Today at the gun shop:

[temporal1]

RZehr:
I don't see much difference between a civil war and a revolution.

Take a look at any of the internal conflicts in the last 100 years, successful or not, and I think that you'd see that small arms were undeniably crucial. It starts with small arms. Then, they do need to acquire larger weapons if they are going to be successful.

They can get these from inside the country, or an external power decides to help them, which is probably necessary to success. Point is, without small arms the success is zero. As I said, the support of the population is necessary. And to get a large amount of the population on board, the government would have to be very bad indeed.

I expect in the case of armed rebellion against the government, to the point of war, there would be plenty of support externally. China, Russia, Iran, N. Korea would not mind seeing America slide into internal war. If the conditions were right, some countries would funnel advisors or arms or technology to the rebels.

As to your surprise to see so much pro-rebellion sentiment from Mennonites, this from me is not that.
I'm trying to simply engage in the discussion in from a neutral, academic-ish position - probably much like you are.
I am not pro-rebellion, or pro-2nd Amendment, or pro-violence.

The world’s way / human reasoning:
“If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun.” It’s primitive. Without Jesus, it’s to be expected.

Again, i believe, when questions arise, asking for further explanation, instead of jumping to conclusions and judging, is the better way. Just because we conclude someone’s intent, without asking, does not mean we have concluded correctly.

RZehr, important response. So much is dismissed, and lost, in prevailing sound bites. Not just on this topic. It’s sad.
you spoke for yourself. i don’t believe there is one member on this forum that would match Ken’s generalization.

[Ken]

I don't see much difference between a civil war and a revolution. Take a look at any of the internal conflicts in the last 100 years, successful or not, and I think that you'd see that small arms were undeniably crucial. It starts with small arms. Then, they do need to acquire larger weapons if they are going to be successful. They can get these from inside the country, or an external power decides to help them, which is probably necessary to success. Point is, without small arms the success is zero. As I said, the support of the population is necessary. And to get a large amount of the population on board, the government would have to be very bad indeed.

I expect in the case of armed rebellion against the government, to the point of war, there would be plenty of support externally. China, Russia, Iran, N. Korea would not mind seeing America slide into internal war. If the conditions were right, some countries would funnel advisors or arms or technology to the rebels.

As to your surprise to see so much pro-rebellion sentiment from Mennonites, this from me is not that. I'm trying to simply engage in the discussion in from a neutral, academic-ish position - probably much like you are. I am not pro-rebellion, or pro-2nd Amendment, or pro-violence.

Civil Wars are generally between two or more ethnic or geographic factions within a country. The North and South in the US, for example. The civil war in Northern Ireland between the Catholics and Protestants. The civil war in Syria which has a complex mix of competing ethnic and religious factions. The civil war in Yemen. The Yugoslavian civil wars between Christian Serbs, Croats, and Bosnian Muslims. And so forth. In places like Africa and the Middle east they are often the result of legacy colonial boundaries that make no ethnic or geographic sense. The 19th Century French and British drew lines on the map for their convenience that made no sense from ethnic or geographic points of view.

Revolutions are generally a complete overthrow of the existing civil and political order with a new one with a different ideology. The Russian and Chinese revolutions. The Cuban revolution. The Iranian revolution. And so forth.

In any event, actual wars are won by logistics and manpower. And what soldiers feared in places like Iraq was not small arms fire which can be avoided by using body armor, armored vehicles and cover and conveniently identifies the enemy for returning fire with much more powerful weapons. What soldiers in Iraq actually feared were roadside IED and suicide car bombs as well as RPG attacks on convoys and helicopters and such. Most Americans who were killed or wounded in Iraq were killed by IEDs, suicide bombers, and rocket attacks, not small arms fire.

The point is not that small arms have no place in modern war. Clearly they do. Just like army boots, radios, and vehicles do. The point is that a bunch of rag tag aging militia types with their gun collections would have zero ability to even slow down a modern military assault by even a small formation like an infantry company. The whole notion of arming one's self to protect against "government tyranny" is just absurd in the modern world. You protect against government tyranny by engaging in the political process not building rural compounds with weapons stashes like David Koresh.

