CDZ When Do We Start to FIGHT BACK!?!?!

[MikeK]

I live "north of the notches" in New Hampshire, rolling wooded country where the nearest city is in Canada.

That's beautiful country and were it not for being close to my three girls here in the New Jersey/New York region I would be right up there with you. I have a cousin who moved to Skowhegan, Maine, back in the fifties. I visit him now and then and I really enjoy being there.

I recall visiting him once while on leave from LeJeune in '59. We stopped at a country store for gas one snowy night and went inside for some coffee. This little place had an old-fashioned shelved glass counter with cakes and candy on a couple of its shelves. At the bottom there were used handguns, including the well-worn Walther P-38 I bought for sixty bucks and a handshake. No paperwork at all. And he gave me a box of 9mm.

[...]

Gun violence seems to be a city problem, which makes it important because most people live in or around cities. If guns weren't so easy to transport, local laws would solve the problems without people who don't have the problems. But there's the problem. Guns are easy to carry around. I can't tell people in Chicago that they don't have a gun problem and I don't see a way to solve their problem without making it my problem.

The media has become fond of calling the problem of internal violence, "gun violence." The fact is if there were no guns they would be whining about knife violence and baseball bat violence, etc.

The problem isn't guns -- or knives. The problem is economic inequity and diversity conflicts. This Nation's wealth must be equitably re-distributed through federally subsidized work programs (infrastructure repair) and law enforcement resources should be re-directed -- away from the counterproductive drug war and toward such real problems as gang formation and street violence.

But no such improvements are possible without a serious political revolution, which is why I will urge you to vote for Bernie Sanders. We need a committed socialist at the wheel, and while Sanders is not perfect he is the only one running. (And he's your neighbor.)

 

[Fishlore]

I live "north of the notches" in New Hampshire, rolling wooded country where the nearest city is in Canada.

That's beautiful country and were it not for being close to my three girls here in the New Jersey/New York region I would be right up there with you. I have a cousin who moved to Skowhegan, Maine, back in the fifties. I visit him now and then and I really enjoy being there.

I recall visiting him once while on leave from LeJeune in '59. We stopped at a country store for gas one snowy night and went inside for some coffee. This little place had an old-fashioned shelved glass counter with cakes and candy on a couple of its shelves. At the bottom there were used handguns, including the well-worn Walther P-38 I bought for sixty bucks and a handshake. No paperwork at all. And he gave me a box of 9mm.

[...]

Gun violence seems to be a city problem, which makes it important because most people live in or around cities. If guns weren't so easy to transport, local laws would solve the problems without people who don't have the problems. But there's the problem. Guns are easy to carry around. I can't tell people in Chicago that they don't have a gun problem and I don't see a way to solve their problem without making it my problem.

The media has become fond of calling the problem of internal violence, "gun violence." The fact is if there were no guns they would be whining about knife violence and baseball bat violence, etc.

The problem isn't guns -- or knives. The problem is economic inequity and diversity conflicts. This Nation's wealth must be equitably re-distributed through federally subsidized work programs (infrastructure repair) and law enforcement resources should be re-directed -- away from the counterproductive drug war and toward such real problems as gang formation and street violence.

But no such improvements are possible without a serious political revolution, which is why I will urge you to vote for Bernie Sanders. We need a committed socialist at the wheel, and while Sanders is not perfect he is the only one running. (And he's your neighbor.)

A voice crying in the wilderness. Thanks.

 

[Jarlaxle]

The only time white american men have been known to be brave is when they had the law in their favor and more weapons. When they dont have overwhelming odds they arent so brave.

If you have so little respect for American Men, then I woild think you'd want to live elsewhere.

White american men only. They have shown to be cowards in most situations without having overwhelming odds in their favor. Has nothing to do with where I live because I dont see a white persons name as the owner of my home.

Are you a person or a spambot?

 

[Asclepias]

The only time white american men have been known to be brave is when they had the law in their favor and more weapons. When they dont have overwhelming odds they arent so brave.

If you have so little respect for American Men, then I woild think you'd want to live elsewhere.

White american men only. They have shown to be cowards in most situations without having overwhelming odds in their favor. Has nothing to do with where I live because I dont see a white persons name as the owner of my home.

Are you a person or a spambot?

Why do you ask and what does that have to do with my post?

