On Owning Evil Black Guns, A Primer

[Cheese]

I drink beer and talk to people, of all the things I do in life, it seems to be what I have proven best at.

Related to the graduate study I do, people often ask me thing I regard as silly that are inadequate conversation starters and are mostly accusations. The other night, I thought we were on one of these but it took a positive turn and ended in a place that I could neither answer nor appropriately question further.

I study hunting. I have hunted, will likely continue and own guns to do so. This fact strikes fear in the hearts of my liberal friends.

At the same time, I study hunting. I have hunted, will likely continue, and all the guns I own do exactly that. This strikes fear in my more conservative friends hearts because I only have and want guns for hunting.

I see no reason to own what I will call from here forward, Evil Black Guns (EVB). I am not concerned about a zombie Apocalypse. I am somewhat concerned about the current state of government, but I have been that way since I started voting and saw who else chose to vote and not vote. I see no purpose for someone who is not in armed combat to have the ability to launch belt fed automatic weapons fire or have a weapon that can carry 30-50 rounds in a magazine. I feel like such guns are for killing people and I worry that so many in the world are interest and equipping themselves to do so.

So, why have these guns? I could not defend this to the crazy with whom I was speaking. I get the coolness, I get part of the slippery slope that if these are taken away, next thing will be bolt actions, then all guns, then knives. At the same time, I feel quite comfortable equipping myself to kill animals with bolt actions, pumps and revolvers or, if need be, people with the same weapons as a last resort. If 6 shots doesn't solve the problem, I think I've got a bigger problem.

Thanks.

[fustercluck]

After reading extensively from thr founders personal papers and notes on this subject, it is undeniable that their intent and the context of the 2nd amendment was to recognize the pre-existent right to defend personal freedom from oppressors foreign and domestic using state of the art weapons. As such, we have not only a right but a responsibility to those who will come after us to maintain freedom using any and all weapons/devices likely to used against us by those who seek to oppress.

In that sense, we are already on the slippery slope and have been since we accepted the notion that the State has the power to limit a pre-existent right.

[Cheese]

And so the rights part of it gets to me.

I have a right to own the guns that I want to own so that others can own guns too.

What about the people who own those weapons to fight the government and stay in their tinfoil hats?

On a day to day basis, why do people need/want to own people killing guns, like semi auto, high rates of fire and high capacity magazine rifles or handguns?

Genuine interest and hope to create something like a good answer.

For me, in part, it comes to the fact that I don't want or need them but want to support your right to want and need them?

[04 Rocko Taco]

I think on a day to day basis, we (and by we, I mean those of us who own "EVB") don't need to own them. But the 2nd amendment gives us a right to do so should we choose to, and furthermore while we don't need them on a day to day basis, should the time ever come where we are forced into the need to defend ourselves against an oppressive force (foriegn or domestic, or even zombie) we will need these guns, if it is to come to a fight between us and our own government some day then it will be to late to run out and get an "EVB" at that time to defend against an army already equipped with them, so that is why we must prepare and remain vigilant today for a threat that could come tomorrow.

[RunnerUp]

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state,
the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

A militia is defined as a group of ordinary citizens (i.e. you and me) that form a military force to provide defense.

There are roughly 250,000,000 firearms in the United States, give or take 25 million.

There are roughly 304,000,000 people in the United States, and basically every third home has some sort of firearm inside.

As Admiral Yamamoto of the Empire of Japan said, "You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind each blade of grass."

So after hearing that, do you appreciate the great freedom we have in this country to defend ourselves against all threats, foreign and domestic? This freedom has been taken quite literally by the vast majority of Americans.

Unfortunately, as we are seeing in Iran, the threat does not always come from abroad, and the military there is quite literally killing Irans own citizens, because they disputed the election.

Iran is obviously not a free state, and while imagining something like that happening here is difficult to imagine, nothing is beyond the realm of possibilities. So here comes your slippery slope theory. If we give up “assault rifles” now, then we will be left with handguns and bolt actions, obviously not enough to protect yourself from a modern well armed military.

About the people in the tinfoil hats, why take away a right for 99.9% of Americans to protect the government from that 1% of crazies? I am positive that our government can handle that .1% quite effectively.

[RunnerUp]

Gun ownership in America is a RIGHT, not a PRIVELEDGE.

[RunnerUp]

Just found this quote, I liked it a lot, figured I would share.


"The beauty of the Second Amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it." - Thomas Jefferson

[Small_words]

We as a nation have been involved in wars with several low-tech adversaries in the last 100 years with varying levels of success. In Iraq we have overcome our adversaries by isolating them from support amongst their communities. The same tactic was attempted in Vietnam with the strategic hamlet program and worked reasonably well. In the Phillipines we won because they were foolish enough to meet us head-on. My point in mentioning these is that if the tables are turned in the US and we the people are in conflict with our military, the people would be successful if they aren't isolated from their community, not because they had the latest M-4s and RPGs. Well, the people would be successful as long as there is a community that still exists. Assad, the dictator in Syria, obliterated and I mean obliterated, the town of Hama because they were in low intensity conflict with the central government.

My point is that the latest weapons won't bring victory in a war with our own government so using that as the philosophical defense of gun ownership doesn't hold water. I'm not saying that we should ban weapons and that rifles and shotguns would be of no use in war but there is no need to let a private person own a .50 caliber sniper rifle and the fact that these are available to the general populace scares me. Let's be honest about our fellow man, there are some people that shouldn't be trusted with a ballot much less a weapon.

[Erich_870]

I tend to think of the arms I own (or hope to own some day) as being similar to a medical vaccine. If I choose not to get a vaccine for something common in the population around me, I risk exposure and infection, possibly death. The other thread about the car dealership giving away AK-47's illustrated the common perception that EVB's are over top and extreme. If I lived in an area with Yellow Fever, the vaccine is a life saver. If I lived in a area with meth labs, forest pot fields or drug traffickers, then owning a similar weapons to the kind they carry makes sense.

