No. They say I want a firearm for self defense.I have no real axe to grind. Where I live, guns are, and pretty much always have been, heavily restricted. Suits me fine. Pro gun folk in the USA often cite the 2nd Amendment usually re. self defence against tyrants. I'm not sure that that's uppermost in the minds of those who own firearms. Do people really scoot down to the gun store and say "I wanna buy a weapon so that I can be part of a well regulated militia."
Most gun owners do not fear the federal government. They fear the people the federal government cannot protect them from.the truth is in todays day and age the idea of 'defending against tyranny' is obsolete anyway. as we've seen from all the militant standoffs in the usa. in the 17-1800's yea your town may have stood a chance against the federal government, but not anymore. I don't even think 'state' national guards are 'state' anymore.
Exactly. So when they invoke the 2nd Amendment's "well regulated militia" as the reason for their gun ownership it's an untruth. This, as a perceived right, only surfaces when they think that theirentitlement is under threat.No. They say I want a firearm for self defense.
I agree; however, the principle behind the entitlement is valid. Government should need to have reason NOT to push its citizens to rebellion. Without the threat of arms tyrants are emboldened, this I think our forefathers understood.Exactly. So when they invoke the 2nd Amendment's "well regulated militia" as the reason for their gun ownership it's an untruth. This, as a perceived right, only surfaces when they think that theirentitlement is under threat.
Government should need to have reason NOT to push its citizens to rebellion. Without the threat of arms tyrants are emboldened, this I think our forefathers understood.
Now.....a reasonable sentiment but.....IF ONLY those who are so vociferous could be made to comprehend this simple logic.
As I've said before: The "lobbyists" tend to influence "opinion". One must always remember that Lobbying Groups usually work either for political "sides", or for companies intent on improving their sales. Gee....improving the "bottom line" by promoting the increased sales of guns and ammo?
"What a Country!!!"
"Yakov Smirnoff....What a Country"!!!
(Might not be the "topic", but just for sentimental reasons...it's meant to be enjoyed!)
No really just for home protection . Or in my case I work late at night at times by my self and there is some less than desirables around . It is also a deterrent from tyranny as well . Kind of like MAD (mutually assured destruction) .When they create a Utopia Id be the first to rid myself of my gunsI have no real axe to grind. Where I live, guns are, and pretty much always have been, heavily restricted. Suits me fine. Pro gun folk in the USA often cite the 2nd Amendment usually re. self defence against tyrants. I'm not sure that that's uppermost in the minds of those who own firearms. Do people really scoot down to the gun store and say "I wanna buy a weapon so that I can be part of a well regulated militia."
I don't have a problem with reasonable guns for protection, hunting, even tyranny phobias...so how does a silencer play into those needs again?No really just for home protection . Or in my case I work late at night at times by my self and there is some less than desirables around . It is also a deterrent from tyranny as well . Kind of like MAD (mutually assured destruction) .When they create a Utopia Id be the first to rid myself of my guns
I don't remember anyone pack up during Waco ? Only after the murdered the children they were trying to protect from Koresh.It was no different in the 1700's. Shay had a force of 1200 men, armed with weapons the equal of the military (there was no gap between civilian and military weapons at the time), and he still stood basically no chance, they were met by an initial force of over 1300 at Springfield and then pursued by nearly 5000 reinforcements from Boston. What modern militia has had that kind of manpower or equipment ready for a standoff?
And the state national guards were never state, partly thanks to Shay's Rebellion, as governors who tried to use them to block school integration were shown when the president had them stand down.
If anything, modern militias are much better at standing up to the government than they were in the 1700's, because they're no longer met by the military, they're met with law enforcement and regulatory agencies. Many of those stand offs end the same way Bundy's did - he got to keep his cattle, gets to keep grazing them on other ranchers' land, will probably keep grazing them on public land without paying his fees, didn't have to pay his back taxes or anything. Waco was an exception, and even that took several events in which law enforcement packed up and left before it reached that point.
A silencer you need to pay a fee . Id like to have one but only for the sake of my hearing . Its a pain to shoot with ear protection on . Ive actually damaged my hearing by shooting because I thought my ear plugs were in all the way . Now I wear better hearing protection . I wish theyd legalize them without the permit .I don't have a problem with reasonable guns for protection, hunting, even tyranny phobias...so how does a silencer play into those needs again?
do hunters wear ear plugs?A silencer you need to pay a fee . Id like to have one but only for the sake of my hearing . Its a pain to shoot with ear protection on . Ive actually damaged my hearing by shooting because I thought my ear plugs were in all the way . Now I wear better hearing protection .
Just curious - what is tyranny and how would a gun (or guns) deter it? Doesn't it end up just about who has more guns and better organisation and charisma?It is also a deterrent from tyranny as well .
and tanks and drones and tear gas and planes and money. but I guess if you're willing to kill children and women you might 'win' temporarily.Just curious - what is tyranny and how would a gun (or guns) deter it? Doesn't it end up just about who has more guns and better organisation and charisma?
I'm referring primarily to the CPS investigation in 1992 which quit before investigating most of the allegations. There was also the incident in 1986 involving corpse desecration that the police refused to get involved in, and a meth lab some time after that. There was a pretty long history of local authorities staying away from whatever was going on in the Branch Davidian camps even if it wasn't the Davidians themselves (the meth lab was set up by renters).I don't remember anyone pack up during Waco ? Only after the murdered the children they were trying to protect from Koresh.
Well we are still in Afghanistan .Just curious - what is tyranny and how would a gun (or guns) deter it? Doesn't it end up just about who has more guns and better organisation and charisma?
???Well we are still in Afghanistan .
We outgun the Taliban yet still haven't defeated them .
