles to take a leak or get some sleep or whatever.

It's like the old "Liberator" pistol of WWII fame. It was an absolute piece of crap dropped in huge numbers to partisans in occupied Europe. It was "the perfect gun to get another gun with" by sneaking up on the german with a real gun and shooting him from behind. Not sporting, certainly, but quite effective.

You may be very right (having been a groundpounder), but the presence of 120,000+ troops isn't stopping what's going on in Iraq. How many dead per day?

I wouldn't want to test the threat of revolt/martial law/fighting on who would come up as a winner. Either way it would hurt the U.S. badly.

Iraq, Vietnam, Mogadishu, all of these were full scale military operations, where an entire country was deemed open ground however civilians were off-limits until they proved themselves to be otherwise.

Now, in a more realistic scenario, where the gov't decides who is and who isn't making too much noise, a handgun or rifle isn't going to accomplish much at all. I see that militaries during occupations do have members picked off, but anything successful was accomplished with more than just a few good men armed with a handful of rifles.

If the Gov't decides to go after individuals, those individuals have little left to do but count the time. And before anyone throws the Eric Rudolf name out, he didn't even use a gun to hide.

by somewhere in the neighborhood of 40%. One percent would be too high for me.

Sorry, not a risk I'm taking with my kids' lives.

Do you have some sort of source for this assertion.

I think anyone who is uncomfortable with guns should
not have one. I feel that same way about anti-abortion
people. You don't like them don't get one.

I have owned several guns, but not one since I have been married w/children. Every once in a while, I think of getting one for protection, but children can find and get into ANYTHING. Besides with one gun in circulation for every man, woman and child in America, I'm sure one won't be too hard to find if needed.

Jay

I keep my guns in a real gun safe when there are kids around. It would be a very extraordinary child indeed that could get a gun out of it. Without the combination, I couldn't get into it, even with plenty of time and tools.

Yeah, it was expensive, but safety first.

simply hiding them. But I'm sure that given enough time for observation they could find a way. Also, for me anyway, the potential for human error is far to great.

Jay

she's extremely observant, and she still hasn't figured out how to open the safe. It's tricky, and I routinely mess it up WITH the combination. It has both a combination and a key lock on it. The kids might find the key, but that'll still face them with the insurmountable task of trying to open a REAL combination lock (not the "set it to a 4 digit number" kind). The way it's set up, even if a kid was standing directly under the lock while I was opening it, the kid still wouldn't be able to see the combination.

I'll have to go check them out. You make a compelling case.(No pun intended.)

Jay

even if you don't own guns. You can lock all kinds of stuff up in them when you leave the house...valuable jewelry, important papers, whatever.

My safe contains much more than just guns.

He and a friend figured out how to open it, and the friend shot him. Mayne an accident, maybe not. Hard to say with fifteen year olds.

I've heard of toddlers figuring out trigger locks. You're running a risk, no matter how safe you think you are being, and locking something in a cabinet only makes it more cool to kids, and makes them want to explore it even more.

We're talking a gun safe, not a cabinet. Gun safes are generally dedicated metal safes with complex locking systems that are truly armored against break in. Mine weighs almost a ton, is fire-rated, and will literally stop a bullet fired at it, even a large caliber rifle round. To get at the locking mechanism of mine, you'd have to punch through almost an inch of hardened steel. (of course, my safe is the best there is, a custom job, fully tricked out to the point that it has an additional active fire-suppression system built into it)

Breaking into a gun safe is an entirely different matter than breaking into a gun cabinet. I've seen safes that have been attacked by real criminals with power tools. The good safes will withstand it. A 15 year old kid without power tools has as much chance of breaking into my gun safe as you have of flying to the moon by bending over, placing your head between your legs, and spitting for propulsion. Now leaving the safe unlocked, well, that's another matter.

Of course, since truly suicidal people do dispatch themselves regularly with guns since they're the most effective and quickest method available, I'd expect that to be skewed.

Gun ownership doesn't CAUSE suicidal behavior, but suicidal behavior can cause gun ownership (it's certainly not the only cause though). And suicide is the primary consideration in the 43X statistic that you're alluding to.

It's interesting that the very anti-gun person who produced the study giving us the 43X statistic has publicly stated that if his wife was attacked, he'd want her to have a gun.

but I suspect it's because I have a small penis. Maybe I could compensate with a 9mm.

