Thumper
Member
Almost verbatim, the Founding Fathers agreed with you.
Why do we need automatic guns?
- Thread starter Yohan
- Start date
- Status
Almost verbatim, the Founding Fathers agreed with you.
Sam Adams
Member
Yohan
It might have something to do with controlling the masses when some tyranny-minded group of our employees decides that it doesn't like having to answer to anyone. This, by the way, is explicitly why the 2nd Amendment was proposed and ratified - to prevent a powerful central government from imposing its will on the populace. How far would our Revolution have gotten if the Founding Generation didn't have guns equal to or better than those used by the British Army?
I'll reiterate Thumper's Franklin quote:
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a
little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."-Ben Franklin
I don't know - what happened pre-1934? Other than a few well-publicized mob killings/massacres, I don't recall hearing about blood running in the streets due to the existence of full-auto guns. The fact is that hundreds of thousands of veterans of The Great War (as WW1 was called then, there not yet having been an historical instant replay of European insanity) brought home war trophies - and at least several tens of thousands of those consisted of full-auto German, English, French and American firearms (yeah, that's right, the troops were actually allowed to bring the guns home - they were trusted, unlike our brave troops in the last several wars).
What I'd like YOU to answer is the following questions: Why do we have less rights than our grandfathers? Why could my grandfather, as a young man, have theoretically gone to the corner hardware store with a few of his hard-earned dollars and picked up a full-auto Tommy gun (complete with a couple of those evil 50-round drums) with no background check, no waiting period, no "permission granted" form to be signed by the local chief of police, and no $200 tax stamp - but I have to do all of those things if I want to get a gun that has been artificially (by government fiat) made into an absurdly expensive collectors item? Why could my father, as a young man, have ordered any gun he could afford via mail order, including a working 20mm Solothurn cannon with live ammo, also with no background check, no tax stamp, no waiting period and no permission from his employee at the local PD? (BTW, neither my father nor my grandfathers were gun nuts, so, regrettably, none of these items is "in the family"). WHY? WHY? WHY? WHY?
The answer is simple - our rights have been sacrificed by people like you. People of good will and "common sense" who can't see the forest for the trees. The Founding Generation endured enormous hardship, including the loss of their fortunes and livelihoods, loss of home, loss of family, loss of health and loss of life - all so that you, I and everyone else in this country could enjoy LIBERTY. Was their sacrifice in vain? I sure hope not, but (with all due respect to you, who has the right to your opinion), the answer to that question would seem to be an unqualified "yes" because of the attitude and voting patterns of people like yourself.
If I am wrong about you, please do let me know. But someone who can reflexively say
is just not on the same page as me. I respect your right to be wrong - but please don't be wrong because you are uninformed and, thereby, affect MY rights (the few that are left).
It might have something to do with controlling the masses when some tyranny-minded group of our employees decides that it doesn't like having to answer to anyone. This, by the way, is explicitly why the 2nd Amendment was proposed and ratified - to prevent a powerful central government from imposing its will on the populace. How far would our Revolution have gotten if the Founding Generation didn't have guns equal to or better than those used by the British Army?
I'll reiterate Thumper's Franklin quote:
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a
little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."-Ben Franklin
I don't know - what happened pre-1934? Other than a few well-publicized mob killings/massacres, I don't recall hearing about blood running in the streets due to the existence of full-auto guns. The fact is that hundreds of thousands of veterans of The Great War (as WW1 was called then, there not yet having been an historical instant replay of European insanity) brought home war trophies - and at least several tens of thousands of those consisted of full-auto German, English, French and American firearms (yeah, that's right, the troops were actually allowed to bring the guns home - they were trusted, unlike our brave troops in the last several wars).
What I'd like YOU to answer is the following questions: Why do we have less rights than our grandfathers? Why could my grandfather, as a young man, have theoretically gone to the corner hardware store with a few of his hard-earned dollars and picked up a full-auto Tommy gun (complete with a couple of those evil 50-round drums) with no background check, no waiting period, no "permission granted" form to be signed by the local chief of police, and no $200 tax stamp - but I have to do all of those things if I want to get a gun that has been artificially (by government fiat) made into an absurdly expensive collectors item? Why could my father, as a young man, have ordered any gun he could afford via mail order, including a working 20mm Solothurn cannon with live ammo, also with no background check, no tax stamp, no waiting period and no permission from his employee at the local PD? (BTW, neither my father nor my grandfathers were gun nuts, so, regrettably, none of these items is "in the family"). WHY? WHY? WHY? WHY?
