• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Why I don't Fear Obama taking away Guns

The right to buy any of the weapons existed before the constitution was created. WHERE IN THE CONSTITUTION was that pre-existing right modified so as to allow the Federal government the power to regulate them?

What possible reason should a civilian police officer have an assault rifle? FOR THE EXACT SAME REASON THAT I WOULD. for self defense.

Alright. Let's get it straight...

Before the Constitution, men of the colonies owned muskets. Every man knew there were but two reasons to own that weapon:

1) to hunt.

2) to defend his land, property and family from thieves or wild animals.

Weaponry changed significantly during the Civil War era with the advent of such weapons as the Gatilin Gun. Who owned them? The U.S. Calvery.

The western frontier opened the door to men owning weapons of various sorts, i.e., pistols, revolvers, riffles, etc. From that time through modern day warfare, weapons have become more deadly by every means imaginable, i.e., the caliber of bullets and the size of shells for the various types of hand guns and riffles that can even fire several deadly rounds per second. Now, I ask you when did the proliforation of such weapons become "a right to own" as opposed to "a menace to good social order"?

You asked the question, for "what possible reason should a civilian police officer have an assault rifle?". A ridiculous question, but the answer is "as soon as the thugs on the streets became armed with far more deadlier weapons than the civilian police force!" Once that level of social choas was thrust onto the common man, he then wanted to be as equally armed as the threat from the streets using the 2nd Amendment as his banner to own such weapons.

The breathe of the 2nd Amendment has gotten out of control. Once we went from owning a single, simple hand gun or riffle to all but demanding that it was our right to own just about any weapon we wanted, I believe this nation breeched the limits of the 2nd Amendment as setforth by the Founding Fathers and went from our "right to bear arms" to defend ourselves from government invasion and/or to put food on the table to "I'm gonna get a gun because I can. And while I'm at it, I want that AK-47, too."
 
I think most people, including the U.S. Supreme Court, have all interpreted the 2nd Amendment incorrectly.

Stop just stop. The supreme court are the people with the last word on the interpretation of the law. Not you, not some professor, nor some chairbound blogger hack.


What possibly rational could one individual provide for owning any type of assault riffle? Or a wide assortment of hand guns?

In your own words
The only true intent behind this amendment was to allow the people to form militia groups in order to defend themselves against state, federal or even foreign aggressors.

Just because the current situation is stable does not mean it can regress into total chaos and pandemonium. I point to New Orleans and California during the riots. I seem to remember a pic of a well defended Korean store with a nice M1919 sitting on the roof. I remember how long it took the National Guard to mobilize in both situations (under two different administrations so no Bush bashing). I also remember the looting that happened here in Houston after Ike. Yeah, I have a darn good reason for having an SKS assault rifle. When its not in its primary role (thank god) then it makes a great tool for taking down Javelina. Baby back ribs!

I can't fault you too much on your mode of thinking. Most people with no police, military, or disaster experience have no clue how FUBAR things can get and how fast. Yes, things are very stable in this country that lulls us into a sense of laxity believing we are immune to such disasters that befall 3rd world countries. Likewise the lack of experience with different firearms and their strengths and weakness doesn't help with their assessment. A rifle is going to beat a pistol in the open but the roles reverse in CQB. Submachine guns versus pistols in CQB vs. rifles in short to medium ranges. Etc.

Oh and just for the record, while techonology has changed, ownership laws only really changed in the early 1900's. Gatling guns, repeating rifles, even full sized and fully functional howitzers were legal to purchase if you had the cash. There are two famous advertisments selling a 2inch (thats not the overall size LOL) field piece and another selling a Thompson machine gun. No age restrictions, no registration.
 
Last edited:
Alright. Let's get it straight...

Before the Constitution, men of the colonies owned muskets. Every man knew there were but two reasons to own that weapon:

1) to hunt.

2) to defend his land, property and family from thieves or wild animals.

Weaponry changed significantly during the Civil War era with the advent of such weapons as the Gatilin Gun. Who owned them? The U.S. Calvery.

