This is not a troll.
I can't ever recall thinking I need a gun or ever thinking it would be cool to own one. Yes I played with toy guns as a kid but even then didn't think 'wouldnt it be great if this was real...'
I'm not trying to knock people who do own them, each to their own as long as no one gets hurt, just would like to hear why they have/need them.
Cheers, Mick
I WILL own a gun when I become a homeowner. Part of America has always been the idea that you protect whats yours... at least thats how I view america.
If I EVER catch someone trying to rob me, I intend to shoot to kill. Just better make sure its a good shot, if you don't kill him he can sue you, and if you fire more than 1 or 2 shots into him your guilty of excessive force.
The only real interest I have in guns is for sport. I have always been fairly interested in marksmanship, in all honesty though, a mini-ballista (crossbow perhaps) sounds like a better challenge.
If I did pick up shooting as a past-time, I would probably end up training with small caliber rifles.
I will avoid excessive force by making sure the said burglar enters my house first.
Mick, owning guns is situational for many people.
1) Sport shooting competitions: Just as people enjoy 40k tournaments for competitive reasons some people like to just blow through $100's of dollars worth of ammo in a weekend shooting at targets and/or doing reenactments (old west, ww1 or 2, civil/revolutionary war, etc..)
2) Hunting: Depending on location people hunt deer or grouse or pheasant for food, bear and moose and elk for sport (and hunting helps control the populations of the aforementioned game animals).
3) Self-defense and the willingness to take advantage of one of our Constitutional Rights: It is why more threads than not turn into flame wars when discussing #3. Touchy subject the 2nd Amendment is and touchy subject dealing with the right of people to defend home and property.
Like Horst just said. A fethwit gives up his right to personal safety (and in some instances his life) when he decides to attempt to rob someone or burglarize their dwelling or attack that persons family.
Not thinking you need a gun is your personal choice, in so far that those of us in the USA, that want to act on our freedoms feel we need to own a gun of some sort.
Biggest reason we gun owners get up in arms over Liberals wanting to take guns away or make it harder to get them is that it infringes on our Constitutional right. It's all good to think that infringing on the ability for criminals to get guns with tighter gun control (and it can't be proven nor ever will be) is that it takes away the freedom of those of us that are law abiding to own one. You restrict one groups freedom (criminals) while also restricting the freedom of those that did nothing wrong to warrant restriction (law abiding citizens).
You see why guns are so important to those of us that exercise our 2nd Amendment rights?
Horst wrote:I WILL own a gun when I become a homeowner. Part of America has always been the idea that you protect whats yours... at least thats how I view america.
If I EVER catch someone trying to rob me, I intend to shoot to kill. Just better make sure its a good shot, if you don't kill him he can sue you, and if you fire more than 1 or 2 shots into him your guilty of excessive force.
Probably back around the time when they were just gaining independance from England or something like that. I don't know that much either (probably wrong ), but it seems kind of outdated. No offense to any Americans intended. Last thing I want is a flame war started, which I won't waste time on anyway
Too lazy to summarize and I'm tired but this sums up the 2nd amendment, the who's and the why's.
The anti-gun lobbyists love to pick apart every word, change its meaning and twist it upon itself to basically say it only protects "the rights of organized militia, aka military soldiers (army, NG, air force, marines)" rights to bear arms.
It is the most debated and most disagreed upon Amendment in the Constitution because even though it's cut and dry some feel it's not.
The Second Amendment (Amendment II) to the United States Constitution is the part of the United States Bill of Rights that protects a right to keep and bear arms.[1] The Second Amendment was adopted on December 15, 1791, along with the rest of the Bill of Rights. The American Bar Association has noted that there is more disagreement and less understanding about this right than of any other current issue regarding the Constitution.[2]
For almost a century following the ratification of the Bill of Rights, the intended meaning and application of the Second Amendment drew less interest than it does in modern times.[3] Notable U.S. Supreme Court interpretations of the Second Amendment include those in United States v. Cruikshank (1875), Presser v. Illinois (1886), Miller v. Texas (1894), Robertson v. Baldwin (1897), United States v. Miller (1939) and District of Columbia v. Heller (2008).
Copy and pasted opening paragraph
The concept of a universal militia originated in England.[7][8][9] The requirement that subjects keep and bear arms for military duty[10][11][12][13] dates back to at least the 12th century when King Henry II, in the Assize of Arms, obligated all freemen to bear arms for public defense. King Henry III required certain subjects between the ages of fifteen and fifty (including non-land-owning subjects) to bear arms. The reason for such a requirement was that without a regular army and police force (which was not established until 1829), it was the duty of certain men to keep watch and ward at night to capture and confront suspicious persons. Every subject had an obligation to protect the king’s peace and assist in the suppression of riots.[14]
In response to complaints that local people were reluctant to take up arms to enforce justice for strangers, The Statute of Winchester of 1285 (13 Edw. I) declared that each district or hundred would be held responsible for unsolved crimes. Each man was to keep arms to take part in the hue and cry when necessary.[15]
Following the Protestant overthrow of the Catholic King James II, the Protestant controlled Parliament obliged the newly installed Protestant monarchs William and Mary to enact the English Bill of Rights of 1689 which granted Protestants a series of liberties including the right to arms for self defense: "That the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law."[16] For instance, in 1780 after some riots, the recorder of London - the city attorney - was asked if the right to arms protected armed groups, he wrote: "The right of his majesty's Protestant subjects, to have arms for their own defense, and to use them for lawful purposes, is most clear and undeniable."[17] At least one historian describes this as the first instance when the customary duty to bear arms transitioned into a right.[18][19] Other historians describe this as an example of the traditional restricting of weapons access for one class of people over another, in this case the Protestant victors over the vanquished Catholics.[19][20] Additionally, this reflected the popular dread of a standing army and the preference instead for a select militia. These values would have a long life both in England and America.[19]
Sir William Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England describes the right to arms in England during the eighteenth century:
The fifth and last auxiliary right of the subject, that I shall at present mention, is that of having arms for their defence, suitable to their condition and degree, and such as are allowed by law. Which is also declared by the same statute I W. & M. st.2. c.2. and is indeed a public allowance, under due restrictions, of the natural right of resistance and self-preservation, when the sanctions of society and laws are found insufficient to restrain the violence of oppression.[21]
The right of some English subjects to possess arms was recognized under English common law; however many English subjects were not permitted by law to possess arms.[18] Regarding these constraints, St. George Tucker wrote in 1803:
In England, the people have been disarmed, generally, under the specious pretext of preserving the game: a never failing lure to bring over the landed aristocracy to support any measure, under that mask, though calculated for very different purposes. True it is, their bill of rights seems at first view to counteract this policy: but the right of bearing arms is confined to protestants, and the words suitable to their condition and degree, have been interpreted to authorise the prohibition of keeping a gun or other engine for the destruction of game, to any farmer, or inferior tradesman, or other person not qualified to kill game. So that not one man in five hundred can keep a gun in his house without being subject to a penalty.[22]
Background paragraph. Basically just the important stuff.
But, it says it's there to keep a ready standing Militia, is that really needed when you have either the strongest or one of the strongest armies in the world?
* deterring undemocratic government;
* repelling invasion;
* suppressing insurrection;
* facilitating a natural right of self-defense;
* participating in law enforcement;
* slave control in slave states.
This is the actual reason why it was put in to the Constitution. Obviously the last point is moot as slavery hasn't existed for 100's of years (not in the degree it did so long ago at least).
I only have a handgun for use at the shooting club. I take it out to the range once every so often and practice with the targets. I doubt I'll ever actually use it for self-defence though, and I intend to use a rifle for hunting deer.
Age old argument about the militia. I'm too tired to delve into it more tonight but rest assured Jeb and Frazz and probably Dogma will chime in on their views of gun rights (and of course the anti-gun lobbyists who aren't important enough to mention due to their views)..lol.
As I said earlier when I addressed the OP's original question. 3 reasons why Americans who want to protect their rights want to own guns: defense, sport or hunting (or all 3 if you live in Mn).
Oh yeah, and the chicks that matter love a man with a big.......gun. It's why I'd love to get my hands on a 500 S&W. Turns a concrete block into concrete powder. I shoot a guy in my house with that I'd be scraping him off floor, the walls AND the ceiling.
Mick A wrote:I don't know much about American history except the basics. What's the story behind the 2nd amendment? ie why was it put in?
Mick
It was put in because of two reasons. 1)It was essential to militia support during the Revolutionary War. 2)America was largely a frontier country at the time and firearms were necessary for survival.
n0t_u wrote:
But, it says it's there to keep a ready standing Militia, is that really needed when you have either the strongest or one of the strongest armies in the world?
Actually according to the SCOTUS it is an individual right, and it is not exclusively tied to military service or service in any militia. Despite the US's military hegemony, being an amendment it guarantees an almost inviolate right to ownership. I own guns because they are insanely fun to take out and go shooting. You really can't understand how much fun it is until you do it.
It might be noted that the Bill Of Rights provides a number of other citizens' rights which clearly descended into the US constitution.
The reason why the revolution happened in America wasn't because they thought UK law was crappy. It was because it was not being properly applied in the colonies. (No taxation with representation, etc.)
Horst wrote:I WILL own a gun when I become a homeowner. Part of America has always been the idea that you protect whats yours... at least thats how I view america.
If I EVER catch someone trying to rob me, I intend to shoot to kill. Just better make sure its a good shot, if you don't kill him he can sue you, and if you fire more than 1 or 2 shots into him your guilty of excessive force.
WHAT??!? Congrats on talking out of your ass. Statements like this is what gives sissy politicians ammo for "no guns!!!!"
I AM a home owner AND a gun owner AND have a ccw. Protecting what is yours is fine. Its part of the constitution. But normally just telling some dumb crook you are armed and to lay down on the floor is enough for them to do it.
I can tell you your more then 2 shots theory is "shot" (get it?)
My brother was a security guard and was held at gun point. The guy wanted to steal his car. As my brother exited his car, drew his gun and shot the man 3 times in the stomach. He was paralyzed by 2 bullets. Still alive, BUT he cannot sue. Well, he could, but no way in hell a judge would award him anything. Hes lucky he isnt in prison.
So learn what the hell your talking about before spouting off at the mouth like that please
Just my 2 cents to answer the Op's question,at least for myself.
I am a gun owner( 3 handguns and a shotgun),and to be perfectly honest,I don't have any "politcal,2nd amendment,right to bear arms"motivations for doing so.
I keep my guns under lock and key,safely secured (as I have children)and for the most part only take them out to target practice or for cleaning (I don't "show" them off for my buddies or brag about them).
The reason I own them is simple,I would rather have them and not need them,then need them and not have them.
Generally speaking Westernized societies, especially Americans, have an infatuation with firearms. Most of our most revered and favorite movies and most other forms of entertainment involves something that goes BANG! in one way or another. Little boys grow up to be man-sized creatures however they're still 10 year olds at heart: we all want to be the James Bond, Dirty Harry, Han Solo, etc character. They're the great 'equalizer' - imo because of all these qualities firearms are a strong cultural trait for the US of A. Guns are 'cool' and humans are always looking for something bigger and badder to add in their arsenal, its even something thats programmed biologically to want to carry the bigger stick, etc.
Hunting, safety, target shooting, etcs also add into the mix but imo its not as prevalent as how Westernized society has put guns on the pedestal of cool. Owners rarely admit to it but thats the biggest selling factor they've got going for 'em (especially to wannabe thugs) - whether it drives them directly or underneath psychologically.
No, seriously, guns are just a tool. Just like a sword, a chainsaw, a hammer or a shovel. You use them for what they were intended. But, hopefully, we can all get along.
But, this is why some people think owning guns is the best thing ever:
"To secure these [inalienable] rights [to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness], governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed... Whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness." --Thomas Jefferson: Declaration of Independence, 1776. ME 1:29, Papers 1:429
Thomas Jefferson wants me to be ready....
Seriously though, it is because it makes me feel like a man. A big strong man. /flex
Mick A wrote:This is not a troll.
I can't ever recall thinking I need a gun or ever thinking it would be cool to own one. Yes I played with toy guns as a kid but even then didn't think 'wouldnt it be great if this was real...'
I'm not trying to knock people who do own them, each to their own as long as no one gets hurt, just would like to hear why they have/need them.
Cheers, Mick
If you have ever had a gun pulled out on you, from someone who most likely does not legally own said gun, you would understand the desire to own a gun for yourself.
I have had guns pulled out on me on 3 occasions, each time was while I was working, once at a gas station, and twice while delivering pizzas.
The right to Legally own a firearm is very important to me for self defense, and I abhor any individuals who would be so daft as to remove that right, when those who would obtain their firearms illegally are not affected by it at all.
I WILL own a gun when I become a homeowner. Part of America has always been the idea that you protect whats yours... at least thats how I view america.
If I EVER catch someone trying to rob me, I intend to shoot to kill. Just better make sure its a good shot, if you don't kill him he can sue you, and if you fire more than 1 or 2 shots into him your guilty of excessive force.
Isn't killing another human being over material posessions excessive force? In the UK you are only allowed to use lethal force if an intruder is blocking your only exit (e.g if you are in your home and an intruder is upstairs, between you and the stairs you can kill them). This presumes that you can escape and call the police - I agree with this. A lot of people on here seem to be very bloodthirsty - but how many of you have even killed someone? Even SHOT someone? Glassed someone? Stabbed someone? Been in a fist-fight? I've done TWO of these things (one of them several times), and I have to say that it sickened me on every occasion. Violence of any kind is abhorrent. I will defend my family I have to - but I honestly think that the world would be better with LESS violence, not MORE - LESS weapons, not MORE.
If someone tries to take my property, it's not my job to dispense justice - I'm not a copper. That seems to be what some people here seem to advocate, but what makes you think you have the right to decide who lives and who dies?
