NY man in standoff over 30 round mags

[HCM]

So apparently a veteran in Putnam County, NY is involved in a stand off with police over 30 round mags /NY SAFE act.

He is holed up in an attic wearing a plate carrier and posting on Instagram. Haven’t seen any news coverage yet.

Instagram - though they seem to be editing his posts....

https://www.instagram.com/whiskey_warrior_556/?igshid=azw2lpsa72s2

Scanner feed:

https://m.broadcastify.com/listen/feed/6168

[RevolverRob]

Well, this will end poorly.

Shame too, looks like this guy just had a little girl, got married, bought a house, etc.

There is no, “Avoid jail time” for being in an armed standoff with the cops. It ends with someone dead or in jail, every time.

[Cookie Monster]

That sucks. The Gram seems to be taking down the recent ones but you see the dude and his little girl.

Didn’t hit the scanner feed so I got no idea what is going on.

No magazine is worth not being around for my kids and wife.

Prayers that no one gets hurt.

[Mr. Goodtimes]

That sucks. The Gram seems to be taking down the recent ones but you see the dude and his little girl.

Didn’t hit the scanner feed so I got no idea what is going on.

No magazine is worth not being around for my kids and wife.

Prayers that no one gets hurt.

At this point he's not going to be around for his wife and kid anyway so he might as well put his money where his mouth is. Supposedly "help is on the way" for him too.

[RevolverRob]

Well, it’ll be interesting to see how it all plays out at the end of the day.

Guy has blown up on IG getting 50k followers in a few hours.

Still, he’s going to jail for a while. And will lose his firearms rights and lots of other things.

There is a time and a place for resistance and a time and a place to get handcuffed and subsequently sue the shit out of everyone. He chose...poorly.

[RevolverRob]

He gave himself up peacefully.

http://westchester.news12.com/story/41364321/police-negotiation-units-in-putnam-county-spend-hours-dealing-with-individual-in-crisis

[CCT125US]

From the above linked story:

"Police say that man is not expected to face any charges from the standoff."

Well, that would be interesting.

[runcible]

Charges related to prohibited items and\or domestic violence may suffice, in their assessment.

[RevolverRob]

If I were a betting man:

Wife called the Army buddy after the argument this morning. Together they called the cops, because they were worried about the dude. The cops show up, talk to the wife and friend. Someone mentions his gun(s) and paranoid behavior online. The cops try to make contact and the guy and he basically creates an Instagram-fueled standoff.

Five will get you ten, if there were 30-round magazines, it’s tertiary to the bigger issues here.

I wonder if the cops seized any firearms at all?

I bet the Red Flag part is just the paranoid delusions of a guy who needs help. There is no conspiracy here...unless this guy also had copies of Epstein’s files next to his 30-round mags.

[andre3k]

According to the news story they didn't believe he had a weapon and nobody else in the community was in danger. A command post, Bearcat, SWAT Teams, EMT's and a press conference all for a dude that won't be charged?

[willie]

Folks will be having more serious legal issues for having a damn magazine than they once did for having an unregistered class 3 weapon. An example is a fireman and cop known to me who shared a live illegal M2 BMG which they enjoyed shooting. The local FBI guy says no you can't do this and gimme. They handed it over and bitched about the unfairness. That was that. No other action. I know of other examples. No jail time for dumb country boys. No careers ruined. Yes, times have changed.

[HCM]

Media is reporting this started as a domestic incident. This may have been a hoax or at least a false flag on his part.

[HopetonBrown]

https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=2906841489328454&id=2508813115911654517345174

[RevolverRob]

Edited:

Right so domestic incident and previously issued warrant.

No Red Flag. Total bullshit and people are chaining their wagon to this guy as some kind of “patriot”.

[TGS]

RevolverRob, andre3k,

A tactical team, armored vehicle, EMS standby and command post to coordinate it all are the appropriate resources to use for a barricaded and armed subject who is displaying a penchant for violence.

Pretty textbook, standard, plain-Jane, ordinary response, actually.

ETA: A press conference on top of it all would also be reasonable given the national attention this garnered for all the wrong/false reasons, and the need to set the record straight.

[andre3k]

RevolverRob, andre3k,

A tactical team, armored vehicle, EMS standby and command post to coordinate it all is the appropriate resources to use for a barricaded and armed subject who is displaying a penchant for violence.

Pretty textbook, standard, plain-Jane, ordinary response, actually.

ETA: A press conference on top of it all would also be reasonable given the national attention this garnered for all the wrong/false reasons, and the need to set the record straight.


According to the news story in post #6 they didn't mention any of that. The chief just said that he didn't have a weapon, wasn't a threat to anyone and he wouldn't be charged. I guess the story has now changed.

[RevolverRob]

RevolverRob, andre3k,

A tactical team, armored vehicle, EMS standby and command post to coordinate it all are the appropriate resources to use for a barricaded and armed subject who is displaying a penchant for violence.

Pretty textbook, standard, plain-Jane, ordinary response, actually.

ETA: A press conference on top of it all would also be reasonable given the national attention this garnered for all the wrong/false reasons, and the need to set the record straight.

I was mostly being tongue-in-cheek.

Also the press release Hopeton posted makes it clear the bulk of the gear came from Westchester county, nearby, so my joke was irrelevant.

[TGS]

I was mostly being tongue-in-cheek.

I'm scarred by years of Balko's mental incompetence being spread on the interweb by his maliciously stupid twits and am unable to filter humor regarding these subjects.

[RevolverRob]

I'm scarred by years of Balko's mental incompetence being spread on the interweb by his maliciously stupid twits and am unable to filter humor regarding this subjects.

Eh, I’d say, “Work on that.” But we both know, sometimes I am not so good at filtering humor, either. So, we’re good.

Frankly, this whole thing smelled a little fishy to me, to begin with. I watched a couple of the dude’s IG videos and quickly came to the conclusion that he has a screw or two loose. I hope he gets some help and learns something.

I hope the internet learns something (yea right...)

For now, I am watching the IG Mob claim that there is a conspiracy going on. It’s being fed by those whelps at 4chan. I’m also watching as GunPolicy.org is trying to back pedal away from everything after hitching up to this guy and giving him legal defense funds. Nothing says, “Premature” like giving a potential wife beater lawyer money. :rolleyes:

[Spartan1980]

So has boogaloo been called off? Damn! I was needing a good show to watch.

[Vista461]

I saw some posts on Facebook and Instagram talking about this guy and thought everything seems a little premature. Then I watched his Instagram story where he at least seems a little drunk and was drinking and walking around in his attic ranting, and couldn’t even spell Red Coats correctly . Didn’t seem like the kinda guy I’d be immediately hitching my wagon to, but seemed to get instant credibility with some folks.

[JRB]

The guy may or may not have been a knucklehead. Barricading oneself in an attic and drunkenly posting on IG sounds pretty knuckleheaded. But his IG is purported to have been edited/redacted/compromised in some way, so who knows.

We should expect to be discredited as a wife beater/kiddie porn collector/whatever if we're on the defensive side of this sort of thing whether or not we're in the right to do so. Discrediting the individual and mitigating the scope of the situation will become part and parcel for this sort of thing in the future.
I'll continue to live by the golden rule of 'don't start none, won't be none'.
Being an inflammatory attention whoring dickhead online sure as hell is 'starting some' in today's climate.

That said, seriously, if you see shit like this with a fellow Veteran call your battle buddy and help him figure his shit out if he's having a rough go of it. Go to his house and get him to come with you willingly to the VA or ER for help if he needs it. Wait him out for a day or three if that's what it takes.

