PDA

View Full Version : Why should anyone own an "Assault Rifle?"


drkft
12-28-2012, 2:57 PM
When someone says to me, "there is no reason citizens should own "Assault Rifles." I respond that the founders in their infinite wisdom wanted checks and balances in government. One branch limiting the others and so forth. Armed citizens are the "checks and balances" vis-a-vis our government. There is usually a rolling of the eyes and the retort that goes something like this: "Oh so you think that the citizens should take up arms against their government." I respond with, "no it's very much like detente between nuclear powers. Having nuclear weapons actually prevents, as history has shown, nuclear war. The consequences of lighting the fuse strikes so much fear into in the hearts of both sides that detente becomes possible. Having an armed citizenry has a similar affect. No one would wish to go to war with their Government. But for politicians, the fear of that, even remote possibility, strikes fear into their hearts and therefore has a sobering, if restraining effect upon their governance."

PeaceLover
12-28-2012, 3:01 PM
How many more rolls of the eyes do you get after your finished. I get a lot.

TreeHugger
12-28-2012, 3:03 PM
Why would anyone need a car that can go 160+mph? None, unless you're on a race track.

Bruceisontarget
12-28-2012, 3:05 PM
I find most anti's don't respond well to logic. It's all about emotion for them.

Apocalypsenerd
12-28-2012, 3:09 PM
when people ask what need I have for an assault rifle, I have responded at times with:

"I feel I need this weapon to protect me from people who believe they have the right to decided what I do and don't need."

tcrpe
12-28-2012, 3:14 PM
when people ask what need I have for an assault rifle, I have responded at times with:

"I feel I need this weapon to protect me from people who believe they have the right to decided what I do and don't need."

Exactly. :iagree:

mshill
12-28-2012, 3:15 PM
I find most anti's don't respond well to logic. It's all about emotion for them.

It takes only two simple questions to make them contradict themselves...

1) Do you believe that good guys with guns can stop bad guys with guns? (Typical answer is no)

2) What do you do when you are home alone and someone tries to break into your home? (Call the police, why?, the good guys with guns).

Works every time.

chris
12-28-2012, 3:25 PM
well lets see your thread title is wrong in the first place. civilians do not own "assault rifles" the media loves to use this name for semi auto rifles that look like military assault rifles to confuse the uneducated public. no military in the world today would issue it's military with a semi auto rifle. an assault rifle is a weapon that has selective fire ie semi, auto or burst depending on what rifle it happens to be.

in general most people have semit auto rifles and yes there are civilians that have full auto weapons but they have gone through a background check and a myriad of other checks before being able to buy it.

violentmouse
12-28-2012, 3:29 PM
ah yes the police.... minutes away when seconds count.

I converted someone the other day when I explained that LEO doesnt prevent crime. He asked why I thought that and I asked if he ever received a speeding ticket. "of course"
"so the officer didn't prevent you from speeding, he only punished you for breaking the law...basically the way a detective doesn't stop a murder he only solves it after the fact."

Arm yourself and protect yourself. :)

Bobio
12-28-2012, 3:31 PM
The second amendment was created so STATES could have their own armies. Not people dissatisfied with the government. Our founding fathers were concerned that if the federal government had an army they could disarm states. Jefferson didn't want to federal government to have an army at all. This was sort of a compromise.

You guys talk about going to war with your government. Come on. Really? It may make you feel important but do you want to turn the US into Northern Ireland. Is that what you want. Shoot outs and car bombs in the streets. Really? Cause that's what it takes. The KKK was willing to go there, Black Panthers, The JDL, The Weather Underground. These were groups who took arms against America. The "Green Corn Rebellion" was a Communist driven attempted insurrection against the federal government. That is the closest thing to a militia resistance like some of the posters dream of. It doesn't bode well and I think it is UN-American.

mosinnagantm9130
12-28-2012, 3:34 PM
@Bobio^^, you would be 100% wrong. The supreme court shot down the milita argument in the Heller decision, ruling in favor of an individual right.

Nodda Duma
12-28-2012, 3:38 PM
The second amendment was created so STATES could have their own armies. Not people dissatisfied with the government. Our founding fathers were concerned that if the federal government had an army they could disarm states. Jefferson didn't want to federal government to have an army at all. This was sort of a compromise.

You guys talk about going to war with your government. Come on. Really? It may make you feel important but do you want to turn the US into Northern Ireland. Is that what you want. Shoot outs and car bombs in the streets. Really? Cause that's what it takes. The KKK was willing to go there, Black Panthers, The JDL, The Weather Underground. These were groups who took arms against America. The "Green Corn Rebellion" was a Communist driven attempted insurrection against the federal government. That is the closest thing to a militia resistance like some of the posters dream of. It doesn't bode well and I think it is UN-American.

I see you would have been a Loyalist.

Happyhappycamper
12-28-2012, 3:38 PM
Because a cop is too heavy to carry around.

SNCaliber
12-28-2012, 3:41 PM
^this.

Guntech
12-28-2012, 3:41 PM
I see you would have been a Loyalist.

Time to get back to the UK and take Piers with ya!

Guntech
12-28-2012, 3:43 PM
The second amendment was created so STATES could have their own armies. Not people dissatisfied with the government. Our founding fathers were concerned that if the federal government had an army they could disarm states. Jefferson didn't want to federal government to have an army at all. This was sort of a compromise.

You guys talk about going to war with your government. Come on. Really? It may make you feel important but do you want to turn the US into Northern Ireland. Is that what you want. Shoot outs and car bombs in the streets. Really? Cause that's what it takes. The KKK was willing to go there, Black Panthers, The JDL, The Weather Underground. These were groups who took arms against America. The "Green Corn Rebellion" was a Communist driven attempted insurrection against the federal government. That is the closest thing to a militia resistance like some of the posters dream of. It doesn't bode well and I think it is UN-American.

Thats because you aren't an American, so you wouldn't know what is if it hit you in the face.

Tarn_Helm
12-28-2012, 3:44 PM
The second amendment was created so STATES could have their own armies. Not people dissatisfied with the government. Our founding fathers were concerned that if the federal government had an army they could disarm states. Jefferson didn't want to federal government to have an army at all. This was sort of a compromise.

You guys talk about going to war with your government. Come on. Really? It may make you feel important but do you want to turn the US into Northern Ireland. Is that what you want. Shoot outs and car bombs in the streets. Really? Cause that's what it takes. The KKK was willing to go there, Black Panthers, The JDL, The Weather Underground. These were groups who took arms against America. The "Green Corn Rebellion" was a Communist driven attempted insurrection against the federal government. That is the closest thing to a militia resistance like some of the posters dream of. It doesn't bode well and I think it is UN-American.

I can see you have not read much U.S. history, legal scholarship, or history of the Bill of Rights.

Nor have you heard, apparently, of the Battle of Athens (1946) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Athens_(1946)).

Get with the program.

You have a lot of catching up to do.

Bad Troll!

No doughnut!
:D

Bobio
12-28-2012, 3:45 PM
Thats because you aren't an American, so you wouldn't know what is if it hit you in the face.
Sorry if you think that supporting my country is Un-American

Coded-Dude
12-28-2012, 3:49 PM
The battles of Concord and Lexington are good examples(government trying to disarm citizens).

tcrpe
12-28-2012, 3:49 PM
You guys talk about going to war with your government. Come on. Really? It may make you feel important but do you want to turn the US into Northern Ireland. Is that what you want.

Without our Second Amendment protected arms, our government would turn this country into North Korea.

Is that what you want?

And thanks for throwing the JDL in there, it says a lot.



Bad troll! No doughnut, indeed!

drkft
12-28-2012, 3:49 PM
The second amendment was created so STATES could have their own armies. Not people dissatisfied with the government. Our founding fathers were concerned that if the federal government had an army they could disarm states. Jefferson didn't want to federal government to have an army at all. This was sort of a compromise.

You guys talk about going to war with your government. Come on. Really? It may make you feel important but do you want to turn the US into Northern Ireland. Is that what you want. Shoot outs and car bombs in the streets. Really? Cause that's what it takes. The KKK was willing to go there, Black Panthers, The JDL, The Weather Underground. These were groups who took arms against America. The "Green Corn Rebellion" was a Communist driven attempted insurrection against the federal government. That is the closest thing to a militia resistance like some of the posters dream of. It doesn't bode well and I think it is UN-American.

Nobody in this thread is promulgating going to war with the government. Take your paranoia and non sequitur nonsense somewhere else. :mad:

Bobio
12-28-2012, 3:52 PM
I can see you have not read much U.S. history, legal scholarship, or history of the Bill of Rights.

Nor have you heard, apparently, of the Battle of Athens (1946) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Athens_(1946)).

:D

I think that is a great example of civilians taking arms and fighting to get there massage across. And a very good argument for armed citizens. I am not afraid to hear well presented arguments and I appreciate the information.

tcrpe
12-28-2012, 3:55 PM
I think that is a great example of civilians taking arms and fighting to get there massage across. And a very good argument for armed citizens. I am not afraid to hear well presented arguments and I appreciate the information.

Usually it takes arms and hands to get the massage across.

hoozaru
12-28-2012, 4:01 PM
I just tell sheeples that gas operated sporting rifles are necessary for harvesting certain games, for example coyotes can travel in LARGE groups and fast, they are known to attack and kill hikers. Banning AK/AR style sporting rifles and standard capacity magazines would put millions of hikers and hunters in danger.

MotoriousRacing
12-28-2012, 4:01 PM
Why would anyone need a car that can go 160+mph? None, unless you're on a race track.

Not needed, indeed, however because I CAN. Also with Arms, as stated in 2A.

btw - I've seen cars driving 155+mph up/down I-5 in the very late night/early morning, between the Grapevine and Stockton, on occasion. No race track needed, just open, empty road.

five.five-six
12-28-2012, 4:08 PM
How many more rolls of the eyes do you get after your finished. I get a lot.

Roll of the eyes? After I am finished, I usually get a tissue :shrug:

Bobio
12-28-2012, 4:11 PM
@Bobio^^, you would be 100% wrong. The supreme court shot down the milita argument in the Heller decision, ruling in favor of an individual right.

I said that is why I think the 2A was created. Based on Jefferson's fear of a federal army. I believe the the second amendment extends to individual citizens. District of Columbia Vs. Heller says that and I agree with that ruling. I do not support taking away citizens rights to own arms and protect themselves.

Sure I support what we did at Lexington and Concord. The problem I have is this romanticized attitude to taking arms up against OUR government. If a vote goes against you an element of the gun community are too quick to talk about armed resistance. Maybe I am misinterpreting it. Maybe it is just folks trying to show the importance of gun ownership. Which, again, I support.

Ten Rounder
12-28-2012, 4:12 PM
Nobody mowed the grass and you have to have one behind every blade.

M14 Junkie
12-28-2012, 4:16 PM
I think this is one of the best pieces written about this mess that I have read -so far;

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2012-12-28/guest-post-feinsteins-gun-control-bill-will-trigger-next-american-revolution

myk
12-28-2012, 4:17 PM
It's a constitutional right, just like freedom of spech and expression. Additionally, without the 2nd Amendment there probably wouldn't be a 1st amendment.

/discussion-debate-whatever you want to call it...

mike.h
12-28-2012, 4:24 PM
Tarn Helm:Get with the program.

You have a lot of catching up to do.

Bad Troll!

No doughnut!

:D

Briliant

xrMike
12-28-2012, 4:37 PM
The second amendment was created so STATES could have their own armies ... Jefferson didn't want to federal government to have an army at all. This was sort of a compromise ... You guys talk about going to war with your government. Come on. Really? It doesn't bode well and I think it is UN-American.

