Now It's San Bernardino

[AdaBeta27]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...talk-about-gun-violence-in-america/?tid=sm_fb

I read that BBC report, on the BBC site. A daily dose of mass shootings? Perhaps. But then, you have to consider who is doing that shooting. Gang bangers, and probably more actual terrorists than law enforcement and government wants us to know about so they call it some other issue, and the occasional madman. (Or domestic violence issue, but most of those could be seen coming a long time in advance. ) Subtract out the foreigners and/or terrorists that have some bone to pick or have the clear intent of just plain annihilating as many Americans as possible, subtract out the gang wars, and then what portion of the populace is doing mass shootings? I'd wager it's very small. Might even be statistically insignificant, strictly speaking. I'm a WASP urban professional, and I don't know ANYone who's been shot by another human being, and I don't personally know any person who has shot or even verbally threatened to shoot another person. I know quite a few men and several women who hunt deer and other wild game. But that's it. I've personally found myself looking down the wrong end of someone's gun barrel, but I haven't been shot or shot at, so far. (3rd time's the charm, eh? )

The history of organized crime in America is one of rise and fall of crime figures and their organizations. One ethnic group rises to power, then starts to go legit, and then another group seems to move in and displace them. Irish, Jews, Italians, blacks, Russians, Asians... and there's always been a lot of gunplay and massacres while the takeover wars are in full swing, and until each faction gets its turf established. But those shootings and murders are crime-related. It's not as if every household in America is out shooting at someone else every day.

 

[JaneSmith]

Paz I'm glad your friend is going to be OK.

 

[Paz]

Paz I'm glad your friend is going to be OK.

Thanks JaneSmith

She's already bugging her mom for updates on all of her coworkers, and is reaching out to the families of those who didn't make it. All of this, while she is just getting out of her own surgeries and is "recovering".

She's got a big heart, and always treats people with love and kindness. Her mother claims this as the reason the shooter aimed for Amanda's leg, not her head, because she was always kind and friendly to him at work. Who knows what went through the guy's head, or if he meant to "go easy" on my friend; I don't think we'll ever know.

 

[Dancing Fire]

[quote="AGBF|

If you had read what I wrote above-not that you are obliged to read what I write-you would have seen that I actually did theorize about how the United States could stop the production of arms by other countries if we stopped producing arms. And since you had written that you were open to suggestions about how to stop the problem, I thought that you might have read my reply.

My theory was that when we ceased to produce arms ourselves, that we engage in talks with other industrialized nations and make treaties with them (you know, the way we do about global warming or nuclear disarmament) to agree that we all cease the production of guns. That would leave the world with no high quality guns. Yes, guns could be produced. But, as I said, the quality of the guns available would become far lower.

[/quote]


Deb
No other countries on earth respect us anymore since Obama became Prez. They could care less about what we think. Global warming and nuclear disarmament? China and India don't care about global warming, and the Iranians are laughing their butts off about the nuclear disarmament deal. Putin pokes his finger at our President's nose whenever he feels like doing so.

 

[artdecogirl]

The problem with gun control is how do you do it effectively? As a gun owner I know how the system works only in my state, you fill out an application that asks you about your legal record, any arrests or things like that, all things that they can check out. Then they ask if you have ever been treated for a mental illness... ok how do they check that? If you have ever sought treatment for any sort of mental issue and if so, do you want to be put on a national registry saying that you did, what your diagnosis are and so on? Is that how we should handle this? I am not against some sensible gun control but I just do not see how it can be done effectively without violating peoples rights to the extreme.
I am also a nurse in a major metro city and I will tell you that the only patients I have seen with gun shot wounds are for the most part males that are living the life, not your average citizen. I am not saying others are not effected by gun violence obviously as we have seen and this is only my small picture that I see but I think these numbers are skewed by those that are a result of gang violence and those living that sort of life. If we put more focus on the root of the problem then the tool used we might have better luck addressing this huge issue.

 

[the_mother_thing]

JD's actually mentioned "why do we even HAVE these laws??" many many many times, when he's arresting someone for the eleventh time for driving drunk and they're right back out doing the same thing. When he's arrested someone for rape and it's pled down and dismissed.