Because once the cops are involved, it's a bad day for everyone and it will haunt him for the rest of his life.

Furthermore, the big takeaway is this:

So many people & organizations were ready to hitch up to this wagon because there's no other perceived path to solve these 2A issues without a show of force, or potential violence. I am terrified of the thought that it's not a matter of 'if' but 'when'.

So for the love of fucking god, people, start talking to your representation and show the fuck up to vote because that quite literally may save lives by preventing this kind of crazy stupid bullshit from popping off.

[Cory]

This was blasted on social media as being a "red flag" confiscation with threatened CPS action over a 30 round magazine. It appears this may not be true, but I think there are a few things that should be kept in mind when thinking about that type of thing occurring.

Having been raised in NYS, I grew up in a culture that largely viewed police as outsiders with authority who were out to get you. Many feel that the police are ready to screw over the average person to generate revenue for the state. I know that having lived there I certainly felt that way about police departments as a whole, even if not the individual police officers themselves. I'm a regular guy in NYS the police always made me uneasy because they could almost invent reasons to mess with you and give you a ticket if they wanted. Even if that's not true it's certainly the overwhelming sentiment where I'm from in upstate NY. With a population that doesn't really feel comfortable with the police and has such an us vs them mentality (fueled in part by unequal gun rights)... not everyone is going to trust the Mayberry PD's public statement.


We should expect to be discredited as a wife beater/kiddie porn collector/whatever if we're on the defensive side of this sort of thing whether or not we're in the right to do so. Discrediting the individual and mitigating the scope of the situation will become part and parcel for this sort of thing in the future.

This is going to be how a lot of folks up there think. I'm not certain they're wrong. Couple this up with the fact that Sheriff Andy acts like he's better than Mayberry's citizens and it just fuels the discontentment. Then you fill the role with Gomer Pyle fresh home from the service, give him increased rights compared to the citizenry, and put him in a job where he interacts with the bad apples all the time. Pretty soon all Gomer sees are bad apples. It fuels the us vs them from the police perspective too. It certainly doesn't help when the cops do everything right and get accosted by citizens who are in the wrong. It happens. Next thing you know Gomer doesn't mind to much about just following orders. Barney Fife is long gone.

The point I'm driving at, is this stuff is going to get worse. A lot worse. There is a lot of noncompliance in NYS. Every veteran, former leo, firefighter, EMS, National Guardsmen has 30 round magazines up there. They only talk about it with their tribe. The vets have them from in service, the former leo the same, firefighters from there buddies who are cops and veterans, same with EMS, Guardsmen get them from drills or deployments and they're unaccounted for. Plus anyone who drives out of state to buy a magazine. There are millions of felonies hiding under beds and in contico boxes in the garage.

With all those felony magazines, it's only a matter of time until the "30 round magazine confiscation stand off" happens for real. And I'm not certain it will play out much differently. At the moment, those magazines tend to be tacked on to other charges. That won't always be the case. And when it does happen, the populace that doesn't trust the police isn't going to by the statements made. Because Mayberry PD is going to try to make whoever is the target into a pariah. Some will be easier made than others.

There are already rumors that folks showed up to help this guy in a nearby cemetery are were subjected to sweeping arrests. Some are saying the incident was reported as being over before it was to discourage others from showing up to support this guy. Maybe true, maybe not. But it does seem people showed up. I know from my Facebook feed that a number of my veteran friends in upstate NY do not trust what the police are saying, believe that the PD and news were spreading misinformation during the incident, and are upset. Fueled by misinformation? Maybe. But the growing rift up there isn't getting mended and that's a real issue that will powder keg at some point.

-Cory

[Casual Friday]

I LOL'd at this post from SOLGW.
45180

[Glenn E. Meyer]

All you need is a shoot out over mags and if you add 'folks' riding to the rescue and more shoot outs (can you say, see the recent 'rescue' in Mexico) and you get:

1. Anti gun force say - My oh, my - we were wrong. Get rid of the bans. Let mags ring across the country!

2. Told you they were nuts and a national semi and mag ban slaps down. Evidence - the NRA (at least one VP level) said that they had to convince President Trump to ban bump stocks in order to stop a total ban on all semis and mags that would have passed both houses of Congress with a veto proof majority and/or President Trump would have signed the bill anyway.

Hears about revenge porn - revenge mag/gun squealing to the law by your EX is next. This is for the folks who brag about hiding them and then post it. 50 ish % of marriages break up. Given the millions of modern sporting rifles (haha) out there and the mags, that's millions of guys (and some women) waiting for the shoes to drop. Don't like that child support, alimony, or property settlement - all it takes is a phone call to the law.

[gtmtnbiker98]

All you need is a shoot out over mags and if you add 'folks' riding to the rescue and more shoot outs (can you say, see the recent 'rescue' in Mexico) and you get:

1. Anti gun force say - My oh, my - we were wrong. Get rid of the bans. Let mags ring across the country!

2. Told you they were nuts and a national semi and mag ban slaps down. Evidence - the NRA (at least one VP level) said that they had to convince President Trump to ban bump stocks in order to stop a total ban on all semis and mags that would have passed both houses of Congress with a veto proof majority and/or President Trump would have signed the bill anyway.

Hears about revenge porn - revenge mag/gun squealing to the law by your EX is next. This is for the folks who brag about hiding them and then post it. 50 ish % of marriages break up. Given the millions of modern sporting rifles (haha) out there and the mags, that's millions of guys (and some women) waiting for the shoes to drop. Don't like that child support, alimony, or property settlement - all it takes is a phone call to the law.Lotsa truth, here.

[RevolverRob]

I thought this was hilarious this morning:

45182

_

Patience is a virtue that very few have. Objectivity is even rarer and both are needed.

We should all return to our Sun Tzu and review the 5 essentials for victory (emphasis mine):

1) He will win who knows when to fight and when not to fight. (Objectivity)
2) He will win who knows how to handle both superior and inferior forces.
3) He will win whose army is animated by the same spirit throughout all its ranks.
4) He will win who, prepared himself, waits to take the enemy unprepared. (Patience)
5) He will win who has military capacity and is not interfered with by the sovereign.

[HCM]

I LOL'd at this post from SOLGW.
45180

45183

[Cory]

Patience This isn't directed at you, Rob, but rather alot of folks who always want to wait everyrhing out. I respect you and don't think you fall into that camp everytime.

-

Knowing when to fight is important but difficult. The long game that our adversaries play relies on our patience. They intentionally select targets that are imperfect people. Partially because all people are imperfect, and partially because it works to their narrarive. When they manipulate the information distributed it makes it easy for them to slowly progress their agenda.

"It's never my group, it's always that group of people who are lesser value, so I'm okay with it." Is a viewpoint that seriously hurts us. Anyone can make accusations of domestic violence (true or not) and suddenly that person had it coming? Or PTSD, or paranoia, or they were a prepper, or they were a loaner, or they liked video games, or they... really fill in the blank with any accusation or niche.

It is indeed important to pick our battles, and know what they are. But whos informatuon are we to trust? The person's? Social media? The internet? The news? The police? The governments?

We need to be selective... but when we never actually pick any specific incidents to defend we lose everytime. And none of the specific incidents will ever be perfect.

This may not be the one to get behind. But it may have been. Laughing at those willing to support others does nothing but marginalize the section of our side who is actively trying to oppose government over reach and unconstituional actions.

-Cory

[Glenn E. Meyer]

I'm curious as to the meaning of defend and get behind. Supporting a fair and just legal process should be done for any possible defendant. Choosing to do that for a specific issue is up to folks with an interest in that issue. Lawyers, media, demonstrations, asking for legislative action ,etc. are well known tactics.

