A Prayer

[mike321]

So...Americans are allowed to purchase, privately, better arms than those wielded by the State? Better tanks, drones, ships, combat aircraft and so on?

No?

But...what about "defense against tyranny"--or does daddy know best?

A bit of an aside here: if you're a State, what might be the best way to ensure that you maintain power? That no others within your borders ever become sufficiently numerous, well-funded or organized to pose a threat? How to ensure a critical-mass of opponents of the State never, ever builds up, that no groups ever remains cohesive enough to be a problem?

How about divide-and-conquer?

A cultural tenet of rugged, "you're-not-the-boss-of-me" individualism might be the ticket for tyrants. This sacrament could be emphasized beginning in the earliest years at home and school. Ensure that even the term "collective" is frowned upon as ideologically tainted and unpatriotic.

Those growing up to assimilate *ahem* this tenet would then be too cantankerous, fractious and perpetually-divided to form anything more than a pickup-truck militia, which could neither challenge the State nor defend itself against it--the State (daddy who knows best) is always better-armed than private citizens. Private citizens who are convinced that they're all "free" and **** might be less inclined to believe that State would dare to challenge them--so they never challenge the State. Everybody's happy.

Not that this kind of mass-manipulation would ever occur to anyone...

The US has a number of power divisions. Right to bear arms is just one of them. The individual states do in fact have tanks and aircraft...but the president can federalize them..who's order would they follow? Our military is divided into different branches, who would they follow if president did not give up power? Civilian police forces are heavily armed also. A potential dictator also has to deal with the Secret Service which serves the President not a dictator. They also have arrest power if someone tried to usurp power from or threaten the elected President. They are part of the Treasury. Your view of right to bear arms is simplistic.

[submessenger]

Out of the frying pan, into the fire... Drudge just headlined "CIVIL WAR: SENATE TO GO FOR HANDGUNS" and linked to this: http://www.feinstein.senate.gov/publ...ssault-weapons

The main points are there, but for posterity:

Following is a summary of the 2013 legislation:
Bans the sale, transfer, importation, or manufacturing of:

• 120 specifically-named firearms
• Certain other semiautomatic rifles, handguns, shotguns that can accept a detachable magazine and have one military characteristic
• Semiautomatic rifles and handguns with a fixed magazine that can accept more than 10 rounds

Strengthens the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban and various state bans by:

• Moving from a 2-characteristic test to a 1-characteristic test
• Eliminating the easy-to-remove bayonet mounts and flash suppressors from the characteristics test
• Banning firearms with “thumbhole stocks” and “bullet buttons” to address attempts to “work around” prior bans

Bans large-capacity ammunition feeding devices capable of accepting more than 10 rounds.
Protects legitimate hunters and the rights of existing gun owners by:

• Grandfathering weapons legally possessed on the date of enactment
• Exempting over 900 specifically-named weapons used for hunting or sporting purposes and
• Exempting antique, manually-operated, and permanently disabled weapons

Requires that grandfathered weapons be registered under the National Firearms Act, to include:

• Background check of owner and any transferee;
• Type and serial number of the firearm;
• Positive identification, including photograph and fingerprint;
• Certification from local law enforcement of identity and that possession would not violate State or local law; and
• Dedicated funding for ATF to implement registration

[Nefron]

Suffice to say, there's more than one way to skin a cat.

Yes, and some ways are clearly more effective than others. You could carry around blow pipes and throwing knives for self defense. Do you really need guns?

As far as I can see, most gun owners in the US insist on getting the most effective self defense weapon they can.

Most of the world treats their citizens as if the rights are "granted" by the existing government. Y'all are treated as "subjects" by a ruling class with a "tough ****, daddy knows best" attitude.

Here the rights are recognized as being de-facto and belonging to any organism with enugh brains and teeth to defend them. We "grant" the rights unto ourselves through personal action.

Well, you are safe as long as you firmly believe that. The government has no interest in you. As soon as you start hanging around with people they don't like they can kill you with a drone strike. Or put you in some hole and keep you there for a few years.

Your rights obviously end exactly where your government wants them to end.

Why don't you grant yourself the right to own and operate TOW missiles through personal action? Not enough teeth or brains?

[Mr. Machette]

Yes, and some ways are clearly more effective than others. You could carry around blow pipes and throwing knives for self defense. Do you really need guns?

As far as I can see, most gun owners in the US insist on getting the most effective self defense weapon they can.

Great question and point!

Some people do carry knives for self defense. IDK if they want to "throw them", that would be their problem.

Blow guns are innefective "stopping power" wise unless you poison the darts and even in self defense, using poison is a premeditation that you really don't want being brought up in court.

Since most violent criminals are carrying firearms, countering them with at least equal force is the most popular choice when available.

How about people who aren't as healthy or handy with their fists as we? You really expect an octagnerian woman in a wheel chair to knife fight with a mugger?

Disparate physical ability and standoff range is what firearms are made for. Plain and simple. They put a single weakling on even footing with a carfull of armed thugs. Pocket knives do not do that.

Well, you are safe as long as you firmly believe that. The government has no interest in you. As soon as you start hanging around with people they don't like they can kill you with a drone strike. Or put you in some hole and keep you there for a few years.

I make a point of keeping my nose clean. You ever heard of Leonard Peltier?

Anyways, that reason is exactly why I don't want to see legislation that is designed to make currently law abiding innocent citizens into fellons under threat of arms overnight. (An actual goal of the Brady Bunch.)

Your rights obviously end exactly where your government wants them to end.

No. Our rights end where we neglect to excersize them.