Why DO we have laws? B/c they're not really working. If we're going to allow things to happen, then why? And if some things become "well, a lot of people do it so we may as well legalize it" and other things are "a lot of people do it and other people should be punished for it" and "a lot of people do it but we should just look the other way b/c they have challenges in their lives". Seems to me we have a lot of different variables in what we feel is illegal-illegal and legal-illegal and allowable w/in reason-illegal.

BINGO - enforcement is the issue IMO. There is a vicious, sick cycle that happens here. Perp (whatever the crime may be), gets charged and either pleads down or is found guilty, gets a pidly sentence, then out early for good behavior (read: overcrowding), and in a short period of time, he/she is back at it. And again, pleads down, gets another pidly sentence ... you get the idea. I have heard this from my narc LEO S/O soooooo many times. Punishment doesn't fit the crime anymore. And prison if they actually DO time (except in Maricopa Cty) has become a daycare for grownups with tv, free education, three hots & a cot, free medical, etc. And by the second or third run through the system, the perp is considered a legend, which feeds the criminal ego. And it's a damn shame that criminals get far better, faster treatment for things than our veterans and homeless in this country. So yes, I WILL say it - I place little to no value in these criminals' lives. Do the crime, do the time! I have very little compassion for their sob stories because I have a crap ton of compassion for the lives forever changed by that thug's poor choices, the people who didn't ask to have their loved one murdered, raped, robbed, beaten, etc. And before anyone tosss up "if it was your child, you'd think differently." WRONG! My DD has been told and is well aware if she makes a choice that lands her in jail, she will suffer the consequences of that choice.

So, you want to do something about the gun problem in this country? Make it a mandatory 25-year sentence for anyone who uses a gun in the commission of a crime or is an accomplice to any gun-involved crime, with no parole/early release option. Remove the "niceties" of prison and make it what it's supposed to be - PUNISHMENT, not a vacation. Make those who ARE doing time do real work while serving their sentence. Put them in farmers' fields with armed guards supervising so farmers get free labor to keep producing food in our country vs importing it. Yes, it means we will need more prisons. Great, that creates more jobs for hard working citizens, in building the prisons and working in them afterward. We have all this federal land doing nothing, so use it for something good. Eventually, you will have more of these thugs off the streets than on, the example will be set for those contemplating the thug life, and people will think twice about their choices.

But that only helps to solve one sector of the gun problem (drug/gang-related). Solutions are also needed to address those with mental health disorders - like Newtown. And the third sector of solving the gun problem is terrorism. If we do NOT get real with who our enemy is & secure our borders through more stringent checks and denials of certain people coming into this country, we will have more Boston/San Bernardino/9-11 mass murders. We can help refugees in their own region vs bringing them here, and we can put a halt on anyone entering this country from known terror regions.

But all of these options requires hard decisions and for people to stop being all warm-fuzzy when it comes to hurting people's feelings. I would much rather someone deal with "being offended" than being murdered. But it won't happen ... just like the left doesn't want to pass Kate's Law to help keep illegal alien criminals out of our country because these poor people need a "safe haven". Ask Ms. Steinle how she feels about that ... or the victims of San B. ... oh, that's right ... they can't tell us because THEY'RE DEAD! But at least we didn't offend someone.

 

[the_mother_thing]

Here are all the senators who just voted against greater background checks.

Write to yours if you disagree.

And here are all the senators who voted against Kate's Law to keep criminal illegal aliens out of our country. BOTH parties are party-line buddies who don't have citizens best interest and safety at heart.

 

[the_mother_thing]

And FYI - it's now coming out that the SB couple did NOT acquire the AR's legally, but that someone else bought the guns for them.

 

[chrono]

So why is it that gun laws work in EU countries and Australia, N. Zealand and other Asian countries but it will not work in the USA? Is our law enforcement more incompetent than theirs?

 

[the_mother_thing]

So why is it that gun laws work in EU countries and Australia, N. Zealand and other Asian countries but it will not work in the USA? Is our law enforcement more incompetent than theirs?

I don't have stats to cite, but I suspect it's that they actually enforce their laws and punish accordingly for crimes, and/or the punishment is deterrent enough to keep crime lower. That is NOT the case in the U.S. We have laws so complex and convoluted that there are loopholes for easy appeals, and the punishment rarely fits the crime IMO. Punishment needs to be severe enough to not only make the criminal learn the lesson, but also serve as a deterrent for those considering committing a criminal act.

