Discussion: The Second Amendment IV

[Webfoot Hero]

"weapons of war"

Sounds exactly like someone parroting the Democrats' talking points.

 

[Super Kal]

if you look at history

i have. George Washington and the colonials did what you think is impossible... they defended themselves and a whole country against a tyrannical government. Today, the question now lies in the people... are the people willing to step up and take back what is theirs, or will they continue to let their rights be taken away through fear tactics and war-mongering?

and it was also George Washington who said the following:
"A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government."

and Benjamin Franklin:
"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."

 

[Hotwire]

i have. George Washington and the colonials did what you think is impossible... they defended themselves and a whole country against a tyrannical government. Today, the question now lies in the people... are the people willing to step up and take back what is theirs, or will they continue to let their rights be taken away through fear tactics and war-mongering?

and it was also George Washington who said the following:
"A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government."

and Benjamin Franklin:
"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."

Actually, the question would be, "Is it worth doing?" See, the way this country works now, something like a new Civil War or outright rebellion would cause Dar more problems than I think any of us realize.

Just think of the damage it would do to the infrastructure. Take gas for example. It needs transported all over this country. If there were a war/rebellion, those trucks would stop running. Either by one side's army or, by them not wanting to be hijacked. Either way, the fuel stops flowing. Along with countless other goods. How long do you think it would take before businesses started dropping like flies? Then, once the fighting stopped, the winner has to pay to rebuild everything.

On top of that, how many people do think would actually rally to the cause? I mean the ones that, hen finally told to pick up a gun and shoot a fellow American, could & would. I'll wager that number is not very large. The vast majority of Americans wouldn't want to fight. Not like that, anyway.

 

[Tao43]

Second, AR15's shoot a varmint round, great for hunting coyotes and has been used, many times, for self-defense.

Yeah, this is my favorite misnomer that anti-gun people use against the AR-15. The "dreaded" 5.56/.223 is so deadly. They act like just because it is used by the military, it is this super bullet that can go through anything. There are far more powerful calibers available. I would rather be shot by a 5.56 full metal jacket than a .357 SIG hollow point from my Glock 32.

 

[Hotwire]

Yeah, this is my favorite misnomer that anti-gun people use against the AR-15. The "dreaded" 5.56/.223 is so deadly. They act like just because it is used by the military, it is this super bullet that can go through anything. There are far more powerful calibers available. I would rather be shot by a 5.56 full metal jacket than a .357 SIG hollow point from my Glock 32.

The military doesn't use those bullets to kill, they use them to wound.

 

[DACrowe]

Sounds exactly like someone parroting the Democrats' talking points.

As opposed to NRA BS, such as their claims that keeping tabs on gun trafficking through a UN arms treaty would lead to a gun registry and go after "civilian guns" a made-up term meant to create a loophole in international law for gun manufacturers to exploit while selling assault rifles?

Or perhaps the fact that defenders of unlimited magazine clips, which allows shooters like the one in Newtown the ability to not reload as frequently while children are running for their lives, is vaguely covered under "Second Amendment" which says little about ammunition rounds, but sounds better than saying extended clips?

Yes, I am alone in using buzz words in this high minded thread.

I do not know why I try to post here. Any facts are completely disregarded by those who will advocate unregulated arms under any and all circumstances.

 

[Tao43]

The military doesn't use those bullets to kill, they use them to wound.

I was always under the assumption that the military was trained to shoot COM to "stop the threat." Death is simply a potential byproduct of the action.
At least that what my dad who served in Vietnam and my nephew who deploys to Afghanistan this month said.

 

[DACrowe]

i have. George Washington and the colonials did what you think is impossible... they defended themselves and a whole country against a tyrannical government. Today, the question now lies in the people... are the people willing to step up and take back what is theirs, or will they continue to let their rights be taken away through fear tactics and war-mongering?

and it was also George Washington who said the following:
"A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government."

and Benjamin Franklin:
"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."

Yes, because a democratically elected POTUS you disagree with is comparable to the British government of the 1770s.