I think those who insist on linking gun ownership to penis size are just like kids who make fun of someone who has something they wish they could steal.

If you don't want to own a gun, don't. Don't think that means you can take them away from other people who do wish to be able to protect themselves.

Go ahead, lap-up all the encouragement you can get for owning guns from conservatives. But I'll warn you all that if it comes to blows THEY know which side has the real firepower and their military friends will have no qualms about turning you into "pink mist" as effectively as the Iraqi Army was, or into a permanently disappeared 'combatant'.

Handguns and rifles are nothing these days compared to military arms, and conservatives would just love to see violence erupt-- the more violence there is, the more things break their way. That is why conservative administrations shower arms on dissident groups abroad (the country then become authoritarian and their resources are available for minimal bribery).

Further, they own the media. Any pattern of squabbles or misunderstandings that involve gun violence will be cast as leftist terrorism. At some point, it won't matter who shot who... the incidents will all become the fault of the Left (as in Isreal, the government will merely "retaliate").

The Russians overcame their opressive government in a peaceful manner, by being persuasive when there was a chance to speak, and otherwise using all new/alternative information information mediums to rally around; this was called 'samizdat' and photocopiers were the technology back then. If the people become sensitized to the lies and begin to admire a better example (Canada? EU?) then they will be supportive when someone comes along who is influential enough or in a position to betray the bastards.

"The Russians overcame their opressive government in a peaceful manner, by being persuasive when there was a chance to speak"

And how many died in the camps before that happened?

"Handguns and rifles are nothing these days compared to military arms,"

That's interesting, considering that the military issues handguns and rilfes to the troops....I guess THEY still see some military utility in handguns and rifles...

WMD, biological, or extreme natural disater will set off civil unrest in short order. It doesn't have to be the rethugs or gubmint that starts it.

Let's say you're right (I don't think you are, but for the sake of argument, let's say you are). Do guns have no use whatsoever then? Of course they do. If it ever comes down to some kind of civil war, and the Right has all the guns and we have none, what would be the expected outcome?

If there was a lynch mob coming for you, would you rather have a gun or not? If you're unarmed and they catch you, you're dead. If you're armed and they catch you, at least you wouldn't die alone, and those dead people would never lynch somebody else.

In the inner cities, where there are lots of guns, as soon as one person kills a gang member, no other gang member ever dies. That's why we've eliminated gang violence. Guns are the solution to all our problems! (Sarcasm intended.)

that if there was a lynch mob coming for you, you'd rather be unarmed?

I've never said guns were the solution to all our problems...but they can be our absolute last-ditch line of defense.

of a lot of lynch mobs where people have obsessions with guns. I'm saying it's complete idiocy to think that guns solve any real problem. I'm saying very weak men tend to have a particular obsession with guns. If there's anything you don't understand, though, I'd be happy to clarify.

Tell us...if Matthew Sheppard had been in possession of a concealed handgun the night he was murdered, what kind of odds would you put on his being alive now?

http://www.pinkpistols.org

all of the soldiers in Iraq are "in possession of guns," and they's still dyin'! Oh, Doy! Have to rethink the whole gun solves every problem bit!!!

I guess the "people can't stand up to the army with guns" argument goes out the window with that....

If Matthew Shephard had a gun, as his attackers did, then he could have shot them as they were killing him, and then there'd be even more dead, which would be a net gain. Because the U.S. soldiers have guns and are being killed by Iraqis with guns, that proves that everybody should be armed to avoid being killed, even though there are a whole lot of people with guns being killed on both sides. It makes absolute sense! (That is if you live in the universe of the absurd and ludicrous!)

And your position is that if a police state were imposed we should join hands and walk to our deaths in the spirit of non-violent brotherhood?

Didn't that turn out well! Or perhaps it would become more like Jews and Palstinians. No thanks.

And who is 'we'?

You realize they would carve the left up into seperate causes that fear (and fight) each other, one by one. That's why they lie about who started the violence when you shoot back at authorities, and you will be described in terms that no one else on the left (or yourselves) would even identify with.

and the "sheeple" don't care, I guess we should just relax and enjoy the all expense paid vacation at Club Fed.

I know what happens when people don't resist. Remember the Social Democrats in Germany in 1932? What happened to them?

