Poll for Gun Control Advocates

[myrkul]

I'll take George Washington as my leader over any Libertarian ever born.

You'll be voting Ron Paul, then?

[1714920793]

1714920793

[1714920793]

1714920793

[1714920793]

1714920793

[MoonShadow]

It's also an unrealistic assumption that those who are in control of the government at that time would be unprepared for a military coup, nor that any significant number of young officers would be free thinkers capable of seeing past the indocrination and propaganda campaign that would have preceded such a tyrannical government taking control

It's an unrealistic assumption that they would be unprepared for an armed popular uprising or that the people would not fall under the sway of a tyrannical government as well.  What we know for sure is that the military is full of heroes who have already signed on to put their lives on the line for the sake of the constitution.  They have proved over the history of our Republic to be a force for good, marching to end armed popular insurrections like the Whisky Rebellion and the Civil War and fighting against tyranny overseas.  Our military is an institution worthy of trust and staffed by our friends, family, and neighbors.  The same goes for the police.

The Whiskey Rebellion is an great example of exactly what I'm talking about.  Those men were being directly targeted, and had a fair gripe.  They were too far from the markets on the East Coast to do anything other with their surplus corn than make whiskey with it, and suddenly they were being heavily taxed for their relatively rare form of income after fighting a war of independence that was, at it's root about the uneven and oppressive taxation imposed upon them by a distant authority.  They were ignored through normal channels, so when they refused to pay the taxes that the new government demanded of them, the revered President Washington sent the US military into a soveriegn territory to force compliance.  Do you think that the officers & enlisted men of that army unit considered the ramifications of their actions?  Do you?  The very fact that we refer to it as "The Whiskey Rebellion" in history books is propaganda, because it wasn't a rebellion in arms until the army showed up, it was a tax revolt.

You are practicing revisionist history.  The Army was sent out only after 500 armed men attacked the home of a tax inspector.  The tax was entirely just and was going to be used to pay down the debt for the very war you are talking about.  The tax was later repealed by Democratic action rather than hot headed and pointless violence.  You don't found a stable country by refusing to pay your debts and allowing citizens to spit on Democratically passed laws.  I'll take George Washington as my leader over any Libertarian ever born.

Whether it was just or not was a matter of perspective, and considering that it was one of the core causes of the rise of the Democrat-Republican party (which eventually split ways after the Whigs faded away) and elected Tom Jefferson to repeal it, it obviously wasn't as popular a perspective as you seem to believe.  And yes, a couple hundred men 'attacked' a tax inspector by public humilation known as 'tar and feathering'.  They did him no permanent physical harm, and certainly didn't shoot at him;(apparently they did, after one of his men shot & killed one of the rebels, that's what happens when you shoot first) this after said tax collector had been using strong arm tactics to extract those taxes in his region.  You can't win this, the facts are that the tax was uneven, unpopular and enforced with violent zeal by government agents from afar.  This is why the tax revolt happened, and in reality the tax never did raise the revenue that Alex Hamilton promised that it would, in part because it was so commonly evaded.  (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whiskey_Rebellion)  The only people known to perish during this whole episode were tax protestors, not government agents of any flavor.

[Rarity]

That a tax is unpopular does not make it unjust.  Nobody likes paying taxes.  It was fully legally passed and legitimate.

And yes, a couple hundred men 'attacked' a tax inspector by public humilation known as 'tar and feathering'.  They did him no permanent physical harm, and certainly didn't shoot at him;

They attacked him by tarring and feathering him and burning his house to the ground after having previously taken shots at him.  That is not "just public humiliation."  This was also only one incident of many acts of violence and lawbreaking that led to Washington deciding to put down the insurrection.  You are simply making shit up, and it exposes the weakness of your argument when you have to resort to it.

[AntiCap]

1) Yeah, that does sound reasonable. I might have to actually pay a few relatives then. I wonder if that brings the dead back.

No, it does not. That's why a nuclear bomb makes such a horrible self-defense weapon. I'm glad we've come to that agreement.

2) So threat isn't subjective? Really? When an armed man enters a room, everyone will perceive this the same?

No, threat is not subjective. Being armed is not a threat. Pulling that weapon and pointing it at someone is a threat.

