HawkShack.com

burrrton wrote:So you think the "scary looking" part makes them worthy of a ban, RD?

I guess it's at least *a* reason, but 'scary looking' rifles have only been used in a small minority of shootings- they're not the 'weapon of choice' for mass shooters.

Regarding limiting sales to people under 21: isn't the Parkland tragedy the first time an under-21 shooter bought the rifle?

[edit]

This feels like a good time to say again that I don't really have a HUGE objection to banning scary looking guns, limiting sales to 21-and-over, and such.

I just think it's useful to illustrate the arbitrary nature of most of these proposals and how there's virtually no evidence they'd make any difference.

I am for banning the sale and possession of any military style weapon to persons under 21. I don't know how other school shooters aquired their weapons, but the point is to make them more difficult to aquire.

If I could be assured that by banning the sale and/or possession of all military style weapons that the gun control folks would stop there and be satisfied, I would go for it in a heartbeat. But many if not most in this movement won't stop until they achieve a repeal of the 2nd Amendment and make it illegal to buy or possess ANY firearm for ANY purpose.

If you need it to protect yourself then YOU are a pussy of a man (if you are one).

Largent, I say this in all sincerity- you've become a parody.

You know damn good and well why people choose to keep firearms. Quit playing stupid.

I am for banning the sale and possession of any military style weapon to persons under 21. I don't know how other school shooters aquired their weapons, but the point is to make them more difficult to aquire.

I don't really have a problem with that, but I think the point is it only makes them marginally more difficult to obtain- we have one solitary example of someone who would have even been affected by it.

Further, the whole 'military style weapons' argument ignores the fact that they're functionally identical to non-'military style weapons'.

Again, I don't think it's that big a deal, but there's little reason to think it's going to have any noticeable effect, except that everyone can pat themselves on the back for having "DONE SOMETHING!", pointless or not.

But many if not most in this movement won't stop until they achieve a repeal of the 2nd Amendment and make it illegal to buy or possess ANY firearm for ANY purpose.

If anyone disagrees with this, go pull up all the speeches and look at the signs from the March for whatever over the weekend.

RiverDog wrote: But many if not most in this movement won't stop until they achieve a repeal of the 2nd Amendment and make it illegal to buy or possess ANY firearm for ANY purpose.

That's the propaganda anyway. I don't believe it at all, especially when you say "most" ... if any at all are promoting that I'd say it's a typically small percentage (as is the case with most extreme views on either side). "Most" are asking for common sense regulation of gun ownership.

burrrton wrote:
Largent, I say this in all sincerity- you've become a parody.

You know damn good and well why people choose to keep firearms. Quit playing stupid.

You are calling me stupid while not even answering the question?

Jackwad crisis much?...Quit trying too hard to put yourself above everyone dude, you AREN'T.

Answer. Why do the citizens of the United States need to have assault weapons.?

And if you are going to try and insult someone, try to rise above a 9 year old, you are pathetic.

c_hawkbob wrote:That's the propaganda anyway. I don't believe it at all, especially when you say "most" ... if any at all are promoting that I'd say it's a typically small percentage (as is the case with most extreme views on either side). "Most" are asking for common sense regulation of gun ownership.

That may be what they say now in public because they know their limits, but I firmly believe that a good many (I'll change it from most) of them would not be satisfied with a total ban of all military style weaponry and will continue to lobby for ever restrictive laws and regulation leading up to the repeal of the 2nd Amendment.

I do not see school shootings as a hugely compelling problem that must have immediate legislative action as proposed by this student walk out. In the big picture, teenagers killed by school shootings pale in comparison to other causes, but they trickle in one by one every day of the year and are spread out over the entire nation instead of 30 or 40 deaths within a few minutes at one school. Your grandkids stand a lot higher chance of getting killed by a distracted driver than they do a school shooting.

You are calling me stupid while not even answering the question?

Yes. It's not a serious question- protection, hunting, etc are all valid reasons. You call someone wanting to protect themselves a "pussy" because you know you can't form a coherent argument.

burrrton wrote:You are calling me stupid while not even answering the question?

