“We need automatic guns so to defend against the military. ” - What???

Many ATSers are rubbing their hands at the prospect of putting these said hands unto heavy machine guns, like little children in front of water guns. “We need it”, they tell me. “We really do - it’s so that we can defend against the military." To such people I am here to show that your logic is full of holes.

You guys keep on citing the Second Amendment in the hope to justify this ammunophiliac madness. I saw ATSers quote the Second Amendment to justify having automatic weapons, I saw ATSers quote the Second Amendment to justify having bazooka at their home, I saw ATSers quote the Second Amendment to justify having a tank at their home, and I even saw ATSers quote the Second Amendment to justify having bombs.

When the Second Amendment was drafted almost three centuries ago, guns were at the stage of revolvers and muskets. Limited quantity of bullets, and often slow to re-charge - basically, you had to think twice before shooting someone. Today one automatic gun can turn a peaceful school yard into a horror crime scene. Hundred of children were killed - why? Because someone went crazy with an automatic, most of which fire more than one bullet per seconds. That's more than one can do with a three-hundred years-old musket, I can tell you that.

Similarly, your argument implies that to protect themselves from the shooters, schoolchildren should all carry an equally dangerous automatic weapon than the shooter. To me this is not logic, it is a recipe for disaster.

Additionally: you guys often claim that having military grade equipment at home will protect you from an ever-elusive FEMA invasion. Let me simply point out to you that if the military really wanted to kill you all, they would have done it long ago, using a special modern technology which we call the Bomb. In case you've never seen one in your life:



If you really think that an organized military will be scared by your machine guns, then I’m sorry but you live in a fairy tale. The minute a zone is declared hostile territory, they won't bother gently knocking at every wannabe-Rambo redneck's doors. If they judge the place too hostile, then they'll simply blast the place sky high.

Now you understand why I conclude that in modern, everyday life, automatic guns are only a promise of death at worst, and a promise of chaos at best.

In the end, this "ammunophilia" will have profited but the same, old industries: the Big Corporations which are selling the guns and the bullets.

This is not going to be a popular thread. I know I'm going to be flamed because I oppose the proliferation of machine guns and tanks in our streets. Imagine all the society's drug addicts, bums, skinheads with those - chaos would run rampant, in every corners, in every blocks. But I oppose this - and thus I expect to get flamed, because emotions ("I want the big gun! ") too often wins over logic ("This means the streets will be as safe as a mine field").

a reply to: swanne

Why should modern technology be used to support any of the amendments then? They didn't have radios and the television back then. You like getting on line and exercising your right to free speech. Maybe you are pissing in the wind about as much as someone that thinks, as you say, its necessary in a modern technological application to the 2nd amendment.

pfff

a reply to: Logarock

I never said the Second Amendment should be abolished.

I simply stated that there is a clear difference between an automatic weapon & tanks and a normal gun.

a reply to: swanne

The notion of an armed revolution involving the population of America pitted against the US Military is pure fantasy. It'll never happen regardless of the scenario of 'state of the art' tanks in every driveway.

Why?

Because the US Military consists of sons and daughters who would never stand against the citizenry.

a reply to: swanne

Here let me help you here

" Today one Homemade bombcan turn a peaceful school yard into a horror crime scene. Hundred of children were killed - why? Because someone went crazy with a bomb, most of which the ingredients are legal and used in every day homes across the world."

there we go, that looks better........

You see crazy people will use anything if they want to kill someone..........

Seeing as how you can make a weapon even a bomb out of anything, I guess we should ban everything then shouldnt we?

Besides that fact, again , people with minds to do this, will find automatic weapons anyway, how many automatic weapons do you think are found in gang thick areas?

Do you think any of those are LEGALLY owned? This point alone seems to consistently be too hard to grasp for gun control activist

now tell me, who do you think is more likely to use one for nefarious purposes, the guy who bought one on the corner ...........or the guy who jumped through the hoops to legally have one?

Im willing to bet the man who spent the time and energy to have the license to have one legally isnt gonna be your guy to jump in your "School playground"


Oh and i have news for you, unless its single shot, I can fire a lot faster then 1 bullet per second and with accuracy...

originally posted by: swanne
a reply to: Logarock



I simply stated that there is a clear difference between an automatic weapon & tanks and a normal gun.

Actually as far as tanks, the second amendment is also a states rights amendment i.e. states having the right to raise their own armies in the event of other states or the federal government going mad. Now some states do have tanks, apc's ect and are constitutionally allowed to maintain such and call up their own army if the event warrants. If my state is worth a crap I shouldn't have to worry about the heavy hardware.

a reply to: swanne

The problem with your line of thought is that:

1) The police have no legal duty to respond and prevent crime and protect you. According to the Supreme Court the duty to provide security for your family and yourself fall on you and only you.

2) Even if you forced every citizen turn in their guns, criminals by definition most likely will not. So advantage now goes to the criminals.

3) If it ever comes to fighting a tyrannical government, not everyone in the military will fight for the government. It would be a bloody civil war, where both sides will lose lives. Just remember also that at any given time there are more vets than there are active service members in the military. Also nukes would be totally useless in a gorilla war where your enemy will melt right back into the general population.