I'd rather skip the ride to the camp, thank you very much.

I understood that he was bludgeoned and left to freeze to death, not shot.

A victim armed with a gun againt an attacker without a gun generally doesn't get victimized...

We would probably know him as a 'sexual predator' who decided to shoot his 'prey' when things got out of hand. He would be a potential victim, know to the world as a sexual predator; It would be wrong, but I think realistic.

And anti-gay violence would not register nearly as much with the public as it does now.

Hate-crimes legislation would be on the decline, instead of the progress we're making today.

Is getting bashed so abhorrent to you that you'd prefer to be shot by someone you know by accident or in a moment of rage? It a raw way to put it, but its a larger factor in human nature than strangers going after you on the street.

Conservatives simply will NOT respect you just for being armed. It will, instead be the shining moment they've been waiting for... another "War On <fill-in-blank>". Back when it was communism, the Black Panthers started a movement to arm black men so they could shoot back. Coming out the other side of that movement we are just starting to leave behind a horrendous pattern of domestic homicide. The more you cling to your firearm as an "equalizer", the more you will transfer your hatred of violent bigots onto yourself and you will not be able to help it.

was a GOOD thing?!??!? :WTF: :WTF: :WTF: I don't intend to end up a martyr to ANY cause.

"Is getting bashed so abhorrent to you that you'd prefer to be shot by someone you know by accident or in a moment of rage?"

Apples and oranges. You should have said "Is getting bashed so abhorrent that you could actually shoot your basher?" to which my reply would be "Hell, YES!"

I don't expect conservatives to respect me. I expect conservatives to leave me the fuck alone, just as I leave them the fuck alone. And if a conservative or five comes up to me looking to do me serious physical harm or take my life, I expect THEM, not me, to die.

And that was not to walk thorugh this life afraid and constantly armed.

Anyway, a potential attacker is not a basher until they bash you, and then it is probably too late. In Matthew's case, those guys were his 'friends' right up until the time they attacked him. Where is the opportunity to pull out a gun and say 'leave'? Not much there. A trap is a trap is a trap! Had he pulled a on them when they said something offensive, he would have been arrested as someone who tried to sexually prey on two straight men at gunpoint.

What's more, if the 'ethic' of carrying firearms was pervasive, then Matt would have been out-gunned.

If you're walking down the street and someone follows you shouting epithets, then a gun could be effective. But in any case your biggest worry is getting shot by your own family.

You shouldn't pull a gun and say "leave". Your gun should never come out unless you need to use it right then and there.

The appropriate time to defend yourself is when your attacker has made it plain to you that he or she intends to harm you. As the saying goes: "It's better to be tried by 12 than carried by 6."

Well that's great advice.
:eyes:

they don't have to say "I'm gonna hurt you, Boy..." for them to communicate ill intent to you...

.

if they had guns or not, wouldn't it?

Would you rather face 2 armed attackers with or without a gun? Without a gun, you're completely at their mercy. With a gun, at least you have SOME chance.

You really need to change your Avatar. It doesn't fit your espoused philosophy.

I'm not a "go out and kill everybody" kind of person, and have never espoused anything like that. I abhor violence, but realize that it happens, is sometimes necessary, and accept that.

While Buddhism is a peaceful religion, it recognizes reality. I see no contradiction with military and police people being Buddhists, even theough their business may be killing, do you? If you do, I think maybe you need to do some more reading on Buddhism...

This is no more constructive than Fred Phelps' rhetoric. Please, please don't invoke hihis name for political gain.

"those that fail to remember history are doomed to repeat it."

Hmmmm!!!

No savy revolutionary takes the go-it-alone approach to self preservation in order to further a greater cause. Its like putting a fire out with gasloine. The mobs angry shouts will be forgotten or buried; the only real event will be the weapon discharge.

Choose your priority: Liberalism/Civil Society, or self-preservation.

If it comes to blows, make sure you are defensive/not firing, and appeal to another, civilized government to intervene whenever possible.

As for the person who imagined the military would use guns, I think you are mistaken. The response would be bi-polar: Either nets and foam and gas to incapacitate and mute you, or cluster bombs and fully-automatic weapons with depleted uranium bullets deployed from the air.

They will leave the cute little guns for the police, and it may not take the military long to sweep them aside.

given out to troops by the US Military? It's a RIFLE.