"Blah, Blah Blah" Yes. It's not a serious question- protection, hunting, etc are all valid reasons. You call someone wanting to protect themselves a "pussy" because you know you can't form a coherent argument./ Blah Blah, Blah"[/quote]

Jeezus friggin krist you are so dumb. ASSAULT GUNS clownshoes. Does that help?

I dont own a gun and I don't need it to protect me yet all these gun owners claim they need it to protect themselves = PUSSY.

Which I'm sure includes your pathetic excuse of a man. You want to call me a 9 year old? Do it to my face, instead of the security of your keyboard. So I would say I can take care of my family WITHOUT a effing gun. Good on you if you can't but I would say = PUSSY. Same thing I would say about someone calling someone else a 9 year old, trying to push buttons, it's the sign of a weak, pussy assed juvenile that would pis their pants when confronted by someone that knows how to take care of themselves and their family. In my life experience, most are COWARDS or in your case a "keyboard warrior" = PUSSY.

Jeezus friggin krist you are so dumb. ASSAULT GUNS clownshoes. Does that help?

I dont own a gun and I don't need it to protect me yet all these gun owners claim they need it to protect themselves = PUSSY.

Which I'm sure includes your pathetic excuse of a man. You want to call me a 9 year old? Do it to my face, instead of the security of your keyboard. So I would say I can take care of my family WITHOUT a effing gun. Good on you if you can't but I would say = PUSSY. Same thing I would say about someone calling someone else a 9 year old, trying to push buttons, it's the sign of a weak, pussy assed juvenile that would pis their pants when confronted by someone that knows how to take care of themselves and their family. In my life experience, most are COWARDS.

LOL. People hunt and protect themselves with ASSAULT GUNS, you ignorant lunatic.

And since you can't stop talking like a dick: Bye.

Oh, you had to alter your original post to make yourself look better, I didn't quote you, but I should have to show all here who you really are, but too late.

And since you called me a dick then edited it out, I am going to say again, at least I HAVE one.

And a day later, ZERO additions to the question of why US citizens need assault guns. Hunting?...If you are hunting people then ok. I hunted birds with a shotgun and I briefly hunted deer with a 30-30 or 30-06. Assault rifles are for KILLING PEOPLE and nothing else. NOBODY in America outside of the military should have them.

THE CAT IS OUT OF THE BAG!!! Retired Supreme Court Justice John Stevens said yesterday that "we" should REAL the 2nd. Amendment! OMG! for years and years the Gun Control advocates have said over and over and over that their ultimate goal was NOT the repeal of the 2nd. Amendment and the confiscation of firearms all across the country. Well, that whole argument went straight out the window! Who now will believe them?? NOBODY!!!

It was good that senile old Stevens retired when he did...

One guy says it so you're attributing it to everyone?

That's a pretty broad brush you paint with.

Largent, you seriously need to tone it down. You aren't helping this forum with language like that, I'll consider this two strikes...don't make it three.

yoder wrote:Largent, you seriously need to tone it down. You aren't helping this forum with language like that, I'll consider this two strikes...don't make it three.

Dude called me a dick, then edited it out. Maybe consider HIM for a strike?

Stop with the hunting talk. What amendments were put in place for your personal fun or some activity like hunting? Especially of the first 10. I cannot believe that everyone here and in this country debating is arguing hunting and other garbage. It's like you never read the history of this nation or of the Constitution.

The 2nd Amendment is there for one reason: to put military power in the hands of the people. Why? Because you don't have power unless you have military power. Governments possess power for one reason: military and police power with violence. People would ignore the government if they did not have this power including foreign nations and people. They would cross the borders, ignore taxes, ignore laws, and the like if the government did not have military and police power backed by government. Government's power is entirely tied up in it's ability to violently force you to comply with its laws, regulations, borders, and rules. Absent that a government has no power. Absent that, we would have wealthy people employing private armed security to protect their assets and a free for all with citizens like some disorganized 3rd world cesspool.