The answer is simple - our rights have been sacrificed by people like you. People of good will and "common sense" who can't see the forest for the trees. The Founding Generation endured enormous hardship, including the loss of their fortunes and livelihoods, loss of home, loss of family, loss of health and loss of life - all so that you, I and everyone else in this country could enjoy LIBERTY. Was their sacrifice in vain? I sure hope not, but (with all due respect to you, who has the right to your opinion), the answer to that question would seem to be an unqualified "yes" because of the attitude and voting patterns of people like yourself.
If I am wrong about you, please do let me know. But someone who can reflexively say
is just not on the same page as me. I respect your right to be wrong - but please don't be wrong because you are uninformed and, thereby, affect MY rights (the few that are left).
Mute
Member
Setting aside the ridiculous idea that we have to justify why we need any particular type of firearm, let's address the fallacy that a civilian has no use for automatic or select fire weapons.
Why do LEO's use automatic weapons? Simple. Because they are effective. So if a civilian were to keep a firearm for self protection, why should he/she not have access to the more effective weapon. Now granted, an automatic weapon does not guarantee that it will be more effective than a non-automatic, it has that capability. So again, why wouldn't I choose the more effective weapon if it were available to me.
Why do LEO's use automatic weapons? Simple. Because they are effective. So if a civilian were to keep a firearm for self protection, why should he/she not have access to the more effective weapon. Now granted, an automatic weapon does not guarantee that it will be more effective than a non-automatic, it has that capability. So again, why wouldn't I choose the more effective weapon if it were available to me.
Carlos Cabeza
Member
When confronted with multiple assailants as in a home invasion type robbery I think one would want the most effective weapon available. That means full cap mags and a select fire or semi auto weapon. Scenario's when a select fire weapon could be used would be few. I don't think most J. Q. Public types are up to the level of responsibility, accountability and mental acuity required for that type of scenario. Other than being fun to shoot, I don't think there is any other reason for them except serious offensive/defensive shooting.
Marshall
Member
That's the whole point. I don't want to have pay and buy a liscense! If I want one, I want to be able to to walk in and buy one. Unfortunately, as I said, I can't just cruise down and buy one. Heck, you can't even find anyone who has em on the shelf, brother.
Thumper
Member
Sure you can.
I understand about not wanting to pay for the tax, but them's the breaks.
But I'm confused now...do you want to buy one of these guns that you don't think you need?
If I give you the email addy of a dealer in Tulsa do I get a finder's fee?
I understand about not wanting to pay for the tax, but them's the breaks.
But I'm confused now...do you want to buy one of these guns that you don't think you need?
If I give you the email addy of a dealer in Tulsa do I get a finder's fee?
Well, it isn't up to the government to decide what anybody ‘needs'. Plain and simple.
Next up, simple question. If full-auto isn't a valid choice in civilian use (defense, fun, fighting tyrannical gov't ala the 2nd Amendment, etc.)... why do the police use full-auto weapons? MP5, M4, M249 SAW, etc. Virtually every single LE department in the USA has at least one of the above, especially SWAT teams. If a group of well trained, adequately funded police officers with much backup, military style assets, access to things ranging from flashbangs to the latest in non-lethal equipment, etc. need full-auto when they raid a house in somebody's neighborhood... why do the very people who have to live right next to that ‘dangerous raid target' everyday not ‘need' access to the same to ensure their well being? The group of LEO with all the equipment who will only be there for a few minutes to make a few arrests need a full-auto MP5... but the people who spend their lives in that environment don't deserve the same equipment if the task of self-defense arises?
Something doesn't click when the civilian LEO can produce a ‘need' for these military style weapons, and the very people living in that same place aren't aloud to.
Next up, simple question. If full-auto isn't a valid choice in civilian use (defense, fun, fighting tyrannical gov't ala the 2nd Amendment, etc.)... why do the police use full-auto weapons? MP5, M4, M249 SAW, etc. Virtually every single LE department in the USA has at least one of the above, especially SWAT teams. If a group of well trained, adequately funded police officers with much backup, military style assets, access to things ranging from flashbangs to the latest in non-lethal equipment, etc. need full-auto when they raid a house in somebody's neighborhood... why do the very people who have to live right next to that ‘dangerous raid target' everyday not ‘need' access to the same to ensure their well being? The group of LEO with all the equipment who will only be there for a few minutes to make a few arrests need a full-auto MP5... but the people who spend their lives in that environment don't deserve the same equipment if the task of self-defense arises?
Something doesn't click when the civilian LEO can produce a ‘need' for these military style weapons, and the very people living in that same place aren't aloud to.
keyhole
Member
Mg's are just plain fun to shoot, and having had the chance to do so, I always take it. In response to using them for self defense, BG's do not take into account having to account for all their rounds. LEO's, and the public at large do. By "hosing down" the BG's, and you hit an innocent, you become liable for them. That can be very expensive, not to mention possibly loosing the right,
( not privilage ) to own guns after a legal battle.
