24valvenotak;256564 wrote:
out of all the people that are good at it im disappointed in you for ending this one
you sorta gave it away in the end....

thrash;256391 wrote:
It has nothing to do with cost, it has to do with appropriateness for use for the two purposes I state.

The US has never won a war or occupied a territory via any other power apart from having troops on the ground. Air power is nice. It is mostly useful for aiding ground troops and in the opening stages of a conflict to eliminate hardened targets and infrastructure. If ND decides to tell the Feds to sod off, air power will only be used to knock out provisional government buildings, factories, water/food/etc production facilities. Those acts however will not quell the uprising or re-occupy ND.

Aircraft are offensive weapons except in the case of using aircraft to defend against attacking aircraft. And for that purpose, SAMs are probably considerably more effective. One reason we don't have SAM installatoins all over the US is because we are geographically protected from foreign air forces.

The guidelines I illustrate are consistent with the environment and actual outcome of the revolutionary war -- farmers were able to take up the arms of the basic infantry man and repel the worlds largest most successful military.

There is no need to "allow" people to have tanks or fighter jets or what have you -- as long as they are sufficiently armed to have the equivalent infantry firepower of the invading army, they can improvise and steal what they do not already have.

The point of the second amendment was to ensure that the people could self organize into an effective fighting force. Like I said -- forces that have successfuly opposed the US military to defend their homelands have needed little more than crude automatic weapons and IEDs. When considering where to draw "a line", one should consider the then-fresh experience of the revolutionary war as the context under which the framers authored the constitution.

War to defend against a foreign invader or a corrupt government during times of revolution will be by definition assymmetric. A bunch of F-16s privately owned/operated will be useless at the onset of conflict in a defensive capacity. The invading force will knock out the runways and batteries first, then work the rest of the way down the list of high-value-concentration targets.

It's all about what is plausible for the common man to be effective with when repelling invasion. If the US wants to have some program for ex-pilot-lottery-winners to stay current on F-16s that's fine, but I don't see that as a 2nd amendment issue.

My NG buddy tells me that in Iraq, every family is issued a government AK-47 (full auto). If that's the case, I wish we could "export" some of our Democracy back to our own shores.

But the 2nd Amendment says the right to bear arms...not the right to bear certain arms/necessary arms.

US Constitution wrote:
A well-regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

So, by definition, ALL arms, regardless of "appropriateness" shall be permissible to be obtained by the people. I hereby declare you anti-constitutional and a socialist!!! (sarcasm intended)

Parker;256431 wrote:
out of all the people that read the drama on this site.... it never ceases to amaze how many people fall for pot stirring.... A+ for you!

out of all the people that are good at it im disappointed in you for ending this one

24valvenotak;256428 wrote:
shit son nra member since 81'

been shootin since you were a twinkle in your daddys eye
out of all the people that read the drama on this site.... it never ceases to amaze how many people fall for pot stirring.... A+ for you!

bubba;256420 wrote:
You are seriously an ignorant retard when it comes to guns...

I got so sick of this thread I didnt even read half... suprising how much brainwashing liberals must have done to people's views... that or they have no knowledge of guns...

shit son nra member since 81'

been shootin since you were a twinkle in your daddys eye

24valvenotak;256274 wrote:
all i heard was :machinegun:

You are seriously an ignorant retard when it comes to guns...

I got so sick of this thread I didnt even read half... suprising how much brainwashing liberals must have done to people's views... that or they have no knowledge of guns...

The US has never won a war or occupied a territory via any other power apart from having troops on the ground. Air power is nice. It is mostly useful for aiding ground troops and in the opening stages of a conflict to eliminate hardened targets and infrastructure. If ND decides to tell the Feds to sod off, air power will only be used to knock out provisional government buildings, factories, water/food/etc production facilities. Those acts however will not quell the uprising or re-occupy ND.

Aircraft are offensive weapons except in the case of using aircraft to defend against attacking aircraft. And for that purpose, SAMs are probably considerably more effective. One reason we don't have SAM installatoins all over the US is because we are geographically protected from foreign air forces.