Thus, The Founders knowing this ensured that a Government of the People had military power because if they did not, then they had no power. The vote doesn't matter if the government can ignore you because you can't do much to them when they do. A disarmed and untrained population is not a population with any real power. It is a group of people with as much power as the military and police backed government allows them to have. It's astounding that given the structure and purpose of The Constitution there is still an attempt to debate what the 2nd (as in number two concern they put on paper) Amendment is for. The fact that someone like Joe Biden and the various Democrats are talking about hunting when talking about a Constitutional Amendment intended to act as a check and balance to government power shows a level of ignorance I cannot fathom.

If we could magically bring back The Founders, I doubt there would be much debate at all among the people that pushed the 2nd Amendment into our Constitution. They would probably ask, "Has the government changed? Are they trustworthy enough for you to lay aside your military power to unseat them ?" The answer is still no to this day. The government is not trustworthy enough for us to lay aside the powers given to the people with the 2nd Amendment. Our government is abusing our military and police power as it is, we definitely should not be laying aside our right to bear arms in the face of their irresponsible and aggressive use of military and police power.

What's next? You going to start arguing the 1st Amendment was so people could make shows like South Park and curse in public? Give me a break. These are political protections and powers given to ensure the people are protected from their government and empowered to exercise control over their government. The 2nd Amendment is not some magical amendment meant to protect hunters or people engaged in self-defense against criminals alone. It's for self-defense against the government and very much intended to maintain the ultimate power of violence to resist the government should it be necessary. Until I see a completely trustworthy government, I hope organizations like the NRA can maintain the people's right to own and train with military-style weapons. I expect to suffer additional fatalities due to it, but I don't give up rights because freedom has a cost even if that cost is lives.

Largent80 wrote:Dude called me a dick, then edited it out. Maybe consider HIM for a strike?

He called you a dick, then edited it out, after you had posted this:

Which I'm sure includes your pathetic excuse of a man. You want to call me a 9 year old? Do it to my face, instead of the security of your keyboard. So I would say I can take care of my family WITHOUT a effing gun. Good on you if you can't but I would say = PUSSY. Same thing I would say about someone calling someone else a 9 year old, trying to push buttons, it's the sign of a weak, pussy assed juvenile that would pis their pants when confronted by someone that knows how to take care of themselves and their family. In my life experience, most are COWARDS or in your case a "keyboard warrior" = PUSSY.

There's no excuse for the profanity, physical threats, or the type of name calling to the degree that you expressed above.

Man, I *really* got under someone's skin. Holy smokes.

Well, it's not my intent- if someone wants to debate the merits of any proposal, I welcome it, as I hope I've made apparent. I'll cut back on the insults.

But If you just want to call everyone "pussies", or question their manhood or whatever, because they don't choose to pretend they're Wonder Woman ("I don't need a gun- I'll block their bullets with my magic bracelets!"), save us both some time and just mute me, because I'll be doing it to you soon enough.

burrrton wrote:Man, I *really* got under someone's skin. Holy smokes.

Well, it's not my intent- if someone wants to debate the merits of any proposal, I welcome it, as I hope I've made apparent. I'll cut back on the insults.

But If you just want to call everyone "pussies", or question their manhood or whatever, because they don't choose to pretend they're Wonder Woman ("I don't need a gun- I'll block their bullets with my magic bracelets!"), save us both some time and just mute me, because I'll be doing it to you soon enough.

Not your intent? C'mon now, You're a flippant prick in many debates. You like winding people up and have been doing it for years. Lets not pretend that you're like Riverdog or C-bob who usually maintain a neutral tone in debate.

Not your intent? C'mon now, You're a flippant prick in many debates.

I like to think I respond in kind, but it's a fair point regardless.

Aseahawkfan wrote:Not your intent? C'mon now, You're a flippant prick in many debates. You like winding people up and have been doing it for years. Lets not pretend that you're like Riverdog or C-bob who usually maintain a neutral tone in debate.

Thanks for the complement and for including me with such fine company!

RiverDog wrote:
Thanks for the complement and for including me with such fine company!

What he said.

Largent80 wrote:WE don't need them is the reason.

Give a good reason why we need them. Everyone concentrates on the other aspect but not a single person has said jack squat of any reason of why the public needs these things.

If you need it to protect yourself then YOU are a pussy of a man (if you are one).

