Commandough
Member
- Joined
- Mar 3, 2010
- Messages
- 1
I don't actually dislike guns, never used them myself but can see their value as a defense weapon and hobby. I just have my own hobbies and felt for me a gun would be more of a hobby and didn't feel an inclination to expand into another one. On that subject would you kindly give a quick prayer that my new mobo arrives soon?
That brings me to my first issue, it isn't "gun nut" it is gun nerd. (I'm a nerd too.) I've lurked a lot of firearm boards and blogs before posting this and I know nerd talk. I find that, while the second amendment is important, many seem to use it mostly as a way to tie their inablitity to purchase the latest TLA (three letter acronym) gun like the acr xcr scar tar etc. into national politics.
(And really what's with all the hype, How is it not same bullet same gun, just better ergonomics. IIRC any ballistics properties are solely a function of barrel lengths.)
Second the whole guns vs. oppression, I don't feel gun owners truly know what they're in for with this. In the possible event of some kind of tyrant taking over, I see a bunch of AR equipped irregulars marching off to battle BATFE ninjas only to get bombed out of the almighty US Military.
(Come on, you really think you were going to get so lucky to fall victim to something so unambiguously evil that no one will support the government at all.)
And I have further doubts about your ability to fight an asymmetrical war against whatever chuck of the military sides against you. I think you're overlooking the part of second amendment about the militia as guns aren't enough to defeat modern armies. Where are the stinger missiles, anti tank weapons, logistical support, organizational skills, safe areas to retreat and friendly alliances with foreign nations? Even Washington would have lost without the French.
I do see a role for guns rights as an first line of defense, as just because it is possible for a tyrant to gain power without taking guns away, they still have to into in order to do the really bad stuff. The problem with that is that I see this as more like a canary in a mine, and find the canary a little preachy and arrogant.
Third, I find the the thought that if guns are outlawed only criminals will have guns to be accurate. I just get the impression that you seem to think the opposite is also true, that if there is no laws on guns, criminals won't use guns because they only do illegal things.
How many times have you seen a hypothetical home invasion where the criminals are all punks with knives instead of guns, or have no training in gun usage, instead of being well armed and properly trained.
In a world with no restrictions on gun ownership, I would like to propose this Scenario:
You heard a noise, grab a .357 and flashlight and go down stairs, where I stop making that noise and shoot your with a less-than-lethal weapon fired from my m203 grenade launcher attached to my silenced HK416 (only because the use of a short stroke piston makes it easier to silence than a DGI AR-15, while still letting you train on an AR-15 platform) , then go upstairs, flashbang your bedroom and taze your wife, then steal all your stuff, being sure to take your .357. (This is my first post and I think murdering people would be a bad first impression)
Also I was thinking that guns wouldn't help you against mugging as much people think. The mugger knows that he or she (because the mugger is armed and guns are equalizers, no?) will mug you but you don't know who will. So the mugger seems to be almost certain to be able to bring his or her (proper grammar FTW) gun to position, meaning you have to draw aim and fire your weapon before the person pulls the trigger, something a lot of people can't do.
(I have never done a home invasion or mugging.)
I noticed that first, people that teach gun defense vs mugging never talk about how your money is not worth your life. Then I realized that I can't find anything about gun defense vs mugging and that the only people talking about mugging were saying what other people had done or what they would do if mugged.
Disclaimer: not trained not much research, but finding interesting that guns don't play a major role in the first listing for mugging defense.
On open carry, isn't that more or less giving the mugger some more money? Now the mugger knows your armed and where you'll go to fight back.
Finally on mugging, I wonder if the reason why muggers often don't go after people who can fight back isn't because they can it's because they'll try even if it's clear they don't have a chance to succeed.
But, I've been wrong with hypothetical situations before, so counter-examples are welcome but sources and the use of guns against all parties would be nice.
Also, I'm not a criminal.