3) No, you've told me what you think. I don't accept your premise. I assume you wouldn't accept my view that any armed man in my vicinity threatens me. That's why I have my vest. I'm pointing my gun back at them.
I just want to empty my clip at a specific spot. He's at fault for lying around exactly where I want to do that. Same idea as the one you sported. He should just move if he doesn't want to get hit.

No, if you hit someone when you empty your clip at a specific spot, that's on you. If he hits someone when he shoots at the targets across the park, he's liable for that. You're not "pointing your gun back at" the little old lady down the street, or any of the other people in the vicinity who don't know you're even there, or even anyone in the vicinity not actually pointing a gun at you. You're just pointing your gun at them. It's not granny's fault you're afraid of a piece of metal in someone's pocket.

4) That the same thing you say with a "desert eagle" on your hip. So a gun is a threat now in your opinion?

As I have said numerous times, a holstered pistol isn't threatening anyone. Nor is a disarmed bomb. An armed bomb, or a drawn and pointed pistol, however is threatening people. Are you tired of digging, yet?

5) Unless you don't care what they'll use it for as long as you get paid, in which case you'll sell to anyone who wants one. Free market and all. There are plenty of criminals, so I'm sure you can make a good living catering their needs.

Oh, certainly. Until you get tracked down by people ready and willing to hold you accountable for those actions. Then you're in trouble.

1) Well, at least I got the robber back, and that what matters to me. A shame about the others. Sucks to be them I guess.

2) A little quick googling does seem to indicate that there is such thing as subjective threat. As well as objective threat. You have a very strong opinion about what a threat is, but that doesn't make it true.

3) It's not my fault that people are afraid of a little fissionable material in my pocket. Why do you get to decide what a threat is. I see what I think is a gang member in a dark alley reaching for his gun, I'm not allowed to draw faster and shoot? I have to wait until he points his weapon at my head before I can shoot?
So what you're saying is that I can't defend my family, not until the park shooter kills one or more of them? Which is a bit late imho. I see where your system is consistent, it's just a dumb system. I have to wait until he does irreversable damage.

4) Again, your opinion. They're safe from my bomb until it goes off and I'm safe from their guns until they shoot me. See, everybodys safe. Why do get to decide what a threat is? Just repeating "because I say so" doesn't really convince you know.

5) How? The trade will obviously be done via a few more or less respectable individuals, many will disappear after the transaction, cash is good for making people forget. It took the US how many years to find OBL? Biggest army/intelligence network in the world? But I'm sure a few good men working on their spare time could do it faster. Unless they had to keep to the "non agression principle" and not coerce people to tell them what they want to know.

[myrkul]

1) Well, at least I got the robber back, and that what matters to me. A shame about the others. Sucks to be them I guess.

/sigh... we were doing so well there, and then you lapsed back into terrorism.

2) A little quick googling does seem to indicate that there is such thing as subjective threat. As well as objective threat. You have a very strong opinion about what a threat is, but that doesn't make it true.

It's simple, really. Only an objective threat matters. Because you "feel" threatened doesn't matter one whit, if you're not actually threatened. If you are actually threatened, you are being aggressed against, whether you "feel" threatened or not.

3) It's not my fault that people are afraid of a little fissionable material in my pocket. Why do you get to decide what a threat is. I see what I think is a gang member in a dark alley reaching for his gun, I'm not allowed to draw faster and shoot? I have to wait until he points his weapon at my head before I can shoot?
So what you're saying is that I can't defend my family, not until the park shooter kills one or more of them? Which is a bit late imho. I see where your system is consistent, it's just a dumb system. I have to wait until he does irreversable damage.

I could care less about the fissionable material. It's the fact that the bomb is primed to explode that is the problem. You are more than welcome to draw first and shoot - always remembering that if it turns out he was reaching for his keys to get into his apartment, you may well find yourself in some hot water.
And no, I am not saying you cannot "defend" your family, but that if you choose to stop him from firing by instead shooting him, you are going to need to be responsible for your actions. I notice that you have not mentioned the one course of action which would handily stop a shooter just out for some target practice - as he has informed everyone of - from shooting until your family is clear: Stepping in front of the rifle. That would cause any responsible shooter to immediately safe his weapon, if not completely put it down. Are you afraid to take risks with your own safety to ensure that of your family's?