Our government is technically "of the people, for the people and by the people". That means that the laws which apply to us should in theory apply to them equally.

This has been co-opted by corrupt lawmakers themselves, but that is no reason to simply let the noble principles of equality and self determination slide down the drain.

The whole "RTKBA" things is intended to empower us should we have to assert our rights via force of arms. The second amendment is the teeth behind amendments three through nine.

BTW, the most devastating weapons of the era were owned by private citizens in the Revolutionary war and the war of 1812 (British invasion). Lafitte owned a damn navy! So don't try to tell me the founding fathers didn't intend for us to be armed with the state of the art when some of our greatest assest against the Empire were heavily armed private citizens.

However, Lafitte had a place to use his Navy and reason to use it. Which brings us to this;

Why don't you grant yourself the right to own and operate TOW missiles through personal action? Not enough teeth or brains?

Another good question!

Personally, I support "responsible gun ownership". I know that I have no responsible way to store or opperate a TOW missile. (**** son, just finding a rifle range long enough to stretch the legs of a decent bolt action is a challenge. Where are you going to paractice with your TOW missile?) I personally don't have a use for one and wouldn't spend the money even if one was available.

If the situation arises there will probably be a TOW or two in theater for the occasion. Anti tank weapons seem to follow tank battles around. I dunno. You tell me...

However, 30 round magazines can be and are owned responsibly by the common people. So are semi autos of all types. In a riot situation (see Katrina) I would not want to be armed with less.

How's that for brains?


As for teeth? Mine are sharp as a sharks. Just ask the last stupid **** that tried to rob me.

[Wounded Ronin]

Out of the frying pan, into the fire... Drudge just headlined "CIVIL WAR: SENATE TO GO FOR HANDGUNS" and linked to this: http://www.feinstein.senate.gov/publ...ssault-weapons

The main points are there, but for posterity:

Same thing from her for years...why is she so gung ho about this? I can't imagine there's a very big payoff in terms of political capital...is there?

[Devil]

Out of the frying pan, into the fire... Drudge just headlined "CIVIL WAR: SENATE TO GO FOR HANDGUNS" and linked to this: http://www.feinstein.senate.gov/publ...ssault-weapons

The main points are there, but for posterity:

Jesus fucking Christ. I swear, I hope these cocksuckers all die slow painful deaths.

[It is Fake]

Here's what is crazy. Go look at the other thread. Notice how EVERYONE keeps talking about "OMG Tonz of GUNZ?" Why do you need 2384762398462398731 quadrillllion trillion? Why does this red herring always appear?
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/16/ny...rous.html?_r=0

Investigators have linked Ms. Lanza to five weapons: two powerful handguns, two traditional hunting rifles and a semiautomatic rifle that is similar to weapons used by troops in Afghanistan. Her son took the two handguns and the semiautomatic rifle to the school. Law enforcement officials said they believed the guns were acquired legally and were registered.

Gun collection? 5 guns is now a gun collection? Oh and please note the rhetoric used throughout the article. Has anyone else noticed the sudden turn in her behavior? Now, she is "high strung" and "trying to keep it together." How long before we fins out she had "crazy" in her background?

[Mr. Machette]

Same thing from her for years...why is she so gung ho about this? I can't imagine there's a very big payoff in terms of political capital...is there?

In her state there is. (California).

She gets a lot of campaign donations from anti-gun groups so she's obligated as a representative to "represent" them.

Unfortunatley, she also has a duty to uphold the constitution and tell those moon bats to go stick it. I guess money is more important to her than duty or honor...

You know, some people can be bad at their jobs and all it mens for the rest of us are shitty french fries.

But when a Senator is bad at their job you get shitty laws which destroy lives.

These maniacs cannot be allowed to prevail at the expense of the citizenry who PAY THEM IN THE FIRST PLACE.

[Devil]

I will NEVER participate in any further registration of the guns I currently own. That's where I draw the line. If that law is ever passed, that's the day I will officially become a criminal. I strongly suspect I will not be alone.

The fucking government can't track 13 million illegal aliens. Good luck tracking 300 million guns.

[Wounded Ronin]

So...Americans are allowed to purchase, privately, better arms than those wielded by the State? Better tanks, drones, ships, combat aircraft and so on?

I think there's one doctor who lives in Las Vegas who owns a MIG.

I might be wrong but basically I think you should be OK as long as you don't have the weapon systems set up and ready to go. I'm not a legal expert, but in principle if someone has the federal paperwork to own a 50 cal machine gun, I guess it's probably OK to have said MG mounted on your military surplus vehicle. Not sure what the regulations on missiles, grenades, etc. are and if there's any way to legally possess them. Maybe there is, I haven't looked into it.

I think the biggest barrier is going to be cost. I'd like to have an old Soviet BMP. They're supposed to be amphibious with NBR seal. So if some nuclear terrorism were to occur, or a reactor meltdown, or something like that, you could theoretically jump into your BMP, be shielded, and drive away.

Also, one of the ways that the BMP was an innovative design was that it has gun ports, so your infantry sitting in the passenger components can fire out of the BMP with their rifles.

This means that without getting all wrapped up in owning machine guns and grenades for the actual BMP's mounted weapon systems, you can put all your buddies in the passenger area with their rifles, and they can fire out the sides if someone tries to ambush you as you're driving away from the contaminated area.

If you Google it, as I did a number of years ago, there are some places that are selling old Soviet BMPs. The only problem is I can't afford one.

If I were rich, I'd buy one, and have it fixed up, all ready to go for the next natural disaster.