 

[Fishlore]

We have been spending over ten million dollars a day bombing ISIS. So far, we have expended over twenty thousand bombs and missiles on the project. The military analysis say the effort is "counter-productive" (i.e. doesn't work). The Air Force says it is scouring depots and warehouses all over the world because we are out of bombs. A special appropriations bill is going to be introduced next week so that we can stock up on more bombs. Over half a trillion dollars a year on our military budget as we fight the longest-running war in US history and we have run out of bombs? Is this a joke?

We dropped more bombs on North Vietnam than in all of World War II. The result? Saigon is now called Ho Chi Minh City.

God knows how many billions of dollars worth of ordinance was expended in Shock and Awe against Iraq. How is that one working out for us anyway?

I think I'm seeing a pattern here...

 

[MikeK]

We have been spending over ten million dollars a day bombing ISIS. So far, we have expended over twenty thousand bombs and missiles on the project. The military analysis say the effort is "counter-productive" (i.e. doesn't work). The Air Force says it is scouring depots and warehouses all over the world because we are out of bombs. A special appropriations bill is going to be introduced next week so that we can stock up on more bombs. Over half a trillion dollars a year on our military budget as we fight the longest-running war in US history and we have run out of bombs? Is this a joke?

We dropped more bombs on North Vietnam than in all of World War II. The result? Saigon is now called Ho Chi Minh City.

God knows how many billions of dollars worth of ordinance was expended in Shock and Awe against Iraq. How is that one working out for us anyway?

I think I'm seeing a pattern here...

The pattern I see is incompetence and corruption throughout the ranks of government. The system is clogged with and fouled by hidden agendas the most prevalent of which is patronage of the notorious Military Industrial Complex.

Every bullet fired by our military or by those we support in the Middle East puts a dollar in somebody's pocket. So imagine how much they get for every bomb dropped.

Democracy is a wonderful form of government. But it tends to feed on itself without diligent oversight, rigidly enforced competence standards and severe punishment for detected corruption.

 

[Fishlore]

We have been spending over ten million dollars a day bombing ISIS. So far, we have expended over twenty thousand bombs and missiles on the project. The military analysis say the effort is "counter-productive" (i.e. doesn't work). The Air Force says it is scouring depots and warehouses all over the world because we are out of bombs. A special appropriations bill is going to be introduced next week so that we can stock up on more bombs. Over half a trillion dollars a year on our military budget as we fight the longest-running war in US history and we have run out of bombs? Is this a joke?

We dropped more bombs on North Vietnam than in all of World War II. The result? Saigon is now called Ho Chi Minh City.

God knows how many billions of dollars worth of ordinance was expended in Shock and Awe against Iraq. How is that one working out for us anyway?

I think I'm seeing a pattern here...

The pattern I see is incompetence and corruption throughout the ranks of government. The system is clogged with and fouled by hidden agendas the most prevalent of which is patronage of the notorious Military Industrial Complex.

Every bullet fired by our military or by those we support in the Middle East puts a dollar in somebody's pocket. So imagine how much they get for every bomb dropped.

Democracy is a wonderful form of government. But it tends to feed on itself without diligent oversight, rigidly enforced competence standards and severe punishment for detected corruption.

I notice with some dismay that we are currently spending over ten million dollars a day bombing ISIS with a total of 20,000 bombs and missiles so far; so much that the USAF is frantically searching bases around the world because we are almost out of bombs. Special legislation to buy more bombs is coming up on an emergency basis.

Our democratic system is antique and a bit reactionary. It's current sorry state seems to me to be a direct result of the relatively recent commoditization of citizenship, the declaration that money is speech and that corporations are citizens in the context of an electoral system run by billions of dollars worth of media advertising.

I have faith in the long term ability of our people to right the country. What concerns me is how bad a beating we are going to take before we wise up. Just when folks were beginning to wise up to the 1% issue, we're off to the Crusades! Not a very encouraging development.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

On September 11th, 2001 America was attacked. Thousands died in NYC and at the Pentagon. But one planeload of passengers got word of what was happening and FOUGHT BACK. United flight 93 crashed near Shanksville, PA and the heroes of that flight created a mentality that ebded up stopping at least two other plane-borne attacks (Richard Reed's shoe bombing attempt and the underwear bomber incident).

Over time the resolve of airline passengers, and Americans as a whole has waned. Now, we crawl under desks or fall to the ground and pray thst the active shooter in the building doesn't find us. We hope the police get there in time to save us. We expect others to protect us.