EVB's are cool because a person knows that with practice and training, you can use them to protect yourself from formidable enemies. These firearms do not have special mind control powers, though. A good person is not going to purchase one, and then fall under their demonic control and rob a bank or attack their neighbors. :shake:

Erich

[RunnerUp]

We as a nation have been involved in wars with several low-tech adversaries in the last 100 years with varying levels of success. In Iraq we have overcome our adversaries by isolating them from support amongst their communities. The same tactic was attempted in Vietnam with the strategic hamlet program and worked reasonably well. In the Phillipines we won because they were foolish enough to meet us head-on. My point in mentioning these is that if the tables are turned in the US and we the people are in conflict with our military, the people would be successful if they aren't isolated from their community, not because they had the latest M-4s and RPGs. Well, the people would be successful as long as there is a community that still exists. Assad, the dictator in Syria, obliterated and I mean obliterated, the town of Hama because they were in low intensity conflict with the central government.

My point is that the latest weapons won't bring victory in a war with our own government so using that as the philosophical defense of gun ownership doesn't hold water. I'm not saying that we should ban weapons and that rifles and shotguns would be of no use in war but there is no need to let a private person own a .50 caliber sniper rifle and the fact that these are available to the general populace scares me. Let's be honest about our fellow man, there are some people that shouldn't be trusted with a ballot much less a weapon.


Well if we ever do get oppressed by our own government/military can I be around when you try to defend your home and family with a bow and arrow?

[Small_words]

Can I be around when you try to ward off a direct assault on your house against a platoon, 13 men, of well-armed and trained soldiers that have air support on call? What are you going to use, a semi-automatic AR-15 that you've modified to shoot full-auto? How's your body armor? Theirs is going to be good.

What I'm saying is that you cannot meet military force head-on if you aren't extremely well prepared, armed, and supported. Also, I don't support banning weapons. What I was trying to say is that if we have to defend ourselves against our government, it's going to be more along the lines of the Russian and French partisans than individuals with weapons. Besides, aren't all your weapons registered, therefore making you a very inticing target?

[AxleIke]

I believe the government must have extremely good reasons to limit rights, not give rights. As a citizen with no criminal record, the government has no place in taking any rights of mine, so long as I continue to live by the law, and do not infringe the rights of my fellow man.

I think that owning an evil black gun because you want to is enough justification.

On the other hand, the idea that any group of armed citizens could hope to defeat the US armed forces in the event the government turns tyrannical is completely laughable.

Even if ALL weapons were made legal, there are only a VERY slight few in this country who could afford them. Most here like to talk about owning all these different weapons, but cannot afford to modify their trucks in the way they wish to. Think that budget is going to get you an Abrams, or a Black Hawk? I think not.

Not to mention that the armed forces are trained to act as a cohesive unit. I picture a "militia" as a "too many cheifs, not enough indians" scenario.

But, whatever. For those who choose to believe they can defeat Big Brother, that is your prerogative. Good luck with the Revolution.

Bottom line.

Owning weapons to own weapons, because you enjoy them, or because you want to fight the zombies/government/whatever, is justification in itself. That applies only to those without criminal records. If you choose to break the laws of society, society is justified in removing your rights from you.

Personally, I feel that the 2nd amendment is toted around as the symbol of American freedom by those who don't really know what they are talking about.

The rest of the constitution, and the amendments, provide FAR more to the security of freedom than the second amendment. The second amendment is there, from the framers point of view, as the last resort. I'd maintain that today, it wouldn't be much of one, but believe what you will.

I take comfort that every 2, 4, and 6 years we, as a nation, can revolutionize our government if we so choose. So far, we haven't really done that. But no one is trying to take away those rights yet.

Lastly, I fail to see the issues with framers intent. The framers rebelled because they were being forced to live under a government in which they had zero influence, and zero representation.

All of us here are represented, and all of us have the ability to interact in our political process. Voting is the BARE MINIMUM you can do to play a part in the direction of this nation.

I can't say for certain, as I don't know any framers personally, but I'd say that, if a well represented nation chose to limit a certain right by a majority vote, even one they personally disagreed with, it would be chalked up to the price one pays to live in a governed society.

Remember, just because your views aren't being proclaimed throughout the land doesn't mean you are being oppressed. It just means that your side lost. Sometimes that happens in a democratic republic.

To answer your question a little bit more directly Adrian:

Killing people is against the law. Its been against the law for quite some time. Why do we need to make things that kill people illegal as well? Type of weapon used doesn't enter into the burden of proof when determining the degree of murder that will be prosecuted.

As long as you don't commit any crimes with your gun, you should be able to own whatever you want.

FWIW, I own only hunting and target weapons myself. I don't wish to own anything else. I enjoy the competition of target shooting, and, while I've been out of it for quite some time, I was quite good in high school. My favorite weapon to shoot is, in fact, a bow.

[Erich_870]

Can I be around when you try to ward off a direct assault on your house against a platoon, 13 men, of well-armed and trained soldiers that have air support on call? What are you going to use, a semi-automatic AR-15 that you've modified to shoot full-auto? How's your body armor? Theirs is going to be good.

What I'm saying is that you cannot meet military force head-on if you aren't extremely well prepared, armed, and supported. Also, I don't support banning weapons. What I was trying to say is that if we have to defend ourselves against our government, it's going to be more along the lines of the Russian and French partisans than individuals with weapons. Besides, aren't all your weapons registered, therefore making you a very enticing target?


Thankfully, it is unlikely that a single home will be attacked by a Navy SEAL squad, and expecting to repel such an attack is exceedingly unrealistic, except for maybe Rambo :hillbill:.

The real point is if there was an armed up rising, many, many armed civilians would die or be wounded, but the better armed they are, the stronger their opposition would be. That in turn would tend to bring about the change they're fighting for in a shorter period of time. Our forefathers who fought for our independence fought with the best weapons they had. They fought with their personal weapons in the beginning and only acquired additional arms as the war progressed. How well do you think the war would have gone for them if they didn't own similar weapons to their enemy? What if they had made the specific decision to lay down there guns and only fight with bows/arrows and tomahawks?