Also, you are comparing a colonial, or essentially foreign, military traversing for month(s) across the Atlantic to fight in alien lands to the US government defending its sovereignty on its own soil in the 21st century.

I also just do not get people who talk like you do. Did you completely miss the Civil War in history classes? I will not even get into Southern Revisionism and "states rights" being code for slavery. Just from a tactical level, the South thought they could secede from a more powerful, industrious and affluent North. They had better tacticians at the start of the war and grew up in an era where people felt more loyalty to their state flag than the US one. That is not even factoring in that armaments at the outset were somewhat more equally distributed than they would be in the age of Air Craft Carriers and tanks. They still lost and set their states back decades in progress for rebelling.

You are now suggesting that a US government which is recognized by the vast majority of Americans as the superseding power and the one they pledged allegiance to every day for years in grade school...will not be able to stop a couple of crackers who are pissed that their healthcare will be subsidized by the government (as the ones who are most prone to raise arms likely will take the medicaid healthcare if they don't already)?!

It is like you just ignored the past 150 years of history.

 

[wiegeabo]

I was always under the assumption that the military was trained to shoot COM to "stop the threat." Death is simply a potential byproduct of the action.
At least that what my dad who served in Vietnam and my nephew who deploys to Afghanistan this month said.

You kill an enemy, you take one out.

You wound an enemy, you take them out, and three of their buddies who now have to carry them back.

 

[wiegeabo]

As opposed to NRA BS, such as their claims that keeping tabs on gun trafficking through a UN arms treaty would lead to a gun registry and go after "civilian guns" a made-up term meant to create a loophole in international law for gun manufacturers to exploit while selling assault rifles?

Or perhaps the fact that defenders of unlimited magazine clips, which allows shooters like the one in Newtown the ability to not reload as frequently while children are running for their lives, is vaguely covered under "Second Amendment" which says little about ammunition rounds, but sounds better than saying extended clips?

Yes, I am alone in using buzz words in this high minded thread.

I do not know why I try to post here. Any facts are completely disregarded by those who will advocate unregulated arms under any and all circumstances.

Because the problem isn't the damned guns! And it's especially not the guns that do a tiny fraction of gun crime.

It's also not the legal guns. The crime done by illegal guns dwarfs that done by legally owned firearms.


If you want to get serious about stopping gun crime, then go after all the illegal firearms, and not the hotbutton models that the press jumps on.

Because, guess what. If you make the streets safer from illegal guns, then the demand for legal guns drops as well. So you're reducing the potential number of crimes done by legal guns for free!

 

[Hotwire]

I was always under the assumption that the military was trained to shoot COM to "stop the threat." Death is simply a potential byproduct of the action.
At least that what my dad who served in Vietnam and my nephew who deploys to Afghanistan this month said.

True, we trained to shoot center mass. Mainly because it's the biggest target for a small bullet. Improves your chances of hitting the enemy. The thing is, a high velocity .22 round is not likely to immediately kill someone unless it hits them in the head or heart. That translates to a wounded soldier which is actually more detrimental to the enemy than a dead one. A dead soldier eliminates one soldier, a wounded one eliminates 2 or 3.

That's how the US Army trained me, anyway.

 

[terry78]

You kill an enemy, you take one out.

You wound an enemy, you take them out, and three of their buddies who now have to carry them back.

So they do actually do that as opposed to just shooting their wounded to cull liabilites, as so many video games and movies have taught us.

 

[Tao43]

True, we trained to shoot center mass. Mainly because it's the biggest target for a small bullet. Improves your chances of hitting the enemy. The thing is, a high velocity .22 round is not likely to immediately kill someone unless it hits them in the head or heart. That translates to a wounded soldier which is actually more detrimental to the enemy than a dead one. A dead soldier eliminates one soldier, a wounded one eliminates 2 or 3.

That's how the US Army trained me, anyway.

That is true...although I really doubt that Al-Queda/Taliban have that many medics on hand. They don't seem to be the type that are too concerned with their own wounded. Against a full fledged military, I can see the benefit of that.

 

[Hotwire]

That is true...although I really doubt that Al-Queda/Taliban have that many medics on hand. They don't seem to be the type that are too concerned with their own wounded. Against a full fledged military, I can see the benefit of that.

