Here it is the libs are coming after our guns
POSTED BY: kaneman
UPDATED: Saturday, February 19, 2011 15:04
VIEWED: 19911
PAGE 3 of 22
Kiki's got a point concerning the arguement.
I'm not sure where I stand on reasonable gun limits. I don't like the idea the the government taking away people's freedoms, even if it's a right I will likely never exercise, but I also don't see the point in massive handgun clips. I just can't figure out how you would justify 31 bullets as for hunting game or self defense.
My grandpa had a few guns, and I vaguely remember him talking about one of the rifles. He mentioned something about magazine sizes and I asked why he didn't have a bigger one. He said something to the effect of "there's no point in having more than 5 rounds unless you intend to kill people." I don't remember what kind of gun it was, but I was small at the time. He let me shoot it and I remember seeing a bright flash come out of the end of the barrel right before it knocked me on my ass (there was only the one shot loaded he took gun safety very seriously).
I guess my point in that was, I don't have much of a knowledge base concerning firearms, but someone I knew who does believed about 5 shots was enough for anyone and I'm inclined to agree. Concerning whether that should be enforced by law... I'm not so sure I'm comfortable with that part.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Out of curiosity, could I ask what your reasonable limits are?
Originally posted by 1kiki:
...try to recall I never said anything about banning - just reasonable limits...
My post re gun banning wasn't addressed to you necessarily, but to all gun control advocates in general. Most gun control advocates want dramatic restrictions introduced, and a LOT of different types of guns and munitions to be banned outright. (This 31 rounds that's oft mentioned in this thread for example.)
I suspect some of your reasonable limits includes the banning of some high end weaponry as well.
I will reiterate I support the right to own warfare weaponry as a deterrent to the unchecked explosion of government control. The ownership of arms, even without using them, is self-defense against the govt's powers.
Can't Take (my gorram) Sky
------
Everything I say is just my opinion, not fact.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
CantTake:
You are 100% correct.
"Hope is a good thing, maybe the best of things, and no good thing ever dies"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
The ownership of arms, even without using them, is self-defense against the govt's powers.
I know where that belief comes from, but I don't think it's relevant anymore. As was stated previously, the Govt. has every weapon at their disposal, so what damn good is a little Glock gonna do anyone? Go out on the street, armed with multiple 31-shot magazines, and you're gonna get blown away long before you even see your "enemy."
Virginia Tech massacre
Fort Hood Massacre
Tucson Massacre
All these bloodbaths were made infinitely worse by the use of automatic handguns with big clips.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:It's called guerilla warfare.
... so what damn good is a little Glock gonna do anyone?
How did we win the American Revolution? How did Vietnam win against us? How did Afghan win against the Russians? How are the Iraqis and Afghans still keeping us there? Shouldn't we have won those wars by now?
Can't Take (my gorram) Sky
------
Everything I say is just my opinion, not fact.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:Quote:It's called guerilla warfare.
... so what damn good is a little Glock gonna do anyone?
What does gorilla warfare have to do with this?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:Quote:Someone who needs to kill a lot of people/animals quickly.
Originally posted by Jongsstraw:
Who the fuck needs 31 rounds pal?
There are 3 reasons for arms.
1. Hunting or self-defense against animals.
2. Self defense against criminals.
3. Self defense against government.
Most gun rights activists talk about #1 and #2. But the real bottom line reason for the constitutional right to bear arms is #3. It is the right that enables all the other rights to exist.
It is not acceptable in our society to talk about armed revolution. But you have to remember the 2nd Amendment was written by people who got to where they were precisely because of armed revolution. It makes sense they would support that right.
So why do we need 31 rounds? We don't--not right now. But we want the RIGHT to keep it, just in case. We can't guarantee that our govt won't ever turn into the Third Reich.
It is also the very reason govt wants to take it away--how can they exert the kind of control they want if 31 rounds are loose and unidentified out there?
CTS,
Once more, you nailed it.
I get quite sick of hearing people use the 2A as their right to hunt, or their right to self defense against criminals, trespassers, etc.