It is interesting that it seems to be mainly Americans that own guns or want to own them. I can't, and won't, condone this as I have never lived over there but it does make me glad that my family and I live over here...
Mick
I've a gun. I used to use it for hunting, but these days it mostly sits in my uncles gun safe a long way away from me. I doubt I'll take up hunting again, but I don't see anything wrong with it, or owning a gun to do it.
Depends from State to State but in my State of Minnesota I am allowed to use deadly force in my house to prevent a Felony from occuring. Burglary of a dwelling in Minnesota IS a Felony so even if someone is in my house just to steal my Xbox360 I have the right to shoot them if it would mean preventing that burglary from happening.
I don't want my shot to kill that person (at least in not that instance) but I am going to aim for the chest as that is the largest part of the body to aim for. If he survives the trip to the hospital than yay for him; if not, well he should have thought twice about trying to rob me.
Not all States have castle laws but my State does so if it comes to needing to take advantage of it I'm going to.
Albatross wrote:Isn't killing another human being over material posessions excessive force? In the UK you are only allowed to use lethal force if an intruder is blocking your only exit (e.g if you are in your home and an intruder is upstairs, between you and the stairs you can kill them). This presumes that you can escape and call the police - I agree with this. A lot of people on here seem to be very bloodthirsty - but how many of you have even killed someone? Even SHOT someone? Glassed someone? Stabbed someone? Been in a fist-fight? I've done TWO of these things (one of them several times), and I have to say that it sickened me on every occasion. Violence of any kind is abhorrent. I will defend my family I have to - but I honestly think that the world would be better with LESS violence, not MORE - LESS weapons, not MORE.
If someone tries to take my property, it's not my job to dispense justice - I'm not a copper. That seems to be what some people here seem to advocate, but what makes you think you have the right to decide who lives and who dies?
There will be times when a person is threatened by a criminal, and they will need to kill them to put themselves in less risk. It is also a simple fact of the crime that there will rarely be hard, objective, evidence as to whether the home owner was justified in their fear.
The reason for the Castle Doctrine's existence is that someone is going to have to take the fall, due to the inherent uncertainty in the crime. This is either going to be the burglar, being shot unjustly by an overzealous home owner, or the home owner, being imprisoned for exercising his rights. Many states have decided that the burglar should be the one to take the fall, as he was the one responsible for this no-win situation's existence. I agree with this. It is better for a burglar to die than an innocent person to be imprisoned for homicide, because the former had a choice. The burglar could have ended it before it began, and was legally obligated to do so, but refused.
The problem with saying guns cause fights to escalate is that it's not proven.
2x4" boards, chains, broken bottles, tire irons, lead pipes are all deadly weapons when used as such.
Yeah it's easy to pull a gun on someone if they come at you but if you don't have a gun but have a tire iron or baseball bat handy your first instinct will be to grab that to defend yourself. In essence a bat is excessive if the other guy is coming at you with just his fists.
Except that none of those is designed to be a deadly weapon. A gun is, and if you are carrying your own gun and are then facing someone who is threatening you with their gun, how can making any attempt to reach result in you not getting shot at?
Without that false security, yes, you'd lose some possessions, but no-one would lose their life.
Do you think anyone looks at a house and thinks "hmm, that looks like a NRA house, better not go in there!" It's not a deterrent, never has been, never will be. The ear;ier quotes are at least more honest.
Kilkrazy wrote:Guns are great for shooting burglars and so on.
The downside is the number of accidents and the way that disputes escalate easily into shootings.
You mean like the afterschool fight in Chicago a few weeks ago that resulted in an honors student being beaten to death with boots and a railroad tie. No guns involved in that escalation. Gun control is citizen control. Politicians want to control guns to control the citizens. The US constitution was written by revolutionaries who rose up to fight the government with the firearms they had. To say that would never happen today in the modern world is to be ignorant of the history of the 20th century.
Gun ownership in the US is a right of the citizens. The use of the gun is not always a right and can be regulated by law, but not ownership. America and Americans have a history of self defense. Unlike the UK, it is the homeowners right to defend themselves and their property. I can not take the position that it is the 'coppers' obligation to catch the robber. On one hand he may not catch the robber,who will be emboldened to rob again. On the other hand the robber might have more heinous intentions than to simply rob. It would be horrible to find that out after you let the robber freely rumage through your house ... and then rape your daughter.
The right to defend yourself and even to stop a crime is ingrainedinto the American psyche at an early age. It is not good to sit by and let a crime happen, even if it is not happening to you. (Spiderman origin anyone) That doesn't mean you go around shooting anyone commiting a crime, though the Punisher and even Batman take the role of a vigilanty as a hero.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
endless wrote:Except that none of those is designed to be a deadly weapon. A gun is, and if you are carrying your own gun and are then facing someone who is threatening you with their gun, how can making any attempt to reach result in you not getting shot at?
Without that false security, yes, you'd lose some possessions, but no-one would lose their life.
Do you think anyone looks at a house and thinks "hmm, that looks like a NRA house, better not go in there!" It's not a deterrent, never has been, never will be. The ear;ier quotes are at least more honest.
Yes it is a deterent. A criminal won't look at the house and ask if there is an NRA member inside, but they do look at towns and cities and will be more likely to target communities with strict gun laws. And you can never assume a mugging will not go ugly. There is no reason to assume a robber with a gun will leave you alive after the crime. First the criminal is not a reasonable person since they are commiting an armed robbery in the first place. No one can assume that criminal will react within the realms of reason and logic. Second the criminal might decide that it is not a good idea to have an eye witness alive who can identify them to the police.
Surely the stance that 'I have a gun because a burglar might have one' is circular a argument because the burglar over there is probably armed because he thinks the householder is...
There are very, very few gun armed burglaries over here possibly because there are not that many households that have guns? (This is not fact, just a suposition by me)
Mick
A criminal won't look at the house and ask if there is an NRA member inside, but they do look at towns and cities and will be more likely to target communities with strict gun laws. And you can never assume a mugging will not go ugly. There is no reason to assume a robber with a gun will leave you alive after the crime. First the criminal is not a reasonable person since they are commiting an armed robbery in the first place. No one can assume that criminal will react within the realms of reason and logic. Second the criminal might decide that it is not a good idea to have an eye witness alive who can identify them to the police.
The only reason to pull a gun and not use it immediately is to intimidate the victim. In that situation, if the victim is passive and offers no threat why would you then use it? If the perpetrator is not in full control of himself, or has taken a substance which renders themselves unable to fully comprehend what they are doing, how have they managed to get a gun? By walking into a store and showing they have no previous convictions, by buying one of countless swimming around unregulated, stolen or sold, or by buying something which by its' simple possession will result in a prison sentence? Which of these is more difficult and expensive?
endless wrote:The only reason to pull a gun and not use it immediately is to intimidate the victim. In that situation, if the victim is passive and offers no threat why would you then use it? If the perpetrator is not in full control of himself, or has taken a substance which renders themselves unable to fully comprehend what they are doing, how have they managed to get a gun? By walking into a store and showing they have no previous convictions, by buying one of countless swimming around unregulated, stolen or sold, or by buying something which by its' simple possession will result in a prison sentence? Which of these is more difficult and expensive?
Ah, here it comes, the "reasonable, compassionate, play-by-the-rules criminal" argument. I was waiting for this one to show up. Are you really going to be that trusting or naive in regards to that situation?
@DarthDiggler - Yeah, because no-one ever gets raped robbed or murdered in the states do they? These crimes are more common In the USA than in the UK. And at no point did I say that I would not try to prevent myself being robbed (I DID point out that I would defend my family) - I have intervened to defend both friends and passers-by from assault. Have you? Talk is cheap. My point is that no-one has to DIE, and that the decision to take a life should not be in the hands of well, people who think like YOU, for example. What do you really know about the causes of crime? You seem to have a one-dimensional 'criminals = bad-guys' type of view. Given the social problems in the USA (the prohibitive cost of health-care, for example), the person robbing you could be doing so because he can't afford medicine for his child/spouse. Even with a job, an injury like a broken leg could bankrupt someone on minimum wage. It doesn't excuse him from punishment, of course - but does he deserve to die?
Automatically Appended Next Post: Ironically, the above situation becomes more likely when handguns are legal and relatively easy to obtain.
Despite popular belief I know many Canadians who own tons of guns. Their all outdoorsy hunters and fishermen though.
I think with most cases it's about being able to shoot the fool who breaks into your house.
Albatross wrote:@DarthDiggler - Yeah, because no-one ever gets raped robbed or murdered in the states do they? These crimes are more common In the USA than in the UK. And at no point did I say that I would not try to prevent myself being robbed (I DID point out that I would defend my family) - I have intervened to defend both friends and passers-by from assault. Have you? Talk is cheap. My point is that no-one has to DIE, and that the decision to take a life should not be in the hands of well, people who think like YOU, for example. What do you really know about the causes of crime? You seem to have a one-dimensional 'criminals = bad-guys' type of view. Given the social problems in the USA (the prohibitive cost of health-care, for example), the person robbing you could be doing so because he can't afford medicine for his child/spouse. Even with a job, an injury like a broken leg could bankrupt someone on minimum wage. It doesn't excuse him from punishment, of course - but does he deserve to die?
Automatically Appended Next Post: Ironically, the above situation becomes more likely when handguns are legal and relatively easy to obtain.
I have never had to step in to defend anyone from assault as I have never seen it (outside of school fights which don't count IMO). It is interesting that you have while living in gunless, pacifist jolly old England. I guess when you have 5 times as big a population as England there is more of an opportunity for stuff to happen. I'm not going to argue who is the more morally and culturally superior between the pond. I will say we have two different belief systems.
As an aside the city of Chicago has very strict anti-gun laws which are currently being challenged in court. Virtually no private citizen is allowed to possess a gun in the city limits., except the mayors boduguard which accompany him everywhere and sit outside his house each night.
h, here it comes, the "reasonable, compassionate, play-by-the-rules criminal" argument. I was waiting for this one to show up. Are you really going to be that trusting or naive in regards to that situation?
endless wrote:Except that none of those is designed to be a deadly weapon. A gun is...
Sure, a gun is designed to kill. But that doesn't make a hammer, knife or aluminium baseball bat any less deadly.
Did you know a knife will kill a victim wearing a Kevlar vest easier than a gun will? Unless you get a head shot or have AP rounds, the knife will puncture the armor much easier.
endless wrote:Without that false security, yes, you'd lose some possessions, but no-one would lose their life.
Assuming the crook plays by the rules. But wait, if they did then they wouldn't be breaking into your house now would they?
Case law is strewn with murderers who, once their victims were at gun point and basically helpless, killed their victims anyway.
Let's no pretend criminals are going to suddenly become compassionate and conscientious once you stick your hands up. There's just as much chance of them shooting you as letting you go.
endless wrote:Do you think anyone looks at a house and thinks "hmm, that looks like a NRA house, better not go in there!" It's not a deterrent, never has been, never will be. The ear;ier quotes are at least more honest.
Frankly I don't care whether the criminal is deterred or not, though I would think the flashing lights from the police cars and ambulance in my cul-de-sac illuminating the EMTs while they wheel the dead burglar out would be a great object lesson for the neighborhood teens. I am more concerned with my ability to defend myself against an armed criminal.
To me either is worrying, but I meant on the draw.
In regards to the rest of
the "reasonable, compassionate, play-by-the-rules criminal" argument.
Is not the ease by which said people can find, and then use, guns a major part of the problem? I'm not saying that without them the problems would simply disappear, but that the attitude of 'my house is my castle' is part of the problem. The insistence that 'might is right' ultimately moves everything up a notch. "Peace through Superior Firepower" is not peace, it's revolution through another means.
Yes, to be honest, most criminals are career criminals who regard imprisonment as a hazard of the job, those that don't are either young or fethed-up. Both of which can be helped by not turning them into murderers. You probably don't agree with me, but people are not born bad, and guns don't make them bad or good, they just make them killers.
Kilkrazy wrote:Guns are much more deadly than knives and so on. That's why soldiers have guns.
Not true. You need to get in closer with a knife but it's no less deadly, in fact it's deadlier. It's a lot easier to slice open someones throat when the knife is inches away from the target than to shoot a person in the throat from 15 feet away.
Again, too many people assume that if you put your hands up in surrender the criminal is just going to let you walk away from that confrontation. If you have the ability to read accurately some criminals motives and his mind than you should be more afraid of your government wanting to probe you and find out how you are able to read minds with clarity and accuracy.
You don't have the time necessary to assess the situation. A criminal WILL panic most often than not when confronted but how they react is another matter entirely. They will either fight or flee. Maybe the odds will favor your indecisiveness and the criminal will just turn and leave, or maybe he'll just shoot you dead or come at you with a knife and stab you until you either die or you manage to fight him off or shoot him while on the ground. Also, assuming you don't live alone and the criminal kills you but during the ruckus your wife comes down to see whats going on. You honestly think he'll have an qualms about killing her? He killed you with no regret. Do you want to risk the lives of your family because you decided to be ethical and try to reason with the guy in your house?
If you are willing to take that chance then perhaps you shouldn't have ever gotten married and had kids (assuming you are).
As I mentioned before, irrelevant to the laws associated with guns, someone with criminal intent who wants a gun can get one. you could ban all guns to all civilians in all countries around the globe, and people could still get them.
If a criminal is going to have a gun, and be able to threaten me and my own with it, then I deserve the right to bear my own gun to defend myself.
endless wrote:Is not the ease by which said people can find, and then use, guns a major part of the problem?
Probably not, actually. Analysis of near-total bans on guns in various cities in America generally don't notice a huge difference in the crime rates.