Suggesting extra legal or even extreme means should be restricted for the most egregious instances of what? How would one respond to an arrest situation for a pure and simple police action, legally warranted for an individual reported to have higher capacity magazines?

What should one specifically do?

[RevolverRob]

Knowing when to fight is important but difficult. The long game that our adversaries play relies on our patience. They intentionally select targets that are imperfect people. Partially because all people are imperfect, and partially because it works to their narrarive. When they manipulate the information distributed it makes it easy for them to slowly progress their agenda.

We aren't fighting a battle that can be resolved through violence, short of total revolution. It is a culture war. If "they" select targets (which to be honest, I don't believe they do, I think they just advertise, disproportionately the stupid people who do stupid stuff), they draw from an abundance of idiots to choose from. "We" aren't so lucky in this regard, because the bulk of our counter-targets are well educated people who tend to know better and not air their dirty laundry on the front lawn.


"It's never my group, it's always that group of people who are lesser value, so I'm okay with it." Is a viewpoint that seriously hurts us. Anyone can make accusations of domestic violence (true or not) and suddenly that person had it coming? Or PTSD, or paranoia, or they were a prepper, or they were a loaner, or they liked video games, or they... really fill in the blank with any accusation or niche.

That isn't the viewpoint that hurts us. The viewpoint that hurts us is...they are people with PTSD, paranoia, who prep, are loners, and post too much on social media making them look like whack-jobs. It is better to be thought a fool than to post on Instagram and Twitter and remove all doubt. A lesson that all should probably learn and re-learn from time-to-time.


It is indeed important to pick our battles, and know what they are. But whos informatuon are we to trust? The person's? Social media? The internet? The news? The police? The governments?

In God we Trust everyone else goes through NICS?

Seriously, I never trust one-side of any story. Trust but verify remains an important aspect. Never make a public statement absent of at least the majority of the facts.


We need to be selective... but when we never actually pick any specific incidents to defend we lose everytime. And none of the specific incidents will ever be perfect.

(Legal) Defense happens after the incident. Many incidents are better than others for charging into the fray. The NRA ILA, SAF, even the ACLU are all orgs to look to, to see how they choose certain cases and why. I'm hardly a legal expert, but the best way to win in cases like this is to have an amiable, mostly unimpeachable, plaintiff that can articulate clearly what happened. Barricading yourself inside a house in a standoff with the cops ain't the way to win friends and influence people.


This may not be the one to get behind. But it may have been. Laughing at those willing to support others does nothing but marginalize the section of our side who is actively trying to oppose government over reach and unconstituional actions.

Believe it or not - I'm okay with marginalizing people who are actively trying to use force or the threat of force to impose a political agenda. We have a term for that, it's called terrorism. It's not up to the individual citizen to determine what is and is not unconstitutional. Constitutional review belongs to our court system. Until we have firmly and positively established that our court system is incapable of providing adequate review and determine constitutionality of something, all other efforts are premature.

Frankly, I view social media and our instant gratification culture as a direct cause of the various unrests that appear every year. We expect everything to change right f'ing now - when the reality is that the wheels of progress turn slowly and we should never be in a hurry to pass or alter laws, unless it is abundantly obvious that they are egregious.

As for mag/rifle/whatever bans the two most important things we can do -

1) Maintain pressure on our D.C. Reps to oppose bans at a federal level.
2) Continue to legally challenge laws and bans in states to have them overturned wherever possible.

The most harmful things we can do -
1) Appear to be lunatics.
2) Run off half-cocked at the mouth.
3) Get into bad situations with the police and state in general that make us appear to be unlawful citizens who lack impulse control.
4) Get into bad situations where our ostensible leaders are using funds to maintain their 21-year old girlfriends in condos while they spend $500k on suits and buy mansions (i.e., have corruption at the top).

Since we are already dealing with #4 on this list, let's try to avoid the other 3....

[Cory]

We aren't fighting a battle that can be resolved through violence, short of total revolution. It is a culture war. If "they" select targets (which to be honest, I don't believe they do, I think they just advertise, disproportionately the stupid people who do stupid stuff), they draw from an abundance of idiots to choose from. "We" aren't so lucky in this regard, because the bulk of our counter-targets are well educated people who tend to know better and not air their dirty laundry on the front lawn.



That isn't the viewpoint that hurts us. The viewpoint that hurts us is...they are people with PTSD, paranoia, who prep, are loners, and post too much on social media making them look like whack-jobs. It is better to be thought a fool than to post on Instagram and Twitter and remove all doubt. A lesson that all should probably learn and re-learn from time-to-time.



In God we Trust everyone else goes through NICS?

Seriously, I never trust one-side of any story. Trust but verify remains an important aspect. Never make a public statement absent of at least the majority of the facts.



(Legal) Defense happens after the incident. Many incidents are better than others for charging into the fray. The NRA ILA, SAF, even the ACLU are all orgs to look to, to see how they choose certain cases and why. I'm hardly a legal expert, but the best way to win in cases like this is to have an amiable, mostly unimpeachable, plaintiff that can articulate clearly what happened. Barricading yourself inside a house in a standoff with the cops ain't the way to win friends and influence people.



Believe it or not - I'm okay with marginalizing people who are actively trying to use force or the threat of force to impose a political agenda. We have a term for that, it's called terrorism. It's not up to the individual citizen to determine what is and is not unconstitutional. Constitutional review belongs to our court system. Until we have firmly and positively established that our court system is incapable of providing adequate review and determine constitutionality of something, all other efforts are premature.

Frankly, I view social media and our instant gratification culture as a direct cause of the various unrests that appear every year. We expect everything to change right f'ing now - when the reality is that the wheels of progress turn slowly and we should never be in a hurry to pass or alter laws, unless it is abundantly obvious that they are egregious.

As for mag/rifle/whatever bans the two most important things we can do -

1) Maintain pressure on our D.C. Reps to oppose bans at a federal level.
2) Continue to legally challenge laws and bans in states to have them overturned wherever possible.

The most harmful things we can do -
1) Appear to be lunatics.
2) Run off half-cocked at the mouth.
3) Get into bad situations with the police and state in general that make us appear to be unlawful citizens who lack impulse control.
4) Get into bad situations where our ostensible leaders are using funds to maintain their 21-year old girlfriends in condos while they spend $500k on suits and buy mansions (i.e., have corruption at the top).

Since we are already dealing with #4 on this list, let's try to avoid the other 3....

I never advocated violence. I don't think every person who advocates support against governmental over reach is saying force is the way to do so.

If you think we're in a culture war, how is it you view courts as the only avenue of change? We don't get to determine what is unconstituional, and must trust the courts to do so. Until we can't trust our courts you say. Who determines that? We do. Speaking out against injustice is important. If we cry out against unjust treatment of citizens THAT has value. How does that happen? At the moment, social media. Marginalizing those who want to defend the 2nd amendment simply hurts us - and I whole heartly disagree with it. Vilifying them doesn't benefit us, it helps the anti narrative. Not every 2A proponent is a spotless perfectly informed advocate. That doesn't make them less important. We still need the masses to stand up to over zealous or incorrect police action.

-Cory

[JRB]

The Founding Fathers & revolutionaries were terrorists until they founded a nation. That is an important thing to remember, RevolverRob. That line is different for each of us, and as generally peace loving people it's a goddamn hard thing to judge. I think cor_man257 nailed this perfectly on how that threshold is different for each of us.

