Quote:
Originally Posted by LearnMe
All good and fine. I've got a few different types of hammers too...
All understood and agreed until about there where you start in on the "scary black rifles." I suspect you pick that description for obvious reasons, but again, not my words. I might just point out, however, that the AR15 and/or M16 is not at all scary in the hands of some but awfully scary for all of us in the hands of others. I think this begins to better define where the focus of this issue/discussion should stay.
Secondly about the "intent" of the 2A. Any 6th grader should pretty well be able to explain what the 2A was/is about if they paid any attention to those lessons about the founding fathers and the writing of the constitution. Here the issue or debate is not about that intent but the extent to which that intent then relates to our reality today so as to justify the ownership of a "WMD" (that I know is no precise definition of any sort).
I have no trouble whatsoever understanding what you explain at all. My trouble is that so many people are naive enough to think we can arm ourselves to repel any modern day military like our own, to be "as well armed."
With all due respect, I call that the "minute men with musket argument," and it's just too cute, quaint and antiquated for words, or do you really want to discuss how we would fend off our US military when everything today is about supply lines anyway; food, water, energy. That argument is just too silly for words long before we even get to the part about matching firepower...
Again, this does not mean for me that banning weapons designed for military style assault will serve to stop incidents like Paddock pulled off, and again I'm not a "gun grabber," but I do find all too many arguments against gun control, like this one about our founding father's intent with the 2A sorely lacking in the context of our reality today.
Best I can do for now, since I have no more time to waste in this wasteland of another gun thread this morning, but I do appreciate your comment not so full of typical foolish rhetoric and insult. Best!
|
WMD is blowing things
way out of proportion. No soldier marine airman or seaman can launch a nuke at their discretion in a firefight.
Your average field soldier has access to selective rate of fire weapons, belt fed machine guns, mortars, shoulder fired rockets and grenades.
To compare a Nuke/MOAB in the discussion is silly at best.
You want to compare modern time minute men... look at Iraq Afghanistan and Vietnam...
Odd how the Afghanistan populace could hold off Russians and America/Allied forces. Odd how rice paddy farmers in vietnam vs operation rolling thunder could hold back American and Allied forces...
All comes down to insurgency/guerilla warfare tactics vs bureaucratic rules of engagement/conventional tactics.
Talk to someone who served on the ground in Iraq. How the scumbags terrorized people over there.
They would do what's called crowd hugging. They'd shoot from or near a crowd of people to draw fire.
Name any battle where American forces ever did the same.
Yeah the military has a significant upper hand with tanks and drones and such. But would the military be able to fight dirty?
Remember, this is the same military that put a marine in prison for life for murder when he tossed a hand grenade into a building... and when they breached the door, he shot an enemy combatant that was wounded and still alive reaching for their weapon.
The proposed tyranical forces would be engaged at further distances and with Un conventional tactics.
If you want an example of tyranny in recent history Waco davidian stand off. Sure they were short a few fries of a happy meal. But did the ATF and FBI have to descend upon them like they did? Were they really a threat to society and themselves, so much so they had to bring in a tank and helicopters?
And say they were a threat to themselves. If they were "end of times prophets" and wanted to do a mass suicide... Wouldn't society been better off without the likes of them? If they were a threat to society, did they go on rampages in public or stay in the confines of their property? If they were a menace to society, and private citizens, threatening their life, their property, their liberty, by all means intervene to keep order, by all means allow the citizens to thwart an oppressive and evil doing force.
That's the question of tyranny.
At what point does the government own anyone's life to decide what is right and what is just for them? Tyranny is about control. It's not just about rounding citizens up like Nazi Germany or commit Mass genocide like in Bosnia...
Tyranny is any threat to liberty and freedom. Some argue the Bundy Ranch stand off as an action against tyranny.
Remember. Bureaucracy and agency of the government restricting liberty is tyranny.
When the questions of firearms are brought into it and the whole interpretation of minute men vs modern times we can make it fair and relevant. Without the NFA and without the Hughes amendment, access to everything the military has would be open.
Why the passing of the NFA?
Perhaps prohibition spawned the FBI to combat moonshiners and bootleggers with full auto devices. And the shiners and bootleggers were equally equipped and the government decided it's unfair that the citizenry have access to everything we have access to... we need to limit the serfs capacity to protect us from them.
Ironic the ones who grandstand for limits, happen to be elite celebrities and politicians a class of people who enjoy protection paid for and provided with the very implements they seek to ban?
So what exactly is your take on tyranny? And like I expressed in Nazi Germany can happen again thread... if Trump = Hitler, and the country is going to run rampant with nazis... Wouldn't you want the means to thwart evil and tyranny?