Nets and foam and gas are a piss-poor plan when faced with people shooting guns at you. And cluster bombs cause a LOT of "collateral damage".

Regarding fully automatic weapons: Well, I've got some of those, too. They're even legal.

and as you've proven, not a single soldier issued a rifle has died in Iraq because they are so well prepared!

You said: "If it comes to blows, make sure you are defensive/not firing, and appeal to another, civilized government to intervene whenever possible."

Isn't that an awfully lot like saying "if rape is inevitable, you might as well lie back and enjoy it..."

What a reprehensible sentiment. :puke:

it's so much more noble to die like an idiot clutching your useless gun!

As a revolutionary cell, no one outside your little group would have a clue that the LIES about you aren't true.

It was difficult enough to discern what started th violence at some demonstrations in Venezuela... and they have both a commercial and state-run media. There is only one side to mass-media in the US. That's why most of the Left disowned violent groups in the 60s and 70s, because even when they knew the authorities were lying, it wasn't a priority for the press to correct public perception. Even groups that were merely pushing firearms for self-defense (along with Leftist ideology) were hunted down and turned into fodder for propaganda.

That is the game that violence buys you. The balance of power and public perception would be against you, and if you ever did win by force then the dynamics of the new regime would likely be obsessed with power as well.

What you have on your side is the letter of the law and the truth. You need to hit them with it from an unexpected direction.

Unfortunately, that's hard to do when you're locked in a cell in Gitmo with a burlap sack over your head...

Find your own, OK?

:evilgrin:

:grouphug:

number of reasons for our allies to intervene; not the least of which is the sheer wealth of the USA in comparison to many nations.

.

By 2010, gun control will no longer be a left-right issue. Instead, it will be a libertarian-totalitarian issue

I think it'll still be the Neanderthal (pro-gun) versus civilized (anti-gun) issue that it is today. But what do I know? I mean, the fact that every civilized country has moved away from gun ownership and that every country in chaos has massive gun ownership, what does that prove? So, civilization is against us? Has that ever stopped us in this country? Not by a long shot! We'll destroy civilization at every inroad!

"I think it'll still be the Neanderthal (pro-gun) versus civilized (anti-gun) issue that it is today. But what do I know? I mean, the fact that every civilized country has moved away from gun ownership and that every country in chaos has massive gun ownership, what does that prove?"

Yes, the "civilized" countries have developed massive air forces and mechanized professional infantry to enforce their dictates across the world. The citizens of these countries sit back and watch our armies duke it out with the "savages" on the streets of fallujah.

But then again we dont really DEMAND change in this country very often, do we?

Somtimes we gather in the streets and march. We shout slogans that hopefully rhyme. The more dedicated of us occasionly lie down in the street or get arrested. The change . . . well, its hard to gauge the real substantial change that this has caused.

But what if it was'nt just a rally? What if we were serious? Imagine if instead, it was a massive general strike that shut down entire regions of the country and paralyzed the system?

What has been the governments response to damaging strikes throughout american history?

They send in the national guard or the army with rifles, clubs, and machine guns!!!!

After attempts to peacfully subvert an uprising fail, they send in the troops. Always. And when they do, if the rebels are armed and trained, the troops not only have to deal with attacking their own countrymen(assuming they dont hire foriegn mercs) but they are also afraid of being shot by one.

That is the logic of deterrence and it is set in motion when one side commits to violence. This is the way we will be driven out of iraq, sit and watch.

I think all progressives who can handle it should arm themselves and form local gun clubs for training and support. Thats the one thing the right-wingers wont mess around with, your 2nd amendment rights.

So all the victims of state sponsored terror at least dies knowing they were civilized? I guess that was a comfort to them, rather than having effective weapons to fight back and possibly live another day.

It's good to know the Swiss are uncivilized....You had me worried there for a second...

Our Constitution guarentees our right to be as heavily armed as the government soldiers. Let's not let our rights slip away from us. Although I am pretty much anti-Dean, I give him mucho credit for being 100% solid American on gun control. These right-wing nutjobs constantly threaten us with violence, it's oulr own fault if we don't protect ourselves.

The fact that Dean supports our right to keep and bear arms is the only issue I can fully agree with him on, keep this up and who knows maybe even I can stand to vote for him.

