Gun owners against tyranny

Time and again on this forum and elsewhere I’ve heard certain types of gun owner claim that they would protect the US against tyranny.

That if ‘the government’ or President for example suggested using the military to crack down on its political opponents these gun owners would spring into action.

Well isn’t this that time?

I mean I heard a number of gun owners imply that if Obama had tried anything like that…

And at the demonstrations in Charlottesville there were armed militia out on the street to protect the demonstrators and during the anti-lockdown demo’s gun owners carried their arms to show their commitment to ‘freedom’.

So where are they?

 

Tyranny is fine, just as long as its "their kind of tyranny"....

 

I mean why Trump in the Rose Garden speech specifically mention ‘2nd amendment rights’ it didn't seem to fit in?

Was he calling on gun owners to get out there and protect the demonstrators from possible police and military action against them?

 

Well if you believe the kind of gun owner who was protesting the lock down there is no gun owner against tyranny. The entire community has abandoned American laws and values because they like Trump. They are willing to use guns to bring on fascism and censorship because it's the other in society not them who suffer.

Example they said they need guns because Obama will take away Fox News. For several years now they have been fine with censoring CNN and Twitter is bad because it said Trump was wrong. They did not remove his post they just said they did not agree.

The real answer is a lot of them understand what it means to be seen in public with a gun in a war. So it's a short sighted move to try to intimate with it until you must.

 

No... It was a thinly veiled approval for his "2nd amendment guys" to go out and shoot protesters... Some of them will do it too.

 

Gun nuts have been wanting a war since the Soviet Union fell. There was no more enemy so more and more the Democrats had to be the Communists. It's why pretty much anything that is not hardcore MAGA worship is now called that. The plan was never for a 2 party system to survive a war. They think the other party will die off and are not willing to defend it.

We are dealing with hypocrites

all life is precious so they own firearms (which exist only to kill something) and don't support any social welfare.
They bitch they are censored on private platforms. But bakers having a choice and the same platforms censoring others views is fine
They say they are honest working men who hate elites but always worship elites themselves and therefore their economic policies

 

In a way you're right. The tyranny pre 1776 was a whole lot different and harsher than what we call tyranny now. The tyranny of the 18th century were precursors to war. Today, it would take a whole lot more than what we're seeing now to have tensions equal that of the start of the war of independence.

We still have a justice system that, although slow and sometimes not so just, adhere to the constitution and maintains a resemblance of representation. Good cops fired and arrested the officer who ended Floyd's life and fired the others who stood by and watched. Good cops all over the country denounced the needless death.

 

For my entire adult life I have watched our nation systematically exploit the underdeveloped world. Stonewalling by Mitch and his cronies prevented Obama from effecting lasting change. And now the wealthy power addicted few have found a President without scruples to turn that exploitation on us..US.

 

Mac

Sorry that doesn’t really fit in with history

What tyranny was there before 1776?

Those fermenting the rebellion certainly began calling British rule tyranny because…well they were trying to ferment a rebellion, but actually many colonists were happy or at least apathetic to British rule.

As Francis D Cogliano asks -Was the American Revolution Inevitable?

Writing with the benefit of hindsight in 1818, John Adams, one of the central figures in the American Revolution, recalled that Americans were committed to independence in their hearts long before war broke out in America in 1775. Adams' comment suggests that American independence was inevitable: this was not the case.

In 1763, Americans joyously celebrated the British victory in the Seven Years' War, revelling in their identity as Britons and jealously guarding their much-celebrated rights which they believed they possessed by virtue of membership in what they saw as the world's greatest empire. Americans had contributed significantly to the recent victory both militarily and financially….In 1763, the average Briton paid 26 shillings per annum in taxes whilst a Massachusetts taxpayer contributed one shilling each year to imperial coffers.[my bold]

It was only when the British parliament (against many members opposition) began rising taxes in the colonies (that was going through a recession at the time) that the colonists started getting annoyed

And remember their call was - "No taxation without representation"

It wasn’t a call against tyranny or for war - it was asking to have representation within the British Empire in Parliament.

If it was tyranny they were basically asking to be part of the tyranny.

Even when the war began there were American colonist who stayed loyal to the British Crown for example William Franklin the son of Benjamin Franklin was a loyalist who worked to build Loyalist military units to fight in the war on the side of the British and of course the famous and much maligned name been Benedict Arnold.