It was Jefferson who wrote:

"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."

You need to get your mind right, my friend. The great, great men who created this country, by neccesity out of violence, and who wrote our Constitution all believed similarly to Jefferson. Not you.

Therefore YOU are the one who is UN-American, when you really stop and think about it.

It's OK though. You stick around here awhile and we'll get your mind right.

I see you would have been a Loyalist.

:D

Decoligny
12-28-2012, 4:49 PM
I just tell sheeples that gas operated sporting rifles are necessary for harvesting certain games, for example coyotes can travel in LARGE groups and fast, they are known to attack and kill hikers. Banning AK/AR style sporting rifles and standard capacity magazines would put millions of hikers and hunters in danger.

The first and ONLY recorded instance of coyotes killing an adult was in Canada in 2009 where they killed a 19 year old female hiker (singular).
Prior to that the last reported death by coyote attack was a child in Los Angeles in 1980.

Coyote attacks are very rare. Coyotes are usually very wary of humans and avoid them, or at least keep at a distance.

How many hikers are there in the country trekking around with AKs or ARs across their shoulders.

Your argument fails the facts check test and the logic test.

Any argument beyond "It doesn't matter if you need them, you have a CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT to have them", is a waste of time.

n2fooz
12-28-2012, 5:04 PM
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.

We are the people, enough said.

Clee
12-28-2012, 6:06 PM
Who would ever need an Assault rifle?

Ask the Koreans during the LA riots:
http://survivalandprosperity.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/LA-Koreatown-Defender.jpg
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_TsFXJA9YHlE/TTeIfFOIuVI/AAAAAAAAAQI/VqNzxdhlp5s/s1600/58852252.jpg

Remember this report from CNN and Don Lemon (who has been adamant about getting rid of AWs). Tidbits from 17:45 -21:00:
There were no resources (police) to go to those locations (K-town)... Bernard Parks Chief of Police

By defending themselves Ktown became a buffer zone... preventing more loss of lives and property...Richard Choi Journalist

Koreatown remained largely unscalthed, you need to credit the Korean merchants who were armed and defended their property...Lou Cannon Journalist

tWhYmb1sANM

Sublime_AC
12-28-2012, 6:26 PM
The second amendment was created so STATES could have their own armies. Not people dissatisfied with the government. Our founding fathers were concerned that if the federal government had an army they could disarm states. Jefferson didn't want to federal government to have an army at all. This was sort of a compromise.


WRONG

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government"

-- Thomas Jefferson, 1 Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

"The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil interference - they deserve a place of honor with all that's good"

-- George Washington
"The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed."

-- Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers at 184-188

"This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it or their revolutionary right to dismember it or overthrow it."

-- Abraham Lincoln, 4 April 1861

"One of the ordinary modes, by which tyrants accomplish their purposes without resistance, is, by disarming the people, and making it an offense to keep arms."

-- Constitutional scholar Joseph Story, 1840
"The bearing of arms is the essential medium through which the individual asserts both his social power and his participation in politics as a responsible moral being..."

-- J.G.A. Pocock, describing the beliefs of the founders of the U.S.
Men trained in arms from their infancy, and animated by the love of liberty, will afford neither a cheap or easy conquest.

-- From the Declaration of the Continental Congress, July 1775.
"As to the species of exercise, I advise the gun. While this gives [only] moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise, and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun, therefore, be the constant companion to your walks."

-- Thomas Jefferson, writing to his teenaged nephew.


The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions, that I wish it always to be kept alive. It will often be exercised when wrong, but better so than not to be exercised at all. I like a little rebellion now and then. It is like a storm in the Atmosphere.

-- Thomas Jefferson, letter to Abigail Adams, 1787
& what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time that his people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms.

-- Thomas Jefferson, letter to Col. William S. Smith, 1787
"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect every one who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined."

-- Patrick Henry, speech of June 5 1788
Are we at last brought to such a humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our own defence? Where is the difference between having our arms in our own possession and under our own direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defence be the *real* object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?

-- Patrick Henry, speech of June 9 1788
"To disarm the people... was the best and most effectual way to enslave them."

-- George Mason, speech of June 14, 1788
"The great object is, that every man be armed. [...] Every one who is able may have a gun."

-- Patrick Henry, speech of June 14 1788

Such are a well regulated militia, composed of the freeholders, citizen and husbandman, who take up arms to preserve their property, as individuals, and their rights as freemen.

-- "M.T. Cicero", in a newspaper letter of 1788 touching the "militia"
referred to in the Second Amendment to the Constitution.
That the said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United states who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms...

-- Samuel Adams, in "Phila. Independent Gazetteer", August 20, 1789
The danger (where there is any) from armed citizens, is only to the *government*, not to *society*; and as long as they have nothing to revenge in the government (which they cannot have while it is in their own hands) there are many advantages in their being accustomed to the use of arms, and no possible disadvantage.

-- Joel Barlow, "Advice to the Privileged Orders", 1792-93
[The disarming of citizens] has a double effect, it palsies the hand and brutalizes the mind: a habitual disuse of physical forces totally destroys the moral [force]; and men lose at once the power of protecting themselves, and of discerning the cause of their oppression.

-- Joel Barlow, "Advice to the Privileged Orders", 1792-93
A man who has nothing which he is willing to fight for, nothing which he cares about more than he does about his personal safety, is a miserable creature who has no chance of being free, unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself.

-- John Stuart Mill, writing on the U.S. Civil War in 1862

"Today, we need a nation of Minutemen, citizens who are not only prepared to take arms, but citizens who regard the preservation of freedom as the basic purpose of their daily life and who are willing to consciously work and sacrifice for that freedom."

-- John F. Kennedy



The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to permit the conquered Eastern peoples to have arms. History teaches that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by doing so.

-- Hitler, April 11 1942

tcrpe
12-28-2012, 6:28 PM
When seconds count, the police are cowering at Parker Center.

And it takes the Korean merchants to remind us what being an American is all about.

philobeddoe
12-28-2012, 6:31 PM
I find most anti's don't respond well to logic. It's all about emotion for them.

Logic and reason are off the table.

If anything I ask them to consider subordinating their feelings to the facts and then drop the matter.

It's subject to public referendum.

tcrpe
12-28-2012, 6:33 PM
WRONG

WRONG is what the teacher's unions are "teaching" in our government schools. The schools should be closed, and these perpetrators imprisoned, before this idiocracy expands any more.

Bbonez
12-28-2012, 7:16 PM
I tap them with a bic pen and ask them if they want to ban my "Assault Pen"

Sublime_AC
12-28-2012, 7:19 PM
It is very easy to show the founders true intent. The small sample of quotes I posted clearly shows that THE PEOPLE, THE CITIZENS, US, are to have a right to weapons, to defend ourselves, to protect our property and to preserve our freedom from a tyrannical government.

It has NOTHING to do with Sport or hunting. It has everything to do with freedom.

jallen58
12-28-2012, 7:20 PM
I tell them define assault weapon.

InFamous20
12-28-2012, 7:46 PM
Probably heard the most retarded thing the other day. I was told that assault rifles should be banned because of the amount of damage that they inflict in Call of Duty..

SilverTauron
12-28-2012, 8:15 PM
Why you should own an assault rifle? The answer's obvious if your address is in the city limits of Chicago , Los Angeles, or Washington D.C.

Murloc Holmes
12-28-2012, 9:59 PM
Personally I object to the question. It is enough that arms are my birthright and that I want one. The burden is on the person asking the question to justify why I shouldn't have one.

"Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American ... the unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people." Tenche Coxe - Delegate to the Continental Convention

CaliBoundAR15
12-28-2012, 10:40 PM
ah yes the police.... minutes away when seconds count.

And yet people complain simultaneously about living in a "police state." So which do you want? Cops everywhere, or no where?? :confused:

I converted someone the other day when I explained that LEO doesnt prevent ALL crime. He asked why I thought that and I asked if he ever received a speeding ticket. "of course"
"so the officer didn't prevent you from speeding, he only punished you for breaking the law...basically the way a detective doesn't stop a murder he only solves it after the fact."

No, but I'd bet you'd think twice about speeding through there again. So, in essence..... he DID prevent crime! :D

Arm yourself and protect yourself. :) Couldn't agree more!!

Fixed it for you! ;)

EXTREMEOPS1
12-29-2012, 5:37 AM
Assault weapons are a mainstay of the local militia. Support your local militia they will be there way before the police arrive .

artoaster
12-29-2012, 6:25 AM
I have a "hunting knife" that's not working. It just sits there and has never gone out and done any sort of hunting whatsoever.

BTW, right now I'm staring at the salt and pepper shakers on my kitchen table and wondering if I turn my back on them that the damn salt shaker doesn't just jump up and assault me.

CCWFacts
12-29-2012, 6:30 AM
I have one argument about why I want to own an "assault rifle" that I think is a fresh argument:

Everything is an "assault weapon" when it's first invented.

Metallic cartridge guns? Those were considered assault weapons, inappropriate for civilian use. Mauser-style box magazines? Same. Crossbows? Pope Innocent II in 1139 said they were not to be used against Christians, ie they were suitable only for wars, ie, they are assault weapons and you can't have one. Crossbows were the assault weapon of the Medieval period!

I'm sure if I did research on other innovations over the years, including early blackpowder arms, I could find examples of proclamations of how dangerous they are and that civilians have no business owning such frightening things.

Grandpa's Remington 700? It's based on the Mauser design, which was a military weapon in its day. Why would anyone need a box magazine and a bolt action? You don't need half a dozen fast follow-up shots for deer hunting!

There's a long history of military users paying for new stuff to be developed, and then the companies that made it start selling it to the broader civilian market.

It seems to me that future military infantry weapons will be things that have no hunting use at all, and it will be hard to justify civilian ownership of things like smart grenade launchers, so we may be at the point where the AR-15 is the last military-derived weapon to make its way into the civilian market, and obviously there has been a vigorous dispute about that.

drkft
12-29-2012, 8:16 AM
I have one argument about why I want to own an "assault rifle" that I think is a fresh argument:

Everything is an "assault weapon" when it's first invented.

Metallic cartridge guns? Those were considered assault weapons, inappropriate for civilian use. Mauser-style box magazines? Same. Crossbows? Pope Innocent II in 1139 said they were not to be used against Christians, ie they were suitable only for wars, ie, they are assault weapons and you can't have one. Crossbows were the assault weapon of the Medieval period!

I'm sure if I did research on other innovations over the years, including early blackpowder arms, I could find examples of proclamations of how dangerous they are and that civilians have no business owning such frightening things.

Grandpa's Remington 700? It's based on the Mauser design, which was a military weapon in its day. Why would anyone need a box magazine and a bolt action? You don't need half a dozen fast follow-up shots for deer hunting!

There's a long history of military users paying for new stuff to be developed, and then the companies that made it start selling it to the broader civilian market.

It seems to me that future military infantry weapons will be things that have no hunting use at all, and it will be hard to justify civilian ownership of things like smart grenade launchers, so we may be at the point where the AR-15 is the last military-derived weapon to make its way into the civilian market, and obviously there has been a vigorous dispute about that.


Very insightful. You may definitely have a point.

TS77
12-29-2012, 10:41 AM
I was talking to some of my buddy's last night, not exactly anti-gun, but basically asked the same question. Keep in mind, these guys are open-minded on the subject, they don't necessarily have an agenda, they just wanted to know what my thoughts were.