( not privilage ) to own guns after a legal battle.
Combat-wombat
Member
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2003
- Messages
- 1,683
Let me put it this way: Look at the American Revolution. The American and British armies were more equal in terms of weaponry. We should keep it that way or we will lose the power to rebel if the government becomes out of hand. We can not fight our modern army with bolt-action hunting rifles!
SIC TRANSIT GLORIA MUNDI
Member
Why do we need automatic weapons? How in the hell do you set up decent fire lanes without them?
Intune
Member
Marshall, you said: “Unless you're military or LE you don't need full auto weapons.â€
But then your tag quote is: "We should not forget that the spark which ignited the American Revolution was caused by the British attempt to confiscate the firearms of the colonists."
Patrick Henery
Am I imagining the incongruity of these statements juxtaposition?
I see the rise of tyranny as a matter of degrees which have already begun. It must be done gently, coolly, non-confrontationally, ostensibly towards the betterment of the masses or to protect a weaker segment (the children) of society in order to dupe the great unwashed while they can still wield an armed response.
Write your own "reasons" after these "reasonable" lines... Bah!
No crew-served weapons
No belt-fed weapons
No full auto weapons
No hi-cap mags
No military caliber semi-autos
No semi-autos
No bolt-action repeaters
No single shots over .30 cal.
No handguns
NO NEED!!!!!
Dateline 2203 MidSpring 47
--------------------------- LET FREEDOM RING--------------------------
Big Brother would like to thank the United People of Earth and especially our vaunted security teams (Go Big Blue!) during this year’s Felon Finders drive! Your efforts produced 15 million additional workers for the Pits and took another FIVE thousand Citizen Killer Guns off of our child-filled streets! Citizen Haywood Jablomi of Middle York was the Grand Prize winner, turning in 18 evil Felons and leading authorities to a cache of AUTOKILLERS and SEMISLAYERS! Leave no stone unturned, watch every neighbor and coworker DO IT FOR OUR CHILDREN!
========================================= =========
But then your tag quote is: "We should not forget that the spark which ignited the American Revolution was caused by the British attempt to confiscate the firearms of the colonists."
Patrick Henery
Am I imagining the incongruity of these statements juxtaposition?
I see the rise of tyranny as a matter of degrees which have already begun. It must be done gently, coolly, non-confrontationally, ostensibly towards the betterment of the masses or to protect a weaker segment (the children) of society in order to dupe the great unwashed while they can still wield an armed response.
Write your own "reasons" after these "reasonable" lines... Bah!
No crew-served weapons
No belt-fed weapons
No full auto weapons
No hi-cap mags
No military caliber semi-autos
No semi-autos
No bolt-action repeaters
No single shots over .30 cal.
No handguns
NO NEED!!!!!
Dateline 2203 MidSpring 47
--------------------------- LET FREEDOM RING--------------------------
Big Brother would like to thank the United People of Earth and especially our vaunted security teams (Go Big Blue!) during this year’s Felon Finders drive! Your efforts produced 15 million additional workers for the Pits and took another FIVE thousand Citizen Killer Guns off of our child-filled streets! Citizen Haywood Jablomi of Middle York was the Grand Prize winner, turning in 18 evil Felons and leading authorities to a cache of AUTOKILLERS and SEMISLAYERS! Leave no stone unturned, watch every neighbor and coworker DO IT FOR OUR CHILDREN!
========================================= =========Combat-wombat
Member
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2003
- Messages
- 1,683
Is it just me, or does it seem like Yohan almost always causes controversy on this site?
Thumper
Member
FWIW, I don't think Yohan's a troll.
I think he might suffer from an acute case of Counter Strike-itis, though.
I think he might suffer from an acute case of Counter Strike-itis, though.
Why I need an M16
Guess it's time to dust this one off and get it back out:
Why I Need To Own An M-16?
I am moved to write that as I was thinking how I pitied the rest of the semi-free world
who do not understand liberty. Those having never really had it, and having been
conditioned to reject true freedom and accept the propaganda and false freedom of your
own government, the world media and the UN. Unfortunately many are conditioned to
these evils and have accepted the intellectually void, historically unfounded, "guns are
bad" argument. Anyway, if you can get past your conditioning, here's my response to the
question.
Some of you may ask, “Why you think that it is your god given right to own a weapon
that was specifically designed to cause harm."
