U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 08-04-2019, 09:45 AM
 
Location: Michigan, Maryland-born
62 posts, read 15,596 times
Reputation: 183

Advertisements

Many people say that we need the right to own weapons such as an AK47 so that we can protect ourselves from an abusive government.

I would argue that this is not true.


1...Our military takes an oath to defend the constitution or in other words the rights of the people. In Nazi Germany they took an oath to Hitler, etc...not the rights of the people. Our military is staffed by good people overall who hold the protection of the constitution in high value.

2...In similar countries with similar constitutional values like France, the UK, Australia....which have reduced gun rights...you don't see an oppressive government beating up the people. Because as above, the military would turn on the government if it ever did that.

3...The military has high tech weapons and vehicles...an AK47 wouldn't be effective for fighting against that either.

4...The same reason that many don't want Iran to have nuclear weapons is the same reason that many don't want anyone to have AK47s. The more weapons of mass destruction out there the more likely they are to fall into wrong hands and be used for evil.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 08-04-2019, 09:55 AM
 
Location: San Diego
35,698 posts, read 32,461,018 times
Reputation: 20108
It's very difficult to obtain an assault rifle and expensive too.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-04-2019, 09:55 AM
 
1,460 posts, read 322,273 times
Reputation: 2122
History is replete with examples of governments that turned tyrannical. The first step is disarming the public, and thus why the framers crafted the 2nd Amendment. And before things turn tyrannical the population always thinks it "can't ever happen to them." I would suggest you also read up on the difference between semi-automatics and fully-automatics as well, and what is takes to legally own a fully-automatic weapon.

And for your point #3, how did our military fare with guerrilla warfare in Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc.?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-04-2019, 09:57 AM
 
Location: Out West
22,945 posts, read 16,987,224 times
Reputation: 26533
1) The oath taken by enlisted members: "I, (name), do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."

The oath taken by officers: "I, (name), do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State (Commonwealth, District, Territory) of (the name) against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the Governor of the State (Commonwealth, District, Territory) of (the name), that I make this obligation freely, without any mental reservations or purpose of evasion, and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the Office of (grade) in the Army/Air National Guard of the State (Commonwealth, District, Territory) of (the name) on which I am about to enter, so help me God."

They took an oath to follow the command of the POTUS.

I do not believe all military members would follow that order if it meant firing on their own people, but I wouldn't gamble that all of them would lay down their arms.

2) You don't see a government beating up its people in France? REALLY? Have you not been paying attention to what has been going on in France for months now? You don't see it, eh?

3) Hi tech weapons, and yet we still lose military members who are stationed overseas in war zones, or in their peace keeping efforts. We just lost some the other day. Those hi tech weapons don't protect everyone.

4) How naive of you to think that not allowing law abiding citizens to have AKs will prevent bad people from getting them. This isn't Unicorn Island. And that argument falls flat on its face every single time. It's stated as if the people who say it actually care about the law abiding citizens, when in reality, it's a pathetic excuse to take guns away from them. No one believes anyone who says, "We just want to prevent the bad guys from getting them" = see: Eric Holder "Fast and Furious". Yeah, he was just so damned concerned, wasn't he? See: Al Quaeda. I wonder who armed them.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-04-2019, 10:01 AM
 
39,711 posts, read 41,077,500 times
Reputation: 16431
Quote:
Originally Posted by QuakerBaker View Post
Many people say that we need the right to own weapons such as an AK47....



Can you outline the fundamental difference between an AK47 and <insert any semi-auto rifle here>?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-04-2019, 10:03 AM
 
19,163 posts, read 9,751,125 times
Reputation: 5362
Quote:
Originally Posted by QuakerBaker View Post
Many people say that we need the right to own weapons such as an AK47 so that we can protect ourselves from an abusive government.

I would argue that this is not true.


1...Our military takes an oath to defend the constitution or in other words the rights of the people. In Nazi Germany they took an oath to Hitler, etc...not the rights of the people. Our military is staffed by good people overall who hold the protection of the constitution in high value.

2...In similar countries with similar constitutional values like France, the UK, Australia....which have reduced gun rights...you don't see an oppressive government beating up the people. Because as above, the military would turn on the government if it ever did that.

3...The military has high tech weapons and vehicles...an AK47 wouldn't be effective for fighting against that either.