4) Again, your opinion. They're safe from my bomb until it goes off and I'm safe from their guns until they shoot me. See, everybodys safe. Why do get to decide what a threat is? Just repeating "because I say so" doesn't really convince you know.

Again, only an objective threat matters. And an armed nuclear bomb is an objective threat to all within the range of the device. A holstered weapon is not an objective threat to anyone, much less someone who has a nuke wired to his vitals.

5) How? The trade will obviously be done via a few more or less respectable individuals, many will disappear after the transaction, cash is good for making people forget. It took the US how many years to find OBL? Biggest army/intelligence network in the world? But I'm sure a few good men working on their spare time could do it faster. Unless they had to keep to the "non agression principle" and not coerce people to tell them what they want to know.

What makes you think it would be on their spare time? If there is a bounty, there will be bounty hunters. And I have already explained that (and why) I believe such trades would be significantly rarer in an AnCap society, and we're powerless to stop them now, regardless, so we're pissing into a fan here anyway.

[mdude77]

Our heroes in the military are sworn to uphold the constitution, not the government.  In the case of a corrupt government that abandons Democracy they will restore order and the police will side with their local communities against any abuse.  Sometimes the police or armed forces make mistakes and it has led to deaths and civil unrest, but as institutions their records are extremely strong.

Our government officials are also sworn to uphold the constitution.  Shows how far that goes.

M

[mdude77]

You missed a key point.  Only a completely insane individual would pull a gun in a public place if he knew at least 50% of the individuals around him were armed and knew how to use it safely.  

And yet this guy pointed a gun straight at two armed police officers and isn't crazy as far as I know.  Adding extra guns to the scenario just makes it more dangerous.  The national gun control method has been proven to work well in practice and is the best way to go.  

I'm aware there are bad apples among the police, but they are generally heroes of the community who train hard and do their best to protect us all and enforce the laws the government we voted for has written. 

Pointing a gun at a police officers is crazy in my book.

The national gun control method has been proven to disarm law abiding citizens, NO ONE ELSE.  History has shown that time and time again:

- gun registration which leads to gun confiscation which leads to oppressive government, and in many cases, genocide
- when things go south, police look out for themselves and family first.  there aren't enough police to protect everyone, as shown with riots
- police and military generally do what they are told.  case in point, what happened in new orleans when Katrina hit.

YOU may trust someone else to protect you, but I do not.  You may trust government officials, police, military, what have you, but I do not. 

I'm responsible for me and my family, no one else.

M

[Rarity]

Pointing a gun at a police officers is crazy in my book.

Criminals tend to be stupid people who make bad decisions.  Call that "crazy" if you want but we are left with the fact that it occurs often enough that we can throw out the idea that arming everyone will stop people from shooting. 

The national gun control method has been proven to disarm law abiding citizens, NO ONE ELSE.  History has shown that time and time again:

And yet once I moved to England I learned that even with comparable rates of crime in the country the fatalities from crime were significantly lower.  National gun control works, and we have concrete examples of that.  We don't have examples of peaceful utopias brought about by giving everyone more weapons.

police and military generally do what they are told.  case in point, what happened in new orleans when Katrina hit.

They maintained order, that is exactly what they were supposed to do.  There will always be some mistakes made by any institution, but they do not make the whole institution flawed as a result.  On the whole our military is made of patriotic heroes who want to do their best to protect us.  It's shameful that you are slandering them this way from the safety of your keyboard while they risk their lives to protect your spoiled existence.  Without our strong American military you and your family would be speaking German or Russian now and there is nothing you could have done to prevent it.  Show some fucking respect.

[myrkul]

You've been ignoring me Rarity, and at this point, I view that as a good thing, because it means that what I am about to say will get no response. My refutation of your idiocy will not receive more idiocy. It will simply stand, on it's own.

Pointing a gun at a police officers is crazy in my book.

Criminals tend to be stupid people who make bad decisions.  Call that "crazy" if you want but we are left with the fact that it occurs often enough that we can throw out the idea that arming everyone will stop people from shooting. 

No, you're right, it won't stop people who want to shoot people from shooting that first time. But it sure as hell will stop the next shot.