I just quoted them DOJ statistics and facts: no federal legal definition of AWB in most states, DOJ stats consistently show that homicides from long guns (of which "AWB" are a sub-set of) are less than 3% of total homicides, below knives, blunt objects, and even hands/feet. that usually gets a whoa response. Corollarly, if we ban these things, it's not going to show as a blip on crime reduction.

and one of these guys is a resident at a hospital in the bronx, and he works on GSW often.

TS77
12-29-2012, 10:41 AM
I was talking to some of my buddy's last night, not exactly anti-gun, but basically asked the same question. Keep in mind, these guys are open-minded on the subject, they don't necessarily have an agenda, they just wanted to know what my thoughts were.

I just quoted them DOJ statistics and facts: no federal legal definition of AWB in most states, DOJ stats consistently show that homicides from long guns (of which "AWB" are a sub-set of) are less than 3% of total homicides, below knives, blunt objects, and even hands/feet. that usually gets a whoa response. Corollarly, if we ban these things, it's not going to show as a blip on crime reduction.

and one of these guys is a resident at a hospital in the bronx, and he works on GSW often.

calixt0
12-29-2012, 11:07 AM
Its an interesting paradigm where we come to the argument of what do you need in this country? Do we need more food than we can eat in a day? do we need electricity let alone internet or tv's. Do we need cars at all let alone cars that go over the speed limit (hate that comparison because it compares rights with priveledges). In this country we dont only do or have what we need! IF WE DID WE WOULDN,T BE THIS COUNTRY. We didn't need to break off and fight the British to be independant. We wanted it and that is all we needed.

I don't agree that we don't need it though. We do need it to make sure we are willingly governed not enslaved.

J.D.Allen
12-29-2012, 11:21 AM
I find most anti's don't respond well to logic. It's all about emotion for them.

This. I had a long argument on FB (I know, that was my first mistake) with some friends of a friend. The whole time they were trying to tell me that their calls for gun control weren't just emotional reactions to the massacre. They then concluded the argument with "look I have kids in school and this scares me, so I want tighter gun laws, agree to disagree". Which...of course...proved exactly my point that this was in response to fear and not logic, AND contradicting everything they had just said.

You cannot convince people with logic, who do not think logically.

J.D.Allen
12-29-2012, 11:25 AM
ah yes the police.... minutes away when seconds count.

I converted someone the other day when I explained that LEO doesnt prevent crime. He asked why I thought that and I asked if he ever received a speeding ticket. "of course"
"so the officer didn't prevent you from speeding, he only punished you for breaking the law...basically the way a detective doesn't stop a murder he only solves it after the fact."


This is so very true and people don't realize it until you point it out. I have worked for the criminal courts for almost nine years. Worked on literally thousands of cases. Police by and large do NOT prevent crime.

a1c
12-29-2012, 11:41 AM
Military firearms have always ended up seeping into civilian hands. The Spencer repeating rifle, the Krag, the pump action shotgun, the semi-autos... It's always been like this.

Here is an article dating back to more than a century ago (http://cdnc.ucr.edu/cdnc/cgi-bin/cdnc?a=d&cl=search&d=SFC19041016.2.91&srpos=9&e=-------en--20--1--txt-IN-rifle+AND+civilian+Zz-ADVERTISEMENT----) that I dug up:

RIFLE PRACTICE FOR CIVILIANS
Special Dispatch to Tba Call.
CALL BUREAU. HOTEL BARTON, WASHINGTON, Oct. 15.— What will probably be the most important meeting of the National Board, for the Promotion of Rifle Practice since that body was organized under an act of Congress several years ago will be held at the War Department on October 22. The national board is composed of twenty-one members, including five from the regular army and navy, establishments. The board was instructed to formulate a plan for a national marksmen reserve, which plan has been agreed upon and approved by the Secretary of War. At the coming meeting. It is expected, steps will be taken for the preparation of a bill to be submitted to Congress. It Is not expected that Congress will act on all the suggestions of the board at one time, as the scheme for creating a marksmen's reserve is very comprehensive and begins with the education of boys in military schools and provides for the encouragement of rifle practice for both civilians and members of the militia on a large and liberal scale. .' v - ,
The board recommends the establishment of shooting galleries and field ranges, the furnishing of arms and ammunition, supervision and instruction, inducements for practice, such as trophies, badges, etc., and publication and distribution of literature bearing on this subject.
It is desired that the standard military rifle in use by the Government should be made available for civilian practice and it is probable some provision to this end will be made in the bill which the board will recommend. Hundreds of inquiries have been received from rifle clubs, instructors at military schools and Individuals as to how this arm can be procured and there seems to be little doubt that rifle practice will be stimulated, especially among civilians, by the distribution of the Krag rifle. The Krag carbines will soon be discarded by the cavalry arm of - the regular establishment and the national board will seek to obtain possession of them for distribution to military schools, at the rate of about ten pieces to each school where army officers are detailed as instructors. ¦._ : , ' It also , is proposed that one carbine for each twenty-five scholars should be given schools possessing indoor ranges and carrying on rifle practice. '

Merovign
12-29-2012, 4:00 PM
Ask them what answer would change their mind. Most of them are not asking a question, they're making a statement.

I tried debating the issue for years (decades), and virtually no one ever changes their minds, and when you do deluge someone with enough facts to force them to reconsider, they just go back to NBC that night to "recharge" and they're right back where they were before the next morning.

The only thing left is "No, you can't have them, next question."

kcbrown
12-29-2012, 5:22 PM
Such questions should be turned around on the person asking it:

Why should I, a law abiding citizen, be denied anything that poses no serious risk to others in the event of an accident, most especially when even criminals are not denied things, like cars, that do pose serious risk to others in the event of an accident?

Are they proposing that law abiding citizens be held responsible for the acts of criminals? Are they, then, going to hold every automobile driver responsible when a criminal runs someone over with a car?


No, either law abiding citizens should be held responsible for the acts of criminals, or they shouldn't be. Which is it?

smokehammer
12-29-2012, 6:00 PM
Why do the cops need them? Why do our soldiers have select fire versions we when can only have semi-automatic look-a-likes?

Why are we expected to use harsh language vs the "bad guys" when the civil authorities have real weapons? What makes a cop, or a soldier any better than a law upholding citizen? Organization? Training? An oath? Do any of those things make them morally and ethically superior to you and I?

warbird
12-29-2012, 6:01 PM
I joined the "gun" world in 1967 when I joined the Army. I learned how to shoot with a semi-automatic weapon and appreciated it over a bolt action even for long range target shooting. When I left the military as a veteran I found I was much more comfortable shooting a semi-automatic pistol and rifle and these are natural choices for me now. I like large magazines because it means I can shoot longer on the range without having to stop all the time to reload. An assault weapon is one that is used to assault someone whether it is a single shot or holds a hundred rounds. a weapon by design that is not automatic is not an assault weapon by design. In my personal opinion this is the paranoid thinking of politicians such as Fienstein, Steinberg, and others who do not want citizens to be able to defend themselves.

Guapo
12-29-2012, 6:26 PM
Because a cop is too heavy to carry around.

This:-)

0nTarg3t
12-29-2012, 11:48 PM
well lets see your thread title is wrong in the first place. civilians do not own "assault rifles" the media loves to use this name for semi auto rifles that look like military assault rifles to confuse the uneducated public. no military in the world today would issue it's military with a semi auto rifle. an assault rifle is a weapon that has selective fire ie semi, auto or burst depending on what rifle it happens to be.

in general most people have semit auto rifles and yes there are civilians that have full auto weapons but they have gone through a background check and a myriad of other checks before being able to buy it.


exactly! they were mislabeled as assault weapons for the first AW ban because they look scary. now after years a media mind screwing anything that looks frightening to them is a assault weapon.

GM4spd
12-30-2012, 6:51 AM
The Simpson's aired an episode of an NRA meeting and Lenny stood up
and said "Assault rifles are needed for your dangerous HIGH SPEED animals":D
Pete

filthy phil
12-30-2012, 6:57 AM
much more effective than a sock full of batteries:D


200th post:oji:

the86d
12-30-2012, 7:21 AM
...In my personal opinion this is the paranoid thinking of politicians such as Fienstein, Steinberg, and others who do not want citizens to be able to defend themselves.

I see it as you are either FOR or against groups of rapists. It has happened before, and WILL happen again. I would rather ASSAULT a group of rapists trying to enter my home, as would my lady, and my children.

You can only be anti-firearm if you are pro-rape... http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/images/icons/icon8.gif

Timberwolf
12-30-2012, 7:34 AM
Impulsive response - Maybe I should just beat the hell out of you for asking the question. If you think I don't have the right to exercise my rights under the 2nd Amendment then I think you shouldn't have the right to exercise yours under the 1st Amendment.

spamsucker
12-30-2012, 8:09 AM
Who is anyone else to tell me what I can and can't use to defend myself. My life, my gun, my choice, my problem.

bwolcott
12-30-2012, 8:17 AM
I just tell them I don't have an assault weapon I have an Ar15

b-ran
12-30-2012, 8:50 AM
You know this is probably the ONLY time I have agreed with Fienstien when she said that "these are weapons of war and that they are only designed for killing people". Yeah your right Dianne, they are great at killing people and THAT is why i have one. When seconds count the police are only minutes away, and in a day in age when they are cutting police forces around the country because of bankruptcies I find more and more the eventual need for such weapons. Look at Stockton CA, 5 years ago it wasn't all that bad of a place to live, now today, its the 2nd most dangerous city in the US!!!!! Yeah Dianne I think I'll hang onto my weapons of war, because that's what you f$cking libtards are turning this country and more specifically state into, a complete lower class, crime ridden, gang infested war zone.

1859sharps
12-30-2012, 9:32 AM
When someone says to me, "there is no reason citizens should own "Assault Rifles."

I respond it's a moot point...they have been heavily regulated since 1934, and finally banned from manufacture for retail sale since 1986.

then I wait for the blank look of confusion.....then they explain a bit more what they mean by "assault rifle"...

to which I reply...OH those rifles...they are just semi auto rifles no different than "traditional" looking hunting rifles that fire semi auto. they operate the same. Their internals are not the same as a true military assault rifle.

I point out that these are hardly cutting edge technology, how they operate has been around for going on 100+ years. they are not actual military rifles etc.

I don't need to justify why I want to own or do own a semi auto rifle, or an actual full auto true assault rifle (which I can't and are banned now). If I want one that is all the reason I need. Kind of like when say you want a beer or glass of wine. no one NEEDs beer or wine, and yet we don't even think to ask why anyone would want to ingest something that is the cause of so much death and pain in the world.

jpigeon
12-30-2012, 10:06 AM
Stop being so nice. Nice got us to where we are at now. Time to fight back. Time to get nasty...

CBruce
12-30-2012, 10:18 AM
I was talking to some of my buddy's last night, not exactly anti-gun, but basically asked the same question. Keep in mind, these guys are open-minded on the subject, they don't necessarily have an agenda, they just wanted to know what my thoughts were.

I just quoted them DOJ statistics and facts: no federal legal definition of AWB in most states, DOJ stats consistently show that homicides from long guns (of which "AWB" are a sub-set of) are less than 3% of total homicides, below knives, blunt objects, and even hands/feet. that usually gets a whoa response. Corollarly, if we ban these things, it's not going to show as a blip on crime reduction.

and one of these guys is a resident at a hospital in the bronx, and he works on GSW often.

Technically, there are a number of "assault weapons" that fire pistol caliber rounds and wouldn't be classified as a rifle. They'd be classified as a handgun or fall into the 'unidentified' category.

