You can ban handguns without violating the 2nd Amendment

[Bodi]

Please tell me which military unit you served with and how that branch of the service didnt use handguns as a combat sidearm.

He didn't say that they didn't use them as side arms... he talked about the effectiveness of a side arm in combat.

 

[VanceMack]

He didn't say that they didn't use them as side arms... he talked about the effectiveness of a side arm in combat.

If he doesnt think sidearms are effective in combat he has no business talking about firearms. But the mere fact that the military employs sidearms and uses them defeats his argument that the should be targted or that the loss of sidearms would have zero impact.

 

[Bodi]

If he doesnt think sidearms are effective in combat he has no business talking about firearms. But the mere fact that the military employs sidearms and uses them defeats his argument that the should be targted or that the loss of sidearms would have zero impact.

He didn't say that they can not be effective... he is saying that, while in combat, a handgun is not effective while a rifle is effective. When you imagine yourself in combat, under fire, do you imagine returning fire with your pistol or your rifle?

 

[VanceMack]

He didn't say that they can not be effective... he is saying that, while in combat, a handgun is not effective while a rifle is effective. When you imagine yourself in combat, under fire, do you imagine returning fire with your pistol or your rifle?

And again...he would be wrong...as are you if you think handguns are not effective in combat operations.

In combat, the weapon you carry/use depends on situation and circumstance. I have been deployed 7 times to combat zones and depending on the nature of my jobs I seldom carried a rifle and when armed ALWAYS carried a sidearm.

 

[Bodi]

And again...he would be wrong...as are you if you think handguns are not effective in combat operations.

In combat, the weapon you carry/use depends on situation and circumstance. I have been deployed 7 times to combat zones and depending on the nature of my jobs I seldom carried a rifle and when armed ALWAYS carried a sidearm.

You did not carry your rifle while in a combat zone during a combat situation? That is what he, and now I, are referring to... but I could be wrong... maybe soldiers walk around on patrol, under threat of ambush from ISIS, with only their pistols. I watch lots of doc videos of troops in combat and I have never seen it once, but maybe there are lots of times that it happens.

 

[VanceMack]

You did not carry your rifle while in a combat zone during a combat situation? That is what he, and now I, are referring to... but I could be wrong... maybe soldiers walk around on patrol, under threat of ambush from ISIS, with only their pistols. I watch lots of doc videos of troops in combat and I have never seen it once, but maybe there are lots of times that it happens.

I did not...I was not infantry. Others did. I served several roles including crypto and courier duties.

I was not at the pointy end of the stick. Those Servicemen that carry rifles and sidearms have ample training and circumstance to pull and use the sidearm. Its not a decoration.

Do you suppose Marines Soldiers, AF Combat Controllers, etc dedicate training with sidearms as a time waster?

 

[Bodi]

I did not...I was not infantry. Others did. I served several roles including crypto and courier duties.

I was not at the pointy end of the stick. Those Servicemen that carry rifles and sidearms have ample training and circumstance to pull and use the sidearm. Its not a decoration.

Do you suppose Marines Soldiers, AF Combat Controllers, etc dedicate training with sidearms as a time waster?

This is starting to be a tangent... the point is a rifle is much more efficient than a pistol in the overwhelming majority of combat situations.

 

[VanceMack]

You did not carry your rifle while in a combat zone during a combat situation? That is what he, and now I, are referring to... but I could be wrong... maybe soldiers walk around on patrol, under threat of ambush from ISIS, with only their pistols. I watch lots of doc videos of troops in combat and I have never seen it once, but maybe there are lots of times that it happens.

This is starting to be a tangent... the point is a rifle is much more efficient than a pistol in the overwhelming majority of combat situations.

So you you think rather than sidearms we should all be equipped with this.

 

[Bodi]

So you you think rather than sidearms we should all be equipped with this.

I said rifles... not heavy caliber mounted machine guns... This is the third tangent you have created.