 

[purplesparklies]

The United States will not stop the production of arms. Not in any of our lifetimes. Period. The companies that produce them are private companies. They are not going to simply bow out. There is mega $$$$$ involved. If the impossible occurred and they did make it illegal to produce firearms in the U.S., other countries would be more than happy to fill that void in order to reap the huge $ benefits. It just is not in the realm of possibility.

I just read an article in which an FBI agent disclosed that this Black Friday was the largest single day of gun sales on record in this country. They know because of the background checks that were initiated. Some states do not require new background checks of current concealed carry license holders. Therefore, the number of gun sales was undoubtedly higher. Estimated to be over 200,000 just for Black Friday. It's big business.

If legal maneuvering could make all the difference, why didn't it make a difference in San Bernardino? Experts say California has the strictest gun laws in the nation but it has now come out that the guns used were illegal.

There are going to be no easy answers and no easy fix. A step in the right direction would be to create a nationwide system for background checks that worked well and quickly and that current laws be strictly and consistently enforced. If we had a quick, effective system for background checks then that could be utilized for gun sales at gun shows because the loophole not requiring checks at those shows is ridiculous.

 

[packrat]

You can arrest someone 50 times and if nothing happens to them, you're going to arrest them 50 times more. That's nothing to do w/incompetence of LE, that's to do w/the legal/justice system. JD comes home spitting nails pretty much every day b/c of this. People that aren't part of it don't always understand that, so it looks like JD's not doing his job. He's got people here in town he's arrested a dozen times in a year-they're still out and about. There's people he'll talk about and I'm like wait, he was going to federal prison! Nope, got pled down. Or, yeah, he was gone a couple months and he's back now.

Other countries don't share borders w/those that we do. When JD comes home and says he's watching a house that's bringing heroin in from Mexico, or he's got to go boot a door in on someone who is known to bring guns in from Mexico or he's got to do whatever on whomever that is bringing stuff from Mexico.

And honestly, I don't trust govt as far as I can throw them on these things. I don't.

 

[AGBF]

The United States will not stop the production of arms. Not in any of our lifetimes. Period. The companies that produce them are private companies. They are not going to simply bow out. There is mega $$$$$ involved.

I actually know this. President Eisenhower called it in 1961*. He warned that people beware of the military industrial complex. Now people have come to discuss the "shadow government" that really runs things behind the scenes while the legislators play a pro forma role of passing laws that can make little difference to the real status quo. (For example, Congress could never dislodge the armaments manufacturers; they will remain in power, producing guns and making billions of dollars, no matter what "the people" want or whom they elect.)

*Link to President Eisenhower's Speech...http://coursesa.matrix.msu.edu/~hst306/documents/indust.html

Deb/AGBF

 

[smitcompton]

Hi,

As often happens for me, Packrat has put her finger on one reason for the acceleration in gun sales. We do not trust Gov't anymore to make laws or enforce the ones we have. Gov't is ineffective.

To Yisse's point of being "special". I have only read that concept regarding everyones so called "rights". People demanding an endless array of entitlements, and taking offence so easily for all statements made hinting at disagreement with those demands.
I certainly agree we look stupid to other nations, but don't think it comes from our belief of our own specialness. It comes from the fact, IMO, we no longer have a consensus in the society of what we want. Liberals think,"poor everybody". They need our help. They're criminals because of some circumstance in their life that they couldn't overcome. Lets give them stuff or money. The conservatives want to control everyone else. No one should get anything from Gov. They want to do away with what is now called entitlements. We have no middle ground or agreement on values. It fractures the society into just arguments and more arguments.

I actually hate guns. I have a fear of them. I don't own one, but I think about it. I will not, as I said before take those guns away from decent folks, because one day it may become necessary to use them for defense. Perhaps it is irrational, but maybe its not.

I look at the police. They scare me. Yesterday they did a good job, really good, but too much power in the hands of a few can also do a lot of damage. At the moment I am more wary of the police than a terrorist. Sad to say or think.

I think I've read some good posts here. I don't know how to fix it. Its taken a lot of yrs to get here. I suspect it would take as many to gain back a consensus of values. That is the most important.