The biggest factors for crime here are going to be things like cultural attitudes (entitlement, personal "honor", romanticization of crime), employment opportunities, defense of black market business (particularly drugs), conviction rates for crimes, punishments for crimes (probably less of an impact than conviction rates), police presence/ability to arrest criminals, antagonistic attitudes between different groups (especially racial groups), and general respect/trust for the law/police by both potential criminals and witnesses/people with information.
Kilkrazy wrote:Guns are much more deadly than knives and so on. That's why soldiers have guns.
Not true. You need to get in closer with a knife but it's no less deadly, in fact it's deadlier. It's a lot easier to slice open someones throat when the knife is inches away from the target than to shoot a person in the throat from 15 feet away.
Evidence based medical and police science disagrees with you.
So the wound is bigger but it's easier to hit a vital with a knife.
Much easier to stab someone in the heart if you have them on the ground and have the advantage of leverage than to try to shoot them in the heart from 15 feet away.
Again, why does it matter how deadly something is or isn't? A common soda straw can be used to kill someone, feth, a toothpick can kill someone.
Guns being more traumatic is no excuse to make them harder for law abiding citizens to obtain nor does it make them more evil than knives, crowbars, tire irons, whatever..
If we are going to compare knives to guns then lets compare guns to cars.
Ever seen a person hit by a car that was travelling at 70mph (too lazy to convert to Kph)? It's a hell of a lot messier than a gun.
DarthDiggler wrote: A criminal won't look at the house and ask if there is an NRA member inside, but they do look at towns and cities and will be more likely to target communities with strict gun laws....
I would really like to see statistics on this, because I don't believe that. If you think about it from the view of a potential burglar, if person has an NRA sticker it may also mean they have more than one high quality firearm on premises that could be fenced for a good price. I have known people that have had their rifles stolen.
To address the OP, question:
My view on this (Having worked around guns most of my adult life and being a gun owner) is that three types of people carry their guns around. And yes I am distilling it down with broad generalizations.
1.) Insecure people.
2.) Paranoid people.
3.) People generally concerned for the well-being of themselves and their loved-ones. Although this type definitely also falls into the other two categories. I am referring to people with an ACTUAL reason (which is rare) and not a psychological one.
I am ambivalent towards guns. They are empowering but I also (like others) feel that people carrying them can sometimes escalate things to a frightening level. I like them but I would also like to see a world without them (I know, silly and romantic) but I also cannot imagine my own life without them. Odd, considering my cousin was murdered in a random violent act by a gun. It has touched my family personally yet we all (A family of cops and/or soldiers, former and active) understand that the gun is simply a tool designed for a terrible purpose. However, it was the person holding the gun that chose to commit the act.
What I am trying to say is that I feel they are simply objects, like anything else in our world. Insecure people crave them for empowerment and generally secure people (or ones that recognize and accept their insecurities) fear them for their potential. People choose to kill other people, even if the industry plays off of that empowerment by creating the tools to make it easier. People will always make tools to make things easier, no matter what it is.
Really, people mostly want guns to 'feel big'. After all, it doesn't matter how many bench-presses the other guy can do, it won't help him when I press the trigger.
I think I mentioned this in another thread but I'll cover it again here:
1. I originally bought my M4 carbine to help me retain my marksmanship skills while I was in the National Guard. Right now it's stored at my brother's house, so if I feel 3 weeks of range time at TBS (Temporal Barrier Spell? WTF? TBS = The Basic School, USMC) isn't enough, I can go shooting with him.
2. I own 2 SKS's for tinkering and shooting-range plinking. It made more sense to buy a real gun for $175 than to buy an airsoft gun for $300. At least I can use the real gun to protect myself during the zombie apocalypse/post-hurricane insanity (I was living in Miami).
On the subject of weapon lethality and justification of firearms, I look at it like this:
There are some rights and freedoms for which a population is willing to sacrifice the lives of other citizens to keep. Most people compare weapons to cars, I prefer to compare them to alcohol.
Alcohol kills thousands every year, either through alcohol poisoning or drunk-driving accidents or just stupid mistakes. Alcohol is a complete LUXURY, unlike an essential tool like an automobile.* However, this nation decided long ago that it was collectively willing to let people die due to alcohol in order for the rest of us to enjoy its positive benefits.
The same largely goes for firearms. Yes, some people will die, but the rest of us get to enjoy our weapons.
It's also very much a cultural thing. This country was founded by men who grabbed some weapons and took matters into their own hands. Armed rebellion and individualism are at the very heart of our national identity. It's not surprising that most subjects of a constitutional monarchy don't comprehend this point; it's not the sort of mentality or behavior that such governments encourage.
*Why do they make cars that can go 200mph when speed limits are rarely over 75mph? These vehicles have a built-in capability that is largely illegal. Do they simply assume that people aren't going to use it? If manufacturers sold select-fire rifles with virtually no restrictions (illegal automatic-fire capability, but you don't have to use it) there would be an uproar.
Emperors Faithful wrote:And here come the vigilantes...
Really, people mostly want guns to 'feel big'. After all, it doesn't matter how many bench-presses the other guy can do, it won't help him when I press the trigger.
Noble13 wrote:It's also very much a cultural thing. This country was founded by men who grabbed some weapons and took matters into their own hands. Armed rebellion and individualism are at the very heart of our national identity. It's not surprising that most subjects of a constitutional monarchy don't comprehend this point; it's not the sort of mentality or behavior that such governments encourage.
I guess most of us never felt compelled to rebel in the first place, especially us Australians. We've never had a terrorist attack, our government is holding up well at the moment, and people here are seem content*.
*In Tasmania at least. Murders are quite uncommon here, as opposed to Adelaide, which is apparently murder central.
Britain's history of armed rebellion stretches back around 2000 years - we have, despite being a constitutional monarchy, always had a healthy cynicism regarding authority, from Boudicca to the Miners. And the American Revolution wasn't a spontaneous uprising by oppressed, huddled masses bled white by taxation - that's propaganda.
The rebellion was driven by members of the merchant class who were demanding 'the same rights as all free-born englishmen'. The irony in the 'rebellion/independence' argument for gun-ownership is that people who espouse this notion are often ultra-conservative.
In America, conservatives usually have at least as much opposition to the government as liberals, with the focus on different issues. So that's not particularly ironic.
(Also, it wasn't purely the merchant class who were annoyed with Britain's policy on the colonies, even if they were the big leaders of it.)
First, they are tools used to provide food. I happen to like deer, and it doesn't take very many rounds put through a reasonably priced rifle and into a deer to make that firearm pay for itself over and over and over. Very tastily, too. My grandmother has this recipie where you marinate strips of deer in a mustard based sauce to take the gamy bit out of the meat, the batter and fry. My Friend, them's good eats.
Second, they are, and have been for the last thousand years or so (weeeeell, not quite right; that was black powder. firearms were a bit later), the final and ultimate method of personal armament that's not trying to stop a tank. Firearms made armour on most anythign short of a terrestrial vehicle moot. In this day and age, they have an unmatched effectiveness/price point ratio for the individual.
Taxation without representation in parliament, primarily. This was furthered by their experience with making decisions democratically on a more local scale.
There was some opposition to Britain's trade policy (the Navigation Acts), the closing of Boston Harbor and prohibiting of town hall meetings in Massachusetts, the western border imposed on settlers, and a general displeasure with European aristocracy, etc.
Oh yeah, Writs of Assistance and Admiralty Courts too. And the Boston Massacre, although that was overhyped.
Emperors Faithful wrote:And here come the vigilantes...
Really, people mostly want guns to 'feel big'. After all, it doesn't matter how many bench-presses the other guy can do, it won't help him when I press the trigger.
Well, like grizgrin I hunt, and while I might bow hunt in the future, hunting with firearms is my only option right now. On the flip side, anytime I have ever felt threatened at home I have never gone for my guns, always a bat or something that won't splatter my attackers.
Kilkrazy wrote:Guns are much more deadly than knives and so on. That's why soldiers have guns.
Not true. You need to get in closer with a knife but it's no less deadly, in fact it's deadlier. It's a lot easier to slice open someones throat when the knife is inches away from the target than to shoot a person in the throat from 15 feet away.
Evidence based medical and police science disagrees with you.
I read those studies and they don't address lethality, they address the chances of recovery and mortality after treatment.
What they prove is that it's easier to fix someone with a knife wound than a gunshot wound, which stands to reason. A knife stab is really a pretty clean thing especially if it's a puncture wound. A gunshot is a messy, brutal affair with blunt force trauma combined with penetrating factors and is more of a tear than anything.
The fact remains that without treatment that heart, artery or venous injury via gun or knife will kill you just as dead. The gun just does it from farther away.
Corey85 wrote:On the flip side, anytime I have ever felt threatened at home I have never gone for my guns, always a bat or something that won't splatter my attackers.
Yeah, blasting an intruder with a 12-gauge is probably a satisfying feeling.....until you have to get his intestines out of your carpet the next day.
Getting stabbed apparently hurts more. Getting shot has burning sensation but isn't as painful. The people I know that have had both happen say they'd rather be shot again than stabbed, or in one case, bayoneted.
I love my guns. I recently bought a new S&W 460 to hunt gators down in hte Everglades. I am looking forward to it. It always cracks me up when people say no one should be allowed to own a gun. If they ever outlaw guns I'll hide mine.
Guns are fun! Thats why I own them and think they are great.
They are big boy toys. Great recreation. A hobby. Something fun to collect.
I suppose it's a collectable toy for someone who is well off (ie rich).
Home defense is a bonus. But not the reason I own guns.
It's like fireworks on 4th of july. Dayum it's fun blowing stuff up. It's just as fun to shoot stuff!
Kilkrazy wrote:Guns are much more deadly than knives and so on. That's why soldiers have guns.
Not true. You need to get in closer with a knife but it's no less deadly, in fact it's deadlier. It's a lot easier to slice open someones throat when the knife is inches away from the target than to shoot a person in the throat from 15 feet away.
Evidence based medical and police science disagrees with you.
I read those studies and they don't address lethality, they address the chances of recovery and mortality after treatment.
What they prove is that it's easier to fix someone with a knife wound than a gunshot wound, which stands to reason. A knife stab is really a pretty clean thing especially if it's a puncture wound. A gunshot is a messy, brutal affair with blunt force trauma combined with penetrating factors and is more of a tear than anything.
The fact remains that without treatment that heart, artery or venous injury via gun or knife will kill you just as dead. The gun just does it from farther away.
Let me summarise what you seem to have taken from the references, to make sure I understand your argument.
Police statistics show gunshot murders comprise about 2/3rds of all murders.
Medical statistics show that gunshot wounds are roughly 5X more deadly than knife wounds, and even when death does not occur, they are twice as difficult to treat.
All this proves that knives are equally lethal as guns.
Kilkrazy wrote:Guns are much more deadly than knives and so on. That's why soldiers have guns.
Not true. You need to get in closer with a knife but it's no less deadly, in fact it's deadlier. It's a lot easier to slice open someones throat when the knife is inches away from the target than to shoot a person in the throat from 15 feet away.
Evidence based medical and police science disagrees with you.
I read those studies and they don't address lethality, they address the chances of recovery and mortality after treatment.
What they prove is that it's easier to fix someone with a knife wound than a gunshot wound, which stands to reason. A knife stab is really a pretty clean thing especially if it's a puncture wound. A gunshot is a messy, brutal affair with blunt force trauma combined with penetrating factors and is more of a tear than anything.
The fact remains that without treatment that heart, artery or venous injury via gun or knife will kill you just as dead. The gun just does it from farther away.
Let me summarise what you seem to have taken from the references, to make sure I understand your argument.
Police statistics show gunshot murders comprise about 2/3rds of all murders.
Medical statistics show that gunshot wounds are roughly 5X more deadly than knife wounds, and even when death does not occur, they are twice as difficult to treat.
All this proves that knives are equally lethal as guns.
Is that correct?
I'll stab you in the gut with a 8" bowie knife and shoot you in the gut with a .22 pistol from 15 feet. Guess which wound proves more lethal and fatal (a hint: it won't be the .22 pistol round)?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
JEB_Stuart wrote:I just went shooting today. Nice pump action and an over under. I sure do love trap shooting...
Best enjoy it before our new Overlords try to pass some other dumbass law restricting your gun rights or ammo access.
I like watching "Shooting Gallery" on the, I think it's, Outdoor Channel. There is one old dude on their who can shoot a double action revolver as fast as most guys can shoot a semi-auto and he is an insanely good shot as well.
George Spiggott wrote:I've wanted a Broom Handled Mauser for a while now. Not enough to actually go out and buy one.
They are way cool but not accurate.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Mick A wrote:It is interesting that it seems to be mainly Americans that own guns or want to own them. I can't, and won't, condone this as I have never lived over there but it does make me glad that my family and I live over here... Mick
probably because its a predominantly US board. Go to Texas gun sites and you'll be stunned at how many Texans are there, and how pro gun they are.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Fateweaver wrote:I would think upon seeing the MG-42 sitting behind sandbags in my front yard would keep criminals out.
Son, I like the cut of your jib.
For the record, anyone putting an MG 42 in their front yard, will have my respect.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Cheese Elemental wrote:
Noble13 wrote:It's also very much a cultural thing. This country was founded by men who grabbed some weapons and took matters into their own hands. Armed rebellion and individualism are at the very heart of our national identity. It's not surprising that most subjects of a constitutional monarchy don't comprehend this point; it's not the sort of mentality or behavior that such governments encourage.
I guess most of us never felt compelled to rebel in the first place, especially us Australians. We've never had a terrorist attack, our government is holding up well at the moment, and people here are seem content*.
*In Tasmania at least. Murders are quite uncommon here, as opposed to Adelaide, which is apparently murder central.
Funny, if the aborigines had been armed with AKs, they would have managed to keep that illegal immigration problem under control... Might have allowed them to keep their families intact as well yes?