Lastly, remember those two bank robbers in LA that were in body armor? The police quickly found they were outgunned and had to borrow guns from a local gun store. This shouldn't be just a lesson for them...

Erich

[fustercluck]

Defeat by speculation. Some would say that because our military is armed with overwhelming equipment that it is pointless to calculate a defense against a rougue iteration of our gooberment. They say that the advantage our military has can in no way be matched or bettered so why try or even prepare?

I say BS. True, our military is an overwhelming force and it's weapons suffocating. I think whatever advantage this is would be suppressed by our overwhelming numbers given the appropriate arms. This is why I assert that we have a right to ANY weapon likely to be used by central powers to oppress the people. Also, I am convinced that most of the military men and women would refuse to fight the people of the US where individual freedom is the question.

Some say this is tinfoil hat territory. Maybe. The wheels of tyranny grind slowly, but they grind. It is the nature of bloodless oppression to confine and control incrementally. We can use a transitive formula to verify human nature here. Historically, humans have oppressed and murdered other humans for profit, power and/or passion. Governments historically have been, or evolved to, oppressive forces as society ages. Our government is comprised of humans in power thirsty for more power. Our government is then capable of becoming oppressive.

Still foil hat time? Study the Weimar Republic and the resulting National Socialist Party and get back to me.

Regardless, we have lost freedom and will lose more because somewhere along the line we accepted the notion that others' freedoms are not so important.

[AxleIke]

Overwhelming military force isn't a reason for removal of weaponry, its simply a silly justification for owning a gun, IMO. There are plenty of other, more reasonable reasons, one being simply the pleasure of having one. I enjoy mine.

I also find the argument of legalizing every weapon for the purposes of defense against the government to be a bit weak. If you choose to rebel against a government, no matter how tyrannical, that government is going to view you as a traitor. What difference does it make at that point if you have legally obtained weapons?

Many of the colonists broke into British arms depots and stole weapons to fight the British with. What did they have to lose? In the grand scheme of things, treason is a much more serious crime than some low rent weapons charges.

Whether or not the military would attack US citizens is a moot point. Unless the military enforces tyranny, a tyrant has no power. I think you'll find very few truly tyrannical leaders throughout history who didn't have an army to back them up.

I'm not supporting the view that evil black guns should ever be outlawed. Quite the contrary.

I'm more concerned personally with rights we are being stripped of at an alarming rate, namely, our right to privacy, in all forms.

However, that's entirely off topic.

Back to the subject on hand: An individual is entitled to certain rights, and in this country, one of those is the right to own a firearm. A government must, if it is a just body, provide extremely compelling reasoning, backed with volumes of hard evidence, to strip an individual of any rights.

For example, I don't have the right to kill another person on a whim. I feel the government has a strong argument that killing others randomly violates others rights to life, as well as breaks down the foundations of a safe and civilized society.

"Because some guns look scary" is not a reason whatsoever to remove the right to bear arms.

"Because some guy hurt some other guy with a gun" is not a reason whatsoever to remove the right to bear arms.

Just because some people choose to break the law using weapons is NOT cause to remove guns from the hands of law abiding, good citizens.

And to me, that is a sufficient argument for keeping EBGs.

[Small_words]

Just because some people choose to break the law using weapons is NOT cause to remove guns from the hands of law abiding, good citizens.


Is there a line which can be drawn to define a firearm? There is little mechanical difference between a fully automatic M-4 and a semi-automatic AR-15. They're both firearms. There is a difference in scale between an M-4 and an M-61 Vulcan. They're both firearms. Is there a line that defines what a person should be allowed to own as guaranteed by the Constitution?

If a rich guy can afford an M-61 should he be allowed to own it?

[fustercluck]

According to the constitution, yes. I have answered this question with constitutional transparency. Most of the obstacles and resistence arguments are irrelevent if one believes in personal liberty, individual responsibility and the constitution.

Edit Rocko: Fixed it for ya. :)

[AxleIke]

According to the constitution, yes. I have answered this question with constitutional transparency. Most of the obstacles and resistence arguments are irrelevent if one believes in person liberty, individual responsibility and the constitution.


x2.

[fustercluck]

Oops. I should have typed 'personal'.....D'oh!

[AxleIke]

Just because some people choose to break the law using weapons is NOT cause to remove guns from the hands of law abiding, good citizens.


Is there a line which can be drawn to define a firearm? There is little mechanical difference between a fully automatic M-4 and a semi-automatic AR-15. They're both firearms. There is a difference in scale between an M-4 and an M-61 Vulcan. They're both firearms. Is there a line that defines what a person should be allowed to own as guaranteed by the Constitution?

If a rich guy can afford an M-61 should he be allowed to own it?


I would ask you you're own answer to that question. Do you feel he should be allowed to own it?

[RunnerUp]

One question to ask, why are you so afraid of firearms? Were you or your family the victim of a law abiding citizen’s attack with his lawfully acquired firearm?

Did any one ever teach you that guns don’t kill people, people kill people?

About the seal team attacking my house and calling in air support, come on.... really? While I only have air soft guns and a really neat rubber band gun, I am pretty sure they wouldn’t come to my house, as I am almost positive that they don’t keep track of air soft sales.

[fustercluck]

Disclaimer: This is a repost.

http://www.jpfo.org/filegen-a-m/movieplay-ngn-swf.htm

[oly884]

According to the constitution, yes. I have answered this question with constitutional transparency. Most of the obstacles and resistence arguments are irrelevent if one believes in personal liberty, individual responsibility and the constitution.

Edit Rocko: Fixed it for ya. :)


This right here is the answer. Sorry to put it bluntly, but you either believe in personal liberty, individual responsibility and the constitution, or you don't. Whether one believes that the 2nd amendment could apply to our country today to revolt against the government, or to defend against enemies from abroad is another topic. I say anything is possible, I don't want it to happen, but, never hurts.

Anyways, onto the EBR's (evil black rifles)...