Annette

 

[the_mother_thing]

You can arrest someone 50 times and if nothing happens to them, you're going to arrest them 50 times more. That's nothing to do w/incompetence of LE, that's to do w/the legal/justice system. JD comes home spitting nails pretty much every day b/c of this. People that aren't part of it don't always understand that, so it looks like JD's not doing his job. He's got people here in town he's arrested a dozen times in a year-they're still out and about. There's people he'll talk about and I'm like wait, he was going to federal prison! Nope, got pled down. Or, yeah, he was gone a couple months and he's back now.

Other countries don't share borders w/those that we do. When JD comes home and says he's watching a house that's bringing heroin in from Mexico, or he's got to go boot a door in on someone who is known to bring guns in from Mexico or he's got to do whatever on whomever that is bringing stuff from Mexico.

And honestly, I don't trust govt as far as I can throw them on these things. I don't.

Ditto 10000 times! Living/dating a LEO really opens your eyes up to the other side of what you see on television. And the same bad apples" principle applies. For every one 'bad' cop, there are tens of thousands out there trying to do the right thing, keep people safe, and help protect the communities they serve.

 

[aljdewey]

Why have drunk driving laws? The hard-core alcoholics are going to drive drunk anyway. Why have laws against rape? A rapist who wants to rape will find a way to do it. This mindset makes no sense.

As far as I know, we have a law that covers this already. It is already illegal to murder others - with guns, knives, cars, or any other lethal object.

We don't outlaw the manufacture of guns (nor of the cars or the alcohol that drunk drivers may use) because there are legal uses for firearms, just as there are legal uses for cars and alcohol.

Candidly, we've already done the "let's ban the manufacture" route once before - during Prohibition. That didn't keep people from making booze or from drinking; all it did was shutter sanctioned producers for a while, giving rise to a whole plethora of underground makers. Not surprisingly, Prohibition didn't last since it clearly didn't accomplish the objective (to keep people from drinking).

 

[aljdewey]

......the United States could stop the production of arms by other countries if we stopped producing arms. ....[then] engage in talks with other industrialized nations and make treaties with them to agree that we all cease the production of guns. That would leave the world with no high quality guns.


If I thought this would truly work, I'd be all for it, but there's already evidence that it doesn't work. Nuclear weapons.....most countries agreed to stop producing nuclear weapons, and agreed to participate in treaties with other countries to do the same.

Except, of course, for the few who know of who refuse to agree and instead openly and defiantly continue to build them and the probable few others likely doing it on the sly.

If there were no sanctioned arms manufacturers, it is a near absolute certainty that someone with mechanical acumen will recognize the name-your-inflated-price opportunity to be had in a captive market, making the reward worth enough to assume risk and produce them illegally. You can stop quality guns from being widely made, but you cannot stop quality guns from being made at all.

That leads to the next problem - as long as there's an access path to quality guns for someone, no sane government can agree to leave itself vulnerable to the first "I-deserve-to-rule-the-world" whackjob that comes along. Unless they can trust 100% of the countries 100% of the time, they cannot agree to be arms-free.

 

[aljdewey]

So, you want to do something about the gun problem in this country? Make it a mandatory 25-year sentence for anyone who uses a gun in the commission of a crime or is an accomplice to any gun-involved crime, with no parole/early release option. Remove the "niceties" of prison and make it what it's supposed to be - PUNISHMENT, not a vacation.

I suspect this could be a potentially viable approach to target some gun uses (domestic violence instances or any illegal gun activity), but we'd need something else to defray the gun problem for suicide, mass shootings, and terrorism. In all three of these, death of the perpetrator is the anticipated outcome anyway, so prison consequences won't impact them at all.

 

[Dancing Fire]

Our Prez still refuses to call this horrific act as an act of terrorism..

 

[kenny]

Our Prez still refuses to call this horrific act as an act of terrorism..

DF, is it just you ... or does the T-word make every con's penis so hard?

Whether or not it's the Big-T, and I think it is since the FBI has announced it is, why so much energy into putting the San Bernardino attack into the T Jar?

Do you win a large bar bet, or something?
Serious question.

 

[aljdewey]

So why is it that gun laws work in EU countries and Australia, N. Zealand and other Asian countries but it will not work in the USA? Is our law enforcement more incompetent than theirs?

One huge difference is that most of those you mentioned are islands and therefore don't share any borders with other countries. Decide to attach a virtually lawless neighbor to any of them (as we have with Mexico) and I suspect enforcement would become much more difficult in a hurry.