The guidelines I illustrate are consistent with the environment and actual outcome of the revolutionary war -- farmers were able to take up the arms of the basic infantry man and repel the worlds largest most successful military.

There is no need to "allow" people to have tanks or fighter jets or what have you -- as long as they are sufficiently armed to have the equivalent infantry firepower of the invading army, they can improvise and steal what they do not already have.

The point of the second amendment was to ensure that the people could self organize into an effective fighting force. Like I said -- forces that have successfuly opposed the US military to defend their homelands have needed little more than crude automatic weapons and IEDs. When considering where to draw "a line", one should consider the then-fresh experience of the revolutionary war as the context under which the framers authored the constitution.

War to defend against a foreign invader or a corrupt government during times of revolution will be by definition assymmetric. A bunch of F-16s privately owned/operated will be useless at the onset of conflict in a defensive capacity. The invading force will knock out the runways and batteries first, then work the rest of the way down the list of high-value-concentration targets.

It's all about what is plausible for the common man to be effective with when repelling invasion. If the US wants to have some program for ex-pilot-lottery-winners to stay current on F-16s that's fine, but I don't see that as a 2nd amendment issue.

My NG buddy tells me that in Iraq, every family is issued a government AK-47 (full auto). If that's the case, I wish we could "export" some of our Democracy back to our own shores.

Trafik Jamz;256383 wrote:
Good luck w/o the high tech equipment they have at their disposal....we don't have the jungle advantage of Viet Nam, the desert advantage of Iraq or the mountains of afghanistan...nor do we have the concentrated cities.

I could really tear into every aspect of your rebuttal, but I won't because I mostly agree with you....maybe I'll be bored tonight and do it just for fun though.

You're missing some key points there Chuck.

#1, you are assuming the entirely military would turn against the revolting citizens. I'd be willing to bet if some event happened that would cause an uprising and attempted overthrow of the government a decent portion of military personnel and material would support that overthrow.

#2, you are wrong in thinking that we do not have the landscape or environments to hold off the military. Sure the odds are greatly in their favor, but, there are plenty of parts of this country where the military would pretty much be forced to carpet bomb entire states to have any margin of success , and even then I think people would have viet-nam type trenches.

It would not be a "walk all over them" type of victory as you seem to think it'd be. I honestly don't think anyone could predict who the victor would be...you know damn well though that nuclear/chemical/biological weapons wouldn't be used.

Also during this uprising other enemies of the USA would probably take the initiative to start their own campaigns against our forces overseas and possibly even in country just because of the turmoil it would cause.

Trafik Jamz;256383 wrote:
I could really tear into every aspect of your rebuttal, but I won't because I mostly agree with you....maybe I'll be bored tonight and do it just for fun though.

They must block google at work for you...

thrash;256351 wrote:
Every American who is mentally able and who has shown themselves to be a law abiding citizen (i.e. people who have not committed a federal felony... I'm not sure state felonies should count since in Michigan using unsecured wireless is a felony)

.. should be able to own and operate any weapon which would be reasonably put to good use by that man towards the repression of foreign invader or towards the purpose of overthrowing a domestic government which has become unaccountable.

That means fully automatic weapons. Why? Because if you give a man an M-16, he can learn to use it effectively almost immediately.

That doean't mean an F-16. Why? Because one man byhimself cannot use one at all. It takes hundreds (if not thousands) of hours of training, and a crew of people hundreds deep to put one man in the sky in an F-16.

F-16s are not required in order to successfully defend someones home, land, family, etc. Nukes are not "defensive" weapons in any capacity that could be employed by an individual.

If you think about it, the question really boils down to: what does it take for a bunch of villagers to fend off the US military? Experience in Vietnam suggests that all it takes is improvised explosives and basic Ak-47 family weapons.

Therefore, I think I'd want to keep full-auto weapons easily accessible to normal citizens, and probably the same for small grenades. It is plausible to build it all yourself anyhow. (unlike a nuke, for instance)

Regarding smoking -- i was against the ban. I hate filthy smokers and hate being in smoke filled places. Even so, I was against the ban because I think it comes down to business owners and individuals choices.

