...the security of a free state...

a reply to: Zanti Misfit

Depends who you ask and where you live I guess. Theres no easy answer. But history repeats itself for those who fail to learn from it.... It one of lifes tests..

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Why? Because you could be a psycho. You could be off your meds. You could have lost your weapon or sold it or gave it away and decided you wanted another one so you could kill your wife or your neighbor or yourself. I don't know these things, I feel like someone should.

You might be ok with giving a gun to just anybody because it's their 'right', but I think we should be a little more careful about who we give firearms to and why.

I disagree with you about the 2nd amendment. Obviously. If, for a fact, the framers had the same mindset then I disagree with them as well.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: Sremmos80
You didn't know obama is a tyrant hell bent on destroying America?
Don't worry, some one will be along shortly to show you.
You might even get a meme

This is not a thread about Obama or his politics, it is an overview of the prevailing sentiments when the Second Amendment was written.

Ya sorry, got a little ahead of my self there.
*Put foot in mouth*

TBH I agree with most of what you are saying in this thread. I am all for gun rights for the sole purpose of having everyone being armed against a possible tyrannical government and the forces it has at is disposal.

a reply to: links234

Why? Because you could be a psycho. You could be off your meds. You could have lost your weapon or sold it or gave it away and decided you wanted another one so you could kill your wife or your neighbor or yourself. I don't know these things, I feel like someone should.

Sounds to me as if maybe you have some other personal issues or insecurities you should address before attacking an anonymous character on the internet.

You may not be able to control the actions of others, but it is not your responsibility to do so. Breathe.

Remember it is not your responsibility to try to control other people or things that are beyond your control.

It is your responsibility to control YOUR OWN emotions and YOUR OWN actions. Breathe..

a reply to: Stuyvesant

We are really good shots and those have bases. Also WE know their "BOOK" and usually they use THAT.

originally posted by: intrepid
Plenty of free states out there without a 2nd Amendment. Or a need to feel armed. You aren't talking about free states, you're talking about America.

...If you take em away from the criminals first I'll gladly give ya mine....

Charlie Daniels


There are too guns out there for it to work in America without some problems. I do think we need to take steps to ensure the right people get the right permits. I know plenty of people who have a CCW that I keep my distance from if they are carrying or even at the range, NOT because they have mal-intentions, because they do not abide the 4 Golden Rules.

originally posted by: links234
Why? Because you could be a psycho. You could be off your meds. You could have lost your weapon or sold it or gave it away and decided you wanted another one so you could kill your wife or your neighbor or yourself. I don't know these things, I feel like someone should.

I could also 'be a pyscho' who is 'off his meds' and grab a knife and stab my wife or neighbor, no one forces me to get a background check every time I go to Williams Sonoma and buy a new Wusthof.

You might be ok with giving a gun to just anybody because it's their 'right', but I think we should be a little more careful about who we give firearms to and why.

I cannot 'give my gun to just anybody', they must be a licensed firearms owner and the appropriate forms and paperwork must be completed and submitted to the state police within five days of the sale. There needs to be a compete record of the transaction or we will both be charged with a felony.

I disagree with you about the 2nd amendment. Obviously. If, for a fact, the framers had the same mindset then I disagree with them as well.

Fair enough, at least your are not being disingenuous and trying to change the meaning of what they said as their sentiments were rather blunt on firearms ownership.

originally posted by: Sremmos80
Ya sorry, got a little ahead of my self there.
*Put foot in mouth*

TBH I agree with most of what you are saying in this thread. I am all for gun rights for the sole purpose of having everyone being armed against a possible tyrannical government and the forces it has at is disposal.

No worries. I respect your ability to recognize you misspoke and that you understand the premise of this thread. Thank you for participating.

a reply to: links234

Really?

So every time someone buys a firearm they should pass a check, but what about if I buy one and never buy another? How do you know that I retain the capability to own that firearm? Maybe I lost it at some point ... How about we start testing everyone who owns a gun at intervals ... what do you think? Maybe yearly, monthly ... weekly?

That way lies madness and intrusion into a person's privacy just so you can feel "safer."

originally posted by: butcherguy
a reply to: Stuyvesant
Like they conquered Afghanistan and Iraq?
Moot? I think not.

In both examples, if the mission had been to destroy the enemy, the US military would have done so.

In both examples, both the enemy and the mission were not clearly defined.

Iraq, Afghanistan (and Vietnam, for that matter) were not failures due to American military weakness. They were failures due to US geopolitical policy error, lack of definition, direction, resolve, will, etc. If America had been fighting for its survival, we would have annihilated the enemy. Instead, we were (are) engaged in a nebulous, ill-defined war against "terrorism" that only threatens us indirectly. Skirmishes undertaken to protect leverage.

My point is only that any individual, groups, militias, etc. cannot ultimately stand up to the firepower of the US military. Ruby Ridge & Waco are examples. I don't care if it is 10,000 patriots armed to the teeth in some compound in the middle of nowhere in Montana. If they appeared to be a legitimate threat, they'd be wiped out. Heck, Ruby Ridge & Waco were *not* legitimate threats, and they were still wiped out with little to no outcry.

Any attempts at "war" against the USA have to be fought unconventionally and asymmetrically. The only "conventional" threat to the USA is a coalition between Russia & China - it would involve nuclear & chemical weapons, and would be seriously ugly.

And in case I haven't said it, I think that every American should exercise their 2nd Amendment right. Gun ownership (and knowing how to shoot well) is important. But I think the relevance for it is relegated to self-defense at a local level; if our government ever turned "rogue" and tyrannical, and decided to remove the "armed citizenry" threat, they have the superior firepower to do so. If it happened, should we fight against them? Of course. Would we win? No.

I used the word "moot" as applied to the 2nd Amendment somehow enabling us to be protected from the military power. It simply doesn't (anymore).

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: Stuyvesant
Our "King" now is our own government, and if they deem it needful, they can annihilate any "civil power" remotely using a weaponized drone and a low-ranking airman with a laptop.

Then why did we not do this in both Afghanistan and Iraq? If we do not have the fortitude to destroy our enemies entirely why would anyone think it would happen here?

I replied to another poster re: Afghanistan & Iraq. And your point is well-taken, the resolve to eliminate a "civil power" threat may not materialize fully. No one can predict such things. But as you stated, the lacking element was fortitude. Not firepower.

Wouldn't you agree the military firepower outweighs civil firepower by a mighty degree?

originally posted by: cavtrooper7
a reply to: Stuyvesant

We are really good shots and those have bases. Also WE know their "BOOK" and usually they use THAT.

I appreciate your confidence, I just don't share it.

originally posted by: Stuyvesant
Wouldn't you agree the military firepower outweighs civil firepower by a mighty degree?

Most definitely. But what good is the hammer in your tool box if you are going to drive nails with a screwdriver?

a reply to: Stuyvesant

You won't have to I do it. Expect corrections however when you disagree. America is still quite present and accounted for if a bit quiet.

Guns are bad, mmkay?

This seems to be the normal sentiment these days. Demonize a tool that in the wrong hands becomes death itself. My wife and I personally support the whole of the Bill of Rights, and agree with the obvious sentiments of the founders. Having said that, I think it's also ok for folks like me to not really be "gun nuts." They're just not my thing. I prefer cars.

Why do you suppose we were all armed back then?a reply to: intrepid

You assume that the military, who are made up of our children, brothers, sisters etc would side with some nebulous PTB against their families and friends. I wager the majority would not.a reply to: Stuyvesant

originally posted by: tmeister182
You assume that the military, who are made up of our children, brothers, sisters etc would side with some nebulous PTB against their families and friends. I wager the majority would not.a reply to: Stuyvesant

I don't necessarily make that assumption, but I am not as hopeful as you are that the majority would rebel against orders. From what I understand, it's actually an ongoing sub-surface debate amongst military members. The PTB are not so nebulous - it would be their chain of command, which they are trained to follow [for the most part] unquestioningly. In the case of a rogue/tyrannical government, if they define the enemy as "X" then (I believe) the majority would follow orders.

If it ever happened, I hope you're right. Courage is in short supply these days, and it takes some backbone to stand up against your employer, especially when you are not under the Constitution but under the UCMJ.

a reply to: Stuyvesant

In both examples, if the mission had been to destroy the enemy, the US military would have done so.

I am sure you have seen pictures of Baghdad after the first Gulf War. Then we went in a second time. Do you think that someone would have the stomach to do that to their own country? Oh, and then some... because we didn't destroy the enemy in Iraq.

a reply to: butcherguy

To butcherguy: To answer your question, I just don't think it is a cut-and-dried yes/no answer. I'd like to say "no," but I think it is dependent on multiple factors:

1. What is the exact order given, and how powerful/threatening is the order-giver?
2. How large is the perceived threat?
3. What is the social and political climate?
4. What would be the result if military action wasn't taken?
5. Can the operation be conducted in such a way as to contain any social repercussions?

I don't think a rogue government giving the order to drop a hydrogen bomb on Los Angeles would be obeyed.

I do think a rogue government could successfully fly weaponized drones over a militia compound and wipe it off the surface of earth, if the "intel" was that the militia group posed a serious threat. I think there would be very little outcry, and the media machine would be in full swing to spin it "correctly" to minimize the social impact.

There were plenty of Germans (in the Nazi Party) in WWII that did not agree with the Party's direction or methods - but obeyed (and murdered their own people) just to save their own skins. There are always heroes and martyrs, but they are not typically in the majority.