Kilkrazy wrote:Guns are much more deadly than knives and so on. That's why soldiers have guns.
Not true. You need to get in closer with a knife but it's no less deadly, in fact it's deadlier. It's a lot easier to slice open someones throat when the knife is inches away from the target than to shoot a person in the throat from 15 feet away.
Evidence based medical and police science disagrees with you.
I read those studies and they don't address lethality, they address the chances of recovery and mortality after treatment.
What they prove is that it's easier to fix someone with a knife wound than a gunshot wound, which stands to reason. A knife stab is really a pretty clean thing especially if it's a puncture wound. A gunshot is a messy, brutal affair with blunt force trauma combined with penetrating factors and is more of a tear than anything.
The fact remains that without treatment that heart, artery or venous injury via gun or knife will kill you just as dead. The gun just does it from farther away.
Let me summarise what you seem to have taken from the references, to make sure I understand your argument.
Police statistics show gunshot murders comprise about 2/3rds of all murders.
Medical statistics show that gunshot wounds are roughly 5X more deadly than knife wounds, and even when death does not occur, they are twice as difficult to treat.
All this proves that knives are equally lethal as guns.
Is that correct?
I'll stab you in the gut with a 8" bowie knife and shoot you in the gut with a .22 pistol from 15 feet. Guess which wound proves more lethal and fatal (a hint: it won't be the .22 pistol round)?
On a one to one correct. However knife wounds are typically multiple. But yea I'd posit gunshot wounds are more lethal in general than knife wounds. Thats kind of the point.
As the immortal bard used to say: "Never bring a knife to a gunfight."
How about killcrazy shoots you in the gut from 15 feet and you(fateweaver) then fall down and cry like a baby because you got shot in the gut, also, if you want to compare knives to bullets, use comparable sizes.
.22=butter knife, 8" bowie=.308, 7.56, or even 50cal.
Personally I own 2 firearms a .22 rifle and a 7.62 rifle. In my family's house we have more than several rifles of varying calibers, a shotgun, and a bunch of pistols of varying calibers.
Why, because we can and they're interesting. Its fun to go to the local range and fire a few dozen rounds at paper targets and the smell of expended cartridges is awesome. Sometimes its just for history, like a musket used by a relative in the civil war, or a weapon used by soldiers in previous wars. Other times its just because its fun to shoot stuff.
George Spiggott wrote:I've wanted a Broom Handled Mauser for a while now. Not enough to actually go out and buy one.
I have one. They are pretty cool. First time out at the range I was hiding under the bench for the first shot out of that gun. I wasn't sure if the gun was going to blow up since it was over 70 years old.
George Spiggott wrote:I've wanted a Broom Handled Mauser for a while now. Not enough to actually go out and buy one.
I have one. They are pretty cool. First time out at the range I was hiding under the bench for the first shot out of that gun. I wasn't sure if the gun was going to blow up since it was over 70 years old.
That's funny! You are an honest person! I admit I've always wanted one as well (for reasons of Han Solo and being nine when that first film came out). I've fired one but never bought one.
I collect guns because they have a lot of history behind each one. Most of my guns are from World War 2 or prior periods.
I'd like to think that my mauser rifles and Mosin Nagant rifles have seen battle by their previous owners in Stalingrad, Moscow or Berlin. My Webleys and Enfield might have seen battle in El Alamein or Italy or France. My Lugers and Mauser Broomhandle might have seen action too. Their owners struggled through mud, sand and snow to survive.
Since no one has really addressed this yet, what does dakka think about American gun control? Should citizens be allowed to own anything up to, and including military grade weapons, or should we just be allowed to have sporting weapons? Or perhaps no weapons at all?
Personally, I feel that the 2nd Amendment guarantees our right to keep weapons, but I also think that the government has the responsibility to protect it's citizens by putting limits on the lethality of the weapons the citizens are allowed to keep. Having weapons for hunting is fine and dandy, and if you want a weapon to protect yourself I think you're a little paranoid, but it's well within your rights, but I think the law should be drawn at modern military grade weapons. I can see no good reason why you'd ever need an assault rifle or machine gun for anything other than killing another human. Military hardware is for the military, and I think it should be kept that way.
Ever had a rabid squirrel try to attack you at 1AM. I did and I emptied 100 rounds of .556 into it and it still came at me.
No handgun could have taken that sucker down.
Thing is though all soldiers are issued side-arms so by your logic a handgun is a military weapon as it's used by military personnel. Anti-gun lobbyists would have a field day with that logic.
Additionally, not all soldiers are issued handguns or even trained on them. In the Army handguns are a specialist sort of thing normally issued to MPs and people dealing with sensitive material on a regular basis. And so what? People wouldn't be able to buy a M9, it's not like it's worth much anyways.
Far as I know every soldier in all branches are trained with sidearm use. I know in the NG every soldier, even the medics, have sidearms in addition to any other equipment they have.
Civilians owning MG-42's or AK-47's are not going to suddenly go on killing sprees (though good luck lugging an MG-42 around). LOL.
As a member of the United States military, I know for a fact that not every service member is trained or equipped with a sidearm.
A M14 is not a modern military weapon, and doesn't fall into the criteria I laid out. And it's true that not everyone with an AK is going to go on a killing spree, but why should that option even be there? Think of it like a car, the government is allowed to put restrictions on how powerful a car you can drive on the road so you aren't a danger to other drivers. A rifle is the same thing, a dangerous tool, and I think it falls under the government's responsibility to protect it's citizens from that danger.
You live in a State known to sell Lambo's and Vipers like candy and you say gov't restricts how powerful of a car you can drive?
Where the hell at? I can drive any kind of car I want on Mn roads (although I'd not be caught dead in January driving a Viper). If you are thinking Nascar style cars I'd go so far as to say a Lambo and Viper can outrun a Nascar (Lambo for sure).
Fateweaver wrote:Ever had a rabid squirrel try to attack you at 1AM. I did and I emptied 100 rounds of .556 into it and it still came at me.
No handgun could have taken that sucker down.
Thing is though all soldiers are issued side-arms so by your logic a handgun is a military weapon as it's used by military personnel. Anti-gun lobbyists would have a field day with that logic.
You should have stabbed it with a knife.
I take it a side-arm means a pistol rather than a rifle or SMG.
Fateweaver wrote:This would be a damn fine home defense gun:
12ga Police Tactical shotgun with extending stock.
I've been looking at one of these lately:
.45ACP
(I can't open either of these -reading the link)
Can't see the first but I've heard good things about the XD. More to my speed, you can send it to Springfield to get the trigger action, barrel, and sights tweaked right proppa. I prefer Kimbers for .45s personally, but SPringfiled makes good .45s (although this is an import). A 13 round .45 has a lot going for it.
http://www.springfield-armory.com/xd.php?version=124
then tweak with this:
Combat action job; overtravel adjustment added to trigger; Springfield Custom 3 dot tritium night
sights; inspect entire pistol; test fire. (Trijicon 3 dot, Heinie Straight 8 Slant Pro, or Heinie 3 dot Slant
Pro sights also available substitutes to this package at no additional charge.)
Other sight and finish options available. Call Springfield Custom™ for pricing on specific requests.
and this:
Install Springfield custom match barrel ..............................................................................$ 190.00
They have a Bar Sto option but ordering from bar sto is like4-6 months and I'm thinking Springfield might have the same time.
Semi-automatic rifles are sufficient for most needs. Those who yell "But militaries have tanks and nukes, so why don't you agree with tanks too?!"
It's simple. You don't need tanks and nukes to resist against tyranny or an occupying army. Don't waste your energy shooting the soldiers. Shoot their public officials and any collaborators. Without them your land becomes ungovernable and a massive money sink, and sooner or later they'll decide to leave....and take their tanks with them.
Corey85 wrote:Well, like grizgrin I hunt, and while I might bow hunt in the future, hunting with firearms is my only option right now. On the flip side, anytime I have ever felt threatened at home I have never gone for my guns, always a bat or something that won't splatter my attackers.
Truth. Whenever the dogs start barking, I actually tend to go to the knife block in the kitchen. Really, I don't see anyone breaking into my house while I am home. I am no close combat monster, I do not have assault class firearms in the home, but I am a 6'3" 210 pound male. That in of itself means there are easier houses to break into. I guess I go to the knife block really because I just LOVE my santukos, and they feel friggin great in my hands. Never really thought about it much, but it seems kinda strange I guess.
Kilkrazy wrote:
Let me summarise what you seem to have taken from the references, to make sure I understand your argument.
Police statistics show gunshot murders comprise about 2/3rds of all murders.
Medical statistics show that gunshot wounds are roughly 5X more deadly than knife wounds, and even when death does not occur, they are twice as difficult to treat.
All this proves that knives are equally lethal as guns.
Is that correct?
I think KillKrazy found a spot to sink in the blade, lol. Also, if you seriously think that knife vs. gun is unfair for gun, I have some excellent bottom land to sell you.
JEB_Stuart wrote:...I sure do love trap shooting...
I bet you do. Does Admiral Akbar guide your aim? Ha! I keed, I keed!
Fateweaver wrote:...
I'll stab you in the gut with a 8" bowie knife and shoot you in the gut with a .22 pistol from 15 feet. Guess which wound proves more lethal and fatal (a hint: it won't be the .22 pistol round)?
Oh DO keep posting, you're funnier than a sack of ferrets at a Bolivian ho-down!
IAmTheWalrus wrote:Since no one has really addressed this yet, what does dakka think about American gun control? Should citizens be allowed to own anything up to, and including military grade weapons, or should we just be allowed to have sporting weapons? Or perhaps no weapons at all?
Well, looking at the Bill of Rights, it really doesn't put any limits on it, does it? However, I am not sure that I want to see an M1 Abrahms in my neighbors drive; their domestic disputes are brutal enough as-is.
You know, it almost looks like they left it intentionally ambiguous. Probably just a temporal artifact.
IAmTheWalrus wrote:As a member of the United States military, I know for a fact that not every service member is trained or equipped with a sidearm.
IAmTheWalrus wrote:As a member of the United States military, I know for a fact that not every service member is trained or equipped with a sidearm.
A M14 is not a modern military weapon, and doesn't fall into the criteria I laid out. And it's true that not everyone with an AK is going to go on a killing spree, but why should that option even be there? Think of it like a car, the government is allowed to put restrictions on how powerful a car you can drive on the road so you aren't a danger to other drivers. A rifle is the same thing, a dangerous tool, and I think it falls under the government's responsibility to protect it's citizens from that danger.
But its not LIKE A CAR its the Second Amendment. Its like your FREEDOM OF SPEECH.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Noble713 wrote:Semi-automatic rifles are sufficient for most needs. Those who yell "But militaries have tanks and nukes, so why don't you agree with tanks too?!"
It's simple. You don't need tanks and nukes to resist against tyranny or an occupying army. Don't waste your energy shooting the soldiers. Shoot their public officials and any collaborators. Without them your land becomes ungovernable and a massive money sink, and sooner or later they'll decide to leave....and take their tanks with them.
Agreed. Plus tanks and nukes are not arms. Only personal weaponry would fall under that definition.
(believe it or not I am for some restriction-but thats already in place).
PREFACE: I mean no disrespect to any of our sons and daughters who serve, I value your sacrifices and hardships. Thanks for all you've done.
IAmTheWalrus wrote:As a member of the United States military, I know for a fact that not every service member is trained or equipped with a sidearm.
As a member of the United States citizenry, I believe that 'military grade' weaponry should not be 100% restricted to just the military. I simply don't trust any government to remain beneficent without sufficient checks and balances. Excuse me if I don't trust indoctrinated military personnel to value my personal freedoms and rights over the government's wishes. How many times have normal people done horrendous and immoral things due to 'following orders'? Soldiers are trained to follow orders without much (if any) question, and to kill the enemy (both foreign and domestic) at a word.
An unarmed populace simply cannot effectively disagree with their government, which is exactly how every governing body likes it. We are lucky that our Founding Fathers knew this, and encoded our ability to do so into the framework of our laws and rights. Like it or not, the 2nd amendment was not written to guarantee our ability to hunt, or have a good time wasting ammo at paper targets. It was written so that the people would always be a proper deterrent to unscrupulous leadership.
To the OP:
I think owning a gun is "great" because it puts responsibility for myself, my freedom, and my ideals exactly where it belongs: In my own two hands. As long as I am armed, regardless of whatever happens, be it world peace, armageddon, or anything in between, I have a meaningful say in my ultimate fate.
As a member of the United States citizenry, I believe that 'military grade' weaponry should not be 100% restricted to just the military. I simply don't trust any government to remain beneficent without sufficient checks and balances. Excuse me if I don't trust indoctrinated military personnel to value my personal freedoms and rights over the government's wishes. How many times have normal people done horrendous and immoral things due to 'following orders'? Soldiers are trained to follow orders without much (if any) question, and to kill the enemy (both foreign and domestic) at a word.
An unarmed populace simply cannot effectively disagree with their government, which is exactly how every governing body likes it. We are lucky that our Founding Fathers knew this, and encoded our ability to do so into the framework of our laws and rights. Like it or not, the 2nd amendment was not written to guarantee our ability to hunt, or have a good time wasting ammo at paper targets. It was written so that the people would always be a proper deterrent to unscrupulous leadership.
To the OP:
I think owning a gun is "great" because it puts responsibility for myself, my freedom, and my ideals exactly where it belongs: In my own two hands. As long as I am armed, regardless of whatever happens, be it world peace, armageddon, or anything in between, I have a meaningful say in my ultimate fate.