I am very fine with regulating how guns are used. But I want everyone to have whatever they need so they're prepared for when regulations are no longer being followed.

This holder guy is bad news. He is absolutely a gun grabber and does NOT think gun ownership is an individual right. In light of the supreme court beat down, he's going to do everyhting he can to make gun ownership de-facto impossile.

So then, is the basis for the 2nd amendment to read:

The only arms protected are the ones that one can reasonably afford to purchase and maintain by themselves?

I could go into an absurd "so you win the powerball just after retiring from the airforce and decide to by a fighter jet and a few thousand rounds of ammo and a few small bombs...." argument...but I won't, I'll just let you figure out where I am going with that. Should that pilot not be able to buy it and arm it if he can afford it and is trained in using it? I'd argue that if the military decided to take over my land/home/county/state/whatever they would likely use aircraft for part of the attack...it's hard to beat a jet w/o having one of your own. Isn't part of the 2nd amendment there so that the people can forcefully overthrow their gov't if need be? Good luck w/o the high tech equipment they have at their disposal....we don't have the jungle advantage of Viet Nam, the desert advantage of Iraq or the mountains of afghanistan...nor do we have the concentrated cities.

I could really tear into every aspect of your rebuttal, but I won't because I mostly agree with you....maybe I'll be bored tonight and do it just for fun though.

Trafik Jamz;256254 wrote:
So, in your opinion, they would have been better off banning pistols? Say a 9mm or something as they are used far more than AK-47's and AR15's?

FWIW, I agree with you, I'm just trying to figure out everyones POV on this.]

No I'm more or less trying to say that several politicians have proven that they don't know a damn thing about gun crimes in America. No I don't believe they should ban guns used most often in crimes, I think they should punish those who commit the crimes extremely harshly though.

Trafik Jamz;256253 wrote:
I'm asking just to see everyones opinion here on the 2nd amendment:

Where does it end? What weapons (if any) should be controlled/illegal for a private citizen to own? The wording of the 2nd amendment is as follows "A well-regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

By definition then, any weapon from an rock to a nuclear armament should be permissible under the constitution. I think most of us can agree that a nuke is not what the framers of the constitution had in mind....but what did they have in mind? Muzzle loaded weapons? Canons? Lever action rifles? Bolt Action rifles? Revolvers? Semi-automatic pistols? Semi-automatic rifles or shotguns? Fully automatic rifles/shotguns? Grenades? Rocket Propelled Grenades? C4 Plastic Explosives? Land mines? Fighter jets? Bombers? M1-A1 tanks? Tomahawk Cruise Missiles? Scud missiles? Chemical Weapons? Biological Weapons? Nuclear Weapons? Sharks w/ Fricken Laser Beams attached to their craniums?

I'm looking for a serious answer on this one please. No flaming, just a direct answer because I'm betting even the most die-hard gun owners are going to disagree here.

In the end I guess one could say you should have access to all of those. Very few people could afford 1/2 the stuff you listed there though. Terrorist organizations can acquire all those dangerous non-firearm items. I personally don't know of anyone that could afford a Tomahawk, Cruise Missle, Scud, Chemical/Biological/Nuclear weapons. THEN even if you could acquire them, getting ahold of the electronics necessary to use them to kill people (minus yourself)...the scenario really isn't even worth discussing because 99.999% of people, criminal or not, couldn't obtain them. Those that could or can already are trying...

24valvenotak;256265 wrote:
i think if you feel like you have to carry a gun your paranoid. its one thing to have a rifle and go hunting and trap shooting, thats a whole different story. do you really want some dude with a pistol trying to diffuse a hostage situation? i dont. i want him to sit down and shut up like everyone else instead of playing rambo trying to be the hero.

my point about the smoking thing was people's rights are already being hindered but nobody cares until its about something which involves them or something they enjoy. its like seatbelt tickets. shouldnt it be your right to choose? wear it or dont. allow people to smoke here or dont. carry a gun or dont. where do you draw the line? apparently everyone thinks its with guns. i think its a bit late now.

