OK, all you anti-gun liberal types out there

[unixronin]

(Not meaning to imply that all liberals are anti-gun, by the way.  I'm just talking to the "Ew, Guns Are Icky" set here.)

Remember all the times we evil gun-totin', NRA-decal-displayin' gun nuts have said that the Second Amendment is the most important of all the amendments, because it protects all the rest?

Well, having become one of the most strictly anti-gun states in the US, Massachusetts is now going after the right of peaceable assembly.

Yeah, yeah, I know; it says it's only for use against gangs and only in "safe zones".  But as metahacker points out, the devil is in the details.  Surely you folks remember "designated free-speech zones", right....?  Remember the first rule of legislation:  Any law, no matter how clear its original intent, sooner or later succumbs to "mission creep".

"Yeah, I know this law was passed for X.  But we're already using it for Y.  Why don't we use it for Z as well?  I bet we could, especially in front of Judge J."

Speaking of which...

mazianni found these two articles on the 9th Circus's ruling that US border agents can search laptops and other personal electronic devices for evidence of crimes without a warrant or cause.  Once again, "security" trumps liberty, and another little piece of the Fourth Amendment is whittled away.

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."  ...Unless we want to.

Comments

[koyote.livejournal.com]

The m60 is *logistically* much more supportable for anything more than a single use ambush in the US. And while it is a touchy beast (I'm moderately experienced with them) it's not completely non functional by any stretch.

In a battlefield scenario, with stable lines of supply and matching air power, the SAW and "serious" hardware is possibly necessary. (Proven in conventional warfare where all sides follow similar military theories, but other systems of fighting are possible, so who knows for sure until tested?)

However, we are dealing with the prevention or overthrow of tyranny within the US. That suggests, strongly, two possible scenarios.

One involves a large scale defection of military personnel and material. Civil War. In such a case, having a SAW in your closet is perhaps moot, at best a minor addition to forces.

The other scenario involves guerilla warfare, almost exclusively, at least in the first stages of conflict. In such a case you DO NOT HAVE and cannot gain and maintain artillery and air supremacy. In such a case, the SAW is logistically untenable in comparison to partisans with rifles and IEDs. a SAW becomes a hot target that is disproportionally valuable in comparison to the dozen odd rifles you could supply with similar ammunition and maintenance requirements.

"Overwhelming force" becomes a thing not of Rommelesque battle field superiority, but ambush capability, sniping, willingness to kill your neighbor's kids to support tyranny, ability to hunt down all of a couple million armed citizens in a LIC environment, acceptance of destruction of your OWN infrastructure, etc. Dirty, ugly, and not nice. uniformed armies facing each other down on a battlefield is much more gentlemanly.

I would counter your charge by saying that you need to spend some time contemplating the logistics of insurrection. :)

This is probably a fruitless debate, because it seems to come from two radically different views on warfare. And I'll readily admit that my only actual field experience is in the conventional theatre. However, I have been trained in some aspects of LIC, and have given a lot of thought to the possible eventual necessity- it's my duty as a responsible gun owner in this nation.


Oh- and yeah- I think my descriptive groups account for a large enough portion of the total of gun rights activists to matter. To flavor and even control the debate. Ignoring the people who want to take MY gun away while protecting the rights of "proper" citizens just because I have long hair, live in a collective household, am not a christian, or vote wrong- that's insane.