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.
There are many posters here and a very vocal 4,000,000 American NRA members to whom the Second Amendment is sacrosanct.
I don't mean to take stance one way or another and advocate for a position. Instead, I want to ask some questions and look at the facts on the ground.
To these individuals, guns have become so intertwined with their identity and worldview that they will not abide any change that might prevent them from acquiring a new AR/AK model with all the same components that US special forces use to make their rifles more accurate and lethal. Their obsession with weapons that were designed for the battlefield or special forces and police units working in close combat situations is what prevents gun legislation from being passed in America. About 4,000,000 American believe that civilians' right to own and carry weapons of war on American streets is the most important freedom they have. Their freedom to diddle around with these incredibly deadly weapons is more important than the freedom from fear and violence that too many people are suffering for.
Let me get this out of the way...the "assault weapon" label that gun rights supporters object to so strenuously to semi-automatic rifles like the AR/AK models that have become the weapon of choice for mass shooters is absolutely correct. Their protests belie their knowledge that these weapons have traditionally been marketed as combat weapons. These are weapons of war. Admiral Mike Mullen, former Joint Chief of Staff for the Navy, appointed under Bush Jr., has written an excellent article on this very topic for The Atlantic Monthly.
A navy admiral and former Joint Chief is not the stereotypical New York liberal who has never handled a gun in his/her life. I also trust him to more accurately describe the design and purpose of an AR far than a gun enthusiast who collects them but has never seen the carnage they cause. Mullen knows war and he knows the weapons used to prosecute them. He also knows that these AR and AK semis are not different in any meaningful way from those carried by infantrymen on the battlefield. The only difference is the semi auto action of the civilian model which means you have to pull the the trigger for every round you fire. This is a far more accurate, deliberate, and deadlier way to fire a weapon compared to just spraying and praying. Besides when a gun is designed to fire up to ten rounds of highly-lethal .223 or .762 ammunition in a second, the difference between military and civilian models is more academic than anything. My evidence? Well, just Look at the Dayton shooter, who managed to down 36 people in about 30 seconds before police took him down. 9 of those people were killed.
The most laughable notion is the one parroted by so many gun enthusiast and second amendment guardians who claim these weapons protect them from government tyranny and guarantee them the power to overthrow an unjust government. Putting aside the fact that America is a democratic nation where regular elections give citizens the right to vote for a government that reflects their priorities peacefully, it is obvious to even the gun enthusiasts themselves admit that their arsenals and "training" are no match for those of any American infantry unit. Taking up arms against the government may not have been an utter suicide mission a couple hundred years ago, but nowadays...who are you kidding? All the gun owners in America could not take down the US military. So this point is moot.
Another note about taking up arms against a tyrant government should the need arise has nothing to do with the guns at all: who gets to decide what a tyrant looks like, and when its time to take up arms? There is no regulation or leadership of this ad hoc civilian militia, which means it is just a bunch or individual citizens with guns but no unifying ideology or chain of command. Who makes the decisions about when to start shooting at police and military because the government has become tyrannical? Why aren't elections good enough? Why aren't more "gun rights" people worried about the very real attacks on the American democratic system by foreign adversaries like Russia?
My point is that the semi-auto combat rifles that a relatively small % of Americans own are weapons of war. Handguns may kill more people in America, but that is a whole other debate. These weapons - the ARs and AKs - should have no place in communities. They are designed to kill as many people as efficiently and quickly as possible. Does the enjoyment that a relatively small number of Americans get out of owning and shooting weapons of war trump the right of every other American citizen to live their lives free from the fear of yet another person becoming unhinged or angry and shooting up a block or a restaurant, school, theater, nightclub, workplace, etc.?
If all this carnage truly is the price of "freedom," I think the people footing the bill - largely the victims and their families - might beg to differ. If freedom really boils down to an individual's ability to buy, carry, shoot a semi-auto rifle...what does that say about such a definition of such a beautiful concept?
Who told you, that you do not ever need to be armed?
Why shouldn't you yourself, own a firearm? Is there something about you, that you are too dangerous to possess a firearm?
Who owns you? Do you have a Master, that told you to never be armed?