As the 2nd amendment reads, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" doesn't define what 'arms' is, so, one could say that allowing everyone to own only 20 ga. and 22lr guns would be considered as 'keeping and bearing arms'

However, that argument falls flat on its face when you consider that banning EBR's would indeed infringe upon my right to own that specific type of arm, thus violating the constitution.

Small_words: How does someone owning a .50 caliber sniper rifle scare you? How many crimes and murders have been committed with a .50 caliber sniper rifle? (just curious)

This all boils down to something far more simple. Freedom.

Because you don't like something, does it mean that you should have it only your way? If you see no need for an EBR, or a .50 caliber sniper rifle, explain to me why we should ignore what the 2nd amendment says, and explain to me how it would not further the slippery slope?

Taking away guns will not take away guns from criminals, and even if it did, it will NEVER change their intent. Whether it be a general POS, a foreign enemy, or our own government, removing firearms will only aid in their ability to control and/or harm you.

1: Fredom: the quality or state of being free: as a: the absence of necessity, coercion, or constraint in choice or action b: liberation from slavery or restraint or from the power of another : independence c: the quality or state of being exempt or released usually from something onerous

[Robinhood4x4]

I feel like such guns are for killing people and I worry that so many in the world are interest and equipping themselves to do so.

If 6 shots doesn't solve the problem, I think I've got a bigger problem.



Just because a firearm is intended to be used in the military, doesn't mean a civilian intends to use it the same way. An M1 Garand, M1 carbine, bolt action 1903, mausers, 1911, pretty much all handguns have their roots in military use. There is nothing fundamentally different between these guns and an EBR. After all, the reason they are facetiously called Evil Black Rifle is to point out the fact that there is nothing evil about them.

As for the six shots doesn't solve your problem, I strongly recommend you take some training in handgun defense or study up on it, because there is a very real reason few carry revolvers as their primary self defense gun anymore.

[oly884]

After more pondering at the Issaquah Brew House, and drinking delicious Rogue beer (no, I didn't have my carry gun with me), I was reminded of a recent event in which took place.

2 good people were murdered in their house, which had 9 of their 16 step children in it at the time. http://news.aol.com/article/parents-of-16-killed-in-florida/566477

Would a semi-automatic AR-15 or AK47 gun change what happened? No one knows, but it could have made a difference. One could argue that a 6 shooter wouldn't have done much good against that many individuals.

Another thing to consider. You speak of these guns as designed for killing, you are correct, the caliber and layout of the weapon was designed for the heat of battle and to stop individuals who intend to do you harm. So, why can't *I* have the same ability? What is the reason the military can have superior defensive weapons and I cannot?

We all know that pistols are a secondary weapon, they are not incredibly effective at stopping threats when compared to an AR-15 or a AK47, so what reason do you see that I need to sacrifice my well being for the sake that you don't see a need for them?

As I said earlier, banning guns will only remove them from the hands of responsible citizens, criminals will still obtain them, and a law against owing a firearm will never change their intent, it will only help to change their tactics.

There are people in the world who intend to do harm, they play by no rules. So, to try and enforce such a rule, such as 'banning' a certain type of gun, you only strengthen those who play by no rules, and leave those that do play by the rules more vulnerable.

Life is a very delicate thing, to think that the simple squeeze of a cold piece of steel can end it so quickly is a scary thought, I have no arguments there. However, there are those in this world that do not look at life that way, they have no value over life beyond their personal gain. As a result, to not only protect our lives, but the lives of those around us, we NEED to be able to use whatever means we have to do so. So, to say that EBRs, and so on, are 'not needed' is telling the roofer that he does not need a nail gun when a hammer will do, while ignoring the fact that a nail gun, when used properly, is faster, more effective, and safer, than the primitive relative.

[slosurfer]

Well, I for one am looking more and more at getting some "EBG"s for a few reasons and first on my list is self defense.

1. Self defense- in the past 6 months there has been a rise in violent home invasions around here and this is a really mellow "safe" area I live in. ONe was less than a block from my parents house, two men entered a house w/ at least one handgun. The people fought back, shots were fired, the gun ended up in the hands of the people in the house. In the end, one would be robber dead, other one wounded, and others in the house wounded. Could have ended up very differently had the robber's known how to use their weapons or had the inhabitants been armed themselves. Second one was 6 blocks from my house, 2 robbers with weapons entered a residence w/ 2 people inside. They told one of them to go to the back room until they leave. They didn't know that, that was where he kept his gun. He came out firing. One would be robber dead, one wounded. Both of these had certain reasons for robberies, first one was after cash that they found out the owner had at the house, second was after a few marijauna plants that the owner was growing for his medicinal use ( :laugh: that's a totally different political topic). Reason, I am worried, my truck was broken into and they got a decent amount of cash, and I'm worried they will be back but go for the house, thinking that I've got a lot more in here, if I had that much in my truck.

Now granted, any old shotgun, handgun, rifle, etc.. might work as a defense weapon, but if I had my choice of what to grab should someone try to rush the house. You'd better bet I'm going to want something specialized for that use.

2. They are fun to shoot, and having been in the military, it is nostalgic as well. Also, I know what I'm doing with them and how to use them.

I've got more reasons but I'm late for work so I'll finish this post later.

ONe more thing, saying they aren't needed when only single shooters/hunting weapons are good enough, is exactly the type of thing we fight against when they say, why go offroading when you can walk it just fine. :shake:

[Cheese]

Fat fingers got in the way of the acronym.

I understand that some military weapons, in the hands of civilians, are used to punch paper. I lived at the Whittington Center for a summer, watched some match shooting and was impressed with all of it. I have been to the range when people were using and preparing to use modified military weapons expressly for high rates of fire and large magazines. That made me leave the range because it was uncomfortable.

FYI, David, being in Rogue country was great. I actually fell off a stool at the sampling bar because 6 tasters became 13 after the server found out where we were from.

Not sure who the scared question was directed towards, but I am not scared, I have killed animals, I intend to kill more, I am looking at a concealed carry class for the Fall, guns are a part of my life.

Really on the 6 rounds? To me, self defense is a single threat. Otherwise, it is a fire fight. I have never been in that situation and wonder how I would end up there based on what I do daily.