Depends on who the wounded soldier is. These are still their brothers in arms.

 

[Kable24]

unlimited magazine clips.

What the Hell is a magazine clip?

It must be one of these high capacity assault clips.

 

[Webfoot Hero]

What the Hell is a magazine clip?

It must be one of these high capacity assault clips.

They look like they're about to go Rambo on someone's behind. And, beware of the barrel shrouds.

 

[Kelly]

I think if a rabble of hillbillies start storming a federal building with AKs that servicemen will do their duties in such a case. Do you think they will join in? And I thought you said I was the one who didn't respect the troops?

Seriously, strawman arguments on both sides ignored, if you look at history, much better armed and trained military leaders in the 1860s could not properly secede or stop a government they believed was "tyrannical" (mostly because the planter class aimlessly feared losing their slaves after the 1860 election). Why do you think a bunch of nutty militias in the backwoods of Colorado will fare better?

I believe every American has the right to protect themselves, hunt, fire for recreation if they so choose, etc. However, that does not mean they should be allowed to do it with weapons of war made for the sole purpose of mass murder. Because guess what? The mass murderers are the ones using it for its intended purpose.

Although, I agree with you on most of what you have said....from what I have learned over the last few months as this issue has been at the forefront...the argument of "weapons of war" is actually incorrect. What we buy for recreation, etc is FAR different from what our soldiers use, but they look similar, and it is really the cosmetic adjustments that are scaring people so much.

So, though I believe we should regulate (and in my opinion) totally stop the sell of weapons and everything that goes with them on the internet....and a few other things that are being thrown out there....I have to hope that those pushing for weapon bans, like Feinstein, would actually do more research in what needs to be banned, and what doesn't....AND, really put their time and energy in the area of mental health etc.....

 

[Kelly]

Hey guys, please do not link to articles that include censored words....I know that you aren't quoting them here, but we can't link to them either.

Thanks....

 

[enterthemadness]

road rage? A gun? A 2 on 1 beat down with a slam? And this happened 10 or so minutes from where I live? Oh North Carolina...and yes, those are houses that close to a highway.


http://foxnewsinsider.com/2013/03/2...atening-men-with-a-gun-in-road-rage-incident/

 

[Thundercrack85]

Although, I agree with you on most of what you have said....from what I have learned over the last few months as this issue has been at the forefront...the argument of "weapons of war" is actually incorrect. What we buy for recreation, etc is FAR different from what our soldiers use, but they look similar, and it is really the cosmetic adjustments that are scaring people so much.

Most contemporary soldiers yes. But World War II was won with semiautomatic rifles, that, really are rather crappy compared to some of the weapons civilians can buy now.

An AR-15 is superior to (and deadlier than) most service rifles used in World War II.

 

[Bill]

I think if a rabble of hillbillies start storming a federal building with AKs that servicemen will do their duties in such a case. Do you think they will join in? And I thought you said I was the one who didn't respect the troops?

I wouldn't make an assumption based on so little information. I couldn't see myself firing on civilians without good reason when I was in. Perhaps you could, if they're hillbillies armed with AK's, which seems to be the only group that you seem to be able to reference.

Seriously, strawman arguments on both sides ignored, if you look at history, much better armed and trained military leaders in the 1860s could not properly secede or stop a government they believed was "tyrannical" (mostly because the planter class aimlessly feared losing their slaves after the 1860 election). Why do you think a bunch of nutty militias in the backwoods of Colorado will fare better?

Indeed, with nuclear weapons, tanks and F-22's at the ready. Of course, that is assuming that if our Government ever truly becomes tyrannical, they'll only have to worry about nutty militias from the backwoods of Colorado. What do you think they'll employ first? The nuclear missile or the tank? Or will they just use the F22 armed with a nuke to disperse the crowd? Lend me your expert opinion.

I believe every American has the right to protect themselves, hunt, fire for recreation if they so choose, etc. However, that does not mean they should be allowed to do it with weapons of war made for the sole purpose of mass murder. Because guess what? The mass murderers are the ones using it for its intended purpose.

