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.

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?