Warren v District of Columbia
It is to be expected from an uneducated society, since most Americans are victims of the world's greatest propaganda ministry, and are loathe to read their own laws and history.
Sit down, Shut up, Pay & Obey
Where is your link for this?
So, you are in favor of an "armed society"? I'm not. There is no democracy on this planet with the exception of the USA where the citizenry feel compelled to run around with semi-automatics. I wonder why? Could it be that they just don't need all those guns? I have a shotgun and an officer's Colt and I really don't need those, since I carry my trusty bear spray whenever I feel that I might need some self defence. Works like a charm.
Today there is a minority of Americans who just can't live without their bump stocks and semi-automatics. The children of Newtown and Columbine and all the other victims of mass shootings couldn't live with them. Those children were killed by the NRA and gun nuts everywhere who worship at the alter of the second amendment which should have been repealed before the ink was dried on the Constitution.
Who owns YOU? - The NRA
Who told YOU that you must be armed to the teeth? Your own fear and hatred, stoked by everyone from the gun lobby to the president* of the United States?
How many more must die from your love affair with bump stocks?
There are many posters here and a very vocal 4,000,000 American NRA members to whom the Second Amendment is sacrosanct.
I don't mean to take stance one way or another and advocate for a position. Instead, I want to ask some questions and look at the facts on the ground.
To these individuals, guns have become so intertwined with their identity and worldview that they will not abide any change that might prevent them from acquiring a new AR/AK model with all the same components that US special forces use to make their rifles more accurate and lethal. Their obsession with weapons that were designed for the battlefield or special forces and police units working in close combat situations is what prevents gun legislation from being passed in America. About 4,000,000 American believe that civilians' right to own and carry weapons of war on American streets is the most important freedom they have. Their freedom to diddle around with these incredibly deadly weapons is more important than the freedom from fear and violence that too many people are suffering for.
Let me get this out of the way...the "assault weapon" label that gun rights supporters object to so strenuously to semi-automatic rifles like the AR/AK models that have become the weapon of choice for mass shooters is absolutely correct. Their protests belie their knowledge that these weapons have traditionally been marketed as combat weapons. These are weapons of war. Admiral Mike Mullen, former Joint Chief of Staff for the Navy, appointed under Bush Jr., has written an excellent article on this very topic for The Atlantic Monthly.
A navy admiral and former Joint Chief is not the stereotypical New York liberal who has never handled a gun in his/her life. I also trust him to more accurately describe the design and purpose of an AR far than a gun enthusiast who collects them but has never seen the carnage they cause. Mullen knows war and he knows the weapons used to prosecute them. He also knows that these AR and AK semis are not different in any meaningful way from those carried by infantrymen on the battlefield. The only difference is the semi auto action of the civilian model which means you have to pull the the trigger for every round you fire. This is a far more accurate, deliberate, and deadlier way to fire a weapon compared to just spraying and praying. Besides when a gun is designed to fire up to ten rounds of highly-lethal .223 or .762 ammunition in a second, the difference between military and civilian models is more academic than anything. My evidence? Well, just Look at the Dayton shooter, who managed to down 36 people in about 30 seconds before police took him down. 9 of those people were killed.
The most laughable notion is the one parroted by so many gun enthusiast and second amendment guardians who claim these weapons protect them from government tyranny and guarantee them the power to overthrow an unjust government. Putting aside the fact that America is a democratic nation where regular elections give citizens the right to vote for a government that reflects their priorities peacefully, it is obvious to even the gun enthusiasts themselves admit that their arsenals and "training" are no match for those of any American infantry unit. Taking up arms against the government may not have been an utter suicide mission a couple hundred years ago, but nowadays...who are you kidding? All the gun owners in America could not take down the US military. So this point is moot.
Another note about taking up arms against a tyrant government should the need arise has nothing to do with the guns at all: who gets to decide what a tyrant looks like, and when its time to take up arms? There is no regulation or leadership of this ad hoc civilian militia, which means it is just a bunch or individual citizens with guns but no unifying ideology or chain of command. Who makes the decisions about when to start shooting at police and military because the government has become tyrannical? Why aren't elections good enough? Why aren't more "gun rights" people worried about the very real attacks on the American democratic system by foreign adversaries like Russia?