Let's start with a little history. About 230 years ago, some incredibly gifted, wealthy,
slave-owning white guys looked at Western Civilization and undertook what is
undoubtedly the most radical, profound political revolution ever conceived.
Despite what the history books say, it really wasn't about taxes, or troops in people's
homes, or the price of tea or any of that crap. These men were British subjects, but taxes
were lower in the colonies than in England at the time of the Revolution, there was
unprecedented freedom, particularly on the frontier, and these guys were generally the
wealthy elite who could have been colonial governors if they had chosen to. They could
have afforded to drink tea until they were urinating pure caffeine.
Another misconception was that it was a popular revolution. I don't remember who said it,
but one of those old dead white guys said that the colonists were divided roughly into
thirds, one third loyalist, one third ambivalent, and one third revolutionary (sound
familiar?). It took years of coercion and propaganda to motivate the general public to take
up arms against the Britts.
What was our Revolution all about then? These guys realized, 2000 miles from their ruling
country that they had an unprecedented opportunity to revolt and form a radical new
self-government, where political power was vested in the People themselves, not in a
ruling class.
It was an ideological revolution that is still radical today, with the Constitution as the
Blueprint for Freedom. In this system, individual liberty is the beginning and end of all
government activity. That is to say, government powers are only supposed to extend so
far, and only with the permission of the governed. Ideally, where my rights as a citizen
begin, the powers of government come to an abrupt halt. Conversely, the primary function
of government is to guarantee my liberties, hence the Bill of Rights. So what we have is an
incredibly radical new power structure, one not truly duplicated anywhere else in the
world.
So how does this explain why I need an M-16?
What the founding fathers knew, and so many of the "People" have forgotten today(or
never learned), is that Power is a zero sum game. If I have it, then the government doesn't,
and vice versa. Even many pro-gun citizens miss the point and we allow ourselves to be
distracted with "rights" issues, that while they exist, aren't specifically addressed by the
Constitution (right to hunt, right to self-defense, etc.)
The Constitution, the Blueprint for Freedom, and the Bill of Rights, the non-expiring
guarantee of liberty, are about one thing: Power. So don't get confused by other issues
here. If this is a country where Power is truly vested in the People, and the government is
LIMITED by the Constitution, then my ownership of an AR-15 is off limits to the
government. The Second Amendment guarantees my Right to Keep and Bear Arms, and
the Constitution limits the government to very specific, narrow activities, which does not
include regulating guns. So, not only is this right specifically reserved to the People (or,
even with a loose interpretation, the states), it also falls outside of the boundaries outlined
in the Constitution for the Federal Govt.
It’s a double whammy.
Why is it so important to us? Some people fear a tyrannical government taking over (some
think they're "paranoid", despite so many historical lessons that could fill several books;
but that's another topic). But most, I believe, are more like me. We still believe in the
Revolution and its ideals. We ARE Revolutionaries. Power is vested in ME, as a citizen,
and not in the government. It cannot be taken without my permission, which I do not give.
Remember, it’s a zero sum game, so if the government can infringe those liberties, then
liberty really doesn't exist at all, except in theory.
Well, I don't want theoretical freedom. I want the real stuff.
So some argue we still have freedom of the press and the rest of it, why the big deal over
guns? Well, the Bill of Rights is not a buffet. We don't get to pick and choose. I don't like
liberal neo-Socialist rhetoric, but I'm not calling for the abolishment of free speech, am I?
Because I know that the First Amendment is also about Power - the Power of information
(much deadlier than guns, in the right hands, by the way. Case in point, Hitler, whose
propaganda machine convinced the Germans to commit unthinkable atrocities; but I
digress).
Many of us here in the U.S. see the slow, steady, reversal of our Power structure. Our
rights are becoming more "theoretical" all the time. Anyone see the Dateline NBC story on
the Louisiana police who are confiscating cars and money from out of state motorists,
without a trial (due process) and are not even charging them with a crime or arresting
them? How about the IRS, which has the power to confiscate just about anything you own
with the wave of a bureaucrat’s pen. Both of these are examples of activities strictly
forbidden by the Constitution and Bill of Rights, yet it happens all the time and there are
many more examples beyond these.
So you see, it's not just the Second Amendment where the reversal of Power is evident.
Anymore, it seems that the Constitution is just a shell and government doesn't exist for the
people, rather the people (taxpayers) exist for the government. If you’ve never been an
American, that's a subtle distinction you may miss, but it’s the whole ball of wax to us.
