Right to bear arms with military style weapons?

page: 1
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 18 2007 @ 07:52 PM
link   
:bnghd:

I have read a lot of threads since Virg Tech incident...and we have various debates about guns going on at present. You have on one hand, those wanting to keep their guns and they believe it is an inherent Constitutional right and then on the other side, people claiming ban all guns.

I think some people are missing the point and just getting caught up in the 'ban guns' debate.

The issue here is not the gun but the type of guns.

I have a question... why do people need military style weapons to defend themselves?




posted on Apr, 18 2007 @ 07:58 PM
link   
This is very important and I'll tell you why.

The right to bear arms was origianlly placed in the constitution so regular civilians could posess weapons in order to challenge the government if it ever became insufficient. The power to rise up lies with weapons you could say. Today most police forces and armies have automatic rifles, so it is vital that civilians be allowed to posess these weapons in case we ever have to rise up against the government. We couldn't ever hope to beat them with just standard rifles or shotguns. The occasional tragedy is worth it in my opinion. This is the reason why the NRA shuts anyone down every time they try to put a negative light on automatic rifles.

Take away this type of weapon, and you have paved the way for a police state.



posted on Apr, 18 2007 @ 09:45 PM
link   
The best weapons Americans can have are an education, free speech, contacting representatives, and a vote.

To try to keep up with military style force, one would need a personal tank with rounds of ammunition up to a tactical nuke. (I have friends who were waiting for tanks to drive up the highway to take over their town at the Millenium.) Depleted uranium anyone?

The M.O.V.E house was bombed in Philadelphia in 1972, by police.



posted on Apr, 19 2007 @ 07:48 AM
link   
the u.s. military has on active duty 1.4 million troops total not just combat soldiers and it takes roughly 10 support troops for 1 combat soldier so 1.4million is now 140,000 still seem like a lot of soldiers? well there are about 298,444,215 people in the u.s. as of 2006 so roughly 2000 people per combat soldier.



posted on Apr, 19 2007 @ 08:11 AM
link   
In the "Guns dont kill?" thread you posted an article that defined my Ruger 10/.22 as a military style rifle. I'm pretty sure anyone with any shooting experience at all would get a good chuckle out of that one.

There are alot of reason "military rifles" shouldnt be banned.
First, you cant define "military style." Its not possible. As tight a definition you could come up with it wouldnt be 100% accurate. Just look at all the issues that come with bump-fire stocks and simple bump-firing by itself. The simple act threatens (unrealistically) to pull all semi-automatic rifles off the shelves because the act cannot be defined in a court of law. Even current state level definition for "assault rifles" dont hold any water. Why in CT can I not own an AK-47 but I can own a Mini-30? Its absolutely maddening, irrational and absurd.

Second, if it exists it should be available to anyone who wants it. And yes that means if my neighbor wants and can afford and can resposably keep a thermonuclear warhead than so be it.

Third, call me paranoid or a freak or whatever you want but I absolutely believe without question that the government wants and needs me to be controlled, limited, and dumb. I believe Randy Weaver was a victim of government aggression, I believe Reno drew first blood in Waco, I believe McVeigh was working for the government, I believe that control and money is all either the D's or the R's want and the North American Union is already a done deal and we are all just minutes away from being under one world government.

I do not like being told how to live my life and I do not like watching a system of taxation and penalty rise up all around me to further shrink my cage.

I believe insinces if emminant domain are on the increase and I'll be damned if anyone is going to take my home.

I believe Ed Brown is making the stand of a generation and he is being intentionally ignored by the media.

I believe that sooner or later all of our lives will come down to a moment when we will be forced to choose compliance or prison. I would like to keep and bear arms so when this day comes I will have a third option at my disposal.

If you dont believe it thats fine. Im not going to force anything on you. I have no right to. Why do you think you should force your values onto me?

We have two camps here. Guns, no guns. One group wants to shape the world in their own self-righteous image. The other simply wants to be left alone.



posted on Apr, 19 2007 @ 08:53 AM
link   
I have friends who own "military" style weapons; they don't own them for any other reason then they like to shoot them. Frankly it is fun. That is the primary reason most people own guns, they either like shooting or hunting there is no ulterior motive.



posted on Apr, 19 2007 @ 08:54 AM
link   
Sorry but the post from Seagull should have been mine. He and I are sharing a computer and I forgot to log him out before I responded.



posted on Apr, 19 2007 @ 09:27 AM
link   
Most of the 'military style' anti-gun legislation we've seen over the years has been knee-jerk reactions to some tragic event. People, especially the various legislatures, feel like they have to do 'something' so they pass yet another stupid law. Nearly always a law that achieves nothing but makes its supporters feel better about themselves. Take for example the 'Assault Weapon' bills. First, we all know that the 'assault weapons' we civilians can own aren't the same as their military version: ours cannot fire either full auto or burst mode (3rds per trigger pull). In fact, they are simply single fire, semi-auto weapons. An AK-47 (civilian) and a Ruger Mini 30 both are single fire, semi auto rifles with the same capacity magazines and chambering the same round. The AK is illegal in some states (categorized as an assault weapon) where the Mini 30 is not (ranch rifle). What public safety advantage does this represent? Other 'assault rifle' provisions include banning bayonet lugs (apparently to curb the rash of bayoneting rampages we've been having), pistol grips, flash hiders and magazine capacities. It's all feel-good BS. The nad-deficient psychopath at VT used two semi-auto handguns. Can you possibly imagine the carnage if he had decided to use a shotgun instead?

