(Hypothetical) Government Tyrrany - How does having an AR help?

page: 2
1
<< 1   >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 12 2013 @ 05:50 PM
link   
reply to post by ElijahWan
 


For me a man needs the best rifle he can get for self defense and for defending this.



If the best is an AR-15 or an AK-47? Or a shot gun. What ever a man can be forced to go to war with and die for his country.

He should have a right to own. Period.




posted on Jan, 12 2013 @ 05:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by IvanAstikov

Originally posted by Dustytoad
reply to post by IvanAstikov
 


Are you saying a population of 300,000,000 people and about as many weapons and an entire country as a target are comparable to the IRA? and "high command?" We won't have a commander... Silly..
edit on 1/12/2013 by Dustytoad because: (no reason given)


You think you have 300 million supporters? Even if you did, I'd be amazed if 1% of the non-miltary experienced citizens proved to be capable of cutting the mustard when the shtf
You dont understand guerrilla warfare. Obviously the civillians would take heavy losses. That is the very basis of guerrilla warfare. Eventually, it becomes too expensive to continue the fight.



posted on Jan, 12 2013 @ 05:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by randyvs
reply to post by ElijahWan
 


For me a man needs the best rifle he can get for self defense and for defending this.



If the best is an AR-15 or an AK-47? Or a shot gun. What ever a man can be forced to go to war with and die for his country.

He should have a right to own. Period.


Right! And I completely respect that argument, and to some extent, agree with it. But then why aren't people advocating for the legal ownership of Automatic Weapons, RPGs, and everything else?



posted on Jan, 12 2013 @ 05:54 PM
link   
reply to post by ElijahWan
 

Real men would rather go out on their feet than on their knees.



posted on Jan, 12 2013 @ 05:54 PM
link   
reply to post by ElijahWan
 


Hate to tell you but you can get explosives if you have the right licensing



posted on Jan, 12 2013 @ 05:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dustytoad

Originally posted by IvanAstikov


Seems like you learned a lot from the genuine natives of your fine continent.


I'm almost one quarter cherokee... But I learned this from researching war.. And My Army training..
edit on 1/12/2013 by Dustytoad because: (no reason given)
If you've done all the research you claim, why don't you tell me the last time civilians overcame a military that had massive superiority, without assistance from external agents?



posted on Jan, 12 2013 @ 05:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by captaintyinknots

Originally posted by IvanAstikov

Originally posted by Dustytoad
reply to post by IvanAstikov
 


Are you saying a population of 300,000,000 people and about as many weapons and an entire country as a target are comparable to the IRA? and "high command?" We won't have a commander... Silly..
edit on 1/12/2013 by Dustytoad because: (no reason given)


You think you have 300 million supporters? Even if you did, I'd be amazed if 1% of the non-miltary experienced citizens proved to be capable of cutting the mustard when the shtf
You dont understand guerrilla warfare. Obviously the civillians would take heavy losses. That is the very basis of guerrilla warfare. Eventually, it becomes too expensive to continue the fight.


The Afghans have been doing it since they first ventured into Asia. When was the American public's last real experience with a state of war that truly affected them?



posted on Jan, 12 2013 @ 06:01 PM
link   
reply to post by ElijahWan
 





. But then why aren't people advocating for the legal ownership of Automatic Weapons, RPGs, and everything else?


Call it common sense. I don't need a Howitzer to defend my woman or my home.
edit on 12-1-2013 by randyvs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 12 2013 @ 06:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by IvanAstikov
]If you've done all the research you claim, why don't you tell me the last time civilians overcame a military that had massive superiority, without assistance from external agents?


How much research did I claim? You can't win a war like this.. Eventually you leave and the population starts building again... That's it.

Look at Syria...