I'll let you know when I'm actually allowed to have such. As it is, an AR15 is not a weapon of war. Perhaps you can enlighten me, as you seem to speak of weapons of war and AK47's and their intended uses and users with such familiarity.

As opposed to NRA BS, such as their claims that keeping tabs on gun trafficking through a UN arms treaty would lead to a gun registry and go after "civilian guns" a made-up term meant to create a loophole in international law for gun manufacturers to exploit while selling assault rifles?

Or perhaps the fact that defenders of unlimited magazine clips, which allows shooters like the one in Newtown the ability to not reload as frequently while children are running for their lives, is vaguely covered under "Second Amendment" which says little about ammunition rounds, but sounds better than saying extended clips?

Yes, I am alone in using buzz words in this high minded thread.

I do not know why I try to post here. Any facts are completely disregarded by those who will advocate unregulated arms under any and all circumstances.

Why don't you put quotations around the "facts" so we'll know? We are a bunch of AK47 wielding hillbillies and our grasp of "high-minded" concepts such as facts is tenuous at best.

Also, when you decide to descend upon such a thread armed with such a "high-minded" intellect as the one you so obviously possess, you might also want to help us out with the technical terminology(read: buzz words) you use to substantiate your "facts." To wit; what is an "extended clip?" And, "unlimited magazine clip" might need a bit of clarification as well. After all, when you're in these high-minded threads, you have to allow for the hillbillies. We might not get all those technical terms(buzz words) you refer to when talking about firearms, a subject about which you seemingly know so much.

 

[enterthemadness]

Most contemporary soldiers yes. But World War II was won with semiautomatic rifles, that, really are rather crappy compared to some of the weapons civilians can buy now.

An AR-15 is superior to (and deadlier than) most service rifles used in World War II.

WWII guns are the crappy ones you start off with in black ops zombies. Fudge those guns.

 

[Super Kal]

Yes, because a democratically elected POTUS you disagree with is comparable to the British government of the 1770s.

interesting... i never once mentioned Barack Obama. seems like you assumed that... but since you brought up that subject, Romney would of done just as much damage as Obama is, and believe me, i was no fan of George Bush Sr. or George W. Bush, or Clinton for that matter... that's why my vote went to Ron Paul

i compare an American colonial then to an American citizen today because they both fight for the same thing: liberty and freedom. at both times, our rights are being infringed upon, and the people have the right by the US Constitution to stand up for their freedoms and liberties.

as far as the Civil War goes, the reason the South lost was because they were, sadly, underfunded, under budget, and did not have the backing that the north did with the Federal Reserve; they did, however, do something then that was completely and totally legal under the Constitution of the United States, and still is today: they seceded from the Union because they felt that their rights were being trampled on. They wanted to nullify slavery laws and tariffs that were passed in northern states, which were pushed through by the federal government... and that's what it's going to come down to in the future: the People vs the Federal Govt.

we are already starting to see some of this in a small form, with gun manufacturers neither creating or selling firearms to either government officials or police departments until the same firearms that government officials and police officers purchase are openly accessible to the American public.

but no, i dont buy the lies that the mainstream media put on the news when it comes to guns. the truth is, you completely ignored the very creation of your own nation, and dismiss the very people who fought and died just so you could have a biased opinion about guns, and not be taken into custody for possibly saying something the government doesnt like...

i posted it once, and I'll post it again:

"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."

 

[Thundercrack85]

Not to wade into another political argument, but secession wasn't legal.

The Confederate States of America was a glorified insurrection. What the Southerners did was illegal according to the US Constitution even in 1861 (see Section 10 of Article I).

 

[Super Kal]

the Federal Reserve was the problem. and yes, secession IS legal:

Deceleration of Independence
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness"

Ron Paul on secession
http://youtu.be/nhQ31b_dbnM
http://youtu.be/r8RrBCT_NXI

but you're right, that is for another thread... the fact still remains that we as a people have the right and freedom to be as armed as the military is, so that we might be able to protect ourselves from a government that has become obusive