Why Do You Need an AR or AK?

page: 3
101
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 27 2013 @ 11:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by mykingdomforthetruth
you said it yourself your a trained expert most civilians arn't that good hence 100 round mags and full auto is required to put up a fight,

If you need full-auto to "put up a fight", you can get a "slide" or "bump" stock for an AR-15 that turns it into full-auto, legally.

Check it out here:

www.youtube.com...




posted on Jan, 27 2013 @ 11:49 AM
link   
reply to post by _BoneZ_
 


Thanks for response. The words "being necessary to the security of a free state " surely referred to the new country they were trying to build. Isn't it most probable that the greatest danger they had in mind was a return of the redcoats and hence the need for a well regulated militia.

The trouble with the quotes you gave is that I can't find any reliable sources for them. The Thomas Jefferson society cannot find any evidence that he said anything about tyrannical government and opposing it with arms.

I haven't seen the Abraham Lincoln one before; got a source for that ? In any event, any comment of his would obviously have been long after the writing of the 2nd Amendment .



posted on Jan, 27 2013 @ 12:28 PM
link   
I don't want to be the party pooper, but you're going to need thousands of people like OP to make an armed revolution possible.

You have to deal with 30,000 drones over us skies by 2015, the possibility of UN troops being deployed here, cops, and the US Military.

What do we have? Well about half of the population actually supports this Tyrannical subversion. Then what are you left with? The militias and the rest of the population who knows what's going on (A minority btw). I've been looking everywhere and I can't find any real numbers on what the Militia strength is in America. But even then, they eventually are going to be be labeled "domestic terrorists".

Sorry to be down on all of this, but this whole thing is a giant clusterfu**.

Also, wouldn't a revolution actually help TPTB? If a Revolution started they would have the excuse to put down Martial Law and make 1984 a reality. So you're pretty much screwed either way.

If a Revolution doesn't happen were probably going to see 1984 anyway, (look at the EO's that have been passed in the last few years) and if a Revolution does start they have the excuse to put down Martial Law and fill the FEMA camps.



posted on Jan, 27 2013 @ 12:37 PM
link   
reply to post by projectvxn
 


Short answer.
because their fun and cheap to shoot... not to mention the coolness factor.

do I need one? no, do I want one? Well yeah and why I own one one of each. but I'm not looking to start my own one man Army. I just like to shoot and like you coming out of the Military like 90% of my rifle shooting experience is with a M16/M4 style weapon. I know it inside and out, I trust it and my ability to shoot with it....who wouldn't want a rifle he's been trained to use, even if that rifle will never be used anywhere other than out on a range.



posted on Jan, 27 2013 @ 12:39 PM
link   
reply to post by projectvxn
 


I think we need an AR or AK simply because if they turn the military against we do not have a prayer against trained military with those weapons much less without them



posted on Jan, 27 2013 @ 12:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Alfie1
The trouble with the quotes you gave is that I can't find any reliable sources for them. The Thomas Jefferson society cannot find any evidence that he said anything about tyrannical government and opposing it with arms.

The first Jefferson quote, I edited due to the fact that it can't be proven those were his words.

The second Jefferson quote you can find at the Library of Congress:

www.loc.gov...


The Lincoln quote is from his first inaugural address. I'm sure if you look again, you'll find it.



posted on Jan, 27 2013 @ 12:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Kang69
 


Drones and Jets have to land , be refueled , rearmed . Tanks have to be refueled re armed ,repaired . If you own that piece of land they can be owned . You don't need automatic weapons to fight . WW2 was fought with bolt action , simi and auto weapons . Tanks were defeated by simple people with crude devices up close .
But without the weapons to fight with your done . 1 shot one kill .



posted on Jan, 27 2013 @ 01:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

Originally posted by mykingdomforthetruth
you said it yourself your a trained expert most civilians arn't that good hence 100 round mags and full auto is required to put up a fight,

If you need full-auto to "put up a fight", you can get a "slide" or "bump" stock for an AR-15 that turns it into full-auto, legally.

Check it out here:

www.youtube.com...



No wonder the government wants to go after semi-auto "sport rifles" when there are various loophole configurations that can be altered. I was not aware of "bump fire" and "sliding stocks". I thought you had to change the sear and the automatic sear was available from ATF bureau.

Then they go after magazine capacity to degrade your firing potential even further.

They should just outlaw the loopholes although it may be easier said then done.

