S
Spyridon
Guest
Did you mean to imply in your post that guns have no legitimate purpose for self defense or home defense @Vonsalza ?
- Status
V
Vonsalza
Guest
I guess I’d throw that in too, but it’s really a non-issue.
You have better odds of being mauled by an albino grizzly bear with a shark tattoo than facing a home invasion situation.
And since most home invaders seldom surrender the element of surprise, there’s a pretty good chance you’re not going to have your firearm at the ready in such an event. If I was going to invade someone’s home, I’d kick in the door shortly after dinner when I saw the TV flashing.
E
exnihilo
Guest
The public can own tanks.
The right alone never was effective otherwise we’d not have the tyrannical government we have now. But he democratic process is even less effective once you have an all powerful welfare state.
S
Spyridon
Guest
The public cannot own modern weaponized tanks.
Show me a single person who owns a Sherman or Abrams MBT which has its weapons enabled.
A disarmed WWII tank would be no match for a fully armed US Army M1A3 Abrams
Show me a single person who owns a Sherman or Abrams MBT which has its weapons enabled.
A disarmed WWII tank would be no match for a fully armed US Army M1A3 Abrams
V
Vonsalza
Guest
Yessir, neutered antiques. Like the Sherman you displayed.
Ain’t no one buying an Abrams with composite armor and a functioning main armament w/ 50 cal support weapons. So my point remains intact, sir.
Democracy IS a welfare state, sir.
Last edited:
S
Spyridon
Guest
@Vonsalza posted at the same time as me and essentially backed up my point and I backed up his.
Show us an American civilian who owns an armed Abrams tank, not some disarmed antique.
Salzas point is actually great and I never really thought of it before - the idea that owning an AR-15 vs a shotgun is gonna protect you from “da gubament” is totally irrational.
The Govt has nuclear subs, nuclear carriers, nuclear weapons, F22 and F35, A-10, Tanks, APCs and a million other things the general public doesn’t have.
You could have 100,000,000 civilian foot soldiers armed wirh small arms try to take on 1,000 US Army and US Air Force warriors with all the US Military resources at their disposal…
Ill bet everything I own the 1,000 US Military members will bruttaly crush and decimate the hundred million rebels or freedom fighters or wharever you wanna call em.
Show us an American civilian who owns an armed Abrams tank, not some disarmed antique.
Salzas point is actually great and I never really thought of it before - the idea that owning an AR-15 vs a shotgun is gonna protect you from “da gubament” is totally irrational.
The Govt has nuclear subs, nuclear carriers, nuclear weapons, F22 and F35, A-10, Tanks, APCs and a million other things the general public doesn’t have.
You could have 100,000,000 civilian foot soldiers armed wirh small arms try to take on 1,000 US Army and US Air Force warriors with all the US Military resources at their disposal…
Ill bet everything I own the 1,000 US Military members will bruttaly crush and decimate the hundred million rebels or freedom fighters or wharever you wanna call em.
Last edited:
E
exnihilo
Guest
Why do you think that. What is the basis of this statement?
As this article explains you certainly can own a fully functional tank.
As this article explains you certainly can own a fully functional tank.
V
Vonsalza
Guest
Spot on.
Even with the reduced staff since most of the armor moved to Georgia, if 20,000 armed civilians tried to capture Ft. Knox, Kentucky, they’d get utterly flippin’ dominated. Dominated.
Even with the reduced staff since most of the armor moved to Georgia, if 20,000 armed civilians tried to capture Ft. Knox, Kentucky, they’d get utterly flippin’ dominated. Dominated.
B
brian_custer
Guest
there is no such thing as an assault weapon
a baseball bat , a bread knife or a rented truck could be “weapons” that kill a lot of people
so could poison in the water system
why are registered guns in the hands of responsible owners always what libs want to ban?
ban steak knives, axes, hatches, cannons, mortars & switchblades
never hear too much discussion about that
a baseball bat , a bread knife or a rented truck could be “weapons” that kill a lot of people
so could poison in the water system
why are registered guns in the hands of responsible owners always what libs want to ban?
ban steak knives, axes, hatches, cannons, mortars & switchblades
never hear too much discussion about that
Last edited:
po18guy
Well-known member
On FPS Russia, “professional Russian” Kyle Myers drove a Sherman tank through a White Castle burger drive-thru. Ever notice that Revolutionary war, Civil war, WWI and WWII re-enactors do not launch assualts on Washington, DC, or on anyone?
