When I Get Back
Posted On:3/10/2010 2:27pm
Originally Posted by searcher66071
The second ammendment is what seperates citizens from subjects
change "subjects" to "civilians" and you will give Phrost a half-stock.
Posted On:3/10/2010 2:44pm
Style: Kenkojuku Karate, Judo
Do military & LEO think that fully automatic is too dangerous for random people to own?
I don't mean in the sense that they'll use them to commit crimes, but that I'd imagine it's a lot harder to control where all your bullets are landing and not kill your neighbors if you're spraying off several rounds at a time (especially if you have tissue paper walls seperating you like me)?
IIRC even the US army's current version of the colt assault rifle no longer fires fully automatic and are either 3 bullet bursts or single shots, so is having full auto really even worth it?
b.) the people who actually have the guns were on Bush's "side".
We sure could've used an angry gun militia threatening an uprising unless we got a public option on health care or didn't bail out Goldman Sachs. I'd buy a gun and join that militia in .02 fucking seconds.
Instead it seems all the gun nuts (talking about militias, not people who own guns) worry about are how many Mexicans there are living in TX now.
Posted On:3/10/2010 2:52pm
Guy Who Pays the Bills and Gets the Death Threats Style: MMA (Retired)
Originally Posted by DarkPhoenix
And I am pretty sure the 7.62 round of an AK packs more than enough power to drop game cleanly, as does a good compound bow does. I am well aware of what the difference are between what is considered an "assault weapon" and what is not. Most of the populace on the other hand, do not. And I am well aware of the power of the average deer rifle. Is that the reason why the US military uses weapons that chamber those rounds for sniper rifles?
And when I said what I did, I was referring to what most people view as their rights with the 2nd Amendment. Most Americans, including myself admittedly, do not understand the 2nd Amendment. Most feel that they should be able to own whatever weapon they see fit, even if it ISN'T for home or state defence. They see that they NEED a BAR to hunt Bambi, or a Barrett to go Turkey hunting. That is what I was going for in my post.
You're probably confusing 7.62x39 for 7.62x51 (.308), but that's picking nits.
You should also know that there's a vast difference between "Assault Rifle" and "Assault Weapon".
The former, is derived from the original German "SturmGewehr", and describes a primary battle rifle capable of select fire and/or full auto, with a large magazine. The latter is a complete fucking concoction by the anti-gun crowd to demonize semi-auto, military-looking/scary black rifles, and confuse the average citizen with an unstated, fearmongering implication that they're full-auto.
Posted On:3/10/2010 2:57pm
Originally Posted by Robstafarian
I am afraid it's all my fault.
Phrost, is that inter-site moderation working yet? While I have your attention, sorry for fucking up this thread.
Not yet, soon though.
NOTE TO SELF - MOAR GRAPPLE - GET A NORMAL HAIR CUT - REPEAT
Posted On:3/10/2010 3:05pm
Style: Submission Grappling
Just my $0.02
You have your rights simply by virtue of your existence. If you believe (as the founders did) that your existence is the result of the choices of a Creator, fine. It is really irrelevant. The point is that your rights are part of YOU, and not a gift from the State.
The Second Ammendment is the political expression of your right to fight on behalf of your own survival. It is the most fundamental right there is.
In its specific form in the Bill of Rights the 2A introduces some specifics that are not essential parts of this fundamental right: That there should be no standing army distinct from the citizen's militia, and that the use of external weapons shall be permitted. The term "arms" in this context should be construed to include both firearms and traditional hand held weapons. I think no one would argue that the 2A gave permission for individual citizens to operate private naval vessels (piracy), or seige engines calssical (ballista) or of the collonial period (cannon). Arms are what men engage in individual combat with. If a weapon is more effectictive against groups, buildings, civilians, the old, the infirm, individual or group moral, than it is against an single soldier, I would argue that it is excluded from the weapons refered to in the 2A. No stinger missiles, no tanks, no flash-bang grenades (or grenades of any sort), no Anthrax, no mustard gas, no scud missiles, no gattling guns, and no high capacity fully automatic weapons. As Phrost mentioned, they are better suited to attacking groups and crowds.
