NRA, Armed citizens & Home defense

Although I live in a city with draconian anti-gun laws I have always believed in a qualified adult's right to own and concealed-carry a gun for self defense. But I felt that some NRA members and other gun owners were a bit over the edge when they suggested that those guns would be necessary to resist aggression by a future fascist US government. I believed that even if the worst ever came to pass citizens armed primarily with small arms would be mincemeat beneath the treads of military might.

While I still consider the Nazi States of America to be a paranoid fantasy I've changed my mind about effective defense. Unless an enemy were willing to literally level a city, armed and motivated citizens could mount a deadly guerilla defense using small arms and other man-portable instruments of war available on the open or underground market. We are seeing this in Iraq, although most of those "citizens" are presumed to be highly motivated terrorists. If the vast majority of US citizens were armed and trained a future government inclined toward domestic aggression would have a real fight on its hands.

Brightnorm

The USA dropped more bombs during the Vietnam War than in WWII but we were defeated by determination and small arms.

[ QUOTE ]
jayflash said:
The USA dropped more bombs during the Vietnam War than in WWII but we were defeated by determination and small arms.

[/ QUOTE ]

Obviously, you weren't there. This is utter piffle.

The Viet Cong were destroyed as a field force in TET 1968.

The NVA suffered in excess of 100,000 KIA alone and lost a division of tanks and armored vehicles when they were beat back in the Easter Offensive of 1972.

In neither time was their determination the equal of USA/RVN forces and in neither time were they limited to small arms.

The Vietnam War's outcome was determined by politics.

BC0311,

Right on.

Jerry

[ QUOTE ]
BC0311:
The Viet Cong were destroyed as a field force in TET 1968.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are correct, sir! Geeze, I love to hear the truth about that once and a while. Thanks to the likes of Walter Cronkite most American still believe that TET was a great defeat for the US. In reality it was just another of Gen. Giap's fiascos. In addition to putting the Viet Cong into the big past tense, by the end of the TET offensive the Commies controlled only half of the villages that they held before it began.

[ QUOTE ]
BC0311:
The Vietnam War's outcome was determined by politics.

[/ QUOTE ]

In spades.

We lost the Vietnam war, period. Had they no small arms, politics would not have prevailed; we would have won. They wore down our will to continue losing thousands of soldiers.

Millions of armed citizens have a chance to defeat a couple hundred thousand troops should fascism take root here. I'm wondering if it's already occurring and I'm alarmed that I have to even consider that possibilty.

[ QUOTE ]
jayflash said:
Millions of armed citizens have a chance to defeat a couple hundred thousand troops should fascism take root here. I'm wondering if it's already occurring and I'm alarmed that I have to even consider that possibilty.

[/ QUOTE ]

A lot of people are considering these possibilities who would never have done so a few years ago. I had a discussion couple of years back with some friends about the possibility of the US going facist- I argued that American traditions of freedom would never allow such an event. After 911 & it's aftermath, I'm not so sure anymore.

The government might not need to use military force against anybody on the domestic front...they could just cancel the credit cards, computer accounts, driver's licenses, & possibly government benefits of anyone who they regarded as being in the wrong camp. In other words....disconnect them from the society.

[ QUOTE ]
StuU said:
[...The government might not need to use military force against anybody on the domestic front...they could just cancel the credit cards, computer accounts, driver's licenses, & possibly government benefits of anyone who they regarded as being in the wrong camp. In other words....disconnect them from the society.

[/ QUOTE ]

Interesting point. The more technologically advanced a society the greater the ability to control its citizens without the use of force.

BN

[ QUOTE ]
BC0311 said:
...The Viet Cong were destroyed as a field force in TET 1968...The Vietnam War's outcome was determined by politics.

[/ QUOTE ]

TET OFFENSIVE - 1

TET OFFENSIVE - 2

Brightnorm

I joined the NRA because I believe the NRA has the most pull where it counts, in Washington DC. I have 2 young boys and I am doing everything I can to insure that they have the right to defend themselves and thier homes when they get my age. I dont care much for politicians who have ARMED bodyguards telling me or my family that we dont have the right to defend ourselves with deadly force. Or for some fruitcake like Rosie O'Donut, who travels with an armed guard at all times, telling me that I should not own a gun /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/mad.gif . For me its less about being able to hunt or target shoot, which I really enjoy, but more about being able to defend my family. I do not agree with everything the NRA does or says but at the core they are the ones fighting everyday to defend the 2ND amendment. If every gun owner in America who values thier freedom would join the NRA then we would be such a force that the politicians and hollywood know it alls would have to sit down and shut up. But gun owners are some of the laziest people in America. Most let a few fight the battles while they memorize the 2ND amendment like its a failsafe insurance of thier rights. Sorry for the rant. I feel better now /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif.