The western frontier opened the door to men owning weapons of various sorts, i.e., pistols, revolvers, riffles, etc. From that time through modern day warfare, weapons have become more deadly by every means imaginable, i.e., the caliber of bullets and the size of shells for the various types of hand guns and riffles that can even fire several deadly rounds per second. Now, I ask you when did the proliforation of such weapons become "a right to own" as opposed to "a menace to good social order"?

You asked the question, for "what possible reason should a civilian police officer have an assault rifle?". A ridiculous question, but the answer is "as soon as the thugs on the streets became armed with far more deadlier weapons than the civilian police force!" Once that level of social choas was thrust onto the common man, he then wanted to be as equally armed as the threat from the streets using the 2nd Amendment as his banner to own such weapons.

The breathe of the 2nd Amendment has gotten out of control. Once we went from owning a single, simple hand gun or riffle to all but demanding that it was our right to own just about any weapon we wanted, I believe this nation breeched the limits of the 2nd Amendment as setforth by the Founding Fathers and went from our "right to bear arms" to defend ourselves from government invasion and/or to put food on the table to "I'm gonna get a gun because I can. And while I'm at it, I want that AK-47, too."

You forgot 3) To defend his person, family and property from the tyrannical oppression of the state. This was the main point behind the amendment. The whole bill of rights was added due to popular anti-federalist pressure and worries that the federal gov't may become tyrannical.

Not only are these weapons necessary for that purpose they are not tanks or artillery and not really so amazing "out of control" as you say.

DO NOT GIVE AN INCH!!!
 
The only true intent behind this amendment was to allow the people . . . . .
Any position grounded in such an erroneous fundamental premise is fatally flawed.

The 2nd Amendment is not a permission slip.

The right to arms was exercised freely by all citizens for a myriad of lawful uses without regard for militia activity before the Constitution was written and ratified and nothing contained in that grant of powers ever conferred to government any authority to speak on the private arms of the citizen.

The right to arms is a pre-existing right, SCOTUS was correct 132 years ago when they told us that the right to arms is not granted by the Constitution and the right does not depend -IN ANY WAY - on the Constitution for its existence.

That means that the words of the 2nd Amendment, (again, upon which the right does not depend), can not be constructed to erect a criteria for the "allowed" exercise of the right.

The 2nd Amendment has but one action; to redundantly forbid the federal government the exercise of powers it does not possess.
 
Alright. Let's get it straight...

Before the Constitution, men of the colonies owned muskets. Every man knew there were but two reasons to own that weapon:

1) to hunt.

2) to defend his land, property and family from thieves or wild animals.

Weaponry changed significantly during the Civil War era with the advent of such weapons as the Gatilin Gun. Who owned them? The U.S. Calvery.

The western frontier opened the door to men owning weapons of various sorts, i.e., pistols, revolvers, riffles, etc. From that time through modern day warfare, weapons have become more deadly by every means imaginable, i.e., the caliber of bullets and the size of shells for the various types of hand guns and riffles that can even fire several deadly rounds per second. Now, I ask you when did the proliforation of such weapons become "a right to own" as opposed to "a menace to good social order"?

You asked the question, for "what possible reason should a civilian police officer have an assault rifle?". A ridiculous question, but the answer is "as soon as the thugs on the streets became armed with far more deadlier weapons than the civilian police force!" Once that level of social choas was thrust onto the common man, he then wanted to be as equally armed as the threat from the streets using the 2nd Amendment as his banner to own such weapons.

The breathe of the 2nd Amendment has gotten out of control. Once we went from owning a single, simple hand gun or riffle to all but demanding that it was our right to own just about any weapon we wanted, I believe this nation breeched the limits of the 2nd Amendment as setforth by the Founding Fathers and went from our "right to bear arms" to defend ourselves from government invasion and/or to put food on the table to "I'm gonna get a gun because I can. And while I'm at it, I want that AK-47, too."

Look-I realize you obviously know nothing about guns. You think a fully automatic M16 rifle is far more deadly than an AR 15. But you still have not answered the basic question-where did the federal government PROPERLY obtain the power to ban small arms given that

1) Prior to the creation of the constitution- people could buy both arms AND artillery such as cannons (BTW people were able to own gatling guns and still can own them since they are not automatic weapons)

2) I own ak 47 semi autos because they are fun to shoot and because people like you are upset that I do.
 