I live in south central Idaho, ( I read the sticky with the anti gun dude.)
Finally, in the forum rules it mentioned something happened to thefiringline.com forums in 2003 so it was no longer as good as it was before, what was that?
That brings me to my first issue, it isn't "gun nut" it is gun nerd. (I'm a nerd too.) I've lurked a lot of firearm boards and blogs before posting this and I know nerd talk. I find that, while the second amendment is important, many seem to use it mostly as a way to tie their inablitity to purchase the latest TLA (three letter acronym) gun like the acr xcr scar tar etc. into national politics.
(And really what's with all the hype, How is it not same bullet same gun, just better ergonomics. IIRC any ballistics properties are solely a function of barrel lengths.)
Second the whole guns vs. oppression, I don't feel gun owners truly know what they're in for with this. In the possible event of some kind of tyrant taking over, I see a bunch of AR equipped irregulars marching off to battle BATFE ninjas only to get bombed out of the almighty US Military.
(Come on, you really think you were going to get so lucky to fall victim to something so unambiguously evil that no one will support the government at all.)
And I have further doubts about your ability to fight an asymmetrical war against whatever chuck of the military sides against you. I think you're overlooking the part of second amendment about the militia as guns aren't enough to defeat modern armies. Where are the stinger missiles, anti tank weapons, logistical support, organizational skills, safe areas to retreat and friendly alliances with foreign nations? Even Washington would have lost without the French.
I do see a role for guns rights as an first line of defense, as just because it is possible for a tyrant to gain power without taking guns away, they still have to into in order to do the really bad stuff. The problem with that is that I see this as more like a canary in a mine, and find the canary a little preachy and arrogant.
Third, I find the the thought that if guns are outlawed only criminals will have guns to be accurate. I just get the impression that you seem to think the opposite is also true, that if there is no laws on guns, criminals won't use guns because they only do illegal things.
How many times have you seen a hypothetical home invasion where the criminals are all punks with knives instead of guns, or have no training in gun usage, instead of being well armed and properly trained.
In a world with no restrictions on gun ownership, I would like to propose this Scenario:
You heard a noise, grab a .357 and flashlight and go down stairs, where I stop making that noise and shoot your with a less-than-lethal weapon fired from my m203 grenade launcher attached to my silenced HK416 (only because the use of a short stroke piston makes it easier to silence than a DGI AR-15, while still letting you train on an AR-15 platform) , then go upstairs, flashbang your bedroom and taze your wife, then steal all your stuff, being sure to take your .357. (This is my first post and I think murdering people would be a bad first impression)
Also I was thinking that guns wouldn't help you against mugging as much people think. The mugger knows that he or she (because the mugger is armed and guns are equalizers, no?) will mug you but you don't know who will. So the mugger seems to be almost certain to be able to bring his or her (proper grammar FTW) gun to position, meaning you have to draw aim and fire your weapon before the person pulls the trigger, something a lot of people can't do.
(I have never done a home invasion or mugging.)
I noticed that first, people that teach gun defense vs mugging never talk about how your money is not worth your life. Then I realized that I can't find anything about gun defense vs mugging and that the only people talking about mugging were saying what other people had done or what they would do if mugged.
Disclaimer: not trained not much research, but finding interesting that guns don't play a major role in the first listing for mugging defense.
On open carry, isn't that more or less giving the mugger some more money? Now the mugger knows your armed and where you'll go to fight back.
Finally on mugging, I wonder if the reason why muggers often don't go after people who can fight back isn't because they can it's because they'll try even if it's clear they don't have a chance to succeed.
But, I've been wrong with hypothetical situations before, so counter-examples are welcome but sources and the use of guns against all parties would be nice.
Also, I'm not a criminal.
I live in south central Idaho, ( I read the sticky with the anti gun dude.)
Finally, in the forum rules it mentioned something happened to thefiringline.com forums in 2003 so it was no longer as good as it was before, what was that?