[Small_words]

I’ve noticed a trend in conversations about politics. Most people don’t get right to what they mean to say if they’re going to say has anything political. They tend to throw some qualifiers in and then get to their point when they’re trying to get a person with an opposing viewpoint to listen to their explanation before ruling out everything they have to say. I said that Barack Obama is legally allowed to be our President but how many of you concluded that I voted or support him as our President? Did I need to tell you that I dislike him and his policies in order for you to listen to my argument for why is legally our President?

The 2nd Amendment states that a well regulated militia is necessary for the security of a free State, therefore the right of individuals to keep and bear arms will not be infringed upon. Chemical weapons are an armament and using the argument that any limitation on arms is unconstitutional then anyone should be able to keep and maintain chemical agents if they choose. I am not sure whether anyone else on this board would agree with me that a private person should not own chemical weapons. Yes I’m taking it to an extreme but I’m doing so out of curiosity whether anyone disagrees with me and also because I’m proving a point by taking it to an extreme position. You could say that as long as a person has no criminal record then they have the right to own anything that money can buy. What crime does a person have to commit in order for them to relinquish their right to bear arms? Driving under the influence is irresponsible and doing it can result in you killing not just yourself but others and the drunk bears responsibility for their actions. So, where do you draw the line? That’s what I’m getting at. Absolutes are a real bitch to deal with. Having the right to bear any weapon provided you break no laws are the absolutes of both positions and ensure that no one has any right to any weapon because all of us break rules every day and they put our fellow citizens at risk.

I’m neither a peacenik nor afraid of guns. If someone ever breaks into my house I’ll kill them with the 9mm pistol I have and shot expert with 8 of the 9 years I was in the military. Well, I’ll shoot them or my wife will, considering she did close to the same. I shoot trap occasionally and would like to try hunting. I didn’t support banning assault weapons and nor do I support changing any of our existing laws regarding guns. Banning weapons tilts the balance of power from citizens to criminals. Having any and all weapons available to the general populace requires that the police arm themselves accordingly which tilts the balance of power from the citizen to the state. The status quo is kind of an armed peace between the people and our government. If my housing situation ever changes I will buy a nice shotgun because it makes a hell of a racket and a very large hole wherever I aim it. My daughter will also know how to shoot as soon as she’s strong enough to hold a weapon and I’ll give her a pistol when she moves out.

[oly884]

FYI, David, being in Rogue country was great. I actually fell off a stool at the sampling bar because 6 tasters became 13 after the server found out where we were from.

Not sure who the scared question was directed towards, but I am not scared, I have killed animals, I intend to kill more, I am looking at a concealed carry class for the Fall, guns are a part of my life.

Really on the 6 rounds? To me, self defense is a single threat. Otherwise, it is a fire fight. I have never been in that situation and wonder how I would end up there based on what I do daily.


I love being in Rogue country, hands down my favorite beers.

The scared question was directed at Small_Words when he was speaking about a civilian owning a .50 cal sniper rifle.

As to the 6 rounds....

I'll ask some questions to hopefully explain myself. If your house is attacked by 6+ men, are you not allowed to defend yourself? What if it's 15 men in a gang that decide to loot, kill, and rape? Do you believe there is a point at which a person does not have the right to defend themselves and must, for lack of a better term, roll over and die?

Sure, they are 'what ifs' but, it doesn't mean they cannot happen. The larger point I'm trying to make is, once you start saying 'you can't own these guns' you start to put limitations on how a person can use those guns, thus, putting a limitation on how they can defend themselves. No one would argue that an AR-15 against 6 home invaders is a far greater tool than a 6 shot revolver.

The chances of all this happening is slim to nil, I have no arguments there, but there is nothing wrong with being prepared.

[oly884]

The 2nd Amendment states that a well regulated militia is necessary for the security of a free State, therefore the right of individuals to keep and bear arms will not be infringed upon. Chemical weapons are an armament and using the argument that any limitation on arms is unconstitutional then anyone should be able to keep and maintain chemical agents if they choose. I am not sure whether anyone else on this board would agree with me that a private person should not own chemical weapons. Yes I’m taking it to an extreme but I’m doing so out of curiosity whether anyone disagrees with me and also because I’m proving a point by taking it to an extreme position. You could say that as long as a person has no criminal record then they have the right to own anything that money can buy. What crime does a person have to commit in order for them to relinquish their right to bear arms? Driving under the influence is irresponsible and doing it can result in you killing not just yourself but others and the drunk bears responsibility for their actions. So, where do you draw the line? That’s what I’m getting at. Absolutes are a real bitch to deal with. Having the right to bear any weapon provided you break no laws are the absolutes of both positions and ensure that no one has any right to any weapon because all of us break rules every day and they put our fellow citizens at risk.


Chemical weapons, nuclear devices, etc, are all offensive weapons, they have no defensive purpose. The purpose of the 2nd amendment is for the defense of our lives, our country, and the Constitution. There is a difference between an offensive only weapon, and a offensive/defensive weapon. The purpose of my guns are for target practice, hunting, and defense, as you would imagine it is the same for every other responsible and not-insane human who owns a gun.

[reggie 00]

Also there are treaties in place to prohibit the use of chem bio and nuclear weapons.

No matter what your belief all weapons, single shots, semi autos, what ever if you put a ban in place the only people that will be effected are the law abiding ones.

Does anyone really think a criminal gives a rats butt if it is legal for him to have a M4, or a shotgun while he is robbing your house and killing your family?

If you don't like them fine don't have one. I don't like onions, you don't see me and the million others that see onions as I do looking to ban the sale and production of the onion do you?

Pistols, rifles, knives these are all tools. Used by people to accomplish things both good and bad.
It is the person behind it that needs regulated not the tool.

Sorry if the spelling is off on iPhone and got to go back to work

[oly884]

Let's take a different look at gun bans.

Let's say that banning all semi-auto rifles went into effect, and there was not a single semi-auto rifle in the hands of any civilian and none could be smuggled it. Would there still be killings? Would there still be home invasions?

