On Owning Evil Black Guns, A Primer

[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 .

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?