Wed
Jun 21 2006
08:10 am

So what happens when your right to keep and bear arms, keep a loaded assault weapon at the ready to defend your home and family, clashes with the government's Supreme Court granted ability to crash down your door without knocking, not announcing that they have a search warrant, or even letting you know who they are?

 Following Proceedure

126
like
smalc's picture

Yes, it seems to be at odds

Yes, it seems to be at odds with the Castle Doctrine ideology. Will there be a clash between the NRA and the law-and-order wingnuts? Seems like the question is when will a shootout occur, not if.

WhitesCreek's picture

A hypothetical situation at this point, but...

Let's say you're sitting in your house and the dog barks. You get your rifle and head toward the door which then flies open an men wearing black come charging in...

1. Can you legally shoot them? It's your house...they have weapons...

2. Can they legally shoot you?  They have a warrant...You have a weapon...

Here's the real problem. The Republican National Committee has to hold on to a weird coalition of fringe elements in order to maintain power. As these constituencies have exerted more powerr upon the GOP, we have arrived at insanity as a Nation. The NRA'ers get their assault weapons and the Law and Order types get their break down the door search warrants and we have a recipe for somebody geting shot.

 In Waco, the ATF got their asses shot off.

In Roane County, remember, the folks at the house were better with their weapons than the cops were. Now we have a dead cop, a dead ride along, and two brothers facing the death penalty. (I'm not necessarily defending them, btw, but Some investigators now claim that the deputy shot first with no warning...I have no idea if this is factual)  

 I just want some sanity and guidance for this country and we just don't have it now.

Steve

Les Jones's picture

"Here's the real problem.

"Here's the real problem. The Republican National Committee has to hold on to a weird coalition of fringe elements in order to maintain power. ... The NRA'ers..."

Your dictionary must have a different definition of fringe than mine. The NRA has somewhere around 3 million dues-paying members. Around 39% of U.S. households have at least one gun.

(link...)

"In Waco..."

I don't think Waco bolsters your argument for what GOP administrations do, seeing as how that happened during the Clinton years. 

The NRA types I know are overwhelmingly opposed to no-knock warrants unless there is some highly exceptional circumstance. Check this thread on The High Road to get the flavor of where gunowners' heads are on last week's SCOTUS ruling:

(link...)


Hey, Les, why don't we just call each other assholes and get it over with. - Somebody on the old Southknoxbubba.net (if that was you, claim your quote and win net.fame!)

Andy Axel's picture

Your dictionary must have a

Your dictionary must have a different definition of fringe than mine. The NRA has somewhere around 3 million dues-paying members.

Hm. According to M-W.com:

fringe: 3 (b): a group with marginal or extremist views

Fringe isn't the antonym of popular. But if you want to press that issue,

3 million members / 300 million population = 1%.

____________________________

"The iPod was not developed by Baptists in Waco." -- G.K.

Les Jones's picture

Two can play that game

The 3 million is only the people who pay membership dues to the NRA, not the number of people who agree that they have the right to own guns. The 39% figure would be more representative of that group.

And, hey, if you really believe that dividing an organization's membership by the U.S. population is meaningul, plug in the membership numbers of some other organizations. Pick an anti-gun group, for instance. Gun ownership is wildly popular in America, which is why Democrats have gradually shed their anti-gun positions. Even Bubba and tgirsch have got heat.


 

Hey, Les, why don't we just call each other assholes and get it over with. - Somebody on the old Southknoxbubba.net (if that was you, claim your quote and win net.fame!)

Andy Axel's picture

Feel Free

...to parse and re-parse things that you said.

You were the one asserting that the NRA's membership was some big deal which meant that it wasn't, in fact, a fringe special-interest group by "dictionary definition." You wanted a dictionary definition of fringe re: the NRA, you got one.

And hey, even I own a weapon. But that doesn't mean that I think that gun ownership is the first right of every citizen.

____________________________

"The iPod was not developed by Baptists in Waco." -- G.K.

WhitesCreek's picture

Beat me to the 1% argument,

Beat me to the 1% argument, but I agree. So we have 1% group seeking to push through quite a bit of legislation based on one interpretation of the second Amendment.

 Anyway, the original point was not why the NRA is a fringe/minority element (being powerful doesn't mean you ain't fringe) but that we have a convergence of guns in private hands and the advocates of a police state. I still say somebody is gonna get some holes drilled in uncomfortable places.

