OT: Side Arm Purchase

[Thomas Rogers]

Ironbar, though I defend everyone's right to own guns, you have to admit that when you say that "one of the most important reasons is to combat a possible tyrant government", that such is pretty laughable.



You have seen what our government does to those that stockpile enough weapons to be considered even a moderate, local threat, haven't you?



TJR

 

[Nelson Atwell]

This quote referred to the Minutemen, which were the "well-regulated militia". The Minutemen are now the National Guard which are administered by the State governments, but may be called into Federal service during times of war. The "well-regulated militia" was not referring to the Branch Davidians. There is a big difference.

 

[Bill Ellis]

Just to be accurate in this discussion, an "assault" rifle is a full automatic weapon such as an M16 or AK47. Semi-auto rifles that look like a military weapon, e.g., AR15 or SK47, are not, technically, assualt rifles. The media gets it wrong all the time on purpose because they want to sway public opinion. It takes a lot of special permits and fees to legally buy and own an assault rifle. There is no difference in capability between a semi-auto hunting rifle such as a Remington 742 or one that looks military. Own all the guns you want, just don't use them in an illegal manner and no harm is done to anybody ever.

 

[Shelby Crane]

Bill-E,



That was exactly going to be my point with Caymen. Since the clinton gun ban, many people believe any gun that looks "scary" is an assault weapon.



TJR,



I do not believe raising against a tyrant government to be laughable. There are 6 guns to every person in this nation. MANY of those people will combat a government. For example, if the government says tomorrow: "All guns are banned and must be turned in immediately." How many people do you think will come to the calling? I know ALL of my friends would rise against the government and refuse to turn in their guns even if it met death.



Who is the government going to get to enforce tyrant policies? The military is comprised of our people. The military is not going to shed the blood of their brothers and sisters.



BUT, without guns, the government can do what it likes. It is the IDEA that civilians are armed that keeps the government in line and thus our 2nd amendment.



NelsonOKC,



You have it correct.

 

[Thomas Rogers]

Ironbar, when it comes to what keeps our govt from going tyrant on us I moreso agree with this comment:

Who is the government going to get to enforce tyrant policies? The military is comprised of our people. The military is not going to shed the blood of their brothers and sisters.

Then this one:

It is the IDEA that civilians are armed that keeps the government in line and thus our 2nd amendment.

TJR

 

[Josh Langel]

Caymen you need to read into your own statements, friend.



You said:

There are many things we don't need, but if the law says we can own them and I choose to do so, what is wrong with that?

But said earlier you said...

I do not feel anyone should own an assult rifle

So, you obviously feel that people should not own the "assult rife," but also support that if they want to there is nothing wrong with it. What's wrong with owning an assault rifle? Because they look evil?



So you do think they should be able to own one... or not???:wacko:

 

[Wes Davis]

There is no difference between an assault rifle over a hunting rifle or any other semi auto rifle. All fire one bullet per trigger pull no faster or slower than the other. Black guns have a bad rep because of their looks but they function the same as any semi auto firearm. Full auto firearms are a different issue altogether but then we don't have to worry about them because they are heavily regulated and very expensive keeping them out of the hands of the average legal gun owner or criminal.

 

[Rich Stern]

Ironbar, though I defend everyone's right to own guns, you have to admit that when you say that "one of the most important reasons is to combat a possible tyrant government", that such is pretty laughable.

230 years ago, a bunch of farmers and tinsmiths stepped out of their everyday lives to defeat the most feared military power on earth.



60 years ago, a poor, agrarian nation with pretty much only rifleman for an army, first defeated France, and then the United States.



20 years ago, a bunch of Afghani tribesman kicked the Soviet army out of their country.



Right now, in Iraq, no more than a few thousand guys armed with rifles and improvised explosive devices are keeping 140,000 of the finest, best equiped soldiers in the world from excercising the political will of the most powerful nation on the planet, at a cost of untold billions per month.