Our family needs them for putting meat in our freezer and getting rid of vermin(chipmunks and flying squirrels). Not everyone uses them solely for protection. FWIW, the 22 I use to shoot chipmunks is considered a semi-automatic. I never knew that until my husband told me it was. He really is the expert on the issue(military trained sniper), not me. I just know how to safely shoot that gun.

From the "Beyond Parody" Department tonight- "Pa. school district arms teachers with baseball bats in wake of Fla. shooting":

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/millcreek- ... -shooting/

If was a parent in that district, I'd be at the next school board meeting flipping tables over.

I'm old enough to remember when this was a smart-ass comment, not policy prescription:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i33DX9Wjd7E

burrrton wrote:From the "Beyond Parody" Department tonight- "Pa. school district arms teachers with baseball bats in wake of Fla. shooting":

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/millcreek- ... -shooting/

If was a parent in that district, I'd be at the next school board meeting flipping tables over.

I'm old enough to remember when this was a smart-ass comment, not policy prescription:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i33DX9Wjd7E

I heard a comment today that New Yorkers were talking about arming the Yankees with baseball bats.

But seriously, doesn't this remind you of the "brought a knife to a gunfight" analogy only worse? I wouldn't have been turning over tables, I would have been on the floor laughing my ass off.

But seriously, doesn't this remind you of the "brought a knife to a gunfight" analogy only worse?

Unfortunately, yes.

I wouldn't have been turning over tables, I would have been on the floor laughing my ass off.

Not sure I'd have been able to laugh knowing my school board was this stupid (or naive, being more charitable).

burrrton wrote:Not sure I'd have been able to laugh knowing my school board was this stupid (or naive, being more charitable).

Good point. It would probably be a motivating factor for me to put my house on the market and start looking to move outside the district or consider a private school if it were feasable.

The last couple of years have altered my view on many things, not the least of which is gun policy in general and assault style rifles in particular. I recently read an eye opening article about AR style rifles. Its a myth that they are functionally identical to a deer rifle. They are lightweight and fire a small caliber, high velocity bullet and come from the store equipped with at least a 30 round clip. They are a point and click, low recoil gun that is easy to keep on target for multiple casualties in seconds, a perfect killing machine which causes wounds far more devastating than a glock handgun or equivalent. It's why they are standard military issue. It's why soldiers don't carry 30:06 rifles like my semi auto remington 300 with its mule kick recoil and 5 round clip.

As for this myth about arming citizens to defend against a totalitarian government lets get real OK? Your glock or AR or whatever against M1A1 Abrams tanks, Apache helicopters, Puff the magic dragon AC 130 cobra gunships, 50 cal gatling guns, really? Might buy you a couple of days at max. Guns are for sport and self defense in the best case and for crime and murder and unfortunately suicide in the worst case but stop with the stupid arguments about averting a government takeover.

Try not electing leaders with despotic tendencies such as saying Putin is a strong leader, Chinese Pres declaring himself Prez for life isn't a bad idea, Philippines Duerte slaughtering suspected drug dealers and other petty criminals, political opponents etc is on to something, attempting to take over control of the law enforcement branches of our nation to do his business and make him above the law etc and you will be just fine.

And don't forget this man was a registered Democrat who favored Slick Willies assault weapons ban and has had to be reeled in from talking gun control every mass shooting since his election by the hard liners in the congress and his handlers in the NRA who paid him a visit in the oval office the day after parkland.

Oh wait a minute. You didn't think about that did you? a debate about the second amendment pales as a threat to our democracy to what the Fox viewers think is just A OK.

Hawktawk wrote:The last couple of years have altered my view on many things, not the least of which is gun policy in general and assault style rifles in particular. I recently read an eye opening article about AR style rifles. Its a myth that they are functionally identical to a deer rifle. They are lightweight and fire a small caliber, high velocity bullet and come from the store equipped with at least a 30 round clip. They are a point and click, low recoil gun that is easy to keep on target for multiple casualties in seconds, a perfect killing machine which causes wounds far more devastating than a glock handgun or equivalent. It's why they are standard military issue. It's why soldiers don't carry 30:06 rifles like my semi auto remington 300 with its mule kick recoil and 5 round clip.