When the hell are we as a society going to realize that WE are the ones who have the responsibility to defend OURSELVES? When will we start to fight back against these terrorists, active shooters and lunatics rather than cower at their feet while peeing our pants hoping they shoot the man or woman next to us rather than us?

Everyone thinks they know how they'll perform when the bullets start flying, most are proven wrong though. Combat requires training to not freeze or cower. And to be able to fight back requires even more intensive training.

 

[MikeK]

Everyone thinks they know how they'll perform when the bullets start flying, most are proven wrong though. Combat requires training to not freeze or cower. And to be able to fight back requires even more intensive training.

The requirements for obtaining a CCW permit in many parts of the U.S. are extremely demanding. But with few exceptions there is no requirement to know when, why and how to use the handgun the average permit holder is authorized to carry.

It seems to me the rigid requirements for obtaining a CCW permit should be minimized and replaced with a requirement to undergo a specific amount of training prior to being authorized to carry a gun. The effect of this requirement would substantially increase the level of safety and proficiency on the part of the vast majority of armed citizens and will provide a significant counter-force to the increasing threat of terrorist attacks in public places.

 

[Fishlore]

Everyone thinks they know how they'll perform when the bullets start flying, most are proven wrong though. Combat requires training to not freeze or cower. And to be able to fight back requires even more intensive training.

The requirements for obtaining a CCW permit in many parts of the U.S. are extremely demanding. But with few exceptions there is no requirement to know when, why and how to use the handgun the average permit holder is authorized to carry.

It seems to me the rigid requirements for obtaining a CCW permit should be minimized and replaced with a requirement to undergo a specific amount of training prior to being authorized to carry a gun. The effect of this requirement would substantially increase the level of safety and proficiency on the part of the vast majority of armed citizens and will provide a significant counter-force to the increasing threat of terrorist attacks in public places.

My concern about the effectiveness of the counter-force of armed citizens is the level of awareness with which we go about our daily lives. Once put on alert, by screams, gunfire or other information, it is possible that the armed and trained citizen would respond in much the same way that an on-duty police officer would.

The big problem is that the terrorist gets to chose the time and place of the attack. In such a circumstance, a gun is useless against any form of IED. If the terrorist is attacking with a semi-automatic firearm and has sized up the situation before opening fire, he will have the opportunity to get off at least a dozen rounds before even the most tactically skilled armed citizen can muster an effective response.

Given that in many cases the terrorist is not looking to survive the attack, sophisticated weaponry and the element of surprise would seem to guarantee success even in adverse circumstances. Terrorists are quite good at avoiding situations where they cannot succeed. It is hard to imagine an armed citizenry being able to provide adequate protection in all public places all the time. Is there something in your plan which addresses this sort of tactical challenge?

 

[MikeK]

Given that in many cases the terrorist is not looking to survive the attack, sophisticated weaponry and the element of surprise would seem to guarantee success even in adverse circumstances. Terrorists are quite good at avoiding situations where they cannot succeed. It is hard to imagine an armed citizenry being able to provide adequate protection in all public places all the time. Is there something in your plan which addresses this sort of tactical challenge?

Obviously an armed civilian will have no counter-effect on an explosive device, nor would I suggest he (or she) could have. My hope is that within a reasonable period of time there would be a number of trained, armed civilians in just about every public place where a terrorist attack might occur.

In a typical public-place terrorist attack those armed civilians who are trained would be inclined to seek an opportunity for close-range surprise -- the success of which will depend entirely on chance and strategic movement. But the simple fact is a slight opportunity for defensive action is infinitely better than no opportunity at all. So why not implement that slight opportunity?

As the San Bernardino example clearly shows there is cause to believe the U.S. is at war with a furtive but capable enemy, many of whom reside among us and whose focus is on the civilian population. These circumstances make it virtually impossible for the military and for civilian law-enforcement resources to adequately protect us. So the idea of maintaining existing laws against armed citizens is outrageously inappropriate under the circumstances. We have a natural right to defend ourselves against this armed internal enemy but a number of state governments are impeding our exercise of that right.

I know that my carrying a concealed handgun is no assurance I will have an opportunity to make effective use of it. Likewise there is no assurance that I won't. In each of the few video accounts of terrorist attacks I've seen, such as the example in the shopping mall in Nairobi, Kenya, I have no doubt that even one trained, patient and careful armed civilian could have made a great deal of difference. Even if he (or she) managed to prevent only one killing it is one hundred percent better than no prevention at all.

