Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Not well for the commoner. Glad you asked. The mass majority of civilian deaths in Iraq, Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Russia were of the non-engaged variety. I.E. They weren't engaging opponet military and they were still a group of people that lost a lot of life. Now imagine if many more did.
Ever checked to see how many civilian Iraqis have perished this decade?
You're dodging the question. How is the military/government, doing (or how did it do, in Vietnam and the USSR versus Afghanistan)?
The fact is, in Afghanistan, they're literally making guns by hand from scratch (sometimes only muzzleloaders, sometimes AK47's, Enfields, etc.), and two superpowers have not defeated them. We're headed into a full decade in Afghanistan and the Taliban is still there running wide swaths of the country...
And the fact is, we're foreigners there. Do you actually believe our own soldiers would blindly obey orders to shoot their fellow citizens?
But you see, the second amendment represents rights for an individual, not for a mob. Why does he need to be a part of a mob to exercise what you say is within the rights of an individual?
He wasn't fighting for any rights. No one was taking anything from him.
I'm confused also as to how the Founding Fathers are the backbone of these arguments? Love the founding fathers - especially the atheists - but out of curiosity, what was Britain's war expenditures in the mid-to-late 18th century? It must be realized that even gun owners such as myself in 2011 own guns that would rival early 20th century equipment. The average gun-owning household has nothing on the scale of what a tyrannical government would reciprocate with. Exactly why do we continue playing macho man hero? You're not turning back any tyrannical government with your OTC weaponry. Seriously, who's buying guns because they think it will protect them against the government?
It's a good bet what ever you have is based on ideas from John Browning, so you may wish to change the dates a bit to a earlier time before 1880.
I own some fire arms from around 1880 anfd they are as accurate and smooth of action as firearms ever were, made by craftsman machining steel from forgings. There is nothing crud about a great deal of many early guns, some will outlast cnc milling and mim casting.
By the CONS the Govt can not house soldiers in our homes or stand against the people. The soldiers are sworn to defend and up hold the CONS not the Govt.
If the Govt should enact any order to counter the people it would indeed be a illegal order and not one soldier would act on it. There IS training current in the service and I know this is true because my son a 1Lt told me it was true.
With that said for all my life i hunted, which has notjhing to do with the CONS or Bill Clinton saying hunters could still hunt ducks with their same old rifles, and Bill was wrong there too since no where can you hunt ducks with rifles. It was just a pointthat Bill had no idea about ducks, rifles or much of anything else, except maybe a good cigar. That is up for debate.
I didn't used to buy fire arms for self defence, but since the unions to up hold the law are not doing a very great job, I have been left with no choice.
I resent the use of 'macho man ' when all the truth is that home defence by the fiore arm is all the choice most of us have. It is a means of surviving. Once now I have survived this very thing and other wise may have lost th lives of my now x wife and son, besides me.
At the time i did not own a fit SD weapon, but did shortly there after. I tend to learn the first time.
Since then the govt did nothing to stop the murders of my father in law and his 2nd wife.
This means that no matter what the laws says i will not be un-armed by any means other than the forces of Death. No macho man about it.
But you see, the second amendment represents rights for an individual, not for a mob. Why does he need to be a part of a mob to exercise what you say is within the rights of an individual?
Because even if you are the most righteous man in the world, alone you're not going to stand a chance.
For example: back in the days blacks had the right to be free, but if they exercised that right by escaping their master's plantation they'd still end beaten up, mutilated, hanged, etc.
It's a good bet what ever you have is based on ideas from John Browning, so you may wish to change the dates a bit to a earlier time before 1880.
I own some fire arms from around 1880 anfd they are as accurate and smooth of action as firearms ever were, made by craftsman machining steel from forgings. There is nothing crud about a great deal of many early guns, some will outlast cnc milling and mim casting.
By the CONS the Govt can not house soldiers in our homes or stand against the people. The soldiers are sworn to defend and up hold the CONS not the Govt.
If the Govt should enact any order to counter the people it would indeed be a illegal order and not one soldier would act on it. There IS training current in the service and I know this is true because my son a 1Lt told me it was true.
With that said for all my life i hunted, which has notjhing to do with the CONS or Bill Clinton saying hunters could still hunt ducks with their same old rifles, and Bill was wrong there too since no where can you hunt ducks with rifles. It was just a pointthat Bill had no idea about ducks, rifles or much of anything else, except maybe a good cigar. That is up for debate.
I didn't used to buy fire arms for self defence, but since the unions to up hold the law are not doing a very great job, I have been left with no choice.