Kucinich/Dean 2004!

and not need it, then to need it and not have it.

Dave

Marched with Mike and Kathy in Washington last October. was a frequent caller to his show before he went to the 9:00 slot (gotta get up really early so only catch the reruns now) x(

BUT....

completely irresponsible statement IMHO.

i HATE guns (this coming from a 'decorated' shot in the military with an M16)

i won't EVER have one in my house PERIOD. it is my RIGHT to abolish firearms on MY property.

i know Mike has them because years ago his life was threatened. its his choice. but frankly, to call on his listeners to arm themselves for a coming apocolypse is frankly, Al Martin type bullshit IMHO.

sorry

I agree. It was irresponsible. Better to stock up on toilet paper if someone is really worried about anarchy. You will be glad you did.

Don

I'll respect your right not to have a gun, if you'll respect my right to have a gun. Fair enough?

n/t

My house is a house of peace.

People feel safer commuting in an SUV, but they make traveling more dangerous for everyone.

What we're seeing is a manifestation of extreme personal fear; The same ol freeper style "me and my family vs THEM". An unconscious social-darwinist worship of power underlies it.

The founding fathers detested rule/taxation without representation; they saw the need to arm against long-distance "landlords", and they were right.. we needed a militia against invaders well into the 1800s.

What now? The Russians foud a way.

That the country would devolve into chaos, or that your child, or neighbors child will discover that gun and do a little play acting with it? I live in a state where guns are common (people carry in their purses and glove boxes) and it is a real worry with a 4 year old grandchild, that she will be in a place where a loaded gun is not protected securely. A high percentage of people keep their guns loaded and easily accessible so that they will have them when needed. I hope that if any children (including adolescents, maybe especially adolescents, given suicide rates) are EVER in your house, that you will keep those guns locked up, unloaded, with the ammo stored elsewhere.

People always seem to focus on the more unlikely tragic events, rather than on the real ones that happen every day.

sorry if it is posted already, but I wasn't going to read all of the posts.

thanks

i mean, knowing how to use a gun is very handy just in case. but really, do you people think its time to start some sort of armed revolt? he is starting to sound more and more like a freak!

If the revolution comes I'll just be taking photos.

:)

Someone's gotta document it.

Gee, there's a swell idea...let's boost the profits of the GOP's loudest and most extreme special interst group, so they'll have more money to spend on shit like this...

"Last week I received a call from the NRA. The woman on the phone breathlessly foretold of Hillary Clinton's impending takeover of the White House. Concerned, I asked if Hillary had gathered troops for an armed insurrection. She replied, no, she is planning on running for president. That's not quite the same as a takeover, I said. Becoming president requires convincing the majority of voters to select you intentionally. That's a bit different than a "takeover." That's a bit more like, say, the democratic process. I know they were promoting anti-Hillary hysteria for fund raising purposes. But I am sick of these people, and these tactics. And I worry about all those folks who reached for their guns and checkbooks when they received this same call."

http://www.mediawhoresonline.com/

that if there was a civil war here, the liberals would lose because so few of them own guns.
When I heard Malloy last night, it freaked me out.
Shit.

from the British. That's why the Russians are still communists. :eyes:

http://www.tanksrifleshop.com/m14.htm

I love this rifle, it feels good, fires straight, and damn dependable.

I may buy some more ammo.

But I doubt I will ever need to use it in any uprising from political reasons. But you never know when there might be some natural disaster from a biological virus that may disrupt the entire world. Asteroids?Andromida strain? 28 days later......

All are far more likely than Mike Maloys theory, I like Maloy, but he does go off the deep end sometimes.

I hear that M16 will jam on ya at the worst possible time.

I know the stats, I know the dangers. But at a crucial moment in your life, if you think the cops are going to protect you, you are sadly deluded, or perhaps insane.
Someone breaks into my house while I'm home, they're dead. End of story. I had a roommate attacked in our house a few years ago by
an intruder about 10 minutes after I left to go out.
My roommate managed to shove him out of our second story window,
god bless'em.
But I think guns should be licensed and regulated; and for some reason, this makes the gun nuts lose thier minds.

the right to bear arms.

If I were American I doubt I'd own one myself - not yet, anyway; too much fear of an accident with small children in the house - but that would be my choice. My hope, however - and what a sad hope it is - is that the American left, and all Americans who love liberty, will not be defenseless should the day come when an illegitimate tyranny demands a different order of resistance.