Attempting to disarm me, is an unwarranted attack, which I will kill you for.

If you send men to do it for you, I will kill them, and then come for you.

Know this for fact.
 
Look-I realize you obviously know nothing about guns. You think a fully automatic M16 rifle is far more deadly than an AR 15. But you still have not answered the basic question-where did the federal government PROPERLY obtain the power to ban small arms given that

1) Prior to the creation of the constitution- people could buy both arms AND artillery such as cannons (BTW people were able to own gatling guns and still can own them since they are not automatic weapons)

2) I own ak 47 semi autos because they are fun to shoot and because people like you are upset that I do.

I'm not upset that ANYONE rightly owns a weapon that they have legally purchased under the law. That's not where my problem with gun ownership lay. My problem is people like yourself who go out to buy weapons such as semi-automatic hand guns and/or riffles just because they can and think that it's okay to have them "in the event off..." or "just for fun". Just reading the replies of people who have gone out and purchased such weapons for the opposition reasons I've outlined should be evidence enough that the 2nd Amendment has been taken for granted and used for reasons for which it was never intended, IMO.

Just read the responses herein and you'll see that gun ownership has far exceeded the simple "protectionism" aspect for which it was intended. People are claiming they purchase guns "to protect themselves, their property and their families", but do they really need a semi-automatic assault riffle on a tripod to do it? C'mon, folks! It's overkill!!!

As to the question of when did the people need the Constitution in order to assert their right to bear arms? Well, they didn't. Even the cavemen knew they needed some form of weapon in order to defend themselves. The problem comes when people figured they needed bigger, more powerful weapons to fight their enemy - a simple burgler, car jacker or a thug on the streets. If you want to protect yourself or your family from an everyday thief who breaks into your home or wants to take your car, something as powerful as a .38 or even a 9mm hand gun should be more than sufficient. If you want to hunt, purchase the appropriate hunting riffle for the appropriate game. That's all the common man needs! Anything more than that, IMO, is unnecessary for the purpose of self-defense. If your neighborhood crime problem is that out of control that you feel you need something bigger, you can blame improper gun control legistlation (and quite possibly the abuse of the 2nd Amendment) for that. Still, I'm not saying people don't have the right to bear arms...just when will the type of weapons in our homes or on the streets be viewed as too much "just because we can" purchase them?
 
Last edited:
I'm not upset that ANYONE rightly owns a weapon that they have legally purchased under the law. That's not where my problem with gun ownership lay. My problem is people like yourself who go out to buy weapons such as semi-automatic hand guns and/or riffles just because they can and think that it's okay to have them "in the event off..." or "just for fun". Just reading the replies of people who have gone out and purchased such weapons for the opposition reasons I've outlined should be evidence enough that the 2nd Amendment has been taken for granted and used for reasons for which it was never intended, IMO.

Just read the responses herein and you'll see that gun ownership has far exceeded the simple "protectionism" aspect for which it was intended. People are claiming they purchase guns "to protect themselves, their property and their families", but do they really need a semi-automatic assault riffle on a tripod to do it? C'mon, folks! It's overkill!!!

As to the question of when did the people need the Constitution in order to assert their right to bear arms? Well, they didn't. Even the cavemen knew they needed some form of weapon in order to defend themselves. The problem comes when people figured they needed bigger, more powerful weapons to fight their enemy - a simple burgler, car jacker or a thug on the streets. If you want to protect yourself or your family from an everyday thief who breaks into your home or wants to take your car, something as powerful as a .38 or even a 9mm hand gun should be more than sufficient. If you want to hunt, purchase the appropriate hunting riffle for the appropriate game. That's all the common man needs! Anything more than that, IMO, is unnecessary for the purpose of self-defense. If your neighborhood crime problem is that out of control that you feel you need something bigger, you can blame improper gun control legistlation (and quite possibly the abuse of the 2nd Amendment) for that. Still, I'm not saying people don't have the right to bear arms...just when will the type of weapons in our homes or on the streets be viewed as too much "just because we can" purchase them?