You think We won't have help?? That would be the outlier.. I'm not sure I can think of a time there wasn't outside support..



posted on Jan, 12 2013 @ 06:25 PM
link   
I would choose a semi auto AR over a bolt action any day but thats not to say it wouldnt be just as effective. The bottom line is: we have been losing our rights and have lost many rights, now its just a matter of fighting to KEEP them. Not to mention, people had so much confidence in their government in the past and the security that it garnered that noone ever thought they would need them so they didnt care about the bans but people are finaly waking up to the fact that not everything is what it seemed to be and are now realizing the importance of gun ownership.
It would be downright impossible to get any backing for the legalization of grenades, rpgs and other heavy arms in this day and age let alone ever! Its ridiculous to even think about doing that. We have a right to carry semi auto "assault weapons" and we are fighting to keep that right! Period! Btw, with the right knowledge, anyone can make a semi auto into a full auto weapon!
I hate when you give someone a perfectly logical, common sense answer but you still get "but but but...".



posted on Jan, 12 2013 @ 06:30 PM
link   
reply to post by ElijahWan
 


Funny, I just said this exact thing to a friend...

Unless you own tanks, jets, rockets and missiles there is no equal footing now as far as resisting tyranny is concerned.

I also said there really is no win to this debate about assault rifles...

A person can commit murder with a spoon (though probably not a mass murder) if that is their intention, so banning a certain type of gun, accomplishes what?

Hunters don't need assault rifles.

Banning assault rifles won't make us safer. Not banning assault rifles won't make us safer.

Whichever the outcome of the debate goes, nothing changes. I believe we as a society can do something to help prevent mass shooting but I think we are engaging in the wrong debate.

reply to post by captaintyinknots
 


If the intention had been to win, it would have been over in months. Resistance is allowed in order perpetuate destabilization.



edit on 12-1-2013 by Kali74 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 12 2013 @ 07:08 PM
link   
The problem, as I see it, is that when the Constitution was drafted virtually ALL arms were more or less equal, meaning that the rifle that the average citizen owned was the same as the one carried by a British Regular.
Admittedly, the average citizen didn't own a piece of Field Artillery, but then again, cannon were pretty difficult to use against a mobile force of hit-and-run Guerrilla style militia. However, there was never any prohibition to one buying one if he'd wanted one. The Government didn't "regulate" the type of firearms the people could buy until the 1930's, because of Bank Robbers during the Depression were using guns like the BAR and Thompson .45's. That was one of FDR's FIRST assaults against the Constitution.
In my Humble Opinion, I think that the average citizen should be allowed to own virtually ANY kind of CONVENTIONAL weapon he or she could afford, and in fact should be REQUIRED to do so by the way the 2nd Ammendment is worded. Whether you could afford a cheap Chinese AK-47 or an M1-A2 Abrams, the idea was to prevent a Centralized Government from running roughshod over the Citizenry out of FEAR of the aforementioned Citizenry!.



posted on Jan, 12 2013 @ 07:26 PM
link   


he trend I've noticed is that a lot of the people who own one of these rifles claim that they own it, just in case there was a "Government Takeover" with martial law, or the use of concentration camps or some such.


I will tell you all what is ignorant is anyone questioning me or any other gun owner why they have weapons.

It is not their place.

It is also not their place to ask them "why do they need a 30 round cap magazine".

Neither is it their right to tell me I can't own an "assualt wepaon" the name clearly shows true ignorance.

Gun owners are not responsible for other people they are not responsible to their neighbors the only people they are accountable to is themselves..

Plain and simple.
edit on 12-1-2013 by neo96 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 12 2013 @ 07:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by neo96



he trend I've noticed is that a lot of the people who own one of these rifles claim that they own it, just in case there was a "Government Takeover" with martial law, or the use of concentration camps or some such.


I will tell you all what is ignorant is anyone questioning me or any other gun owner why they have weapons.

It is not their place.

It is also not their place to ask them "why do they need a 30 round cap magazine".

Gun owners are not responsible for other people they are not responsible to their neighbors the only people they are accountable to is themselves..

Plain and simple.


I don't think it's that crazy...or ignorant...to ask a gun owner why they have a weapon? I'm genuinely interested in knowing, be it for safety, hunting, or to protect against a government takeover. I'm also interested in knowing why gun-owners aren't interested in advocating for the ability to purchase and own more advanced forms of weaponry.

I don't understand why some gun-owners get so defensive about that question either. If I owned a gun (I don't have a reason to currently, but likely will some day) I'd answer their question truthfully and honestly. Hell, maybe whatever argument you provide might make that person think twice about themselves not owning a gun?