Some of that list also have much harsher penalties than we employ here. People get caned in Singapore for graffiti - you're lucky if that's a $200 fine here.

I can't claim much first-hand knowledge of law enforcement practices in those countries, but I'd bet quite a lot that the difference is about empowerment, not competence.

 

[Dancing Fire]

Our Prez still refuses to call this horrific act as an act of terrorism..

DF, is it just you ... or does the T-word make every con's penises so hard?

Whether or not it's the Big-T, and I think it is since the FBI has announced it is, why so much energy into putting the San Bernardino attack into the T Jar?

Do you win a large bar bet, or something?
Serious question.

No, I just wanna hear our Prez call a spade a spade, but of course not b/c other terrorists may not be nice to us..

 

[jordyonbass]

So why is it that gun laws work in EU countries and Australia, N. Zealand and other Asian countries but it will not work in the USA? Is our law enforcement more incompetent than theirs?

The attitude and culture towards firearms is a big factor IMO. Nobody in Australia keeps or kept a gun 'for protection from people' and if they do it's most likely because they're a criminal and they're trying to protect themselves from other criminals. So the average citizen doesn't have much to worry about there and the people who did need them (hunters, target practice, vermin eradicators) were happy to go through the red tape of regulation and screening as they were and still are law abiding citizens.

As I mentioned earlier in the thread, we have guns for protection in the bush and the guns stay there. We don't want firearms anywhere near suburbia. If you were to apply for a gun licence and say you want it for protection against people then your application would get torn up on the spot.

 

[Calliecake]

Our Prez still refuses to call this horrific act as an act of terrorism..

DF, is it just you ... or does the T-word make every con's penises so hard?

Whether or not it's the Big-T, and I think it is since the FBI has announced it is, why so much energy into putting the San Bernardino attack into the T Jar?

Do you win a large bar bet, or something?
Serious question.

No, I just wanna hear our Prez call a spade a spade, but of course not b/c other terrorists may not be nice to us..

Dancing Fire, I think the president was waiting until all the facts were available.

 

[AGBF]

So why is it that gun laws work in EU countries and Australia, N. Zealand and other Asian countries but it will not work in the USA? Is our law enforcement more incompetent than theirs?

The attitude and culture towards firearms is a big factor IMO. Nobody in Australia keeps or kept a gun 'for protection from people' and if they do it's most likely because they're a criminal and they're trying to protect themselves from other criminals. So the average citizen doesn't have much to worry about there and the people who did need them (hunters, target practice, vermin eradicators) were happy to go through the red tape of regulation and screening as they were and still are law abiding citizens.

As I mentioned earlier in the thread, we have guns for protection in the bush and the guns stay there. We don't want firearms anywhere near suburbia. If you were to apply for a gun licence and say you want it for protection against people then your application would get torn up on the spot.

I just read this:

"Two young campers were sleeping in Yosemite Valley this August when a tree branch snapped and fell on their tent, killing them both. 'We don’t know what caused the limb to fall,' said the park’s spokeswoman, Jodi Bailey. 'It seems like just a freak accident.'

Ms. Bailey was right: Being killed by a falling object is extremely rare. On average, about 680 Americans each year die this way, or about two people per million. The accident was seen as so unusual that it became national news, covered by CNN, The Los Angeles Times, MSN and The Daily Beast.

Yet in other developed countries, there is another cause of death that is just as rare: homicide by gun.

In Germany, for example, about two out of every million people are fatally shot by another person each year — making such events as uncommon there as the campers’ deaths in Yosemite. Gun homicides are just as rare in several other European countries, including the Netherlands and Austria. In the United States, two per million is roughly the death rate for hypothermia or plane crashes.

In Poland and England, only about one out of every million people die in gun homicides each year — about as often as an American dies in an agricultural accident or falling from a ladder. In Japan, where gun homicides are even rarer, the likelihood of dying this way is about the same as an American’s chance of being killed by lightning — roughly one in 10 million."

The United States does stand out as the gun crime capital of the world.

Link...http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/05/upshot/in-other-countries-youre-as-likely-to-be-killed-by-a-falling-object-as-a-gun.html?hpw&rref=upshot&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=well-region&region=bottom-well&WT.nav=bottom-well

 

[purplesparklies]

For some, it is interesting to note how quickly our POTUS was willing to label the PP shooter as a "Christian terrorist" while he remains reluctant to assign the label of terrorist to the shooters in San Bernardino.