As for this myth about arming citizens to defend against a totalitarian government lets get real OK? Your glock or AR or whatever against M1A1 Abrams tanks, Apache helicopters, Puff the magic dragon AC 130 cobra gunships, 50 cal gatling guns, really? Might buy you a couple of days at max. Guns are for sport and self defense in the best case and for crime and murder and unfortunately suicide in the worst case but stop with the stupid arguments about averting a government takeover.

Yes, you don't need an AR15 with a grenade holder and pistol grip in order to protect your family and you certainly don't need it for hunting. But your missing something with regard to one of the original motivations for adding the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution. You are correct, there were some that wanted the citizens to be able to revolt against an oppressive government. But there was another reason for the 2nd, the part of it that calls for a "well regulated militia." What they wanted was for the citizens to have the ability to arm themselves and conduct a gruella war against an enemy that had launched a surprise invasion of our homeland in order to allow the government time to re-constitute the army. Although this "Red Dawn" scenario is admittedly far fetched, it's certainly a more valid reason than opposing the US Army. That alone is probably not enough justification for allowing citizens to buy military style assault weapons, but it is a legitimate point that we need to acknowledge.

My position is that if I could be assured that if we banned all military style assault weapons and the gun control crowd stopped there, I would endorse such a proposal in a heartbeat. But that's not how it's been shown to work over the past 50+ years. Since 1963 when Lee Harvey Oswald shot JFK with a $12 mail order rifle there has been a never ending stream of gun control legislation at all levels of government. They won't stop until they effectively repeal the 2nd Amendment. Polls have shown that one out of five Americans want to repeal the 2nd Amendment, so we're not talking about some fringe element of the gun control advocates.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/won ... 6968633ee3

Good point about a foreign power except the only way america is getting taken down is with nukes which could happen with koo koo for cocoa puffs tweeting threats. I agree there is a ban the guns mentality with some and Im not for banning guns, not even ARs necessarily, just making guns far harder to get in general with much more oversight and training. We need to harden schools, redesign them to allow multiple emergency exits, harden any "weapons free zone". We need better cooperation between mental health professionals and law enforcement. We need better enforcement of existing laws. But we can and must do better.

Its a myth that they are functionally identical to a deer rifle.

No, it's not. There are "deer rifles" that are different, but there are hunting rifles that *are* functionally identical. Note that this means neither side should freak the fck out if they are or aren't outlawed, but neither should anyone think they've removed a uniquely dangerous weapon from society in doing so, either.

I'll say again: I don't have a problem with "assault rifles" being outlawed (or at least not sold anymore, and this is probably going to come to pass), but (a) they're not the weapon of choice for murderers, and (b) they've been outlawed before and it had no noticeable effect.

They are lightweight ... point and click, low recoil... far more devastating than a glock handgun or equivalent.

Question #1: do you get more or less kick the lighter a rifle is (identical caliber)?

Question #2: what kind of firearm was used in the most deadly school shooting in the last half century?

Question #3: what percentage of 'gun murder' of any kind is committed with an "assault rifle"?

Question #4: what's the best example of a semi-automatic that isn't "point and click"?

I agree there is a ban the guns mentality with some and Im not for banning guns, not even ARs necessarily, just making guns far harder to get in general with much more oversight and training. We need to harden schools, redesign them to allow multiple emergency exits, harden any "weapons free zone". We need better cooperation between mental health professionals and law enforcement. We need better enforcement of existing laws. But we can and must do better.

Nothing to disagree with there, tawk.

My position is that if I could be assured that if we banned all military style assault weapons and the gun control crowd stopped there, I would endorse such a proposal in a heartbeat. But that's not how it's been shown to work over the past 50+ years.

Yup, and gun-control advocates can also thank efforts like that recent march for such fears- half the speakers and signs there literally said they were coming for the guns, repeal the 2nd Amendment, etc.

It looks pretty blatantly like a ban on "assault rifles" is 99% intended to get the foot in the door so other, equally (or more) dangerous firearms can also be banned.