The historian Robert Calhoon wrote in 2000, concerning the proportion of Loyalists to Patriots in the Thirteen Colonies:

Historians' best estimates put the proportion of adult white male loyalists somewhere between 15 and 20 percent. Approximately half the colonists of European ancestry tried to avoid involvement in the struggle—some of them deliberate pacifists, others recent immigrants, and many more simple apolitical folk. The patriots received active support from perhaps 40 to 45 percent of the white populace, and at most no more than a bare majority

 

Mac

To me the big tyranny of the time was slavery.

In the war of independence ‘Enslaved blacks made their own assessment of the conflict and supported the side that offered the best opportunity to escape bondage.’

African Americans and the American Revolution - History Is Fun

Many slaves heard the rhetoric of those seeking independence and joined their cause

Widespread talk of liberty gave thousands of slaves high expectations, and many were ready to fight for a democratic revolution that might offer them freedom

I mean what does it say in the US Declaration of Independence

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

equality - freedom - a chance of happiness

But of course the tyranny of slavery went on after that war for 'freedom' didn’t it

I mean famously many of the founding fathers were slave owners

Anyway it needed another war to officially end slavery in the US but of course the tyranny just continued in many part but just under different names.

 

Mac

The Sixth Amendment actually says that people should ‘enjoy the right’ to a speedy trial by an impartial jury

It should not be slow and it is supposed to involve an impartial jury - if not it isn't constitutional

I’d say in historical terms that in many places in the US most Black citizens would have laughed at the idea of them ever getting impartial juries – have you read or watched To kill a Mockingbird.

And even today there are plenty of studies that show black people are more likely to be seen as guilty and get harsher sentences than others in the US.

[edit] I’d also add that today the courts and the appointment of judges have become even more political with many judges been pushed through by right wingers for their political leanings but who are considered unqualified by the American Bar Association. This is not a good sign for the future of the US judicial system.

 

The moment that this happens will be the turning point in peoples attitude towards the government and the people who it employs to uphold the law.

Here in the UK a police officer who breaks the law is given the MAXIMUM sentence for the crime and fired. NO QUESTIONS.
Every year in the UK, a few officers will loose their job, and get a 2 year driving ban for being as little as one point over the legal limit. On the few occasions that they were driving a police vehicle, they went to prison.

If the US adopted a similar system, all of the 32 cops who shot an innocent bystander last year would be on death row.
Sounds harsh, but it would restore public faith in the government.

Back to the UK.
Less than 30% of London police officers apply for firearms training.
Of those who do, only 70% get the necessary signatures from a senior officer and pass the training.
Out of London's 31,000 police officers. At any one time, only about 10 actually carry a loaded gun on their person and that is only when providing close protection to government ministers or members of the Royal family.
On public events (such as a royal wedding) the number increases, but by less than most people would imagine.
Every area has an armed response unit that has guns LOCKED in the boot (trunk) of their car. The average unit only unlocks the guns about twice a year
The unit requires permission from a gold or silver commander to unlock the guns, The one exception is if they unexpectedly arrive at an incident where shots are being fired.

PS, In more than 50 years, I have not,met a single American visitor to the UK who is afraid of being shot or injured by our police.

 

This is a mystery to me - totally. Why "working people" would put people like Rump on pedestals when it's those VERY SAME TYPES who keep them economically squashed down. These CEO, executive, Wall Street types legislate against workers, take away their rights as free Americans, ignore safety & pollution laws, keep pay as low as possible, get rid of "benefits", outsource their jobs to other countries, etc.

Seems like any logical working person would want to round up & imprison those types .......................

But we have many who can't see the forest for the trees in this country. Because of their VAST lack of education, they latch onto whoever sounds like the roughest, toughest, he-man, macho type with a big mouth. If they knew anything - really - these same "working people" would know which party actually fought to keep jobs here in the U.S. ................ and which party greased the wheels to rush to other countries so their big-money benefactors would be happy. It was those VERY SAME CEO, EXECUTIVE, WALL STREET TYPES who wanted to leave the U.S. for dirt-cheap, poverty-level labor. People like Rump, who has schmoozed with all those "CEO" types for years - because he's one of them.

Electing Rump was like putting a den of rattlesnakes in your bedroom and expecting to not be bitten. Trusting the snake when he said, " I'll save you & make things right."

Let's see if the U.S. will be stupid all over again this November.

 

This should be "liked" by every American who truly wants freedom, and an impartial judicial system. Balbus - you hit a very MAJOR nail on the head by this statement. The courts are now so heavily politicized that "fair and impartial" are empty words now. Just look at all the decisions handed down these days - they all favor corporations, rich, well-connected people, cronies of those who appointed those judges, regardless of evidence, sworn testimony, video and forensic evidence, etc. And if lower courts rule in a way that the right-wingers don't like - the "Supreme Court of The United States" overturns those decisions, because it's packed by political allies and "rubber stamp" puppets of the REPUBLICAN PARTY.