I agree 100%
Trusting your government is being ingnorant of history.
also, IAmTheWalrus earlier posted that the gov't can restrict the amount of power in the car you drive.... well no. they dont. They restrict the emission levels of the car you drive, and the saftey concerns of your car in an accident, (will not explode, and provides reasonable levels of protection for passengers) I have driven Hondas with over 500 horsepower on city streets, and it was completely legal.
I would love to own a gun or two. I would take a rifle over a pistol, just for personal preferance (I also think that pistols should have a much higher level of restriction over them than rifles).
If only they would relax the laws slightly in the UK, but ah well.
My reasons for wanting to own a gun? For target shooting, contest shooting, possibly hunting, although we really don't have all that much space for it like you do in the USA. You may have far more people, but you have significantly more land to put them and their guns
I would also like to own a gun for the reason mentioned several times previously... I want to be able to defend myself from anyone who attempts to attack me, be it some theif, or the government (which is simply a large collection of theives ). Though as I have mentioned in other threads, I don't believe that guns are the ideal home defence weapons, and that their use immediately escalates a situation far beyond what would be ideal.
I would also like to think that by owning a gun I could take part in any defence of my area/country that I might be made to ask, for watever reason.
Though I do not think we need to have the relatively permissive gun laws that seem to be apparent in the USA, a nice midpoint could be established between guns for all, and no guns at all.
Frazzled wrote:
But its not LIKE A CAR its the Second Amendment. Its like your FREEDOM OF SPEECH.
And like your freedom of speech, I believe it should be restricted in a certain number of ways. If you read carefully you will find that the 1st Amendment does not cover profanity, fighting words (Intended to provoke a fight), or threats to national security. You can't just go around and say whatever the hell you want, to whomever you'd like to, though we're pretty darn close to that.
Lordhat wrote:
As a member of the United States citizenry, I believe that 'military grade' weaponry should not be 100% restricted to just the military. I simply don't trust any government to remain beneficent without sufficient checks and balances. Excuse me if I don't trust indoctrinated military personnel to value my personal freedoms and rights over the government's wishes. How many times have normal people done horrendous and immoral things due to 'following orders'? Soldiers are trained to follow orders without much (if any) question, and to kill the enemy (both foreign and domestic) at a word.
An unarmed populace simply cannot effectively disagree with their government, which is exactly how every governing body likes it. We are lucky that our Founding Fathers knew this, and encoded our ability to do so into the framework of our laws and rights. Like it or not, the 2nd amendment was not written to guarantee our ability to hunt, or have a good time wasting ammo at paper targets. It was written so that the people would always be a proper deterrent to unscrupulous leadership.
As for not trusting the 'indoctrinated' military personnel, I don't think you've had much experience dealing with the military. There is no difference between our citizens and our soldiers, they are one and the same and hold the American freedoms just as dearly as you do. Do you think the 18 year old son of your neighbor has a burning desire to impede your rights? Of course not, he's just trying to make a better life for himself in the military. Obedience is expected of soldiers, but what you don't know is how many stupidly long briefings on the conduct of war and the Geneva convention we've had to sit through so we know exactly when we can stop 'just following orders.'
Disagreement with the government can be solved non-violently. The government has power by the consent of the people, and people have the power to change it. If you look at the movements of Dr. King and Ghandi I believe that you will find both to be far more effective non-violently than they would have been had they engaged the government in combat. The days of the Founding Fathers has long past, and I think people cling to the misguided belief that they can deter the government as an excuse to have whatever incredibly dangerous weapons they want.
Just out of curiosity, what would it take for you to take arms up against the government?
Coming from a country where the great mass of citizens and illegal immigrants do not have access to firearms...
I used to be in the army, and loved shooting my rifle.
I loved shooting my grandfathers .303 on the farm years ago before the big amnesty/buy back in 1996.
I loved going to the shooting range in Las Vegas 2 years ago and shooting an assortment of firearms.
I've shot at nothing larger than a rabbit (living thing anyway).
Primarily I like it as it is a skill that can be improved quickly, but needs alot of work to master.
Also IAmTheWalrus as you seem to have a heap of OT questions why not start up your own, new thread to get people's opinions on them?
Lordhat wrote:PREFACE: I mean no disrespect to any of our sons and daughters who serve, I value your sacrifices and hardships. Thanks for all you've done.
Much appreciated.
Fateweaver wrote:You live in a State known to sell Lambo's and Vipers like candy and you say gov't restricts how powerful of a car you can drive?
Where the hell at? I can drive any kind of car I want on Mn roads (although I'd not be caught dead in January driving a Viper). If you are thinking Nascar style cars I'd go so far as to say a Lambo and Viper can outrun a Nascar (Lambo for sure).
This is exactly what I was trying to make a point about. A Lambo or a Viper might be able to outrun a Nascar, but the way I see it they're just exotics and the Nascar is a professional car, and the government has done the right thing by keeping professional cars out of the hands of the citizens. Why? Because it's dangerous. If you want to go buy an elephant gun, go buy an elephant gun, but I stand by my argument that military equipment doesn't belong in the hands of civilians, for safety reasons.
IAmTheWalrus wrote:As a member of the United States military, I know for a fact that not every service member is trained or equipped with a sidearm.
A M14 is not a modern military weapon, and doesn't fall into the criteria I laid out. And it's true that not everyone with an AK is going to go on a killing spree, but why should that option even be there? Think of it like a car, the government is allowed to put restrictions on how powerful a car you can drive on the road so you aren't a danger to other drivers. A rifle is the same thing, a dangerous tool, and I think it falls under the government's responsibility to protect it's citizens from that danger.
But its not LIKE A CAR its the Second Amendment. Its like your FREEDOM OF SPEECH.
Frazz, you as a lawyer know that amendments can be put into and taken out of the constitution.
There are points for and against guns. If the 'against' points ever should come to outweigh the 'for' points, it would be reasonable to look at amending the constitution.
I'm not saying that needs to be done, just that it's useless to say, "We must have guns because it's the 2nd Amendment," as if that ends the argument.
Kilkrazy wrote:I'm not saying that needs to be done, just that it's useless to say, "We must have guns because it's the 2nd Amendment," as if that ends the argument.
Whoohoo! We can get rid of all that pesky "Free Speech" now, right? I mean just because it's an Amendment...
Frazzled wrote:
But its not LIKE A CAR its the Second Amendment. Its like your FREEDOM OF SPEECH.
And like your freedom of speech, I believe it should be restricted in a certain number of ways.
And thats why arms should not be restricted to military personnel.
I come from a military family that has roots (literally) back to the Grand Armee. I respect them, but I wouldn't trust them any more than anyone else. Neither did the Founding Fathers who had just fought the military to be free.
IAmTheWalrus wrote:As a member of the United States military, I know for a fact that not every service member is trained or equipped with a sidearm.
A M14 is not a modern military weapon, and doesn't fall into the criteria I laid out. And it's true that not everyone with an AK is going to go on a killing spree, but why should that option even be there? Think of it like a car, the government is allowed to put restrictions on how powerful a car you can drive on the road so you aren't a danger to other drivers. A rifle is the same thing, a dangerous tool, and I think it falls under the government's responsibility to protect it's citizens from that danger.
But its not LIKE A CAR its the Second Amendment. Its like your FREEDOM OF SPEECH.
Frazz, you as a lawyer know that amendments can be put into and taken out of the constitution.
There are points for and against guns. If the 'against' points ever should come to outweigh the 'for' points, it would be reasonable to look at amending the constitution.
I'm not saying that needs to be done, just that it's useless to say, "We must have guns because it's the 2nd Amendment," as if that ends the argument.
Actually in the US Constitution they can only be added (an additional one to repeal an earlier) but we get your point. Still, the only Amendment to the US constitution ever repealed was the one against Prohibition. Think about that.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
I'm not saying that needs to be done, just that it's useless to say, "We must have guns because it's the 2nd Amendment," as if that ends the argument.
Why yes, yes we can. When it comes to the Bill of Rights, you betcha.
By the way, Profanity, racist remarks and almost all forms of speech are protected under the 1st Amendment. That's why you see Neo-Nazis and the KKK demonstrating all over the country.
Kilkrazy wrote:I'm not saying that needs to be done, just that it's useless to say, "We must have guns because it's the 2nd Amendment," as if that ends the argument.
Whoohoo! We can get rid of all that pesky "Free Speech" now, right? I mean just because it's an Amendment...
You don't seem to understand the subtleties of my admittedly complex argument, so I will put it in simple terms.
1. You have an amendment for or against X, because X is good or bad.
2. X isn't good or bad just because you have an amendment for or against it.
The constitution is not holy writ, it is a toolbox which contains provisions for making changes to it if they are needed.
You yourself are not getting this KK. I corrected your post, which may add clarity.
To restate, nothing in the constitution except probition has been repealed. no right enumerated under th Constitution or its amendments has ever been repealed. This isn't paper. People will indeed fight to maintain the rights under this document, and I am not being figurative. I am being literal here.
In the US the Constitution is the Supreme law of the land. The Constitution supercedes Congress and Congress supercedes the President. The Supreme Court of the US interprets the Constitution through Case Laws. So, in effect, if a particular part of the Constitution is unclear then one would look to Supreme Court cases for interpretation of that portion.
I am pretty sure the US follows the English legal system regarding the use of Precedence.
IAmTheWalrus wrote:
As for not trusting the 'indoctrinated' military personnel, I don't think you've had much experience dealing with the military. There is no difference between our citizens and our soldiers, they are one and the same and hold the American freedoms just as dearly as you do. Do you think the 18 year old son of your neighbor has a burning desire to impede your rights? Of course not, he's just trying to make a better life for himself in the military. Obedience is expected of soldiers, but what you don't know is how many stupidly long briefings on the conduct of war and the Geneva convention we've had to sit through so we know exactly when we can stop 'just following orders.'
I understand this, but what happens if there's an actual uprising? If say, Tim McVeigh, or Randy Weaver, or Malcolm X, or any other person with a gripe with the government had an actual following of significance? If the cause is a legitimate concern worthy of rebellion it's likely that a lot of military personnel are in agreement. It is also likely that the sentiment is well known by this point, and the government has taken steps to insure it's armed forces are loyal. Such things like sending the dissenting soldiers to warzones for extended periods (leaving non-dissenting personnel at home), premature discharge (thereby excluding access to the government's own stockpiles of weaponry) are not unimaginable. Can you 'just stop following orders' if you're ordered under marshall law to quell an uprising? Like I said, an armed populace is the ultimate proof against corrupt government.
Disagreement with the government can be solved non-violently. The government has power by the consent of the people, and people have the power to change it. If you look at the movements of Dr. King and Ghandi I believe that you will find both to be far more effective non-violently than they would have been had they engaged the government in combat. The days of the Founding Fathers has long past, and I think people cling to the misguided belief that they can deter the government as an excuse to have whatever incredibly dangerous weapons they want.
Yes, and the need to use violence may never arise, indeed I do hope it never does, but "expect the best, prepare for the worst".
Just out of curiosity, what would it take for you to take arms up against the government?
Well obviously I haven't seen it yet. So far we haven't had any acts of atrocity enacted upon us by our leadership, nor any serious attempts to deny us the rights granted in the constitution, but I'd say those would be good situations to take up arms. The fact of the matter is, one person deciding arbitrarily to 'rebel' is futile and most likely terrorism at it's core, and is prosecuted as such. An outcry against the government by it's subjects is controversy, and acted upon at the ruling body's discretion. A peaceful ultimatum from a united front of armed citizens is a threat and never dismissed. In each situation the government will do what it deems necessary for it's own good. Only in the last are the people themselves able to guarantee that what they decide is best for themselves is a viable option. It's like owning controlling stock in your own life.
You yourself are not getting this KK. I corrected your post, which may add clarity.
To restate, nothing in the constitution except probition has been repealed. no right enumerated under th Constitution or its amendments has ever been repealed. This isn't paper. People will indeed fight to maintain the rights under this document, and I am not being figurative. I am being literal here.
Clearly this isn't literally true since Prohibition was first introduced, then dropped, for ideological and practical reasons.
If one amendment can be made and unmade, so can others. It rests with the citizenry to make those kinds of decisions.
You yourself are not getting this KK. I corrected your post, which may add clarity.
To restate, nothing in the constitution except probition has been repealed. no right enumerated under th Constitution or its amendments has ever been repealed. This isn't paper. People will indeed fight to maintain the rights under this document, and I am not being figurative. I am being literal here.
Clearly this isn't literally true since Prohibition was first introduced, then dropped, for ideological and practical reasons.
If one amendment can be made and unmade, so can others. It rests with the citizenry to make those kinds of decisions.
Good in luck with that. You're not getting what your saying KK. This is not a UK thing. "You just don't understand," is appropriate here.
Beyond being impractical (2/3s of states + Congress + El Presidente) trying to repeal an actual right has never been done. Try to repeal this right and you literally might have a civil war.
The Bill of Rights does not grant any rights. The Rights contained in it are inherent in all people, The Constitution just tells the Federal government what it cannot do. Every person has the right to learn how to arm and defend themselves generally as they see fit and the Constitution keeps the government from taking that away.
Try to repeal this right and you would have a civil war and/or terrorist uprising.
Might doesn't really factor in. One of those two things will happen.
I would really think that the price tag of an M1 Abrams would be the prohibitive part of "every citizen owning one". How many citizens have $30M+ laying around to go and buy themselves a 50 ton engine of war?
I'll stick to my MG-42 idea. Just have to scrape up the funds to buy one, get the Federal Arms permit to own it and then the ammo for it. I'm thinking at 1500rnds/min that the ammo wouldn't come cheap if I had to use it to keep some dude from stealing my PS3.
Damn, such a dilemma.