So, like the colonists at Lexington and Concord, this is the issue where we choose to
make our stand. Not over taxes, which are atrocious or unreasonable search and seizure,
which is rampant, or the separation of powers (who said Clinton could declare war all by
himself, anyway?) or any of that other stuff, but over my Assault Rifle. Why? Because like
our forefathers (80 civilians on a bridge against 1800 regular troops! How committed
were they?), we realize it’s the foundation of Real Power. Without a weapon capable of
providing adequate resistance to overthrow an unjust, tyrannical, unConstitutional
government, the rest of those rights truly are hollow, no longer belong to the people, and
can be rescinded at any time by the government (many feel we're already at that point). At
that point they are no longer rights. They're privileges. Once again, a subtle difference sure
to escape those of you who think more “liberallyâ€, given your "conditioning".
If the government can take my Assault Rifle, or restrict the amount of ammunition it
holds, or restrict further purchases of "Assault Weapons" then the revolution is dead and
so are the ideals countless thousands have died for. There's a reason for the Second
Amendment and gun ownership (ESPECIALLY assault rifles), a reason those colonists on
that bridge understood; its the last of my rights to go.
THAT'S why I need an Assault Rifle.
Some will not really understand any of this, which only serves to make my point. If you
don't get it, you're really not free, and I pity you.
(Oh, one more thing. I'll address God as well. My "God given rights" are described in the
Constitution as "inalienable". Look it up in the dictionary.)
Be free.
Guess it's time to dust this one off and get it back out:
Why I Need To Own An M-16?
I am moved to write that as I was thinking how I pitied the rest of the semi-free world
who do not understand liberty. Those having never really had it, and having been
conditioned to reject true freedom and accept the propaganda and false freedom of your
own government, the world media and the UN. Unfortunately many are conditioned to
these evils and have accepted the intellectually void, historically unfounded, "guns are
bad" argument. Anyway, if you can get past your conditioning, here's my response to the
question.
Some of you may ask, “Why you think that it is your god given right to own a weapon
that was specifically designed to cause harm."
Let's start with a little history. About 230 years ago, some incredibly gifted, wealthy,
slave-owning white guys looked at Western Civilization and undertook what is
undoubtedly the most radical, profound political revolution ever conceived.
Despite what the history books say, it really wasn't about taxes, or troops in people's
homes, or the price of tea or any of that crap. These men were British subjects, but taxes
were lower in the colonies than in England at the time of the Revolution, there was
unprecedented freedom, particularly on the frontier, and these guys were generally the
wealthy elite who could have been colonial governors if they had chosen to. They could
have afforded to drink tea until they were urinating pure caffeine.
Another misconception was that it was a popular revolution. I don't remember who said it,
but one of those old dead white guys said that the colonists were divided roughly into
thirds, one third loyalist, one third ambivalent, and one third revolutionary (sound
familiar?). It took years of coercion and propaganda to motivate the general public to take
up arms against the Britts.
What was our Revolution all about then? These guys realized, 2000 miles from their ruling
country that they had an unprecedented opportunity to revolt and form a radical new
self-government, where political power was vested in the People themselves, not in a
ruling class.
It was an ideological revolution that is still radical today, with the Constitution as the
Blueprint for Freedom. In this system, individual liberty is the beginning and end of all
government activity. That is to say, government powers are only supposed to extend so
far, and only with the permission of the governed. Ideally, where my rights as a citizen
begin, the powers of government come to an abrupt halt. Conversely, the primary function
of government is to guarantee my liberties, hence the Bill of Rights. So what we have is an
incredibly radical new power structure, one not truly duplicated anywhere else in the
world.
So how does this explain why I need an M-16?
What the founding fathers knew, and so many of the "People" have forgotten today(or
never learned), is that Power is a zero sum game. If I have it, then the government doesn't,
and vice versa. Even many pro-gun citizens miss the point and we allow ourselves to be
distracted with "rights" issues, that while they exist, aren't specifically addressed by the
Constitution (right to hunt, right to self-defense, etc.)
The Constitution, the Blueprint for Freedom, and the Bill of Rights, the non-expiring
guarantee of liberty, are about one thing: Power. So don't get confused by other issues
here. If this is a country where Power is truly vested in the People, and the government is
LIMITED by the Constitution, then my ownership of an AR-15 is off limits to the
government. The Second Amendment guarantees my Right to Keep and Bear Arms, and
the Constitution limits the government to very specific, narrow activities, which does not
include regulating guns. So, not only is this right specifically reserved to the People (or,
even with a loose interpretation, the states), it also falls outside of the boundaries outlined
in the Constitution for the Federal Govt.
It’s a double whammy.