Bruce Cockburn broke with the left in Canada by opposing our national gun registry. He spoke of his natural mistrust of government, and unease about a disarmed populace. I agree with him now.

If I had a rocket launcher...

You'd better!

You can't have it both ways.

at an Atlanta gathering. I asked him about the whole "armed liberals" thing the last time we got together at Manuel's, but I forget how the discussion went.

I've been very tempted at times in the recent past. I've used guns and I'm not afraid of them. Still, I don't see much need in my own life (I know Mike does in his and I can't say that I much blame him) and I can see how having a gun might well change my outlook in ways I don't like. Never say never, but probably not, especially with us trying to start a family.

Currently with a HK 9mm and a couple of hunting rifles. My godfather (a cop) is currently holding on to my .38 S&W snub and .25 Lorcin in his safe. May ask him to bring up the revolver next time he's up north.

Have you checked into the Russian Saigas? They come in .308 now and are easily scoped.

Technology today doesnt allow Dave Smith from Ithica to defend his property against the organized power of govt. The only way to change society is culturally. After all, look what a population having access to firearms in Iraq did for them against Saddam.

Also, the NRA doesnt sue the govt based on the 2nd ammendment, but the 10th because the "right to bear arms" has been established through the judicial branch for nearly 100 years as pertaining to the National Guard.

If the government starts to move against its people, I believe that extant militia groups everywhere will mobilize. I believe that strict contitutionalists on the right will not succumb to fearmongering meant to turn Americans against Americans. Their fear of the state is so huge that they can't be manipulated to join a force that intends to set aside the provisions of the Bill of Rights.

Of course, the government could try a gun grab.

But this would bring the wrath of tens of millions to a red-hot boil. There WOULD be a revolution, and it wouldn't be leftists leading it.

Thats why I don't like them.

I gotta start listening to Malloy all the time because I think he and I are kindred spirits, too. I AM getting a gun, and I am also anti-gun. I doubt I'll use it right away, but this way I won't go down alone. And yeah, sometimes that's the way I think, we're going down so will I go down fighting or surrendering. I'm going down with honor.

*on edit* Sorry to Dennis and other Kucicinich supporters. My grandparents fought and survived. That's how I see it. My turn to fight for the country, for my kids and my grandkids. I don't want to pick up a gun, but Bushco scares me a whole lot more than a clump of metal.

you learn how to use it first.

The biggest danger from firearms comes from when people who are ignorant about their operation mess with them. This isn't a flame, I'm just saying if you don't know a lot about guns, learn before you buy one. The life you save....

I grew up on a farm and we had guns, I started shooting when I was about six. I am a damn good shot.

I am a pacifist. I do not plan on shooting anyone ever.

But if someone comes after me or my family I will use whatever means I have to defend myself - including a weapon.

Mike needs for his freeper and other opponents, the nut-jobs, to know he has a weapon.

Nut-job freepers are usually cowards and so: saying you have a gun actually protects you: no gun needed.

I once stopped a mugging (during the NYC blackout in 1977) by hollering at a guy beating an old woman over the head with a miller bottle by running off of my stoop at him yelling, "Motherfucker I've got a gun". I actually only had a joint in my fingers at the time - but he ran off anyway and the li'l ol' lady was kinda alright.

I do NOT think though, that Mike Malloy should be stirring up a gun rush by liberals and progressives.

I understand his point, but I do NOT fully agree with him.

Guns will do nothing in my opinion but cause further misery.

If Bushco wants you or Mike or me dead we will probably be dead (although I think the spooks who carry out such wetwork are getting cold feet working for the Bush-Rove crew cause they eat their own just as Hitler did)

However, If you are high profile (as Mike is and I am becoming) then it might be wise to have a weapon for self defense.

I wish Jim Hatfield had been carrying an ankle holster the day he was suicided for writing that Osama was going to fly exploding jets into US targets (Online Journal - July 2001)

Those who are potential targets of right wing terror may need guns. The ordinary vocal protester does not unless they have info that someone wants STOPPED or are engaged in serious activities and have received threats .

Using a weapon or even having one will not protect you in a military crackdown (except maybe in isolated incidents). The military and police will do their jobs (as they should) to try and protect us and if we get out of line in a paranoid freak then having a gun will just get you killed.