As to re-stricter plates, where the hell you see those. I can legally take a 1,000hp Viper on the streets of any city here in my State of Mn. Not that I would, in say January when everything is icy as hell as I'm not too sure a Viper is built for icy roads. In this States capital and surrounding areas I see Lambo's and Vipers quite often and they all have the normal Mn license plate on them. Not saying some cities/counties don't restrict what vehicles are used but you can't say ALL cities/counties ban exotics. In Mn it's just not practical to drive them all year long so I am betting most millionaires prefer there Lexus and Escalades and Hummers.
So far I have not had my mind changed about wanting or needing a gun.
I don't think 'its great!' Is a good enough reason, I'm sure there are plenty of drug addicts out there who say 'its great!' but I won't be doing drugs either...
As for protecting your family and home, fair enough no arguements from me there. Its sad that you have to live with that fear though.
Collecting old guns for their history I can relate to more but it would worry me having them in the house unless they were decommissioned.
I hope they never do ease the gun laws over here or there would be a big rise in gun related crimes and general shootings...
Ahtman wrote:The Bill of Rights does not grant any rights. The Rights contained in it are inherent in all people, The Constitution just tells the Federal government what it cannot do. Every person has the right to learn how to arm and defend themselves generally as they see fit and the Constitution keeps the government from taking that away.
Try to repeal this right and you would have a civil war and/or terrorist uprising.
Might doesn't really factor in. One of those two things will happen.
JEB_Stuart wrote:You say that as if there is no crime or anything to worry about in the UK...I think Ketara could tell you otherwise...
Oh there is crime over here but not to the extent that I feel I need to get a gun to protect my family and home and I hope it never gets to the point where I do...
Mick
I'll stick to my MG-42 idea. Just have to scrape up the funds to buy one, get the Federal Arms permit to own it and then the ammo for it. I'm thinking at 1500rnds/min that the ammo wouldn't come cheap if I had to use it to keep some dude from stealing my PS3.
Damn, such a dilemma.
Here you go. Yugoslavian version of the MG-42. Very cheap at $2K and semi auto.
Fateweaver wrote:I would really think that the price tag of an M1 Abrams would be the prohibitive part of "every citizen owning one". How many citizens have $30M+ laying around to go and buy themselves a 50 ton engine of war?
Where do you get this stuff? This is the 2nd time you've made a clearly erroneous comment regarding something about the military (the last one about M9 training for all .mil personnel being thankfully corrected in short order). Inaccurate numbers tend to slip under most people's radar though.... An M1A2 Abrams costs ~$6 million, not $30 million. Hell, you can buy a "demilitarized" T-72 for $75,000 on the Internet, more affordable than an exotic sports car. Grease the palms of the right Ukrainian/Russian engineers and you can probably get a new breech and barrel for it for FAR less than $5 million.
According to wiki, North America as a whole was home to 41,000 individuals with a net worth >$30million. If even half of them (a conservative estimate) are American, that's ~20,000 people with the necessary financial resources to purchase and maintain a main battle tank. If this population purchases tanks at roughly the same rate as adult Americans purchase firearms (25%), you have a market for 5,000 privately-owned fully-capable MBTs, which is somewhere around half the total production run of Abrams tanks for both domestic and export use. If even 0.5% of tank-purchasers goes nutty and commits to an armored rampage, that's still 25 armored behemoths tearing through the streets causing millions of dollars of damage and probably getting a few people killed as well.
And it's completely pointless. Unlike firearms, a tank cannot be adequately utilized by an individual:
1. It requires a crew >1, even with an autoloader. Relying on outside individuals would somewhat negate the point of individualizing the right to personal protection.
2. Tank gunnery and driving require extremely large and specialized ranges.
While a private citizen can attain military parity in personal marksmanship, they can pretty much never achieve any useful skill level sufficient to resist the tank forces employed by a tyrannical government, completely negating the point of legalizing armored vehicles to begin with.
Is it clear now why this should be a non-argument?
Wait are you arguing we shouldn't be able to have tanks? But what about the advantageous rush hour driving opportunities? Plus you could stop at the park and ride and pick up ten - fifteen passengers on the top and hit the HOV lane. Nice!
inquisitor_bob wrote:By the way, Profanity, racist remarks and almost all forms of speech are protected under the 1st Amendment. That's why you see Neo-Nazis and the KKK demonstrating all over the country.
You're incorrect. Profanity has no protection under the 1st Amendment as decided in the cases of Roth vs. The United States (1957) and Miller vs. California (1973). Racist remarks are protected if they are legitimate beliefs and not intentionally trying to provoke another party into a fight (Fighting Words). Neo-Nazis and the KKK are using their rights to the fullest, as despicable as it may be, but they still must follow the same laws that govern the rest of us.
Lordhat wrote:
I understand this, but what happens if there's an actual uprising? If say, Tim McVeigh, or Randy Weaver, or Malcolm X, or any other person with a gripe with the government had an actual following of significance? If the cause is a legitimate concern worthy of rebellion it's likely that a lot of military personnel are in agreement. It is also likely that the sentiment is well known by this point, and the government has taken steps to insure [sic] it's armed forces are loyal. Such things like sending the dissenting soldiers to warzones for extended periods (leaving non-dissenting personnel at home), premature discharge (thereby excluding access to the government's own stockpiles of weaponry) are not unimaginable. Can you 'just stop following orders' if you're ordered under marshall [sic] law to quell an uprising? Like I said, an armed populace is the ultimate proof against corrupt government.
If the dissent is a wide-spread as you make it seem it would be nigh impossible to segregate the military into dissenters and loyalists. We all operate under the same principles but there are as many opinions about things in the military as there are service members. The military operates as well as it does on unit cohesion, and you can't strip half of the personnel away from a unit and sent it into a combat zone. We're not clearly divided into any sort of category on any sort of issue, so the assumption that dissenters could be neutralized is a far stretch of the imagination.
To quell an uprising, it depends on the orders. If under martial law we were given illegal orders to quell an uprising, then yes it could be ignored.
Well obviously I haven't seen it yet. So far we haven't had any acts of atrocity enacted upon us by our leadership, nor any serious attempts to deny us the rights granted in the constitution, but I'd say those would be good situations to take up arms. The fact of the matter is, one person deciding arbitrarily to 'rebel' is futile and most likely terrorism at it's core, and is prosecuted as such. An outcry against the government by it's subjects is controversy, and acted upon at the ruling body's discretion. A peaceful ultimatum from a united front of armed citizens is a threat and never dismissed. In each situation the government will do what it deems necessary for it's own good. Only in the last are the people themselves able to guarantee that what they decide is best for themselves is a viable option. It's like owning controlling stock in your own life.
I'm not arguing against owning weapons, I'm arguing against owning military grade weapons. A peaceful ultimatum from a united front of armed citizens is an exercise in those citizen's rights and should be given all the warranted attention by the government, but I don't think that it varies depending on if you have a hunting rifle or an assault rifle.
Noble713- wasn't there a case some years ago of an upset national guard guy who ran amok in a stolen tank? No he never fired the guns but in that thing he didn't need to when it came to causing damage...
Mick
IAmTheWalrus wrote:
If the dissent is a wide-spread as you make it seem it would be nigh impossible to segregate the military into dissenters and loyalists. We all operate under the same principles but there are as many opinions about things in the military as there are service members. The military operates as well as it does on unit cohesion, and you can't strip half of the personnel away from a unit and sent it into a combat zone. We're not clearly divided into any sort of category on any sort of issue, so the assumption that dissenters could be neutralized is a far stretch of the imagination.
To quell an uprising, it depends on the orders. If under martial law we were given illegal orders to quell an uprising, then yes it could be ignored.
History is replete with coups, military juntas, or soldiers doing what they were told, or what they thought was right. Sometimes its a good thing (Honduras, military in Turkey), other times its not (Burma, cuba, China, nearly everyone on the UN Human Rights Commission)
History's also replete with military forces splitting and doing that civil war thing as well. If I remember correctly we ourselves had that epic legal case of Billy Yank vs. Johnny Reb in 1862 (Justice Grant presiding, appeal denied).
Frazzled wrote:
Good in luck with that. You're not getting what your saying KK. This is not a UK thing. "You just don't understand," is appropriate here.
Beyond being impractical (2/3s of states + Congress + El Presidente) trying to repeal an actual right has never been done. Try to repeal this right and you literally might have a civil war.
Any hypothetical situation in which a right was taken off the board would be so politically different from the current clime as to render any discussion of it speculative in the far out sense.
Fateweaver wrote:I would really think that the price tag of an M1 Abrams would be the prohibitive part of "every citizen owning one". How many citizens have $30M+ laying around to go and buy themselves a 50 ton engine of war?
Where do you get this stuff? This is the 2nd time you've made a clearly erroneous comment regarding something about the military (the last one about M9 training for all .mil personnel being thankfully corrected in short order). Inaccurate numbers tend to slip under most people's radar though.... An M1A2 Abrams costs ~$6 million, not $30 million. Hell, you can buy a "demilitarized" T-72 for $75,000 on the Internet, more affordable than an exotic sports car. Grease the palms of the right Ukrainian/Russian engineers and you can probably get a new breech and barrel for it for FAR less than $5 million.
According to wiki, North America as a whole was home to 41,000 individuals with a net worth >$30million. If even half of them (a conservative estimate) are American, that's ~20,000 people with the necessary financial resources to purchase and maintain a main battle tank. If this population purchases tanks at roughly the same rate as adult Americans purchase firearms (25%), you have a market for 5,000 privately-owned fully-capable MBTs, which is somewhere around half the total production run of Abrams tanks for both domestic and export use. If even 0.5% of tank-purchasers goes nutty and commits to an armored rampage, that's still 25 armored behemoths tearing through the streets causing millions of dollars of damage and probably getting a few people killed as well.
And it's completely pointless. Unlike firearms, a tank cannot be adequately utilized by an individual:
1. It requires a crew >1, even with an autoloader. Relying on outside individuals would somewhat negate the point of individualizing the right to personal protection.
2. Tank gunnery and driving require extremely large and specialized ranges.
While a private citizen can attain military parity in personal marksmanship, they can pretty much never achieve any useful skill level sufficient to resist the tank forces employed by a tyrannical government, completely negating the point of legalizing armored vehicles to begin with.
Is it clear now why this should be a non-argument?
So I didn't do my homework on M1 costs. Sue me. Good luck actually purchasing one as a normal civilian. It takes a lot more than just $6M dollars to buy an M1 but I digress.
I also will damn well own an MG-42 until the government says otherwise. Gotta be ready for the zombie apocalypse and all (and for Obamanation to try to come take my guns).
Frazzled wrote:
History is replete with coups, military juntas, or soldiers doing what they were told, or what they thought was right. Sometimes its a good thing (Honduras, military in Turkey), other times its not (Burma, cuba, China, nearly everyone on the UN Human Rights Commission)
History's also replete with military forces splitting and doing that civil war thing as well. If I remember correctly we ourselves had that epic legal case of Billy Yank vs. Johnny Reb in 1862 (Justice Grant presiding, appeal denied).
History is replete with it, but the Constitution is laid out to protect the government from military interference. There is no military junta in the United States because the U.S. military reports to Congress, the way it should be. It is true that we do what we're told, that's how a military works, but we don't think about what is right and what is wrong. That is laid out for us clearly in the Geneva Convention and the Rules of Engagement (which the military goes through an inordinate amount of trouble to make sure we know), and it is well within our rights to tell an officer or NCO to go stuff themselves if they give us an illegal order, which a military coup would be. Every single last service member is sworn to uphold and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. Which means that we uphold the laws that keeps the military subservient to the civilian government.
I'd be amazed if you could find an example of a military as integrated as ours splitting and devolving into civil war. We do things the way we do for a reason, and comparing the U.S. Army of 1861 to the army of today provides absolutely no basis for comparison. The U.S. Army of 1861 numbered a bare 16,000 men, a far cry from the forces that would be fielded in the coming war (R.E. Lee surrendered 27,000 soldiers at Appomattox, and 51,000 soldiers died at Gettysburg) . The vast majority of people who fought in that war were just regular citizens before the war, or in the state militia, which provided them with an almost unshakable loyalty to their home state. In today's military it's uncommon to serve with more than a few people from your home area, and in the Information Age people don't feel so attached to their home states.
IAmTheWalrus wrote:There is no military junta in the United States because the U.S. military reports to Congress, the way it should be.
Lets get technical. The CIC is still the US president and has a 30 day window to field forces outside the US before a declaration of war is necessary.
Congress members are outside the chain of command. If Parker Griffith (Senator for AL) opens his yap with an order he should be shut down in no uncertain terms as any other civilian. That whole separation of powers thing tends to get in the way.
50 U.S.C. 1541–1548 allows for mobilization for 60 days, and 30 to pull out of a deployment without a congressional declaration of war. 50U.S.C is also still a subject of debate regarding its validity.
I also question your statement on weapons training in Basic. Since I'm not a military historian I can only find reference to current Basic training where even the much maligned Coast Guard gets M16 training. Can you point me to a better reference?
But, this Digresses wildly.
The OP, a resident of the UK, has trouble understanding why the "right to keep and bear arms" is so important. There are, regrettably, some instances where violence is the only answer to an unwelcome or unreasonable occupation. The thread is full of reasons (legitimate and personal) to own a weapon.
I have a right protected by law that I choose to invoke. Much like the one we're using to discuss this in a public forum while enjoying a pint of stout, and advising everyone they should partake if they like. Its nice to have even if I don't choose to use it though.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Apparently, FW's MG emplacement is ready. I should bring a few six packs....
Don't get too excited. Need to get the FFL app filled out and approved (easy as pie as I'm not a felon) and then have to order the mg42 and it's ammo. I'm thinking one hell of a NYE party though.
In connection with the ACW it is worth noting that it took the election of the Wrong Man to cause the southern states to democratically vote for splitting off.
Except for officers, only a miniscule number of regular army went south.