The national gun control method has been proven to disarm law abiding citizens, NO ONE ELSE.  History has shown that time and time again:

And yet once I moved to England I learned that even with comparable rates of crime in the country the fatalities from crime were significantly lower.  National gun control works, and we have concrete examples of that.  We don't have examples of peaceful utopias brought about by giving everyone more weapons.

Kennesaw, Georgia. Crime is down 50% since the law requiring everyone to have at least one gun in the house was passed.

police and military generally do what they are told.  case in point, what happened in new orleans when Katrina hit.

They maintained order, that is exactly what they were supposed to do.  There will always be some mistakes made by any institution, but they do not make the whole institution flawed as a result.  On the whole our military is made of patriotic heroes who want to do their best to protect us.  It's shameful that you are slandering them this way from the safety of your keyboard while they risk their lives to protect your spoiled existence.  Without our strong American military you and your family would be speaking German or Russian now and there is nothing you could have done to prevent it.  Show some fucking respect.

I have yet to hear anyone explain how blowing up brown people on the other side of the planet and defending poppy fields protects me.

[MoonShadow]

That a tax is unpopular does not make it unjust.  Nobody likes paying taxes.  It was fully legally passed and legitimate.

And yes, a couple hundred men 'attacked' a tax inspector by public humilation known as 'tar and feathering'.  They did him no permanent physical harm, and certainly didn't shoot at him;

They attacked him by tarring and feathering him and burning his house to the ground after having previously taken shots at him.  That is not "just public humiliation."  This was also only one incident of many acts of violence and lawbreaking that led to Washington deciding to put down the insurrection.  You are simply making shit up, and it exposes the weakness of your argument when you have to resort to it.

I'm not the one making shit up.  Note that I'm teh one who posted the Wikipedia link that says that there was one possible case of a US soldier being shot, but that can't be confirmed, while there are multiple cases of protestors being shot by US agents.  There is no credible historian of the era that would claim that the protestors provoked the encounter, they agree that the tax collector is responsible for that.  Washington sending in troops was very likely due to receiving a one sided report of the events, along with his tendency to trust officers of his administration over stories of government violence and overreach.

As as for lawbreaking, you commit an average of three felonies per day.  That's just as much an excuse towards action today as it was then.

[BadBear]

And yet once I moved to England I learned that even with comparable rates of crime in the country the fatalities from crime were significantly lower.  National gun control works, and we have concrete examples of that.  We don't have examples of peaceful utopias brought about by giving everyone more weapons.

Kennesaw, Georgia. Crime is down 50% since the law requiring everyone to have at least one gun in the house was passed.

Thanks for this, I had no idea about that.

[MoonShadow]

And yet once I moved to England I learned that even with comparable rates of crime in the country the fatalities from crime were significantly lower.  National gun control works, and we have concrete examples of that.  We don't have examples of peaceful utopias brought about by giving everyone more weapons.

Your worldview is not based on facts.  In every society that has banned handguns for citizens, violent crime rates have increased.  None have decreased since their ban.

http://gunowners.org/sk0703.htm

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1223193/Culture-violence-Gun-crime-goes-89-decade.html

http://reason.com/archives/2002/11/01/gun-controls-twisted-outcome

http://rense.com/politics6/britgun.htm

http://libertycrier.com/u-s-constitution/english-warning-to-americans-dont-give-up-your-guns/

[myrkul]

And yet once I moved to England I learned that even with comparable rates of crime in the country the fatalities from crime were significantly lower.  National gun control works, and we have concrete examples of that.  We don't have examples of peaceful utopias brought about by giving everyone more weapons.

Your worldview is not based on facts.  In every society that has banned handguns for citizens, violent crime rates have increased.  None have decreased since their ban.

http://gunowners.org/sk0703.htm

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1223193/Culture-violence-Gun-crime-goes-89-decade.html

http://reason.com/archives/2002/11/01/gun-controls-twisted-outcome

http://rense.com/politics6/britgun.htm

http://libertycrier.com/u-s-constitution/english-warning-to-americans-dont-give-up-your-guns/

inb4 "biased sources"

[Rarity]

I'm not the one making shit up.

Oh hey I almost forgot, you find those citations for your legal P90 fantasy yet or are you just tossing that down the memory hole?

As for the whiskey rebellion, you can read the Wikipedia article as well as anyone, you are just clearly hoping nobody else does so you can lie about it.  There were multiple acts of lawbreaking and violence as part of the insurrection prior to Washington marching and shooting at a tax inspector and burning down his house down is obviously an act of violence.  