Hawktawk wrote:Good point about a foreign power except the only way america is getting taken down is with nukes

Today, perhaps, because we have a very strong military that's up to the job. But who knows what the future holds. If liberals take over the government for 20 straight years, they'll essentially turn our army into a police force w/o guns like they have in the UK.

I agree there is a ban the guns mentality with some and Im not for banning guns, not even ARs necessarily, just making guns far harder to get in general with much more oversight and training. We need to harden schools, redesign them to allow multiple emergency exits, harden any "weapons free zone". We need better cooperation between mental health professionals and law enforcement. We need better enforcement of existing laws. But we can and must do better.

Agreed. But there's going to be issues with needed cooperation between mental health professionals and LE in that they'd be violating privacy laws, especially when it comes to such a sensitive issue as mental health.

Here's one of the things I fear about all the gun control laws that we're passing:

Ryan Jerome was enjoying his first trip to New York City on business when the former Marine Corps gunner walked up to a security officer at the Empire State Building and asked where he should check his gun.

That was when Jerome’s nightmare began. The security officer called police and Jerome spent the next two days in jail.
The 28-year-old with no criminal history now faces a mandatory minimum sentence of three and a half years in prison. If convicted, his sentence could be as high as fifteen years.

Jerome has a valid concealed carry permit in Indiana and visited New York believing that it was legal to bring his firearm. He was traveling with $15,000 worth of jewelry that he planned to sell. The online gun-law information Jerome read was inaccurate, however, and his late September arrest initiated what may become a protracted criminal saga. He hasn’t yet been indicted by a grand jury, but there may be little legal wiggle-room if he is.

http://dailycaller.com/2012/01/03/marin ... g-gun-law/

He eventually settled for a plea deal that allowed him to plead guilty to a misdemeanor gun violation charge that included 10 hours of community service near his home and a $1,000 fine after the case got national attention and an outraged public.

I'll never willingly give up the 2nd Amendment or military-style arms. No idea why so many trust the government enough to give up the check and balance on power of the 2nd Amendment. The day will come when we will need to unseat our government. If the people are disarmed, they will be dead meat against the robot armies that will come for them. Probably going to be dead meat anyway, but I'd rather be able to fight back than just be ground up and unable to fight back. The reality is humans are building their demise with robotics. Not much humans will be able to do when they send drones and robotic weapons to "mow the grass" as humans will be considered at some point.

The main concern is when you remove military style weapons and weapons in general is remove all knowledge of how to use them, make them, and they become a symbol of fear rather than a tool with a purpose. Once you turn something into an arcane symbol of fear that your people cower around, then you turn your people into weak sheep that any individual with a weapon can herd as they wish with that symbol. People so often forget that when they are used to such weapons, while they turn the next generation into a bunch of weak sheep with their badly thought out policies.

RiverDog wrote:Here's one of the things I fear about all the gun control laws that we're passing:

Ryan Jerome was enjoying his first trip to New York City on business when the former Marine Corps gunner walked up to a security officer at the Empire State Building and asked where he should check his gun.

That was when Jerome’s nightmare began. The security officer called police and Jerome spent the next two days in jail.
The 28-year-old with no criminal history now faces a mandatory minimum sentence of three and a half years in prison. If convicted, his sentence could be as high as fifteen years.

Jerome has a valid concealed carry permit in Indiana and visited New York believing that it was legal to bring his firearm. He was traveling with $15,000 worth of jewelry that he planned to sell. The online gun-law information Jerome read was inaccurate, however, and his late September arrest initiated what may become a protracted criminal saga. He hasn’t yet been indicted by a grand jury, but there may be little legal wiggle-room if he is.

http://dailycaller.com/2012/01/03/marin ... g-gun-law/

He eventually settled for a plea deal that allowed him to plead guilty to a misdemeanor gun violation charge that included 10 hours of community service near his home and a $1,000 fine after the case got national attention and an outraged public.

You should fear robotic policing more. It's coming. You may not see robot or drone police in your lifetime, but it's coming. Someday police helicopters will be replaced by armed police drones patrolling cities.

Aseahawkfan wrote:You should fear robotic policing more. It's coming. You may not see robot or drone police in your lifetime, but it's coming. Someday police helicopters will be replaced by armed police drones patrolling cities.