Let's take it to the extreme and say that not a single person, except military and police, had guns, what would change? Would there be no killings? Would there be no home invasions?

Hopefully you're starting to see what banning guns accomplishes. As I said earlier, you're never going to change the intent of a bad person. You can limit the tools they can use, but you will NEVER stop bad people from doing bad things.

[Cheese]

The US and UN have told other countries, not even US civilians that they are not allowed to have chemical and nuclear weapons. Those arms, I think, are beyond this argument.

I understand the part that if more people attack me than I have rounds in my weapon, that is bad news. I assume there is a stat about how many rounds the average home invasion or rape involves.

As a tangent, the bit about how gun legislation is supposed to keep weapons away from criminals makes me laugh. If people want to get guns and kill people, they are obviously not interested in playing by the rules so more rules won't stop them.

[oly884]

I understand the part that if more people attack me than I have rounds in my weapon, that is bad news. I assume there is a stat about how many rounds the average home invasion or rape involves.

Well, while I was using the example of 6 rounds vs 30 (typical for an AR-15) the point I was trying to get at was a bit deeper. It's not just the amount of ammo that you can carry, but the gun itself. A big ol' 454 wheel gun is intimidating, but for a home defense situation, an AR would be far more versatile for a number of reasons. So, my point isn't focused on one needing 10, 20, 50 rounds, but rather a firearm designed for defense. An AR-15 shooting a 5.56 NATO round is easier to aim, 30 rounds in a magazine, negligible recoil, no muzzle flash, and semi-automatic and the effects of the 5.56 bullet traveling at those velocities makes for an excellent round to stop someone from doing you or those you love harm. Does one need all these things? Not completely, however, go back to the hammer vs nail gun comparison both a hammer and a nail gun accomplish the same task, but one is far more effective.



As a tangent, the bit about how gun legislation is supposed to keep weapons away from criminals makes me laugh. If people want to get guns and kill people, they are obviously not interested in playing by the rules so more rules won't stop them.


Spot on.

[DHC6twinotter]

If I ever get abducted by ninjas, I would rather shoot a ninja than have my neck broke in hand-to-hand combat.

[Robinhood4x4]

6 rounds. Rarely do criminals act alone, just look at Chris's examples. Most of the time there's at least 2 if not more. I won't even pretend to be a mall ninja but I've had some training in defensive handgun use. What was clearly evident from that experience is that 6 round might stop an attack, but the option of having more is much better. Murphy and all. Even in non-grandiose scenarios one will go through more rounds than one thinks. You're assuming every bullet will hit.

Mostly, I fear the slippery slope. People say there must be a compromise between the two sides, but the anti gunners aren't going to give up. They'll just keep picking away until they're all gone. What people don't realize is that in the last generation we've already compromised by giving up easily available full automatic weapons.

What are we going to give up in this generation?

[Robinhood4x4]

I don't like onions, you don't see me and the million others that see onions as I do looking to ban the sale and production of the onion do you?


Right on brotha! We onion haters gotta stick together!

[reggie 00]

I understand the part that if more people attack me than I have rounds in my weapon, that is bad news. I assume there is a stat about how many rounds the average home invasion or rape involves.

Well, while I was using the example of 6 rounds vs 30 (typical for an AR-15) the point I was trying to get at was a bit deeper. It's not just the amount of ammo that you can carry, but the gun itself. A big ol' 454 wheel gun is intimidating, but for a home defense situation, an AR would be far more versatile for a number of reasons. So, my point isn't focused on one needing 10, 20, 50 rounds, but rather a firearm designed for defense. An AR-15 shooting a 5.56 NATO round is easier to aim, 30 rounds in a magazine, negligible recoil, no muzzle flash, and semi-automatic and the effects of the 5.56 bullet traveling at those velocities makes for an excellent round to stop someone from doing you or those you love harm. Does one need all these things? Not completely, however, go back to the hammer vs nail gun comparison both a hammer and a nail gun accomplish the same task, but one is far more effective.



As a tangent, the bit about how gun legislation is supposed to keep weapons away from criminals makes me laugh. If people want to get guns and kill people, they are obviously not interested in playing by the rules so more rules won't stop them.


Spot on.


Just a comment on what you wrote above.

An Ar is an effective tool. And it has its place in HD for some.

Me i have a 18.5" 12g with #6 bird shot, very effective in a house, and wont really penetrate drywall like a .223 round will.

Also there was an article i read the other day about a class at one of the training places, they asked a guy to come in with his lever action rifle to do the class.
Out of 15-20 people he was the only one that did not have a semi auto AR type rifle.
They said he scored better than all the others. And no he wasn't up against beginners it was a law enforcement class.

Not whats shooting at you but whos behind it.

[Bighead]

I'm curious...why would you want to defend a semi-auto, high capacity rifle like the AR15 if you consider them an "Evil Black Gun"? Was this a result of your conversation with the crazy or did you already feel that way?

[fustercluck]

Well do ya, punk?

http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a316/hexagonsunrise/stills/dirty-harry-clint-eastwood1.jpg

[oly884]

I'm curious...why would you want to defend a semi-auto, high capacity rifle like the AR15 if you consider them an "Evil Black Gun"? Was this a result of your conversation with the crazy or did you already feel that way?


Who is your post directed at?

[oly884]

I understand the part that if more people attack me than I have rounds in my weapon, that is bad news. I assume there is a stat about how many rounds the average home invasion or rape involves.

Well, while I was using the example of 6 rounds vs 30 (typical for an AR-15) the point I was trying to get at was a bit deeper. It's not just the amount of ammo that you can carry, but the gun itself. A big ol' 454 wheel gun is intimidating, but for a home defense situation, an AR would be far more versatile for a number of reasons. So, my point isn't focused on one needing 10, 20, 50 rounds, but rather a firearm designed for defense. An AR-15 shooting a 5.56 NATO round is easier to aim, 30 rounds in a magazine, negligible recoil, no muzzle flash, and semi-automatic and the effects of the 5.56 bullet traveling at those velocities makes for an excellent round to stop someone from doing you or those you love harm. Does one need all these things? Not completely, however, go back to the hammer vs nail gun comparison both a hammer and a nail gun accomplish the same task, but one is far more effective.