I'm not opposed to firearms generally. I used to own a bunch when I lived in Alaska. They were tools for hunting and bear protection when out fishing. Nothing more. And stayed locked up the rest of the time. I wouldn't bring a gun with me to church or school or the grocery store any more than I would bring a 6 ft. crowbar or chainsaw with me to any of those places. I live in a pretty purple area politically so lots of people I agree with and lots with whom I disagree. My response in a democratic society is to engage and advocate for those policies that I believe in, not hide out and arm myself against those with whom I disagree. Now that I live in the suburbs and no longer hunt I have no reason to keep firearms in the house anymore. I also left my salmon rods and crab pots with my brother in Alaska because I have no use for those down here too.

I guess I just don't get gun culture these days. Growing up there were always guns around. My Menno grandfather in PA always had a rifle and shotgun in the farmhouse kitchen and a couple boxes of shells sitting on the shelf above. My dad says there were plenty of rifles and shotguns in dorms of the Mennonite boarding school and college that he attended in the 1950s. In rural Oregon in the 1970s we even brought our rifles to school for hunter safety class, something that would be unthinkable at any public school today. But firearms were mostly just thought of during fall hunting season after the crops were in. Everyone had hunting cabins in the hills above the valley and hunting season was a big social time. My grandfather had decades worth of back issues of Pennsylvania Game News and Field and Stream that I would read cover to cover every summer out of sheer boredom in the pre-internet and pre-TV (for my family) age.

We have a family reunion coming up this July back in PA and I already know how it it is going to play out. My various rural cousins are going to skip off to whatever various gun shows and favorite rural gun shops they know about and then come back and stand around the trunks of their cars admiring their latest acquisitions. And for some of them they will be into the double digits in terms of firearms owned. And mostly they won't' be classic bolt action hunting rifles or shotguns with polished maple stocks and beautiful engraved bluing. They will be handguns and ugly military-style rifles designed for killing not hunting. I don't own 10 cordless drills of various voltages and sizes. I don't see the point in owning 10 or 20 firearms. But then I guess i just don't get gun culture anymore.

[RZehr]

Guns in culture in this country definitely shifted over the last 30 years. The NRA is reflects/drives that change. And the Mennonites who are following along with rural, Republican values and culture are changing right along with it. I have heard Mennonites point out that in the mid 1900's the rural rifle of choice, was for hunting, but they were really just army rifles. Mausers, .303's, what have you. Therefore, for Mennonites today to accept black AR style rifles is the same. I comprehend that consistency, but I think it is a terrible analogy to make because it completely ignores the changes in society, and in optics, and in actual usage. These black rifles are no more effective for hunting than traditional wood semiautos, which in turn are negligibly more effective than lever or bolt actions. Other than solely feral pig shooting, I can't think of a scenario where a black AR is at all more effective than a traditional hunting rifle.

[temporal1]

.. These black rifles are no more effective for hunting than traditional wood semiautos, which in turn are negligibly more effective than lever or bolt actions. Other than solely feral pig shooting, I can't think of a scenario where a black AR is at all more effective than a traditional hunting rifle.

not speaking for Mennos or other Christians, but it’s been pointed out, the right to bear arms was not about hunting, which was probably taken for granted at the time, but for protection from government. not necessarily outside governments.

thus, Robert’s mention of battleships in legal private ownership.

i have no problem with LOCAL attempts to laser-focus on easily identified gun violence problem spots.
easily identified by ER visits and homicide statistics. this is not rocket science.

one major hope i had with obama as president was that Chicago gun violence might finally be effectively mitigated.

referring again to Mark Robinson’s I AM THE MAJORITY address, targeting the LAW-ABIDING MAJORITY has become U.S. politicians’ go-to HABIT. now so routine, many otherwise intelligent people vote for it, and beg for more!

[RZehr]

.. These black rifles are no more effective for hunting than traditional wood semiautos, which in turn are negligibly more effective than lever or bolt actions. Other than solely feral pig shooting, I can't think of a scenario where a black AR is at all more effective than a traditional hunting rifle.

i have no problem with LOCAL attempts to laser-focus on easily identified gun violence problem spots.
easily identified by ER visits and homicide statistics. this is not rocket science.

one major hope i had with obama as president was that Chicago gun violence might finally be effectively mitigated.

