Our general populations cadre of small arms won't even bother a well equipped army, you're living in delusional land.
(03-11-2013 11:59 AM)DesertBronco Wrote: [ -> ] (03-11-2013 10:51 AM)brovol Wrote: [ -> ]Folks tend to lose sight of the purpose of the 2nd amendment. It is there to insure that the American people always have the means and mechanisms to revolt against our own government . It tends to keep the folks in power honest.
When you relax important constitutional protections which are in place strictly to protect us as citizens, you compromise freedoms in general. Americans have had guns forever. Accidents and homicides have occurred throughout history. It is certainly one of the unfortunate circumstances that exist in the world, but should not serve as a basis to compromise our freedom.
You taking on the government with your AR-15 when they have the sophisticated weaponry of today is a little outdated thinking, as outdated as the second amendment. Might have applied when it was about muskets and rifles, not now.
Let the pro-gun people who think the government is out to get them try and attack our military. See how that works out for them.
And the Constitution was written over 225 years ago. The world is completely different now. When the Constitution was written, they had no idea what the world would be like now. If they re-wrote it now, some of it would be different.
(03-12-2013 12:43 AM)MidnightBlueGold Wrote: [ -> ] (03-11-2013 11:59 AM)DesertBronco Wrote: [ -> ] (03-11-2013 10:51 AM)brovol Wrote: [ -> ]Folks tend to lose sight of the purpose of the 2nd amendment. It is there to insure that the American people always have the means and mechanisms to revolt against our own government . It tends to keep the folks in power honest.
When you relax important constitutional protections which are in place strictly to protect us as citizens, you compromise freedoms in general. Americans have had guns forever. Accidents and homicides have occurred throughout history. It is certainly one of the unfortunate circumstances that exist in the world, but should not serve as a basis to compromise our freedom.
You taking on the government with your AR-15 when they have the sophisticated weaponry of today is a little outdated thinking, as outdated as the second amendment. Might have applied when it was about muskets and rifles, not now.
Let the pro-gun people who think the government is out to get them try and attack our military. See how that works out for them.
And the Constitution was written over 225 years ago. The world is completely different now. When the Constitution was written, they had no idea what the world would be like now. If they re-wrote it now, some of it would be different.
That would explain all of the amendments!!
(03-12-2013 06:10 AM)Hiller4Hyz09 Wrote: [ -> ] (03-12-2013 12:43 AM)MidnightBlueGold Wrote: [ -> ]Let the pro-gun people who think the government is out to get them try and attack our military. See how that works out for them.
And the Constitution was written over 225 years ago. The world is completely different now. When the Constitution was written, they had no idea what the world would be like now. If they re-wrote it now, some of it would be different.
That would explain all of the amendments!!
This.
(03-12-2013 06:10 AM)Hiller4Hyz09 Wrote: [ -> ] (03-12-2013 12:43 AM)MidnightBlueGold Wrote: [ -> ] (03-11-2013 11:59 AM)DesertBronco Wrote: [ -> ] (03-11-2013 10:51 AM)brovol Wrote: [ -> ]Folks tend to lose sight of the purpose of the 2nd amendment. It is there to insure that the American people always have the means and mechanisms to revolt against our own government . It tends to keep the folks in power honest.
When you relax important constitutional protections which are in place strictly to protect us as citizens, you compromise freedoms in general. Americans have had guns forever. Accidents and homicides have occurred throughout history. It is certainly one of the unfortunate circumstances that exist in the world, but should not serve as a basis to compromise our freedom.
You taking on the government with your AR-15 when they have the sophisticated weaponry of today is a little outdated thinking, as outdated as the second amendment. Might have applied when it was about muskets and rifles, not now.
Let the pro-gun people who think the government is out to get them try and attack our military. See how that works out for them.
And the Constitution was written over 225 years ago. The world is completely different now. When the Constitution was written, they had no idea what the world would be like now. If they re-wrote it now, some of it would be different.
That would explain all of the amendments!!