What it all amounts to is 'assault rifle' legislation is legislating against the 'look' of the weapon. Its pointless, baseless and does nothing to address gun violence. That is, in my opinion, a mental health, economic and sociological issue.



posted on Apr, 19 2007 @ 09:36 AM
link   
Polls are an awful lot like statistics. Inacurrate, easilly skewed, limited in scope and always praised as holier than thou when they support a particular point of view or ignored when they go against what politicians tell us we want. Well, here's my chance for praise!

abcnews.go.com...

Hellelujah. Amen.

Though being a "poll" I can almost guarantee it will shift the 55, 000 votes into opposing favor.

Until then Im going to find my hymnal and rejoice.



posted on Apr, 19 2007 @ 09:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
In the "Guns dont kill?" thread you posted an article that defined my Ruger 10/.22 as a military style rifle. I'm pretty sure anyone with any shooting experience at all would get a good chuckle out of that one.


I did not write the article. I referred to it to discuss the changes in Australia post Pt Arthur massacre.


Second, if it exists it should be available to anyone who wants it. And yes that means if my neighbor wants and can afford and can resposably keep a thermonuclear warhead than so be it.


Thanks for your imput. You raise some valid points. But, with respect to the above, I am not so sure I would like to live next door to someone who has a 'thermonuclear warhead'...


I believe that sooner or later all of our lives will come down to a moment when we will be forced to choose compliance or prison. I would like to keep and bear arms so when this day comes I will have a third option at my disposal.


Well, that is interesting and is very similar to my Brother's line of thought, he served in the Army and then Airforce. I asked him what is the first thing he would do in a crisis of large proportion, he said, go to the gun shop and stock up to protect his family and home. That would not have even entered into my head, to do something like that.


Why do you think you should force your values onto me?


I asked a question, where did I force my values onto you?



posted on Apr, 19 2007 @ 10:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by NJE777

Why do you think you should force your values onto me?


I asked a question, where did I force my values onto you?



A move to ban, legislate or limit anything is one of offense and puts others (in this case gun owners) in a defensive position. The gun owners are subject to the imposition of values. Much like the Jews during the Spanish Inquisition or the Christians of Sudan. Not that the Jews or Christians are always innocent of the same imposing of values.

The impression I get from the opening post is that you wish to regulate and legislate but rather than come out an impose an outright ban as others have you're trying to pacify with some middle ground resolution.

Well, I have no personal reason for any animosity toward yourself but underhanded pacification and appeasement are what got this nation the 'Assault Weapons Ban' and other infractions of the 2nd Amendment.

The defensive role gets very tiring over time and the defenders tend to give and give just to stop the assault. Well, I will do whatever I can to prevent any more pacification and prevent any more compromises.

Any limitations and regulations imposed are only stepping stones to an outright ban disguised as 'do-good' politics and I cannot tolerate that. I need to ensure that my children tomorrow are as free if not more free than I am today.

BTW, I didnt assume you wrote the article. I only stated you had POSTED the article.



posted on Apr, 19 2007 @ 10:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by Vipassana
The occasional tragedy is worth it in my opinion.

This is the reason why the NRA shuts anyone down every time they try to put a negative light on automatic rifles.

Take away this type of weapon, and you have paved the way for a police state.


So, you need to bear arms to protect yourself from your own Govt? Just in case it becomes or to prevent a police state?

How occasional is occasional? School shootings seem to be quite a regular thing in the US. Worth it??

I apologise in advance and respect where your coming from and your input but I just can't comprehend where your coming from. No offence.



posted on Apr, 19 2007 @ 10:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere

A move to ban, legislate or limit anything is one of offense and puts others (in this case gun owners) in a defensive position. The gun owners are subject to the imposition of values.


I asked a question. A logical one. Are gun owners so defensive you can't even raise the issue?


The impression I get from the opening post is that you wish to regulate and legislate but rather than come out an impose an outright ban as others have you're trying to pacify with some middle ground resolution.


I am not trying to pacify with some middle ground!
From an Australian point of view, our lifestyle, living standards etc, we don't have a gun culture and no one seems to care too much.
We still have the number one place for the worst massacres in the world by a lone gunman with semi automatic weapon. 35 people died that day and I admire the response of the Govt at that time. If that makes me anti gun or on the other side of the fence, well so be it. I spoke to several people regarding the Virg Tech massacre and the response from those people was sympathetic but in sum 'thats America'.

I can understand why a person would want or even need a standard gun but these weapons that can shoot off rounds in little time, anyone, logically would ask why those types of weapons?.


underhanded pacification and appeasement are what got this nation the 'Assault Weapons Ban' and other infractions of the 2nd Amendment.


Take it up with your loby group, I had nothing to do with the changes.



posted on Apr, 19 2007 @ 11:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by jtma508


Thank you for the information. Semi Automatic guns hold ten rounds? Which means the person can knock out ten people in one go without re loading? The gun the guy used was your standard run of the mill semi automatic? All semi automatic guns were banned in Australia.

Your Govt responses do appear to be BS especially if we consider the Federal Assault Weapons Ban expired in 2004.


Can you possibly imagine the carnage if he had decided to use a shotgun instead?
No, I can't.



posted on Apr, 20 2007 @ 01:13 AM
link   
Personally I believe that people should be able to have any kind of
weapon they choose, excluding nuclear, chemical, biological or high
explosives (like the bombs carried by B-2s), however, that said I do
not believe that you should just be able to walk into a gun shop, or tank
dealership (I know, there's no such thing, but it would be cool if there
were) and just buy one.

For handguns and rifles I'm fine with the 3 day waiting period, though
there are some things that should'nt be on the list of things that don't
allow you to own a gun.

For more military style weapons, like AK-47s or P90s (which is a gun I
want), I do believe in the 3 day waiting period, plus a mandatory safety
test, use of weapon test, and a basic registration.



posted on Apr, 20 2007 @ 01:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by desert
The best weapons Americans can have are an education, free speech, contacting representatives, and a vote.

To try to keep up with military style force, one would need a personal tank with rounds of ammunition up to a tactical nuke. (I have friends who were waiting for tanks to drive up the highway to take over their town at the Millenium.) Depleted uranium anyone?

The M.O.V.E house was bombed in Philadelphia in 1972, by police.


Not necessarily - it really depends on the war fought. Why would any rebel miltia engage the us army in an open field? The rebels in Iraq have done an okay job damaging the military with low tech weapons. In either case, I think the general idea is that the government should be afraid of its citizens.

... Do not expect elected governments to always be good.
.. Voters only have so much control.
. Hitler was elected.



posted on Apr, 20 2007 @ 01:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by radardog
... Do not expect elected governments to always be good.
.. Voters only have so much control.
. Hitler was elected.


Granted this is just a generalization but I've noticed, at least arround Yale and CT in general, that the vast majority of the gun-ban crowd identifys themselves as "liberals" and more often than not Democrats so perhaps you'd get a more real reaction if you remind them that Bush was "elected." Twice.

*note* this is not a partisan dig just an attempt to communicate a point. Anyone who's paying the slightest bit of attention left/right R or D knows that all of our rights are currently at risk. Perhaps this is why an increased number of my D friends have been asking me to take them to the range and for info about getting their CC permit. Hmmmmm.......



posted on Apr, 20 2007 @ 01:58 PM
link   
I think that the right for militias to keep and bear arms was because it would take way too much time to have a state response or a federal response to an emergency. Remember, people got around by horse and wagon back then.

So, you little group of people is attacked by outlaws... What do you do? The local men get together and are considered a militia. They go after the perps.

We no longer have this situation. But, I still think that people should be allowed to own rifles and shotguns. I don't think that people should be able to own fully automatic rifles, gernades, rocket launchers etc.

I also think that you should have to get a special permit to purchase and/or carry a handgun. Handguns are used in 85% of the crimes involving a firearm. That's because you can hide a handgun much easier than a long rifle.



posted on Apr, 20 2007 @ 02:11 PM
link   
Originally the right to bear arms were muskets. These were the top of the line in Military hardware. Guns don't kill people, morons kill people.



posted on Apr, 20 2007 @ 02:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wildbob77
I think that the right for militias to keep and bear arms was because it would take way too much time to have a state response or a federal response to an emergency. Remember, people got around by horse and wagon back then.

So, you little group of people is attacked by outlaws... What do you do? The local men get together and are considered a militia. They go after the perps.

We no longer have this situation.


Where do you live? Northern Maine, Idaho, Oregon, Texas, Northern California, Kansas, Kentucky, Arkansas, New Hampshire, either Dakota, Colorado, Wyoming, Washington state? There are towns and homes all over this country that are hours away from metro or city areas where roads are dirt and nobody will hear you scream.

I live in a mid-sized city with major universities and company headquarters and still it takes police 20 minutes to respond. And common sense will tell you if the police are responding then the crime has already been commited and there is already a victim.

America isnt New York City or Los Angeles or San Fransico. Though you'd thik it being that these big three cities house all of the media we and the rest of the world consume. Chances are if a news anchor, pundit or 'expert' from any of these areas is telling you whats best for America he's got it exactly wrong because he's thinking only about these big three. The vast majority of America works with their hands, eats what they hunt and doesnt understand one bit why the rifle over their door or the pistol in their truck has been so demonized.





 
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join