Local senators back new concealed weapons bill

Today, the Violence Policy Center, a non-profit organization researching violence in the US issued a report today on the MURDERS committed by conceal and carry permit holders from April, 2007 to May, 2009.

The key finding: 7 law enforcement agents and 44 civilians were killed by permit holders.

I have no idea the requirements for a permit in other states. In Missouri, you to take a course and hit a target 21 feet away 15 out of 20 times. The permit never has to be renewed.

This is more gun nut craziness.

You are cross wise with me on this one, my friend. I have a conceal and carry and so does the wife. We are trained, and have decided that we will use our God given right of self-defense to protect our loved ones. I pray that the day never comes.

I find your characterization of people who choose to invoke their Second Amendment rights insulting. I have hunted and used firearms for 40 years, and not once have I ever damaged property or shot anyone.

If you do not wish to own or carry a gun, so be it. That's your right. But don't characterize law abiding gun owners as "nuts."

I fail to understand the complaint for allowing people who are law biding citizens to carrying firearms. As a proud member of the NRA, a daughter to a retired officer and an American; I fully support the Thune bill. The number of crimes including murder and manslaughter committed by concealed carry license holders are minuscule than those who have acquired firearms illegally and are not licensed to carry them concealed.
Illegally obtained firearms are not a valid reason for removing the rights of those that do. So for me, I want to know I have even if not an advantage to those who pose a threat to me, my children or my loved ones. I am in total agreement with KCLaw on this. It is my right, it is in the Constitution of this amazing country we live in, and it should remain there protected for my children as well.

receives a concealed weapon permit that his or her name and address (updating required) be listed on the internet for public review.

I have no problem with people owning guns. Because I hit a deer last year in KC, I want people to hunt and kill deer in Missouri.

If you want a gun to defend your house, so be it.

Until last year, there was no Supreme Court decision that an individual right to own a gun is in the Constitution.

You are a lawyer, but Sotomayor's response to whether there is a Constitutional Right to self defense seems correct to me. The Second Amendment does not mention self defense. I think from British Common Law and individual state statutes there self defense is a permissible defense if a person has killed another person.

Here is the report I referred to above.

Here are some of the people who had conceal and carry permits and how they used them. Note the "self defense" motivation.

On August 6, 2007, [Cinncinati] Geraldine Beasley shot Donald Francis, who was believed by police to be homeless. Beasley, who was panhandling on the same block as Francis, was angry because he was invading her “turf.” Beasley had a permit to carry a concealed weapon despite paying a fine for unlawfully transporting a firearm in 2003. In February 2008 Beasley pled guilty to voluntary manslaughter and was sentenced to nine years in prison.

On July 4, 2007, [Cleveland] firefighter Terrance Hough Jr. used a 40 caliber pistol to shoot and kill neighbor Jacob Feichtner as well as Bruce Anderson and Katherine Rosby as a result of a dispute over fireworks the three were setting off. Hough also shot and injured Donny Walsh and Katherine Nicholas. Police seized 12 firearms from Hough’s home after his arrest. Hough’s fellow firefighters described him as a “ticking time bomb that finally exploded,” and one noted, “I hope I’m off the day Hough snaps.” Hough, who had received his concealed handgun permit in 2004, was convicted of three counts of aggravated murder and two counts of attempted murder and was sentenced to life in prison with no parole.

****
The report also links to some states that have conceal and carry permits who has gotten them.

Florida

In 2007, the Sun-Sentinel documented that the state’s licensing system had granted concealed carry permits to:
more than 1,400 people who had pleaded guilty or no contest to a felony; 216 people with outstanding warrants; 128 people with active domestic violence injunctions; and, six registered sex
offenders.

[You want those people coming to Missouri with a concealed gun?]

Texas

A conclusion from the Center's own study.