 

[Gavin Allan]

An assault rifle is a selective fire rifle or carbine firing ammunition with muzzle energies intermediate between those typical of pistol and battle rifle ammunition. Assault rifles are categorized between light machine guns, intended more for sustained automatic fire in a support role, and submachine guns, which fire a handgun cartridge rather than a rifle cartridge. Assault rifles are the standard small arms in most modern armies, having largely replaced or supplemented larger, more powerful battle rifles, such as the World War II-era M1 Garand and Tokarev SVT. Examples of assault rifles include the M16 rifle and the AK-47. Semi-automatic rifles, including commercial versions of the AR-15, and "automatic" rifles limited to firing single shots are not assault rifles as they are not selective fire. Belt-fed weapons or rifles with very limited capacity fixed magazines are also generally not considered assault rifles.

 

[Nelson Atwell]

60 years ago, a poor, agrarian nation with pretty much only rifleman for an army, first defeated France, and then the United States.

I'm confused about this statement. I think you are referring to North Vietnam, but that wasn't 60 years ago, and they had the backing of Russian and Chinese governments.



There are similarities between this war and that one. Guerrilla-style and terrorist tactics are hard to defend against. It sort of like ridding your house of termites. You really need to bring out the big guns and exterminate everything, but with a nation there are good and bad people together. We can't simply wipe out a place like in the biblical story of Sodom and Gomorrah. We may have gotten away with that in WWII, but today we would be universally scorned for doing that.

 

[Ryan Schaecher]

Full auto firearms are a different issue altogether but then we don't have to worry about them because they are heavily regulated and very expensive keeping them out of the hands of the average legal gun owner or criminal.

True and false. Expensive? Yes, for law-abiding citizens. Well Regulated? Yes, for law-abiding citizens. Keeping them out of the hands of criminals? Not entirely.



I own an AK-47 - semi-auto of course. Without doing my part to give more ammo to gun grabbers, let's just say that it won't take much for a criminal to take what I have and make it full-auto... rifle and all for under $400.... but it is AN ILLEGAL act to build a full-auto unless you are a Class 7 firearms manufacturer with either government (military) or LEA (law enforcement agency) sponsorship. There are firearms that can be converted to full-auto much easier that an AK (see MAC-10, no longer in production because of this ability).



I own 10 firearms, three of which are semi-auto rifles, and (2) of the three are specifically called out in HR1022 (the "new" assault weapons ban in congress as we speak):

1) M1 Garand - 8-shot semi-auto 30-06 WWII infantry rifle

2) AK-47



Given the opportunity, I would definately own a Fully Automatic rifle or handgun. Why? Because I can. That's the beauty of our 2nd amendment. I am currently considering the building of a M1919A4 Browning belt-fed semi-auto tripod-mounted rifle. Why? Because I can. If I had the cash, a semi-auto MG42 (Hitler's Zipper) would be in my house. Why? Do I need to repeat?



I don't own guns just to own them. I sport-shoot, target shoot, etc with them. None of my firearms have been used in the commission of a crime or injured anyone (besides me) while I have owned them.



Guns are not bad. I have never seen a gun that under it's own power loaded a round, aimed, fired and injured or killed someone. Sorry, it's an inanimate object. It would be like saying that your Sport Trac filled up on gas, got on the highway then did a head-on with another vehicle all on it's own. Can't do it.



Personally, I don't care if you want to own a particular firearm, or any firearm. That's up to you. I personally am making every effort to own a version of every firearm used during WWII. Currently, I have (5).... M1 Garand, M91/30 Mosin Nagant, M44 Mosing Nagant, 7.62 Nagant Revolver and Turk 38 Mauser. This leaves me a bit shy of 20 main-line rifles and 7+ main handguns away.



Just remember, if politicians can say that "you can't own that rifle", then using the same lunacy with Global Warming (such a farce) they can say "you can't own a Sport Trac or any other SUV". They can and they will if we let them, hence the 2nd amendment, keeping the rest of our freedoms ours.

 

[Thomas Rogers]

I agree with Nelson...the days are gone when the govts and citizens had access to the same weaponry. I don't have a tank in my backyard, or an attack copter, or a scud, or a laser guided missle, etc, etc....do you?



Any comparison of past wars to equate that a well-armed citizenry is vital in keeping our govt in check I think is naive at best.