Edit: I know this had very little if anything to do with the topic but I just needed to vent. Met a couple of anti-gun liberals today that got me wound up tighter than a banjo string.

I have belonged to the NRA most of the time since 1957. I do not agree with some things they do, but they are the best we gunowners have on our side.

As to owning guns to prevent an oppressive government, I have my doubts that it could be done. I do not believe that our military would fire on citizens today. I recognize the difference at Kent State, and the National Guard was right.

I do notice that all the bumper stickers that talk about "My cold dead fingers" are pretty much macho malarky. When I see things like CA I don't remember seeing cold dead fingers.

I notice that some far right militias talk a big fight, but in the end give up and go to jail.

The only way we can prevail is at the ballot box, and hopefully we will get a Supreme Court that will interpret the 2nd as it was meant to be. But not if John Kerry gets in.

We have a right to own and use firearms, and the right to self defense. I am glad to see more and more states recognizing that right in their Concealed Carry laws. While we should not have to have such laws to carry, that is the situation we find ourselves in.

I do not believe armed citizens could prevail if the military decided to back a government that was fascist in nature. Such a government would clearly be against the Constitution, and I would try in that case. I do not believe we will reach that point.

Jerry

Fascist, Centrist, Satanist militants, Jews, Catholics, Lutherans Mormons or Little Green Martians achieving dictatorial powers of our government; that is why the Second Ammendment exists. It had nothing to do with allowing people to hunt, a little to do with self-defense from criminals, but primarily was designed to allow "the people" to protect themselves from a despotic government.

Read The Federalist Papers if you doubt me.
_______________________________________________________

The thought that a few hundred thousand guys wearing black pajamas and carrying SKS rifles and AK-47s defeated the all of the military might of the United States is ludicrous. FOUR and ONLY FOUR things led to our "defeat":

1: LBJ & MacNamara micromanaging the war, selecting targets and planning missions down to platoon level from eight thousand miles away.

2: Fear (and lack of political will) amongst the President and Congress that if we did wage a REAL war in Vietnam, it would bring Russia (and China to a lesser extent)in as principals in the conflict rather than behind the scenes as they were, likely expanding to a worldwide nuclear war.

3: Our "own" anti-war protesters and the complicit media regaling us daily about the rapes, murders, and wanton destruction against innocent civilians, claiming that EVERY American in 'Nam was doing it on a daily basis (rather than the rare abberation that was the truth).

4: Because of LBJ & MacNamara micromanaging things, because local commanders were unable to quickly act /react and apply necessary massive force to enemy attacks and strategic targets of opportunity, casualties were at least four times heavier than they needed to be. So many body-bags coming home for so little gain turned much of "Middle America" against the war. Once that happened, we WERE truly defeated.

Not by force of arms, but by force of opinion at home.

[ QUOTE ]
Silviron:
1: LBJ & MacNamara micromanaging the war, selecting targets and planning missions down to platoon level from eight thousand miles away.

[/ QUOTE ]

A famous LBJ quote comes to mind where he bragged:

"...wah, they can't even bomb an outhouse over there without mah sayso..."


[ QUOTE ]
Silviron:
4: Because of LBJ & MacNamara micromanaging things, because local commanders were unable to quickly act /react and apply necessary massive force to enemy attacks and strategic targets...

[/ QUOTE ]

By the time the bombing of Hanoi was finally authorized Hanoi had built the most hardened air defense system in the history of the world. The number of aircrews lost because of our inept, vacillating leadership was both staggering and completely unneccessary.

Then decades later MacNamara comes out with a book where he actually admits that during his tenure as Secretary of Defense under LBJ...he never believed we could win anyway!

What a pair to draw to.

JerryM, Sub Umbra, and Brightnorm, thank you. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/thumbsup.gif

I support the NRA and other similar organizations and I am uncompromising on the integrity of the 2nd Amendment.

I think only the naive rely on the police to protect their family and home. I was raised to believe it is the duty of a man to get a suitable firearm, learn how to use it efficaciously and keep it ready to protect his family and home.

I think it is very wise for women to do the same. The NRA has performed an outstanding service to the American People with their firearms safety and shooting classes.