Just as the millions of average, law-abiding Americans who own firearms do not assault anyone. To use the exception to make the rule is to reduce freedom to the point where it cannot be abused. Do we want the American iron curtain?
Violent crime is both predictable and preventable. The homicidal maniac in Las Vegas planned extensively over several months, and involving several locations. He amassed Oklahoma City type bomb-making material (no screams about that) and enough armament for a 3rd world militia.
Much of this - all of the purchasing - was public. He did numerous things that “should have” alerted those around him that something big was up.
Nobody said or did a thing. So, he did.
Just as the millions of average, law-abiding Americans who own firearms do not assault anyone. To use the exception to make the rule is to reduce freedom to the point where it cannot be abused. Do we want the American iron curtain?
Violent crime is both predictable and preventable. The homicidal maniac in Las Vegas planned extensively over several months, and involving several locations. He amassed Oklahoma City type bomb-making material (no screams about that) and enough armament for a 3rd world militia.
Much of this - all of the purchasing - was public. He did numerous things that “should have” alerted those around him that something big was up.
Nobody said or did a thing. So, he did.
L
Lemuel
Guest
Because you can’t. The federal government has no business getting its nose into mental health care. It’s unconstitutional. If you allow one, you violate the other.
V
Vonsalza
Guest
Of course we can. Last I checked, this is a democracy.
Moreover, we may likely agree that the private market has very few solutions for people who lack cash.
Reminder: The seriously mentally ill generally lack cash.
I’m sure you feel that way, but the SCOTUS (the people who actually decide if that’s true) has generally felt that activities such as that are not unconstitutional. I think the Commerce Clause is usually what gets cited.
If you take issue with that, by all means, get appointed to SCOTUS and “fix” it.
E
exnihilo
Guest
The Supreme Court isn’t the ultimate arbiter of constitutionality. That itself is extra constitutional. Practically speaking the court has shown a complete disregard for the rule of law and logical consistency. The commerce clause has been twisted to mean the government can do anything which is an obvious contradiction of the 10th amendment.
V
Vonsalza
Guest
For the American government, yessir it is.
L
Lemuel
Guest
Last I checked, this is a republic. Democracies are evil. The founders abjured democracies.
Fine, then leave it to the state and local governments. The federal government operates the VA Hospitals. You think that’s a good model for taking care of the sick?
The Constitution was written for the people. We don’t need the SCOTUS to tell us what it means. I realize that in the real world, the SCOTUS will make those decisions, but that doesn’t make them either moral or correct.
You’ll find nothing in the Constitution about mental health care. That makes it a 10th amendment issue.
E
exnihilo
Guest
De facto not de jure.
E
edwest211
Guest
A satirical note from Organized Crime:
Listen. Sellin’ illegal guns is big money, An’ you can’t take that away from us. You unnerstand? We need to earn every day, just like tha rest uh yooz. So, if we’re movin’ guns, we make money. We got 5th, 6th, 10th party sellers. You need a piece the Feds call illegal, we got it and the ammo. Sure, the Feds pick up some small time guys but that’s tha price uh doin’ business. Ya know what I’m sayin’? An’ these guys will take you out if yur a civilian. Maybe I should be sayin’ we kill people to protect our business.
Listen. Sellin’ illegal guns is big money, An’ you can’t take that away from us. You unnerstand? We need to earn every day, just like tha rest uh yooz. So, if we’re movin’ guns, we make money. We got 5th, 6th, 10th party sellers. You need a piece the Feds call illegal, we got it and the ammo. Sure, the Feds pick up some small time guys but that’s tha price uh doin’ business. Ya know what I’m sayin’? An’ these guys will take you out if yur a civilian. Maybe I should be sayin’ we kill people to protect our business.
S
Sy_Noe
Guest
Yup no one needs such deadly weapons. Frankly I’m surprised so many Catholics think they do. On second thought, I’m not all that surprised considering the “right” wing political leanings of so many Catholics and other so called religious conservatives today.
U
upant
Guest
let’s put it in perspective, if you had to go to war would you want one of these semi-automatic rifles or an actual automatic rifle.
- Status