Your hatred of freedom is rather disgusting I tire of people who are totally ignorant about firearms having the audacity to tell me what I need. After you make a couple US shooting teams or teach a couple SWAT entry teams let me know. Until then all you are doing is making a fool of yourself.
 
Just read the responses herein and you'll see that gun ownership has far exceeded the simple "protectionism" aspect for which it was intended. People are claiming they purchase guns "to protect themselves, their property and their families", but do they really need a semi-automatic assault riffle on a tripod to do it? C'mon, folks! It's overkill!!!

In your earlier posts you mentioned forming as a militia, defending the nation, and ourselves. And yet you have shown a very limited knowledge on what that entails or how to employ it. You are trying to make it seem as if the 2nd amendment doesn't extend outside of our house. You're wanting to believe that there will never be a need for heavier weaponry. You're trying to forget the past.

1992 Los Angeles Riots
LARiot2.jpg



A small handgun isn't going to do much outside of 50yrds. Unlike the movies a 9mm will have a very hard time penetrating through heavy clothing to be lethal at 100yrds. A shotgun is useless beyond 60yrds. A hunting rifle doesn't have the capacity to suppress an enemy. On the other hand, an assault rifle does meet those goals. And thats only in small squad actions, not larger scale where you want heavier machine guns.

You're saying, "but thats overkill!". Tell that to the koreans that had to deal with the mob sized gangs in 1992 when the police retreated to the city outskirts. They brought out handguns, shotguns, flackjackets, and some even mounted tripoded machine guns on the roof of some businesses. Had a buddy that was an NG during that time. He commented that those guys were better equiped than they were. There wasn't much need to saturate those areas with soldiers as with other areas.

You're still trying to interpret what you think is "enough" to protect oneself without doing any sort of homework on the issue.

Of course we can always get into the discussion of tyranny or the possibility of civil war. But as usual no one wants to believe that anything like that could ever happen. Heck, I'm stocking up on ammo right now just in case. If the Supreme Court validates Burg's case and Obama turns out to be ineligible as president then you can bet your sweet ass there will be some rioting going on. :confused:
 
Last edited:
A revolt by the U.S. people would be put down in an instant, for several reasons.

The first is that the U.S. government still has the best monitoring in place, not for foreign countries, but for its own people. The CIA and other agencies are well aware of the level of discontent in the country at any given time. All revolts start small, and when they are small, they are easily put down before their loyal cause spreads to the military itself.

On the topic of military, I notice an ironic dichotomy from gun supporters. Most are supporters of foreign campaigns by the United States, frequently toting the widespread knowledge that the U.S. is a preponderant power and can take on any foreign country. Yet, when it comes to the domestic Second Amendment issues, they sincerely believe they could take on this power from the inside. They claim that it would be different, since it would be Americans vs. Americans and the military would never side against the people.

I beg to differ. Look at any military supression of the people in the world, and you will see that military training, for the most part, still kicks in. You will always have deserters, but the majority stick with their orders. A classic tactic of government supression is to send in soldiers to regions that they are not from. For example, in the Tiananmen Massacre in China, originally the government sent in soldiers who were of the Beijing regiment. They couldn't fire on their own people. The protest was finally put down when the government brought in soldiers from distant provinces that had no emotional attachment. That was when the students were massacred.

If you think the U.S. government doesn't have a plan in place for a revolt, you are sorely mistaken. The U.S. government fears its own people most of all, and not any foreign power. It has contigency plans. I'm not saying there couldn't be victory per se, but it would be a long, bloody struggle, and America would be completely obliterated by internal and external forces. There would be no United States left to take control of.

Furthermore, I am not convinced that enough people take gun rights so seriously that they would actually be willing to go to civil war over it. There would maybe be some states solidified in this cause, but the majority would not have unified populations.
 
Orius-People taking to the streets such as the "Bastille Day" uprising etc-probably not. People targeting for elimination politicians who implement draconian gun confiscation activities-far more likely-and probably far more effective. The military could not use most of its most effective weapons against America
 
Orius-People taking to the streets such as the "Bastille Day" uprising etc-probably not. People targeting for elimination politicians who implement draconian gun confiscation activities-far more likely-and probably far more effective. The military could not use most of its most effective weapons against America

Because the politicians would just sit in their mansions and let that happen.
 