I was an armed citizen in New York City for 23 years. Fortunately I never had cause to make use of that status. I live in New Jersey now, a state with the most repressive gun laws in the U.S., so in spite of the fact that I have a pristine background and have extensive firearms training I am unable to obtain a CCW permit. It is depressing to think about finding myself in some public place where a terrorist attack takes place and I'm unable to take aggressively defensive action because some sonofabitch bureaucrat has decided I shouldn't have that ability.

 

[Fishlore]

Given that in many cases the terrorist is not looking to survive the attack, sophisticated weaponry and the element of surprise would seem to guarantee success even in adverse circumstances. Terrorists are quite good at avoiding situations where they cannot succeed. It is hard to imagine an armed citizenry being able to provide adequate protection in all public places all the time. Is there something in your plan which addresses this sort of tactical challenge?

Obviously an armed civilian will have no counter-effect on an explosive device, nor would I suggest he (or she) could have. My hope is that within a reasonable period of time there would be a number of trained, armed civilians in just about every public place where a terrorist attack might occur.

In a typical public-place terrorist attack those armed civilians who are trained would be inclined to seek an opportunity for close-range surprise -- the success of which will depend entirely on chance and strategic movement. But the simple fact is a slight opportunity for defensive action is infinitely better than no opportunity at all. So why not implement that slight opportunity?

As the San Bernardino example clearly shows there is cause to believe the U.S. is at war with a furtive but capable enemy, many of whom reside among us and whose focus is on the civilian population. These circumstances make it virtually impossible for the military and for civilian law-enforcement resources to adequately protect us. So the idea of maintaining existing laws against armed citizens is outrageously inappropriate under the circumstances. We have a natural right to defend ourselves against this armed internal enemy but a number of state governments are impeding our exercise of that right.

I know that my carrying a concealed handgun is no assurance I will have an opportunity to make effective use of it. Likewise there is no assurance that I won't. In each of the few video accounts of terrorist attacks I've seen, such as the example in the shopping mall in Nairobi, Kenya, I have no doubt that even one trained, patient and careful armed civilian could have made a great deal of difference. Even if he (or she) managed to prevent only one killing it is one hundred percent better than no prevention at all.

I was an armed citizen in New York City for 23 years. Fortunately I never had cause to make use of that status. I live in New Jersey now, a state with the most repressive gun laws in the U.S., so in spite of the fact that I have a pristine background and have extensive firearms training I am unable to obtain a CCW permit. It is depressing to think about finding myself in some public place where a terrorist attack takes place and I'm unable to take aggressively defensive action because some sonofabitch bureaucrat has decided I shouldn't have that ability.

I must say you are the most reasonable and courteous "gun nut" I have come across. Who knows what would happen if more of those who share your point of view presented their case as you do? In a way, what you are offering is "free cops". I'm not ready to sign on yet but you make an attractive case. Some of your fellow Second Amendment fans are a good deal more unsettling.

 

[320 Years of History]

On September 11th, 2001 America was attacked. Thousands died in NYC and at the Pentagon. But one planeload of passengers got word of what was happening and FOUGHT BACK. United flight 93 crashed near Shanksville, PA and the heroes of that flight created a mentality that ebded up stopping at least two other plane-borne attacks (Richard Reed's shoe bombing attempt and the underwear bomber incident).

Over time the resolve of airline passengers, and Americans as a whole has waned. Now, we crawl under desks or fall to the ground and pray thst the active shooter in the building doesn't find us. We hope the police get there in time to save us. We expect others to protect us.

When the hell are we as a society going to realize that WE are the ones who have the responsibility to defend OURSELVES? When will we start to fight back against these terrorists, active shooters and lunatics rather than cower at their feet while peeing our pants hoping they shoot the man or woman next to us rather than us?

Are you really advocating for vigilantism? It sure seems like it, and if so, "bye bye" Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
​

I recognize that the Fifth Amendment makes exceptions, but Congress has yet to declare a war against any of the parties to which you refer. Nonetheless, the answer to your question is people will begin to fight back when war is declared against "terrorists, active shooters and lunatics" and the offending parties identify themselves as such. Until then, however, our citizenry will, one hopes, remain law abiding and refrain the types of acts you imply in your opening post.