I personally dislike automatic weapons as a choice because it offers a false sense of security and it is a tremendous waste of ammunition. This does not mean that all automatic weapons should be necessarily banned though(those made after 1987) but rather you should need a special permit to buy and operate it; in other words extra training and fees.

It is "a gray area" because government and civilians are odds with each other.



posted on Jan, 27 2013 @ 01:23 PM
link   
I was infantry for 8 years.
I left the army about 20 years ago but continued to work in the mid east including Iraq for two years during and after the second gulf war.

I never owned a gun outside of the military.
No pistols, No rifles. No shotguns.
There was no need.

When I saw the direction things were going in late 2007 I made a change.

I purchased guns for every purpose.
Hunting of small game, varmints, birds, medium sized game and large game.
I purchased weapons for close combat and long distance shooting.
I purchased service pistols and last minute defense.
I purchased home defense.
Each weapon I own is the best weapon I can get for the price.
Tools with optimum value. No bling, no flash, no fashion. Simple tools.
I rarely use these tools except to stay in practice.
I don't hunt or shoot competitively although I did when I was young.
I keep them as a matter of necessity.
When it comes to security of a nation you need a good military.
When it comes to defense of the citizens you need armed citizens.
I never felt the need until I saw what our country had come too.
Now I see what they want to take away. As did Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot and others.
Its sad that the present leadership sounds like the four previous examples and that so many want to support these disastrous ideas again.
Vote with your wallet.
Buy a firearm and learn to use it responsibly.
Then wait.



posted on Jan, 27 2013 @ 01:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Tw0Sides
reply to post by projectvxn
 


Ok, nicely written and Truthful.
Got any more truth left to answer a Question?

You, and your fellow Soldiers are well trained Killing Machines, currently Serving the War Machine.


Question to you is :

If You and Your Fellow Soldiers are Turned Against the Citizens of the US , Deemed Domestic Terrorist, What Chance will The Domestic Terrorist Have? Being that You are So Good at Your Craft.


The fact is, if you ever see the US Army operating in the US all rucked up and killing you neighbors, then it is not the Army I'm in today.

The Insurgency in Afghanistan is going to be a hard fought battle. Quite frankly we're probably going to leave before the Insurgency is even put down. The Insurgency in Iraq dwindled down to almost nothing because they were mostly foreign insurgents and logistics and getting killed was a discouraging set of factors.

An insurgency IN the US would be a nightmare scenario for ALL government forces, politicians, police, and so on. It would not be a winnable war. So what are the chances of success?

There would be many lost battles on the side of the designated enemy. Until the Insurgency starts to spread, and it will. Then those battles will go from victory, to hard won victory. From there it will go to minor defeats, and then things will start getting ugly for us. You also have to deal with defection. Possibly of entire BCTs or entire divisions.



posted on Jan, 27 2013 @ 01:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by xedocodex
reply to post by projectvxn
 


So an AR or an AK is going to stop an M1 Abrams or a Stealth Bomber?

The argument is absolutely ridiculous...Rambo is a fictional movie, not a documentary.


I see the Afghan insurgency is still going after 12 years of war. Just saying.



posted on Jan, 27 2013 @ 02:03 PM
link   
reply to post by okyouwin
 


You obviously missed the point.

Try to imagine a force, trained and equipped like the military is today, but without the allegiance to the people.
What do you think this force would do to you? Your family? Your friends?

edit on 27-1-2013 by projectvxn because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 27 2013 @ 02:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

Originally posted by Alfie1
The trouble with the quotes you gave is that I can't find any reliable sources for them. The Thomas Jefferson society cannot find any evidence that he said anything about tyrannical government and opposing it with arms.

The first Jefferson quote, I edited due to the fact that it can't be proven those were his words.

The second Jefferson quote you can find at the Library of Congress:

www.loc.gov...


The Lincoln quote is from his first inaugural address. I'm sure if you look again, you'll find it.






Thanks for link to Jefferson letter of 1787. Am I right in thinking therefore that you accept the often attributed statement to Jefferson of " to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government " is spurious ?

The letter is somewhat sympathetic to a rebellion in Massachusets which he attribures to the ignorance of the people. But he seems mainly concerned with putting over that one rebellion in one state over some years is no big deal. It was written a few years before the 2nd Amendment so if he considered armed rebellion to be desirable for liberty he could no doubt have seen that it was explicitly referred to in the 2nd, which of course he didn't.