According to my contract with the United States Government, I am a "well regulated" (well equipped and trained) member of the militia.

I'm ready to repel boarders as most of you fellahs are, and I don't care what flavor they are.

It's hard for me to realistically imagine a scenario where I'd fall out in the street with other Minutemen. But, it's happened before. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/icon3.gif

Remember when that nut broke through all of George Harrison's high dollar security screens and almost killed him with a knife? Good thing his wife was tough and neutralized the guy with a friggin' table lamp.

Nobody on my side of the family will have to resort to a table lamp, umbrella or golfclub to deal with a psycho with a knife.

Britt

I concur with BC0311.

Couldn't have said it any better. My repeler is an 870 with an 18" barrel....

[ QUOTE ]
BC0311 said:
I think only the naive rely on the police to protect their family and home. I was raised to believe it is the duty of a man to get a suitable firearm, learn how to use it efficaciously and keep it ready to protect his family and home. Britt

[/ QUOTE ]

I think its actually been proven in court that the police have no duty to protect you as an individual, but rather the general populace as a whole. Thus reliance on the 2nd amendment is all John Q Citizen can truly rely on.

Cut n Pasted from thevop.com:
THE POLICE ARE NOT OBLIGATED TO PROTECT ANY INDIVIDUAL PERSON FROM HARM

This section serves to illuminate the existence of bad Police policy, anti-rights legislation, a domestic threat, and poor judicial remedy. The following true story is unacceptable, intolerable, and must be prevented from re-occurring ...

"Ruth Brunell called the police on 20 different occasions to beg for protection from her husband. He was arrested only one time. One evening Mr. Brunell telephoned his wife and told her he was coming over to kill her. When she called the police, they refused her request that they come to protect her. They told her to call back when he got there. Mr. Brunell stabbed his wife to death before she could call the police to tell them he was there. The court held that the San Jose police were not liable for ignoring Mrs. Brunell's pleas for help. Hartzler v. City of San Jose, (1975) 46 Cal.App. 3d 6. The year after winning the Hartzler case, the San Jose government appointed Joseph McNamara Police Chief. Chief McNamara has since become the leading police spokesman for Handgun Control, Inc. (HCI)." Excerpt from "The Law Abiding Individual and Personal Protection", by John Brophy. (Forward and emphasis added)

This is an appropriate time to point out that Chief Joe McNamara had a firm policy not to issue permits to Carry Concealed Weapons (CCW) to non-law enforcement officers, with exception shown through a permit he allegedly issued to his daughter. Chief McNamara is also alleged to have kept an automatic submachine gun in the trunk of his vehicle. Apparently he felt he needed it, but not anyone else. Does anyone else smell the characteristic stench of hypocrisy?

Mr. Brophy proceeds to provide substantial case-study to show similar judgments in other jurisdictions throughout the United States:
Bowers v. DeVito, (1982) 686 F.2d 616. (No federal constitutional requirements that police provide protection.)
Calgorides v. Mobile, (1985) 475 So.2d 560.
Davidson v. Westminister, (1982) 32 Cal.3d 197, 185 Cal.Rep. 252.
Stone v. State, (1980) 106 Cal.App. 3d 924, 165 Cal.Rep. 339.
Morgan v. District of Columbia, (1983) 468 A.2d 1306.
Warren v. District of Columbia, (1983) 444 A.2d 1.
Sapp v. Tallahassee, (1977) 348 So.2d 363, cert. denied 354 So.2d 985.
Keane v. Chicago, (1968) 98 ILL.App.2d 460, 240 N.E.2d 321.
Jamison v. Chicago, (1977) 48 ILL.App.3d 567.
Simpson's Food Fair v. Evansville, 272 N.E.2d 871.
Silver v. Minneapolis, (1969) 170 N.W.2d 206.
Wuetrich v. Delia, (1978) 155 N.J.Super. 324, 382 A.2d 929.
Chapman v. Philadelphia, (1981) 290 Pa.Super. 281, 434 A.2d 753.
Morris v. Musser, (1984) 84 Pa.Cmwth. 170, 478 A.2d 937.
Weiner v. Metropolitan Authority, and Shernov v. New York Transit Authority, (1982) 55 N.Y. 2d 175, 948 N.Y.S. 141.
DeShaney v. Winnebago County Social Services, 489 U.S. 189, 196, 197 (1989).