But it's certainly a valid point for the evil black rifles.

b-ran
12-30-2012, 11:12 AM
You know this is probably the ONLY time I have agreed with Fienstien when she said that "these are weapons of war and that they are only designed for killing people". Yeah your right Dianne, they are great at killing people and THAT is why i have one. When seconds count the police are only minutes away, and in a day in age when they are cutting police forces around the country because of bankruptcies I find more and more the eventual need for such weapons. Look at Stockton CA, 5 years ago it wasn't all that bad of a place to live, now today, its the 2nd most dangerous city in the US!!!!! Yeah Dianne I think I'll hang onto my weapons of war, because that's what you f$cking libtards are turning this country and more specifically state into, a complete lower class, crime ridden, gang infested war zone.

robtech
12-30-2012, 11:12 AM
Stop being so nice. Nice got us to where we are at now. Time to fight back. Time to get nasty...

+642689643468806326

They fight dirty...im sick of trying to box someone who wants to wrestle and throw low blows

fizux
12-30-2012, 12:22 PM
+642689643468806326


I think you missed counting that one over there... Are you sure it's not "+642689643468806327"?

fizux
12-30-2012, 12:37 PM
First they came for the communists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist.

Then they came for the socialists, and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a socialist.

Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.

Then they came for me, and there was no one left to speak for me.

- pastor Martin Niemöller (1892–1984)

Dragunov
12-30-2012, 12:59 PM
The second amendment was created so STATES could have their own armies. Not people dissatisfied with the government. Our founding fathers were concerned that if the federal government had an army they could disarm states. Jefferson didn't want to federal government to have an army at all. This was sort of a compromise.

You guys talk about going to war with your government. Come on. Really? It may make you feel important but do you want to turn the US into Northern Ireland. Is that what you want. Shoot outs and car bombs in the streets. Really? Cause that's what it takes. The KKK was willing to go there, Black Panthers, The JDL, The Weather Underground. These were groups who took arms against America. The "Green Corn Rebellion" was a Communist driven attempted insurrection against the federal government. That is the closest thing to a militia resistance like some of the posters dream of. It doesn't bode well and I think it is UN-American.You are wrong about the militias, and on the bold? If that's what it takes.

anthem
12-30-2012, 1:20 PM
WRONG

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government"

-- Thomas Jefferson, 1 Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

"The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil interference - they deserve a place of honor with all that's good"

-- George Washington
"The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed."

-- Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers at 184-188

"This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it or their revolutionary right to dismember it or overthrow it."

-- Abraham Lincoln, 4 April 1861

"One of the ordinary modes, by which tyrants accomplish their purposes without resistance, is, by disarming the people, and making it an offense to keep arms."

-- Constitutional scholar Joseph Story, 1840
"The bearing of arms is the essential medium through which the individual asserts both his social power and his participation in politics as a responsible moral being..."

-- J.G.A. Pocock, describing the beliefs of the founders of the U.S.
Men trained in arms from their infancy, and animated by the love of liberty, will afford neither a cheap or easy conquest.

-- From the Declaration of the Continental Congress, July 1775.
"As to the species of exercise, I advise the gun. While this gives [only] moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise, and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun, therefore, be the constant companion to your walks."

-- Thomas Jefferson, writing to his teenaged nephew.


The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions, that I wish it always to be kept alive. It will often be exercised when wrong, but better so than not to be exercised at all. I like a little rebellion now and then. It is like a storm in the Atmosphere.

-- Thomas Jefferson, letter to Abigail Adams, 1787
& what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time that his people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms.

-- Thomas Jefferson, letter to Col. William S. Smith, 1787
"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect every one who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined."

-- Patrick Henry, speech of June 5 1788
Are we at last brought to such a humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our own defence? Where is the difference between having our arms in our own possession and under our own direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defence be the *real* object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?

-- Patrick Henry, speech of June 9 1788
"To disarm the people... was the best and most effectual way to enslave them."

-- George Mason, speech of June 14, 1788
"The great object is, that every man be armed. [...] Every one who is able may have a gun."

-- Patrick Henry, speech of June 14 1788

Such are a well regulated militia, composed of the freeholders, citizen and husbandman, who take up arms to preserve their property, as individuals, and their rights as freemen.

-- "M.T. Cicero", in a newspaper letter of 1788 touching the "militia"
referred to in the Second Amendment to the Constitution.
That the said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United states who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms...

-- Samuel Adams, in "Phila. Independent Gazetteer", August 20, 1789
The danger (where there is any) from armed citizens, is only to the *government*, not to *society*; and as long as they have nothing to revenge in the government (which they cannot have while it is in their own hands) there are many advantages in their being accustomed to the use of arms, and no possible disadvantage.

-- Joel Barlow, "Advice to the Privileged Orders", 1792-93
[The disarming of citizens] has a double effect, it palsies the hand and brutalizes the mind: a habitual disuse of physical forces totally destroys the moral [force]; and men lose at once the power of protecting themselves, and of discerning the cause of their oppression.

-- Joel Barlow, "Advice to the Privileged Orders", 1792-93
A man who has nothing which he is willing to fight for, nothing which he cares about more than he does about his personal safety, is a miserable creature who has no chance of being free, unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself.

-- John Stuart Mill, writing on the U.S. Civil War in 1862

"Today, we need a nation of Minutemen, citizens who are not only prepared to take arms, but citizens who regard the preservation of freedom as the basic purpose of their daily life and who are willing to consciously work and sacrifice for that freedom."

-- John F. Kennedy



The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to permit the conquered Eastern peoples to have arms. History teaches that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by doing so.

-- Hitler, April 11 1942

Thanks for the references.

Tarn_Helm
12-30-2012, 1:27 PM
When someone says to me, "there is no reason citizens should own "Assault Rifles." I respond that the founders in their infinite wisdom wanted checks and balances in government. One branch limiting the others and so forth. Armed citizens are the "checks and balances" vis-a-vis our government. There is usually a rolling of the eyes and the retort that goes something like this: "Oh so you think that the citizens should take up arms against their government." I respond with, "no it's very much like detente between nuclear powers. Having nuclear weapons actually prevents, as history has shown, nuclear war. The consequences of lighting the fuse strikes so much fear into in the hearts of both sides that detente becomes possible. Having an armed citizenry has a similar affect. No one would wish to go to war with their Government. But for politicians, the fear of that, even remote possibility, strikes fear into their hearts and therefore has a sobering, if restraining effect upon their governance."

Do you know folks who claim that we U.S. citizens don’t need private ownership of AR-15s and 30-round magazines for self-defense?

Of course people don’t need AR-15s to defend themselves against 30 attackers!

They just need to be world-class Kung Fu experts accompanied by a trusty sidekick who is also a blackbelt. (And then you need a lot of money for litigation and bribery after you win the fight.)

See story here: http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-china-land-disputes-20121230,0,5651064.story

“Land confiscation is one of the most contentious political issues in China and accounts for many of the mass demonstrations that occur with regularity across the country. A report by Amnesty International this year estimated that confiscations have occurred in 43% of Chinese villages in 15 years.”

This is life in a disarmed regime: Corruption and victimization go hand in hand.

The government disarms you.

You are then victim to anyone you cannot beat up.

Point out the high standard of living in China (for the corrupt): http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-china-corruption-on-wheels-20120108,0,4555295.story

And throw in this bit about China's increasing appreciation of baseball--er, baseball bats, anyway: http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-china-baseball-bats-20111102,0,6271961.story

Then tell your skeptics: Good luck with that “gun-free paradise” theory.
:facepalm:

Uxi
12-30-2012, 2:01 PM
Article by Kevin Williamson on NRO covered it great: because we are a republic of free citizens, who may consent to be governed but will not be serfs to be ruled.

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/336529/regulating-militia-kevin-d-williamson

Tripeaks69
12-30-2012, 2:07 PM
I DO NOT have "assault weapons", my 2 AR-15 are semi-auto, 10 rounds, 5.56 thats ONLY LOOKS like-M4, military assault weapon.



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

Tarn_Helm
12-30-2012, 2:28 PM
The second amendment was created so STATES could have their own armies. Not people dissatisfied with the government. Our founding fathers were concerned that if the federal government had an army they could disarm states. Jefferson didn't want to federal government to have an army at all. This was sort of a compromise.

You guys talk about going to war with your government. Come on. Really? It may make you feel important but do you want to turn the US into Northern Ireland. Is that what you want. Shoot outs and car bombs in the streets. Really? Cause that's what it takes. The KKK was willing to go there, Black Panthers, The JDL, The Weather Underground. These were groups who took arms against America. The "Green Corn Rebellion" was a Communist driven attempted insurrection against the federal government. That is the closest thing to a militia resistance like some of the posters dream of. It doesn't bode well and I think it is UN-American.

You are underinformed and way out of your league for debating this topic on this site, Homey.

Start doing your homework:

Tench Coxe and the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, 1787-1823 (http://www.davekopel.com/2A/lawrev/hk-coxe.htm) (http://www.davekopel.com/2A/lawrev/hk-coxe.htm)

The Right of the People or the Power of the State Bearing Arms, Arming Militias, and the Second Amendment (http://www.guncite.com/journals/val-hal.html) (http://www.guncite.com/journals/val-hal.html)

The Second Amendment in the Nineteenth Century (http://www.davekopel.com/2A/LawRev/19thcentury.htm)(http://www.davekopel.com/2A/LawRev/19thcentury.htm)

The Purpose of the Militia Clause:


"Collective rights theorists argue that addition of the subordinate clause qualifies the rest of the amendment by placing a limitation on the people's right to bear arms. However, if the amendment truly meant what collective rights advocates propose, then the text would read "[a] well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the States to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." However, that is not what the framers of the amendment drafted. The plain language of the amendment, without attenuate inferences therefrom, shows that the function of the subordinate clause was not to qualify the right, but instead to show why it must be protected. The right exists independent of the existence of the militia. If this right were not protected, the existence of the militia, and consequently the security of the state, would be jeopardized." (U.S. v. Emerson, 46 F.Supp.2d 598 (http://www.guncite.com/court/fed/46fsupp2d598.html)(N.D.Tex. 1999))

Get more here (http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndpur.html).

Get a lot more here (http://www.guncite.com/index.html).

Some drink deep from the Fountain of Knowledge.

Others just gargle.
:facepalm:

artoaster
12-30-2012, 3:26 PM
A literal interpretation of the 2A would allow for select fire since the government or invading force would have these as well. We lost that a long time ago but as Jeff Cooper once said "may all your enemies be on full-auto".

(I hope I have that quote right.)

Mr.1904
12-30-2012, 3:36 PM
Why would anyone need a car that can go 160+mph? None, unless you're on a race track.

Yea but i bet that car that can go 160+mph would be real handy if you ever had to get the hell outta dodge real quick.

Ronin2
12-30-2012, 3:46 PM
The musket was the 'assault weapon" of its time for our founding fathers. If they wanted citizens to have non military weapons, then they would have limited private gun ownership to wheel-locks and blunderbuss'.

People also forget that a British attempt at gun control/gun siezure was what resulted in the "shot heard around the world" in the forst battle of the Revolutionary War.. the Battle of Lexington and Concord

navycorpsman
12-30-2012, 3:49 PM
First of all Every damn weapon known to man, Cross bow, Bow and Arrow, Slingshot, gun, catapolt was all military style weapons, so lets ban archery and olympic shooting also. Everyday this drags on makes sad as to how idiotic and sad the American people have become. Nobody on the left especially can get off there lazy,welfare,EBT asses and stand up for **** cause they want the government to keep protecting the benefits they get for being lazy no good americans.

wjc
12-30-2012, 3:57 PM
First of all Every damn weapon known to man, Cross bow, Bow and Arrow, Slingshot, gun, catapolt was all military style weapons, so lets ban archery and olympic shooting also. Everyday this drags on makes sad as to how idiotic and sad the American people have become. Nobody on the left especially can get off there lazy,welfare,EBT asses and stand up for **** cause they want the government to keep protecting the benefits they get for being lazy no good americans.