Frankly, I don't believe a damn thing coming from the news and especially the local Police regarding this whole situation, but there's no way we'll ever know the actual truth. But I don't believe much these days from the news. When fucking Al-Jazeera's coverage seems more unbiased and sensible than any other coverage I see, there's a fucking problem.

I really, really, really don't want to see violence erupt over 2A rights. But it's slowly snowballing into a lot more things than 2A rights, and people aren't getting off their asses to fix this at the voting booth. There's not much else avaliable if it doesn't get fixed at the voting booth...

[RevolverRob]

Sure, one man’s terrorist is another’s freedom fighter.

Two things - one about this particular case one in general -

This case: a judge had previously as in at least 24-hours before, issued a warrant for this guy for some type of domestic incident. Maybe it’s easy to get such a warrant in Putnam Co, NY - I don’t know. But we have enough cops here, who have explained the nuances of swearing warrants to make me believe that this guy had a tendency towards domestic violence. I’m inclined to believe a preponderance of evidence that it looks like a duck, rather than think conspiracy that we’re dealing with a wolf in duck’s clothing.

General: Honestly? We’re winning court cases. We need to stay the course and remain calm. And I think the culture war is far more complex that something that can be solved via violence or the ballot box. To change a culture, takes a serious, often outside, influence. If you want things to change towards a conservative mindset, a depression or a war are usually what is needed. Not a civil war, a genuine existential threat. Until then, it’s nothing. Some people are ready to load up and shoot at cops and the neighbors over what exactly? A revolution, an insurrection, needs political leadership, it requires clear justification.

Where are the leaders? If there are no leaders, then a critical mass has not been reached. History tells us - that a critical mass must be reached before anything changes. Until the peasants are hungry AND angry, nothing positive will occur with bloodshed

Also, this boogaloo crap - guys this is being driven by 4chan and 8chan whelps. They are trolls, they have simply found another way to troll people. Incels, memes, guns - it’s just another way to manipulate emotionally weak people. Y’all are way smarter than that.

[BehindBlueI's]

If somebody wanted to set the guy up, planting an Uzi would have been a hell of a lot easier than this Rube Goldbergian Conspiracy/Cover-up some of you are imagining.

[Moylan]

I disagree with the sentiment that one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. If it's merely an observation about word choice, then it's true enough but totally trivial. If it's anything more than that, then it's the lowest form of degrading and cowardly--and, frankly, vacuous and just plain silly--moral relativism.

The founding fathers were in no sense terrorists. They may have been hanged as traitors had they lost the war, but that would not have made them terrorists. It would have made them unsuccessful. Terrorism is, roughly, the use of violence in pursuit of political ends...however, it's essential to the idea of terrorism that this is criminal violence (https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCODE-2009-title18/html/USCODE-2009-title18-partI-chap113B-sec2331.htm).


You express a great deal of anxiety over our willingness to break laws. This is certainly a legitimate concern. Since we so diligently urge people to obey the Supreme Court's decision of 1954 outlawing segregation in the public schools, at first glance it may seem rather paradoxical for us consciously to break laws. One may well ask: "How can you advocate breaking some laws and obeying others?" The answer lies in the fact that there are two types of laws: just and unjust. I would be the first to advocate obeying just laws. One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws. I would agree with St. Augustine that "an unjust law is no law at all."

Now, what is the difference between the two? How does one determine whether a law is just or unjust? A just law is a man made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God. An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law. To put it in the terms of St. Thomas Aquinas: An unjust law is a human law that is not rooted in eternal law and natural law.

That's how Martin Luther King put it in his letter from a Birmingham jail. He of course led a nonviolent campaign, but the moral point here is independent of that. If I use violence to defend myself against a tyrannical government that is attempting to enforce unjust laws, then although that government will of course label my acts as criminal, they may not in fact be so. So I am not, just in virtue of using violence, a terrorist. Of course it's possible to commit evil and perhaps genuinely terroristic acts even in pursuit of a genuinely just cause. Arguably the fire bombing of Dresden or Tokyo were such cases. So I'm not saying that any act against a tyrannical government is justified. I am, however, saying that some such acts may be. The Americans who fired on the British regulars at the North Bridge in Concord, for example, were not terrorists. The American who, it seems, used a hatchet to bash in the head of an injured regular on the bridge after the brief exchange of fire had concluded was, however, a war criminal and perhaps a terrorist. If citizens gather together to prevent the government from violently enforcing an unjust law, if necessary through violent means within the bounds of morality, then this is not terrorism.

In my opinion, it is absolutely crucial for those of us on the side of the 2nd Amendment--and all the rest of them--to be crystal clear on the morality of our position. If we slide into a kind of facile moral relativism, then we're all the more likely to actually become the bad guy that some might already say we are.

[RevolverRob]

If somebody wanted to set the guy up, planting an Uzi would have been a hell of a lot easier than this Rube Goldbergian Conspiracy/Cover-up some of you are imagining.

Or some meth of oxy...




The founding fathers were in no sense terrorists. They may have been hanged as traitors had they lost the war, but that would not have made them terrorists. It would have made them unsuccessful. Terrorism is, roughly, the use of violence in pursuit of political ends...however, it's essential to the idea of terrorism that this is criminal violence (https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCODE-2009-title18/html/USCODE-2009-title18-partI-chap113B-sec2331.htm).


Armed violence against state representatives is criminal violence.

Perception of just and unjust is relative. Until the majority agree any such armed insurrection is by definition terrorism. It is the use of criminal violence in pursuit of political ends. I'm sure that Jihadist suicide bombers view their actions as fully justified, yet the majority thinks differently (<-that is not a strawman, but rather a point to indicate that justification is relative).

Culturally, the majority of our countrymen appear to not believe (or care) that current laws are unjust. Therefore our option is to continue pursuit of legal means to challenge what we view is unjust. Violence in an attempt to challenge this is terrorism.

Bear in mind that the individuals who were "rallying to the aid" of our individual in OP are all avowed anarchists and therefore view violence and chaos as the appropriate state of being. They are not friends to any legitimate struggle for legal recognition or protection.

[Moylan]

Perception of just and unjust is relative. Until the majority agree any such armed insurrection is by definition terrorism. It is the use of criminal violence in pursuit of political ends. I'm sure that Jihadist suicide bombers view their actions as fully justified, yet the majority thinks differently (<-that is not a strawman, but rather a point to indicate that justification is relative).

Culturally, the majority of our countrymen appear to not believe (or care) that current laws are unjust. Therefore our option is to continue pursuit of legal means to challenge what we view is unjust. Violence in an attempt to challenge this is terrorism.
Perception is exactly what doesn't matter, morally speaking. But the gist here is that you're openly embracing moral relativism, which is of course your right. Except that moral relativists cannot actually believe in rights, and hence cannot actually endorse the whole worldview that made our nation possible in the first place. So I'd say here is a disagreement that goes all the way down. If the pro-2A crowd goes your way and rejects the very basis for the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the US, though, then we will have obviously pulled the rug out from under ourselves.


Bear in mind that the individuals who were "rallying to the aid" of our individual in OP are all avowed anarchists and therefore view violence and chaos as the appropriate state of being. They are not friends to any legitimate struggle for legal recognition or protection.
To clarify, I don't know enough to have a position on this recent situation, and my comments weren't directed to that particular case at all.

[Borderland]

This isn't directed at you, Rob, but rather alot of folks who always want to wait everyrhing out. I respect you and don't think you fall into that camp everytime.

-

Knowing when to fight is important but difficult. The long game that our adversaries play relies on our patience. They intentionally select targets that are imperfect people. Partially because all people are imperfect, and partially because it works to their narrarive. When they manipulate the information distributed it makes it easy for them to slowly progress their agenda.