 

[RF667799]

No, Keeping a fire extinguisher is being pro active about a possibility of a fire . Keeping any safety device such as alarms both for fire or break-ins is also a proactive move.

But then fires are not crime. They are usually caused by accidents. And guns do not burn. In this argument guns are the problem with criminals.

I have proposed only two premises that must support the idea that a person needs to keep a loaded gun within reach. I am open to any more.

Keeping a gun handy can then be characterized as being proactive about the need for a gun coming about.

 

[swing_voter]

No sidearm.

MPs carry sidearms, some officers do but not all officers.


I bet sidearms count for less than 0.001% of all modern battleground fatalities.


.

 

[VanceMack]

I said rifles... not heavy caliber mounted machine guns... This is the third tangent you have created.

None of these are tangents. Sure...it points out the OP and you are shitting all over your own credibility...but they arent tangents.

You cant claim a weapon that is used by the military is vulnerable for bans because after all they aren't used by the military.

 

[TurtleDude]

He didn't say that they can not be effective... he is saying that, while in combat, a handgun is not effective while a rifle is effective. When you imagine yourself in combat, under fire, do you imagine returning fire with your pistol or your rifle?

depends on the environment. in house clearings, in Iraq, it was common for the first guy in to have a pistol. Tunnel Rats in Nam used pistols-it was hard to deploy a rifle in cramped tunnels. anyone who claims a rifle is always a better choice for offensive or defensive uses, is someone you should avoid when it comes to advice

 

[Bodi]

depends on the environment. in house clearings, in Iraq, it was common for the first guy in to have a pistol. Tunnel Rats in Nam used pistols-it was hard to deploy a rifle in cramped tunnels. anyone who claims a rifle is always a better choice for offensive or defensive uses, is someone you should avoid when it comes to advice

I made the scenario clear... combat situations while on patrol and needing to return fire against ISIS.

 

[TurtleDude]

I made the scenario clear... combat situations while on patrol and needing to return fire against ISIS.

What relevance does that have to the stupid claim that handguns have no place in our military or are not covered by the second amendment. We can all think up scenarios where a particular firearm or other weapon would not be useful. That really has no bearing on this discussion

 

[Bodi]

What relevance does that have to the stupid claim that handguns have no place in our military or are not covered by the second amendment. We can all think up scenarios where a particular firearm or other weapon would not be useful. That really has no bearing on this discussion

No surprise... you are out of your depth.

 

[TurtleDude]

No surprise... you are out of your depth.

really> the thread is about claims that handguns can be banned and not violate the second amendment. The supreme court's current rules 86 that nonsense since handguns are both in common use and are not UNUSUALLY dangerous. So we look at the military. There are STUPID claims that handguns are not militarily useful. That again has been 86d given the recent contract with SIG to supply thousands upon thousands of SIG 320 handguns to our military. Out of my depth? LOL

 

[Bodi]

really> the thread is about claims that handguns can be banned and not violate the second amendment. The supreme court's current rules 86 that nonsense since handguns are both in common use and are not UNUSUALLY dangerous. So we look at the military. There are STUPID claims that handguns are not militarily useful. That again has been 86d given the recent contract with SIG to supply thousands upon thousands of SIG 320 handguns to our military. Out of my depth? LOL

Own a gun = being part of the militia...

Don't like it then lose your guns.

Don't give a shit about your whining.

 

[TurtleDude]

Own a gun = being part of the militia...

Don't like it then lose your guns.

Don't give a shit about your whining.

translation-you post nonsense, and you get schooled, so you change the goal posts. How would we lose our guns just because we think your claims are nonsensical?

 

[Glitch]

This is starting to be a tangent... the point is a rifle is much more efficient than a pistol in the overwhelming majority of combat situations.

Yet someone else who has never served in the military attempting to tell everyone about combat situations they know nothing about.

You should have learned by now that if it is a subject you nothing about it is probably best not to get involved. This is one of those subjects. You are citing your vast experience with Hollywood movies for Pete's sake. That alone is enough to make you a laughingstock.

Handguns have numerous roles in the military, and they are used by a wide variety of military occupational specialties (MOS). One of the most common uses by MOS 0311 in the Marines or MOS 11B10 in the Army is to clear buildings. In close quarters combat a rifle can be a liability. A handgun is much better tool for clearing rooms.

My MOS, by the way, was 1391 (Bulkfuelman). I worked along side Navy SeaBees setting up fuel depots on the beaches, or further inland, and I was issued an M1911 as soon as I made E-4 (Corporal). The overwhelming majority of NCOs in every branch of the military are issued side arms.

Apparently ignorant anti-gunners love showing everyone just how uninformed they truly are. So by all means keep relying on Hollywood as your font of knowledge, and we will continue to laugh at your ignorant posts.

 

[Bodi]

translation-you post nonsense, and you get schooled, so you change the goal posts. How would we lose our guns just because we think your claims are nonsensical?

You are out of your depth...

 

[Bodi]

Yet someone else who has never served in the military attempting to tell everyone about combat situations they know nothing about.

You should have learned by now that if it is a subject you nothing about it is probably best not to get involved. This is one of those subjects. You are citing your vast experience with Hollywood movies for Pete's sake. That alone is enough to make you a laughingstock.

Handguns have numerous roles in the military, and they are used by a wide variety of military occupational specialties (MOS). One of the most common uses by MOS 0311 in the Marines or MOS 11B10 in the Army is to clear buildings. In close quarters combat a rifle can be a liability. A handgun is much better tool for clearing rooms.

My MOS, by the way, was 1391 (Bulkfuelman). I worked along side Navy SeaBees setting up fuel depots on the beaches, or further inland, and I was issued an M1911 as soon as I made E-4 (Corporal). The overwhelming majority of NCOs in every branch of the military are issued side arms.

Apparently ignorant anti-gunners love showing everyone just how uninformed they truly are. So by all means keep relying on Hollywood as your font of knowledge, and we will continue to laugh at your ignorant posts.

This does not address anything, literally, that I said within context. Try again.

 

[Glitch]

So you you think rather than sidearms we should all be equipped with this.

That works for me.

I was always saddled with the M60E1 while in the field, which was about 10 pounds heavier than the M240. I also had a partner who carried the ammo and spare barrels which had to be changed after every 100-round belt. So I would gladly take the M240.

 

[AConcernedCitizen]

Handguns cannot be banned, but they can be regulated, at least with regard to every able-bodied citizen between eighteen and forty-five. The Militia Act of 1903 states that the militia 'shall consist of every able-bodied citizen between eighteen and forty-five.' Article I of the Constitution empowers Congress to regulate this militia.

 

[swing_voter]

Yet someone else who has never served in the military attempting to tell everyone about combat situations they know nothing about.

You should have learned by now that if it is a subject you nothing about it is probably best not to get involved. This is one of those subjects. You are citing your vast experience with Hollywood movies for Pete's sake. That alone is enough to make you a laughingstock.

Handguns have numerous roles in the military, and they are used by a wide variety of military occupational specialties (MOS). One of the most common uses by MOS 0311 in the Marines or MOS 11B10 in the Army is to clear buildings. In close quarters combat a rifle can be a liability. A handgun is much better tool for clearing rooms.

My MOS, by the way, was 1391 (Bulkfuelman). I worked along side Navy SeaBees setting up fuel depots on the beaches, or further inland, and I was issued an M1911 as soon as I made E-4 (Corporal). The overwhelming majority of NCOs in every branch of the military are issued side arms.

Apparently ignorant anti-gunners love showing everyone just how uninformed they truly are. So by all means keep relying on Hollywood as your font of knowledge, and we will continue to laugh at your ignorant posts.

I won't say nobody uses a handgun to clear a building in military situations, but it's close to nobody.



.