And the 2nd amendment is 220+ years old (1791). Like I said, the world is a completely different place now.
Can somebody recommend something for when the black helicopters land in my back yard please?
(03-12-2013 11:01 AM)MajorHoople Wrote: [ -> ]Can somebody recommend something for when the black helicopters land in my back yard please?
Shoot at it with your gun of choice (handgun, AR15, shotgun, etc.) that is supposed to help us citizens overthrow our government.
Some of you clearly know nothing about the military.
.45 Magnum worked pretty well for Dirty Harry.
How would it fare vs. GI Joe?
Quote:Can somebody recommend something for when the black helicopters land in my back yard please?
IED's
Some real simplistic thinking going on here by the gun control crowd. Thinking just like those Brits back before Concord. Thinking that Americans, if we revolt, will just line up and take on an army. Obviously, these folks have never heard of asymetric warfare. Neither had the redcoats and it didn't end well for them.
There are millions of vets highly trained in it. Why do you think that J-Nap's DHS put out a report on those that they consider most likely to become domestic terrorists that highlights returning veterans? They fear the backlash from American citizens and feel they must disarm them because when the SHTF, they want to be the only ones with guns.
I hope it never comes to an armed rebellion.
Many on both sides have become concerned with the increasing militarization of police forces, including getting refurbished military vehicles on our streets. What for? Why do cops need armored vehicles?
I keep hearing from those who disagree with my stand that "no, they don't want to confiscate guns" but if you look around and listen, sometimes things leak out when a gun control zealot like Jan Shakowski thinks she is talking to somebody sympathetic to her position. She has said that this is only the beginning and that the end game is confiscation.
Choose to believe what THEY say or choose to watch what they do.
With the influx of Kalifornians into my state and their election to the state legislature, this state has gone from a reasonable, fairly liberal place to batsh!t crazy. I have a feeling that repercussions may happen during the next state election. These out of state imports don't really understand the gun culture here and have overstepped their authority in passing these gun control laws - none of which will prevent another school shooting.
(03-12-2013 01:07 PM)MileHighBronco Wrote: [ -> ]Some real simplistic thinking going on here by the gun control crowd. Thinking just like those Brits back before Concord. Thinking that Americans, if we revolt, will just line up and take on an army. Obviously, these folks have never heard of asymetric warfare. Neither had the redcoats and it didn't end well for them.
I think that thinking you're going to have a group of rebellious patriots that are going to fight a well equipped, trained and fully operational military with their rifles, handguns and modified assault weapons to be automatic is as simplistic as it gets.
To that note, why don't you people who fully feel that the 2nd Ammendment applies focus your attention on being able to acquire and own weaponry that puts you on equal footing with the military instead of worrrying about your pea shooters? Serious, if that's your concern, then at least get organized and push for the ability to own grenades, RPG launchers, drones, Bradley troop carriers and the like.
Do you even stop and think about the fact that we have to help out rebels fully willing to fight and die against their respective powers that be mostly because simple light weaponry doesn't do a bit of good for them?
"Neither had the redcoats and it didn't end well for them."
That's the spirit!!! Spirit of 76!!!
It worked in BOTH Red Dawn moves! Hollywood doesn't lie.
I am not a gun person but I teach in a part of Michigan that almost every kind hunts and every kid has a gun. Many of their parents think they live in the south and have Rebel flags. I am fine with gun ownership but the stats are that the most likely people to the get hurt in a house with guns are people living in that household. I have no answers and I there seems to be very few people in the middle like I am. Both sides seem extreme. One side wants assault rifles to "protect" themselves and the other side only wants the government to have weapons like Singapore. Singapore has little gun violence but also has very limited freedoms overall. This seems like the abortion issue with bullets.
Ground to air (Stinger missiles), RPG's, remote control IED's.
That is the bare minimum to get to armed insurrection status, at a bare bones guerrilla status.
Then a good steady source of plastic explosives, automatic weapons, probably the 50 calibre long distance sniper crap.
For me, it is hard to imagine getting that together on the kind of scale that would be needed on any kind of sustained basis.
Not to mention the whole idea is just at the level of crazy talk anyway.
(03-12-2013 04:14 PM)DesertBronco Wrote: [ -> ]I think that thinking you're going to have a group of rebellious patriots that are going to fight a well equipped, trained and fully operational military with their rifles, handguns and modified assault weapons to be automatic is as simplistic as it gets.
Who are those soldiers? U.S. Military? Do you think that they will be OK with an assault on our Constitution? Remember that they have families, wives and kids that live here, too. While some may be OK with an unlawful order to turn their weapons on citizens, I'd be willing to bet that MOST won't. There is a reason that democrats always do their best to disenfranchise the military votes, because they know they won't win that vote.
(03-12-2013 04:14 PM)DesertBronco Wrote: [ -> ]To that note, why don't you people who fully feel that the 2nd Ammendment applies focus your attention on being able to acquire and own weaponry that puts you on equal footing with the military instead of worrrying about your pea shooters? Serious, if that's your concern, then at least get organized and push for the ability to own grenades, RPG launchers, drones, Bradley troop carriers and the like.
Silly comment. You argue just like most Obamabots. Take a point of the opposition and twist and exaggerate it to the point where it is absurd and try to present it as the current thinking. Nobody that I know of has suggested that except YOU. All most law abiding firearm owners wanted was simply to be left alone. Instead they are demonized. You are trying to equate lawful gun owners with some of those wacky militias. DUMB.
(03-12-2013 04:14 PM)DesertBronco Wrote: [ -> ]Do you even stop and think about the fact that we have to help out rebels fully willing to fight and die against their respective powers that be mostly because simple light weaponry doesn't do a bit of good for them?
Big, big difference. The rebels in those countries are the untrained rabble. In THIS country, decades of war have left us with millions of trained and most likely, armed vets. I notice that you ignored that point in your response. The government is scared of them - but it created and trained them and sent them overseas to fight countries whose leadership had the same radical mindset that is now in charge of the democrat party, whether they be fascists, marxists, socialists or communists. You think that they will just lay down for a tyrannical government NOW?
To many of those veterans, there is ONE thing worth fighting and dying for and it is LIBERTY. They didn't watch their colleagues die fighting the communists abroad only to come home and roll over and accept the power grab going on here at home.
Using the military on our soil against American citizens will not end well for those who turn their guns against us. Just who will come to get them? Most of those people have to live in those communities.
I'm not hoping for something like this at all. Simply pointing out that it won't be nearly as easy to put down a revolt here as many like you seem to think. Many are waking up and realizing what is going on.
As long as we're playing "pretend war" there are several obstacles before the invader goes up against the general population.
#1 D Day America. We're not talking crossing 25 miles of the English Channel, we're talking one of two oceans between 3 and 7 thousand miles. Good luck with that sneak attack.
#2 Like D Day, if we didn't pluck the armada off as the crossed the ocean, we'd have fortified the coast with armor that would make the Nazi fortifications pale in comparison.
#3 It is likely that nuclear war would break out long before a ground war on our soil ever occurred.
#4 And even if they were to invade, it's doubtful the military would be totally wiped out as in Red Dawn. The military would likely still exist, and an armed populace would probably fortify and try to protect their homes and neighborhoods, not only from the invaders, but the looters etc.
While not a perfect situation, it would beat being the French, turning in your own people (the French rounded up and locked up French Jews to curry favor with the Nazis), whoring out to the invaders, and waiting for someone else to rescue them.
MHB has the right idea. When I was in the military(Army, Infantry) we hated the government just as much as anyone else. No way in hell would we turn our guns on our own citizens.
We need to stop thinking of the government as one big evil monster with complete will over all members within it. There are millions of servicemen, police, etc. that would just as soon fight against a corrupt government than for it.
Quote:You are trying to equate lawful gun owners with some of those wacky militias. DUMB.
Lest you forget I am a lawful gun owner and hit Tanner just about every time they show up in Denver. :domokun:
Quote:Who are those soldiers? U.S. Military? Do you think that they will be OK with an assault on our Constitution?
You're arguing that there are people in our government that would direct the military against it's own people, but then the same people that they direct to do that won't put up with it because they wouldn't be ok with it, right? Then the people that they are trying to quash would be comprised of the said same group of military and ex military who wouldn't let it happen because they have their modified semi automatics?
Follow that one for me.
Quote:I'm not hoping for something like this at all. Simply pointing out that it won't be nearly as easy to put down a revolt here as many like you seem to think. Many are waking up and realizing what is going on.
No tell us MHB. What is "going on"? I think someone has gone far off of the reservation.
(03-11-2013 11:59 AM)DesertBronco Wrote: [ -> ] (03-11-2013 10:51 AM)brovol Wrote: [ -> ]Folks tend to lose sight of the purpose of the 2nd amendment. It is there to insure that the American people always have the means and mechanisms to revolt against our own government . It tends to keep the folks in power honest.
When you relax important constitutional protections which are in place strictly to protect us as citizens, you compromise freedoms in general. Americans have had guns forever. Accidents and homicides have occurred throughout history. It is certainly one of the unfortunate circumstances that exist in the world, but should not serve as a basis to compromise our freedom.
You taking on the government with your AR-15 when they have the sophisticated weaponry of today is a little outdated thinking, as outdated as the second amendment. Might have applied when it was about muskets and rifles, not now.
Whether or not you are correct about the inability of citizens to ever prevail in a civil war is far less important than the principle that Americans should resist the temptation to fall into any politically correct "conventional wisdom" of the day, if that leads to
any compromise of constitutionally protected freedoms.
The language of the Second Amendment, however, does not limit the size of the firearm citizens are permitted to possess. If you assume that any revolt would be orchestrated by a few "wackos", then we may not be contemplating the same potential circumstance.
When people debate the 2nd Amendment issue, there are always points made relating to "self-protection". That is a red herring. My point is that the 2nd Amendment exist because our Founding Fathers wanted to make sure American citizens had the arms needed in order to overthrow our government. If the weapons citizens possess right now are inadequate to do that (as it seems you suggest), then we ought to be
expanding application of the 2nd Amendment, rather than
limiting the same.
(03-12-2013 12:43 AM)MidnightBlueGold Wrote: [ -> ] (03-11-2013 11:59 AM)DesertBronco Wrote: [ -> ] (03-11-2013 10:51 AM)brovol Wrote: [ -> ]Folks tend to lose sight of the purpose of the 2nd amendment. It is there to insure that the American people always have the means and mechanisms to revolt against our own government . It tends to keep the folks in power honest.
When you relax important constitutional protections which are in place strictly to protect us as citizens, you compromise freedoms in general. Americans have had guns forever. Accidents and homicides have occurred throughout history. It is certainly one of the unfortunate circumstances that exist in the world, but should not serve as a basis to compromise our freedom.
You taking on the government with your AR-15 when they have the sophisticated weaponry of today is a little outdated thinking, as outdated as the second amendment. Might have applied when it was about muskets and rifles, not now.
Let the pro-gun people who think the government is out to get them try and attack our military. See how that works out for them.
And the Constitution was written over 225 years ago. The world is completely different now. When the Constitution was written, they had no idea what the world would be like now. If they re-wrote it now, some of it would be different.
Don't take this the wrong way Midnight, and I say this with the most respect possible, but that response suggests that you just flat out don't get it.
Unfortunately, because people have lost sight of what our Constitution is, and WHY it was enacted in the first place (after the the most brilliant, educated, and accomplished men on the continent had literally put their lives in serious jeopardy in order to insure independence, including the ability to enact our own constitution), you are probably correct that our leadership today would not write a constitution which protects individually liberty, and is designed specifically to LIMIT the power of government FOREVER. Instead, it would do just the opposite. A model would undoubtedly come from some failed European, socialist, communist, or third world, dictator run, country. What a SHAME! Don't you agree?