If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above.
You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.
To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
Politics & ReligionWell Since every damn forum has one. Might as well leave it out there. This place is loosely moderated and should not be entered if you're weak of heart.
One of the reasons for the Second Amendment was to make sure that The People could overthrow the government if need be. In order to ensure this ability, The People need to be able to defeat the military. Castrating their weapon choices prevents this and allows the government to become highly oppressive.
This is not to say that the government needs overthrowing now, because it doesn't. But who here can honestly say with 100% certainty that this will be the case 200 years from now?
That's the thing; The People can't defeat the military, and we haven't been able to since the military acquired cannons.
Even if every civilian in the U.S. were given a machine gun, we still would not be able to defeat the U.S. military; airpower trumps all, and unless The People get a hold of some strike fighters, I don't see us mounting much of a resistance!
It's a moot point. The fact is that NO civilian NEEDS a machine gun, for any reason. Period.
Yup. Back in the days of the Continental Congress, the average citizen had pretty much the same weapons as the Continental Army. Once it became a "standing army", the weapons levels began to diverge, and now it would be, IMO, a rather short insurrection, then a long very low intensity battle of attrition, with the advantages all on the side of the military.
I don't think banning a specific type of rifle necessarily makes any difference, at this point, in regards to overthrowing the government. I don't really care one way or the other, though there are certain models of rifle I'd really like to own for historical reasons (M1 Garand, M14, especially).
__________________
"You keep usin' tha' word. I do not think it means what you think it means."
Is this a factor of lethality or of availability? For example, I have seen any number of handguns in my lifetime, but only 3 or 4 assault weapons that I can remember.
It seems that people select their weapon of choice based on the level of lethality, or that altercations involving weapons are more likely to result in a death as the lethality of that weapon increases (obviously). For example, an argument involving the blunt object may not result in death if someone clobbers the other person in a fit of rage, but a shooting almost invariably does.
The restriction of firearms appears to play no role in the actual homicide rate. I created a chart which plots the per capita homicide rate against the Brady Campaign's ratings for each state. The result? Absolutely no measureable correlation.
People use handguns because they're easy to use, concealable, and available. But without handguns, they'll still kill just as easily with a knife. A knife's drawback is lack of range. The benefit is lack of report, making it a lot easier to get away with a stealth kill.
Restricting the weapons is a feel-good measure which plays no real role in reducing violence. Guns and knives don't make people kill other people, other factors do. Humanity was doing a fine job of killing long before guns were invented.
Regarding where the guns come from, a 1997 study of prison inmates who were in possession of a firearm at the time of the offense which put them in prison, the source was:
Family, friends, street, illegal: 80%
Retail store or pawn shop: 12%
Flea market or gun show: <2%
Regarding how deadly guns tend to be:
1997 firearm homicides: 12,336
1997 gunshot wounds due to assaults: 39,400
(That's ~24% of the time in the case of assault.)
That's the thing; The People can't defeat the military, and we haven't been able to since the military acquired cannons.
False. Revolutionary war. Britain's military had cannons; we won.
Quote:
Even if every civilian in the U.S. were given a machine gun, we still would not be able to defeat the U.S. military; airpower trumps all, and unless The People get a hold of some strike fighters, I don't see us mounting much of a resistance!
Incorrect. The military depends on the people for much of its infrastructure. That's not to say it would be an easy victory for the people, it clearly would not--assuming they could win at all. But it wouldn't be the cake walk for the military you're making it out to be. For one, not everyone in the military would agree with the government's stance and would likely ally with The People. Another issue is production of the supplies the military would need. Of course, they'd secure what they could as quickly as they could, but production would be cut severely.
Quote:
It's a moot point. The fact is that NO civilian NEEDS a machine gun, for any reason. Period.
Wrong. See above.
If you believe that our government, or any government, is eternally benevolent, then you have your head in the sand and no knowledge of history or human nature.
Even if every civilian in the U.S. were given a machine gun, we still would not be able to defeat the U.S. military; airpower trumps all, and unless The People get a hold of some strike fighters, I don't see us mounting much of a resistance!
The real question is how much of the military would sympathize with the civilians whose rights were being taken away?
Baldrick, jerome, and anybody else who's served: would you have killed your countrymen if they were standing against an overly oppressive government?
The real question is how much of the military would sympathize with the civilians whose rights were being taken away?
Baldrick, jerome, and anybody else who's served: would you have killed your countrymen if they were standing against an overly oppressive government?
The answer while sitting in a comfortable chair is, of course, different than the answer when you know that to disobey will almost certainly result in immediate execution.
Linear Mode