I don't care if they call them terrorists or not, personally. I am tired of the political pandering by both sides who are so quick to jump on those tragedies they feel can be used in the media as an attack on the other side while turning a blind eye to others. It's all bullsh!t.

People have forgotten the art of disagreeing respectfully. It is sad and nothing will improve as long as disagreements continue to dissolve into attacks and general nastiness. Both sides are guilty and both are quick to point the finger at those across the aisle as being the problem. It is easy to see how it happens when even innocent PS discussions like the one regarding a simple thank-you or lack thereof from a young adult turn into accusations of a lack of character and judgments on the parenting of the kid. When people get so worked up over things, they are only able to view the world from their narrow perspective and rational thought is no more.

 

[JaneSmith]

Here are all the senators who just voted against greater background checks.

Write to yours if you disagree.

And here are all the senators who voted against Kate's Law to keep criminal illegal aliens out of our country. BOTH parties are party-line buddies who don't have citizens best interest and safety at heart.

I wasn't making a point about R vs D. I was pointing out that gun law for those who live in the aforementioned states.

 

[VRBeauty]

My theory on the whole controversy about calling them terrorists - or not:

1) a lot of people are still PO'ed that the Fort Hood shooting was identified as an incidence of workplace violence rather than terrorism.
2) some of it is because these days, "terrorist" and "Muslim" go hand in hand. So people think the President not labelling someone or (an incident) a terrorist shows sympathy towards Muslims. And some, of course, believe that the President is not just sympathetic or deferential to Islam, but is secretly a Muslim.
3) I have to say that the Pres. referring to the Colorado clinic shooting suspect as a "Christian Terrorist" certainly adds fuel to this particular fire!

Legally, identifying something as terrorism under federal law involves meeting certain criteria - and I understand why law enforcement and (some) elected officials want all the facts before using that label. https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/investigate/terrorism/terrorism-definition It involves trying to intimidate or coerce the government or a population or governmental policies by violence - so most violence directed at co-workers, and motivated by retaliation for something that happened on the job, would not qualify. I was quite impressed at the restraint San Bernardino law enforcement spokesmen showed in the immediate aftermath of the shooting. I also think the Planned Parenthood shootings do qualify as domestic terrorism, since that incident was probably meant to intimidate all such clinics and the motivation was related to governmental policies. But I am surprised at the President referring to the shooter as "a Christian terrorist" rather than, say, a "domestic terrorist." But - the anti-abortion movement is largely religious, and the shooter's former wife said he was a religious person, so I guess it fits.

 

[kenny]

Our Prez still refuses to call this horrific act as an act of terrorism..

DF, is it just you ... or does the T-word make every con's penises so hard?

Whether or not it's the Big-T, and I think it is since the FBI has announced it is, why so much energy into putting the San Bernardino attack into the T Jar?

Do you win a large bar bet, or something?
Serious question.

No, I just wanna hear our Prez call a spade a spade, but of course not b/c other terrorists may not be nice to us..

Dancing Fire, I think the president was waiting until all the facts were available.

Gosh, who would do THAT?
THAT's no way to gather a lynch mob!

 

[JaneSmith]

So why is it that gun laws work in EU countries and Australia, N. Zealand and other Asian countries but it will not work in the USA? Is our law enforcement more incompetent than theirs?

The attitude and culture towards firearms is a big factor IMO. Nobody in Australia keeps or kept a gun 'for protection from people' and if they do it's most likely because they're a criminal and they're trying to protect themselves from other criminals. So the average citizen doesn't have much to worry about there and the people who did need them (hunters, target practice, vermin eradicators) were happy to go through the red tape of regulation and screening as they were and still are law abiding citizens.

As I mentioned earlier in the thread, we have guns for protection in the bush and the guns stay there. We don't want firearms anywhere near suburbia. If you were to apply for a gun licence and say you want it for protection against people then your application would get torn up on the spot.

Agree.
That second amendment needs some serious rehab or just straight up deletion. Do you really think a civilian militia is going to overthrow a tyrannical US gov? And even if, in some weird dimension, that well-armed militia did, what would they do with their new power? Have you seen the people who think the 2nd is as sacred as bible scripture and who have stockpiles of weapons and ammo? They are the same ones who post pics like this on FB, unironically: