On Owning Evil Black Guns, A Primer

[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-...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 ( 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.

[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.