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.
...New Jersey's gun laws allow me to keep a variety of weapons for home defense, target shooting, and hunting, and as far as I'm concerned, that's all I need...
key words.
As far as someone else is concerned maybe they need more. Or different.
Unless the 2nd Amendment includes the right keep and bear cluster bombs, MOABs, Spectre gunships, Apache helicopters, grenades, claymores, land mines, Destroyers, littoral combat ships, and M1A1 Abrams tanks its not going to much of a fight. The founding fathers could never have seen this coming however, and I don't fault them for it. I don't care what the Wolverines did in Red Dawn, unfortunately the U.S. populace is no match for the U.S military no matter how many small arms we have. You could issue every U.S. citizen an M-16 and teach them how to use it, it wouldn't matter much if the military decided to use airpower.
So what is the solution? Disarm our military to make it a fair fight? Maintain a "people's army?" In any event, despite the fact that the founders could not possibly foresee the advances in weaponry over the next 200+ years, they did create a brilliant framework designed to check the power of each branch of government so that hopefully the 2nd Amendment would never really have to be put into action for its original purpose. If you want to be prepared to mount a serious assault against our military, be my guest, you're going to be very busy contacting 3rd world arms dealers and building a compound in who-knows-where, so you might want to quit posting for a while.
Are you actually this ignorant? There are wars being fought primarily with small arms throughout the world TODAY.
What do you think the Afgan and Iraqi insurgents are using if not small arms? They are also using "grenades, claymores, land mines" stolen from military as well as provided by Iran and Syria. The 'Red Dawn' reference is apt- American insurgents doing the same things insurgents have done since the beginning of civilization. Do you believe that modern Americans aren't capable of the same actions? It's amazing you can't see it.
What do you think the Afgan and Iraqi insurgents are using if not small arms?
The U.S. is on the world stage with regard to Iraq and Afghanistan otherwise we'd be doing what needs to be done-carpet bombing/using tactical nuclear weapons. If it were fighting its own people these tactics would undoubtedly be used. See how effective your AR-15 is against a 20 megaton warhead.
The U.S. is on the world stage with regard to Iraq and Afghanistan otherwise we'd be doing what needs to be done-carpet bombing/using tactical nuclear weapons. If it were fighting its own people these tactics would undoubtedly be used. See how effective your AR-15 is against a 20 megaton warhead.
ROFLMAO
So the short answer to my question is "yes I am".
Badfish you are a hunter I am not.I shoot target.Here is a link for you to look at that this ban would end competition shooting or at least send it into chaos.
M1A ,M1 Garand ARE NOT assault rifles yet they using sneaky terms include them in the ban.The average Joe wouldn't know otherwise though.This ban will hurt sportsmen or otherwise non violent people,it won't stop crime and they know that but really to them it is about they hate guns....
You think your hunting rifle is safe?Today they have found a way to demonize a certain type and lie to include others in their description,tommorrow it may be your hunting rifle,it doesn't take much to demonize a hunting rifle into calling it a "sniper rifle" because it has a scope or to say "why do you need such a large caliber?" to ban certain cartiridges.
Don't be one of those gun owners who thinks of they won't go after mine but yeah why do those people need that type.....because in the end they hate all gunowners they just want to divide us to make for easier pickings.
Don't be one of those gun owners who thinks of they won't go after mine but yeah why do those people need that type.....because in the end they hate all gunowners they just want to divide us to make for easier pickings.
Yep, Sarah Brady, Nancy Pelosi and other well known anti-gun individuals are all on record at one point or another saying they want all guns banned, but they'll happily divide and conquer and lie to get what they want incrementally. To paraphrase someone famous, "we all hang together or we'll all hang seperately."
Unless the 2nd Amendment includes the right keep and bear cluster bombs, MOABs, Spectre gunships, Apache helicopters, grenades, claymores, land mines, Destroyers, littoral combat ships, and M1A1 Abrams tanks its not going to much of a fight. The founding fathers could never have seen this coming however, and I don't fault them for it. I don't care what the Wolverines did in Red Dawn, unfortunately the U.S. populace is no match for the U.S military no matter how many small arms we have. You could issue every U.S. citizen an M-16 and teach them how to use it, it wouldn't matter much if the military decided to use airpower.
So what is the solution? Disarm our military to make it a fair fight? Maintain a "people's army?" In any event, despite the fact that the founders could not possibly foresee the advances in weaponry over the next 200+ years, they did create a brilliant framework designed to check the power of each branch of government so that hopefully the 2nd Amendment would never really have to be put into action for its original purpose. If you want to be prepared to mount a serious assault against our military, be my guest, you're going to be very busy contacting 3rd world arms dealers and building a compound in who-knows-where, so you might want to quit posting for a while.
The Vietnamese, the Afghanis, and currently the Iraqis, have all shown that people armed with small arms and knowledge, using unconventional tactics, can hold off the world's mightiest militaries. The Second Amendment works well as a deterrent, keeping them from going too far, but if they do, as a last resort, it can protect against it. The founders fully expected to see technology change. The earliest settlers came, many of them armed with matchlock muskets, and our founders had flintlock rifles with which to snipe at leaders (almost unheard of before that), most of them lived to see the percussion cap invented, and some of them lived to see the earliest revolvers (pepperboxes for example). Ever hear of Louis and Clark's repeating air rifle? A very powerful gun (not like you think of air guns today), that could fire several shots before reloading. And it held, gasp, more than 10 shots! Ben Franklin during the Revolution made his own, improved, hand grenades. They knew technology would improve, they were living in an age of scientific study and constant invention. They wanted the people to have the ability to overthrow the government. The Militia Act of 1792 even required all adult males to own firearms and ammunition.
If you voted for Obama & dont know he is antigun you are an uninformed voter. I dont care if you are a hunter & gun owner that voted for Obama because of other issues. It depends on how much you like those guns compared to other theological things.
Personally I value all my private personally bought property but that which the founders found important enough to specifically protect should be something that the President believes is important as well.
In Obamas state of Illinois you cannot excercise your right to keep & bear arms. Period.
You can own rifles to hunt with & maybe pistols. But try useing one for defense or try "bearing" one.
In any definition that means going about with it. He's on record wanting to ban conceled carry laws among other things anyway, he simply is anti gun. No question.
He might be too busy to pursue them himself & maybe thats why you think he'll leave us alone. Except theres boatloads of antigun legislators & lobbiests that will be pumping this crap over his desk. Bet he wont be too busy to sign the dotted line.
The U.S. is on the world stage with regard to Iraq and Afghanistan otherwise we'd be doing what needs to be done-carpet bombing/using tactical nuclear weapons. If it were fighting its own people these tactics would undoubtedly be used. See how effective your AR-15 is against a 20 megaton warhead.
You honestly believe they would use a nuke against ourselves?
If they do then no laws will matter & afterwards, whoever is lucky enough to live, will be much better off with a gun than without.
But anyway. They meant military small arms.
In that time a flintlock was an assault weapon. They let us have them. They coulda said we were restricted to matchlocks, effective but less deadly muzzleloaders. They didn't & you are wrong. Its ok, no biggie.
One question I don't see being adressed here would be how much of the US military would be willing to fire on it's own people? A small percentage I think. Our soldiers aren't robots that follow orders blindly and they HAVE taken an oath to defend against all enemies" foriegn and domestic" and to uphold our Constitution. Support of a wannabe dictator would cause our Military a bit of a concience problem, especially if it involved killing US citizens wholesale.
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.