And nobody has come forward to venture answers to the questions.

As for me...I have more than one weapon but I don't think I have the right to carry one concealed into a school or courtroom or whatever.

 

Steve

Les Jones's picture

No big deal?

If you think having 3 million dues-paying members isn't a big deal, you're wrong. Look at the membership of some other organizations. There aren't that many bigger than the NRA, and there are thousands upon thousands that are smaller. Find out how many members Greenpeace or ANSWER have, for instance, and run your calculation. Then decide if you consider those groups fringe by your standards.

Steve:

"Anyway, the original point was not why the NRA is a fringe/minority element (being powerful doesn't mean you ain't fringe) but that we have a convergence of guns in private hands and the advocates of a police state. I still say somebody is gonna get some holes drilled in uncomfortable places."

And I'm saying there is no convergence, as demonstrated in that High Road thread and by my familiarity with gun nuts. You've taken two groups that are in Steve's mental category of "people who aren't like me" and decided they must be in cahoots. The NRA, and gun owners in general, are not in favor of no-knock warrants. (Gun owners very much understand the danger of being ready to use guns to defend themselves from armed intruders and having armed cops busting down their doors.) What's more, you haven't bothered shown a shred of evidence to back up your blank assertion.


Hey, Les, why don't we just call each other assholes and get it over with. - Somebody on the old Southknoxbubba.net (if that was you, claim your quote and win net.fame!)

Andy Axel's picture

If you think having 3

If you think having 3 million dues-paying members isn't a big deal, you're wrong. Look at the membership of some other organizations. There aren't that many bigger than the NRA, and there are thousands upon thousands that are smaller. Find out how many members Greenpeace or ANSWER have, for instance, and run your calculation. Then decide if you consider those groups fringe by your standards.

Oh, please. It was your stupid "standard" we were arguing in the first place, Les. You were arguing that 3 million people = NOT fringe (because of some dictionary that you supposedly have which says that "fringe" means something other than what was asserted).

You could have 8 million members and still have extremist ideas. Look at the Church of Scientology. You don't have to be small to be nutty.

____________________________

"The iPod was not developed by Baptists in Waco." -- G.K.

WhitesCreek's picture

Jeez!...No, no, no, no,

Jeez!...No, no, no, no, no...Les, I never said any such thing.

 You've taken two groups that are in Steve's mental category of "people who aren't like me" and decided they must be in cahoots. The NRA, and gun owners in general, are not in favor of no-knock warrants.

Read this reeulll ssslllloooowwwwllleeee, please.

This thread is about the conflict between these two groups each getting what they want and now we got a disasterous situation on our hands because they're gonna shoot each other...Got that?

SHOOT EACH OTHER!

That would be Bush supporters shooting each other... legally....Uh???...wait a minute...Hey this could work out after all...

 

Steve

Les Jones's picture

If I misunderstood

Steve, if I misunderstood I apologize, but I don't know how else to understand your headline, "Clash of an Inbred Ideology with Itself". If you're not claiming those two groups have commonality, then in what way are they inbred?


Hey, Les, why don't we just call each other assholes and get it over with. - Somebody on the old Southknoxbubba.net (if that was you, claim your quote and win net.fame!)

WhitesCreek's picture

This would be funnier if I

This would be funnier if I thought you were being purposefully dense, Les. Why don't you take a walk, maybe a nice shower, drink a glass of iced tea, and reread this from the start. 

If it doesn't become clear to you at that point, see, there's no point in us continuing either way. My part ends here. In search of a conversation that makes more sense, I'm going to walk down the road and discuss general relativity with my neighbor's beagle puppy.

Steve

SayUncle's picture

If the question is 'what do

If the question is 'what do you do when unidentified men storm your house' and you're answer is not 'kill them all', I pity you. Despite what you may think, us whacked out, extremist, black helicopter fearing, white, cracker-ass, knuckle-dragging, neanderthal extremists aren't keen on no-knocks. Personally, i've dedicated a lot of pixels against them.

Your ignorance regarding the prevalence of gun ownership and 'assault weapons' tells me that you have no idea what you're talking about. There are over 100 million gun owners in this country and I'd suspect another 50M or so lie about it.

And I love this stereotyping. Explains the failure of democrats/liberals of wrestling control from the bunch of incompetent shits running the show now. They don't have to be smart, just smarter than you.