Because the politicians would just sit in their mansions and let that happen.

Sit in their mansions? LOL-how many congressmen do you know?
 
In your earlier posts you mentioned forming as a militia, defending the nation, and ourselves. And yet you have shown a very limited knowledge on what that entails or how to employ it. You are trying to make it seem as if the 2nd amendment doesn't extend outside of our house.
But does it really need to? Has or does our government pose that big of a threat to the people that we need to form militia groups and start arming ourselves with assault riffles? Because if we do I'd say it's time we all start migrating to another country!
You're wanting to believe that there will never be a need for heavier weaponry. You're trying to forget the past.

1992 Los Angeles Riots
LARiot2.jpg
Here's were I think you've got it confused. I totally understand the importance of our civilian police forces and our National Guard units being heavily and adequately equipped to combat such vicious and horrendous attacks such as the LA/Watts/Detroit Riots. But that's exactly my point. It is NOT the role of the common man to take on these such threats. We have police forces (and in some cases specialized police forces, i.e., SWAT) and the National Guard (per state) to handle such problems. Such events don't happen everyday. And as such, they don't pose a recurring threat to good social order. Therefore, it's not necessary for the common man to arm himself in such ways. Nonetheless, I'm not advocating that an individual does not have the right to arm himself against threats to his person, his life, his family or his property, or even against his country or a foreign aggressor. But in the latter aspects, if he truly feels such a threat from within our government or from outside our boarders, the right thing for him to do is to sign up and become a part of one of this nation's all-volunteer forces. Otherwise, take a common sense approach to gun ownership.

A small handgun isn't going to do much outside of 50yrds. Unlike the movies a 9mm will have a very hard time penetrating through heavy clothing to be lethal at 100yrds. A shotgun is useless beyond 60yrds. A hunting rifle doesn't have the capacity to suppress an enemy. On the other hand, an assault rifle does meet those goals. And thats only in small squad actions, not larger scale where you want heavier machine guns.

You're saying, "but thats overkill!". Tell that to the koreans that had to deal with the mob sized gangs in 1992 when the police retreated to the city outskirts. They brought out handguns, shotguns, flackjackets, and some even mounted tripoded machine guns on the roof of some businesses. Had a buddy that was an NG during that time. He commented that those guys were better equiped than they were. There wasn't much need to saturate those areas with soldiers as with other areas.

You're still trying to interpret what you think is "enough" to protect oneself without doing any sort of homework on the issue.

Of course we can always get into the discussion of tyranny or the possibility of civil war. But as usual no one wants to believe that anything like that could ever happen. Heck, I'm stocking up on ammo right now just in case. If the Supreme Court validates Burg's case and Obama turns out to be ineligible as president then you can bet your sweet ass there will be some rioting going on. :confused:

You've outlined a perfect example of what I mean by "...just because we can". It's a false rationalization that the threat can and will come from anywhere - from within or without - that drives people who believe as you do to stockpile weapons simply because they can or "in the event of..." So, I'll ask again, "To what extent is it too much?" If everyone begins to belief that a civil war is coming or that a government - foreign or domestic - will one day in our life time take up arms against the people, we may as well start laying landminds on our lawns, barring our windows and doors, mount a .50 cal on the roof and outfit our vehicles with heavy bullet proof armor.

It's ridiculous. Surely, you can see that? Arms yourselves if you believe you must, but do it in a reasonable fashion. That's all I'm saying.
 
Last edited:
A revolt by the U.S. people would be put down in an instant, for several reasons.

The first is that the U.S. government still has the best monitoring in place, not for foreign countries, but for its own people. The CIA and other agencies are well aware of the level of discontent in the country at any given time. All revolts start small, and when they are small, they are easily put down before their loyal cause spreads to the military itself.

It depends on the nature of the revolt. If it were a righteous revolt against a tyrannical government there is little chance it would start out small, and even if it did start out relatively small those who initiated it would most likely be determined, intelligent, and familiar with military tactics. Any such insurgency would assume a decentralized chain of command and implement technologically regressive methods of communique. These tactics in conjuction with one another would negate the ability of any military force to effectively monitor its enemy.

