Victory for Gun Rights

Damn Yankee said:
One shot from a good hunting rifle can take out a machine gunner. And this can be done from outside the gunner's range.
Click to expand...

i understand that you didn't serve, so you're not aware of fireteam and squad tactics, but it's hard to be a sniper when you're position is strafed with 5 to 13 infantry men with M16s.
 
SmarterThanYou said:
i understand that you didn't serve, so you're not aware of fireteam and squad tactics, but it's hard to be a sniper when you're position is strafed with 5 to 13 infantry men with M16s.
Click to expand...
Its hard to strafe a lone sniper when you can't see him or know where he is. Or his buddies are stationed in a large circle around you.
 
I agree that snipers are an effective tool against a superior force, and we would have quite a number of them.

But against armored divisions and the technologies available to the military, the majority of the public had better join in quickly orthe revolution would be over, except for harrassing fire, rather quickly.
 
Damn Yankee said:
You seem to forget that a unorganized band of squirrel hunters defeated the best trained, best financed and best armed army in the world in the late 18th century. And they did it by reinventing the rules of warfare.
Click to expand...
You are talking about the difference between men carrying .45, .50, .60, and .66 caliber muskets against an organized army carrying .66 caliber muskets, and 4, 8, 10, and 16 pounders (cannon).

Today you are talking about the difference between men carrying rifles and carbines in a wide variety of calibers and ranges, some of them semi-automatic, even a (very) few full auto; and an organized army with rifles and carbines equal to or greater than what citizens carry, plus shoulder fired rockets, rocket propelled grenades, mortars from 40mm to 120mm, recoiless rifles from 4 inches to 12 inches, howitzers, gun-howitzers, tanks and other armored vehicles of various types and capabilities, etc. etc. etc. (Not to mention air support of varying types and abilities.)

The 2nd Amendment was SUPPOSED to prevent such an enormous disparity in arms between the people and the government. And while it is, admittedly, a bit ridiculous to be thinking of private ownership of combat-ready armor vehicles, ground attack aircraft, etc.; it is NOT beyond reason to believe in private ownership of personal-level weapons designed to counter armor and aircraft. There is NOTHING "pragmatic" about supporting laws which deny us the ability to counter a tyrannical government by having the use of squad and platoon level weapons of our own standing army.
 
Good Luck said:
... it is NOT beyond reason to believe in private ownership of personal-level weapons designed to counter armor and aircraft. There is NOTHING "pragmatic" about supporting laws which deny us the ability to counter a tyrannical government by having the use of squad and platoon level weapons of our own standing army.
Click to expand...
Good point, but wouldn't that increase the availability of these weapons to domestic terrorists?
 
Damn Yankee said:
Good point, but wouldn't that increase the availability of these weapons to domestic terrorists?
Click to expand...
So what? There are a lot of nasty shit out there that is quite available to people who wish harm to others, both legal to possess, and illegal. Yet, somehow, we do not seem to have a great deal of problems with domestic terrorism, do we? The questioning of what arms are available to domestic terrorists is as much pure bullshit as diminishing our 4th Amendment protections in the cause of defending against foreign terrorism.

But, once again (as is typical of the entire 2nd Amendment controversy) it comes down to supporting reduced liberty, which in this case includes significantly diminishing our ability to prevent a tyranny from establishing itself, in the name of a perceived "safety".

People can probably trust this administration to not completely throw away our Constitutional protections. OTOH, we are witnessing their activities in diminishing them, from expansion of the use of Bush's FISA laws to the outright subjugation of the 4th Amendment in our airports. We witnessed our Constitutional protections diminished under the last administration, using 9-11-01 as an excuse. We witnessed an outright attack on the 2nd Amendment from the administration before Bush (which, thankfully, included a sunset).

Considering we are looking at administrations from (supposedly) opposing political philosophies, what does that tell us we can expect from future administrations? But, thanks to the founders, we have one liberty which was designed to assure we will always have a way to defend our other liberties against ultimate encroachment.

One more time, for those not paying attention, because they are too busy hiding under the bed from domestic terrorists:
"The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." -- (Thomas Jefferson)
Click to expand...
"...but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people, while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in discipline and use of arms, who stand ready to defend their rights..." (Alexander Hamilton speaking of standing armies in Federalist 29.)
Click to expand...
"Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom? Congress shall have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American ... The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the People." (Tench Coxe, Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788)
Click to expand...
 
Good Luck said:
So what? There are a lot of nasty shit out there that is quite available to people who wish harm to others, both legal to possess, and illegal. Yet, somehow, we do not seem to have a great deal of problems with domestic terrorism, do we? The questioning of what arms are available to domestic terrorists is as much pure bullshit as diminishing our 4th Amendment protections in the cause of defending against foreign terrorism.

But, once again (as is typical of the entire 2nd Amendment controversy) it comes down to supporting reduced liberty, which in this case includes significantly diminishing our ability to prevent a tyranny from establishing itself, in the name of a perceived "safety".

People can probably trust this administration to not completely throw away our Constitutional protections. OTOH, we are witnessing their activities in diminishing them, from expansion of the use of Bush's FISA laws to the outright subjugation of the 4th Amendment in our airports. We witnessed our Constitutional protections diminished under the last administration, using 9-11-01 as an excuse. We witnessed an outright attack on the 2nd Amendment from the administration before Bush (which, thankfully, included a sunset).

Considering we are looking at administrations from (supposedly) opposing political philosophies, what does that tell us we can expect from future administrations? But, thanks to the founders, we have one liberty which was designed to assure we will always have a way to defend our other liberties against ultimate encroachment.

One more time, for those not paying attention, because they are too busy hiding under the bed from domestic terrorists:
Click to expand...

So where would you draw the line?
 
Damn Yankee said:
So where would you draw the line?
Click to expand...
Weapons that have a significant classified technological component. It wouldn't be wise to give foreign agents open access to a combat ready F-22 with all it's systems intact.

Realistically, you might even say pragmatically, the people should have legal access to the weaponry common to a soldier in our standing armies. That would include all weapons up to and including company level infantry combat arms. (ie: if you find it on the TO&E of a combat infantry company, the people should be able to get their own.)

Yes, that would preclude armored vehicles. But the pragmatic aspect of that is our modern armored vehicles contain a number of classified combat systems. But it would include ANTI-armor assets - thus giving the people the force necessary to counter armored vehicles, should the need arise. (Of course, the entire idea behind this is that by having them, we'll never need to use them.)

And, to satisfy the brain dead "what about nukes" morons, nukes are NOT found at the company level of a combat infantry unit. In fact, nukes are not found at ANY level of the military. They are maintained by the military, and if ever used will be deployed by the military. But they are not, at any time, under the CONTROL of the military. They are POLITICAL weapons, not military weapons.
 
SmarterThanYou said:
one has to wonder, if the feds had stayed within the confines of the constitution, would we even have domestic terrorists?
Click to expand...
Of course we would. They'd just use different rhetoric to justify their chickenshit.

Not that I'd describe domestic terrorism as a huge (or even significant) problem now. The concept is just being used to justify pissing on the Constitution, just as foreign terrorism is being used. Bullshit fear mongering in the name of more government power and fewer liberties for the people.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top