The majority of the men who fought in the civil war were state militia, relatively few of who provided their own weapons. Both sides had extreme difficulty equipping troops and had to import a lot of weapons.
Oldgrue wrote:
Lets get technical. The CIC is still the US president and has a 30 day window to field forces outside the US before a declaration of war is necessary.
Congress members are outside the chain of command. If Parker Griffith (Senator for AL) opens his yap with an order he should be shut down in no uncertain terms as any other civilian. That whole separation of powers thing tends to get in the way.
50 U.S.C. 1541–1548 allows for mobilization for 60 days, and 30 to pull out of a deployment without a congressional declaration of war. 50U.S.C is also still a subject of debate regarding its validity.
I also question your statement on weapons training in Basic. Since I'm not a military historian I can only find reference to current Basic training where even the much maligned Coast Guard gets M16 training. Can you point me to a better reference?
Thank you for pointing out the specifics, for the sake of brevity I was summarizing. It's true that the President can deploy us, but in the end it's Congress who (should) decide how we fight.
Sadly, I can't point you to a more accurate reference on Basic Training weapons training, but having worked closely with all services (save the Coast Guard) I can give you a short summary. This list is by no means the be-all-end-all, just what I know for a fact is the bare minimum among the branches. More combat oriented personnel (like Security Forces, Infantry, Armor, Cav) have more weapons qualifications than do that of non-combat personnel (medical, suppy and the like)
All Army Basics provide training for: AT-4 84mm anti-tank rocket, M2 .50 machine gun, M4 .223 carbine, M16 .223 assault rifle, M203 40mm grenade launcher, M240B 7.62mm machine gun, and M249 .223 machine gun, as well as hand grenades and claymores.
Air Force: M16 (spend a single day at the range with no mandatory qualification, just have to shoot), and M9 9mm handgun
Navy: 12 gauge shotgun (don't remember the designation) and M9
Marines weapons training is similar to that of the Army. Pistol qualification never came up when I was talking to one, so I couldn't say for sure.
You know, typically if there is a coup, they aren't going to follow the separations of power or Chain of Command most likely. Really it is almost as if it would be an illegal act. I'm not sure saying, in essence, that it could never happen because it against the rules we have in place is a bit like saying because murder is illegal no one will ever do it.
Mick A wrote:Noble713- wasn't there a case some years ago of an upset national guard guy who ran amok in a stolen tank? No he never fired the guns but in that thing he didn't need to when it came to causing damage...
Mick
Yes, they are dangerous enough just driving around. I'm saying two things:
1. That the costs/risks to the public good of allowing and encouraging full military-grade tanks, tossing around 120mm HE rounds, is such that no one would ever approve of it. Nor should they.
2. The pricetag alone would not be a sufficient deterrent to carnage given a situation of lax government regulation on the associated hardware.
Fateweaver wrote:So I didn't do my homework on M1 costs. Sue me.
Ah, so you just have a habit of talking out of your 4th point of contact. Good to know...
IAmTheWalrus wrote:
All Army Basics provide training for: AT-4 84mm anti-tank rocket, M2 .50 machine gun, M4 .223 carbine, M16 .223 assault rifle, M203 40mm grenade launcher, M240B 7.62mm machine gun, and M249 .223 machine gun, as well as hand grenades and claymores.
This must be new. I went through Basic @ Ft. Leonard Wood in 2003, and we never did anything with the .50 cal, M203, or M240. In the 2 1/2 years that I spent in active Air Defense Artillery units we only ever fired the M16 and M249. I had an opportunity to fire an M9 while doing range detail, but didn't take it (they just don't excite me). Then I spent 2 1/2 years in a National Guard infantry unit. The infantry crash course they put us through at Camp Robinson, AR was too short for M9, .50cal or Mk19 ranges, so I've STILL never fired those. When my unit conducted a .50cal range at Annual Training, I was off at the Warrior Leader's Course...
Marines weapons training is similar to that of the Army. Pistol qualification never came up when I was talking to one, so I couldn't say for sure.
I dunno about the enlisted side, but it's on the curriculum for The Basic School along with virtually every other weapon system so at least officers get comprehensive training.
IAmTheWalrus wrote:As a member of the United States military, I know for a fact that not every service member is trained or equipped with a sidearm.
A M14 is not a modern military weapon, and doesn't fall into the criteria I laid out. And it's true that not everyone with an AK is going to go on a killing spree, but why should that option even be there? Think of it like a car, the government is allowed to put restrictions on how powerful a car you can drive on the road so you aren't a danger to other drivers. A rifle is the same thing, a dangerous tool, and I think it falls under the government's responsibility to protect it's citizens from that danger.
You sir are incorrect the USMC, US Navy, and US Army (mainly SF and some NG units) use modernized variants of the M-14 Battle Rifle, with the Navy variant being designated the MK14 and the Marine Corps variant labeled the DMR, Designated Marksman Rifle, also the US Army 2nd Infantry Regiment still has members that are issued with the M-14 Battle Rifle. It does infact meet your criteria as well as that laid out by Congress for Assault Weapons, it has a flash suppressor and a twenty round magazine.
IAmTheWalrus wrote:
Lordhat wrote:
As a member of the United States citizenry, I believe that 'military grade' weaponry should not be 100% restricted to just the military. I simply don't trust any government to remain beneficent without sufficient checks and balances. Excuse me if I don't trust indoctrinated military personnel to value my personal freedoms and rights over the government's wishes. How many times have normal people done horrendous and immoral things due to 'following orders'? Soldiers are trained to follow orders without much (if any) question, and to kill the enemy (both foreign and domestic) at a word.
An unarmed populace simply cannot effectively disagree with their government, which is exactly how every governing body likes it. We are lucky that our Founding Fathers knew this, and encoded our ability to do so into the framework of our laws and rights. Like it or not, the 2nd amendment was not written to guarantee our ability to hunt, or have a good time wasting ammo at paper targets. It was written so that the people would always be a proper deterrent to unscrupulous leadership.
As for not trusting the 'indoctrinated' military personnel, I don't think you've had much experience dealing with the military. There is no difference between our citizens and our soldiers, they are one and the same and hold the American freedoms just as dearly as you do. Do you think the 18 year old son of your neighbor has a burning desire to impede your rights? Of course not, he's just trying to make a better life for himself in the military. Obedience is expected of soldiers, but what you don't know is how many stupidly long briefings on the conduct of war and the Geneva convention we've had to sit through so we know exactly when we can stop 'just following orders.'
I have had lots of contact with men and women in the military coming from a family with strong military ties, and having several friends in the military and having the burning desire to get in. I have met several people over the years that would do exactly what their Officers tell them and would do exactly what the politicians want them to. Why because they are very impressionable and not that bright. I've had several off my friends state the same thing about people they've encountered as well.
Disagreement with the government can be solved non-violently. The government has power by the consent of the people, and people have the power to change it. If you look at the movements of Dr. King and Ghandi I believe that you will find both to be far more effective non-violently than they would have been had they engaged the government in combat. The days of the Founding Fathers has long past, and I think people cling to the misguided belief that they can deter the government as an excuse to have whatever incredibly dangerous weapons they want.
What if the time for words passes? What if the politicians don't wanna take the time to be heard? Sometimes you do have to get out there and do the dirty work. Sometimes you need to be the bad guy.
Just out of curiosity, what would it take for you to take arms up against the government?
For me I'm not entirely sure what it would take, despite my want to get into the military, let me point out that which military ours or the French Foreign Legion, ultimately my loyalties lay with my friends, family and loved ones.
IAmTheWalrus wrote:
All Army Basics provide training for: AT-4 84mm anti-tank rocket, M2 .50/12.7mm machine gun, M4 5.56/.223 carbine, M16 5.56/.223 assault rifle, M203 40mm grenade launcher, M240B 7.62mm/.308 Win machine gun, and M249 5.56/.223 machine gun, as well as hand grenades and claymores.
Air Force: M16 (spend a single day at the range with no mandatory qualification, just have to shoot), and M9 9mm handgun
Navy: 12 gauge shotgun and M9
Marines weapons training is similar to that of the Army. Pistol qualification never came up when I was talking to one, so I couldn't say for sure.
The Navy's shotgun is the Mossberg 500 I believe, and I put up the NATO designation in mm for the .223's and .50cal, and the civilian inch designation for the 7.62's.
BrotherStynier wrote:I have met several people over the years that would do exactly what their Officers tell them and would do exactly what the politicians want them to. Why because they are very impressionable and not that bright. I've had several off my friends state the same thing about people they've encountered as well.
We've *ALL* met stupid people. This is the internet! Its not MENSA.
The Catch to all of this is that "several people" and "most" are only the same to Glenn Beck, his breed of entertainer, and internet arguments.
Should we be wary of the actions of good folk with good intentions? Absolutely. Thus our right to keep and bear arms.
Having a weapon does not make us prone to use it.
Given that the ability to think is a weapon.
QED.
A M14 is as outdated and far from "modern" as a Vietnam Duece and a half or a Ma Duce. You may be thinking of the M21 or the M25 variants of the rifle system.
The M14 is still seeing very LIMITED used in combat line units, however that doesnt mean that its a modern weapon. Hell, my SDM used a 1903 found in country. Does that make it a modern rifle? The only reason why the M14 is still around is because the Military had a stockpile sitting around and a slot to fill with a limited budget.
Here is a good example:
When I deployed on my first tour, my Troop got one M-14 per platoon. Guess where we pulled some of these dusty relics from? The on post Museum of all places. One day its behind a glass case with people going by going oooh and ahhhh then the next its off to your local arms room with a shiny new fireing pin.
And no, the Armys Newer shotgun is the Moss 500. Used one several times on door breaches all over Iraq. What the navy uses, I dont have a clue... not in the navy lol.
Kilkrazy wrote:In connection with the ACW it is worth noting that it took the election of the Wrong Man to cause the southern states to democratically vote for splitting off.
Except for officers, only a miniscule number of regular army went south.
The majority of the men who fought in the civil war were state militia, relatively few of who provided their own weapons. Both sides had extreme difficulty equipping troops and had to import a lot of weapons.
Thats not correct actually. A majority of the officers went back to the South. The numbers seem small because the US Army was tiny at the time. We didn't keep a large standing army until the mid 1950s.
Automatically Appended Next Post: History is replete with it, but the Constitution is laid out to protect the government from military interference. There is no military junta in the United States because the U.S. military reports to Congress, the way it should be. It is true that we do what we're told, that's how a military works, but we don't think about what is right and what is wrong. That is laid out for us clearly in the Geneva Convention and the Rules of Engagement (which the military goes through an inordinate amount of trouble to make sure we know), and it is well within our rights to tell an officer or NCO to go stuff themselves if they give us an illegal order, which a military coup would be. Every single last service member is sworn to uphold and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. Which means that we uphold the laws that keeps the military subservient to the civilian government.
***That means deer pellets to me. It also means deer pellets to the Commander that does it. Rome thought it had an excellent separation of powers too.
Trust No One Believe Nothing.
I'd be amazed if you could find an example of a military as integrated as ours splitting and devolving into civil war.
***Er…the Civil War
***1917 Russia
***Every freaking coup in Latin America, in history.
More importantly that doesn’t help your argument. If the military follows orders and impugns our rights then your argument means the whole military will do it (which I don’t agree with).
Kilkrazy wrote:In connection with the ACW it is worth noting that it took the election of the Wrong Man to cause the southern states to democratically vote for splitting off.
Except for officers, only a miniscule number of regular army went south.
The majority of the men who fought in the civil war were state militia, relatively few of who provided their own weapons. Both sides had extreme difficulty equipping troops and had to import a lot of weapons.
Thats not correct actually. A majority of the officers went back to the South.
That's what I said.
Except for officers, only a miniscule number of regular army went south.
I'm not sure it was a majority of officers, actually, but I can't find the figures quickly.
Oldgrue wrote:The OP, a resident of the UK, has trouble understanding why the "right to keep and bear arms" is so important. There are, regrettably, some instances where violence is the only answer to an unwelcome or unreasonable occupation. The thread is full of reasons (legitimate and personal) to own a weapon.
Yes, this is true. Just ask the Iraqis and Afghans.
A M14 is as outdated and far from "modern" as a Vietnam Duece and a half or a Ma Duce. You may be thinking of the M21 or the M25 variants of the rifle system.
The M14 is still seeing very LIMITED used in combat line units, however that doesnt mean that its a modern weapon. Hell, my SDM used a 1903 found in country. Does that make it a modern rifle? The only reason why the M14 is still around is because the Military had a stockpile sitting around and a slot to fill with a limited budget.
Here is a good example:
When I deployed on my first tour, my Troop got one M-14 per platoon. Guess where we pulled some of these dusty relics from? The on post Museum of all places. One day its behind a glass case with people going by going oooh and ahhhh then the next its off to your local arms room with a shiny new fireing pin.
And no, the Armys Newer shotgun is the Moss 500. Used one several times on door breaches all over Iraq. What the navy uses, I dont have a clue... not in the navy lol.
The point is how ever jp is that the M-14 is still issued to soldiers in how ever limited a number, much like how the M21 and M25 variants are still issued in small numbers. Then we have the MK14 which is a modern variant of the M14 series. So while its issues in limited number it is still a military weapon issued with some frequency in the modern military.
The 1903 you mentioned is completely different in that it wasn't issued, it was procured on the battle field.
I do think the removal of guns decreases crime, as all the chicken gaks wont have the balls to do anything. But you actually have to remove the guns.. Impossible in the US I would imagine as they love guns like I love cigarettes.
I have no desire for a gun cause I dont need to kill anything, robbers and or kangaroos.
But then again I live in brisbane Oz and have never been robbed, seriously threatend or assaulted..
I do think the removal of guns decreases crime, as all the chicken gaks wont have the balls to do anything. But you actually have to remove the guns.. Impossible in the US I would imagine as they love guns like I love cigarettes.
I have no desire for a gun cause I dont need to kill anything, robbers and or kangaroos.
But then again I live in brisbane Oz and have never been robbed, seriously threatend or assaulted..
Must just live a charmed life.
Ironical that, when Australia restricted firearms a few years back, crime rates went up...
This is the last known photo taken of said culprit, alias "The Man". Please contact your local authorities (who happen to work for the man) if you get attacked at night by any vampires.
IAmtheWalrus wrote:
History is replete with it, but the Constitution is laid out to protect the government from military interference. There is no military junta in the United States because the U.S. military reports to Congress, the way it should be. It is true that we do what we're told, that's how a military works, but we don't think about what is right and what is wrong. That is laid out for us clearly in the Geneva Convention and the Rules of Engagement (which the military goes through an inordinate amount of trouble to make sure we know), and it is well within our rights to tell an officer or NCO to go stuff themselves if they give us an illegal order, which a military coup would be. Every single last service member is sworn to uphold and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. Which means that we uphold the laws that keeps the military subservient to the civilian government.
***That means deer pellets to me. It also means deer pellets to the Commander that does it. Rome thought it had an excellent separation of powers too.
Trust No One Believe Nothing.
Please correct me if I'm missing something here, but I don't find the comparison between Caesar and the contemporary US armed forces particularly apt. For one thing, before Caesar overthrew the government he established the Triumvirate with Pompey and Crassus, and already had his foot in the door of Roman politics, something none of our generals are allowed to do. Service members are allowed to advise, not to make policy. Additionally, before he overthrew Rome he spent several very successful years warring in Central Europe and created for himself an army completely loyal to him, something a flag officer in the U.S. would be hard pressed to do because the Congress has to approve the nomination of generals to important positions.
If you follow the creed 'Trust No One, Believe Nothing" I pity you, it must be lonely.
Frazzled wrote:
IAmtheWalrus wrote:
I'd be amazed if you could find an example of a military as integrated as ours splitting and devolving into civil war.
***Er…the Civil War
***1917 Russia
***Every freaking coup in Latin America, in history.
More importantly that doesn’t help your argument. If the military follows orders and impugns our rights then your argument means the whole military will do it (which I don’t agree with).
The cases you have brought up are not applicable to the military today, for several reasons.
1) The Civil War
As previously mentioned the U.S. military before the civil war was a tiny, regional shadow of the national organization it would become. In 1860 we didn't maintain much of a professional army and relied on state militia for the common defense today the military is primarily made up of full-time professional soldiers. Though I'll admit currently we're leaning on the National Guard to help as we're hurting for people. Additionally, the military shifts it's personnel every 2-4 years and keeps units mixed up so they don't maintain the regional ties that were so prevalent then.
2) 1917 Russia
I'm a little insulted that you're comparing the conscripted second-rate soldiers of the WWI Russian army to our military today. That was a terribly oppressed army of peasants conscripted from their little farms and towns and sent to fight people they knew nothing about for reasons they didn't understand, and after having died in droves, returned to a homeland on the verge of economic collapse. Our military is all volunteer, and we fight because we chose to, for a country we believe in. I think I'm missing where we're similar.
From what I understand of military juntas in South and Central America, it's largely power-hungry generals that overthrow elected governments, and sometimes has to do with drugs. Our leaders would have a hard time amassing a loyal force, for reasons previously outlined, and service members are subject to harsh and invasive investigations of their character and property. Getting away with be associated with drugs at all is difficult, so I'd have to say that the sort of stuff that goes down in South/Central America might be a completely different situation.
Why do some people think owning guns isn't great?
Personally I enjoy target shooting.
Unless somebody invents a time machine and goes back to prevent the development of firearms it's an issue we will always have to deal with, because no matter what laws are in place the people society has to worry about having weapons the most will always have access to them. If criminal elements have access to them I see no reason to deny law abiding citizens, or subjects in some cases =)
IAmTheWalrus wrote:
All Army Basics provide training for: AT-4 84mm anti-tank rocket, M2 .50 machine gun, M4 .223 carbine, M16 .223 assault rifle, M203 40mm grenade launcher, M240B 7.62mm machine gun, and M249 .223 machine gun, as well as hand grenades and claymores.
This must be new. I went through Basic @ Ft. Leonard Wood in 2003, and we never did anything with the .50 cal, M203, or M240. In the 2 1/2 years that I spent in active Air Defense Artillery units we only ever fired the M16 and M249. I had an opportunity to fire an M9 while doing range detail, but didn't take it (they just don't excite me). Then I spent 2 1/2 years in a National Guard infantry unit. The infantry crash course they put us through at Camp Robinson, AR was too short for M9, .50cal or Mk19 ranges, so I've STILL never fired those. When my unit conducted a .50cal range at Annual Training, I was off at the Warrior Leader's Course...
I can't vouch for how recently they integrated that, but I think it might have to do with convoy operations. That one was of the things they stressed pretty heavily when we were training on them, that just in case someone tagged us to be the gunner on the Humvee we needed to know how to do it. We even got a nice training session in the EST on gunning from a turret. It's sad that you never got to fire the M2, it's a blast. There's nothing like sitting behind that bad boy and know you can wreck some bad guy's day. And the Mk19 would be a sweet toy to play with, but alas I haven't had the chance yet.
Trust me when I say that the Mk19 is the biggest POS ive ever had the misfortune to be the gunner behind for an extended period of time.
Prone to Misfeed: Check
Prone to Stovepipe the caseing: Check
Really hard to remove said stovepipe: Check
Needs stupid large amounts of lube else it wont work: Check
Lube bad for your health and looks like Cum: Check
Deploy well lubed gun to the desert for instant mud fun: Check
When I was a Mk19 gunner, I used to have a long handled thick screwdriver and a ballping hammer dummy corded to my hatch cause every time fired the damn thing about every 5th-10th round would Jam. Would have to insert said screwdriver through the side guide for the chargeing handle and lever the damn thing out into my hand waiting below. (Live round + a foot fall=bad) If a caseing jammed Id have to break links, and insert screwdriver down through the top and bang on the until it fell out.
Frazzled wrote:Wait are you arguing we shouldn't be able to have tanks? But what about the advantageous rush hour driving opportunities? Plus you could stop at the park and ride and pick up ten - fifteen passengers on the top and hit the HOV lane. Nice!
Uh, just a correction before I get started, the US Armed Forces answer to the President, not to Congress. They defend both, but the President has the ultimate authority when it comes to the military...
IAmTheWalrus wrote:Please correct me if I'm missing something here, but I don't find the comparison between Caesar and the contemporary US armed forces particularly apt. For one thing, before Caesar overthrew the government he established the Triumvirate with Pompey and Crassus, and already had his foot in the door of Roman politics, something none of our generals are allowed to do.
Good point here. In the Roman Republic, military service and political power were almost inextricably entwined. I will say this though, you might be putting a bit too much importance on the 1st Triumvirate. While it was most certainly engineered by Caesar, it was put there to save his ass from political problems more then anything. Pompey the Great, was easily the most powerful man in Rome, and the most wealthy, at the time. Don't forget the fact that he was married to Caesar's daughter, Julia. Crassus on the other hand was really a third wheel the entire time. He got himself killed in his idiotic Parthian campaign, and that was all he wrote.
IAmTheWalrus wrote:Additionally, before he overthrew Rome he spent several very successful years warring in Central Europe and created for himself an army completely loyal to him, something a flag officer in the U.S. would be hard pressed to do because the Congress has to approve the nomination of generals to important positions.
Well it is largely the same process as is done here. So who is to say that Gen. Petraeus for example couldn't do the same thing? All governorships were assigned by the Consuls and the Senate. Caesar only ended up starting the Roman Civil War because they were going to throw his ass in jail...
JEB_Stuart wrote:Uh, just a correction before I get started, the US Armed Forces answer to the President, not to Congress. They defend both, but the President has the ultimate authority when it comes to the military...
This is true, the President is the Commander-in-Chief, but he doesn't have the ability to deploy the U.S. military for more than 90 days without the consent of Congress. I don't consider either the ultimate authority, as that would violate the checks and balances principle, but the point is that the military answers to the civilians, not itself.
JEB_Stuart wrote:
Well it is largely the same process as is done here. So who is to say that Gen. Petraeus for example couldn't do the same thing? All governorships were assigned by the Consuls and the Senate. Caesar only ended up starting the Roman Civil War because they were going to throw his ass in jail...
This is true, but again this links back to the sociological differences between then and now. A general then was present on the battlefield and visible to the troops, now a commander is just that in name. It's rare that the common soldier sees anyone higher ranking than his company commander on the modern battlefield, but I don't really have the resources to back that up. I suppose the closest example I can offer is Gen. MacAurthur, beloved general sacked for political reasons without a rise out of the troops. The Information Age has made impossible many of the things that were possible in previous eras.
I dont know what is the sadest, people with gun issues or crazy people with gun issues, I dont see ANY resons for a normal civilian person needs for owning a gun except from hunting or range shooting. And this should be limited to one rifel in one house hold. But then again I am just pecaful unlike what other people are.
If you need protection call the police or move to a more safe neighbour hood
Anshal wrote:I dont know what is the sadest, people with gun issues or crazy people with gun issues, I dont see ANY resons for a normal civilian person needs for owning a gun except from hunting or range shooting. And this should be limited to one rifel in one house hold. But then again I am just pecaful unlike what other people are.
If you need protection call the police or move to a more safe neighbour hood
1) "When seconds count the police are only minutes away"
2) Not entirely feasable to move to another neighborhood unless you are a millionare or make enough that buying a new house doesn't bother you. That and unless you move out to where the nearest neighbor is miles away no neighborhood is technically safe.
Anshal wrote:I dont know what is the sadest, people with gun issues or crazy people with gun issues, I dont see ANY resons for a normal civilian person needs for owning a gun except from hunting or range shooting. And this should be limited to one rifel in one house hold. But then again I am just pecaful unlike what other people are.
If you need protection call the police or move to a more safe neighbour hood
I prefer to be just a bit more self reliant than adopting a "sheep bleating for a shepard" (a shepard who may or may not arive in time to help)posistion.
and as far as "safer neighborhoods" A.some people don't have the luxary of choosing what neighborhood they live in. B. The criminal element is mobile,and in many cases prefer to break into "nice homes in nice neighborhoods" as there's more "nice things to take" in those "nice homes".
Anshal wrote:I dont know what is the sadest, people with gun issues or crazy people with gun issues, I dont see ANY resons for a normal civilian person needs for owning a gun except from hunting or range shooting. And this should be limited to one rifel in one house hold. But then again I am just pecaful unlike what other people are.
If you need protection call the police or move to a more safe neighbour hood
I prefer to be just a bit more self reliant than adopting a "sheep bleating for a shepard" (a shepard who may or may not arive in time to help)posistion.
and as far as "safer neighborhoods" A.some people don't have the luxary of choosing what neighborhood they live in. B. The criminal element is mobile,and in many cases prefer to break into "nice homes in nice neighborhoods" as there's more "nice things to take" in those "nice homes".
Well hail you then mr. Gun, I did nit say I am not selfreliant, call me what you feel like but I still belive normal people dont need a hand gun or any other non hunting weapon, But then again I live in a safe country with minimal amount of crazy criminals who feels like killing me.
Anshal wrote:I dont know what is the sadest, people with gun issues or crazy people with gun issues, I dont see ANY resons for a normal civilian person needs for owning a gun except from hunting or range shooting. And this should be limited to one rifel in one house hold. But then again I am just pecaful unlike what other people are.
If you need protection call the police or move to a more safe neighbour hood
I prefer to be just a bit more self reliant than adopting a "sheep bleating for a shepard" (a shepard who may or may not arive in time to help)posistion.
and as far as "safer neighborhoods" A.some people don't have the luxary of choosing what neighborhood they live in. B. The criminal element is mobile,and in many cases prefer to break into "nice homes in nice neighborhoods" as there's more "nice things to take" in those "nice homes".
Well hail you then mr. Gun, I did nit say I am not selfreliant, call me what you feel like but I still belive normal people dont need a hand gun or any other non hunting weapon, But then again I live in a safe country with minimal amount of crazy criminals who feels like killing me.
Mr. Gun?...hmmm,I kind of like that,maybe I'll change my screen name.
No,you never said you arn't self reliant,you did however imply that you would depend on others to ensure that you are protected,which is entierly your own business.
And,yes,you should be very happy that you live in a "safe" country with a minimal amount of criminals.
Anshal wrote:
Well hail you then mr. Gun, I did nit say I am not selfreliant, call me what you feel like but I still belive normal people dont need a hand gun or any other non hunting weapon, But then again I live in a safe country with minimal amount of crazy criminals who feels like killing me.
Anshal wrote:
Well hail you then mr. Gun, I did nit say I am not selfreliant, call me what you feel like but I still belive normal people dont need a hand gun or any other non hunting weapon, But then again I live in a safe country with minimal amount of crazy criminals who feels like killing me.
I will just leave these here.......
Don't catch the first one other than it looks like a .22 version fo a Peacemaker.
model .29 or latest version thereof, or a Dan Wesson?
Ruger Blackhawk?
thompson contenders of some sort?
Anshal wrote:Well hail you then mr. Gun, I did nit say I am not selfreliant, call me what you feel like but I still belive normal people dont need a hand gun or any other non hunting weapon, But then again I live in a safe country with minimal amount of crazy criminals who feels like killing me.
So you simultaneously admit that while you don't live in a situation that would require a firearm for self-defense others might, while denouncing everyone who feels they do need one for not being "normal people"?
I shoot a guy in my house with that I'd be scraping him off floor, the walls AND the ceiling. 
in luck with that. You're not getting what your saying KK. This is not a 