You can shorten that list considerably by just using the original term.

"arms"

Could mean anything from full-auto firearms, battle axes, or atlatls.

A34735
12-30-2012, 6:08 PM
When someone says to me, "there is no reason citizens should own "Assault Rifles." I respond that the founders in their infinite wisdom wanted checks and balances in government. One branch limiting the others and so forth. Armed citizens are the "checks and balances" vis-a-vis our government. There is usually a rolling of the eyes and the retort that goes something like this: "Oh so you think that the citizens should take up arms against their government." I respond with, "no it's very much like detente between nuclear powers. Having nuclear weapons actually prevents, as history has shown, nuclear war. The consequences of lighting the fuse strikes so much fear into in the hearts of both sides that detente becomes possible. Having an armed citizenry has a similar affect. No one would wish to go to war with their Government. But for politicians, the fear of that, even remote possibility, strikes fear into their hearts and therefore has a sobering, if restraining effect upon their governance."

But...

The government has tanks, F16s etc. So citizens with ARs are not in any position to challenge or even frighten the government. And the Federal government has successfully deployed force against citizens, without provoking an armed uprising (for example: Waco, TX; Little Rock, Arkansas)

norcalgunowner
12-30-2012, 6:12 PM
I believe it is our second amendment right to own what they call an assualt weapon. Where in the constitution does it limit what we can own. And can I remind you we had cannons back then I think. Correct me if I am wrong.

This reminds me of our politicians. Hope you guys get a good laugh out of it.

http://youtu.be/oBuPQgV8yBM

4D5auto
12-30-2012, 7:20 PM
It blows me away that the Government assigns a name to a long gun, "Assault weapon" then attacks that word that makes it bad, and then attacks an inanimate object, a "feature" and makes that bad. So bad, they think they have to ban it! In reality, the main objective here is to disarm us and do away with the second amendment! Polticians carry assault weapons every day and use them. It's the Pen that is the biggest assualt weapon, used far more often to harm people of this country every day than any gun. We should ban pens AND politicians!
I suspect Americans might wake up one day when it's to late and you have no means to defend yourself because the infringement on your God given birth right has been removed. I'm not going to hold my breath!

Sublime_AC
12-30-2012, 8:05 PM
Thanks for the references.

No worries man.. If you liked those, you might like this video clip about the purpose of the 2nd amendment.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MzPq7dD6GUY

CessnaDriver
12-30-2012, 8:12 PM
I agree that the term "assault weapon" is nebulous and rather meaningless other then for the politicans and media to demonize anyone owning a rifle that is black.

Getting past that, it's not a bill of needs. It's a bill of rights.
So they can choke on that a while.

k1dude
12-30-2012, 8:13 PM
Sorry if you think that supporting my country is Un-American

It's un-American if you have no clue what you're supporting.

Ronin2
12-30-2012, 8:15 PM
But...

The government has tanks,

I too own armor although its mostly WW2 stuff, here is a recent acquisition that is a bit more modern: :cool2:

http://i85.photobucket.com/albums/k72/newportkrieger/M75a1.jpg

1859sharps
12-30-2012, 8:44 PM
The second amendment was created so STATES could have their own armies.

Sorry, no.

Governments DO NOT need to have permission to have armed forces. The 2nd Amendment is about The People (you and me) having arms to defend our selves from whatever threat comes along that can't be solved through rational discussions and places our life in jeopardy. That is the whole point of the 2nd amendment. not to give the State of California permission to have the national guard. With all respect, that is just silly logic that makes no sense what so ever.

speedrrracer
12-30-2012, 9:11 PM
Why do you need an assault weapon?

Massad Ayoob answers:

http://backwoodshome.com/blogs/MassadAyoob/2012/12/29/why-good-people-need-semiautomatic-firearms-and-high-capacity-magazines-part-i/

Ieyasu
12-31-2012, 12:23 AM
Sublime_AC,

The second sentence of your first quote from Jefferson and the next quote falsely attributed to George Washington are bogus: http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndbog.html

Cylarz
12-31-2012, 1:07 AM
But...

The government has tanks, F16s etc. So citizens with ARs are not in any position to challenge or even frighten the government. And the Federal government has successfully deployed force against citizens, without provoking an armed uprising (for example: Waco, TX; Little Rock, Arkansas)

I keep hearing this over and over again, as if it's supposed to mean something.

Point one: It's irrelevant what you think the citizenry can or can't do against the United States military. It's still not an argument for disarming the law-abiding. If you're right that citizens are powerless against the military, then it shouldn't matter whether they have their evil scary black AR-15 rifles or not.

Point two: A lot depends on how many citizens participate in such an uprising.

Point three: Ask the Taliban/AQI (al Queda in Iraq) what a determined, home-grown fighting force can do against a modern military, even if equipped only with small arms. The Taliban have faced an enemy armed with B52s, Army Rangers, Navy SEALS, drones, and F22 Raptors....and yet they alone have killed 4,000 NATO troops and counting.

I'm getting really tired of people saying "the military has the citizens so badly outgunned anyway; what's the point of all this talk about the 2nd Amendment being intended to hold government in check?"

CessnaDriver
12-31-2012, 1:28 AM
If a semi-auto rifle were not a check on power of governments, it stands to reason they wouldn't want to control them would they?

kcbrown
12-31-2012, 1:33 AM
I keep hearing this over and over again, as if it's supposed to mean something.

Point one: It's irrelevant what you think the citizenry can or can't do against the United States military. It's still not an argument for disarming the law-abiding. If you're right that citizens are powerless against the military, then it shouldn't matter whether they have their evil scary black AR-15 rifles or not.


Yep. Completely correct.



Point two: A lot depends on how many citizens participate in such an uprising.


True. But the participation rate even during the American Revolution was, if I'm not mistaken, on the order of around 10%. So you can expect a participation rate significantly less than that if it were to happen again here.



Point three: Ask the Taliban/AQI (al Queda in Iraq) what a determined, home-grown fighting force can do against a modern military, even if equipped only with small arms. The Taliban have faced an enemy armed with B52s, Army Rangers, Navy SEALS, drones, and F22 Raptors....and yet they alone have killed 4,000 NATO troops and counting.


The above isn't terribly relevant. If anything, it illustrates the opposite of what you're trying to prove. Why? Because the Taliban/AQI are in the same position there that the revolutionaries would be here, and they have failed to achieve a military victory there. You and others refuse to understand that a revolution succeeds only by achieving military victory, as happened during the American Revolution.



I'm getting really tired of people saying "the military has the citizens so badly outgunned anyway; what's the point of all this talk about the 2nd Amendment being intended to hold government in check?"

What those people fail to understand is that an armed citizenry holds the government in check in more ways than just the threat of violent overthrow. An armed citizenry increases the cost to the government of any brazen attempt to subjugate the citizenry.

But to believe that a citizenry armed only with small arms can prevail against a government armed with a modern arsenal (up to and including nukes, no less) is pure fantasy. And if you want proof, you need only look at Libya and Syria. The former took the military intervention of UN-sanctioned coalition forces to secure a victory against the sitting government. The latter is still ongoing and not looking good at all for the revolutionaries. And that's against military opposition that is nowhere near as strong as what the U.S. government can muster.


Understand this: a malevolent government (the kind one righteously revolts against) which is in danger of losing its power is one that will pull out all the stops in order to remain in power. In the case of the U.S. government, that means using nuclear weapons on U.S. soil if the government believes it to be necessary. Against that, the citizenry has no defense.

There's a reason countries have standing armed forces and not just a well-armed citizenry. It's because such forces are necessary to prevent a domestic military defeat. If a military organization is necessary in order to defend the country from outside invaders who have no homeground advantage and a distant supply point, how can a lack of such prevail against a military which has local supplies and a homeground advantage? If a well-armed citizenry is sufficient to not only repel a military presence but also to achieve a military victory against it, then explain why the French citizenry was unable to prevail against Germany in WW2, in a situation in which the German government's very existence wasn't even on the line.

No, a modern revolution will need arms capable of dealing with C-130 gunships, tanks, artillery, helicopter gunships, satellite surveillance, guided missiles, chemical, biological, and nuclear weaponry, and all other manner of weaponry the military can bring to bear. Small arms alone just won't do it. This is precisely why I believe the "keep" clause of the 2nd Amendment was intended to cover all arms, not just small arms.

And that's just the start of the advantages the government will have (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showpost.php?p=9026226&postcount=76).

CessnaDriver
12-31-2012, 1:41 AM
Another check on power of an armed American citizenry is that it forces those behind the trigger of a C-130 gunship or a LEO given orders to bust down a door if they are willing to pull the trigger on their fellow Americans and forces an examination of the oath they take to the constitution.
Are they willing to kill resisting Americans that have done nothing wrong but be made into criminals by the government?

The checks on power is more then just the ability to shoot back.

Cylarz
12-31-2012, 2:00 AM
Another check on power of an armed American citizenry is that it forces those behind the trigger of a C-130 gunship or a LEO given orders to bust down a door if they are willing to pull the trigger on their fellow Americans and forces an examination of the oath they take to the constitution.
Are they willing to kill resisting Americans that have done nothing wrong but be made into criminals by the government?

The checks on power is more then just the ability to shoot back.

I wasn't going to bring that up, but now that you mention it....YES.

Cylarz
12-31-2012, 2:41 AM
What those people fail to understand is that an armed citizenry holds the government in check in more ways than just the threat of violent overthrow. An armed citizenry increases the cost to the government of any brazen attempt to subjugate the citizenry.

That's actually a very good point. I will try to remember that.

Your other points are, unfortunately correct. Any attempt to overthrow the US government would almost certainly fail, for the rebels would lack many of the advantages you cite. There is one more thing...there's a good chance other countries might get involved and help our leaders hang on to power.

Then there's the observation that even if our government were replaced with something else, there's no promise that the new leaders would be any better. See Libya and Egypt.

I only mentioned the Taliban because while they've failed to achieve an outright victory in Afghanistan, so has NATO. But then, couldn't it be said that NATO has had to fight with one arm tied behind its back to avoid bad press? (Imagine modern weapons in the hands of military leaders as ruthless as the WWII Axis powers were.) That wouldn't necessarily be the case on US soil, where - as you stated - the very existence of the government is threatened.

To be sure, I don't like the idea of shooting at my fellow Americans (uniformed or otherwise) in the first place. One needs only to reflect back on the Civil War and on what a bitter struggle that was - how it tore families apart, the hundreds of thousands killed, the sheer scale of death and destruction.

I guess I'm just tired of people going on with, "Oh, that AR-15 and Glock aren't going to keep the government at bay anyway, and in the meantime bad men are using such guns to kill innocent people, so why don't you NRA types get out of the way and allow us to enact common-sense, reasonable gun control legislation?"

One thing I try to get across is that it doesn't matter that the odds would be against anti-government forces; it's the principle of the thing. The Second Amendment enshrines our right to arms, and this is why.

kimber_ss
12-31-2012, 3:15 AM
Because it's a flower vase that doubles as a home defense tool. Very versatile...

http://ak7.picdn.net/shutterstock/videos/710131/preview/stock-footage-symbolic-putting-a-flower-in-the-gun-barrel-reenactment-of-the-famous-s-protest-where-hippies.jpg

kimber_ss
12-31-2012, 3:15 AM
Because it's a flower vase that doubles as a home defense tool. Very versatile...

http://ak7.picdn.net/shutterstock/videos/710131/preview/stock-footage-symbolic-putting-a-flower-in-the-gun-barrel-reenactment-of-the-famous-s-protest-where-hippies.jpg

mikey357
12-31-2012, 3:24 AM
Your other points are, unfortunately correct. Any attempt to overthrow the US government would almost certainly fail, for the rebels would lack many of the advantages you cite. There is one more thing...there's a good chance other countries might get involved and help our leaders hang on to power.