TJR

 

[Rich Stern]

Any comparison of past wars to equate that a well-armed citizenry is vital in keeping our govt in check I think is naive at best.

And the guerillas who have fought us and and our allies to a stalemate in Iraq? Where are their attack helicopters and scuds? We have armored divisions, infantry divisions, air wings, air carrier task groups, satellites, lasers, missles, rockets; you name it, we've got it. And we can't dig them out.

I'm confused about this statement. I think you are referring to North Vietnam, but that wasn't 60 years ago, and they had the backing of Russian and Chinese governments.

And we had help from France 230 years ago. And the Afghanis had our help 20 years ago. And the Iraq guerillas have help from Iran and Syria, maybe others. Guerillas almost always have allies.



The point is, a dedicated group of people with small arms, fighting for what they believe in, can cause a lot of pain to a much larger, better armed power. And so it would be if Americans ever needed to fight off an oppressive government.



When the founders wrote the 2nd amendment, they did not envision private citizens maintaining cavalry or artillery regiments, or 72 gun ships of the line. Those were the big weapons of those times. They wrote, correctly so, that such things are actually dangerous to a free people, because they are most often used by tyrannical governments. Not so with the lowly rifle.

 

[Thomas Rogers]

Good point, Rich...but they are actually doing more damage with IED's then guns. Just like the Ewoks did more damage with logs than laser blasters. ;-)



I never said that American citizens couldn't be great resistance fighters against their own govt. Just like the Empire that could have blown up Endor at any time, they didn't, because they showed restraint. Our own govt probably wouldn't nuke our own soil, or level entire domestic cities and kill hundreds of thousands...but IF THEY DID, our guns won't help us. If they do show restraint, as we are doing in Iraq, then we can still beat them with logs, and sticks, and stones, and guns, but guns alone aren't required for resistance fighters.



The simplest way to win a resistance movement is to just continue to resist...never give up, and go about your daily business but whenever possible, disrupt the govt/invaders business.



TJR

 

[Rich Stern]

Tom, Hollywood science fiction/McDonalds happy meal characters are not very useful examples in a discussion of human history, political science and sociology.

 

[Tom Schindler]

Not to pick on you Caymen, but why do you feel people should not own assault rifles?

I see no purpose in owning one, but I have no problems with you owning one. What is so hard to understand about that?

So, you obviously feel that people should not own the "assult rife," but also support that if they want to there is nothing wrong with it. What's wrong with owning an assault rifle? Because they look evil?



So you do think they should be able to own one... or not???

You pretty much answered your own question.



Anti-gun people will give you 100 reasons you should not own an assult rifle. For the most part, I agree with them.



At the same time, just because I do not feel anyone should own one does not mean someone that has one is dangerous. The 2nd amendment sayts we can and as long as we allow gun control, they will fight for more gun control.



I honestly do not know what is so hard to understand about saying you don't think anyone should have one, but no government shoud be able to say we can't own one.



It is like a car. Nobody really needs a 200 MPH sports car, but if I can afford it, I should be able to.





Tom

 

[WXMotorSports DecalsPartsAccs]

Actually Caymen, I think its more of your "Yogi Bera/ Aflac Commercial" approach to debating things on this site that confuses many of us.

 

[TomT]

Actually what Tom said makes perfect since. Except for a collector, there is no practical use for an assault rifle, but hey, if you just have to have one then get it.

Guns are not the problem, it's the laws enforcing their use. Make it a MANDATORY death sentence to use a gun/rifle while committing a felony crime and we would not have all the problems we presently have. Sure it won't stop the nut-jobs like the VA Tech shooter but it would curtail the use of guns in everyday crimes.

 

[Thomas Rogers]

Rich, I was kidding, but the point remains the same. Guns are just a tool to resistance fighters. One doesn't need the guns to be successful (Iraq is proving that).



TJR

 

[Mylimyles]

WOW!!!!!! This is the longest thread I've ever seen. Who will be number 100?

Any way this is the reason I own a gun "The Most Frightening Time of My Life" and plan to get a few more AR-15 or Mini-14, 1911.



Plus I'm a LEO. And if someone wants to commit suicide by trying to hurt my family or myself. NOT MY FAULT!!!!!!!!!