Why is it so important to us? Some people fear a tyrannical government taking over (some
think they're "paranoid", despite so many historical lessons that could fill several books;
but that's another topic). But most, I believe, are more like me. We still believe in the
Revolution and its ideals. We ARE Revolutionaries. Power is vested in ME, as a citizen,
and not in the government. It cannot be taken without my permission, which I do not give.
Remember, it’s a zero sum game, so if the government can infringe those liberties, then
liberty really doesn't exist at all, except in theory.
Well, I don't want theoretical freedom. I want the real stuff.
So some argue we still have freedom of the press and the rest of it, why the big deal over
guns? Well, the Bill of Rights is not a buffet. We don't get to pick and choose. I don't like
liberal neo-Socialist rhetoric, but I'm not calling for the abolishment of free speech, am I?
Because I know that the First Amendment is also about Power - the Power of information
(much deadlier than guns, in the right hands, by the way. Case in point, Hitler, whose
propaganda machine convinced the Germans to commit unthinkable atrocities; but I
digress).
Many of us here in the U.S. see the slow, steady, reversal of our Power structure. Our
rights are becoming more "theoretical" all the time. Anyone see the Dateline NBC story on
the Louisiana police who are confiscating cars and money from out of state motorists,
without a trial (due process) and are not even charging them with a crime or arresting
them? How about the IRS, which has the power to confiscate just about anything you own
with the wave of a bureaucrat’s pen. Both of these are examples of activities strictly
forbidden by the Constitution and Bill of Rights, yet it happens all the time and there are
many more examples beyond these.
So you see, it's not just the Second Amendment where the reversal of Power is evident.
Anymore, it seems that the Constitution is just a shell and government doesn't exist for the
people, rather the people (taxpayers) exist for the government. If you’ve never been an
American, that's a subtle distinction you may miss, but it’s the whole ball of wax to us.
So, like the colonists at Lexington and Concord, this is the issue where we choose to
make our stand. Not over taxes, which are atrocious or unreasonable search and seizure,
which is rampant, or the separation of powers (who said Clinton could declare war all by
himself, anyway?) or any of that other stuff, but over my Assault Rifle. Why? Because like
our forefathers (80 civilians on a bridge against 1800 regular troops! How committed
were they?), we realize it’s the foundation of Real Power. Without a weapon capable of
providing adequate resistance to overthrow an unjust, tyrannical, unConstitutional
government, the rest of those rights truly are hollow, no longer belong to the people, and
can be rescinded at any time by the government (many feel we're already at that point). At
that point they are no longer rights. They're privileges. Once again, a subtle difference sure
to escape those of you who think more “liberallyâ€, given your "conditioning".
If the government can take my Assault Rifle, or restrict the amount of ammunition it
holds, or restrict further purchases of "Assault Weapons" then the revolution is dead and
so are the ideals countless thousands have died for. There's a reason for the Second
Amendment and gun ownership (ESPECIALLY assault rifles), a reason those colonists on
that bridge understood; its the last of my rights to go.
THAT'S why I need an Assault Rifle.
Some will not really understand any of this, which only serves to make my point. If you
don't get it, you're really not free, and I pity you.
(Oh, one more thing. I'll address God as well. My "God given rights" are described in the
Constitution as "inalienable". Look it up in the dictionary.)
Be free.
Combat-Wombat
If I was a troll I wouldn't have said this-
"Why in the world do people need automatic weapons? People have absolutely no need for automatic weapons and they smell like poo!"
I knew this would be somewhat of a controversial topic, which was why I was careful about phrasing. Just as it states, I was interested in practical uses of automatic weapons for civilian application. It's sad to see people get offended by igorance, but they usually waste all of the their energy typing out an anger filled rant with no logic or something, so it all works out in the end. Well, since I MUST be a troll, I'll just go hide under my bridge now.
If I was a troll I wouldn't have said this-
Instead, I might have written something along the lines of
"Why in the world do people need automatic weapons? People have absolutely no need for automatic weapons and they smell like poo!"
I knew this would be somewhat of a controversial topic, which was why I was careful about phrasing. Just as it states, I was interested in practical uses of automatic weapons for civilian application. It's sad to see people get offended by igorance, but they usually waste all of the their energy typing out an anger filled rant with no logic or something, so it all works out in the end. Well, since I MUST be a troll, I'll just go hide under my bridge now.
Frohickey
Member
Why do we NEED automatic guns?
As a recent 9th circuit court justice wrote: "The Second Amendment is a doomsday provision, one designed for those exceptionally rare circumstances where all other rights have failed—where the government refuses to stand for reelection and silences those who protest; where courts have lost the courage to oppose, or can find no one to enforce their decrees. However improbable these contingencies may seem today, facing them unprepared is a mistake a free people get to make only once."