Kinda like the Terminator's domain?

I'm a law abiding citizen, so I don't fear the police and wouldn't fear any tools that they may use to catch the bad guys.

RiverDog wrote:Kinda like the Terminator's domain?

I'm a law abiding citizen, so I don't fear the police and wouldn't fear any tools that they may use to catch the bad guys.

Tell me something, the same tools the police use to catch criminals...can they be used to tyrannize a population? Is it easier to tyrannize an armed, trained population or a disarmed bunch of people afraid of guns because they can't own them, train with them, touch them, and only see them when something bad happens?

Like I argued with my liberal teachers, when you remove guns you don't just remove the weapons, you remove all the knowledge and skill associated with them as well, from the basic skills of their use to the tactical training associated with them. You turn a tool into a symbol of fear. That is exactly what tyrants have done for time immemorial with weapons. It is exactly what our Founders were looking to avoid who grew up in a culture that used a military class to tyrannize the commoners and maintain control. It is well-documented that concentrating military power with a government is a precursor to tyranny. Now that people are so accustomed to peaceful living, they have forgotten the lessons of the past and thus are going to be subject to a tyranny they are willingly and blindly agreeing to walk into. This is exactly why Democracy is doomed to fail because so many people forget why something was given to them in the first place.

The 2nd Amendment as in number two is only argued by people that don't bother to read up on the time or the arguments for why it was so important to place in a Constitution guaranteeing rights. The People do not rule this country if they do not have the option of force to back them up. It's as simple as that. As soon as this nation bans military-style weapons nationwide, we are no longer a free nation. We are but a group of people that has decided to hand over power completely to the government in exchange for security. They can literally ignore us at that point. We could vote a thousand times each and they could ignore us with a gun barrel pointed right in our face and we could do nothing.

Sad state of affairs to be part of the generation that willingly gave up a major check and balance on governmental power due to fear. A major disappointment.

Aseahawkfan wrote:Tell me something, the same tools the police use to catch criminals...can they be used to tyrannize a population? Is it easier to tyrannize an armed, trained population or a disarmed bunch of people afraid of guns because they can't own them, train with them, touch them, and only see them when something bad happens?

They already have enough tools to tyrannize the population, have had for a hundred years or more. No matter what happens to the 2nd Amendment, we're toast if we ever allow ourselves to be taken over by a tyrannical government (some would argue that we already have). I don't accept that reasoning as a justification for maintaining the 2nd. I'm more likely to be persuaded by a "Red Dawn" scenario than I am combatting the federal government. Our best defense against a tyrannical government is to fight it from within.

But I do agree with you regarding removing all knowledge of weaponry when you remove guns, and that IMO would be part of a justification for keeping the 2nd intact. In WW2, one advantage we had over the Germans and Japanese is that most of our boys were already familiar with weapons. As in every situation, knowledge is power.

RiverDog wrote:They already have enough tools to tyrannize the population, have had for a hundred years or more. No matter what happens to the 2nd Amendment, we're toast if we ever allow ourselves to be taken over by a tyrannical government (some would argue that we already have). I don't accept that reasoning as a justification for maintaining the 2nd. I'm more likely to be persuaded by a "Red Dawn" scenario than I am combatting the federal government. Our best defense against a tyrannical government is to fight it from within.

But I do agree with you regarding removing all knowledge of weaponry when you remove guns, and that IMO would be part of a justification for keeping the 2nd intact. In WW2, one advantage we had over the Germans and Japanese is that most of our boys were already familiar with weapons. As in every situation, knowledge is power.

How do you fight it from within if you are not armed? A disarmed people is without real power. All power from government comes from force. You literally do not have a government of the people if they have no capacity to use force if it becomes necessary. They have not had it for a 100 years. The weapons they possessed that long ago were easily defeated by well-trained civilians. They have had the means for extreme tyranny for about 30 to 40 years now and this generation of Americans is already dumb enough to be giving up their rights in the face of arms that will destroy them. Either people believe that there will never again be a tyrant in control of America or the world or they are thinking only of the safety for their generation without thinking of the best way to teach future people.