I UNDERSTAND the second amendment and the right to collective protection and individual protection (and the right to hunt to eat).

But Malloy urging regular liberals to get a gun is very disturbing to me.

I have been in this thing a LOOOOONNNNGGG time. I have endured many many threats.


The best defense we have is our wits and a mobilization politically to get the votes out - to tell people the truth and to prevent by all legal and satyagraha means any further election thefts or coups d'etat.

Satyagraha means exposing the evil by NOT resorting to it.

DON'T buy a gun unless YOU are personally in danger from a specific source. And even then use everything in your power to avoid getting one. But especially if you have kids around this is a very bad idea.

See Bowling for Columbine? Are we to become a nation of fearful right and left wing gun nuts? Is this culture of fear going to consume US???

This war will not be won with guns. It will be won with wisdom.

Maybe some Satyagraha.

But we must be at peace and in tune with the love in the universe if we are to help love overcome hate and goodness and kindness overcome greed and evil.

Be at Peace. Even if they kill you - know that you did not become like them. And be at Peace.

Shalom and Salaam to all.

Idealism without a degree of self-protective force comes of nothing. It is asking to be victimized. I am not trying to flame you, but I simply can not relate to that worldview.

even myself to be harmed by a wingnut.

I would use deadly force if necessary and justified.

But I would NOT advocate an aggressive and offensive stance in terms of means to an end.

I also would not encourage the idea that guns will protect us from Bush and the freepers. They won't.

Our intelligence will.

Guns will put MOST of us at greater risk under these circumstances.

Malloy is in many ways just as obnoxious as Rush. He doesn't need to incite people. Guns won't solve our problems. He is WRONG.

I will not comment on whether or not I own a gun.

I do think when they start rounding us up and putting large numbers of us into camps, then getting ourselves shot immediately sounds less attractive than fleeing to another nation, and in the nature of things, it seems highly unlikely that you will be able to take your gun with you.


mexico doesn't want your guns

Bush seems to be following the Nazi playbook.

Lots of Jews tried to flee Germany. Some made it (mostly the famous or high profile, but not all of them, by any means), most were turned back because other countries refused to admit them.

Given a choice of being put in a camp or fleeing, I'd flee. However we must realize that fleeing may very well not be an option, if history is our guide. Given a choice of going to a camp or fighting, I'd rather fight. Once you're in a camp, it's too late to do anything, they have you at their total mercy, and you're going to eventually end up dead. True, resistance may still be possible (remember the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising?) but it's certainly not effective. If the modern-day brownshirts come, I figure I'm dead regardless of what I do, so I might as well try to take some of them with me, to make it as difficult as possible for them.

You have to ask yourself this....If they decide to kill you, will you go along with it, or will you resist?

... up until a few years ago. I like Mike Malloy, but I didn't need him to tell me to get a gun. I got several and I'll be getting more.

Not neccessarily planning for the "revolution" so much as the total breakdown of our country. Most people think that could not happen, but I see it coming from at least 3 different directions.

Oh, and BTW, get lots of ammo, guns are useless without it. :)

I mean - who is the threat from?

Poor people?

Cops?

Freepers>

Posse Comitatus?


Look Malloy has enemies (so do I) and he probably needs to take an aggressive stance for protection. (I do too)

But us ordinary people should have more intelligent ways to protect ourselves from all sorts of dangers rather than falling into that panicky "I need a gun or America will eat me up" syndrome that is driven into us by the media as Michael Moore points out.

It is a bit hysterical.

That said. There are MANY circumstances where I can see that having a gun MIGHT provide decent secutiry where someone is indeed in a dangerous situation. I am not posditive it works or that the fears are justified.

As this site seems to be getting overrun with NRA Clark Dumbuplicans and trolls, though, I am not surpirsed there is a throng saying:

"Johnny Get Your Gun!"

It looks like a republitrend

Posse Comitatus, Latin for "power or force of the county", is not a group anymore than G.W. is a true conservative.

As unwilling as the rightards are to admit it, Clinton/Reno was NOWHERE NEAR as a threat to the right to keep and bear arms as the facists as the BFEE are. It started with "Free Speech Zones" because pussy-boy can't stand to be critisized. Now it is the Ashcroft SS taking liberties trashing the 4th Amendment, and making use of databases of gun owners-thereby trashing the Second.

