A simple, logical thought on those calling for the banning of assault rifles. (Taliban, legal)
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.
Last edited by Hot_Handz; 07-28-2012 at 08:25 AM..
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.
They 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.
That was before the advent of nuclear weapons.
Assault rifles don't do much to jets, smart bombs, and non conventional weaponry.
Ask the Taliban.
Sure, you may be able to outlast a foreign power occupying your homeland. You can raise a stink for hundreds of years, Southerners did for a century.
After April of 1865, many ex confederates took up arms in guerilla type warfare against the United States for years. But in the end they all died out, and things went back to one union.
You can't outlast your own country as an occupying power. For one, most people won't support your revolution, for another, weapons have grown beyond that assault rifle need.
The founding fathers warned against a large standing army, as being a tool of tyranny. Along with fear being used by tyrannical governments to get people to go along with that desicration of liberty.
Cut defense spending, or your assault rifle doesn't mean a damned thing.
Last edited by Memphis1979; 07-28-2012 at 08:30 AM..
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.
They 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.
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.
Why isnt the discussion about taking weapons away from the state instead of the individual?
Governments are homicidal maniacs that kill with no repercussion.
Assault rifles don't do much to jets, smart bombs, and non conventional weaponry.
Ask the Taliban.
Sure, you may be able to outlast a foreign power occpying your homeland. You can raise a stink for hundreds of years, Southerners did for a century.
After April of 1865, many ex confederates took up arms in guerilla type warfare against the United States for years. But in the end they all died out, and things went back to one union.
You can't outlast your own country as an occupying power. For one, most people won't support your revolution, for another, weapons have grown beyond that assault rifle need.
The founding fathers warned against a large standing army, as being a tool of tyranny. Along with fear being used by tyrannical governments to get people to go along with that desicration of liberty.
Cut defense spending, or your assault rifle doesn't mean a damned thing.
As far as negating the military-industrial complex....that ship has sailed.
So really in the end...it's either one or the other. it's the end game so lay down and take it or do something drastic.
I opine that cutting military spending will never, ever happen.
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.
We should.....
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.
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.
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'm a gun owner, I have several, handguns as well as rifles.
For the life of me, I can see no logical reason for the public to own assault rifles.
If you can, please elaborate.
^This.
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.
