"Fact" of the day...

Better to keep your mouth shut...

But, this person opened it and confirmed himself to be a total fuckwit on the Esquire forum.  He thought he would be clever and delete the second comment, but it had already been screen capped:

No, asswipe, we think about your type all the time.  We do count on people like you since you are the type of asshole we think shouldn't have a gun because you are irresponsible. You make our job easier by making statements like this.

And you are dumb enough to make a statement where admit you are irresponsible.

What would your friends say if you said stupid shit like this to them?  Or are your friends assholes like yourself?

I'm a nice guy and redacted your info, but you know who you are.  Live with your stupidity.

I know it must be tough being you.

People unclear on the issue

Meet Mike Lynn, from Memphis, Tennesse, the spokesperson for Fathers for Gun Violence [1]:

Nothing like using fear and emotion to make your point.

He asks a question which he should have thought about before he made this phone call:

"Are you guys for real?"

But, from his phone message--it sounds as if he is indeed for gun violence.

The type of person we really want walking around with a gun.

[1] Before you people go apeshit for me giving his "personal information"--he already does that in the video--if you actually watched it.

If you actually understood it.

You really think an armed rebellion would succeed?

The violence in the Ukraine is once again fueling the claims that sometimes it's necessary to fight the government (despite the Constitution's plainly saying that it wrong).  But, are armed revolts a good thing?

Max Fisher writes in the Washington Post:

When civil resistance movements popular uprisings adopt small arms use, they become much more likely to fail and the government becomes more likely to survive intact. That was a conclusion I reached, anyway, as part of my graduate research on government crackdowns against popular democratic movements. I surveyed 20 attempted uprisings over the past century and found overwhelming evidence that when protesters take up arms in large numbers they make their movement far likelier to fail. Within those cases, the chance that a popular uprising would "outlast" the government and ultimately secure its goals was cut almost in half if the protesters took up arms.

There a few reasons for this. One of them is that shooting back makes the conflict less about politics and more about simple force, a contest of strength that disorganized civilians are often bound to lose. Probably the biggest is the military: when protesters start shooting back at security services, it makes the military much more likely to intervene against them. And if the military intervenes against protesters, that usually ends things pretty quickly.

Seriously, you are delusional if you think you are going to take on a trained and well-equipped military with an assault rifle.  And the military doesn't need to bring in the drones or MLRS on you as an article in Forbes pointed out:

Benson and Weber (the team sounds like a cigarette brand) explored how the military might domestically apply its concept of full spectrum operations, which cover everything from all-out war to counterinsurgency and nation-building. In fact, the Army’s operating concept for 2016 to 2028  considers highly likely a future where the U.S. is threatened by “radical U.S. citizens operating domestically and abroad”. The Pentagon was probably thinking of Al Qaeda sympathizers in the U.S., but radicals come in all flavors.

There are a few things a successful rebellion needs and one of them is popular support, despite the delusions of the Three Percenters:

To a lesser extent, when protesters take up arms it appears to ultimately reduce popular support for their movement. The hardcore coterie of activists might see the need for armed resistance, but most civilians tend to value their physical security highly, and are more likely to support the government if they believe the opposition is sowing violence. To shoot back is to risk alienating your own "quiet" supporters.

The real point to take away from the WaPo article is that you need both popular support and the backing of the military if you expect to have a serious rebellion.  And despite the so-called oath keepers, the real military oath of allegiance is:

I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God." (Title 10, US Code; Act of 5 May 1960 replacing the wording first adopted in 1789, with amendment effective 5 October 1962).

Which means a few important things here, with the most important one being that they had better resign from service if they have problems with President Obama.  That is especially true if they want to fall back on the Constitution since Article II, Section ii says:

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States;

I've also mentioned that Article III, Section iii of the Constitution defines the crime of treason (the only constitutional crime) as:

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.

That means you had better get it straight as to WHERE your loyalties lie if you are in anyway going to claim to be a "constitutionalist" and "oath-keeper".   The real lesson is:

But the military is the big factor here. The protesters need the military to some extent, even if it's only for troops to stay in their barracks. If protesters take up arms, they're much less likely to have military support or even acquiescence. Worse, the military becomes more likely to intervene against them – and the rest of the population becomes more likely to support that.

 See also:
Gun-Rights Activists Ask: What If Ukrainians Had More Guns?
This debunking of the Gun Control =Genocide

Teabaggers/gunloons need a reality check. Here it is.

I keep trying to make this point, but some of these people are too thick to get it.

We didn't call the thing the "Grid Square Removal Service" for nothing!

Why having a gun won't help in an active shooter incident

From Tom Diaz who says:

This video uses examples to illustrate why in most cases, "good guys with guns" are not going to save lives...they are going to take them. Yes, there are always a few contrary examples, but by and large, most ordinary people are going to freeze, react so badly they get shot themselves without affecting the outcome, or shoot the wrong person.

This video is not aimed at changing the mind of people who won't face facts. That's hopeless. It's intended to educate activists and to confirm the instincts of most ordinary Americans that more guns is a bad idea.

Active Shooter Incident and Carrying a gun

This is a picture from the Naval Yard shooting:  note the people with their hands up.

The active shooter protocol:  Police response and you:

•  Police will quickly respond to the area in which shots were last heard and attempt to immediately engage/contain the active shooter
•   First arriving officers will not stop to assist the injured, or evacuate personnel
•   Remain calm
•   Do exactly as police tell you
•   Keep your hands empty and visible at all times
•   If you know where the shooter is, quickly tell the officers
•   DO NOT get in the way of officers

Note:  "Keep your hands empty and visible at all times"

Now what would happen if some idiot is wandering around with a weapon who wasn't part of the Law Enforcement effort?