"It's never my group, it's always that group of people who are lesser value, so I'm okay with it." Is a viewpoint that seriously hurts us. Anyone can make accusations of domestic violence (true or not) and suddenly that person had it coming? Or PTSD, or paranoia, or they were a prepper, or they were a loaner, or they liked video games, or they... really fill in the blank with any accusation or niche.

It is indeed important to pick our battles, and know what they are. But whos informatuon are we to trust? The person's? Social media? The internet? The news? The police? The governments?

We need to be selective... but when we never actually pick any specific incidents to defend we lose everytime. And none of the specific incidents will ever be perfect.

This may not be the one to get behind. But it may have been. Laughing at those willing to support others does nothing but marginalize the section of our side who is actively trying to oppose government over reach and unconstituional actions.

-Cory

Cliven Bundy would agree with you.

[mark7]

FWIW, this was posted at the Putnam County Firearm Owners Association bookface page


We just got the following information about last night's standoff (11/23/19) in Mahopac from a reputable Police source. It is our understanding that this is what occurred:
Alexander Booth is reported to be a mentally disturbed man. His WIFE and daughter had an ORDER OF PROTECTION against him because they feared for their safety. His wife and daughter were living at a different location, NOT in his house. Somehow Mr Booth found out where they were staying, and reportedly while intoxicated, forcibly broke into the safe house. (It was NOT Booth's House) That's apparently why Mr Booth was charged with burglary. Mr Booth reportedly VIOLATED the order of protection that his wife and daughter had against him.
This was NOT a 2A issue.
Some people, probably anti-2A provocateurs, or possibly even some well meaning fools were inciting our people to take action that would damage the credibility of our organization.
So many people from around the country were calling that they seriously disrupted the 911 EMERGENCY SYSTEM. If someone was having a medical emergency such as a heart attack or your house was on fire or a criminal was invading a citizens home, people could NOT contact emergency services for life saving help.
Those that were involved in spreading this dangerous MISINFORMATION should be ashamed of themselves and must be more careful in the future. If you believe someone's 2A rights are being violated in Putnam County, please message us BEFORE posting on our page or in our group so we may fact check it first! Any questionable posts will be removed immediately until we assertain the facts.

[Joe in PNG]

It's funny- to some, Fake But Accurate! isn't a bad thing when they're the ones doing it.

[RevolverRob]

Perception is exactly what doesn't matter, morally speaking. But the gist here is that you're openly embracing moral relativism, which is of course your right. Except that moral relativists cannot actually believe in rights, and hence cannot actually endorse the whole worldview that made our nation possible in the first place. So I'd say here is a disagreement that goes all the way down. If the pro-2A crowd goes your way and rejects the very basis for the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the US, though, then we will have obviously pulled the rug out from under ourselves.


I'll keep this short and sweet.

You and I are not going to agree on this subject.

First, because you have taken two of my posts and tried to fit them into a box in an effort to appear righteous. Second, you have conflated all three widely recognized forms of moral relativism within your post above.

[Baldanders]

It seems like we are headed back into the same territory we were in when we were discussing open carry, and some notion of "rights" independent of mores (not 'morals'), the process of public debate, and the judicial process.


Ok, I'm a rabid, frothing-the-mouth, antitheist atheist. However, for the purpose of debate, I am willing to take the ldeas that the Yahweh himself has given us the right to keep and bear arms, it has an one inherent meaning which can be seen clearly, and that the 2A is just the expression of acceptance that this is the case as temporary axioms.

Even if all that is true, we will only settle how the 2A is implemented in our society through a process of debate, legislation, and judicial decision unless God himself shows up to end debate. Accepting this as reality isn't "moral relativism" in any sense I have heard it defined.

The definitions we used in my intro to philosophy class involved two ideas: "you can only judge within your own culture" and the weaker "you must judge all cultures by their own standards, not your own." Both ideas make criticizing the Nazis in 1939 difficult to impossible, so I reject them in terms of morality, if not mores. (Mores are purely relative, IMO) Accepting the process in the above paragraph as an adequate description of reality involves neither idea. "There is no moral right or wrong, only varying sets of mores" is usually the strawman setup to attack moral relativism, and I don't see that in the preceding paragraph either.

Some things that will never win any converts to our side: 1) declaring folks who have opposing views as the enemy who do what they do because they are evil, 2) armed standoffs or the vaguest appearance of such, and 3) running to the aid of someone engaging in #2 .

I can already see those posts lining up groups of implacable enemies for whom #1 doesn't apply; declaring eternal enemies and finding reasons not to try to change minds is, after all, much, much easier than trying to engage in real debates.

I think someone said something about "patience." Martyrdom will never be a strategy that works for the 2A.

[blues]

Martyrdom will never be a strategy that works for the 2A.

Is that because they'll have taken our bullets?








;)

[Baldanders]

Edited for good taste, for once.

[HCM]

An older article from Chris Hernandez is but still on point:

Stop Wishing for a Revolution

https://chrishernandezauthor.com/2014/06/13/stop-wishing-for-a-revolution/?fbclid=IwAR0kb8KfTBv9xY5FekDR9O8k5RBY8AdOj0gdu-6j5vsGHPgt6Y8sXtsYlxU

If you want to know what “The Boogaloo” would look like just look at Syria and Yugoslavia.

[Joe in PNG]

An older article from Chris Hernandez is but still on point:

Stop Wishing for a Revolution

https://chrishernandezauthor.com/2014/06/13/stop-wishing-for-a-revolution/?fbclid=IwAR0kb8KfTBv9xY5FekDR9O8k5RBY8AdOj0gdu-6j5vsGHPgt6Y8sXtsYlxU

One factor about revolutions that people don't understand is that there's a really good chance that you won't get to pick the side you fight on.

Because the other side got to you first, and gave you a choice- join up, or die alongside your whole family.

[HCM]

45232

[RevolverRob]

There are more crushed “revolutions” than successful ones, by orders of magnitude.

People forget that the victor writes history. Crushed “revolutions” are called ‘rebellions’ by the victors. Successful rebellions are called ‘revolutions’ by the victors.

Remember this when you’re reading about Hong Kong in 20-years. The chapter will be titled, “Violent rebellions against law and order in Hong Kong 2010-2020.”

[Joe in PNG]

There are more crushed “revolutions” than successful ones, by orders of magnitude.

People forget that the victor writes history. Crushed “revolutions” are called ‘rebellions’ by the victors. Successful rebellions are called ‘revolutions’ by the victors.

Remember this when you’re reading about Hong Kong in 20-years. The chapter will be titled, “Violent rebellions against law and order in Hong Kong 2010-2020.”

It could also be the first part of "The 21st Century Warring States Era" as the thing that triggers the collapse of the old Communist Empire.

[RevolverRob]

It could also be the first part of "The 21st Century Warring States Era" as the thing that triggers the collapse of the old Communist Empire.

I mean, that would be my preferred version. But I don’t see it happening. People thought Tiananmen Square would get the ball rolling as the globe witnessed the disregard a Totalitarian Communist Regime had for its own people. They were wrong. In fact, the only lasting repercussions if that event are the still extant arms embargoes by the US and EU against China, and a massive and more cohesive state surveillance and censor system in China.

[Joe in PNG]

I mean, that would be my preferred version. But I don’t see it happening. People thought Tiananmen Square would get the ball rolling as the globe witnessed the disregard a Totalitarian Communist Regime had for its own people. They were wrong. In fact, the only lasting repercussions if that event are the still extant arms embargoes by the US and EU against China, and a massive and more cohesive state surveillance and censor system in China.