On the topic of military, I notice an ironic dichotomy from gun supporters. Most are supporters of foreign campaigns by the United States, frequently toting the widespread knowledge that the U.S. is a preponderant power and can take on any foreign country. Yet, when it comes to the domestic Second Amendment issues, they sincerely believe they could take on this power from the inside. They claim that it would be different, since it would be Americans vs. Americans and the military would never side against the people.

I do not hold this belief. I've seen the some of the best our military has to offer operate in theater and they are certainly not as methodical as we'd like to believe. They are the best in the world but for a populace that has been amongst their ranks in the past it wouldn't be hard to exploit their weaknesses.

I beg to differ. Look at any military supression of the people in the world, and you will see that military training, for the most part, still kicks in. You will always have deserters, but the majority stick with their orders. A classic tactic of government supression is to send in soldiers to regions that they are not from. For example, in the Tiananmen Massacre in China, originally the government sent in soldiers who were of the Beijing regiment. They couldn't fire on their own people. The protest was finally put down when the government brought in soldiers from distant provinces that had no emotional attachment. That was when the students were massacred.

I do not think this is a comparable scenario. The cultural and historical differences between Chinese provinces are not even remotely similar to the cultural and historical differences between people from New Jersey and Arizona. Also, the active components of the US military are not regionally homogenous. So, no matter where you sent a platoon of Marines or Soldiers there would most likely be someone who was from that state.

I'm not saying there couldn't be victory per se, but it would be a long, bloody struggle

I wouldn't have it any other way.

and America would be completely obliterated by internal and external forces. There would be no United States left to take control of.

This is assuming the US military adopted a strategy of generalized destruction, which they would not. It would most likely be a combination of intelligence agencies and special forces augmented by a generalized security force consisting of infantry Marines and Soldiers.

Furthermore, I am not convinced that enough people take gun rights so seriously that they would actually be willing to go to civil war over it. There would maybe be some states solidified in this cause, but the majority would not have unified populations.

These hypotheticals are not specifically limited to gun rights, rather they analyze the probability of a revolt's success in the face of generalized tyranny.
 
Just read the responses herein and you'll see that gun ownership has far exceeded the simple "protectionism" aspect for which it was intended. People are claiming they purchase guns "to protect themselves, their property and their families", but do they really need a semi-automatic assault riffle on a tripod to do it? C'mon, folks! It's overkill!!!

Maybe it is overkill... your point? It's still their right to arm themselves to the teeth.
 
Maybe it is overkill... your point? It's still their right to arm themselves to the teeth.

Again, I'm in no way advocating taking anyone's right to bear arms away from them. I just think gun legistlation should be segmented into three distinct categories:

1) gun ownership for self-protection only

2) hunters

3) gun collectors

In this way gun permits should be written to specifically address one of the above categories when purchasing weapons. That wouldn't mean a person couldn't have all three permits, but even then there should be limits on what and how much can be sold on the open market. I mean, if the common man w/a gun owners permit would be allowed to walk into a gun shop and purchase an RPG, I'd say there's definitely something wrong with that! But if he has a valid collector's permit, I'd be okay with that as long as there were limits on the amount of ammo he could purchase and restrictions on when he could use it, i.e., at gun shows and the like and/or appropriate target ranges only. In this way, you're moving in the right direction to help keep the more powerful and most harmful weapons off the streets and instead placing them in the hands of more responsible individuals (we hope).
 
Again, I'm in no way advocating taking anyone's right to bear arms away from them. I just think gun legistlation should be segmented into three distinct categories:

1) gun ownership for self-protection only

2) hunters

3) gun collectors

In this way gun permits should be written to specifically address one of the above categories when purchasing weapons. That wouldn't mean a person couldn't have all three permits, but even then there should be limits on what and how much can be sold on the open market. I mean, if the common man w/a gun owners permit would be allowed to walk into a gun shop and purchase an RPG, I'd say there's definitely something wrong with that! But if he has a valid collector's permit, I'd be okay with that as long as there were limits on the amount of ammo he could purchase and restrictions on when he could use it, i.e., at gun shows and the like and/or appropriate target ranges only. In this way, you're moving in the right direction to help keep the more powerful and most harmful weapons off the streets and instead placing them in the hands of more responsible individuals (we hope).