When the people fear the government, you have tyranny.
When the government fear the people, you have freedom.
I want the government to fear the people.
As a recent 9th circuit court justice wrote: "The Second Amendment is a doomsday provision, one designed for those exceptionally rare circumstances where all other rights have failed—where the government refuses to stand for reelection and silences those who protest; where courts have lost the courage to oppose, or can find no one to enforce their decrees. However improbable these contingencies may seem today, facing them unprepared is a mistake a free people get to make only once."
When the people fear the government, you have tyranny.
When the government fear the people, you have freedom.
I want the government to fear the people.
capnrik, I don't know you, but you are now my friend. What you wrote detailed my sentiments exactly.
Yohan,
I would like to have a select fire weapon, why? Because it's what my potential enemies will have. The automatic rifle is not a doomsday device, it is not a weapon of mass destruction.
It does have it's applications, but the point is that why would I not have the same level of effectiveness as our regular army counterparts? The people are the militia, every able bodied man and woman, we are all responsible for the protection of our country and communities.
How are we supposed to effectively combat the enemy without the option of a full-automatic weapon? Not to say it couldn't be done, but full-auto fire does make suppression easier.
I believe that the majority of Americans are good and descent people, if not our country would have been doomed a long time ago. The criminals are now mostly concentrated in prisons and in our house of representatives and other elected positions.
Like it was said before, Tommy guns were readily ordered through the mail. Now I don't know how many were actually bought, because even at the "low" price it was still too expensive for most during the time.
But as easy as they were to acquire, history does not describe how Americans turned out in droves to cut each other down. Sure there were those that broke the law and became infamous with the tommy gun, but on a per capita basis, their notoriety far out distanced their numbers.
So, because of these few criminals, the goverment broke the law and passed an illegitimate law making acquisition of automatic weapons very, very difficult. Obviously, the gov't decided that those that had money were better trusted to have automatic weapons since only they could afford to purchase and license them.
It's funny that they don't trust us to have automatic weapons, but they trust us enough to vote them into office. What's ironic is that we're constantly and consistantly financing our own demise.
Yohan,
I would like to have a select fire weapon, why? Because it's what my potential enemies will have. The automatic rifle is not a doomsday device, it is not a weapon of mass destruction.
It does have it's applications, but the point is that why would I not have the same level of effectiveness as our regular army counterparts? The people are the militia, every able bodied man and woman, we are all responsible for the protection of our country and communities.
How are we supposed to effectively combat the enemy without the option of a full-automatic weapon? Not to say it couldn't be done, but full-auto fire does make suppression easier.
I believe that the majority of Americans are good and descent people, if not our country would have been doomed a long time ago. The criminals are now mostly concentrated in prisons and in our house of representatives and other elected positions.
Like it was said before, Tommy guns were readily ordered through the mail. Now I don't know how many were actually bought, because even at the "low" price it was still too expensive for most during the time.
But as easy as they were to acquire, history does not describe how Americans turned out in droves to cut each other down. Sure there were those that broke the law and became infamous with the tommy gun, but on a per capita basis, their notoriety far out distanced their numbers.
So, because of these few criminals, the goverment broke the law and passed an illegitimate law making acquisition of automatic weapons very, very difficult. Obviously, the gov't decided that those that had money were better trusted to have automatic weapons since only they could afford to purchase and license them.
It's funny that they don't trust us to have automatic weapons, but they trust us enough to vote them into office. What's ironic is that we're constantly and consistantly financing our own demise.
chas_martel
Member
Yohan,
Have you ever shot a title 2 weapon?
I notice you are located in Dallas. It is easily within the realm of posibility for you to sample the firearms which you are talking 'bout.
Interested?
Charles
Have you ever shot a title 2 weapon?
I notice you are located in Dallas. It is easily within the realm of posibility for you to sample the firearms which you are talking 'bout.
Interested?
Charles
Several here have said the 2A "isn't about hunting or Self-Defense."
Explain these:
"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms... disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
- Thomas Jefferson
"Arms in the hands of citizens (may) be used at individual discretion in private self defense"
- John Adams, A Defense of the Constitutions of the Government of the United States of America, 1788
... to prohibit a citizen from wearing or carrying a war arm ... is an unwarranted restriction upon the constitutional right to keep and bear arms. If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of a constitutional privilege.
- WILSON V. STATE, 33 Ark. 557 (1878)
"Let your gun, therefore, be the constant companion of your walks."
- Thomas Jefferson, 1785
"No man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against the tyranny in government."