But, China was the big market that people were scrambling to get into, so the world was mostly willing to turn a blind eye.
Now, things are a bit different inside. A new generation has come up who don't remember the days of Mao. The long term effects of the One Child policy are beginning to hurt. And all those western business are beginning to quietly pull out.

We may yet get a repeat of Tianamen '89 in Hong Kong... or we may get a repeat of Romania '89.

[Baldanders]

But, China was the big market that people were scrambling to get into, so the world was mostly willing to turn a blind eye.
Now, things are a bit different inside. A new generation has come up who don't remember the days of Mao. The long term effects of the One Child policy are beginning to hurt. And all those western business are beginning to quietly pull out.

We may yet get a repeat of Tianamen '89 in Hong Kong... or we may get a repeat of Romania '89.

I am reading "The Three Body Problem," a popular Chinese s-f book, and quite recent.

The protagonist watches her father get beat to death by 14-year old Red Guards for teaching Einstein. And there is a line to the effect of "in China, gravity was too heavy for ideas to fly."

Completely accepted, no censorship, and very popular.

I'm still processing it.


I am surprised HK hasn't been crushed utterly yet.

[Baldanders]

It could also be the first part of "The 21st Century Warring States Era" as the thing that triggers the collapse of the old Communist Empire.

That would be awesome, but I feel like real change in China will take another generation, one that can pull apart the CCP with lucrative jobs, or some other way to pull the brakes off capitalism.

[JRB]

Or some meth of oxy...

Armed violence against state representatives is criminal violence.

Perception of just and unjust is relative. Until the majority agree any such armed insurrection is by definition terrorism. It is the use of criminal violence in pursuit of political ends. I'm sure that Jihadist suicide bombers view their actions as fully justified, yet the majority thinks differently (<-that is not a strawman, but rather a point to indicate that justification is relative).

Culturally, the majority of our countrymen appear to not believe (or care) that current laws are unjust. Therefore our option is to continue pursuit of legal means to challenge what we view is unjust. Violence in an attempt to challenge this is terrorism.

Bear in mind that the individuals who were "rallying to the aid" of our individual in OP are all avowed anarchists and therefore view violence and chaos as the appropriate state of being. They are not friends to any legitimate struggle for legal recognition or protection.

This begs a pretty straightforward question; If armed violence against representatives of the state is always criminal violence, how do we square that with the 2A expressly protecting the right to own and use contemporary military weapons specifically to defend the country against enemies of the Constitution, foreign or domestic?
The Founding Fathers expressly mentioned overthrowing standing Government if necessary. Tree of Liberty, Blood of Patriots, etc etc.

This means that to defend the 2A as written, is to defend the right for us to maintain military weapons and skills expressly to use them when it becomes neccessary to preserve or restore a Constitutional government.
Ergo, the 2A exists to defend the ability of the common American to effectively engage in an insurgency should the situation warrant it to restore the government our Founding Fathers intended.




That all said; the more that comes out about this particular story, yes, this guy was 100% knucklehead and as a fellow vet I can't help but wonder if he was just that asshole that was always a problem for his unit, or if he was a decent guy whos friends/command/family etc failed him after he failed himself. More likely it's a combination of those two factors, and friends can only try to help someone for so long before you give up on his dumb ass - but the optics of 'troubled Veteran' never change regardless of whether or not he happened to be 'That Guy'.
Regardless of the root cause, this is a hell of a cry wolf moment and hopefully it'll temper the collective reaction and educate on all sides of this equation.



An older article from Chris Hernandez is but still on point:

Stop Wishing for a Revolution

https://chrishernandezauthor.com/2014/06/13/stop-wishing-for-a-revolution/?fbclid=IwAR0kb8KfTBv9xY5FekDR9O8k5RBY8AdOj0gdu-6j5vsGHPgt6Y8sXtsYlxU

If you want to know what “The Boogaloo” would look like just look at Syria and Yugoslavia.

I believe a 'Boogaloo' in the U.S. would be substantially worse, both in viciousness and in scope.
That's why the idea fills me with dread and trepidation and I'd argue that any sane man should feel the same way.

[HCM]

This begs a pretty straightforward question; If armed violence against representatives of the state is always criminal violence, how do we square that with the 2A expressly protecting the right to own and use contemporary military weapons specifically to defend the country against enemies of the Constitution, foreign or domestic?
The Founding Fathers expressly mentioned overthrowing standing Government if necessary. Tree of Liberty, Blood of Patriots, etc etc.

This means that to defend the 2A as written, is to defend the right for us to maintain military weapons and skills expressly to use them when it becomes neccessary to preserve or restore a Constitutional government.
Ergo, the 2A exists to defend the ability of the common American to effectively engage in an insurgency should the situation warrant it to restore the government our Founding Fathers intended.




That all said; the more that comes out about this particular story, yes, this guy was 100% knucklehead and as a fellow vet I can't help but wonder if he was just that asshole that was always a problem for his unit, or if he was a decent guy whos friends/command/family etc failed him after he failed himself. More likely it's a combination of those two factors, and friends can only try to help someone for so long before you give up on his dumb ass - but the optics of 'troubled Veteran' never change regardless of whether or not he happened to be 'That Guy'.
Regardless of the root cause, this is a hell of a cry wolf moment and hopefully it'll temper the collective reaction and educate on all sides of this equation.




I believe a 'Boogaloo' in the U.S. would be substantially worse, both in viciousness and in scope.
That's why the idea fills me with dread and trepidation and I'd argue that any sane man should feel the same way.

I agree. You know why the Swiss can have automatic weapons in most every household and not have blood in the streets? Because they are Swiss. Americans, on the other hand, are crazy. No one has ever killed more Americans than other Americans during our civil war.

[Moylan]

I'll keep this short and sweet.

You and I are not going to agree on this subject.
That's what I said! ;)


First, because you have taken two of my posts and tried to fit them into a box in an effort to appear righteous. Second, you have conflated all three widely recognized forms of moral relativism within your post above.
Well, I'd love to see a fine-grained analysis of how that went, but keeping it short and sweet definitely saves intellectual labor and lets you talk like you're an expert! I mean, your post here puts my post in a box in an effort to appear intelligent and mistakenly claims there are three widely recognized forms of moral relativism when in fact there are either two (subjectivism and cultural relativism), or else there are dozens of versions that vary in fine details from one another. Whichever way you slice it, however, in order to count as relativism, the views will share the defining characteristics of relativism, namely the two views that

1. Moral judgments are true or false and actions are right or wrong only relative to some particular standpoint (usually the moral framework of a specific community).

2. No standpoint can be proved objectively superior to any other.
https://www.iep.utm.edu/moral-re/#SH2g

This is all, of course, wholly irrelevant to the discussion at hand here, but it's never a bad time to stop and try to think clearly about the foundations of ethics.

[BehindBlueI's]

This begs a pretty straightforward question; If armed violence against representatives of the state is always criminal violence, how do we square that with the 2A expressly protecting the right to own and use contemporary military weapons specifically to defend the country against enemies of the Constitution, foreign or domestic?
The Founding Fathers expressly mentioned overthrowing standing Government if necessary. Tree of Liberty, Blood of Patriots, etc etc.