I know of a place out here in Texas where I could go and buy just about any illegal gun. So there will always be guns in the hands of those who really want them, even those who shouldn't have them.
 
I don't really buy that as a valid second ammendment argument. I'm sure that that was a large part of the founder's intent, but in modern America the thought that the civilian citizens could fight off the US Army is a bit daft. If a leader were to successfully mobilize the armed forces against the citizens of this country anything that would stop them is illegal now anyway. Look at Iraq - bombs are the only effective weapons the resistance has, and those are illegal in the US anyway. The gap between military technology and consumer arms is infinitely larger than it was in the 1700's.

Don't get me wrong - I'm pro 2nd Ammendment, but if you're keeping your guns so that you can fight off a tyrannical American military you're just pissing into the wind
It's irrelevant what you think is possible. That's what the 2nd Amendment is for, and for the States to fight off a tyrannical federal govt. It doesn't matter if some means are illegal, because legality will be of little relevance if we should ever reach that point.
 
Again, I'm in no way advocating taking anyone's right to bear arms away from them. I just think gun legistlation should be segmented into three distinct categories:

1) gun ownership for self-protection only

2) hunters

3) gun collectors

In this way gun permits should be written to specifically address one of the above categories when purchasing weapons. That wouldn't mean a person couldn't have all three permits, but even then there should be limits on what and how much can be sold on the open market. I mean, if the common man w/a gun owners permit would be allowed to walk into a gun shop and purchase an RPG, I'd say there's definitely something wrong with that! But if he has a valid collector's permit, I'd be okay with that as long as there were limits on the amount of ammo he could purchase and restrictions on when he could use it, i.e., at gun shows and the like and/or appropriate target ranges only. In this way, you're moving in the right direction to help keep the more powerful and most harmful weapons off the streets and instead placing them in the hands of more responsible individuals (we hope).


You should not talk about limiting the rights of others until you actually have a clue about the stuff you seek to limit
 
But does it really need to? Has or does our government pose that big of a threat to the people that we need to form militia groups and start arming ourselves with assault riffles? Because if we do I'd say it's time we all start migrating to another country!

Does it pose a threat now? No. Could it pose a threat in the future? Yes. You don't make preparations for an such a turn of events while they're going on. You make preparations to "be prepared" for when/if it something happens. I really really really do NOT want to ever have to fight my own government but if the day comes I'll at least have some form of weapon and ammo instead of waiting to pick one up off of the dead.

Here's were I think you've got it confused. I totally understand the importance of our civilian police forces and our National Guard units being heavily and adequately equipped to combat such vicious and horrendous attacks such as the LA/Watts/Detroit Riots. But that's exactly my point. It is NOT the role of the common man to take on these such threats. We have police forces (and in some cases specialized police forces, i.e., SWAT) and the National Guard (per state) to handle such problems. Such events don't happen everyday. And as such, they don't pose a recurring threat to good social order. Therefore, it's not necessary for the common man to arm himself in such ways. Nonetheless, I'm not advocating that an individual does not have the right to arm himself against threats to his person, his life, his family or his property, or even against his country or a foreign aggressor. But in the latter aspects, if he truly feels such a threat from within our government or from outside our boarders, the right thing for him to do is to sign up and become a part of one of this nation's all-volunteer forces. Otherwise, take a common sense approach to gun ownership.

Police and civilian forces are "response" forces and sometimes aren't equiped to handle a situation. Case in point, it took 4 days for the National Guard and Marines to arrive to suppress the violence of the 1992 LA Riots. Your logic is flawed when you state that events like that are uncommon to the point of not needing to arm ourselves heavily. Singular events like that are why arm ourselves in the first place. Whether its fighting looters, an angry mob, or a tyrannic government (foreign OR domestic).

The one thing that scares me the most about you is that you have put your utter faith in forces that cannot guarantee your safety. Sometimes they will make it in time, sometimes they don't. Sometimes they won't even know that they are supposed to come.



You've outlined a perfect example of what I mean by "...just because we can". It's a false rationalization that the threat can and will come from anywhere - from within or without - that drives people who believe as you do to stockpile weapons simply because they can or "in the event of..." So, I'll ask again, "To what extent is it too much?" If everyone begins to belief that a civil war is coming or that a government - foreign or domestic - will one day in our life time take up arms against the people, we may as well start laying landminds on our lawns, barring our windows and doors, mount a .50 cal on the roof and outfit our vehicles with heavy bullet proof armor.


You're basing your assumptions on present day. You make preparations for the future. What if by some twist of fate the USA was invaded BY China and due to military spending cuts we were severly depleted or a first tactical nuclear strike took out large swathes of our soldiers (insert your own imagination here)? What if a sudden plague depleted many soldiers and civilians which lead to some opportunistic country having a go at us? What if some guy walked into your house wearing a kevlar vest intending to rape your wife? What if a heavily armed group of "insert group here" is outgunning a police force and needs help..like they did during the North Hollywood shootout. There are so many "what if's" which justify the need for being heavily armed. None of them are expected from our current standpoint.


It's ridiculous. Surely, you can see that? Arms yourselves if you believe you must, but do it in a reasonable fashion. That's all I'm saying.

Whats reasonable to one person is unreasonable for another. The Swiss issue the STGW 90 assault rifle and 50 rounds of military grade ammo (to be opened when called to alert) to all military aged males and are required to store them at home (and you think guys like me are paranoid?). These are fully automatic machine guns and the lucky guys even have the chance to purchase them when they've retired. Yet they have low gun crime and most are with private weapons not their issued weapons. Is it unreasonable for them? Apparently their government doesn't think so. I mean, could you imagine if you saw this in your local supermarket? http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/53/Caroline-Migros-p1000507.jpg

On the other hand Mexico has some of the strictest gun laws in the world, even surpassing the UK. Citizens are limited to a .38 handgun or smaller, 12gauge shotgun, and/or hunting rifles (isn't this what you were trying to argue in favor). I'll tell you this, gun crime in Mexico scares the crap out of me. This is coming from a guy who owns a few assault rifles. Hell, living this close to the border I get a few extra "what if's" more than the average joe.


Oh, here's a little bonus for you. Brought to you by our friend the 2nd amendment. :mrgreen:
Machine Gun Shootout // Current
 
Last edited:
I know of a place out here in Texas where I could go and buy just about any illegal gun.

Oh, yeah. I know that place too.
It's called "everywhere".
 
Again, I'm in no way advocating taking anyone's right to bear arms away from them. I just think gun legistlation should be segmented into three distinct categories:

1) gun ownership for self-protection only

2) hunters

3) gun collectors

In this way gun permits should be written to specifically address one of the above categories when purchasing weapons. That wouldn't mean a person couldn't have all three permits, but even then there should be limits on what and how much can be sold on the open market. I mean, if the common man w/a gun owners permit would be allowed to walk into a gun shop and purchase an RPG, I'd say there's definitely something wrong with that! But if he has a valid collector's permit, I'd be okay with that as long as there were limits on the amount of ammo he could purchase and restrictions on when he could use it, i.e., at gun shows and the like and/or appropriate target ranges only. In this way, you're moving in the right direction to help keep the more powerful and most harmful weapons off the streets and instead placing them in the hands of more responsible individuals (we hope).

I viewd gun control similar to you not too long ago. But REALLY think about this.

Who does gun legislation effect? Criminals who disregard laws completely? Or upstanding citizens who follow the law? Think about that REAL hard... it's a LAW being put in effect....

Let me also ask you this. If I have an entire Garage completely filled with Guns of all sort. I'm talking Heavy Machine Guns, Full/semi auto assault rifles, Carbines, Sub-Machine Guns semi/full auto, pistols, bolt action long range rifles, high caliber rifles such as the Grizzly etc... What are you afraid of? You will more than likely never see these weapons unless you are at my place when I am cleaning them, or you come shooting with me. What is it about me owning those weapons bothers you?

The correct answer should be something along the lines of "Well, nothing I suppose. I just personally would not want to own a gun like that or have one in my home." which is perfectly acceptable. Just don't expect me or others like me to enjoy being told that we can't have something because it scares you.

BTW... Please watch this.

YouTube - That Pesky Assault Rifle Ban
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom