A simple, logical thought on those calling for the banning of assault rifles. (Congress, drug)
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.
Why does the state get to hoard technology? Why does it get trickled down to the mass when it's irrelevant?
So many people see on this board that the state is inherently BAD but oddly still want to assimilate into the broken system as if something will change. And last time I checked, doing the same thing repeatedly but expecting a different result is the definition of insanity.
Just to be perfectly clear I was being sarcastic when I wrote this:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wayland Woman Why stop at wanting civilians to have assault rifles? Make it legal to own chemical weapons, nuclear bombs and other weapons of mass destruction. If you argument is civilians should be able to match the fire power of the government then we should also make the government show us all their research and development of advanced weaponry---like for building drones, for example---so we can all set up "little arms factories" in our basements.
Sean Connery's wife before he filmed "never say never again", after saying he would never film another bond movie.
There is no hope for an armed resistance aganst a government with the worlds most powerful military, 5 times over.
Cut defense, or assault rifles are useless.
I can do more in a guerilla war with my hunting rifle anyway.
I agree, we would be wiped off the map. That being said, America still operates rather benignly relative to most other nations. But there is a trade-off for the standard of living and the rent-seeking has gone wayyyy, wayyy too far.
I fail to wrap my head around how anybody can argue for freedom in a vacuum like so many Americans do. I do it.
You also have to consider the consequences of cutting defense as well....which would probably be just as significant, probably much more, than a guerrilla war.
Well, if we are trying to protect ourselves from the evil government then we need to advocate for legalization of Stinger Missiles and Bazookas and stuff like that. You know, something that can actually bring down the A-10 that the government is throwing at you revolutionaries.
Probably better to stick with the "if assault rifles are outlawed then only outlaws will have assault rifles" line of thinking.
Yes -- and if they're made illegal, they can simply be gotten from the black market -- just like meth and pot and all the rest. Tons of them come over the border every day, the cartels wouldn't mind adding another product line to what they're bringing in now.
The advantage with the black market, is that there would be no silly forms to have to fill out when buying weapons. And you can get them from the corner meth dealer just as quickly and easily as you can get meth.
Yes -- and if they're made illegal, they can simply be gotten from the black market -- just like meth and pot and all the rest. Tons of them come over the border every day, the cartels wouldn't mind adding another product like to what they're bringing in now.
The advantage with the black market, is that there would be no silly forms to have to fill out when buying weapons. And you can get them from the corner meth dealer just as quickly and easily as you can get meth.
I agree, we would be wiped off the map. That being said, America still operates rather benignly relative to most other nations. But there is a trade-off for the standard of living and the rent-seeking has gone wayyyy, wayyy too far.
I fail to wrap my head around how anybody can argue for freedom in a vacuum like so many Americans do. I do it.
You also have to consider the consequences of cutting defense as well....which would probably be just as significant, probably much more, than a guerrilla war.
It would change the economy to cut defense, force companies making guns to find other things to make. Hence the term "swords into plows"
But world wide, not that much change for us. Europeans would re-arm themselves, they've lowered defense spending because we provide them with military power. We account for 43% of all world wide military spending, alone, just the United States. The next single largest contributor, China, at 8%.
If you account for the top 7 military spenders in the world. 6 of them are the United States and our closest allies. 1 is China.
I think we can stand to cut defense in half.
Quit building weapons, start building roads, and energy sources that don't require Canadian or Mexican sources of power.
Why SHOULDN'T assault rifles be barred from the hands of civilians? It's pretty simple to me...
Our Constitution was drafted to protect civilians from a tyrannical or brute force government. Sure, at the time of it's conception, the only guns the regular people had access to were single shot muskets and the likes. That was all the government had access to as well.
There was much more parity between civilians and council/military, obviously.
So, even the logic of banning assault rifles from civilians..while initially seems sane and rather benign...in the long run can have dire consequences because all it does is lengthen the reach of a state that already has an authoritative stranglehold on society.
First you have to tell us what YOUR opinion of an "assault rifle" is.
Most who are against them haven't a clue as to what an assault rifle is.
It would change the economy to cut defense, force companies making guns to find other things to make. Hence the term "swords into plows"
But world wide, not that much change for us. Europeans would re-arm themselves, they've lowered defense spending because we provide them with military power. We account for 43% of all world wide military spending, alone, just the United States. The next single largest contributor, China, at 8%.
If you account for the top 7 military spenders in the world. 6 of them are the United States and our closest allies. 1 is China.
I think we can stand to cut defense in half.
Quit building weapons, start building roads, and energy sources that don't require Canadian or Mexican sources of power.
"force companies making guns to find other things to make".!
I asked for logical reasons, not a "what if" scenario.
The only reason that I could see would be war, right here at home, civil or otherwise. Even then it would be iffy, for me anyway.
Frankly, I see them as more of a big boy toy than a practical weapon. My neighbor has an AK. He loves to get out and make noise with it, shooting coyotes ect.....he's also managed to start a few fires too.
Like I said, no practical use.
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.