----------------------------------------------
Or vice versa, other countries may get involved to dump our leaders out of power. Just like France did in the first Revolutionary War.

kcbrown
12-31-2012, 4:01 AM
Or vice versa, other countries may get involved to dump our leaders out of power. Just like France did in the first Revolutionary War.

Trust me, the U.S. government would be willing to send nukes towards any country which intervenes in its efforts to put down an insurrection, because such intervention would be considered an act of war in its own right (the intervening country would be considered as attempting to overthrow the U.S. government in that case).

Remember: the very existence of such a malevolent government will be at stake. That will make it will be willing to do anything and everything to remain in power. It will not hesitate to nuke a country which attempts to provide substantial aid to those who are attempting to overthrow it.


That very fact is what will prevent other countries from providing aid to the insurrectionists. No, any aid provided by outside countries will be solely to assist the U.S. government, not the insurrectionists.

And that means it'll be a minimum of the U.S. government against the insurrectionists. More likely, it'll be most of the world against the insurrectionists.

The insurrectionists literally won't stand a chance.

kcbrown
12-31-2012, 4:42 AM
I guess I'm just tired of people going on with, "Oh, that AR-15 and Glock aren't going to keep the government at bay anyway, and in the meantime bad men are using such guns to kill innocent people, so why don't you NRA types get out of the way and allow us to enact common-sense, reasonable gun control legislation?"


The answer to their question is that, simply, such legislation cannot work. If we cannot keep illegal drugs out of the hands of criminals through a ban (and we most certainly cannot, despite having spent over a trillion dollars trying), there's no way in hell we can keep firearms and ammunition out of their hands. They will simply use the very same smuggling mechanisms already in place for drugs to smuggle firearms and ammunition.

The only way to keep criminals from getting their hands on firearms is to eliminate firearms everywhere on the entire planet. That means disarming all military organizations, all police organizations, and all civilians everywhere. It means shutting down all weapons factories everywhere. It means shutting down all manufacture of ammunition and ammunition components. And all of that would have to be accomplished instantly and at the same time.

And even that may not work, because it presumes that criminal organizations are incapable of manufacturing their own firearms and ammunition.


Since nobody is willing to go to such lengths (since firearms are the means through which governments project power on an individual level), it follows that criminals will always be able to get their hands on them. And if criminals can always get their hands on firearms, there is absolutely no point in disarming the law abiding citizenry. Quite the contrary: allowing the citizenry to remain armed is the only way to bring the citizenry to parity with the criminals, and is the only way the citizenry in general can prevail over criminals even when the criminals aren't armed with firearms.



One thing I try to get across is that it doesn't matter that the odds would be against anti-government forces; it's the principle of the thing. The Second Amendment enshrines our right to arms, and this is why.

I view the Second Amendment as protecting what is a natural extension of the very notion of liberty itself. If a given citizen is doing nothing to bring harm to another through his actions, what business does the government have in telling him he cannot have firearms? Simply put, none at all.

Are we a country that values liberty or not? That question is one that must be asked of every person who questions the right to keep and bear arms.

If we are a country that values liberty, then of course those who do not bring intentional harm to others should have arms if they so choose, and of course they should be able to carry those arms in public (or, at least, those arms which would not pose a significant threat to the public in the event of an accident -- firearms certainly would not, but explosives would). The very notion and nature of liberty demands this outcome.

If we are not a country that values liberty anymore, then we may as well shred the Constitution now and get it over with. But I, for one, will oppose that to my last breath, for countries which place no value on liberty are a dime a dozen in this world, while countries which value liberty are nearly extinct. We need at least one country in this world which values liberty. A monoculture of societies is undesirable in the same way that a monopoly in the economic world is, or a monopoly on ideas. It is largely, if not primarily, through competition that we advance. A society that does not value liberty is a society that cannot advance through competition to the same degree that a society that does value liberty can, for it is because of liberty that we can express ourselves and take action on the basis of ideas.

A society which does not value liberty is one that is doomed to fail in the end, unless there are no other societies in existence which value liberty. And I, for one, do not wish to see this world descend into another thousand years of darkness -- something which will surely happen if the last flame of liberty is extinguished. Sadly, I believe that is precisely where we're headed, and I see nothing that can stop it.

3RDGEARGRNDRR
12-31-2012, 7:28 AM
we dont generally own assault rifles.
-An assault rifle is a military rifle that utilizes an intermediate-power cartridge, and that generally is capable of full-automatic fire, where multiple rounds are fired continuously when the trigger is pulled one time — that is, a machine gun — or burst capable

no detach mag, no auto or burst capable. We generally own semi auto rifles

a1c
12-31-2012, 7:33 AM
It doesn't matter whether or not a rebellious population against a tyrannical government would fail or not.

What matters is that an armed populace does give pause to the potential tyrant.

aksa93
12-31-2012, 7:36 AM
It's called "mutually assured destruction" when used in context with nuclear weapons.

Steve1968LS2
12-31-2012, 8:42 AM
For FRAKs sake.. none of us own "assault weapons"!!

How about explain that to anyone ignorant to ask that question.. I'm amazed how many of you fall right into the pit the antis want to you.. saying you own an "assault weapon" and want "high capacity mags" makes you just another pawn of groups like Brady.

drkft
12-31-2012, 9:00 AM
Most of us have probably read this, but for those who haven't it is a cogent and perhaps timely read as we argue what can civilians do against Tanks and F16's.

"What good is a handgun against a Army?"


Click http://www.jeffhead.com/liberty/handgun.htm for the entire article.

The first part is printed here:

"A friend of mine recently forwarded me a question a friend of his had posed:

"If/when our Federal Government comes to pilfer, pillage, plunder our property and destroy our lives, what good can a handgun do against an army with advanced weaponry, tanks, missiles, planes, or whatever else they might have at their disposal to achieve their nefarious goals? (I'm not being facetious: I accept the possibility that what happened in Germany, or similar, could happen here; I'm just not sure that the potential good from an armed citizenry in such a situation outweighs the day-to-day problems caused by masses of idiots who own guns.)"

If I may, I'd like to try to answer that question. I certainly do not think the writer facetious for asking it. The subject is a serious one that I have given much research and considerable thought to. I believe that upon the answer to this question depends the future of our Constitutional republic, our liberty and perhaps our lives. My friend Aaron Zelman, one of the founders of Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership told me once:

"If every Jewish and anti-nazi family in Germany had owned a Mauser rifle and twenty rounds of ammunition AND THE WILL TO USE IT (emphasis supplied, MV), Adolf Hitler would be a little-known footnote to the history of the Weimar Republic." - Aaron Zelman, JPFO

Note well that phrase: "and the will to use it," for the simply-stated question, "What good can a handgun do against an army?", is in fact a complex one and must be answered at length and carefully. It is a military question. It is also a political question. But above all it is a moral question which strikes to the heart of what makes men free, and what makes them slaves. First, let's answer the military question.

Most military questions have both a strategic and a tactical component. Let's consider the tactical.

A friend of mine owns an instructive piece of history. It is a small, crude pistol, made out of sheet-metal stampings by the U.S. during World War II. While it fits in the palm of your hand and is a slowly-operated, single-shot arm, it's powerful .45 caliber projectile will kill a man with brutal efficiency. With a short, smooth-bore barrel it can reliably kill only at point blank ranges, so its use requires the will (brave or foolhardy) to get in close before firing. It is less a soldier's weapon than an assassin's tool. The U.S. manufactured them by the million during the war, not for our own forces but rather to be air-dropped behind German lines to resistance units in occupied Europe. Crude and slow (the fired case had to be knocked out of the breech by means of a little wooden dowel, a fresh round procured from the storage area in the grip and then manually reloaded and cocked) and so wildly inaccurate it couldn't hit the broad side of a French barn at 50 meters, to the Resistance man or woman who had no firearm it still looked pretty darn good.

The theory and practice of it was this:

First, you approach a German sentry with your little pistol hidden in your coat pocket and, with Academy-award sincerity, ask him for a light for your cigarette (or the time the train leaves for Paris, or if he wants to buy some non-army-issue food or a half- hour with your "sister"). When he smiles and casts a nervous glance down the street to see where his Sergeant is at, you blow his brains out with your first and only shot, then take his rifle and ammunition. Your next few minutes are occupied with "getting out of Dodge," for such critters generally go around in packs. After that (assuming you evade your late benefactor's friends) you keep the rifle and hand your little pistol to a fellow Resistance fighter so they can go get their own rifle.

Or maybe you then use your rifle to get a submachine gun from the Sergeant when he comes running. Perhaps you get very lucky and pickup a light machine gun, two boxes of ammunition and a haversack of hand grenades. With two of the grenades and the expenditure of a half-a-box of ammunition at a hasty roadblock the next night, you and your friends get a truck full of arms and ammunition. (Some of the cargo is sticky with "Boche" blood, but you don't mind terribly.)

Pretty soon you've got the best armed little maquis unit in your part of France, all from that cheap little pistol and the guts to use it. (One wonders if the current political elite's opposition to so-called "Saturday Night Specials" doesn't come from some adopted racial memory of previous failed tyrants. Even cheap little pistols are a threat to oppressive regimes.)

They called the pistol the "Liberator." Not a bad name, all in all.

Now let's consider the strategic aspect of the question, "What good can a handgun do against an army....?" We have seen that even a poor pistol can make a great deal of difference to the military career and postwar plans of one enemy soldier. That's tactical. But consider what a million pistols, or a hundred million pistols (which may approach the actual number of handguns in the U.S. today), can mean to the military planner who seeks to carry out operations against a populace so armed. Mention "Afghanistan" or "Chechnya" to a member of the current Russian military hierarchy and watch them shudder at the bloody memories. Then you begin to get the idea that modern munitions, air superiority and overwhelming, precision-guided violence still are not enough to make victory certain when the targets are not sitting Christmas- present fashion out in the middle of the desert."

(continued follow link)


Click link to read the rest: http://www.jeffhead.com/liberty/handgun.htm

Quoted from: Mike Vanderboegh
P.O. Box 926
Pinson, AL 35126

TheWhopper
12-31-2012, 9:02 AM
I find that gun control advocates and individuals who want to ban AR 15 / M4 ALWAYS fall flat on their face when you ask them to explain the reasoning behind their logic.

I got some good information from this thread! Here's some I've compiled.


I HOLD NOTHING BACK IN FORUMS OR DISCUSSION WHEN BATTLING 'IGNORANCE'...ESPECIALLY WITH WHAT'S AT STAKE.


GET THEM TO ELABORATE
================================================== ================================================== ============================================
* Why exactly should you ban an 'assault rifle'?
* Why do you call it an 'assault rifle'?
* Do you know what 'AR' really stands for?
* What do you think an assault rifle is?
* Why do you think an assault rifle dangerous?
* Did you know the difference between a fully automatic or semi-automatic rifle?
* Did you know the AR15 / M4 models you can buy legally are only semi-automatic?
* Did you know some hunting rifles are semi automatic and can be more lethal than AR15 / M4 models?
* Did you know in closer proximity handguns can be more lethal than a rifle?
* Did you know the Virginia Tech used 9mm / 22 lr handguns and the magazines used hold 10 rounds?
* Did you know you can fit 550 rounds of 22 lr inside a single shoe?
* Did you know handguns cause over 90% of deaths?
* Why do you think this firearm should be in only the hands of the military?
* Why do you call it a 'military weapon'?