The 2nd doesn't expressly or specifically say anything about armed revolution. Thomas Jefferson talked about "a little rebellion being good" but his view was far from universal, and even he advocated for punishment "Unsuccessful rebellions, indeed, generally establish the encroachments on the rights of the people which have produced them. An observation of this truth should render honest republican governors so mild in their punishment of rebellions as not to discourage them too much." In reality the state and federal governments, including founding fathers, put down armed rebellions. Jefferson also didn't believe Americans could be induced into a civil war, which at the time of the "little rebellion" letter he thought could be imminent due to a potential conflict with Spain. (It should also be noted that his letter pre-dated the concept of judicial review by SCOTUS, which Jefferson did not believe in, but is currently considered one of the cornerstones of checks and balances. Despite his many disagreements with other founding fathers, he limited his "rebellion" to state and federal legislation, not armed insurrection.)

Shay's rebellion was put down by a state and volunteer militia and the participants had to turn in their guns and right to serve on a jury in exchange for amnesty. That rebellion also strengthened arguments for a stronger federal government, particularly in Massachusetts which had been a strong anti-Federalist state. That set the stage for George Washington a few years later to raise some 12,000 militiamen to put down the Whisky Rebellion. Washington, despite the many fake and doctored quotes that circulate, was not quite as tolerant of armed insurrection as Jefferson appeared to be and none of them actually tolerated an armed insurrection.

The Alien and Seditions Act and the responses from the various founding fathers (which, arguably, set the stage for the US Civil War when Jefferson and Madison using state governments to attempt to hamper Adams) further show the divide and that there was no lock-step view on the "goodness" of insurrection.

Personally, I think it's rather clear that our founding fathers would not be particularly welcoming of an armed insurrection attempting to work around the legal structure they've provided, particularly in a time when the ballot box itself remains unused by roughly half of those eligible to do so and the jury box is functioning as intended.

[Casual Friday]

This begs a pretty straightforward question; If armed violence against representatives of the state is always criminal violence, how do we square that with the 2A expressly protecting the right to own and use contemporary military weapons specifically to defend the country against enemies of the Constitution, foreign or domestic?
The Founding Fathers expressly mentioned overthrowing standing Government if necessary. Tree of Liberty, Blood of Patriots, etc etc.

This means that to defend the 2A as written, is to defend the right for us to maintain military weapons and skills expressly to use them when it becomes neccessary to preserve or restore a Constitutional government.
Ergo, the 2A exists to defend the ability of the common American to effectively engage in an insurgency should the situation warrant it to restore the government our Founding Fathers intended.

Mic drop.

[Casual Friday]

The people that actually want some kind of civil war 2 don't post on Instagram or Facebook about it. Same with the actually dangerous homegrown Aloha Snackbars and Neo Nazis. I'm much more concerned about the ones that lurk in the shadows than the ones that tell the world their plans. The threeper/militia movement is the same, the ones making cameos in Discovery Channel documentaries with screen names like "refreshthetree" and "bloodoftyrants" and "sheepdog1776" are all hat and no cattle. Timothy McVeigh wouldn't have had a Facebook account.

Red flag or ERPO laws, whatever people wanna call them, will be abused and will result in dead citizens and dead cops. I'd rather have neither, but it's going to happen. I've held that belief for a long time and it's been poo poo'd here, mostly by people who don't want to admit that there are bad elements in government who are willing to see Americans die in order to take their guns, and there are members of law enforcement and the military who would follow those orders. We only have to look back at Hurricane Katrina in 2005 to see how people were treated who had guns.

Most of us just want to be left alone, to protect our livelihoods, to raise our families, and live peaceful lives. I'm not in the military, I'm not a LEO, I'm just a peckerwood who lives in the hills with too many guns that is protected by a 240+ year old piece of paper with my rights and govt limitations written on it who is continually told by people running for office on the local, state and federal level that I shouldn't be able to.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

When the Civil War II starts, Medicare, SSI, Medicaid and numerous other payments stop. Think there will be much support for Cletus having a 30 round mag and thing that goes up when millions of folks are clobbered financially.

[RevolverRob]

JRB as BBI noted, the purpose of the 2A was not expressly to written to protect the state from foreign or domestic entities. It is written to prevent the state from seizing the means of the people to protect themselves and/or conduct warfare. While that may suggest a tacit acceptance of the ‘right’ to conduct warfare against a state perceived to be unjust, it does not make it legal or non-criminal.

Also, we should all recognize that in the Declaration of Independence there is a list of 27 grievances, many of which had gone on for decades if not a century. It’s not that the Founding Fathers woke up one morning and decided to overthrow the British rule in their home. They attempted to make peace and be diplomatic for a long time.

Until all of the checks and balances of our system are violated, until we have exhausted all manner of civil recourse and discourse to resolve our grievances - we should not consider insurrection a valid solution.

And unless you win that war, you’ll be executed.

[RevolverRob]

This is all, of course, wholly irrelevant to the discussion at hand here, but it's never a bad time to stop and try to think clearly about the foundations of ethics.

Sure, okay.

In your view:

1) Is morality universal?

2) If so, from what source is that universality derived? Is it biological? Is it endowed by a diving entity? Is it something else?

—

[BehindBlueI's]

Timothy McVeigh wouldn't have had a Facebook account.


That's an interesting assertion. I suspect he would based on:

1)When McVeigh was looking to publish his manifesto and (wrongly) didn't believe the traditional media would cover it, stating "I have chosen Media Bypass as a possible forum for this piece because, frankly, I realize that it is quite provocative - and I doubt that any mainstream media would touch it..." This indicates he was looking for ways to get his message out and social media is the current tool to do that while bypassing established media.

2) When he was arrested (originally on weapons charges before anyone realized he was a bombing suspect) he had a large envelope of literature in the passenger seat. His stated goal was that it would be released to the media. Again, an attempt to distribute his message to the masses.

3) He believed his actions would be a catalyst for others to take similar actions. There are many indications he wanted to be caught and likely had a martyr complex. He had to get his message out for this to work and apparently hoped to make himself another rallying point for those he supposed would accept his message and follow him.

4) He confessed and was quite proud of his "accomplishment" including talking to the media with quotes such as: " 'Strange as that may sound, he is very proud of what he has done. Talking of it, he has the enthusiasm of a high-school kid describing a science project he has just completed.' Michel [reporter and author] quotes McVeigh as telling him: 'Because the truth is, I blew up the Murrah building and isn't it kind of scary that one man could reap this kind of hell?'"

McVeigh is another cookie cut with the same cutter as so many other terrorists. Someone searching for meaning, not quite being able to fit in with society, who discovers/invents a Great Cause that he can gain fame and standing by killing/dying for. He's the school shooter, he's the nightclub shooter, he's the Islamist terrorist, he's the eco-warrior blowing up SUVs and spiking trees, hall just a re-skin on the same notion of using the cat's paw of violence to get his message to the masses. I find it unlikely that someone who so desperately wanted to be heard wouldn't use social media to attempt to accomplish that.

[Wondering Beard]

Is it endowed by a diving entity?

Cthulu?

[Borderland]

When the Civil War II starts, Medicare, SSI, Medicaid and numerous other payments stop. Think there will be much support for Cletus having a 30 round mag and thing that goes up when millions of folks are clobbered financially.

:D

It's going to stop before Civil War II starts, whatever that is. So are a lot of other things the fed gov't provides. Actually that's already happened with the dumb shittery going on in congress and a bat shit crazy president. Remember the last shutdown. As was pointed out by BB only about half the people who are eligible to vote make the effort and only about half of the people with income pay any federal taxes. Corps are now paying less tax so the remaining burden will soon fall on individuals to make up the shortfall. Or possibly reduced federal benefits like SSI and medicare. The federal gov't (adm and congress) is on a path to a permanent gov't shutdown. They can't solve the debt crisis nor the growing resentment of individual taxpayers not having a workable and fair tax policy or universal health care.