So who am I going to shoot? Anyone who wants my guns, that's who. They are welcome to take them at their own peril. These are the same pigs who want me to shutup about the neo-cons. These are the people who want to label me as a "terraist sympathizer" simply becasue I am a true American practicing my rights under the Constitution.

People will continue to challenge my train of thought, I'm sure. I only hope that these people will be able to practice their convictions and remain true believers to it even after their own front doors sail past their heads.

When people fear the government, Tyranny prevails.

When government fears the people, Liberty prevails.

The revolution will be very bloody; hopefully the cleansing will be beneficial.

Many will not take this lying down!

"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." - Thomas Jefferson

Some calibers of rifles, like a .308, I believe, can be easily adapted to fire relatively inexpensive military surplus ammunition.

Reloading equipment and supplies are critical also. Firearms are useless without ammunition.

Of course, I am not advocating violent revolution. Um, with the prospect of an ever declining economy, it may become necessary for people to hunt for their food.:)

a .308 rifle will shoot 7.62x51 (7.62 NATO) right out of the box. They're made to identical specs and are completely interchangeable.

A person buying a rifle would do well to stick with one of three calibers. These are .223 (5.56 NATO), 7.62x39mm, and .308 (7.62 NATO). .223 and .308 are the calibers used by the US Government so supply is virtually guaranteed, and 7.62x39 is what the AK uses. 7.62x39 ammo is very very very very cheap right now (I just bought some at $65/thousand at an evil gun show) so you can pick up a few thousand rounds and just stash it away. Put it in USGI ammo cans (available for $3-5 at any surplus store), store it sensibly (not under water or in direct sunlight) and it'll be good for 50 years.

Personal suggestion: You should have a MINIMUM of 5,000 rounds per gun, along with AT LEAST 10 magazines per gun, more if your budget allows it. A gun without ammo is a club, and the best semi-auto without a functioning magazine is a single-shot, and magazines do break easily under hard use.

If you're going to buy one gun, buy a rifle or a shotgun (the best is a high-capacity semi-auto rifle like an AK clone or a FAL or an AR-15, in that order). Handguns are useful in very limited circumstances, but otherwise are only good because they're so small. At longer ranges, handguns are useless for most of us except to draw fire.

"It is to secure our rights that we resort to government at all."

From what I can see, their isin't even a government; the WH is currently occupied by a bunch of terrorists...the only difference being that they are white and call themselves "Christians"

You'll be better of buying ammo for the .308 and .223 at a gun show; there's actually people around here that do all their shopping at Wal-Mart. Bad idea. TheWal-Mart cretins run everything about you over the net, from your name down to the name of your dog. Not only that, they carry some really shitty buckshot. Iv'e seen good stuff much cheaper from your mom-n-pop storefronts in small towns. Places like Bloomer and Chippewa Falls have the Coast-to-Coast hardware stores that also sell ammunition.

Solinvictus asked me if I had seen the Saigas. I've only heard some verbiage over it. There's supposed to be a gun show in Oneida Co. this november. Maybe I'll see one. Funds (lack thereof) demand that I cool off from buying, though.

Some suggested targets:

If the Klan comes around and starts buring a cross on your front yard in preparation of lynching you: they're fair game.

If Young Republicans around you took notice of your "Gore-Lieberman" lawn sign back in 2000, and have decided that they want to burn you out of the neighborhood like they did with the crackhouses, and you catch them on your property with 5 gallon cans of gasoline: they're fair game.

If the Dept. of Homeland Security decides that they're going to round up all Leftists and Athiests and Muslims and Buddhists and everybody else who doesn't fit into their far right-wing utopia: Well, make a decision on how you want to die...on your feet or on your knees, the choice is up to you.

...from societal deviants. Now we have to consider the prospect because of our own (quickly turning totalitarian) govt? Wow, do I miss the 70's!!!!

P.S. I'm not a gun fan at all, but I'm considering gun ownership for the first time in my life (much to the joy of my bloodsporter-brother).

If I get one, I'm gonna aim it sideways to look cool! (plus I always wanted to say "cap in yo' ass!")

Make absolutely certain that you obtain some basic safety training along with the gun.

Just kidding. O8)