Don't expect to much Tribesman :DL I often wonder too sometimes.:haha:

First, why don't we try looking at this for the slightly humorous... Fictional situation it is and see the point.

Besides, even if I had left those somewhat expensive firearms out in the elements locked and loaded... At the time, my nearest neighber was about a mile away.

For the duration of my ownership of such things, they have only been in two places, either on the shooting range or locked in a gun safe where they belong.

The point of the exercise- illustrate that guns are a tool just like a car. When owned by a responsible law abiding citizen, they are used responsibly within the confines of law.

Secondly, the supreme court decision is not what this thread is entirely about, but since it was mentioned... It is NOT the big gun owner victory it's painted to be.

At least here guns have to be stored in specific cabinets when they're not used. Bit of a hassle to own, really.

I guess in some cases the government has to show people how to be responsible when they are incapable of being responsible on their own. ;)

The problem a lot of you are over looking is that the more guns there are available, the easier it is for the wrong people to get them. Further, the more guns are readily available, the more likely people are to use them to settle a problem.

Here in Canada, guns are fairly uncommon, and not found very often in the hands of criminals. The biggest source of weapons for criminals is the US as they get smuggled up illegally from states with loose gun laws. To own a gun here you need a gun license, criminal check, etc. Handguns and semi/auto weapons are restricted. Our gun violence levels are very low (so are our murder rates, but I would attribute that more to societal & demographic differences), with gun violence being highest in cities which boarder close to the US.

Lets face it, the biggest source of guns for criminals are stolen weapons (or illegally sold & reported stolen guns), and gun fairs / states with lax gun laws.

Also about the US Constitution. Why do you guys consider it to be some holy writ that is unalterable (and thus must be perfect)? It's been amended and altered many times since its initial drafting. As for the right to bear arms, well that was written at a time when the US was fighting for its independence, feared possible re-invasion from Britain, and when the difference between military and civilian firearms was non existent (unlike today where there is a huge difference between your typical bolt action hunting rifle, and a mil spec assault rifle). I don't think the founding fathers of the US considered the possibility of civilians running around with assault rifles with 100 round cmags; back then the weapons were all single shot with a lengthy reload period.


As for me, I support gun ownership to a point; but I don't see why civilians should have access to military grade firearms, concealed or open carry, or be allowed to have massive stockpiles of guns and ammunition. I also think laws need to be seriously tightened up, and administered at the federal level (I know you all are gonna love that idea) to ensure equal enforcement across the country.

Neon...

the 2nd amendment is essential because history tends to repeat itself.

what are the free men of the world to do when their government becomes so oppressive that they must - yet again - fight for independence from the state?

sharp sticks?

harsh language?

Swiss army knives?

I know it sounds like some conspiracy theory nut job pipe dream... and i know a lot of people look at it that way, but despite opinions, governments do go into tyrant mode sometimes... and it can happen to any government, anywhere, any time.

do i think the federal government will become a tyranny in the way NAZI Germany did not so long ago? probably not any time soon... if ever.

is it possible that the federal government in the united states could go into tyrant mode?

hell yes it is. and it is more so likely these days than at probably any point in our history as a nation. Under Bush and Barry we have given up more liberties and freedoms than ever before. and the very groups that go out of their way to convince everyone that we dont need guns because the state can take care of everything are the same people likely to send us into a totalitarian regime status.

the United States as a nation was born into a distrust of authority. I think with many people, that mentality is still in the public psyche to some extent.

I was trying to be humorous. :doh:

Has that ever stopped revolutions in the past? Revolutions happen because the majority wills it to happen. Besides you can bet there will be some foreign power involved nudging on the revolution and supplying everyone with all the guns they need :03:

So you need arms to defend yourself from the government?
How would the tyrannous government try to defend itself, ah right they'll use the military. So you will be standing there with your Ar15 and shoot....that M1A2....that AH64 Apache.....that M2 Bradley etc.
Your only chance would be that the military won't shoot at it's own people...and then even a 38 revolver will do the trick with your government. No use for full auto guns at all.;)

Shhh you will only encourage them to think they need anti tank missiles and stingers as civilian weapons, and that armed tanks should be legal road vehicles, and jet fighters civilian aircraft :woot:

Maybe.

Am I willing to gamble mine and my families freedoms on that?

No... not really.

Schroeder is right though, if the military stays on the government side, having a bunch of assault weapons ain't gona do much good against tanks and aircraft. It's usually the military in the end that decides such revolutions. If the military fully backs one side, that side will usually win.

I have a chinese one I bought when I was in high-school. I used to target shoot a lot, but not so much anymore.

as with most civil war scenarios - certain segments of the military tend to align with the plight of the citizens. Though this is not guaranteed.

I highly doubt you would see many "minute men" with a hunting rifle or a pistol and some Molotov cocktails standing off against a tank.

God knows im not that stupid.

what you would likely see in most modern insurrection / civil war / rebellion scenarios would be guerrilla style tactics and warfare of small forces organized against a much larger force. and sometimes, these small forces are organized by... you guessed it... ex military officers. (See United States Civil War circa 1861.)

this is part of the reason i have always viewed the oath of military personnel with a raised eye brow. The military is supposed to protect the United States from foreign and domestic enemies. They vow allegiance to the president of the United States - when IMHO they should be vowing that allegiance to the people. Why? what happens when a president and his party controlled congress decides we need to be a dictatorship and the military has sworn loyalty to the POTUS? Does that not make this hypothetical president and his congress a domestic enemy?

though i dont view such actions as an armed insurrection as necessary at the moment... there may come a day when such actions are necessary. (however unlikely) - but it wouldnt take many more Bush's and Barry's and congressional power grabs for such an action to become necessary in the minds of some people.

if that paints me as a "nut job" thats just unfortunate. I have been called worse. like i said... i dont condone or encourage insurrection... but im sure there was a time when Geroge Washington, or any of the founding fathers did not condone rebellion against the crown either.

trust me, there are people out there with much more liberal views on taking up arms against the feds... - I'm just not one of them... i just happen to know thats one reason the 2nd amendment exists in the first place.

My 2 cents:

This "advantage" can be negated, and quite easily so.

For once, military garrisons, bases etc are known, which puts them at an disadvantage right there. Secondly, while the support structure is there, it is dependent on the citizens to maintain it, ie food, gas, base maintenance, administration, production etc.

And then there are the cities.. every soldiers nightmare to fight in. While it may be easier to bring down a ,relative new, house or skyscraper on top of a bunch of insurgents, it will be a nasty business try to get hold of the older four or five story buildings packed with determent citizens or insurgents.
These furthermore tend to eliminate most if not any advantage a military might may field when it comes to firepower, range, airplanes, etc.

On the short run, the military might have an advantage, but the longer the conflict drags on, the less chance they will stand to ultimately win, especially if they fight within their own country and dependent on their own people for supply and support measures.

Sure, you can "depopulate" whole areas, but I am having a hard time to believe that they would destroy the infrastructure they have to rely on.