This thread has ZERO to do with pro-gun vs pro gun control, as even I don't know where I stand on that topic, this thread is about understanding WHY a 'semi-automatic' 'Assault Rifle' , as the media refer to it, is so much more capable than every other weapon available when facing a mechanized fighting force such as the US Military. Also, as I stated in my original post, I think it's funny to classify it as "semi-automatic" anyhow because a majority of the guns people buy ARE semi automatic, especially handguns.

With that clarification on what this thread is supposed to be about, perhaps it would be better suited in the Weaponry Forum.

Looking forward to responses from Gun-Owners willing to share their experiences and opinions.



posted on Jan, 12 2013 @ 07:53 PM
link   
Here is a little food for thought for the OP, and those who see this the same as he does...

There is a HUGE contingent of like-minded individuals ALL throughout this country. They are Doctors, Lawyers, Construction Workers, Teachers, Govt. Employess and much more...They all are intelligent enough, to know what part they are playing in the grand scheme of things. They understand that they are being used by their Govt. and choose to maintain the status quo, for now. And strangely, by their very nature, they aren't the kind to go running around spouting off all of the things they despise about those who currently have the power, and what this country has become, because of it.

But, I assure you, they are paying attention!

I don't know who they are. You don't know who they are. And I guarantee, the Govt, wishes they knew, who they are, but they can't! They have not been foolish enough to express themselves in such a way.

How on earth, do you fight an invisible, pissed off and fed-up enemy, who seems to materialize from everywhere, all at once?



posted on Jan, 12 2013 @ 07:54 PM
link   
reply to post by ElijahWan
 





I don't think it's that crazy...or ignorant...to ask a gun owner why they have a weapon? I'm genuinely interested in knowing, be it for safety, hunting, or to protect against a government takeover. I'm also interested in knowing why gun-owners aren't interested in advocating for the ability to purchase and own more advanced forms of weaponry.


It is ignorant of the fact that the second amendment exists in the first place because those writers knew that government could never be trusted.

In this country it is perfectly legal to own tanks,fighter aircraft and other "arms" hell there is a "special license" called the curio and relic.

And we are advocating for forms of advanced weaponry "assaut weapons" remember?




I don't understand why some gun-owners get so defensive about that question either. If I owned a gun (I don't have a reason to currently, but likely will some day) I'd answer their question truthfully and honestly. Hell, maybe whatever argument you provide might make that person think twice about themselves not owning a gun?


It is a personal choice a person can own or not some people get tired of government dictators telling us what we can or can't own.




This thread has ZERO to do with pro-gun vs pro gun control, as even I don't know where I stand on that topic, this thread is about understanding WHY a 'semi-automatic' 'Assault Rifle' , as the media refer to it, is so much more capable than every other weapon available when facing a mechanized fighting force such as the US Military. Also, as I stated in my original post, I think it's funny to classify it as "semi-automatic" anyhow because a majority of the guns people buy ARE semi automatic, especially handguns.


Political pundits, and Washington DC politicians have never known what the hell they are talking about. Semi autos fire 1 round with each pull of the trigger.

The amount that comes out depends on the user, the ammunition used(misifres) and maintenance. they also depend on the amount of time they train with it and how good the sites/optics are.

There are a lot of variables on how effective a person is with any weapon, but no they never think or even care about that kind of stuff dogma rains supreme.

edit on 12-1-2013 by neo96 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 12 2013 @ 07:55 PM
link   
reply to post by ElijahWan
 


I keep saying this everywhere but here it goes again.

I keep hearing this argument that, because the US military is better equipped than the civilian population, the 2nd amendment is moot. This is false.

Not only is that type of conflict not nearly so cut and dry, but the mere will to fight that is instilled by being armed vs being defenseless changes the whole scenario.

The government gets its power from the people. They also get their products, food, services, and wealth from the people. Without the people all of the infrastructure would fail. The government is inherently forced to restrain it's ambitions because the last thing they want is to wage all out war with their own population.

Think of it like the nuclear deterrent situation. No country wins by nuking another country as that would spell the end for themselves as well. Mutually assured destruction. That is essentially the same precarious scenario the 2nd amendment proposes to a tyrannical government.





new topics
top topics
 
1
<< 1   >>

log in

join