No high-capacity drums or clips for semis either.
In short, I don't care if you have an Uzi with a 5 round clip. I do care if you have 10/22 with a Hellfire trigger conversion and a 75 round bananna clip because the latter can be used to slaughter crowds, and the former can not.
Last edited by Matt Phillips; 3/10/2010 3:12pm at .
Now darkness comes; you don't know if the whales are coming. - Royce Gracie
KosherKickboxer has t3h r34l chi sao
In De Janerio, in blackest night,
Luta Livre flees the fight,
Behold Maeda's sacred tights;
Beware my power... Blue Lantern's light!
Jiu Jitsu - Sometimes passing just isn't an option.
Posted On:3/10/2010 3:11pm
Style: BJJ, Unauthorized Judo
I used to think that it was only needed by a militia and that the creation of a national military meant it was no longer needed. This was while growing up in Detroit during the 80's and 90's as crime really (at least from my point of view) ramped up big time. It was until I left, and started purchasing guns as a means of self defense for my home and for fun at the range (missed the shooting that I did in the military) that I started looking at the 2nd Amendment a bit closer. I look at it as ensuring the average person the ability to protect himself, his loved ones, his property, his neighborhood, city, state, country, etc and that this right should NEVER be infringed in any way.
Growing up in Detroit is the very reason we need the 2nd Amendment and we need education on it as well as on the use of guns in general. Impoverished neighborhoods and areas such as that were/are a prime target for the gun control crowd. I remember when the Assault Weapons ban was passed. I thought this would actually keep guns off the street. Boy was I wrong. All the stuff that was supposedly banned, the criminals, drug dealers, etc had, but the average person didn't have. All that ban and most of the gun restrictions we have in the states ensure that the criminals have the advantage.
Regardless of what laws are on the books, what type of police force, security, etc you may have, in the end, when it comes down to you, it comes down to you to deal with whatever you have to deal with. And hopefully, you have the means available to you to deal with it. Otherwise, you are just another person, in a bad way. In my opinion, the 2nd Amendment ensures that when it comes down to us, we are guaranteed the right to ensure we won't be in a bad way when the **** hits the fan.
Posted On:3/10/2010 3:29pm
P.S. The reason the European societies can squeak by without this right is that their militaries are artificially reduced in size and power by their reliance on American power for their national defense. If France, Germany, etc. had the military power they wielded during the world wars, their unarmed citizens would be incapable of meaningful resistance in the face of domination. As it stands, I doubt France (for example) could do much in the face of a country-wide revolt, even if it wielded only simple improvized weapons like the Cocktail.
BJJ might make you a better ground fighter, but Judo will make you a better dancer.
Posted On:3/10/2010 3:47pm
By that token, if the U.S. military is so strong, then any armed revolt in the U.S. is doomed to quick annihilation, so civilian gun ownership is irrelevant.
The French could get away with revolt not because their army is weak, but because they're are made up of civilian volunteers. Any truly popular uprising would have the backing of at least some portion of the military. At the least they would stand aside to allow a peaceful transition of power.
I fully support your right to bear arms, but you're delusional if you think any militia could stand up to a modern military for long. I think you're further delusional if you believe even a fraction of those people exercising that right would even contemplate it.
Last edited by Lu Tze; 3/10/2010 3:51pm at .
Posted On:3/10/2010 3:51pm
That's a horribly retarded argument, which basically boils down to waving off individual responsibility out of deep-seated cowardice.
So you're basically saying that if there was an insurrection and martial law was imposed, you'd give up without a fight because your chances weren't as good as 50/50?
Posted On:3/10/2010 4:00pm
Yeah I'm a coward Phrost, you're bang on the money buddy.
Edit: I'm not going to bullshit you about "blah blah I'd totally be fightin' man", because I don't know what I'd do if the **** truly hit the fan like that. I'm saying your guns are not as relevant as the will of the people to fight, France has fucking uprisings all the time without guns.
Last edited by Lu Tze; 3/10/2010 4:08pm at .
Articles and Reviews
Tools and Info