My point is that the semi-auto combat rifles that a relatively small % of Americans own are weapons of war. Handguns may kill more people in America, but that is a whole other debate. These weapons - the ARs and AKs - should have no place in communities. They are designed to kill as many people as efficiently and quickly as possible. Does the enjoyment that a relatively small number of Americans get out of owning and shooting weapons of war trump the right of every other American citizen to live their lives free from the fear of yet another person becoming unhinged or angry and shooting up a block or a restaurant, school, theater, nightclub, workplace, etc.?
If all this carnage truly is the price of "freedom," I think the people footing the bill - largely the victims and their families - might beg to differ. If freedom really boils down to an individual's ability to buy, carry, shoot a semi-auto rifle...what does that say about such a definition of such a beautiful concept?
Just some thoughts. Sorry for the rambling post.
How long has our fully armored US military been fighting in Afghanistan against people with AK's and improvised devices?
How long has our fully armored US military been fighting in Afghanistan against people with AK's and improvised devices?
Oh yeah, around 20 years.
Why is that if what you state is correct?
Not a direct apples to apples comparison with what a homegrown uprising would look like. If you think any group of armed Americans would be remotely as effective as the Taliban, Viet Cong or various Islamic insurgents then you are badly mistaken.
There are many posters here and a very vocal 4,000,000 American NRA members to whom the Second Amendment is sacrosanct.
I don't mean to take stance one way or another and advocate for a position. Instead, I want to ask some questions and look at the facts on the ground.
To these individuals, guns have become so intertwined with their identity and worldview that they will not abide any change that might prevent them from acquiring a new AR/AK model with all the same components that US special forces use to make their rifles more accurate and lethal. Their obsession with weapons that were designed for the battlefield or special forces and police units working in close combat situations is what prevents gun legislation from being passed in America. About 4,000,000 American believe that civilians' right to own and carry weapons of war on American streets is the most important freedom they have. Their freedom to diddle around with these incredibly deadly weapons is more important than the freedom from fear and violence that too many people are suffering for.
Let me get this out of the way...the "assault weapon" label that gun rights supporters object to so strenuously to semi-automatic rifles like the AR/AK models that have become the weapon of choice for mass shooters is absolutely correct. Their protests belie their knowledge that these weapons have traditionally been marketed as combat weapons. These are weapons of war. Admiral Mike Mullen, former Joint Chief of Staff for the Navy, appointed under Bush Jr., has written an excellent article on this very topic for The Atlantic Monthly.
A navy admiral and former Joint Chief is not the stereotypical New York liberal who has never handled a gun in his/her life. I also trust him to more accurately describe the design and purpose of an AR far than a gun enthusiast who collects them but has never seen the carnage they cause. Mullen knows war and he knows the weapons used to prosecute them. He also knows that these AR and AK semis are not different in any meaningful way from those carried by infantrymen on the battlefield. The only difference is the semi auto action of the civilian model which means you have to pull the the trigger for every round you fire. This is a far more accurate, deliberate, and deadlier way to fire a weapon compared to just spraying and praying. Besides when a gun is designed to fire up to ten rounds of highly-lethal .223 or .762 ammunition in a second, the difference between military and civilian models is more academic than anything. My evidence? Well, just Look at the Dayton shooter, who managed to down 36 people in about 30 seconds before police took him down. 9 of those people were killed.
The most laughable notion is the one parroted by so many gun enthusiast and second amendment guardians who claim these weapons protect them from government tyranny and guarantee them the power to overthrow an unjust government. Putting aside the fact that America is a democratic nation where regular elections give citizens the right to vote for a government that reflects their priorities peacefully, it is obvious to even the gun enthusiasts themselves admit that their arsenals and "training" are no match for those of any American infantry unit. Taking up arms against the government may not have been an utter suicide mission a couple hundred years ago, but nowadays...who are you kidding? All the gun owners in America could not take down the US military. So this point is moot.