* Did you know decreasing the amount of rounds in a magazine will not have an impact on a situation where a shooter is targeting random people in public?
- It only slows you down when putting in cartridges in the magazine, you can just carry more magazines.
- Carrying ammo in your ammo can get heavy thus making your rifle harder to maneuver and control. (there are trade offs)
- A shooter isn't constantly shooting "spray and pray".
- AR114 / M4 are semi-automatic not fully automatic. If fully automatic (which is nearly impossible to have) accuracy goes through the window.
- Semi automatic can be more accurate than fully automatic = more casualties
================================================== ================================================== ============================================










WHY SHOULD FIREARMS BE RESTRICTED TO LAW ENFORCEMENT ONLY?

================================================== ================================================== ============================================

Why do you think only law enforcement officers should have guns? (no knock on police officers, just putting giving information then let the person formulate their own answer)
Cleveland Police Shooting: Cops Investigate After Firing 137 Shots, Killing Two Suspects (VIDEO)
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/04/cleveland-police-shooting-137-shots-timothy-russell-malissa-williams_n_2239675.html

Police wounded 9 bystanders shooting at a suspect.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6W8cHwNuqH4

50 rounds fired by police
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sean_Bell_shooting_incident

Police firearms training: How often should you be shooting?
http://www.policeone.com/Officer-Safety/articles/3738401-Police-firearms-training-How-often-should-you-be-shooting/

ATF Confiscated air soft guns because they said they can be converted to real firearms. (HAHAHAHAHA)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9rEuTwYALho

Police response = several minutes = couple hundred rounds = multiple casualties.


Supreme Court has ruled you do not have the right to police protection.
‪http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_Rock_v._Gonzales‬

================================================== ================================================== ============================================






DO YOU REALLY TRUST THE GOVERNMENT COMPLETELY? REALLY??? WHY?
================================================== ================================================== ============================================
1. They lied about weapons of mass destruction being in IRAQ to start a war.
2. They've put U.S. citizens in internment camps in WWII
3. They've been stock piling weapons and sells the more weapons than anyone else.
4. Our own government has screwed us over more often than the British did, which led to the Revolutionary War….HMMMMMMMMM


‪The Second American Revolution‬
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pKFKGrmsBDk


‪We The People Stimulus Package‬

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jeYscnFpEyA


*Not advocating a Revolution, just stating referencing Historical information. Please form your own conclusion.

================================================== ================================================== ============================================















MISC
================================================== ================================================== ============================================

1. We have earthquake and fire drills in schools...yet no shooting drills? Yet you're more likely to be a casualty in a shooting than an earthquake or fire.
2. School shootings occur a few times each year, it's likely to happen again
3. People that have a CCW and are advocating gun control.
http://commieknockers.com/hp_wordpress/2012/12/18/schumer-feinsten-and-reid-have-ccws-but-push-for-gun-control-247/
4. Celebrities advocate gun control but many either have a CCW or bodyguards…hmmmmmmm
================================================== ================================================== ============================================








THE FOUNDING FATHERS ON FIREARMS
================================================== ================================================== ============================================

http://cap-n-ball.com/fathers.htm

"Firearms stand next in importance to the constitution itself. They
are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under
independence … from the hour the Pilgrims landed to the present day,
events, occurences and tendencies prove that to ensure peace security
and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable … the
very atmosphere of firearms anywhere restrains evil interference —
they deserve a place of honor with all that's good."
George Washington
First President of the United States

"The supposed quietude of a good man allures the ruffian; while on the
other hand arms, like laws, discourage and keep the invader and
plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as property. The
same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms,
for all would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not lay
them aside … Horrid mischief would ensue were the law-abiding deprived
of the use of them."
Thomas Paine

"To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the
people always possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young,
how to use them."
Richard Henry Lee
American Statesman, 1788

"The great object is that every man be armed." and "Everyone who is
able may have a gun."
Patrick Henry
American Patriot

"Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation,
that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? Where is the
difference between having our arms in possession and under our
direction and having them under the management of Congress? If our
defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can
they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our
own hands?"
Patrick Henry
American Patriot

"Those who hammer their guns into plowshares will plow for those who do not."
Thomas Jefferson
Third President of the United States

"The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is
inherent in the people; that … it is their right and duty to be at all
times armed; … "
Thomas Jefferson
letter to Justice John Cartwright, June 5, 1824. ME 16:45.

"The best we can help for concerning the people at large is that they
be properly armed."
Alexander Hamilton
The Federalist Papers at 184-8
================================================== ================================================== ============================================





MORE PEOPLE HAVE DIED BECAUSE OF GUN CONTROL
================================================== ================================================== ============================================

- ‪The History of Gun Control - FULL LENGTH‬
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1pKasF6l3y0

- Deaths by gun control.
http://jpfo.org/filegen-a-m/deathgc.htm

1911 – Turkey disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1915 – 1917 they
murdered 1.5 million Armenians.

1929 – Russia disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1929 – 1953 they
murdered 20 million Russians.

1935 – China disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1948 – 1952 they
murdered 20 million Chinese.

1938 – Germany disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1939 – 1945 they
murdered 16 million Jews.

1956 – Cambodia disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1975 – 1977 they
murdered 1 million Educated people.

1964 – Guatamala disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1964 – 1981 they
murdered 100,000 Mayan Indians.

1970 – Uganda disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1971 – 1979 they
murdered 300,000 Christians.
================================================== ================================================== ============================================







EVEN GHANDI UNDERSTOOD GUN CONTROL IS BAD

Paperchasin
12-31-2012, 9:08 AM
This here (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=667534)

CrazyCobraManTim
12-31-2012, 9:21 AM
Bobio - Do yourself a favor and visit Google Scholar for the terms "state power" vs. "individual rights" and get back with us all. Oh heck, I'll make it EZ for you:

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=government+powers+versus+individual+rights&btnG=&as_sdt=1%2C5&as_sdtp=

Ieyasu
12-31-2012, 9:26 AM
One nit to pick. Bogus quotes (http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndbog.html):

"Firearms stand next in importance to the constitution itself. They
are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under
independence … from the hour the Pilgrims landed to the present day,
events, occurences and tendencies prove that to ensure peace security
and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable … the
very atmosphere of firearms anywhere restrains evil interference —
they deserve a place of honor with all that's good."
George Washington
First President of the United States

and
"Those who hammer their guns into plowshares will plow for those who do not."
Thomas Jefferson
Third President of the United States

Adog5
12-31-2012, 9:42 AM
If you talk about 2nd amendment rights or possible gov't tyranny, I don't that is good response or reason to address the 'assault weapon' question. Especially to anti's.

I think it comes down to this. As a law abiding citizen, I would like the right to protect myself with the same edge as the bad guys. If the bad guy has a baseball bat, then I like to have something close or equivalent. If a bad guy has a handgun, then a baseball bat would leave me severely at a disadvantage and could result in my death. So bad guys have access to long guns that can be converted to 'assault weapons', so does it makes sense that law abiding citizen have the ability to get as close as possible to that?

Hippies_Have_Guns_Too
12-31-2012, 9:52 AM
I like the reference of "checks & balances" and the philosophy of "MAD". Lots of good posts as well.

I might not agree with many here on some social & economic issues. But when it comes to individual rights and the topic of this forum - firearms. I couldn't agree more with everyone.

Thanks for the thread drkft. Lots of good reading.

tcrpe
12-31-2012, 10:18 AM
I think it comes down to this. As a law abiding citizen, I would like the right to protect myself with the same edge as the bad guys. If the bad guy has a baseball bat, then I like to have something close or equivalent.

Screw parity. I want a huge and "unfair" advantage.

mikey357
12-31-2012, 11:25 AM
Understand this: a malevolent government (the kind one righteously revolts against) which is in danger of losing its power is one that will pull out all the stops in order to remain in power. In the case of the U.S. government, that means using nuclear weapons on U.S. soil if the government believes it to be necessary. Against that, the citizenry has no defense.

----------------

Okay, so the insurrection is hiding among the citizens of DC. What do you do, nuke the entire District of Columbia?

Meplat
12-31-2012, 12:20 PM
I think that is a great example of civilians taking arms and fighting to get there massage across. And a very good argument for armed citizens. I am not afraid to hear well presented arguments and I appreciate the information.

You must remember that deterrence does not require the ability to prevail; only the ability to inflict more damage than your opponent is willing to sustain.

Meplat
12-31-2012, 12:28 PM
Not needed, indeed, however because I CAN. Also with Arms, as stated in 2A.

btw - I've seen cars driving 155+mph up/down I-5 in the very late night/early morning, between the Grapevine and Stockton, on occasion. No race track needed, just open, empty road.

Too many CHP on I-5, but I have done it on 395 between Litchfield and Ravendale.:43:

damoni
12-31-2012, 1:44 PM
My answer would be;

A) Because I can! -(see appendix B)
B) Because I am a U.S. citizen and it's my constitutional right!
C) I'm a veteran of the U.S. military and therefore should be able to own the rifle that I carried! (reserve unit).

Plain and simple.

(We should stop using the term "assualt weapon". That term should only be used when referring to automatic weapons only.)

HBrebel
12-31-2012, 7:15 PM
what is this so called assault rifle? I have a kentucky percussion rifle in .50 cal. Was that not an assault rifle? I also have a lever gun that holds more than 10 rounds soooo.....Is an assault rifle simply any rifle that the gun grabbers and their dumbed down sheep are afraid of?

HBrebel
12-31-2012, 7:17 PM
Does it have to be black and look like an AK or AR. I heard they were going to ban hi capacity assault clips as well. That sure sucks because I can't find 'em online or at the gun shows.

Gunlawyer
12-31-2012, 7:47 PM
I think that is a great example of civilians taking arms and fighting to get there massage across. And a very good argument for armed citizens. I am not afraid to hear well presented arguments and I appreciate the information.


Is your head in the clouds at the "massage"parlor my friend?

If you want to learn some true history of the debates on the Bill of Rights and 2a read Gales and Seatons history from June 8, 1789 to September 21, 1789.
http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llac&fileName=001/llac001.db&recNum=226

Also read the Tench Coxe.

Maybe start here to for a brief summary-lol
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

Hope this helps you learn the true facts regarding the 2a.

Sublime_AC
12-31-2012, 10:16 PM
Sublime_AC,

The second sentence of your first quote from Jefferson and the next quote falsely attributed to George Washington are bogus: http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndbog.html

Very interesting, thank you!

0nTarg3t
12-31-2012, 10:49 PM
why should anyone be able to own a military style jeep hummer? there is no reason a civi should need a hum-v like the ones our military uses. right?

kcbrown
01-01-2013, 12:21 AM
Okay, so the insurrection is hiding among the citizens of DC. What do you do, nuke the entire District of Columbia?


Like I said, the government will deploy nuclear weapons if it feels it's necessary. I fully expect, however, that it would prevail with other, more highly targeted options. Nuclear weapons would be a last resort, when all other options have failed and when the demise of the government is imminent.

themandylion
01-01-2013, 4:06 AM
The National Firearms Act makes it nearly impossible for me, or most anyone, to own an "assault rifle."