Do you have any suggestion how Obama could have effectively mitigated the Chicago gun violence in a focused and local manner?

[Ken]

Guns in culture in this country definitely shifted over the last 30 years. The NRA is reflects/drives that change. And the Mennonites who are following along with rural, Republican values and culture are changing right along with it. I have heard Mennonites point out that in the mid 1900's the rural rifle of choice, was for hunting, but they were really just army rifles. Mausers, .303's, what have you. Therefore, for Mennonites today to accept black AR style rifles is the same. I comprehend that consistency, but I think it is a terrible analogy to make because it completely ignores the changes in society, and in optics, and in actual usage. These black rifles are no more effective for hunting than traditional wood semiautos, which in turn are negligibly more effective than lever or bolt actions. Other than solely feral pig shooting, I can't think of a scenario where a black AR is at all more effective than a traditional hunting rifle.

They are less effective really. If you want to drop big game with a single shot you often want a larger and heavier bullet. Larger 30-06 cartridges were the standard military issue during WW1 when bolt action rifles were used. Soldiers shot and carried far fewer rounds. When automatic weapons became the standard issue infantry weapon after WW2 they needed to downsize the ammunition because soldiers were now carrying hundreds of rounds rather than dozens. And the lighter and smaller cartridges allowed for smaller and lighter weapons that could fire thousands of rounds. Machine guns designed for larger caliber bullets are massively heavy with larger and heavier parts because they have to withstand much greater forces.

Point being, weapons designed for modern combat are not optimal for most hunting and vice versa.

[Ken]

.. These black rifles are no more effective for hunting than traditional wood semiautos, which in turn are negligibly more effective than lever or bolt actions. Other than solely feral pig shooting, I can't think of a scenario where a black AR is at all more effective than a traditional hunting rifle.

i have no problem with LOCAL attempts to laser-focus on easily identified gun violence problem spots.
easily identified by ER visits and homicide statistics. this is not rocket science.

one major hope i had with obama as president was that Chicago gun violence might finally be effectively mitigated.

Do you have any suggestion how Obama could have effectively mitigated the Chicago gun violence in a focused and local manner?

Better question is, what are New York and Los Angeles doing differently than Chicago and Houston? I honestly don't know.

[RZehr]

More and more manufacturers are offering black AR style rifles in both bonafide traditional (30-06), and newer popular (6.5 Creedmoor) big game calibers.

[temporal1]

.. These black rifles are no more effective for hunting than traditional wood semiautos, which in turn are negligibly more effective than lever or bolt actions. Other than solely feral pig shooting, I can't think of a scenario where a black AR is at all more effective than a traditional hunting rifle.

i have no problem with LOCAL attempts to laser-focus on easily identified gun violence problem spots.
easily identified by ER visits and homicide statistics. this is not rocket science.

one major hope i had with obama as president was that Chicago gun violence might finally be effectively mitigated.

Do you have any suggestion how Obama could have effectively mitigated the Chicago gun violence in a focused and local manner?

no, i don’t. like many of his starry-eyed supporters, i hoped he would bring not only special insights, but special “heart” for the problems. he didn’t. which supports an important lesson for the U.S.: skin color really doesn’t make a big difference.
it doesn’t solve specific problems, but it should help the U.S. mature as it moves ahead.

one thing Chicago leaders, mayors, police chiefs, have done is consistently refuse outside help.
i’m sure those jobs are not easy, and grisly death threats may be part of it. (my speculation.)

the public is highly UNLIKELY to know what all pressures politicians are under when they make inexplicable decisions.
not just in Chicago. i believe very bad people abound in the background of all levels politics. thugs. gangsters. cartels.

one thing obama could have done for Chicago citizens would have been to see that their request for
a state of the art TRAUMA CENTER be built instead of his “presidential library,” which he describes as not a library, but a center for lib political activism (an Italian white marble monument to self). A trauma center in his name would have been functional and impressive.

Illinois has 1 presidential library in Springfield, Abraham Lincoln.
contemporary presidents seem to prefer to build their own monuments to self, rather than relying on the discretion of future citizens.

[Robert]

Point being, weapons designed for modern combat are not optimal for most hunting and vice versa.

Many people use them for target practice. They get enjoyment out of it. Why should that be illegal when they are hurting no one doing it?