A simple, logical thought on those calling for the banning of assault rifles. (Marines, Canada)
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 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.
You are correct about the difference in parity between civilians and the military, but to satisfy your logic would require civilians to own heavy artillery, tanks, jets, cruise missiles, and nuclear warheads.
If you outlaw land mines, then only the outlaws will have land mines!
Mortar rounds don't kill people; they can be used peacefully!
This logically ends in a society that looks a Mad Max movie, where everyone is armed to the teeth and daily rule of law becomes whatever survives the showdown in the street. The idea of every backwoods hick owning a stockpile of sarin nerve gas makes me feel safer already.
Look, when we came down from the trees and started to form societies, there was always an implicit social contract with that, and it entailed benefits and risks. Part of that contract is that you live as a collective and submit to some form of rule of law. If we can't accept that and feel the need to arm ourselves to the teeth to go about our lives, then soon we will have essentially crawled back up those trees our ancestor apes came down from - except, of course, with much better firepower.
As a shotgun owner I see no logical reason for you to own either handguns or rifles. As you said you prefer a 12 ga. double so why do you need rifles or handguns. You could miss with that rifle and kill someone 2 miles away. The next door neighor kid could come in and steal a handgun. With those dangers you don't need it.
it's thinking like this I don't understand..
Dammned i own flintlocks and see no reason why you or anyone else needs anything that uses a self loading case! Most certainly anything that can be called a repeaters is too dangerous for any common man or woman! Oh Golly Gee...
On the other hand I own 2 Ak's..... 4 shotguns, several bolt acion and one lever gun...... Each one has it's uses.
But this is exactly the talk that the left gun grabbers love, when one has a shot gun and says that's all anyone needs and another has a few hand guns or a rifle and can't see past their need to target shoot and has taken the 2nd to mean it'a about hunting.
Bill Clinton came slinking out from the bushes with a couple ducks and a double broken over his shoulder and said " You people, Can alwaz, Shoot ducks, wid da same olde, RIFLES, you alwaz shooted ducks wid!"
liar liar pants on fire! the BIGGEST DUBBA since Dubya! Then with Joe Biden he made that foolish little gun ban, that mom and pop middle America loved thinking; ' Ah no more assualt rifles on Bill's watch!' and sat down to watch sports and live the good life bubble Bill gave them, meanwhile Bill was out robbing the craddle.
And no one could ever in the USA hunt ducks legally with a rifle! Damm Bill Clinton!
Our Constitution was drafted to protect civilians from a tyrannical or brute force government.
There was much more parity between civilians and council/military, obviously.
Mythology apart, the balance of power between untrained rebels and organized force in the late 18th century was not much different than it is now. On the one hand, events like Shay's Rebellion and the Whiskey Rebellion show pretty clearly that even modest applications of organized military force were sufficient to shatter armed civilian uprisings. On the other, the armed insurrections in, e.g., Libya and Syria demonstrate that civilian populations are still able to successfully engage with organized military forces, despite the much greater apparent advantage given to the later by modern arms, communications, transportation, etc.
The main consideration seems to be organization. As poorly led and organized as the government forces were in the two American rebellions (being essentially militia), the rebels were much more disorganized, with the result that both the Whiskey and Shay's uprisings never really got very far. Likewise, what seems to be holding the balance in the Arab rebellions is that the rebels, while not exactly Prussian in their efficiency, are not greatly less organized than the Arab regimes, which are not renowned for efficiency.
One might conclude, therefore, that if the purpose of the 2nd Amend. is to retain a balance between the coercive power of the state and the means of the population to resist (and it clearly, explicitly is), then the best way to achieve this would not be randomly allowing individuals to own a few weapons, but instead to provide civilians with military and organizational training.
In other words, simply having the right to buy an assault weapon is probably useless as a guarantee against tyranny, but decentralizing the National Guard and restoring it as a state-supported and locally-operated system of militia regiments might actually be useful.
Not to mention the value in fostering community volunteerism and pride, if local militia regiments were allowed to develop or revive distinct traditions, uniforms, names rather than numbers, regimental colors and bands, etc., etc.
Why isnt the discussion about taking weapons away from the state instead of the individual?
Governments are homicidal maniacs that kill with no repercussion.
Someone wrote that the average AMERICAN is too fat- to lazy and too drugged up to take up arms and fight for their freedom in a crisis.
Which reminded me of a cartoon during the cold war...There is a bank of nukes ready to be launched and a Russian leader is running frantically to the commander of the nukes...he is holding a newspaper and yelling "Stop- don't launch- stop don't waste those weapons...then he holds up the news paper with the head line -....- " TWENTY MILLION AMERICANS ON DRUGS"....the next caption was "we will just wait".
Yah it was my imagination- I was imagining fine young strong and smart men with clear minds and energy brandishing their weapons in defiance...Then I remembered ...millions of pot heads would be wandering about in their size 60 pants saying..."U R soooo angry dude...put down that gun and smoke a dube with me man"
Not to mention how many heart attacks would be taking place as a tub of lard ran for cover or tried to advance...I am not even going to mention the over use of anti-depressants and tranquilizers - where people would sit and say--what problem...everything is fine...stop being so paranoid- take one of these.....Then there would be a another problem- fighters would be afraid to leave their homes because the Leroy and Hank the white trash crack head would be in stealing their stuff..
My ak shoots a cartridge in 7.62x39, which means the bullet is 7.62mm diameter, and the brass case is 39 mm long.
Your 30-06 shoots a cartridge 7.62mm diameter and the case is 63 mm long... 7.62x63
The M 14 shot Winchester .308 which is for all practical purposes 7.62x51. And a NATO round we still use today.
Of all these weapons which seems to be the most powerfull based on size alone?
One rifle I don't understand the need for the public to buy, the 50 cal. But whatever floats your boat. You want to shoot a deer and leave a hole big enough to see through, thats your gun (if it didn't just blow it up).
But I'm not opposed to people even owning them. Just want people to have to reload a few more times thorughout their day.
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.
I built the A-10s, I don't think a bazooka would work.
That's not the point though and there are many other reasons for citizens to own firearms.
They're designed to take out as many "targets" as possible in a very short time. You don't even need to be a marksman (or woman) to use one, just point in the general direction of what you want to hit and "fan".. Where's the sport in that?
If someone wants to own one, fine.
total crokery...
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.