I still can't find your Abraham Lincoln quote but we have now moved on 70 years from the 2nd Amendment anyway. I do find it strange that Lincoln should have said anything about the removal of government by revolutionary forces when he spent his whole presidency fighting southern rebellion. He did say this in his first inaugral speech " It follows from these views that no State upon its own mere motion can lawfully get out of the Union; that resolves and ordinances to that effect are legally void, and that acts of violence within any State or States against the authority of the United States are insurrectionary or revolutionary, according to circumstances." If you can point out just where Lincoln said your quote in his speech I would be grateful.

So far, I have seen nothing to justify that the 2nd Amendment has anything to do with armed resistance to government beyond wishful thinking.



posted on Jan, 27 2013 @ 02:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by xedocodex
reply to post by projectvxn
 


So an AR or an AK is going to stop an M1 Abrams or a Stealth Bomber?

The argument is absolutely ridiculous...Rambo is a fictional movie, not a documentary.

Well, the Viet Cong did a bang up job on at least two professional, modern, armies (French and American). Afghans repelled the Russians and have US Army still locked in conflict after twelve years. Except in the case of a WMD, stratagy, knowing ones resources, using geograph to an advantage, and a well motivated fighting force has shown to mitigate technilogical advantage of the opposing forces. In both examples I mentioned, people were fighting for their homeland. It is not beyoned the possibility that (armed) US citizens could not do the same. Never underestimate the strength of human spirit and ingenuity.



posted on Jan, 27 2013 @ 02:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Alfie1
So far, I have seen nothing to justify that the 2nd Amendment has anything to do with armed resistance to government beyond wishful thinking.

Then you're not comprehending the part in the 2nd Amendment that says "being necessary to the security of a free State (country)." The security of a free state (country) doesn't just include from enemies foreign, but also domestic.



posted on Jan, 27 2013 @ 02:49 PM
link   
reply to post by Alfie1
 


The 2nd. is a tool the founders instilled to be used in such a case, should the need arise.

Regardless of what Lincoln said or didn't say.

Do you think the founders, put in writing a guaranteed "unalienable" right to arms, to insure the people could hunt food? If so, using your thinking, I shouldn't need to buy deer tags as it is my "unalienable right" to hunt.

Many of your kind try and read the letter of the law and not the intent or spirit. Removing all logic, common sense, manliness. Even though the letter is clear to me, I have never needed a "militia" while hunting.

You would do yourself good to read the Federalist Papers. You get an Idea of what real men of the time thought of your kind. ie. FP #40. Pay close atention to "......abolish or alter...." Not always done by "voting" THIS is why we have a Second Amendment..... It is very clear why it is there.



posted on Jan, 27 2013 @ 02:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

Originally posted by Alfie1
So far, I have seen nothing to justify that the 2nd Amendment has anything to do with armed resistance to government beyond wishful thinking.

Then you're not comprehending the part in the 2nd Amendment that says "being necessary to the security of a free State (country)." The security of a free state (country) doesn't just include from enemies foreign, but also domestic.





You are just putting the spin you want on the words. In the immediate aftermath of a war for independence wouldn't a natural fear be that Britain would renew the war and therefore a militia was desirable to secure the freedom of this new country. If it ever entered the Amendment writers' heads that the militia might be needed against a domestic enemy do you think they would have thought of themselves as such a potential enemy ?



posted on Jan, 27 2013 @ 02:57 PM
link   
reply to post by Alfie1
 


Indeed.

But you seem to be working on arbitrary suppositions as opposed to what was written by the founders. I recommend the Federalist Papers for a reference to what the founders had in mind instead of trying to put your own "spin" on it, as you say.



posted on Jan, 27 2013 @ 03:03 PM
link   
reply to post by murphy22
 


I don't think the 2nd Amendment is anything to do with hunting or opposing the government with arms. The Amendment says nothing about either.

I have been asking therefore why some people claim it supports armed resistance but I haven't got anywhere beyond personal spin and dubious quotes.



posted on Jan, 27 2013 @ 03:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by projectvxn
reply to post by Alfie1
 


Indeed.

But you seem to be working on arbitrary suppositions as opposed to what was written by the founders. I recommend the Federalist Papers for a reference to what the founders had in mind instead of trying to put your own "spin" on it, as you say.


No, I am strictly looking at what the authors of the 2nd Amendment actually wrote and I don't see how it supports the constructions that have been put on it.

I will have a look at the Federalist Papers though, thanks.






top topics



 
101
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join