I don't think you'll find many people that disagree with you on the issue of the smoking ban or even seat belts. I personally hate smelling smokers but I also don't feel it is the governments right to ban it from public places. I think it should be left up to the owner of the business as well as a personal choice of possible patrons. Seat belts...under 18 I can see it being mandatory but after that I think it's a money making issue. If you're found not wearing one in an accident I do think insurance shouldn't be required to pay for your injuries though.

As for guns, as we've pointed out, people carrying them aren't carrying them because they are paranoid. I think you'd be hard pressed to find someone up here that carrys because they feel threatened and feels they will actually ever need to use it. Like was said, it's more of an insurance policy that IF the situation were to occur, you'd be more prepared.

darkelvis;256282 wrote:
The second amendment also gives people the right (as chuck pointed out) to own C4, land mines, nukes, fully armed tanks, etc.... where does the line need to be drawn?
See above.

Trafik Jamz;256315 wrote:
So wait....they make you jump through hoops to get something that is clearly spelled out as being a legal right in the 2nd Amendment? Those bastards!!!!

/end sarcasm...but seriously that was the point I was trying to make with my questions earlier in the thread. I'm not saying that any of it should be illegal (well maybe nukes and full scale military armament...) but at what point do you draw the line? I'm ok with any gun, regardless of caliber or look, being 100% legal for anyone that is willing to fill out the background check as long as it is not "military scale" (aka fully automatic). I don't think background checks are a bad thing at all however, as it will deter "heat of the moment" crimes a bit perhaps. Of course, you and I both know that its not that hard to find someone willing to sell you a gun (new or used) w/o a background check, but it's not that hard to find drugs either and I don't think we should take narcotics laws off the books necessarily just because they are easy to find anyway and the criminals will find them either way...

Besides, the first few words of the 2nd amendment make reference to <u>"A well REGULATED militia"</u>...wouldn't it make sense to say that the framers of the constitution had the future in mind when they stated it that way? That yes, the right to bear arms is there, but it is not without regulation? IDK, I'm by no means a political scholar or historian, I just interpret things as I see them.

And before everyone starts bitching about check being the whacked out lefty that wants guns banned, please realize that I don't. I own 2 DPMS AR-15's now, an AK-47 a MAK-90 and a small assortment of handguns and a number of deer hunting rifles and a couple shot guns. I've probably put more rounds of lead through my guns before I was 18 than most will in their life.

I see nothing wrong with requiring background checks. I see nothing wrong with requiring a gun safety OR hunters safety class before giving someone a CCW permit or even before selling someone a gun at all....I have to have hunters safety to trap a muskrat, there is no reason someone shouldn't have to have some sort of gun training before putting a .22 in their purse.

Why ban fully automatics? Hell if someone went on a shooting spree with a fully auto weapon you'd probably be safer because they can't aim for shit and would be shooting sky after the 4th shot probably. They are no more dangerous than a semi automatic. Someone who knows firearms well should know that a person with good aim and a .22 ruger could do more damage than 2 people with a fully auto AK47's (Hollywood anyone?).

As for your Well Regulated Milita statement...the 2nd Amendment was just ruled as an Individual right which in essence makes it a 2 pronged Amendment. Ownership for a milita as well as ownership as an individual regardless of "milita" status.

Background checks? Yes of course so Felons can't purchase. Waiting periods? No. Instant background checks should be required...you pass you get your gun right away. It's been shown that waiting periods have done nothing in curbing crimes.

thrash;256351 wrote:
Every American who is mentally able and who has shown themselves to be a law abiding citizen (i.e. people who have not committed a federal felony... I'm not sure state felonies should count since in Michigan using unsecured wireless is a felony)

.. should be able to own and operate any weapon which would be reasonably put to good use by that man towards the repression of foreign invader or towards the purpose of overthrowing a domestic government which has become unaccountable.

That means fully automatic weapons. Why? Because if you give a man an M-16, he can learn to use it effectively almost immediately.

That doean't mean an F-16. Why? Because one man byhimself cannot use one at all. It takes hundreds (if not thousands) of hours of training, and a crew of people hundreds deep to put one man in the sky in an F-16.

F-16s are not required in order to successfully defend someones home, land, family, etc. Nukes are not "defensive" weapons in any capacity that could be employed by an individual.