From 1996 to 2000, Texas concealed handgun permit holders were arrested for
weapon-related offenses at a rate 81 percent higher than that of the general population of Texas, aged 21 and older. These weapon-related offenses included: 279 arrests for assault or aggravated assault with a deadly weapon; 671 arrests for unlawfully carrying a weapon;
and, 172 arrests for deadly conduct/discharge firearm.

[Again, you want these people being able to bring a concealed gun to Missouri?]

Tennessee

Research by the Memphis Commercial Appeal found that Tennessee’s concealed handgun permitting system has armed dozens of people with violent criminal histories, including a man convicted of sexually assaulting his ex-girlfriend and abducting her armed with an assault rifle and a handgun. The newspaper identified 70 residents of Shelby County who were issued permits despite arrest histories that included robbery, assault, and domestic violence. The paper cited one case in which a permit holder had 25 arrests on his record when he obtained his CCW permit. He was later the subject of federal charges for a series of bank robberies.

****
Whatever the Constitution says, no one has a constitutional right to carry a concealed weapon.

Given how different states give out such permits, this is craziness.

Of course, it would require knowing how many conceal and carry permit holders there are, the number of crimes committed by them and then the population of an area and the crime rate.

However, the study I cited above noted about Texas:

From 1996 to 2000, Texas concealed handgun permit holders were arrested for
weapon-related offenses at a rate 81 percent higher than that of the general population of Texas, aged 21 and older.

***
At a rate 81% higher than the general population is not miniscule.

The relevance of Texas is that this law would allow these Texans to come to Missouri with their concealed gun.

So, as soon as you grant some states are lax in giving out permits, you acknowledge this is terrible for the entire country.

Do any of the so-called "gun rights" supporters have evidence on how strict all the conceal and carry states are in giving out permits?

I like your idea.

I'd go one further. I want permit holders to wear a t-shirt, button, sticker or carry a sign so I know exactly who's packing. I want to steer clear of them.

The people who swear they aren't safe unless armed or swear they're helping to keep the rest of us safe make me very nervous.

Yeah,
The violence policy center doesn't have an agenda or anything. I agree that many states have too lax of concealed carry process, but it is their choice. My grandfather is more serious about maintaining our 2nd amendment rights than he was about his colon cancer. He helped liberate Europe from Nazi occupation and saw 1st hand the horrors of the Holocaust. He has never been as serious to me as he was right then.

Some more buttons & stickers:

1. I sucked my child's brains out and I'm not in prison. Eat your heart out!

2. I'm gay and HIV positive. Lovin' life, baby!

3. Brother, can you spare a dime. I'm not homeless, I'm a troughfeeder.

... concealed axes?

I would hardly call that a serious study - it's nothing more than a collection of anecdotal 'evidence' culled from newspaper stories with mostly-unknown outcomes. I would be interested to know if the National Research Council’s Committee on Law and Justice has taken a look at this so-called study from VPC and concluded, "that with the current evidence it is not possible to determine that there is a causal link between the passage of right-to-carry laws and crime rates." I have also seen newspaper reports of police officers themselves getting angry at another officer and killing the other officer with their service weapons. Does that small sample prove all police officers should be disarmed?

I live in Arizona and i have a concealed weapons permit and there requirements are simple you take a class on gun safety and shoot and hit the target at 20 ft 15 out of 20 times. not that hard.

however i think that this law was rushed and needs to be thought of more. i think there needs to be a minimum requirement for all states with concealed weapons permits to abide by have everyone take a class and shoot its not that hard and states can set there own requirements however they see fit, as long as the minimum requirements are met.
( we do that with minimum wage. why not this?)

( i can tell you in my class alone there were a few people that were so bad at shooting that they were kicked out and not given the permit.)

that's what we need no anything outrages jest a set requirement for all concealed weapon states to live by. then i think this would go over more smoothly.

Maybe you should take a look at this

http://www.examiner.com/x-3253-Minneapolis-Gun-Rights-Examiner~y2009m7d21-Lies-damn-lies-and-VPC-statistics

I am SO glad I moved up north to a real city without stupid redneck debates. IN TIME KC WILL SEE - AS ALL - I REPEAT ALL - MAJOR CITIES AND COUNTRIES AROUND THE WORLD HAVE SEEN - A STRONG CORRELATION BETWEEN GUN OWNERSHIP AND HOMICIDES.

Redneck NRA types are the stupidest of people that everyone else on the planet laughs at. Sure; they're on to something - living in the OLD wild west with a mentality that stopped there.

Please, get the shootout on so the rest of us can live without the redneck ignorant crossfire.

I do agree that permit to carry laws may need to be more stringent, but i have yet to see a post about the number of Murders where the victim was unarmed. Or the stats of drunk driver/ deaths. or any other death stats, where other weapons were involved.
ie cars, boats,atv's, snowmobiles, bats, knives ect.
I have a current permit to carry & have paid for it, taken the saftey classes. I also am paying a larger portion of taxes for my shooting habits via ammo taxes.
When some crack head or other druggie decides to attack my family with a gun, knife or who knows what. I will be prepared to defend my family, and thank god that the 2nd amedment and Fla Law gives me the right to defend myself & my family.
Just my own 2 cents worth, thank God we live in a country where i can add it..........

The claim is that conceal and carry permit holders NEVER commit any crimes.

The study reports ALL of the verified instances of a permit holder killing people from April, 2007 to May, 2009. Read the report and notice the evidence for each incident.

The Texas numbers (do you have anything to refute them) are based on all gun-related crimes in Texas and compare those crimes to the general population of Texas and to those who have conceal and carry permit.

We are told that conceal and carry permit holders are safer than the general population. The study from Texas shows that is FALSE.

because it makes sense. Claire McCaskill will never understand something this sensible, let alone stand up with a voice for the constituents she represents. Vote her out of office at the next opportunity.

It is almost amusing to hear how greatly we fear the notion of law abiding citizens carry a registered weapons. Criminals will carry weapns regardless of our silly rules.

Could it be that those lawfully carrying concealed weapons are involved in more homicides because they are trying to stop real crimes? Would it be better to let the crooks run amok?

Either we eliminate concealable weapons altogether, virtually impossible, or we accept our situation and take steps to thwart the lawless. I argue for a strong deterrent, which is an invisibly armed public.

"Gun nuts?" What are those? Are all guns male? Or are all idiots who think that guns are anything more than a tool, like a knife, a chain-saw, an axe, a car, a piece of rope, a knitting needle, an arrow, a harpoon, a motorcycle, (need I go on), simply nut-less wonders?

I suspect the latter.

"Gun nuts", actually, are the dimwitted morons who believe in Santa Claus, The Great Pumpkin, Obamanomics, and the Tooth Fairy, along with the idea that if you take away all guns, we will all be nice to each other.

I have a solution for ridding the world of this type of "gun nut". Target practice.

and some still think guns are good.

Un Real.

My biggest problem with you gun fanatics is you resist every attempt to regulate who carries a weapon. You fail to acknowledge that guns are stolen and sold illegally every damn day. You are the first ones to remind us that those bad guys who shot those two women are probably not carrying legally but you never want more regulations to keep guns away from them. There has to be a better solution here.

Carry if you like but keep your stray bullets away from me.

Why do wingnuts (on both sides) want to ignore the parts of the Constitution that they don't like?

For five years, I drove a taxi in the city of Chicago. One late Saturday afternoon, I had a gun pointed at the back of my head.

Now, if I had a gun, what should I have done? Sorry. I'm not William Money.

What if it became well-known that cabdrivers have guns? It would seem to me the robber would shoot and then take the money.

By the way, do you want to see a loaded gun in the front seat of a taxi when you get in? Or, will the so-called "gun rights supporters" pull out their guns to make it fairer?

The notion that a gun makes the average person safer is craziness.

"By the way, do you want to see a loaded gun in the front seat of a taxi when you get in? "

Then it wouldn't be concealed.

It's easy to draw a conclusion then "find" facts that support that conclusion. Typically one looks at the facts and draws a conclusion or hypothesis based on that. The VPC report represents the former. Upon a cursory reading of the report, in nearly every circumstance cited, the offender had either a criminal or documented mental health problem, both of which are cause for denial of a CCW (concealed carry weapon). So the fact that they had a CCW permit is irrelevant; it was a failure on the part of the courts, local law enforcement, the FBI, and ATF, ie: those responsible for issuing the CCW. Of course, it should also be noted that in many of the cases cited, the perpetrators had prior convictions, outstanding warrants or restraining orders, etc. Therefore, they were criminals BEFORE they committed the crimes cited, were criminals WHEN they applied (illegally) for a CCW, and continued their criminal activities by taking the lives of law enforcement and private citizens.

So where then is the problem? It is, has been, and will continue to be, a lack of enforcement of current laws that reside on the books. And you are naive and ignorant if you think stricter gun laws or an all out ban of guns will decrease gun violence. Quite the contrary; again, a look at current (the drug problem) and past history (prohibition) where something was banned. A black market always, ALWAYS springs up b/c there is money to be made. And where money is involved, so too come the criminal elements; organized crime, gangs and turf wars, etc.

I like the fact that criminals don't know whether I'm armed or not. It serves as a type of deterrent; and if pressed to use my handgun, then the deterrent moves from an idea to reality and the criminal must decide whether his own life is worth the few dollars in my wallet.

On a final note, in the recent Supreme Court ruling (DC vs. Heller), the court decided that the 2nd Amendment applies to the "people" exclusive of both the state and militia terminology and bound specifically under the same protections offered under the 1st and 4th amendments.

Can other States restrict my right to free speech when I leave my home state?

You people that selectively approve of only certain parts of the Constitution amuse me to no end.

I took the classes, shot the targets, paid the fee and got my license. I also earned a Small Arms Expert Ribbon from the military. So, excuse me if I disregard your objections. I obeyed the law and I am entitled to legally carry.

I promise you this: I will not interfere if an unarmed person is getting the excrement kicked out of them. It's not my job to defend those who will not defend themselves.

Liberty!

I work where you are afraid to go. I drive into that part of town every damn day. For 3 decades. And never once have I been shot at, robbed, raped, threatened or harassed in any other way.

I laugh at your paranoia.

I laugh at your failure to understand the Constitution.

Feel free to go unarmed. It's your right.

I'll go armed. It's my right.

Liberty!

"Can other States restrict my right to free speech when I leave my home state?"
No...but how would you feel if you were homosexual, married in a state, then went to another state and were no longer considered married? Full faith and credit (part of the constitution) would seem to dictate that you should still be considered married. I would assume you'd be ok in supporting full faith and credit in this regard?

"I took the classes, shot the targets, paid the fee and got my license"
What license in particular? And who issued that license? Was it the state?

"You people that selectively approve of only certain parts of the Constitution amuse me to no end."
Ahh...ok. So you approve of abortion? Or is that just judicial activism? What about the warrantless wiretapping? That obviously flies in the face of the fourth amendment.

The second amendment is widely thought of as the most controversial in the bill of rights. I think the history of it (especially the bits Madison worked with) are very interesting. Look at the way they fiddled around with placement of it (should it be with the militia clauses or not?) or the wording around the conscientious objector... There was obviously lots of thought behind it; however, it still comes out as unclear...what was the original intent?

As the constitution clashes with modern day complexity, we often find difficulties rectifying the two. Another great example is Engel v Vitale. Is prayer in school freedom of speech or is it in the face of establishment of religion?

...without the Second Amendment!

It says your government can make you use those precious guns to defend your country. You know, that 'well-regulated militia' stuff. Some "liberty", eh?

I laugh at your paranoia.

largely is descended from english common law. At least that's how legal scholars have looked at it.

If liberal socialist wants to go into the 'hood and prove she's bullet-proof, a-ok by be me.

Heck wear a shirt that says "I'm unarmed and my spare key is under the front left wheel well."

Concealed and carry is the law. Get over it.

"You can't have the First Amendment without the Second Amendment!"

This is unusually asinine, even for you. What exactly makes you say that?

"This is a dumb thread"
Most of 'em are.

"Concealed and carry is the law. Get over it."
CCW laws are regulated by state. So concealed and carry is NOT the federal law; however, in missouri, texas, etc. it is.

Also, I don't see you necessarily stating
"Abortion is legal. Get over it."

You can't have the First Amendment without the Second Amendment.

The Colonists didn't throw flowers at the British troops to attain freedom from government oppression.

Basically saying "oh yeah?" won't change that.

The Constitution came after the Revolution.

Just thought you'd like to know.

Also, there's no amendment that sanctions armed revolt. Might want to look into it.

...by throwing flowers at the troops enforcing government oppression.

Full Faith & Credit: I have no problem with marriage contracts being honored in states other than your own.

I have a Concealed Carry License, issued by the Attorney General of the State of Kansas. Note that Kansas is an open carry state,with incomplete preemption on open carry. This means that there are some local ordinances that could prohibit open or concealed carry, except for concealed handgun permit holders when inside vehicles.

Open carry is generally legal in Missouri but their preemption statute is unique in that it preempts the entire field of firearms law except for the regulation of open carry. Consequently, carrying openly in Missouri will expose you to a checkerboard of local ordinances.

However, it is important to note that OPEN CARRY is legal and unrestricted in many if not most parts of both States, which is a recognition of an individual's Constitutional right to keep and bear arms.

Since the full faith and credit clause explains reciprocity in licenses, I see no reason why it would not apply to my Concealed Carry License.

Now, as to abortion and warrantless wiretapping. Your questions here are a pretty transparent attempt to link support of the 2nd Amendment to other positions that are not socially in vogue.

I'll humor you though, as your attempt to pigeonhole me fails. I personally do not believe in abortion; it is not a choice I would make. However, I would never think of enforcing my personal belief on another person. Abortion is a choice an individual has to make for him/herself. Warrantless wiretapping is a clear violation of our Constitution. As such, I am vehemently against it...much as I am against attempts to restrict the right of the people to keep and bear arms. Sorry I don't fit in your pigeonhole.

What was the original intent of the Second? Only someone that has not honestly reviewed the history of the 2nd and the writings of the Founders on the subject of firearms can be unsure.

It's worthy of a thread of its own but simply put...there are no "collective" rights in the Bill of Rights. There are only individual rights.

As far as the 1st Amendment and religion, all one needs is to review the circumstances and history of the time. The clause is in reaction to the Church of England, to having an "official" state sponsored religion. That's why it says "AN establishment of religion".

Lots of people try to twist the Constitution to their own ends. In reality, it's written pretty plainly ("the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed").

With the 1st and religion, it's meant to prohibit an official government religion and prevent governmental preference of any religion over another. As I said though, people hire lawyers to try and twist simple words into something completely different.

Now..that should cover about all of your attempts to divert the discussion from the original subject.

Care to discuss the Thune amendment now?

Liberty!

"And the Revolution wasn't won...
...by throwing flowers at the troops enforcing government oppression."

But that's actually how it started. I'd suggest you read on the history of the revolutionary war...in particular I'd suggest you look at the years from 1765 (stamp act) until concord in 1775. There was an economic revolution being waged that was extremely effective. Boycotts, demonstrations, etc. They were able to get most of the stamp officials to resign for example. Americans boycotted tea and started drinking coffee then.

Boston Tea Party? Non violent.

There have been non and low violence revolutions in history. You just need to educate yourselves about them.

...armed opposition.

Unfortunately I think full faith and credit is mostly given token mouth credit ... especially when you look at Pacific Employers Insurance v. Industrial Accident. They basically said full faith and credit is all good, unless there's an opposing law on the book.

"Your questions here are a pretty transparent attempt to link support of the 2nd Amendment to other positions that are not socially in vogue.

I'll humor you though, as your attempt to pigeonhole me fails."
Bugger..you're on to me.

"However, I would never think of enforcing my personal belief on another person."
Which is to be lauded. Kudos to you sir.

"What was the original intent of the Second? Only someone that has not honestly reviewed the history of the 2nd and the writings of the Founders on the subject of firearms can be unsure."
I disagree. I think the fact that you have:
1) reputable legal scholars on both sides of the issue
2) numerous court cases that are divided on it (miller v texas, robertson v baldwin, us v miller, etc.)
Of course I think the bliss v commonwealth and DC vs Heller decision made it pretty obvious that self-defense is fine.
With the above I would say that if it is so obvious that such a number of judges (obviously with more legal and constitutional training that myself) get it wrong...then it's non-obvious.
One final thought...when brevity and wordsmithing are involved, original intent is really only known to the writers. The rest of us are forced to infer original intent.

"As far as the 1st Amendment and religion, all one needs is to review the circumstances and history of the time. The clause is in reaction to the Church of England, to having an "official" state sponsored religion. That's why it says "AN establishment of religion"."
So you're saying it would be defensible then that if a muslim teacher in some public school decided to enact a minute of prayer? I have a feeling the christians in the crowd who were so for school prayer would be outraged by this. That's why the common interpretation includes not just the establishment of a religion, but the preference of one religion over another. Because there are so many then...the only possible escape is secularism.
OTOH, I agree with the original interpretation. There was a large rejection of organized religion as it was by the founding fathers (evidenced in the extremes probably by franklin and jefferson).

"Lots of people try to twist the Constitution to their own ends. In reality, it's written pretty plainly ("the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed")."
Well..it's easy to see why though...you neglected the entire first clause of the 2nd amendment:
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"
So...is it then saying that the rights of the people only exist such that they support the militia / security of the state? That's why these things can be difficult...it's as you said...trying to understand original context.....

Sorry...wasn't trying to divert the subject btw...was trying to look at things in perspective i suppose.

As to the thune amendment, I don't think I understand it as it would seem to me that between FOPA86 and state reciprocity what he's proposing is already legal. I'll have to reread the text i suppose.

Perhaps nothing reveals the stupidity of wingnut history than the following:

"You can't have the First Amendment without the Second Amendment!"

****
Since the Revolution (and I will get to that) when hav guns EVER protected the rights in the First Amendment?

Guns did not get women the right to vote.

Guns, although they tried, did not allow the Mormons to live in peace. Have you ever read about the Morman War in Missouri? And, guns sure did not protect Joseph Smith in Nauvoo, did they?

Guns did not protect Catholics or Jews or any other despised religion from attacks or bigotry.

Guns did not end Jim Crow.

Guns did end slavery, but those were guns in the hands of a well-regulated army. Consider the fate of John Brown.

Guns are not part of the movement of equality for homosexuals.

And, although workers tried (see the story of the Pullman strike and miner and logger strikes), guns did not lead to union victories and the eight hour day. Guns surely did not protect those ten workers in Chicago massacred by the Chicago police in 1937.

And, of course, resistance by the native Americans is not exactly a history of successful use of guns protecting their way of life.

***
Now, let's correct some of the wingnut history of the Revolutionary War.

Please, my good wingnut friends, Concord and the brave Minutemen did not win the war.

It was a well-trained ARMY at Yorktown that bottled up Cornwallis's army. Oh, and Cornwallis could not escape because a French fleet (not a ragtag set of private citizen boats) prevented the British fleet from lifting the siege.

***

I have no idea why anyone thinks guns have ever protected the rights we Americans have. Such people have such a distorted history of the US I have to think they were asleep whenever they were in an American history class.

Or, perhaps, they were students of teachers like our good wingnut friend Jeetz.

Sometimes, the gun nut lobby loses. It happened today.

