L
Lost_Sheep
Guest
Maybe not for personal defense, but if a general defense against tyranny is necessary, the people will need all the firepower they can get.
- Status
O
oldcatholicguy
Guest
Hence the provision for regulated militias. The guys who wrote the Constitution didn’t just include militias into the 2nd Amendment because they wanted an excuse to go hang out with the guys. We need to remember that they not only didn’t trust the government (federal), government (state); they also didn’t trust Joe Citizen (individual), Joe Citizen (as a whole).
L
livingwordunity
Guest
M
Mumbles140
Guest
By semi-automatic, I mean that a single pull of the trigger will release a 3-5 shot burst. You can not simply hold down the trigger and empty the magazine, but multiple bullets are fired with each pull of the trigger, rather than a weapon that fires one bullet per trigger pull.
Also, I don’t believe intensive knowledge about fire arms is critical for a theoretical discussion about gun control. If we can agree that the main (though not only) purposes of gun ownership are hunting and home defense, I think we can begin to say certain weapons are completely unnecessary for either activity, so we must ask the question why they are needed under the regulations?
L
Lost_Sheep
Guest
Why do so many of the Anti-Gun crowd not see defense against tyranny a legitimate threat? They only seem to focus on guns as an instrument of death.
M
Mumbles140
Guest
I would say there is a fundamental difference - we allow law enforcement certain rights that civilians do not have - the same is true of military personnel. These individuals receive specialized training in areas far beyond target practice to make sure the use of such firearms are properly executed and necessary for the situation.
M
Mumbles140
Guest
And this is why gun control debate goes nowhere, even with people like myself who are in favor of guns. It is wildly ridiculous that a private citizen should own an anti-tank gun. If you are worried about government interference, start a lawful militia group with which you can maintain arms for military usage. But in your own back yard? That’s a joke.There are no laws governing flamethrowers. You can also buy an anti-aircraft gun (the 40mm Bofors is a popular choice) or an anti-tank gun.
And yes you can buy an RPG with a NFA trust.
No other enumerated right has “shall not be infringed” in the text.
I’ll agree to give up my arsenal after everyone else gives up theirs first…and I’ll keep them anyway.
L
Lost_Sheep
Guest
Wrong. Police do not have rights that others do not. Read the Fourteenth Amendment.
B
Brendan
Guest
I suppose that technically, he would be correct. A 155mm Paladin would be too powerful for hunting, and the military does use that
But you are otherwise entirely correct, the average hunter carries a more powerful firearm than your average infantry man.
That is also a good point. Hunters (and police) use hollow-point ammunition, while the military is limited (per the Geneva Convention) to full metal jacketed ammo.
M
Mumbles140
Guest
No, and perhaps I have the incorrect understanding of semi-automatic. I’ve fired guns, but I’d hardly compare the work necessary to cock a pistol equivalent to walking all over a basketball court or putting green.
In hunting - is it common to fire multiple shots in a row at the same animal, or is it a one and done kind of thing? I’d imagine the animal would either be dropped or run off after the first shot. So, while it makes target practice less work, it isn’t exactly comparable to real hunting.
L
Lost_Sheep
Guest
And what, pray tell, is a “lawful militia?”
B
Brendan
Guest
And, in a democracy, that would have to be so by definition. Since power derives from the people, the people cannot give to the police rights that they themselves do not have.
You cannot give what you do not already have.
C
Crossbones
Guest
I’m sorry, I thought we were caught up. My last post is response to you is #118.
M
Mumbles140
Guest
Yes, the reason civilians should be able to own anti-tank guns: in case the President decides to trample the citizens of the USA (literally, not figuratively - presidents have been doing the figurative for many years). Why don’t you rent some space in a bomb shelter with the doomsday preppers, stroke your high powered weapons, and wait for the US military to come goose-stepping down Main Street.
Has it happened before in history? Yes. Is it likely to happen in modern day America? I’d say the open persecution of Catholics (literally Roman-style persecutions; again, not the figurative - that has already been occurring) is more likely.
M
Mumbles140
Guest
Thank you for informing me about military weaponry - that was something I was not aware of. However, didn’t James Holmes use a machine-gun type weapon? " He also fired a Smith & Wesson M&P15 semi-automatic rifle with a 100-round drum magazine, which malfunctioned after reportedly firing about 45 rounds". A 100 round drum? Really?
And please don’t demean or belittle me. I do not find guns scary, I’ve fired a Glock 9mm, S&W Revolver, .357 Magnum, semi-auto AR-15, and a 12 gauge shotgun. Most of my friends own weapons both for hunting and home defense, so I’m around them quite frequently.
M
Mumbles140
Guest
OCG - this was ALL I have been trying to get at. There are reasonable regulations that can be agreed upon, but the most vocal proponents are those on the extremes - ban all weapons, or ban no weapons, and that does NOTHING constructive for the gun debate.
M
Mumbles140
Guest
They do, but they put that trust in the hands of organized militias, not private citizens. As OCG noted - this was a VITAL part of the 2nd Amendment; there is more than just “the right to bear arms”.
T
tmelosi
Guest
semi-automatic means 1 pull of the trigger will release one shot, not a 3-5 shot burst.
M
Mumbles140
Guest
Police can sell drugs as part of a sting operation, right? The NSA (though they overstepped boundaries) has the right to obtain wire taps or phone and bank records, right? Cops can use hand-held communication devices while driving, right? Cops can speed while in pursuit of a criminal, right?
M
Mumbles140
Guest
Could you please explain the difference? I admit I had been using the term incorrectly. When I was firing the semi-auto AR-15 (at least, that is how the gun was described by the former military personnel I was shooting with), I was told one pull of the trigger released a three-bullet burst. In a 30-round magazine, that was 10 pulls for 30 bullets.
Does it have to deal with the necessity of cocking the weapon before each shot?
- Status