If you think about it, the question really boils down to: what does it take for a bunch of villagers to fend off the US military? Experience in Vietnam suggests that all it takes is improvised explosives and basic Ak-47 family weapons.

Therefore, I think I'd want to keep full-auto weapons easily accessible to normal citizens, and probably the same for small grenades. It is plausible to build it all yourself anyhow. (unlike a nuke, for instance)

Regarding smoking -- i was against the ban. I hate filthy smokers and hate being in smoke filled places. Even so, I was against the ban because I think it comes down to business owners and individuals choices.

I am very fine with regulating how guns are used. But I want everyone to have whatever they need so they're prepared for when regulations are no longer being followed.

This holder guy is bad news. He is absolutely a gun grabber and does NOT think gun ownership is an individual right. In light of the supreme court beat down, he's going to do everyhting he can to make gun ownership de-facto impossile.

I enjoyed that post thrash

darkelvis;256282 wrote:
The second amendment also gives people the right (as chuck pointed out) to own C4, land mines, nukes, fully armed tanks, etc.... where does the line need to be drawn?

.. should be able to own and operate any weapon which would be reasonably put to good use by that man towards the repression of foreign invader or towards the purpose of overthrowing a domestic government which has become unaccountable.

That means fully automatic weapons. Why? Because if you give a man an M-16, he can learn to use it effectively almost immediately.

That doean't mean an F-16. Why? Because one man byhimself cannot use one at all. It takes hundreds (if not thousands) of hours of training, and a crew of people hundreds deep to put one man in the sky in an F-16.

F-16s are not required in order to successfully defend someones home, land, family, etc. Nukes are not "defensive" weapons in any capacity that could be employed by an individual.

If you think about it, the question really boils down to: what does it take for a bunch of villagers to fend off the US military? Experience in Vietnam suggests that all it takes is improvised explosives and basic Ak-47 family weapons.

Therefore, I think I'd want to keep full-auto weapons easily accessible to normal citizens, and probably the same for small grenades. It is plausible to build it all yourself anyhow. (unlike a nuke, for instance)

Regarding smoking -- i was against the ban. I hate filthy smokers and hate being in smoke filled places. Even so, I was against the ban because I think it comes down to business owners and individuals choices.

I am very fine with regulating how guns are used. But I want everyone to have whatever they need so they're prepared for when regulations are no longer being followed.

This holder guy is bad news. He is absolutely a gun grabber and does NOT think gun ownership is an individual right. In light of the supreme court beat down, he's going to do everyhting he can to make gun ownership de-facto impossile.

integra_gsr98;256287 wrote:
And according to the law in order to have explosive devices they have to be registered with the ATF, proper paperwork, tax stamps, etc. You can't just buy this stuff off of the shelf at your local store.

So wait....they make you jump through hoops to get something that is clearly spelled out as being a legal right in the 2nd Amendment? Those bastards!!!!

/end sarcasm...but seriously that was the point I was trying to make with my questions earlier in the thread. I'm not saying that any of it should be illegal (well maybe nukes and full scale military armament...) but at what point do you draw the line? I'm ok with any gun, regardless of caliber or look, being 100% legal for anyone that is willing to fill out the background check as long as it is not "military scale" (aka fully automatic). I don't think background checks are a bad thing at all however, as it will deter "heat of the moment" crimes a bit perhaps. Of course, you and I both know that its not that hard to find someone willing to sell you a gun (new or used) w/o a background check, but it's not that hard to find drugs either and I don't think we should take narcotics laws off the books necessarily just because they are easy to find anyway and the criminals will find them either way...

Besides, the first few words of the 2nd amendment make reference to <u>"A well REGULATED militia"</u>...wouldn't it make sense to say that the framers of the constitution had the future in mind when they stated it that way? That yes, the right to bear arms is there, but it is not without regulation? IDK, I'm by no means a political scholar or historian, I just interpret things as I see them.

And before everyone starts bitching about check being the whacked out lefty that wants guns banned, please realize that I don't. I own 2 DPMS AR-15's now, an AK-47 a MAK-90 and a small assortment of handguns and a number of deer hunting rifles and a couple shot guns. I've probably put more rounds of lead through my guns before I was 18 than most will in their life.