- Thomas Jefferson
Explain these:
"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms... disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
- Thomas Jefferson
"Arms in the hands of citizens (may) be used at individual discretion in private self defense"
- John Adams, A Defense of the Constitutions of the Government of the United States of America, 1788
... to prohibit a citizen from wearing or carrying a war arm ... is an unwarranted restriction upon the constitutional right to keep and bear arms. If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of a constitutional privilege.
- WILSON V. STATE, 33 Ark. 557 (1878)
"Let your gun, therefore, be the constant companion of your walks."
- Thomas Jefferson, 1785
"No man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against the tyranny in government."
- Thomas Jefferson
Sam Adams
Member
Capnrik and Yohan
Capnrik:
What an absolutely OUTSTANDING response to Yohan's original question (of course, you ARE a Texan). Had your response come immediately after his question, we wouldn't have a 4-page thread.
You are right - the ability to own a weapon the equal of the armed forces' standard infantry weapon is about nothing more and nothing less than the still-radical idea of LIBERTY. Those who value true liberty want to reduce the power of the government over the People in every way possible - whether it has to do with the level of taxation, the extent of regulations or REAL power, i.e. naked force of arms. And you are assuredly correct that without the rights protected by the 2nd Amendment, all of the rest of our rights could be illegally infringed at the whim of any tyrant or oligarchy willing to dispense with the pretense of legality.
Yohan:
The simple answer to your original question appears above. The longer, more accurate answer appears in Capnrik's posting.
In summary: No guns = no liberty; less guns = less liberty; less liberty = less means to slow, stop or reverse the slide toward no guns and, hence, no liberty. We The People need to have full auto weapons in sizeable numbers (in the multi-millions) in order to deter any potential tyranny or, if necessary, to overthrow any actual tyranny. The Founding Fathers would already have revolted - it just goes to show how much courage has been lost over the past 227 years.
By the way, I'd still sincerely like an answer to the questions I posed in the 2nd post on page 4 of this thread. I know that you posed your original question as a thought experiment, as bait to catch a bunch of comments of all stripes. Well, I posed my questions in the same spirit (though maybe I got a bit personal in my answering of my semi-rhetorical questions). Take them as legitimate questions - they are. Of greatest interest to me is your answer to "Why do we have less rights than our grandfathers?"
Peace to all; pray for Gorski's success in the Silveira appeal - it is our best (and perhaps only) hope of ever being able to buy full auto guns over the counter without background checks, just like gramps could have done.
Capnrik:
What an absolutely OUTSTANDING response to Yohan's original question (of course, you ARE a Texan). Had your response come immediately after his question, we wouldn't have a 4-page thread.
You are right - the ability to own a weapon the equal of the armed forces' standard infantry weapon is about nothing more and nothing less than the still-radical idea of LIBERTY. Those who value true liberty want to reduce the power of the government over the People in every way possible - whether it has to do with the level of taxation, the extent of regulations or REAL power, i.e. naked force of arms. And you are assuredly correct that without the rights protected by the 2nd Amendment, all of the rest of our rights could be illegally infringed at the whim of any tyrant or oligarchy willing to dispense with the pretense of legality.
Yohan:
The simple answer to your original question appears above. The longer, more accurate answer appears in Capnrik's posting.
In summary: No guns = no liberty; less guns = less liberty; less liberty = less means to slow, stop or reverse the slide toward no guns and, hence, no liberty. We The People need to have full auto weapons in sizeable numbers (in the multi-millions) in order to deter any potential tyranny or, if necessary, to overthrow any actual tyranny. The Founding Fathers would already have revolted - it just goes to show how much courage has been lost over the past 227 years.
By the way, I'd still sincerely like an answer to the questions I posed in the 2nd post on page 4 of this thread. I know that you posed your original question as a thought experiment, as bait to catch a bunch of comments of all stripes. Well, I posed my questions in the same spirit (though maybe I got a bit personal in my answering of my semi-rhetorical questions). Take them as legitimate questions - they are. Of greatest interest to me is your answer to "Why do we have less rights than our grandfathers?"
Peace to all; pray for Gorski's success in the Silveira appeal - it is our best (and perhaps only) hope of ever being able to buy full auto guns over the counter without background checks, just like gramps could have done.
LiquidTension
Member
I NEED full autos because they are like crack. Just as addictive, twice as fun!
In My Humble Opinion Only:
I think the next terr attack against the US may very well come from some sort of water-borne invasion. And since I live less than 2 miles from the coast of Lake Erie, and within 15 miles of SEVERAL nuclear power plants......
I think the next terr attack against the US may very well come from some sort of water-borne invasion. And since I live less than 2 miles from the coast of Lake Erie, and within 15 miles of SEVERAL nuclear power plants......
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked