2nd Amendment loss-- Eric Holder confirmation hearing happening RIGHT NOW. CALL DC
-
thrash;256351 wrote:
Every American who is mentally able and who has shown themselves to be a law abiding citizen (i.e. people who have not committed a federal felony... I'm not sure state felonies should count since in Michigan using unsecured wireless is a felony).. should be able to own and operate any weapon which would be reasonably put to good use by that man towards the repression of foreign invader or towards the purpose of overthrowing a domestic government which has become unaccountable.
That means fully automatic weapons. Why? Because if you give a man an M-16, he can learn to use it effectively almost immediately.
That doean't mean an F-16. Why? Because one man byhimself cannot use one at all. It takes hundreds (if not thousands) of hours of training, and a crew of people hundreds deep to put one man in the sky in an F-16.
F-16s are not required in order to successfully defend someones home, land, family, etc. Nukes are not "defensive" weapons in any capacity that could be employed by an individual.
If you think about it, the question really boils down to: what does it take for a bunch of villagers to fend off the US military? Experience in Vietnam suggests that all it takes is improvised explosives and basic Ak-47 family weapons.
Therefore, I think I'd want to keep full-auto weapons easily accessible to normal citizens, and probably the same for small grenades. It is plausible to build it all yourself anyhow. (unlike a nuke, for instance)
Regarding smoking -- i was against the ban. I hate filthy smokers and hate being in smoke filled places. Even so, I was against the ban because I think it comes down to business owners and individuals choices.
I am very fine with regulating how guns are used. But I want everyone to have whatever they need so they're prepared for when regulations are no longer being followed.
This holder guy is bad news. He is absolutely a gun grabber and does NOT think gun ownership is an individual right. In light of the supreme court beat down, he's going to do everyhting he can to make gun ownership de-facto impossile.
So then, is the basis for the 2nd amendment to read:
The only arms protected are the ones that one can reasonably afford to purchase and maintain by themselves?
I could go into an absurd "so you win the powerball just after retiring from the airforce and decide to by a fighter jet and a few thousand rounds of ammo and a few small bombs...." argument...but I won't, I'll just let you figure out where I am going with that. Should that pilot not be able to buy it and arm it if he can afford it and is trained in using it? I'd argue that if the military decided to take over my land/home/county/state/whatever they would likely use aircraft for part of the attack...it's hard to beat a jet w/o having one of your own. Isn't part of the 2nd amendment there so that the people can forcefully overthrow their gov't if need be? Good luck w/o the high tech equipment they have at their disposal....we don't have the jungle advantage of Viet Nam, the desert advantage of Iraq or the mountains of afghanistan...nor do we have the concentrated cities.
I could really tear into every aspect of your rebuttal, but I won't because I mostly agree with you....maybe I'll be bored tonight and do it just for fun though.
-
Trafik Jamz;256383 wrote:
Good luck w/o the high tech equipment they have at their disposal....we don't have the jungle advantage of Viet Nam, the desert advantage of Iraq or the mountains of afghanistan...nor do we have the concentrated cities.I could really tear into every aspect of your rebuttal, but I won't because I mostly agree with you....maybe I'll be bored tonight and do it just for fun though.
You're missing some key points there Chuck.
#1, you are assuming the entirely military would turn against the revolting citizens. I'd be willing to bet if some event happened that would cause an uprising and attempted overthrow of the government a decent portion of military personnel and material would support that overthrow.
#2, you are wrong in thinking that we do not have the landscape or environments to hold off the military. Sure the odds are greatly in their favor, but, there are plenty of parts of this country where the military would pretty much be forced to carpet bomb entire states to have any margin of success , and even then I think people would have viet-nam type trenches.
It would not be a "walk all over them" type of victory as you seem to think it'd be. I honestly don't think anyone could predict who the victor would be...you know damn well though that nuclear/chemical/biological weapons wouldn't be used.
Also during this uprising other enemies of the USA would probably take the initiative to start their own campaigns against our forces overseas and possibly even in country just because of the turmoil it would cause.
-
It has nothing to do with cost, it has to do with appropriateness for use for the two purposes I state.
The US has never won a war or occupied a territory via any other power apart from having troops on the ground. Air power is nice. It is mostly useful for aiding ground troops and in the opening stages of a conflict to eliminate hardened targets and infrastructure. If ND decides to tell the Feds to sod off, air power will only be used to knock out provisional government buildings, factories, water/food/etc production facilities. Those acts however will not quell the uprising or re-occupy ND.