"The law is abundantly clear. Police have no duty to protect an individual from harm ... Each person is responsible for their own safety and protection from criminal harm, and for the safety and protection of their dependents." - John Brophy

But doesn't just about every Law Enforcement Agency's "Mission Statement" include the words "... to serve and protect ...." ? So then protect what? Obviously it isn't the people . . .

So then whose responsibility is it to protect you? It is your responsibility to protect yourself.

And how are you supposed to do that? You're allowed (in all non-socialist jurisdictions) to possess a firearm in your domain (residence) and your place of business. So what about out in public where most assaults occur? How are you supposed to lawfully protect yourself against the criminal element who ignores the laws against carrying (arms) to begin with?

Not a gun owner, but I feel I should point out something.

I firmly believe that the 2nd amendment was intended to insure that citizen soldiers, when called to duty by their state (presumably in its defense) would have arms and munitions. Most of the founding fathers recognized the ease with which tyrannical governments emerge, and sought to dampen the chances of this in the US. So I fully support the idea of armed citizens as members of 'well-regulated militias', as it says in the Constitution.
My only problem , is when we fail to recognize basic truths about violent conflict. As I said, I don't own a gun...nevertheless I would resist an armed occupying force in this country with all my might. I believe that US citizens will and should defend themselves against occupiers if they are armed and resourceful, regardless of the military might thrown at us. In fact, I take pride in believing that we, the citizens of this nation, can repel any invader if neccessary. I suspect most of you feel the same way. The problem is, so did the Afghanis (when the USSR invaded), so did the French (WWII), and so did the North Vietnamese during the Vietnam War. And it would seem to be the same in Iraq. Why is it that we hold the idea of self-defense in high esteem when it comes to our cherished land, but assume that the rest of the world does not share the same commitment to their homes and countries?

BTW, according to international law, any armed civilian in a military conflict is deemed an 'illegal combatant'. In other words, if you and I defend the US from an invader, using constitutionally protected, privately owned firearms, we would be considered war criminals. This is why our underestimation of the fighting will of those in other countries is so unfortunate. The worst mistake one can make in a violent confrontation is to underestimate the opponents capabilities. Yet that is exactly what we did in Vietnam thirty years ago, and what we are doing today in Iraq. It seems obvious that military occupation of a state causes some citizens to forcefully resist, regardless of the arguments for such an occupation. After all, can you envision any scenario in which you would feel comfortable with an occupying force in this country? I didn't think so.

Banshee is absolutely correct. Thanks for posting the legal background. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/thumbsup.gif

Locally, the PD changed the decals on the side of their fenders from: "To Serve and Protect" to "Serving Our Community" a few years ago.

I figure some dimbulb would try to sue them for false advertising or something. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/icon6.gif

Metalhed, look into an NRA class or your State's Hunters Safety classes and get instructed. Then, when you can, get yourself a .22 rifle and learn to handle and shoot it well.

You'll then be part of a fraternity that stretches back over 225 years... The American Riflemen. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/thumbsup.gif

Britt

Even if the police had a legal duty to protect individuals, they could not do it. Each police officer can be in only one place at a time, and I am not unhappy because I don't have one with me all the time.

I am responsible for the protection of myself and my family. I have always been, and continue to take that responsibility seriously. I intend to do it under whatever conditions, and laws that I encounter.

I am unable to comprehend how the Shumers of the world see such issues. I guess neither they nor their loved ones have ever been mugged or injured by thugs.
Keep the pressure on.

Jerry

[ QUOTE ]
metalhed:
The worst mistake one can make in a violent confrontation is to underestimate the opponents capabilities. Yet that is exactly what we did in Vietnam thirty years ago, and what we are doing today in Iraq.

[/ QUOTE ]

We did no such thing in Viet Nam thirty years ago. Or thirty-five years ago. Or forty years ago. If the war in Iraq reminds you of the war in Viet Nam -- you have no memory of the war in Viet Nam.

If anything was underestimated in the Viet Nam war it was the competence of our leaders. To hear you tell it, decades after the fact, one could only conclude that a minuscule, backwards, totalitarian state with an national economy so insignificant that it was dwarfed by the financial prowess of many cities in the same time frame, had great 'capabilities' that we failed to see. So we went in there not knowing what they had, and then we decided to stay for years and years because apparently we were unable to fully grasp these awesome 'capabilities'.

Fat chance. As Maurras said, "The fish rots from the head down." We lost because even with the best military capability in the world, we were saddled with leaders who couldn't fight their way out of a wet paper bag. That would be a good thing to reflect upon in the months and years that lay ahead of us.