We outgun the Taliban yet still haven't defeated them .
I have no real axe to grind. Where I live, guns are, and pretty much always have been, heavily restricted. Suits me fine. Pro gun folk in the USA often cite the 2nd Amendment usually re. self defence against tyrants. I'm not sure that that's uppermost in the minds of those who own firearms. Do people really scoot down to the gun store and say "I wanna buy a weapon so that I can be part of a well regulated militia."
mostly I totally agree. and I am for states rights. different states definitely have different needs. thugs may not give two wits about gun laws but mass murderers aren't typically thugs. the texas tower, vt, aurora sandy hook, perhaps even the dc sniper. I do not believe any of these people would have the contacts to have bought illegally. that's the biggest problem, gun crimes are a spectrum.Criminals do give two whits about what's legal or illegal... they're gonna do whatever they wanna do, so making MORE laws isnt going to fix anything..
mostly I totally agree. and I am for states rights. different states definitely have different needs. thugs may not give two wits about gun laws but mass murderers aren't typically thugs. the texas tower, vt, aurora sandy hook, perhaps even the dc sniper. I do not believe any of these people would have the contacts to have bought illegally. that's the biggest problem, gun crimes are a spectrum.
Thanks Svartbjorn for pointing out the idiocy of gun over-enthusiasts. I get you want to pack heat while walking around the mall in the good part of town. I get the self defense. I don't get the kevlar and clip outfit with the AR-15 on the back thing. It's like are you really expecting the zombie apocalypse right here and now, or is Crimson Dawn set to go off soon?
usually when people bring up the 'car' analogy its idiotic. but the truth is (I absolutely hate! wearing my seat belt, im short its annoying) it is a good analogy. with cars we have to pay extra taxes, pay insurance, get educated (for ex I cant drive a motorcycle or 18 wheeler without more training) it just irks me when gun owners (and im not anti gun) whine because they think they are equivalent to a military trained person or police officer etc, when they aren't willing to prove mental health etc.Yep, but those are also isolated incidents where there was a clear intent.. they wanted to create fear.. or get recognition for a cause etc. The average jerk isnt going to go that far, which is why I hate the fact that both sides of the argument use those incidents as a crutch. IF wed had guns.. etcetcetc wouldnt have happened.. IF guns were banned then these things never would have happened.. etcetcetc. ALL of it boils down to the three points I made in the last of that post.. 1) Education, 2) Research and Cause, and (probably most importantly) 3) Respect. I agree with ya Deirdre.. i do.. honestly.. but I look at firearms the way you look at Sandy Hook, or Pilots look at Chemtrails.. All three of us have our areas of expertise, and we know our subjects inside and out because we've dealt with them for years.. my stance, honestly, is that if it were availability of weapons that were the issue then youd see a LOT more friendly fire incidents in the military. The difference between civilans and military though, is edcuation and respect.. both for/with the weapons and one another.
; ) agreed and I should have the right to taser an open carry because they might start shooting. but I don't and that's unfair.its not my place to tell another person they DONT have the right to carry just because I dont
usually when people bring up the 'car' analogy its idiotic. but the truth is (I absolutely hate! wearing my seat belt, im short its annoying) it is a good analogy. with cars we have to pay extra taxes, pay insurance, get educated (for ex I cant drive a motorcycle or 18 wheeler without more training) it just irks me when gun owners (and im not anti gun) whine because they think they are equivalent to a military trained person or police officer etc, when they aren't willing to prove mental health etc.
I hate it, (and its dangerous to me) but if I have to wear my seatbelt to save lives, im willing to give up some 'rights'. I also know there are many many many responsible gun owners, and we typically only hear from the zealots. But America has to stop this equal rights bunk. a military trained gun handler is NOT equal to a civil with no required training or oversight. ; ( 'Political correctness' has run amok.
I shouldn't get into gun debate. It doesn't apply to me. I usually only bother when people use erroneous comparisons with the UK. I've visited the States on several occasions (got relatives) and I love being there. But having to have a firearm at hand when working or relaxing at home seems really, really sad to me. I daresay someone will come up with stats to the contrary, but it feels to me that I have more chance of being struck by lightning than shot!No really just for home protection . Or in my case I work late at night at times by my self and there is some less than desirables around . It is also a deterrent from tyranny as well . Kind of like MAD (mutually assured destruction) .When they create a Utopia Id be the first to rid myself of my guns
I agree it is pretty sad in a way . But until society changes ? Ill keep mineI shouldn't get into gun debate. It doesn't apply to me. I usually only bother when people use erroneous comparisons with the UK. I've visited the States on several occasions (got relatives) and I love being there. But having to have a firearm at hand when working or relaxing at home seems really, really sad to me. I daresay someone will come up with stats to the contrary, but it feels to me that I have more chance of being struck by lightning than shot!
Me thinks custom and history is involved in the weapon rights comparison between the UK and US. The UK has not had a frontier attitude for centuries (within their own boarders), the US's experience is much more recent. We are also a nation of criminals and cast offs from the UK and the rest of the world. We are much more disposed to violence to solve an issue, it is in our genetics.Inevetible that this thread would drift into a gun debate, but the point is, can we really lay down "inalienable" rights that will be pertinent and workable hundreds of years in the future? (Especially in a couple of lines of text).
We are also a nation of criminals and cast offs from the UK
I don't know about being violent but me thinks Aussies are more likely to throw a party! It would be hard to determine which colony got the most criminals, it would be an interesting debate however.Are you referring to the USA, or to Australia, there?
Well, this is ancient history really....whether the "colonies" rebelled....in ANY location....against "The 'Crown'".
Centuries ago.
Surely the arms in question are muskets? Not assault rifles, napalm and a suitcase full of anthrax.