Why do you think muck-mouth, Moscow Mitch McConnell refused to even hold a Senate hearing for Obama Supreme Court nominee Merrick Garland??? (Even when Obama had a year left in his Presidency, and had the Constitutional right to have his nominee vetted in both Houses of Congress. Never before has this been done in the U.S. government. CORRUPT, SLIMY, NO - INTEGRITY, ETHICS-LESS MOSCOW MITCH McCONNELL broke all rules by refusing a Senate hearing for Merrick Garland. A first in modern U.S. history.

This was a blatant move to assure future "Supreme Court" decisions went the way the REPUBLICAN PARTY & CORPORATE CEO's wanted them to go.

But ALL of them will have to face THE JUDGE who they cannot escape. All lies, deceit, & corruption will be made known ……………. and they cannot stop it. Maybe all those "so-called Christians" in the right-wing ought to read the warnings given in the Bible for liars, deceivers, the corrupt, the unjust, etc. If they truly believe in the Bible - the words and warnings are all right there to read.

 

Any banning or restriction of weapons will without a doubt disarm law abiding citizens and result in only criminals carrying and using firearms. .

 

I think you and I agree more than we disagree on this. You're right, the main issue was that we didn't have representation in government. However, that in itself is tyranny. Today, we still have representation and it shows. Like I said, good cops fired the bad cops and arrested the perpetrator. And that doesn't just happen in highlighted cases either. I've known two police officers that were fired for misconduct and one arrested for child abuse. Only one of those officers made state/nationwide headlines. So it happens more often than you think.

 

@Balbus
Wasn't denying those who considered themselves natural-born Englishmen the right of representation in Parliament a form of tyranny?
Of course, slavery was the bigger form... I think that goes without saying. It's not even a contest.
But still, the colonials were being treated unfairly, were they not? Many colonials fought in the British Army during the Seven Years War... It was in their own back yard I don't think it is a stretch they would be pleased with the victory. But weren't the taxes levied precisely to pay for said war? So there was a situation where colonials bled for the Crown but had no say in governing due to no seat in Parliament.

By the same token though, some folks could make the case in the United States that they aren't really represented in Congress today either.

 

I've hunted all my life. I guarantee you I don't need an AR-15 to defend my house and family. It's illegal to hunt with such weapons too. For years those kinds of weapons were illegal for non-military people to own. But as part of a political alliance with the REPUBLICAN PARTY, the NRA - which used to be mainly about hunting and hunters' rights - became a militant, para-military, radical right-wing group that convinced gun owners that they better "arm up" because the "big, bad government" was coming after them. Years ago I was an NRA member - but when they became a radical, right-wing, paranoid militia nuthouse - I quit them and will NEVER AGAIN be a member. The NRA backs wide open, "anyone should be able to get a gun" laws - even when mental cases might be able to get guns. (How's THAT for no common sense???) And it appears that their thieving, corrupt, mental case leader, Wayne Lapierre - and other NRA higher-ups - have been found to have been stealing money for personal use on houses, boats, and all sorts of expensive luxuries...……... all paid for by members' dues payments. A number of NRA executives have been forced to resign and the NRA is making phone calls to try to stir up members again with scare tactics to get them to re-join.

What a JOKE Wayne Lapierre and his NRA executive cronies are - and have been. Corrupt thieves & liars. I hope they ALL end up in prison.

 

Mac

What do you disagree with what I said?

And after the war most Americans carried on not having representation with only some 10% having a vote

Basically the colonies replaced the tyranny of a wealth based oligarchy based in England for the tyranny of a more local wealth based oligarchy.

The big problem is that from the very beginning the United States of America was set up with the interests of wealth in the forefront.

I mean famously only white men got a vote but in most places it was only white men of a certain property qualification who were allowed to vote and in many places you had to have an even greater property qualification to hold office.

The Electoral College system was also there as a block on the popular vote (the mob) and the Supreme Count -and other judges- which were to be appointed by and from the political establishment were presumed to always favour that political establishment and therefore be a check on progressive change.

Enfranchisement slowly grew but for a long time the ‘tyranny’ of not been represented went on in many parts of the US.

It has been argued that the US actually didn’t have a truly representative government until after the 1964-1965 reforms (Twenty-fourth Amendment and Voting Rights Act).