4) Gun Homicide have decrease almost 50% since 1993 even when there is more guns than ever in circulation. I'm not saying more guns means less crime, but you can not deny that "more guns will cause more crime" is also totally unfounded.

originally posted by: swanne
When the Second Amendment was drafted almost three centuries ago, guns were at the stage of revolvers and muskets. Limited quantity of bullets, and often slow to re-charge - basically, you had to think twice before shooting someone.

True

originally posted by: swanne
Today one automatic gun can turn a peaceful school yard into a horror crime scene. Hundred of children were killed - why? Because someone went crazy with an automatic, most of which fire more than one bullet per seconds. That's more than one can do with a three-hundred years-old musket, I can tell you that.

True again

originally posted by: swanne
Similarly, your argument implies that to protect themselves from the shooters, schoolchildren should all carry an equally dangerous automatic weapon than the shooter. To me this is not logic, it is a recipe for disaster.

True

a reply to: swanne

If you had a gun you would be much safer, you could protect yourself and your family from an intruder to your home. More importantly intruders would perhaps think twice if they knew the occupants of a house could have a gun. I believe crime would be reduced.

People wouldnt just run wild with guns because they wouldnt get as far before they were shot themselves.

If people had guns in that cinema during the batman shooting the gunman might not have killed as many people.

All the gun laws do is take guns away from good people. Because a criminal does not follow the law, a criminal will get hold of a gun anyway. And then we dont have any protection from that.

Then there is the over bearing government. Our leaders are not good people. They lie, cheat and kill. They do not have our best interests at heart. They want our money and our obedience. Should we step out of line they want to easily be able to take us out of society and put us in prison or have us killed. We have already let these bad people take control of our nations. And now we are letting them take our defences and rights to protect ourselves. We are taking guns from good people and allowing bad people to keep them.

a reply to: swanne

You people are waaaaaay our there. There are very, very few automatic firearms in the peoples hands.

Please brush up on what you're talking about before spewing your hate on something you have no idea about.

And nukes and tanks? Really? Fear monger much?

originally posted by: joemoe

The problem with your line of thought is that:

1) The police have no legal duty to respond and prevent crime and protect you. According to the Supreme Court the duty to provide security for your family and yourself fall on you and only you.

You can use a Taser to do that:

originally posted by: joemoe
2) Even if you forced every citizen turn in their guns, criminals by definition most likely will not. So advantage now goes to the criminals.

It takes time, but in the end the majority of guns would be off the street

originally posted by: joemoe
4) Gun Homicide have decrease almost 50% since 1993 (..)

Mass shooting/killing have increased


one or two examples,






and it goes on...

Just as a side comment, here in GA its perfectly legal to own a tank so long as the main guns breech has been demilled. If you have rubber track pads, and all the blinkers and such, they will even issue a license plate to make it road legal.
Run you about thirty grand for a T-72.

originally posted by: swanne
a reply to: Logarock

I never said the Second Amendment should be abolished.

I simply stated that there is a clear difference between an automatic weapon & tanks and a normal gun.

What automatic weapons? They have been (or all intents and purposes) banned since 1934. A semi auto deer rifle functions the same as a semi auto AR15--one just looks more scary than another.

Doesn't matter if a criminal is using a semi-auto, pump actin, lever action, or breaking breech single shot or an axe or a knife--when you have a roomful of defenseless people trapped and the cops are 30 minutes from responding, people will die. There is a reason why these sort of things happen in "gun free zones" and not NRA conventions, or police stations, or gun shops.

originally posted by: DC434L2A
Just as a side comment, here in GA its perfectly legal to own a tank so long as the main guns breech has been demilled. If you have rubber track pads, and all the blinkers and such, they will even issue a license plate to make it road legal.
Run you about thirty grand for a T-72.

Yep. A tank without a working cannon is just a cool looking bulldozer anyway.

"When the Second Amendment was drafted almost three centuries ago, guns were at the stage of revolvers and muskets. Limited quantity of bullets, and often slow to re-charge - basically, you had to think twice before shooting someone. Today one automatic gun can turn a peaceful school yard into a horror crime scene. Hundred of children were killed - why? Because someone went crazy with an automatic, most of which fire more than one bullet per seconds. That's more than one can do with a three-hundred years-old musket, I can tell you that."




So you think the founding fathers wouldn't have written the 2nd Ammendment if they had the foresight to know that the technology was going to evolve? You think they would disapprove of citizens possessing weapons because you think they couldn't predict inevitable improvements? Interesting. You do know that the second was written to ensure "the security of a free state", right??

I recently spent the better part of a year serving in Afghanistan with the US Army.

The Taliban have small arms and the ability to make rudimentary, yet effective, explosive devices that have us spending billions a year trying to fight.

Generally, Americans don't really need automatic weapons. Semi will do just fine. This is not to say that I am against the ownership of automatic or selective fire weapons. I just personally don't see the need for spray and pray even in combat outside of suppressive abilities.

Americans with semi-auto weapons and bolt action rifles with access to incalculable amounts of information about bomb making would mount the world most destructive insurgency. No Army on Earth, not even ours, would be able to contain it, let alone defeat it. It's just not possible.

I'm still in the Army. We have all kinds of cool toys. And even if 100% of us were in the bag for killing our own families and friends we would lose in short order for the reasons listed above.

Don't be stupid OP.

a reply to: masqua

You mean like they did at Kent State Ohio?

a reply to: voyger2

Tasers don't work on everyone,hate to break the news. The police even know this.My son had one used on him during a fight and it didn't work.