Bryan Malinowski, executive director of Bill and Hillary Clinton National Airport in Little Rock, was fatally wounded in a shootout as ATF agents tried to serve a search warrant at his home.

An executive for the Little Rock, Arkansas, airport who was killed in a shootout with federal agents this week had been under investigation over gun sales, search warrant records unsealed Thursday show.

Bryan Malinowski, 53, who was executive director of Bill and Hillary Clinton National Airport, was shot after he opened fire at federal agents who arrived to serve a warrant Tuesday morning, officials said.

Malinowski died Thursday, his family said. His brother has said he was shot in the head.

  • Maple Engineer@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    55
    arrow-down
    15
    ·
    9 months ago

    They is an important lesson in this. Taking up arms against the government has two possible outcomes.

    1. You end up in prison.

    2. You and up dead.

    You are one person with a small number of consumer firearms. The government can show up with a virtually unlimited number of people, with bigger guns, and weapons up to and including tanks, helicopters, and precision guided bombs.

    Whatever collective fantasy you have about you and a group of friends overthrowing the government with your AR15s end up with you in prison or dead.

    • SupraMario@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      34
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      9 months ago

      That’s not how revolutions work…a large chunk of people will need to be basically homeless, hungry and jobless for everything to kick off. So long as people can still get their chicken nuggets and iPhones and they have a place to sleep, there will be no revolution. It’s ignorant to say that small arms can’t do anything, it’s how we lost Vietnam/Iraq/Afghanistan. All small arms, because bombs cannot patrol street corners, and if you start killing Americans, you’re going to just feed a revolution, remember you probably live right next to one of these so called gun nuts …and bombs don’t give a shit if his house explodes and showers yours with flaming debris.

      • Corkyskog@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        15
        ·
        9 months ago

        It’s also not what the revolutionaries need. A revolution in America would need to target power actors (owner class, politicians would just get you more politicians paid for by the same billionaires), precisely and relatively quickly.

        Bombs and heavy or indiscriminate weapons would only harm that cause by turning the people against you. Honestly small fire arms and poisons would probably be the most effective weapon in a revolution that could actually lead to any real change.

        • SupraMario@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          8
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          9 months ago

          Yep, we the USA, literally created the terrorism we know today, via blowing up people there indiscriminately. How no one here gets that is beyond me.

        • SupraMario@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          9 months ago

          Yep. Keep the people fed, happy and you starve revolutions. It’s why China continues to give their population crumbs, it keeps them from uprising.

      • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        9 months ago

        a large chunk of people will need to be basically homeless, hungry and jobless for everything to kick off.

        Nah, you just need enough people armed, angry, and overconfident

        • SupraMario@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          9 months ago

          I can’t tell if you’re joking or not, but no you absolutely do need people with nothing left to live for, we already have armed angry and overconfident people…

    • SeaJ@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      9 months ago

      You say that but Clive Bundy, who had a stand off with the federal government because he didn’t feel like paying grazing fees on land that was not his, had his trial dismissed. His son, anarchist Ammon Bundy, who had an armed standoff against the federal government in Malheur Wildlife Refuge which resulted in a death, was acquitted.

      • Dagwood222@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        9 months ago

        And the people at Waco had their children burned to death.

        Almost as if the government can pick and choose when to unleash full force.

        • SeaJ@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          9 months ago

          Yeah, I was going to make that point after I posted but got side tracked. I would have mentioned Rugby Ridge though.

      • Maple Engineer@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        9 months ago

        If the government had wanted him and his people dead they would have been dead. The only reason they weren’t was that the government showed restraint. If you think they could have won had the government decided to end them you are delusional.

        • SeaJ@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          9 months ago

          Given that Clive Bundy has 14 kids, there is a good chance that one of them is named Al and maybe even Ted.

    • rustydomino@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      9 months ago

      Beyond your point, I always felt that the Second Amendment, ostensibly for the purpose of overthrowing the government, is completely redundant. That is to say, if you’re plotting to overthrow the government by force of arms, whether your firearm is constitutionally protected is kind of moot by that point. Ergo, the 2A should have no relevance with regards to holding government tyranny in check.

      • harrys_balzac@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        9 months ago

        2A is all about government tyranny - it was a concession to the slave states so they could have local organizations (militias) to prevent/eliminate slave uprisings and to pursue runaway slaves.

      • Maple Engineer@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        9 months ago

        The balance of power is dramatically different now.

        Then the people had long sticks with sharp points, the government had long sticks with sharp points.

        Now the people have AR15s, the government had B52s that can drop Ninja bombs from 40,000 feet and kill you while you’re having a cigarette on your balcony.

        But by all means, get out your AR15s and give it a go.

      • Dagwood222@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        9 months ago

        You’re not even comparing apples and oranges here; it’s more like apples and Apple computers.

        He wasn’t part of a revolutionary army, he was an untrained lone gunman who was seriously outnumbered.

        Also, pretty much every successful revolution has had some outside force bearing down on the Establishment. Washington had the French Navy; the Viet Cong had Russia and China; Lenin had WW1 chaos on his side.

      • iegod@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        9 months ago

        You are disproportionately wrong. Like several orders of magnitude wrong.