---
SayUncle
Can't we all just get a long gun?

Andy Axel's picture

So, like Les, you're trying

So, like Les, you're trying to say that the NRA speaks for all gun owners?

Whatever, dude.

____________________________

"The iPod was not developed by Baptists in Waco." -- G.K.

SayUncle's picture

So, like Les, you're trying

So, like Les, you're trying to say that the NRA speaks for all gun owners?

Can you read?

---
SayUncle
Can't we all just get a long gun?

Andy Axel's picture

Hunh?

Can you read?

I'm sorry, did you just say something?

____________________________

"The iPod was not developed by Baptists in Waco." -- G.K.

SayUncle's picture

I'm sorry, did you just say

I'm sorry, did you just say something?

No. I typed it. i'm trying to figure out how you got 'the nra speaks for everyone' bit from what i wrote.

Would you guys actually read this thread?

Why bother? If you begin with such stupid stereotypes and vitriol, I'm not going to get further.

I'm not gonna sit paranoid with my gun in my hand staring at the door just in case it might happen.

I don't do that either. But no-knocks happen anyway. All the court did was affirm that "prosecutors can use evidence seized by police during a home search even though officers violated the Constitution by failing to knock or announce their presence before entering".

no knocks have been legal (sadly) for a while due to indoor plumbing.

---
SayUncle
Can't we all just get a long gun?

SayUncle's picture

So I was talking to this

So I was talking to this cute little beagle puppy, and the beagle had made a good point but rather than show my ignorance, I nodded wisely and attempted to shift the direction of the conversation...

BTW, these silly little anectdotes may entertain the stoned or the retarded. But to those of us paying attention, they just affirm your inability to stay on task when called on nonsense.

---
SayUncle
Can't we all just get a long gun?

WhitesCreek's picture

Gee, Unk...You won't read my

Gee, Unk...You won't read my posts but you put words on my fingers that I didn't type and you don't like neighbor's puppy, even though I've admitted he's smarter than me because he has sense enough not to try and have a civil discussion with someone who can't walk around without stumbling over a huge chip on their shoulder...

well anyway...it's my blog and I'll talk about puppies and sociopathological anthropomorphizing if i want to...At least until Bubba cuts me off.

As for staying on task...you gotta be kidding? I've never strayed from my original premise, which is that the neo conservative Bushistas have a coalition of demographic groups that are ultimately in serious conflict with each other...And this is a bad thing for the rest of us.

 If you take issue with my opinion that an organization that consists of 1% of the population and is at odds with the majority opinion regarding gun control, assault weapons, and other issues, is a fringe group, well we can disagree on that one but let's not call each other names, you moron!  my friend.

After all, we both agree on the necessity for gun control, we just draw the line at different places.

Steve

SayUncle's picture

'You won't read my posts but

'You won't read my posts but you put words on my fingers'

Did no such thing. I took issue with your use of vitriol and stereotyping (inbred, bushistas, fringe elements, insanity, etc. are all your words).

I also took issue with your assertion regarding gun ownership as being fringe. And your mischaracterization of assault weapons.

And I saw no need to go further in the discussion until you addressed those things.

'let's not call each other names'

I have not called you a name, you started that one you moron my friend.

So, try again. I also addressed your point about two groups at odds with each other. I said it's been going on for a while as no-knocks are nothing new and people with guns are nothing new.

---
SayUncle
Can't we all just get a long gun?

Bbeanster's picture

Boys, this is a doozy of a

Boys, this is a doozy of a thread and I want to congratulate you both, although I feel like I've walked in on an argument that's been chugging along for a good while. Steve's central thesis occurred to me also. It appears that Alito is already leaving Scalia and Thomas and his fellow rookie Roberts in the dust with his authoritarian world view (he was on the short end of an 8-1 decision on an employment discrimination case yesterday in which he had no problem with a 100 lb woman being made to tote stuff that weighed more than she does after she filed a sexual harassment complaint). The castle doctrine is pretty central to the libertarian-leaning right as is the right of cops to do as they please to the authoritarian right. Can't come to any good end.
WhitesCreek's picture

Gee, Ma'am...There's no real

Gee, Ma'am...There's no real argument going on here. We are conducting a research project on how big a "point" has to be before it becomes more obvious than the elephant in the room.