Appeals to nonviolent resistance were unsuccessful. On September 11, 1791, a recently appointed tax collector named Robert Johnson was tarred and feathered by a disguised gang in Washington County.[24] A man sent by officials to serve court warrants to Johnson's attackers was whipped, tarred, and feathered.[25] Because of these and other violent attacks, the tax went uncollected in 1791 and early 1792.
-
The federal tax inspector for western Pennsylvania, General John Neville, was determined to enforce the excise law.[35] Neville, a prominent politician and wealthy planter, was also a large-scale distiller. He had initially opposed the whiskey tax, but subsequently changed his mind, a reversal that angered some western Pennsylvanians.[36] In August 1792, Neville rented a room in Pittsburgh for his tax office, but the landlord turned him out after being threatened with violence by the Mingo Creek Association.

Yeah, great libertarian peaceful protest where you threaten to murder people who disagree with your politics.

From this point on, tax collectors were not the only people targeted in Pennsylvania: those who cooperated with federal tax officials also faced harassment. Anonymous notes and newspaper articles signed by "Tom the Tinker" threatened those who complied with the whiskey tax. Those who failed to heed the warnings might have their barns burned or their stills destroyed.[38]

Violent retribution against citizens for obeying the law.  How dare you try and stop this, Washington!?

On the night of November 22, 1793, men broke into the home of tax collector Benjamin Wells in Fayette County. Wells was, like Neville, one of the wealthier men in the region.[41] At gunpoint, the intruders forced Wells to surrender his commission.

More violent attacks against government agents.

protestors being shot by US agents

On July 16, at least 30 Mingo Creek militiamen surrounded Neville's fortified home, Bower Hill.[55] They demanded the surrender of the federal marshal, who they believed to be inside. Neville responded by firing a gunshot that mortally wounded Oliver Miller, one of the "rebels".[56] The rebels opened fire, but were unable to dislodge Neville. The rebels retreated to nearby Couch's Fort to gather reinforcements.

How DARE they shoot back when armed men are surrounding their house and threatening them!  Libertarians certainly oppose that sort of thing!


Dude, you're understanding of this topic is sub-elementary school or you are just lying.  Stop it already.  It was a widespread violent insurrection and the response was proper.  
A police officer isn't "provoking" you when he pulls you offer to enforce the law just because you think your special and the law doesn't apply to you.

As as for lawbreaking, you commit an average of three felonies per day.

No, I don't.  It's really kind of boring discussing this topic with someone who makes up random factoids like this.

[Rarity]

Your worldview is not based on facts.  In every society that has banned handguns for citizens, violent crime rates have increased.  None have decreased since their ban.

Stop making shit up.  My claim is that gun control lowers fatalities from crime, not that it reduces the rate of crime.  That is a far more complex problem. 

[vampire]

The national gun control method has been proven to disarm law abiding citizens, NO ONE ELSE.  History has shown that time and time again:

And yet once I moved to England I learned that even with comparable rates of crime in the country the fatalities from crime were significantly lower.  National gun control works, and we have concrete examples of that.  We don't have examples of peaceful utopias brought about by giving everyone more weapons.

Kennesaw, Georgia. Crime is down 50% since the law requiring everyone to have at least one gun in the house was passed.

Thanks for this, I had no idea about that.

Uh that's BS.

Correlation isn't causation. For an example, in NYC for the same time period: 1982-2005, the crime rate is down 57%.

Source: http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/nycrime.htm

[myrkul]

The national gun control method has been proven to disarm law abiding citizens, NO ONE ELSE.  History has shown that time and time again:

And yet once I moved to England I learned that even with comparable rates of crime in the country the fatalities from crime were significantly lower.  National gun control works, and we have concrete examples of that.  We don't have examples of peaceful utopias brought about by giving everyone more weapons.

Kennesaw, Georgia. Crime is down 50% since the law requiring everyone to have at least one gun in the house was passed.

Thanks for this, I had no idea about that.

Uh that's BS.

Correlation isn't causation. For an example, in NYC for the same time period: 1982-2005, the crime rate is down 57%.

Source: http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/nycrime.htm

We've been down this road before. I'm willing to let my statement go, if you (and Rarity) will stop claiming that gun laws stop criminals from using guns.