Why do we need semi-automatic rifles? Because I have no intention of watching another Holocaust or Holodomor occur with me standing by, helpless, that's why.

drkft
01-01-2013, 8:21 AM
Like I said, the government will deploy nuclear weapons if it feels it's necessary. I fully expect, however, that it would prevail with other, more highly targeted options. Nuclear weapons would be a last resort, when all other options have failed and when the demise of the government is imminent.


As I previously posted, no one would wish to go to war with their own government. That notwithstanding, I couldn't disagree more with your assessment of possible outcomes. Although an imperfect analogy (since politicians more resemble cockroaches) it would not be unlike trying to rid New York City of all the cockroaches. Government would no more burn down New York to eliminate cockroaches than nuke all of Los Angeles to eliminate a small minority of freedom fighters living and fighting amongst the non-combatant public. Even if in a totally insane world you were proven correct, do you think those willing to die for such a patriotic cause would care how they died fighting for that cause. Besides if they Nuked Los Angeles, how long would it take the non-combatants in the remaining towns and cities of America to become combatants in their righteous outrage.

Moreover, what Private up the chain of command to General in America's armed forces would go along with such an order. It is more likely the services would be decimated by the mass desertions as members rushed to join the resistance.

I again reiterate, no one in their right mind would wish a scenario where we take up arms against our government anymore than our founders wished to rush off to war against their sovereign in Great Britain. History shows how brutal things can become, between privation, horrendous suffering at the hands of the Redcoats and even the weather, it is nothing to contemplate lightly. However, things got bad enough for our forefathers to commit their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor. Let us hope we never reach that point!

Steve1968LS2
01-01-2013, 9:23 AM
The second amendment was created so STATES could have their own armies. Not people dissatisfied with the government. Our founding fathers were concerned that if the federal government had an army they could disarm states. Jefferson didn't want to federal government to have an army at all. This was sort of a compromise.

You guys talk about going to war with your government. Come on. Really? It may make you feel important but do you want to turn the US into Northern Ireland. Is that what you want. Shoot outs and car bombs in the streets. Really? Cause that's what it takes. The KKK was willing to go there, Black Panthers, The JDL, The Weather Underground. These were groups who took arms against America. The "Green Corn Rebellion" was a Communist driven attempted insurrection against the federal government. That is the closest thing to a militia resistance like some of the posters dream of. It doesn't bode well and I think it is UN-American.

Let me guess.. you're a product of the public school system.. right?

If you would read the 2nd admendment.. you would notice that pesky comma.. I know it's inconvinent, but it's there..

Read the book "Eats Shoots and Leaves".. might help ya a bit.

Steve1968LS2
01-01-2013, 9:27 AM
Like I said, the government will deploy nuclear weapons if it feels it's necessary. I fully expect, however, that it would prevail with other, more highly targeted options. Nuclear weapons would be a last resort, when all other options have failed and when the demise of the government is imminent.

Are you using Syria as an example?

If anything.. the crap in the ME has shown that a lightly armed (compared to the countrie's military) can prevail..

The big flaw in your assumption would be that the rank-and-file soldiers would agree to nuke thier own countrymen.. or even fight them conventially. Again, Lybia, Egypt and the like show that even in times the people can defeat opressive govts.

billmaykafer
01-01-2013, 9:52 AM
i only own defense weapons. no assault weapons like baseball bat. but i still have my WWII katana brought back from pacific theater by my uncle. i used to use it for demonstrations at martial art tournements.

Centurion_D
01-01-2013, 10:17 AM
Why would anyone need a car that can go 160+mph?
I got one word for you my fellow CG'er..ZOMBIES!!! :driving:

Merkava_4
01-01-2013, 11:20 AM
The second amendment was created so STATES could have their own armies. Not people dissatisfied with the government.


The 2nd Amendment was created as a hedge against tyranny and oppression. Read THIS (http://www.forbes.com/sites/lawrencehunter/2012/12/28/gun-control-tramples-on-the-certain-virtues-of-a-heavily-armed-citizenry/)

kcbrown
01-01-2013, 2:32 PM
Are you using Syria as an example?

If anything.. the crap in the ME has shown that a lightly armed (compared to the countrie's military) can prevail..


Wrong. Syria is ongoing, and is not an example of a population achieving victory against the sitting government.



The big flaw in your assumption would be that the rank-and-file soldiers would agree to nuke thier own countrymen.. or even fight them conventially. Again, Lybia, Egypt and the like show that even in times the people can defeat opressive govts.

The revolutionaries won in Libya because an external UN-sanctioned coalition military force intervened and took out Libya's air superiority and tanks on the ground. Without that intervention, the Libyan revolution would have failed, and that's precisely why coalition forces intervened. So Libya supports my position, not yours.

Egypt is a case where the military either sided with the protesters or stayed out of the conflict altogether. As a result, the Egyptian leadership stepped down voluntarily.

There is no conflict in the middle east that shows the population achieving, on its own, a military victory against the sitting government's military. In every case where such a victory was achieved (Libya is the only such example I know of), the insurrectionists has substantial outside military help. That will most certainly not be the case for the insurrectionists in the United States. No outside country will dare intervene in such a way.


While I agree there's a possibility the U.S. military will take the same approach that the Egyptian military did, you must understand that an insurrection in the United States would be propagandized by the media as terrorism, and the government would ensure that such a message is the predominant one to reach those in the military.

If the military is willing to assassinate a U.S. citizen on foreign soil on nothing other than the President's order to do so, it will most certainly not hesitate to fire on U.S. citizens it believes to be engaged in "domestic terrorism".


Whether the U.S. government winds up being able to deploy nuclear weapons against its own citizenry depends entirely on the controls placed on those weapons. I would hope that regular military forces would be entirely unwilling to do such a thing, but the real question is whether there exist any nuclear weapons that are under direct control of the government itself (not likely, but possible) and whether or not the government can succeed in gaining control over at least some nuclear weapons through subterfuge. For while the military may not be willing to nuke an American city, there are surely people in government who would not hesitate to do so if they believe it's necessary to keep the government in power.

But as I said, I don't believe it will ever come to that. The government, through the military and other branches (e.g., DHS), has plenty of ways of ensuring that it remains in power despite any attempted actions on the part of an insurrection. To make my point plain, do you really think the U.S. military is the only branch of government with all those cool toys (possibly including even nuclear weaponry)?

You can bet money that people in the executive branch have already thought about the possibility of an insurrection in which the military itself either stands aside or sides with the insurrection, and has made plans for that contingency. Because if I can think of it, they surely can.

BayAreaScott
01-01-2013, 2:39 PM
I got a "modern sporting rifle" because it makes some liberals shudder and has been known to cause loss of bladder control. I got it because I can and that about sums that up.

DuknBucks
01-01-2013, 3:59 PM
Time to get back to the UK and take Piers with ya!

Yea......hell I will even chip in for the plane ticket!

Drivedabizness
01-01-2013, 4:26 PM
I said that is why I think the 2A was created. Based on Jefferson's fear of a federal army. I believe the the second amendment extends to individual citizens. District of Columbia Vs. Heller says that and I agree with that ruling. I do not support taking away citizens rights to own arms and protect themselves.

Sure I support what we did at Lexington and Concord. The problem I have is this romanticized attitude to taking arms up against OUR government. If a vote goes against you an element of the gun community are too quick to talk about armed resistance. Maybe I am misinterpreting it. Maybe it is just folks trying to show the importance of gun ownership. Which, again, I support.

Please provide scholarship to back up your (way the hell down the rabbit hole/bat***** crazy) assertions about the creation if the 2A. If you want to avoid the negative reaction you are getting, that's the least you need to do.

Rob454
01-02-2013, 10:44 AM
when people ask what need I have for an assault rifle, I have responded at times with:

"I feel I need this weapon to protect me from people who believe they have the right to decided what I do and don't need."

I usually say something along these lines.

Wherryj
01-02-2013, 11:05 AM
Why would anyone need a car that can go 160+mph? None, unless you're on a race track.

Even on most race tracks you don't NEED the car that goes 160+. How many people DON'T WANT that car, however?

People with raised hands may join the line of those asking, "Why do you need an assault rifle".

mikey357
01-02-2013, 6:28 PM
Like I said, the government will deploy nuclear weapons if it feels it's necessary. I fully expect, however, that it would prevail with other, more highly targeted options. Nuclear weapons would be a last resort, when all other options have failed and when the demise of the government is imminent.

If the government used nukes, you would lose a whole lot of taxpayers. Not to mention, not a whole lot of ppl to govern too.

advocatusdiaboli
01-02-2013, 6:49 PM
Does it have to be black and look like an AK or AR. I heard they were going to ban hi capacity assault clips as well.

I haven't seen nor tried to find a "clip" anywhere since my modern rifles do not use them. WHere are you from and what turnip truck did you fall off of?

advocatusdiaboli
01-02-2013, 6:52 PM
You must remember that deterrence does not require the ability to prevail; only the ability to inflict more damage than your opponent is willing to sustain.

It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds..
-- Samuel Adams

Sometimes, we need arms to add to the tinder...

advocatusdiaboli
01-02-2013, 6:54 PM
Screw parity. I want a huge and "unfair" advantage.

Damn right. Win at all and every cost because losing loses everything. I will cheat to win—every time. Bank on it.

kcbrown
01-02-2013, 7:13 PM
If the government used nukes, you would lose a whole lot of taxpayers. Not to mention, not a whole lot of ppl to govern too.

I never said it would be a cost-free option. Only that it's one the government would use if it felt it had to.

Bosco2675
01-02-2013, 7:24 PM
Ann Coulter describes an assault rifle as any gun that liberal women think "looks scary."

mmayer707
01-02-2013, 7:36 PM
Because a cop is too heavy to carry around.

I like it, too damned good!

pdugan6
01-02-2013, 7:42 PM
when people ask what need I have for an assault rifle, I have responded at times with:

"I feel I need this weapon to protect me from people who believe they have the right to decided what I do and don't need."

fantastic answer.

damoni
01-03-2013, 12:34 AM
The National Firearms Act makes it nearly impossible for me, or most anyone, to own an "assault rifle."

Why do we need semi-automatic rifles? Because I have no intention of watching another Holocaust or Holodomor occur with me standing by, helpless, that's why.

:clap::clap::clap::clap::clap::clap::clap::clap:

katokahn99
01-03-2013, 4:29 AM
In response to the responses to Bobio: Don't berate, EDUCATE!

To Bobio: The Jefferson quote in my signature holds the key to the 2A.

On the topic of the thread: Why do I need a semi-automatic rifle with 30 round magazines? Because I can't have an assault rifle. BUT, why should I have an "assault rifle?" Because the Government does.

Kato

LoadedM333
01-03-2013, 11:11 AM
Why I have semi-auto-rifle, because it's one of the best home defense rifles.

JagerDog
01-03-2013, 9:09 PM
The second amendment was created so STATES could have their own armies. Not people dissatisfied with the government. Our founding fathers were concerned that if the federal government had an army they could disarm states. Jefferson didn't want to federal government to have an army at all. This was sort of a compromise.

You guys talk about going to war with your government. Come on. Really? It may make you feel important but do you want to turn the US into Northern Ireland. Is that what you want. Shoot outs and car bombs in the streets. Really? Cause that's what it takes. The KKK was willing to go there, Black Panthers, The JDL, The Weather Underground. These were groups who took arms against America. The "Green Corn Rebellion" was a Communist driven attempted insurrection against the federal government. That is the closest thing to a militia resistance like some of the posters dream of. It doesn't bode well and I think it is UN-American.

You couldn't be more wrong. They understood the very nature of gov't/politicians (state, fed, or any other jurisdiction) leads to tyranny if not held in check by the citizenry. It's the nature of man in power/control. Democratic principles are not the natural order of man.