Who ever said having a CCW permit meant you would never break the law? What a stupid statement to make, kind of like using numbers from Texas about gun related violations. Comparing a group that has 100% use of something to the general population is dishonest as well as misleading, but consistant for you. Did you fail to mention that a gun law violation causes your CCW permit to be suspended and revoked if it is a felony?

The well formed militia in the constitution refers to the ability for ordinary citizens to resist the govt. The Boston Tea party was non violent? Tell that to the security on the docks and ships and ask why they dressed like indians. It also lead to a english military crack down on dissenters.

What led to the revelutionary war? A distant, overbearing govt that was ever increasing taxes and restrictions to freedom. Anyone see a parallel to another situation?

Too bad. I hope they bring it up again.

Lib, Midtown and Drum. You are intellectually dishonest.

You stridently defend abortion rights as a Constitutional right. Funny though, in light of the fact that the right to privacy regarding abortion and issues of procreation were found to arise from the "penumbra" of the Constitution, as legally strained as Justice Douglas' opinion was. Yet you howl with outrage when the Court makes an interpretation of the Second Amendment you do not like.

The Second Amendment clearly addresses personal ownership of firearms, and there is a historical basis for the Court's decision arising from English Common Law, and the original intent of the Framers.

Yet when it comes to gun ownership and the right of self-defense, you demand strict construction of the Constitution.

May the good Lord help me, but Jeetz and Rogue and Dan are right at least SOME of the time.

You guys really are full of crap sometimes.

Saying this...

Or, perhaps, they were students of teachers like our good wingnut friend Jeetz.

...only enforces my thoughts that you were unable to finish high school in a regular classroom.

You can be thankful that education recognizes an alternative route to graduation for students who get confused about who is in charge of a classroom.

I suspect you have quite a few like-minded compatriates on Prime Buzz who went the same route as you.

"The well formed militia in the constitution refers to the ability for ordinary citizens to resist the govt. The Boston Tea party was non violent? Tell that to the security on the docks and ships and ask why they dressed like indians. It also lead to a english military crack down on dissenters."

I was talking about the "party" itself. The guards and the shipmen actually stood idly by (none were hurt). The only violence that was reported was when some actually attempted to steal the tea (and were beat by other members of the raid).

As to the dressing like indians, that has been emphasized over time but according to documentation only some of the people were dressed like indians and it has been suggested that more had largely just been in disguise (by smearing soot on themselves). Others have suggested that the symbolism of the mohawk indians was that of resistance to oppression (similar to other anti-tax protests that had occurred earlier...and comes from some of the work and symbolism of the "sons of liberty" and the freemasons.) There's some neat stuff regarding this in Exemplar of Liberty: Native America and the Evolution of Democracy.

...at least when we tell someone we will assist them in the quest for suicide, we follow through.

OK, Woody, take this point seriously.

What led to the revelutionary war? A distant, overbearing govt that was ever increasing taxes and restrictions to freedom. Anyone see a parallel to another situation?

***
Distant government? Really, you mean we don't vote for mayors, county officials, state representatives, governors, members to the Congress, President? Excuse me, but that was the problem in 1776, but today?

What restrictions to freedom Woody? Do you mean you are no longer free not to sit with black people at a place of public accomodation? Do you mean you can't lock up homosexuals? On the other hand, if you are in love with a person of the same gender, it is no longer a crime to have sex with that person? Do you mean you can't smoke wherever you want? On the other hand, I like the freedom in public places not to breathe cigarette smoke? Do you mean the freedom to prevent people of different races to marry? On the other hand, if you do fall in love with a person of another race, you have the freedom to marry that persoon. Do you mean the freedom of cops to beat a confession out of person and use that confession in a court of law?

Are you saying that all of you with guns are going to overthrow this government?

Did you notice the last time this was tried in the US it failed miserably?

Oh, and you might want to read up on the success the first Americans had in their armed resistance to the government when their grievances were much worse than anything you have against the Federal government.

As I pointed out, since we became free of Great Britain ARMED resistance has been a miserable failure. (See the Whiskey Rebellion for the first defeat of you fantasy.)