I resent the use of 'macho man ' when all the truth is that home defence by the fiore arm is all the choice most of us have. It is a means of surviving. Once now I have survived this very thing and other wise may have lost th lives of my now x wife and son, besides me.
At the time i did not own a fit SD weapon, but did shortly there after. I tend to learn the first time.
Since then the govt did nothing to stop the murders of my father in law and his 2nd wife.
This means that no matter what the laws says i will not be un-armed by any means other than the forces of Death. No macho man about it.
I'm sorry for the loss of your family, but do you think a handgun would have saved them? A criminal can break into your house at night while you sleep but unless you keep your gun under your pillow and loaded it won't help much.
I realize the second amendment guarantees our right to own a gun. ...
I guess the main question is why do we need to have the right to own a gun?
The Second Amendment does not "guarantee" the right to bear arms. It prohibits the servant government from infringing upon that right, endowed by OUR CREATOR.
(However, most folks are unaware of the distinction between the "right of the people" and the "privilege of the militia" to bear arms. Since the militia are subject to "regulation" in the manner in which they bear arms, "gun control" laws are not a violation of the 2nd amendment - if only applicable to the militia. Look up the legal definition for "militia".)
Why would an individual need any weapon?
To secure one's right to life and property, defending oneself, when under attack.
Why should we be armed?
A disarmed population is easy prey for the bullies, thugs and marauders.
By the way, you cannot sue the government nor the police for failure to protect, except when in government custody. And it is impractical for there ever to be enough police to "protect" everyone.
Therefore, when seconds count, and police are minutes away, your weaponry determines who shall prevail - the predator or his prey.
I'm sorry for the loss of your family, but do you think a handgun would have saved them? A criminal can break into your house at night while you sleep but unless you keep your gun under your pillow and loaded it won't help much.
Just the thought the home owner has the RIGHT to be armed will slow them down.
Not well for the commoner. Glad you asked. The mass majority of civilian deaths in Iraq, Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Russia were of the non-engaged variety. I.E. They weren't engaging opponet military and they were still a group of people that lost a lot of life. Now imagine if many more did.
Ever checked to see how many civilian Iraqis have perished this decade?
If I recall the UN dug up more than 1 million dead civilian Iraqis , just as the war broke out. Are you suggesting anyone besides Sadam killed these people?
You're dodging the question. How is the military/government, doing (or how did it do, in Vietnam and the USSR versus Afghanistan)?
The fact is, in Afghanistan, they're literally making guns by hand from scratch (sometimes only muzzleloaders, sometimes AK47's, Enfields, etc.), and two superpowers have not defeated them. We're headed into a full decade in Afghanistan and the Taliban is still there running wide swaths of the country...
And the fact is, we're foreigners there. Do you actually believe our own soldiers would blindly obey orders to shoot their fellow citizens?
There are a few things about our societies that don't lend itself well to mass revolt.
1. Distractions. We're consumed by far too many other hobbies. Part of the allure of Capitalism is giving the average Joe the fear of losing something. Joe tends to be a hard-worker who makes a decent, honest living, has both real property and chattel to keep him relatively happy.
At the risk of sounding ethnocentristic, the average poor Afghani is far more likely to join bands with disillusioned people because he doesn't have what Joe has. Can we agree there?
2. Terrain in the U.S. and terrain in Afghanistan is far different. You neglected to mention that U.S. troops are unfamiliar with Afghani terrain, as well. Do you plan on all hiking up into the Appalachians and Rockies? How can you recreate many of the same difficulties?
3. Your last question is a doozy. The honest truth is that a military system involves many facets. I could get myself into some real trouble here on the board, but face it: a military system generally plays better when its filled with Yes men who's job it is NOT to question authority. If the military had men questioning orders and being insubordinate, the day-to-day accomplishments in battle are far less. This is a tough subject, but if you're relying on the average soldier to bite the hand that feeds, you're probably missing that anyone can be turned into an enemy. That's what war is all about - dehumanization and although I think many would have a big problem since somehow humanity is more important to many if they reside near you - I often wonder how military men and women can rationalize certain unjusts they've been made to perform even in recent history.
It would never need to go that far, though. The silly 0.5% of gun owners that actually believe they can make a difference with their 6-shooter wouldn't take long to put down. We're powerless.
Of course, but if guns are banned at a national level it would just be a matter of time before petty criminals would have great difficulty in obtaining them.
I'm sure you know that there are countries where the right to own a firearm has never existed yet people get shot there quite regularly. How do you explain that?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