I see nothing wrong with requiring background checks. I see nothing wrong with requiring a gun safety OR hunters safety class before giving someone a CCW permit or even before selling someone a gun at all....I have to have hunters safety to trap a muskrat, there is no reason someone shouldn't have to have some sort of gun training before putting a .22 in their purse.

KA-T_240;256286 wrote:
You can own a fully auto weapon as a law abiding citizen. You have to fill out lots of paper work and get the license stuff done. I would love to have a machine gun.

Hunters Saftey/Gun safety is alot of the same stuff. Just like the CC permit class you have to take. The people I would be worried about is not going to be the guy next to you at the range, it would be the lady next to you at Best Buy with a loaded pistol in her purse with the safety off that could go off on accident if something got moved right in the purse.

I know law abiding citizens can own an automatic weapon. You said above that you didn't think people should be able to own them.

The lady next to you in best buy with her gun in her purse needed to take a class in order for it to legally be there. If it's not, she is breaking the law and is a criminal. Again proof that people who are going to commit a criminal act are going to do it regardless of what the law states.

integra_gsr98;256273 wrote:
Why should a law abiding citizen be unable to own a fully automatic weapon? What harm is that weapon going to bring to you? If someone wants to do 30rd mag dumps at 50 cents a round all day, let them. It's their money.

Also why should someone have to take a safety class? I already had to take hunter safety when I was a child, and I have shot guns since I was a child. Why should the state have to oversee another program that in the end does nothing for crime but costs tax payers more money. If you are at a range and someone is not being safe, say something to the operators of the range, or if it is public and there is nobody else there, leave.

You can own a fully auto weapon as a law abiding citizen. You have to fill out lots of paper work and get the license stuff done. I would love to have a machine gun.

Hunters Saftey/Gun safety is alot of the same stuff. Just like the CC permit class you have to take. The people I would be worried about is not going to be the guy next to you at the range, it would be the lady next to you at Best Buy with a loaded pistol in her purse with the safety off that could go off on accident if something got moved right in the purse.

Afsil80;256276 wrote:
That being said, is there a need for someone to have a fully automatic assault rifle? Probably not, but as Americans, it's our Second Amendment right to have access to such a thing.

The second amendment also gives people the right (as chuck pointed out) to own C4, land mines, nukes, fully armed tanks, etc.... where does the line need to be drawn?

Who is going to buy an assault rifle, and take the time and money to get their class 3 weapons permit JUST to go do that?

The person of that mental capacity (or lack of) will make an illegal purchase without registering the gun, and they will commit the crime.

Afsil80;256276 wrote:
I'll word this differently for the people who can't read between the lines.

Criminals will not give a second thought to NOT register a gun they intend to use for a crime. Therefore, any laws and background checks serve no purpose to the person they are ideally out to prevent from possessing such weapons.

That being said, is there a need for someone to have a fully automatic assault rifle? Probably not, but as Americans, it's our Second Amendment right to have access to such a thing.

The people ruining this amendment never cared about the law to begin with.

no but if your going to buy one on an impulse and shoot up the post office then turn it on yourself it would be nice to know there is SOMETHING out there to hinder them?

just because it was a good idea 200 years ago to carry a gun around doesnt mean it needs to be now. i mean, slavery sounded like a good idea

integra_gsr98;256262 wrote:
The bans should not exist because in the end the only people they harm are the citizens who legally and rightfully purchase firearms. Criminals will be criminals, period.

I'll word this differently for the people who can't read between the lines.

Criminals will not give a second thought to NOT register a gun they intend to use for a crime. Therefore, any laws and background checks serve no purpose to the person they are ideally out to prevent from possessing such weapons.

That being said, is there a need for someone to have a fully automatic assault rifle? Probably not, but as Americans, it's our Second Amendment right to have access to such a thing.

The people ruining this amendment never cared about the law to begin with.

integra_gsr98;256273 wrote:
Why should the state have to oversee another program that in the end does nothing for crime but costs tax payers more money.

ahem smoking