Aircraft are offensive weapons except in the case of using aircraft to defend against attacking aircraft. And for that purpose, SAMs are probably considerably more effective. One reason we don't have SAM installatoins all over the US is because we are geographically protected from foreign air forces.
The guidelines I illustrate are consistent with the environment and actual outcome of the revolutionary war -- farmers were able to take up the arms of the basic infantry man and repel the worlds largest most successful military.
There is no need to "allow" people to have tanks or fighter jets or what have you -- as long as they are sufficiently armed to have the equivalent infantry firepower of the invading army, they can improvise and steal what they do not already have.
The point of the second amendment was to ensure that the people could self organize into an effective fighting force. Like I said -- forces that have successfuly opposed the US military to defend their homelands have needed little more than crude automatic weapons and IEDs. When considering where to draw "a line", one should consider the then-fresh experience of the revolutionary war as the context under which the framers authored the constitution.
War to defend against a foreign invader or a corrupt government during times of revolution will be by definition assymmetric. A bunch of F-16s privately owned/operated will be useless at the onset of conflict in a defensive capacity. The invading force will knock out the runways and batteries first, then work the rest of the way down the list of high-value-concentration targets.
It's all about what is plausible for the common man to be effective with when repelling invasion. If the US wants to have some program for ex-pilot-lottery-winners to stay current on F-16s that's fine, but I don't see that as a 2nd amendment issue.
My NG buddy tells me that in Iraq, every family is issued a government AK-47 (full auto). If that's the case, I wish we could "export" some of our Democracy back to our own shores.
-
24valvenotak;256274 wrote:
all i heard was :machinegun:
You are seriously an ignorant retard when it comes to guns...
I got so sick of this thread I didnt even read half... suprising how much brainwashing liberals must have done to people's views... that or they have no knowledge of guns...
-
bubba;256420 wrote:
You are seriously an ignorant retard when it comes to guns...I got so sick of this thread I didnt even read half... suprising how much brainwashing liberals must have done to people's views... that or they have no knowledge of guns...
shit son nra member since 81'
been shootin since you were a twinkle in your daddys eye
-
-
Parker;256431 wrote:
out of all the people that read the drama on this site.... it never ceases to amaze how many people fall for pot stirring.... A+ for you!out of all the people that are good at it im disappointed in you for ending this one
-
thrash;256391 wrote:
It has nothing to do with cost, it has to do with appropriateness for use for the two purposes I state.The US has never won a war or occupied a territory via any other power apart from having troops on the ground. Air power is nice. It is mostly useful for aiding ground troops and in the opening stages of a conflict to eliminate hardened targets and infrastructure. If ND decides to tell the Feds to sod off, air power will only be used to knock out provisional government buildings, factories, water/food/etc production facilities. Those acts however will not quell the uprising or re-occupy ND.
Aircraft are offensive weapons except in the case of using aircraft to defend against attacking aircraft. And for that purpose, SAMs are probably considerably more effective. One reason we don't have SAM installatoins all over the US is because we are geographically protected from foreign air forces.
The guidelines I illustrate are consistent with the environment and actual outcome of the revolutionary war -- farmers were able to take up the arms of the basic infantry man and repel the worlds largest most successful military.
There is no need to "allow" people to have tanks or fighter jets or what have you -- as long as they are sufficiently armed to have the equivalent infantry firepower of the invading army, they can improvise and steal what they do not already have.
The point of the second amendment was to ensure that the people could self organize into an effective fighting force. Like I said -- forces that have successfuly opposed the US military to defend their homelands have needed little more than crude automatic weapons and IEDs. When considering where to draw "a line", one should consider the then-fresh experience of the revolutionary war as the context under which the framers authored the constitution.
War to defend against a foreign invader or a corrupt government during times of revolution will be by definition assymmetric. A bunch of F-16s privately owned/operated will be useless at the onset of conflict in a defensive capacity. The invading force will knock out the runways and batteries first, then work the rest of the way down the list of high-value-concentration targets.
It's all about what is plausible for the common man to be effective with when repelling invasion. If the US wants to have some program for ex-pilot-lottery-winners to stay current on F-16s that's fine, but I don't see that as a 2nd amendment issue.
My NG buddy tells me that in Iraq, every family is issued a government AK-47 (full auto). If that's the case, I wish we could "export" some of our Democracy back to our own shores.
But the 2nd Amendment says the right to bear arms...not the right to bear certain arms/necessary arms.
US Constitution wrote:
A well-regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.So, by definition, ALL arms, regardless of "appropriateness" shall be permissible to be obtained by the people. I hereby declare you anti-constitutional and a socialist!!! (sarcasm intended)
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login