Another note about taking up arms against a tyrant government should the need arise has nothing to do with the guns at all: who gets to decide what a tyrant looks like, and when its time to take up arms? There is no regulation or leadership of this ad hoc civilian militia, which means it is just a bunch or individual citizens with guns but no unifying ideology or chain of command. Who makes the decisions about when to start shooting at police and military because the government has become tyrannical? Why aren't elections good enough? Why aren't more "gun rights" people worried about the very real attacks on the American democratic system by foreign adversaries like Russia?
My point is that the semi-auto combat rifles that a relatively small % of Americans own are weapons of war. Handguns may kill more people in America, but that is a whole other debate. These weapons - the ARs and AKs - should have no place in communities. They are designed to kill as many people as efficiently and quickly as possible. Does the enjoyment that a relatively small number of Americans get out of owning and shooting weapons of war trump the right of every other American citizen to live their lives free from the fear of yet another person becoming unhinged or angry and shooting up a block or a restaurant, school, theater, nightclub, workplace, etc.?
If all this carnage truly is the price of "freedom," I think the people footing the bill - largely the victims and their families - might beg to differ. If freedom really boils down to an individual's ability to buy, carry, shoot a semi-auto rifle...what does that say about such a definition of such a beautiful concept?
Just some thoughts. Sorry for the rambling post.
Hmmm. Well, I do not own my AR for the purpose of resistance to government tyranny though if required it could fill that role. My main concern is resistance to criminal activity and the gangs have access to real military hardware such as the M4 thanks to their masters the cartels.
The police are carrying full auto capable M4s now and I'm not talking just SWAT. They are standard in beat patrol cars. My feelings on that is that if the cops who patrol my streets sporadically 8 hors a day feel they need such weapons my having a semi auto only version of the same weapon is more than reasonable.
Personally I don't think regular beat cops truly need full auto either . SWAT? OK I'll buy that but not Smitty the patrolman. Now, to further, if the police need full auto, grenade launchers, armored vehicles, heavy weapons up to 50 BMG and High capacity sidearms from 9mm to 45 ACP how is it unreasonable for me to have an AR 15? It's not just the military who is packing these "weapons of war." The cops and the military have weapons of war. Since when are cops forward deployed combat troops?
Yes, gangs are packing serious hardware and cops do need to defend themselves. BUT, so do I! As I said, we citizens live out here. And the cops...well, when seconds count the police are only minutes away. And I might full well need more than my handgun in certain situations. I'm not looking to figh the US military but if some gang tries to shoot up my street and puts my loved ones in danger I bloody well want an effective weapon to return fire.
I don't need any more than semi auto and I agree with you that is a more effective means of shooting. In the hands of an actual rifleman. Which I will say in all humility I am. And despite what many believe it does not take much to equal or surpass the abilities of most cops in shooting skill. Most cops fire their weapons twice a year for semi annual qualification. A standard practice session for me is 300 rounds. That with my handgun.
There are other reasons I have an AR than defensive use. Service rifle competition being one. And the AR is in its own class because of its limited capabilities. I can't afford an M1 Garand or M1A. I can afford an AR15. There is also three gun competition, rifle pistol and shotgun where an AR is a requirement. The rifle has other roles to fill as well. Its light weight, accuracy, reliability, affordable ammunition and cost of ownership make it suited for a lot of my needs in a light caliber center fire rifle.
I believe that I am far more likely to face a criminal threat where I will need my rifle than having to take on the US military. The original intent of the 2A was for a militia that could serve in terms of national defense, and that is still a factor, but violent criminal threat is more of a factor for we citizens now. And there may well come a day where militia will serve alongside, not against, the US military.
I am not a criminal or a madman. Neither are 99.9% of people who like me own an AR 15. Yet we are being accused of "having blood on our hands" and being threatened with being turned into criminals at the stroke of a pen. To me THAT is the wrong being done here. Not my having and defending my right to have and AR 15.
Not a direct apples to apples comparison with what a homegrown uprising would look like. If you think any group of armed Americans would be remotely as effective as the Taliban, Viet Cong or various Islamic insurgents then you are badly mistaken.
So, you're argument comes down to Americans aren't as capable. Lol
So, you're argument comes down to Americans aren't as capable. Lol
Just go ahead and ignore history.
Americans aren't. They lack the toughness and will power.
Plus the groups listed were highly organized, had clear tactical and strategic motives and were funded and supplied by an outside power. Armed Americans have none of those things.