People like to make fun of Skynet. I'm not worried about Skynet. I'm more worried about human beings in control of a robotic warforce used against a population disarmed not only physically, but mentally as well. There is a certain attitude when you know how to use a weapon and are taught the tools of war that will be removed from the general population. These mass shootings are already a major example of the sheep-like nature of human beings accepting being nothing more than a herd for someone to kill. These same humans are looking to others for their defense rather than themselves. They are asking the government to employ the police and military class in our society to disarm the 99.99999999% of responsible gun owning Americans due to the fear caused by a minuscule number of mass shooters.

You wonder why the whack jobs think these are false flag operations, but it's the results they are seeing as to why they think that way. If a group of people wanted to disarm the American population and could do so by having a small number of mass shooters cause such a panic that a large enough percentage of Americans are willing to give up their right to bear arms primarily included in The Bill of Rights to balance military/police power between the civilian population and the government, then mission success. There are a large and growing number of people willing to remove the right to bear arms as a balance against oppressive military power from the 99.999999% of responsible gun owning Americans.

We have 1000s to tens of thousands of AR15 and assault-style weapons in this nation, yet we have a handful abused by certain individuals and we're supposed to give up all gun rights and start this lie about the 2nd Amendment not being a check and balance on government power? Really? Next I'll hear Freedom of Speech was just intended for telling jokes and insulting your neighbor.

There are very real reasons why the civilian population should be able to own military-style weapons. At the very least the weapons of the standard infantryman other than hunting or just because they feel like it. If the government ever becomes tyrannical again, the people will expected to take them down. You cannot do that if you are disarmed. I keep hearing but what about Martin Luther King and Ghandi? I say to that what about the Khmer Rouge and Communist China and Russia and Saddam Hussein and Hitler and the deaths squads in El Salvador and Cuba and the endless list of tyrants where peaceful protest and resistance did not work because the tyrants were willing to violently suppress the population even if they had to murder a bunch of them and their families.

The reality is that we are a people that should always be taught to use our vote and all possible bureaucratic avenues for resistance first, but if they should fail we have been given the right to bear arms to maintain a strong militia mindset if it should be necessary to violently oppose a tyrant inside or outside this nation. I can't believe you Riverdog are agreeable to the idea of removing military-style weapons from the civilian population due to a minuscule number of irresponsible, irrational, and evil killers. No matter how you paint this is less than one one-millionth of the population forcing a change for millions of responsible gun owners that responsible exercise their second amendment right.

Aseahawkfan wrote:How do you fight it from within if you are not armed?

I was speaking of non violent means. We have a better chance of controlling the government by making sure that our elected officials are responsible to those that put them in office. It means staying informed and not allowing ourselves to be controlled by the media, to view the news from multiple sources and come to our own conclusions.

It wouldn't make any difference if every citizen was armed with and M16. They don't work well against tanks, and as the Syrian rebels found out, they don't work well against poison gas.

There is a certain attitude when you know how to use a weapon and are taught the tools of war that will be removed from the general population.

Agreed. It's a good justification for maintaining the 2nd. But you don't need an assault weapon to maintain that attitude and have a basic knowledge of weaponry.

We have 1000s to tens of thousands of AR15 and assault-style weapons in this nation, yet we have a handful abused by certain individuals and we're supposed to give up all gun rights and start this lie about the 2nd Amendment not being a check and balance on government power?

I don't believe that it's an effective check and balance, but I do agree that it would be very problematic to round up every assault weapon in the country and toss them into a burn pile. It's a similar problem that they had during prohibition and IMO would lead to more gangs and underworld crime just as it did in prohibition.

I can't believe you Riverdog are agreeable to the idea of removing military-style weapons from the civilian population due to a minuscule number of irresponsible, irrational, and evil killers. No matter how you paint this is less than one one-millionth of the population forcing a change for millions of responsible gun owners that responsible exercise their second amendment right.

What I have said is that I would be agreeable with banning all military style weaponry if I could be assured that the gun control crowd would stop there. But when I look at our past history from 1963 through the present day and see polls where there are already 20% of the American population that want to repeal the 2nd, it makes me hesitate.