[MoonShadow]

Your worldview is not based on facts.  In every society that has banned handguns for citizens, violent crime rates have increased.  None have decreased since their ban.

Stop making shit up.  My claim is that gun control lowers fatalities from crime, not that it reduces the rate of crime.  That is a far more complex problem. 

Then let's please revisit one of my links that you obviously didn't bother to read..

http://gunowners.org/sk0703.htm

     4. Fact: British authorities routinely underreport crime statistics. Comparing statistics between different nations can be quite difficult since foreign officials frequently use different standards in compiling crime statistics.
<snip>
 
        * Underreporting murder data: British crime reporting tactics keep murder rates artificially low. "Suppose that three men kill a woman during an argument outside a bar. They are arrested for murder, but because of problems with identification (the main witness is dead), charges are eventually dropped. In American crime statistics, the event counts as a three-person homicide, but in British statistics it counts as nothing at all. 'With such differences in reporting criteria, comparisons of U.S. homicide rates with British homicide rates is a sham,' [a 2000 report from the Inspectorate of Constabulary] concludes."16

    5. Fact: Many nations with stricter gun control laws have violence rates that are equal to, or greater than, that of the United States. Consider the following rates:


    High Gun
    Ownership Countries
       

    Low Gun
    Ownership Countries

    Country
       

    Suicide
       

    Homicide
       

    Total*
       

    Country
       

    Suicide
       

    Homicide
       

    Total*
    Switzerland    

    21.4
       

    2.7
       

    24.1
       Denmark    

    22.3
       

    4.9
       

    27.2
    U.S.    

    11.6
       

    7.4
       

    19.0
       France    

    20.8
       

    1.1
       

    21.9
    Israel    

    6.5
       

    1.4
       

    7.9
       Japan**    

    16.7
       

    0.6
       

    17.3

     

    * The figures listed in the table are the rates per 100,000 people.
    ** Suicide figures for Japan also include many homicides.
    Source for table: U.S. figures for 1996 are taken from the Statistical Abstract of the U.S. and FBI Uniform Crime Reports. The rest of the table is taken from the UN 1996 Demographic Yearbook (1998), cited at http://www.haciendapub.com/stolinsky.html.

[vampire]

@Moonshadow clean your table up and make sure that you verify the sources.

I can easily access FBI stats vs lets say Canadian stats.

edit:

Swiss don't have ammo for the semi auto rifles (and when they had a clip, it was sealed only for war), CCW is impossible to get.
Israel doesn't allow CCW also.. And pretty much an anti gun country.

Both of the countries are similar to NYC, in terms of gun laws.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate

Denmark 0.9
France 1.1
Israel 2.1
USA 4.2

[MoonShadow]

@Moonshadow clean your table up and make sure that you verify the sources.

I can easily access FBI stats vs lets say Canadian stats.

Canada is an unfair comparison.  The culture is so dramticly different as to make any direct comparisons difficult.  Which is true with pretty much every nation, so I don't put much stock in such comparisons anyway, but I used that to point out the fundamental error of Rarity's premise.  Gun control does not lead to reduced incidents of violent crime within that culture.  In every nation that has an outright ban on civilian owned handguns, the rate of all forms of violent crime have increased over a period of years since.  I'm not trying to compare Britain to the US, I'm comparing Britain before and after.

edit:

Swiss don't have ammo for the semi auto rifles (and when they had a clip, it was sealed only for war), CCW is impossible to get.

Are you really kidding here?  The Swiss have a national milita that trains annually with firearms that they are required by law to keep in their homes with ammunition.  That would be every single adult & able bodied male citizen between 18 and 45.  Do you really think that the Swiss need CCW?  Do you think that an intruder is going to think "hey, they can't shoot me because their magazines are sealed"?

Israel doesn't allow CCW also.. And pretty much an anti gun country.

Another milita nation, not a anti-gun culture.  The only nation in the world that requires all women to serve in the military & in combat positions.  Again, CCW is inmaterial in Israel.

Both of the countries are similar to NYC, in terms of gun laws.

Laws, maybe.  That's debatable.  Gun culture, no.  LEt me see a NYC militia march in the parade some time, and if they aren't booed I'll concede you might have a point here.