As a tangent, the bit about how gun legislation is supposed to keep weapons away from criminals makes me laugh. If people want to get guns and kill people, they are obviously not interested in playing by the rules so more rules won't stop them.


Spot on.


Just a comment on what you wrote above.

An Ar is an effective tool. And it has its place in HD for some.

Me i have a 18.5" 12g with #6 bird shot, very effective in a house, and wont really penetrate drywall like a .223 round will.

Also there was an article i read the other day about a class at one of the training places, they asked a guy to come in with his lever action rifle to do the class.
Out of 15-20 people he was the only one that did not have a semi auto AR type rifle.
They said he scored better than all the others. And no he wasn't up against beginners it was a law enforcement class.

Not whats shooting at you but whos behind it.


Well, I've got a shotgun too that can be used as a HD gun. However, given my layout, my familiarity with my AR, and my EOTech sight on it, I choose to use that. Plus, my shotgun has had a few issues, and while they are fixed now, I still prefer to go with a far more reliable firearm.

[Small_words]

The 2nd Amendment guarantees us the right to bear arms. What the motivation of the authors of the Bill of Rights were in writing this amendment to our Constitution isn’t what I’m trying to get at. Our right to carry weapons has been eroded because we are not allowed to carry fully automatic weapons. Several of you have said that chemical weapons aren’t pertinent to this discussion because they are banned by international treaties. The US has signed this treaty which has infringed upon our rights to carry weapons. So, we’ve given up some of our rights to carry weapons and so far I haven’t seen anyone say that we should be allowed to have chemical weapons. So, you’re okay with banning some weapons but not others.

The Constitution, so far as I know, does not say it is permissible to remove a person’s rights. So, why do we not allow felons to buy a gun? We’ve removed their right to both buy a gun and participate in the democratic process. Is this fair? We’ve all committed crimes but no one advocates taking away your right to purchase a gun because you have speeding tickets. The difference is one of degree. Committing one crime means you’ve shown yourself to be irresponsible and therefore can’t own a gun but committing another one doesn’t have the same ramification.

It’s hypocrisy to say that the 2nd Amendment guarantees me the right to carry any and all weapons if you are okay with preventing any other person from buying and carrying a weapon. There are no absolutes.

I certainly didn’t say that banning guns was a good idea and agree that this would only make us more vulnerable to criminals because they would still carry. The Brits haven’t had much success with banning guns and actually have higher violent crime statistics than we. Oly, what made you conclude that I want to ban guns?

[Cheese]

Around my house a hand cannon would not be effective at solving home invasion issues. I would prefer a short barreled shotgun.

Around camp, a hand cannon is a lot more usable for home invasion.

I am struggling to create a defense of those weapons that extends beyond the coolness. For instance, I think an AR15, especially looking at some of the modified and accuracy dialed ones, is a sweet weapon.

The rub for me is people as what I would use that for, as in me personally. I'd rather buy a bunch of other weapons before that and personally have Zero use for one. As a result, I went through my mental check list as to why others wanted them, hence me asking you guys, hey, why do you want and have these?

It sounds like some have them because they are cool.

It sounds like some have them because it is a right.

It sounds like some have them because they feel it is important to be prepared.

It sounds like some have them because they are the right tool for some jobs.

[reggie 00]

Well, I've got a shotgun too that can be used as a HD gun. However, given my layout, my familiarity with my AR, and my EOTech sight on it, I choose to use that. Plus, my shotgun has had a few issues, and while they are fixed now, I still prefer to go with a far more reliable firearm.


Sorry to confuse,

Wasn't calling out your choice, just wanted anyone who read the thread to know there are other choices.

If for some reason the shot gun doesnt handle business, the M4 is next up to bat, followed by a 20g with 00,then......

[RobG]

Ban onions, that’s funny. Yes, we must ban them; we must do it for the children.

Some time ago I was not very concerned with the AW ban, might have even supported it but never gave it much thought. I enjoy target shooting and believe in the right to own and bear arms. I don’t hunt, wish I did but I don’t, everyone that eats meat should, but that’s another subject.

Today my thinking is very different. If I want an assault rifle to defend myself, target shoot/plink with, or just to keep for a rainy day I believe I have the right to do so. I believe you as a sane non-felon can do so as well. Although most of my experience is with long guns I have developed a recent affinity to pistols primarily due to their portability and concealment advantages. Don’t really want an evil black gun but I would like a Mini14 or M1A someday, last Brady list I saw had those on the AWB list.

So I’ll concede to not being able to have fully auto but I draw the line at the semi-auto. Once they take one semi auto it won’t be long before they take them all, black, blue, green, pink…. So I believe the slippery slope thing is true. Bring in the 2A arguments and that the bans don’t affect criminals and think it’s clear where we need to mark and hold the line. Most people here seem to be saying something similar.

I have taken some defensive firearms training classes and believe that training is much more important than selection of equipment or caliber. Knowing what to do with what you have is far more important than the incremental difference in modern semi-auto firearms. I look forward to more advanced training more than the next hardware purchase. So yes we have a right to own the evil black rifle if we want but we also have to know how to use it proficiently and responsibly.

[reggie 00]

The rub for me is people as what I would use that for, as in me personally. I'd rather buy a bunch of other weapons before that and personally have Zero use for one.



I was the same way till i ran out of other things to get, then i picked one up.



It sounds like some have them because they are cool.

I do

It sounds like some have them because it is a right.

I do

It sounds like some have them because they feel it is important to be prepared.

I do

It sounds like some have them because they are the right tool for some jobs.

Cant have to many tools

[oly884]

I certainly didn’t say that banning guns was a good idea and agree that this would only make us more vulnerable to criminals because they would still carry. The Brits haven’t had much success with banning guns and actually have higher violent crime statistics than we. Oly, what made you conclude that I want to ban guns?