But I also say that there's a reason that they didn't say that the people had a right to a musket. They recalled a time when the people could have been guaranteed a right to a rapier, and it wouldn't have done them any good which a government, foreign or domestic, came for them with muskets.
The most solid real second amendment case in the US is Waco. The govt. began attacking the compound *before* they knew that the Branch Davidians had guns.
IIRC, the first shots were fired by an FBI sniper, into the window, at the kids inside. Someone then shot out, in a standard, Heart of Gold style showdown. *Then* the FBI made its illegal firearms case, and sent in the ATF.
Here's the problem: (Oh, one of many)
When Clinton and Reno sent Wesley Clark in to lead the attack, he sent in tanks with incendiary rounds and chemical incendiary powder fired into the basement.
Wesley Clark, Clinton, is in the Erik Prince category of "Really fucking evil." There are some tales of what he did in Yugoslavia that makes this abundantly clear.
Also, anyone who watched any of the debates for 2004 democratic nomination, or any of his town hall meetings, knows that Wesley Clark is really fucking smart. That's a dangerous combination.
The Branch Davidians did not have a right to tanks, incendiary rounds, or chemical weapons. A rather sticky point could be made that under the Geneva Conventions which we were supposedly still adhering to at the time, the US Govt. didn't have a right to chemical weapons.
The snag with this rather sticky point is that what the govt. is supposed to have or supposed to do don't have a whole lot of bearing on reality of what they actually do. This is one of the thing which people who call for "govt. regulation" to solve a problem don't get.
Ergo, the Branch Davidians had a second amendment right to defend themselves. Not with guns. With arms. Those arms being whatever would have been necessary to defend against whatever the govt. was *actually* potentially going to use against them.
In this case, what they needed was at the very least, an anti-tank artillery battery. Knowing that if they had actually deployed one, the US govt. would have send in helicopter snipers and air strikes, they were going to need RPGs and anti-aircraft systems.
Where does this end? I say on the world "defense." Meaning the Branch Davidian compound did not have the right to its own nuke, but it did have a right to it's own anti-ballistic missile shield.
Now, if this republic is not going to guarantee those rights, we are going to have to form one which does. Otherwise, the result is sure to be tyranny.
ETA: Story has a point. You can argue that the first Zulu war was won by guys with spears, and therefore, a spear
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I concede kiki has a point about drugs and gangs. And I also concede DT's point about "arms" instead of weapons.
Mostly I just want to say that holing up in a fortified compound with your own kids is a really stupid tactic. I think people are missing what really wins battles for guerrilla fighters: mobility, technology denial, and hearts and minds combat. If you're mobile it's harder to hit you with chemicals/biological and artillery precision strikes. If you have people who like you more than the jerks chasing you, they're willing to risk their necks a bit to put you up for a night. And if you can sneak on a base at night and wonk up some helicoptors and tanks, not only can they not bring those against you, but you also have some classic lol material.
This is where suicide bombing gets foolish, because they're trying for the sabotage strategy, but the method and approach eventually loses the hearts and minds battle. The best guerrilla fighter would actually kill no one, because somehow somewhere killing will turn the hearts and minds against you. The best tactic is to just make the bastards lose so much money that the war becomes unwinnable. This is why Robin Hood has such good PR.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
How did Afghan win against the Russians? How are the Iraqis and Afghans still keeping us there?
Don't forget stinger missiles, IED's, car bombs, suicide vests - BIG factors in these conflicts. Should the 2nd ammendment preserve citizens' right to all/any of these? Where should we draw the line?
(Another factor in guerrilla warfare is the terrain - jungle in vietnam, mountains and desert in Afghanistan - combined with a lack of infrastructure.)
It's not personal. It's just war.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
I'll give up my 30 round magazines as soon as the government gives up all of theirs.
The government also has tanks, planes, helicopters and nukes - should citizens be allowed these too? Some guy might want to have his own tank, and aren't you infringing on his freedom if you deny him that right?
Again, where do you draw the line?
It's not personal. It's just war.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME