Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Frazzled wrote:I come from a military family that has roots (literally) back to the Grand Armee.

You're an Ent? :O

Those young punks-no way? Older than dirt is sometimes literal...

French.

Kilkrazy wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

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 Still, the only Amendment to the US constitution ever repealed was the one against Prohibition.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.

Frazzled wrote:

Demogerg wrote:I have driven Hondas with over 500 horsepower on city streets, and it was completely legal.

To quote South Park "You bastard!"
pics or it didn't happen baby.

Our car has about 360 horsepower... It can go 0 to 60 in 5.8 seconds.

My car does 0 to 60 in a 25 seconds. I've seen small chilrden peddle faster on tricycles. This sacrificing for the kids thing is so annoying.

I swear my next car is this:
http://powersports.honda.com/2009/dn-01.aspx
Yes, this will do nicely.

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.

The Green Git wrote:

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.

Kilkrazy wrote:

The constitution is holy writ.

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.

Frazzled wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:

The constitution is holy writ.

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.

Kilkrazy wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:

The constitution is holy writ.

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.

Well getting back to my original post...

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...

Thanks for all the replies people, Mick

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.

Ahtman is correct on both points.

Mick A wrote:As for protecting your family and home, fair enough no arguments from me there. Its sad that you have to live with that fear though.

You say that as if there is no crime or anything to worry about in the UK...I think Ketara could tell you otherwise...

Mick A wrote: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...

Not always true.

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

Well good Mick. It is excellent to be in that position.

Some of us would rather be safe then sorry. Far better to be prepared than unprepared.

Now to get working on the sandbag emplacement for my MG42. This ought to be fun.

Fateweaver wrote:

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.

http://www.jgsales.com/product_info.php/c/rifle-sale/p/mg-42-yugo-53-belt-fed-semi-auto-rifle-not-nfa-/cPath/486/products_id/1712?SID

Oooh, me likey. Comes with an ammo can and 4 ammo belts.

SOG has good deals on 8mm ammo. You might not be able to see the prices.

8mm Yugo surplus ammo $219 for 900 rounds. https://www.southernohiogun.com/index.php/ammunition/8mm-yugo-15rd-box-on-5rd-stripper-clip.html

You can also try here for ammo deals http://www.gun-deals.com

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.

Noble713 wrote:

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).

Fateweaver wrote:(and for Obamanation to try to come take my guns).

Can you believe I'm just now getting that pun?