Small_words, I apologize if I inferred that I thought you wanted to ban guns, when you said you made the comment about civilians owning a .50 cal sniper rifle, I interpereted that you felt that there was no need for one to own one.

[Bighead]

Adrian's initial post.





I'm curious...why would you want to defend a semi-auto, high capacity rifle like the AR15 if you consider them an "Evil Black Gun"? Was this a result of your conversation with the crazy or did you already feel that way?


Who is your post directed at?

[Cheese]

Lance, did the response make sense?

I guess the first post was not entirely clear.

The conversation turned to these, by saying that "I didn't understand" there was not an implicit judgment that the guns were inherently useless. It is that I do not have them, so it is hard for me to talk about. Similarly, parenthood and childbirth, I can only talk about what others tell me.

I don't think they are evil, I do often think they look menacing, but so do I some times, no worries.

I have not become a crazy hippy while away at school.

[fustercluck]

Lance, did the response make sense?

I guess the first post was not entirely clear.

The conversation turned to these, by saying that "I didn't understand" there was not an implicit judgment that the guns were inherently useless. It is that I do not have them, so it is hard for me to talk about. Similarly, parenthood and childbirth, I can only talk about what others tell me.

I don't think they are evil, I do often think they look menacing, but so do I some times, no worries.

I have not become a crazy hippy while away at school.


I understood the original post to be a query for perspectives you could not produce from within. It makes sense to me. Not everyone can conceive of everything without some kind of experience.

What chaps my glutes is when someone is unable to discern the need for such a device and then projects his equivocation on the rest of us; often times dismissing valid reasons via pedantic condescendsions.

In this case, Adrian, you are unale to grasp the need for such a thing. In a perfect world none of could. But we live in a world with an increasingly present evil element not content to destroy other evil beings, but to snatch the lives, freedom and property of the innocent.

Each tool in a chest has a specific purpose. A 12mm box end wrench will loosen the same fastener as a 12mm socket; similarly will a pair of pliers. However each tool is designed to be most effective under specific circumstances. The same applies to firearms. Their various calibers, configurations and capacities are designed to accomplish a specific task under specific circumstances.

Some tools are rarely needed. They sit in the chest at the ready for that one task when their services are indispensable. I have, when cleaning my tool chest, removed a tool I rarely use and put it away somewhere. Years later when I need it, the chances are pretty certain that I will not be able to find it and will be left to the impotence of improvisation or modification. It is then when the value of that tool is most poignant and the frustration at my shortsightedness the most accute.

Clearly, you are not suggesting that by projection the rest of society may not have EBRs nor do I think you are shortsighted on this. Having asked the question initially bears witness to that. Ultimately it boils down to 'It is better to have and not need than to need and not have' and being a preexistent right, it is recognized by the constitution and ostensibly guaranteed by the .gov......

[RobG]

Here is an interesting quote today in the wake of the narrow defeat of the nationwide CCW legislation by the Senate.

The passage of this amendment would have done more to threaten the safety of New Yorkers than anything since the repeal of the assault weapons ban,” Senator Charles E. Schumer, Democrat of New York and a leading opponent of the amendment, said in a statement.


Exactly what threats to safety have been caused in NY by the assault weapons ban expiring?

It seems like this is being argued from the wrong point of view based on 2A rights. Rather than should you be allowed to own it should be what right do they have to deny or restrict the EBG and what is an EBG.

[AxleIke]

What chaps my glutes is when someone is unable to discern the need for such a device and then projects his equivocation on the rest of us; often times dismissing valid reasons via pedantic condescendsions.



This, I think, is the heart of the problem.

I don't agree that one needs to have weapons to defend against our government. I think that is a preposterous notion, personally. I do not own weapons for this purpose.

HOWEVER, I support anyone who wishes to own weapons for that purpose. I think it presumptuous to impose your own beliefs on another just because you happen to disagree with a choice. No one is forcing anyone to own a gun. I have respect for those who I know who do not like guns, and do not wish to have guns around them. I choose not to bring my guns into their presence, or homes, because I realize that they have that choice.

Taking guns away just because someone doesn't "see the need for" or "doesn't like them" or "thinks they're scary" is quite frankly, rude. That particular form of anti-gun control thinking has a very familiar ring, doesn't it? Parent-child relations. Problem is, we are adults, and while we may not all act as such, we all pay taxes, we all have the ability to vote, and we are all equally responsible for our actions.

I apply this same reasoning in ALL my political views, which is why I'm so anti-government involvement, leaving me neither on the left, nor the right, nor the center. I'm somewhere behind home plate, I imagine.

I realize that there are finer points that can be discussed, but the net is a hard place to do so. It doesn't allow for the satisfying evolution of a conversation the way beers do...(Hint, hint Cheese).

FWIW, I think you give these counter-arguments too much credit fuster, as pedantic implies education, and I've yet to hear an argument against guns that holds water when any sort of logic, political science, or social science is applied. Just busting your chops a bit, :D

P.S.

For those reading, when I use the terms "you", "your", "they" etc...I'm using them in the broad, general sense and not singling anyone out in this thread whatsoever. I'm enjoying this discussion quite a bit, and don't want anyone to feel attacked by my views, as that's not my intent.

Cheers!

[fustercluck]

This may be an abrasive splitting of hairs, but I use 'pedantic' in the secondary terms of definition; those being: 2 a: one who makes a show of knowledge b: one who is unimaginative or who unduly emphasizes minutiae in the presentation or use of knowledge. 2 : narrowly, stodgily, and often ostentatiously learned. Unimaginative.

While an educated man is a dynamic force indeed, the same in arrogant contemptuous equivocation is dangerous and incorrigible.

[Bighead]

Lance, did the response make sense?

I guess the first post was not entirely clear.

The conversation turned to these, by saying that "I didn't understand" there was not an implicit judgment that the guns were inherently useless. It is that I do not have them, so it is hard for me to talk about. Similarly, parenthood and childbirth, I can only talk about what others tell me.

I don't think they are evil, I do often think they look menacing, but so do I some times, no worries.

I have not become a crazy hippy while away at school.


Thanks Adrian...that cleared it up for me.