Steve

 

WhitesCreek's picture

Would you guys actually read

Would you guys actually read this thread?... and please don't make things up and accuse me of ignorance because of it. 

Unk, the question is not what to do if the door crashes open and men in black rush in to my house...I promise they'll get shot if I can manage it, but I'm not gonna sit paranoid with my gun in my hand staring at the door just in case it might happen.

The premise is that two Bush constituencies have now been given what they wanted and the result will lead to a deadly confrontation between, as you call yourself, "whacked out, extremist, black helicopter fearing, white, cracker-ass, knuckle-dragging, neanderthal extremists" and the law and order, shoot to kill, everybody is guilty and doesn't deserve a trial until they're proven innocent, search warrant who needs a search warrant, no-knock crash the door down extremists.

Under current Supreme Court rulings both sides have the law on their side and they are gonna shoot at each other at some point. I want to know, who's side the law is on?

So I was talking to this cute little beagle puppy, and the beagle had made a good point but rather than show my ignorance, I nodded wisely and attempted to shift the direction of the conversation...

Steve

WhitesCreek's picture

"Steve, if I misunderstood I

"Steve, if I misunderstood I apologize, but I don't know how else to understand your headline, "Clash of an Inbred Ideology with Itself". If you're not claiming those two groups have commonality, then in what way are they inbred? "

Les and Unk, You guys are taking offense at the wrong things. Neo-conservatism is the inbred ideology I spoke of. Any group that coalesces down to a power core and then excludes differing ideas or the concept of error in the core philosophy is feeding upon itself and rots from within. There are a huge number of historical examples.

It is the conflict with itself that sets Neo-conservatism up to do a huge amount of further damage to our society. Yes, "inbred" was my word but the context wasn't referring to the NRA, gun owners, or you.

Steve

 

WhitesCreek's picture

 LesI don't think Waco

 Les

I don't think Waco bolsters your argument for what GOP administrations do, seeing as how that happened during the Clinton years. 

Read it again. The argument was about what happens to officers who wear black and bust in on folks with lotsa guns without mentioning that 1. they're the law and 2. they gotta warrant.

We can get a great argument going without having to make something up.

 

Steve

Justin's picture

(not trying to steal the

(not trying to steal the thread...I swear)

Before anyone starts throwing out the "assault weapons are fully automatic flame throwers of death" expression. Its a gun that is similar (cosmetic) to weapons that armed forces use...except it only fires one round at a time (you gotta squeeze the trigger each time) and has a larger magazine. A deer rifle is more powerful than many "assault weapons". The NRA wants to keep the assault rifles because if they take one gun away they start chipping away at them all.

Correct me if I'm wrong but didnt the "Patriot" Act  authorize the no knock warrants? God help us trying to get rid of that abomination of a law.

Les Jones's picture

Yep, assault weapons as

Yep, assault weapons as defined in the 1994 crime bill are simply a collection of features - a pistol grip and removable box magazine being the prime ones. The 1994 bill didn't even outlaw such guns in general. It simply limited the number of additional features (such as a folding stock or flash suppressor) that a gun with a pistol grip and removable box magazine could have.

No-knock warrants precede and are independent of the Patriot Act. There was a 1995 SCOTUS ruling (Wilson vs. Arkansas) that said no-knock warrants were permissible if one of several factors were present. Those factors - such as officer safety and possible destruction of evidence - are so broad that they can justify no-knock warrants in almost any violent felony or drug warrant.

(link...)


Hey, Les, why don't we just call each other assholes and get it over with. - Somebody on the old Southknoxbubba.net (if that was you, claim your quote and win net.fame!)

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.

More information about formatting options

CAPTCHA
This question is used to make sure you are a human visitor and to prevent spam submissions.
Image CAPTCHA
Enter the characters shown in the image.

Lost Medicaid Funding

To date, the failure to expand Medicaid/TennCare has cost the State of Tennessee ? in lost federal funding.

TN Progressive

TN Politics

Local Media Blogs

Shopper Columns

Local News

News Sentinel

State News

Wire Reports

Site Statistics

Last 7 days:
  • Posts: 24
  • Comments: 235
  • Visits: 10,461
  • Pageviews: 24,095
Last 30 days:
  • Posts: 130
  • Comments: 1560
  • Visits: 46,027
  • Pageviews: 114,872