Not a direct apples to apples comparison with what a homegrown uprising would look like. If you think any group of armed Americans would be remotely as effective as the Taliban, Viet Cong or various Islamic insurgents then you are badly mistaken.
Really now? Well I disagree. Even an elite military fighting unit does not want to have to take on Americans in our own backyards. Personally I'm not that worried that I might be going up against the US military. Though if we are ever invaded I would fully expect to be supporting them.
And a foreign force even spec ops types, would have a hard time with e n mine in these mountains. What makes you believe we Americans, especially those of us who live out here butted up against the wild places, are so much less capable than the Taliban or Viet Cong?
Really now? Well I disagree. Even an elite military fighting unit does not want to have to take on Americans in our own backyards. Personally I'm not that worried that I might be going up against the US military. Though if we are ever invaded I would fully expect to be supporting them.
And a foreign force even spec ops types, would have a hard time with e n mine in these mountains. What makes you believe we Americans, especially those of us who live out here butted up against the wild places, are so much less capable than the Taliban or Viet Cong?
I believe we would be a lot better in truth.
1.) For starters the enemy in this scenario (the US military) has a complete and comprehensive knowledge of the terrain, society, language, and information network. Things they lacked in both Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan.
2.) Armed Americans lack the organizational structure needed to be effective on a wide scale. Who would be in charge? what would be the strategic and tactical goals? How would one group of Armed rebels communicate with another group of armed rebels? There is no organizational group in place that can do what the Taliban, Al Qaeda or the Viet Cong could do.
3.) Americans are not remotely as tough and determined as the Viet Cong or Islamic extremist were. Could you hall 80 pounds of gear over wet, disease ridden jungle mountains all the while getting bombed every other day? Probably not, most Americans are too soft and fat to ever do such a thing. Would you or your buddies strap explosives to yourself and go on a suicide mission. Probably not.
4.) Also all three groups received widespread for support in terms of logistics, funding and weapons. Something Armed Americans would not have.
I believe you are correct in this regard. Its to be noted that the NRA underwent a political drift to the far right in the period after the civil rights movement. Its no coincidence that the largest surge in gun purchases happened after the election of Americas's first black president. There is a deep rooted fear of the "other" taking over and those that hold these beliefs think it can be avoid if they remain heavily armed. Guns and race go hand in hand in this country.
The 1960s were indeed a big turning point. Reagan was the governor of California at the time. Riots, police brutality, all kinds of problems in 1960s California. He signed the Mulford Act of 1967. It made the public carrying of loaded guns illegal. This was in response to the Black Panther Party. It was approved by both Republicans and Democrats, and Reagan signed it.
Quote from Reagan: "no reason why on the street today a citizen should be carrying loaded weapons".
It's quite bizarre that I never heard "Reagan's going to take away your guns". My theory is that many people viewed it as "he only did it to keep the troublesome Black population in line".
Paul Kersey of "Stuff Black People Don't Like" was much more blunt in his opinion that "Blacks should be disarmed, this is how you stop gun violence".
Fears of the other have played a role in the past when it comes to guns. Hatred of "the other" has also played a role. After slavery ended, some southern states enacted laws against the newly freed Black persons. This put Blacks in a position where they couldn't defend themselves against violence. To put this in perspective, this the mid/late 1860s. Blacks were now free, and there were many persons who didn't want to see Black people free. The attitude of "how do we put these Blacks in their place". One way many people wanted to do this was through violence. And there was also a fear among those who felt "those Blacks are going to kill all the White people if they're free". It was a combination of fear, hate, and arrogance.
The 14th Amendment was meant to make sure that all guns laws were to be free of racial bias. Some southern states figured out how to keep Blacks from having guns without saying "disarm" Blacks. With Blacks being quite poor at the time, Tennessee and Arkansas came up with laws prohibiting the ownership of cheaper hand guns, while expensive military handguns were allowed, which ex-Confederate soldiers had. South Carolina made conceal carry illegal, but enforced it differently based on race. Whites who were caught carrying concealed guns were charged a fine. Blacks who carried concealed guns were sent to prison and put on chain gangs.
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.