The American revolution was caused by 3 financial burdens placed on colonists. First was the Stamp act, then the Townshend Acts and finally the Coercive Acts, all requiring payment of some sort to the crown.

Democrats will eventually take over the federal gov't and the collapse will be unavoidable. States will have to maintain the order. That's the reason for more state ERPO and SAR/magazine bans. Those aren't and won't be coming from the fed.

[RevolverRob]

Cthulu?

Maybe? Or maybe it’s schizophrenic telepathic whales (if anyone gets that extremely obscure reference, I will be supremely impressed).

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Cthulu?

Funny play on diving and Cthulhu. If you spell his name wrong - watch out. I still have my Cthulhu t-shirt from 2016. As far as current benefits failing, and civilization collapses - well, geezers with modern sporting rifles on the move to get Bran Flakes is a scary proposition.

There was no revolution on the Fed level after the AWB. No revolution on the state level for the various current bans. Lots of talk and local extremists might do something unpleasant but there's not going to be a government overturn for gun rights. Whom do you trust in the gun world to run a complicate state like the USA. Wayne?

[Casual Friday]

That's an interesting assertion. I suspect he would based on:

1)When McVeigh was looking to publish his manifesto and (wrongly) didn't believe the traditional media would cover it, stating "I have chosen Media Bypass as a possible forum for this piece because, frankly, I realize that it is quite provocative - and I doubt that any mainstream media would touch it..." This indicates he was looking for ways to get his message out and social media is the current tool to do that while bypassing established media.

2) When he was arrested (originally on weapons charges before anyone realized he was a bombing suspect) he had a large envelope of literature in the passenger seat. His stated goal was that it would be released to the media. Again, an attempt to distribute his message to the masses.

3) He believed his actions would be a catalyst for others to take similar actions. There are many indications he wanted to be caught and likely had a martyr complex. He had to get his message out for this to work and apparently hoped to make himself another rallying point for those he supposed would accept his message and follow him.

4) He confessed and was quite proud of his "accomplishment" including talking to the media with quotes such as: " 'Strange as that may sound, he is very proud of what he has done. Talking of it, he has the enthusiasm of a high-school kid describing a science project he has just completed.' Michel [reporter and author] quotes McVeigh as telling him: 'Because the truth is, I blew up the Murrah building and isn't it kind of scary that one man could reap this kind of hell?'"

McVeigh is another cookie cut with the same cutter as so many other terrorists. Someone searching for meaning, not quite being able to fit in with society, who discovers/invents a Great Cause that he can gain fame and standing by killing/dying for. He's the school shooter, he's the nightclub shooter, he's the Islamist terrorist, he's the eco-warrior blowing up SUVs and spiking trees, hall just a re-skin on the same notion of using the cat's paw of violence to get his message to the masses. I find it unlikely that someone who so desperately wanted to be heard wouldn't use social media to attempt to accomplish that.

He wouldn't have been telling the world he was gonna blow up a building prior to doing it was my point.

[BehindBlueI's]

He wouldn't have been telling the world he was gonna blow up a building prior to doing it was my point.

Well, I doubt he would have put his exact plan up, no. He had enough of an idea of OpSec to not do that. However he was certainly agitating and making his case prior to the act and was able to connect with a few like minded individuals. While we can't know for certain, perhaps he would have been slow to see the application of social media, I suspect that if only the timeline of the technology was different and everything else remained the same he likely would have been. Social media has played a large role in recruitment, message spreading, etc. for revolutions and terrorist acts in recent history. Iran shut down the Internet recently for a reason. Someone who thought they were going to be the catalyst for a larger movement wouldn't have ignored that.

[Rick62]

When the Civil War II starts, Medicare, SSI, Medicaid and numerous other payments stop. Think there will be much support for Cletus having a 30 round mag and thing that goes up when millions of folks are clobbered financially.

About as much support as there would be for taking Cletus's 30 round magazine from him under similar circumstances, no?
When the handouts stop, I'm not sure folks will care much about Cletus at all.

[Joe in PNG]

That would be awesome, but I feel like real change in China will take another generation, one that can pull apart the CCP with lucrative jobs, or some other way to pull the brakes off capitalism.

The funny thing about dictatorships is that they don't really produce the kind of men that are necessary to run dictatorships.
Underlings with leadership skills are seen as a threat, and are usually disposed of. So, after a couple of generations, you get people at the top who are Yes Men. Good at the CYA and Passing the Buck and Stealing Credit and Kissing Ass and other parts of the Bureaucratic Game.

But they don't have really have the leadership skills to run a system based on top down leadership. To make unpopular but right decisions. To be willing to accept blame. To stand out, to take risk.

This may be why China is hesitating over HK: because there's a big risk involved, and they just can't bring themselves to take that kind of a risk.

[RevolverRob]

But they don't have really have the leadership skills to run a system based on top down leadership. To make unpopular but right decisions. To be willing to accept blame. To stand out, to take risk.

Well, from the perspective of an internal candidate this is true.

But I ASSume (and I could be wrong), that there are a number of successful businessmen in China perfectly willing to serve ruthlessly from the top down. And that the right individual would only need to buy/manipulate their way in to seize control of such things. Hell, they could simply be elected if they ran. If you've go weakling individuals at/near the top of an organization a dedicated opponent will typically slaughter them.

That's why so many (including myself to a degree) are quite concerned over billionaires buying into politics in our country. I have zero faith in the corrupt system in place China.

I'm obviously not privy to state secrets in China, but if I had to guess that is also one of China's main concerns about HK. If they do it wrong, they could topple the semi-autonomous democratic government in HK and open up the door for an extremely wealthy individual to seize control like a dictator. If that individual is pro-China it could be hard for China to outmaneuver the situation and come out clean(ish).

I do agree with you though, if it was as simple as crushing a rebellion, it would look more like Tienanmen and it would be over by now. The fact that it isn't suggests that either China wishes to be more diplomatic (less likely) or that they view the situation as very risky for political and economic stability (more likely).

[Joe in PNG]

Well, from the perspective of an internal candidate this is true.

But I ASSume (and I could be wrong), that there are a number of successful businessmen in China perfectly willing to serve ruthlessly from the top down. And that the right individual would only need to buy/manipulate their way in to seize control of such things. Hell, they could simply be elected if they ran. If you've go weakling individuals at/near the top of an organization a dedicated opponent will typically slaughter them.

That's why so many (including myself to a degree) are quite concerned over billionaires buying into politics in our country. I have zero faith in the corrupt system in place China.

I'm obviously not privy to state secrets in China, but if I had to guess that is also one of China's main concerns about HK. If they do it wrong, they could topple the semi-autonomous democratic government in HK and open up the door for an extremely wealthy individual to seize control like a dictator. If that individual is pro-China it could be hard for China to outmaneuver the situation and come out clean(ish).

I do agree with you though, if it was as simple as crushing a rebellion, it would look more like Tienanmen and it would be over by now. The fact that it isn't suggests that either China wishes to be more diplomatic (less likely) or that they view the situation as very risky for political and economic stability (more likely).

A dictator isn't someone stamping on a face- he's the idiot holding a tiger by the tail.
If he loosens his grip, he'll get eaten. But he can't hang on forever.

If the Party loosens it's grip enough to allow some rich outsider to come in and take leadership, they are done. If they let one guy from outside the Party take charge, you get a domino effect- not dissimilar from what we saw in the USSR and East Germany. Other rich guys will also want their place.
The Government will have lost the Mandate of Heaven, and chaos will ensue. If we're lucky, it will be a lot like the chaotic Oligarchy of 90's Russia.