4...The same reason that many don't want Iran to have nuclear weapons is the same reason that many don't want anyone to have AK47s. The more weapons of mass destruction out there the more likely they are to fall into wrong hands and be used for evil.
Assault rifles have been banned since 1934! Your mission was accomplished long ago.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-04-2019, 10:17 AM
 
Location: NW Nevada
14,422 posts, read 11,740,150 times
Reputation: 13488
The semi auto is the standard type of firearm in use today. It's been the standard for both military and civilian use sing the 40s when the M1 Garand became our standard. There is nothing scary or "highly destructive" about any semi auto over any other firearm.


Truth be known a bolt action hunting rifle with a 3 shot integral mag is just as capable of mayhem and murder as even a true "assault rifle." This is a proven fact and not open for debate. Private firearms are a fact of life in the US. Changing that via legislation will not do a thing to curb violence committed with guns.


There is no answer to stopping that. None. Criminals and madmen will always have and will continue to misuse firearms as long as the sun keeps coming up in the morning. Taking my right to be armed away won't stop that. Even in countries where personal weapons are strictly prohibited the criminals still have them.


Whether we like it or not there are evil people out there. And they will continue to be evil and have harming us at the front of their minds.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-04-2019, 10:19 AM
 
38,673 posts, read 15,165,722 times
Reputation: 25021
The first step is not disarming the public.

The first step is getting people to unleash their hatred against those identified as "vermin," "rapists," etc.

Australia disarmed some years ago.

Mass shootings went down dramatically.

Government continues to function as designed.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-04-2019, 10:36 AM
 
30,064 posts, read 16,607,954 times
Reputation: 13983
Quote:
Originally Posted by QuakerBaker View Post
Many people say that we need the right to own weapons such as an AK47 so that we can protect ourselves from an abusive government.

I would argue that this is not true.


1...Our military takes an oath to defend the constitution or in other words the rights of the people. In Nazi Germany they took an oath to Hitler, etc...not the rights of the people. Our military is staffed by good people overall who hold the protection of the constitution in high value.
Constitution=The scribblings of long dead politicians on yellowed parchment, a one way contract that was never signed or consented to by anyone living today. Can an automaker plop a new car in your driveway and send you the payment book without your consent?
The constitution has been violated so many times you cant count them all. The military is staffed by "good people" who do what their told, even if it means blowing up hospitals, schools, women,children, etc. and at present is engaged in 17 years of unconstitutional war. Let that sink in.
Quote:
Originally Posted by QuakerBaker View Post
2...In similar countries with similar constitutional values like France, the UK, Australia....which have reduced gun rights...you don't see an oppressive government beating up the people. Because as above, the military would turn on the government if it ever did that.
Kent State ring a bell? Waco? Ruby Ridge? Govt agents follow orders. Of course "beating up the people" is a subjective term, but you realize the US has the largest prison population in the history of planet earth? Govt police shoot citizens on the regular and steal from them every minute of every day while locking them up for disagreeable vices and victimless crimes against the state.

Quote:
Originally Posted by QuakerBaker View Post
3...The military has high tech weapons and vehicles...an AK47 wouldn't be effective for fighting against that either.
Oddly the US has been at continual and seemingly unwinable war against a decentralized foe that employs the AK47 and the like as its primary weapon.
Quote:
Originally Posted by QuakerBaker View Post
4...The same reason that many don't want Iran to have nuclear weapons is the same reason that many don't want anyone to have AK47s. The more weapons of mass destruction out there the more likely they are to fall into wrong hands and be used for evil.
which countries have ever deployed a nuke? If you guessed the US, you are a winner.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-04-2019, 11:45 PM
 
Location: Los Angeles
3,085 posts, read 1,684,932 times
Reputation: 3615
Default Murdoch's New York Post Urges Trump to Ban Assault Weapons

"President Trump, America is scared and we need bold action," Monday's front page reads. "It's time to... BAN WEAPONS OF WAR."

https://nypost.com/2019/08/04/the-po...t-weapons-now/

The New York Post is controlled by Rupert Murdoch, the right-wing media mogul who keeps in close touch with the president.

This is not the first time the Post has called for such a ban. But it is still striking to see the message on the front page of the paper, where Trump is likely to see it. Trump grew up reading the paper in New York City and continues to receive copies in Washington.

"America is terrified," the editorial reads. "President Trump, you are positioned to assuage that fear. On gun control, you are a pragmatic centrist, someone who knows there is a vast majority of Americans who are not to the extreme left or right on this issue. They just want the killings to stop."
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top