Should STY get a machine gun?

Southern Man said:
If, in the future, these weapons do become necessary, then my position would be reconsidered.
Click to expand...
The problem with that view is if it ever does become necessary, it will be too late - we will be fighting tyranny with one foot in a bucket of cement because liberals and quasi-conservatives like you could not foresee the need.

The 2nd Amendment is supposed to be a detente - like having the most nucs in the cold war. The success of the 2nd Amendment will be if it is never needed on the level it was designed. If it fails, it will be because people "don't see the need", and the detente is negated. Like going into the cold war by stocking up on 10 pounders with grape shot when the opposition has nucs. Will come the day when the nuclear capable enemy will walk in, scoff at your cannon, and tell you to submit or die. Then you can go ahead and fire off your cannon and die fighting the "good fight" and losing, your progeny enslaved until a new revolution can be formed and fought. Problem is, it is much more difficult these days for a disarmed populace to successfully rebel against their government because with modern weapons the government has way to big a head start. So figure your progeny to be enslaved to tyranny forever because you "CURRENTLY" do not see the need.
 
Good Luck said:
The problem with that view is if it ever does become necessary, it will be too late - we will be fighting tyranny with one foot in a bucket of cement because liberals and quasi-conservatives like you could not foresee the need.
Click to expand...
Not at all. Again, there are 10 or 20 civilians with guns as there are military. Do you seriously think that we couldn't oppose them? Do you seriously think that US troops wouldn't break ranks after an incident where they were ordered to kill waves of pistol packing Americans defending their freedom?
 
Kozinski's argument invokes the Third Reich scenario, where German citizens were required to give up their guns. That's not my position at all.
 
Southern Man said:
Not at all. Again, there are 10 or 20 civilians with guns as there are military. Do you seriously think that we couldn't oppose them? Do you seriously think that US troops wouldn't break ranks after an incident where they were ordered to kill waves of pistol packing Americans defending their freedom?
Click to expand...

since you've never served in the armed forces, you've never been pinned down by automatic weapons fire. Suffice it to say, it's very effective in limiting enemy movement.

Also, if you had watched the confiscation video I posted, you might have noticed that there were several national guard and police teams that willingly went along with assaulting american citizens and stealing their private property. Do you really think that most of the rest of the armed services won't follow orders to fire on american citizens? especially if those citizens are shooting back?
 
Southern Man said:
As I said before, I don't think Hamilton or Henry agreed with you to the extent that the less influential Coxe did. The obviously "drew the line" further towards hand-held weapons of the time. Exactly where is total conjecture by anyone.
Click to expand...
Where do you get the idea that Hamilton and Henry (who also was not at the Constitutional Convention BTW) did not fully agree with Coxe? What words did they use to indicate they did not view the militia (ie: everyone who is not active military) were not to have access to the same kinds of weapons as the soldier of a standing army? Please, show me these "lines" they drew with respect of what arms the people were to be allowed.

You, like every other "reasonable" brain dead anti-liberty know-nothing twit, read what you want to hear from the writings of the founders.

And you STILL have yet to define a reason that law abiding citizens should not have access to full auto firearms, other than YOU do not think it is "necessary". That argument is easily refuted: FREEDOMS ARE NOT BASED ON NEED.

So, since "not necessary" is a bullshit excuse to limit freedom of the people, how about giving us one single solitary VALID reason for limiting the rights of law abiding citizens.
 
Southern Man said:
If you didn't want to play the Nazi card you should have edited it out.
Click to expand...

I'd rather not be accused of taking quotes out of context or manipulating a whole quote to direct a certain point of view. Take the whole quote and make of it what you will. If you wish to godwin the argument because of the inclusion of the nazi reference, then do so. It's only furthering the disadvantage of a free nation. :good4u:
 
Good Luck said:
Where do you get the idea that Hamilton and Henry (who also was not at the Constitutional Convention BTW) did not fully agree with Coxe? What words did they use to indicate they did not view the militia (ie: everyone who is not active military) were not to have access to the same kinds of weapons as the soldier of a standing army? Please, show me these "lines" they drew with respect of what arms the people were to be allowed.

You, like every other "reasonable" brain dead anti-liberty know-nothing twit, read what you want to hear from the writings of the founders.

And you STILL have yet to define a reason that law abiding citizens should not have access to full auto firearms, other than YOU do not think it is "necessary". That argument is easily refuted: FREEDOMS ARE NOT BASED ON NEED.

So, since "not necessary" is a bullshit excuse to limit freedom of the people, how about giving us one single solitary VALID reason for limiting the rights of law abiding citizens.
Click to expand...

No reason for you to get all emotional because we disagree on where the line should be drawn.
 
Southern Man said:
Not at all. Again, there are 10 or 20 civilians with guns as there are military. Do you seriously think that we couldn't oppose them? Do you seriously think that US troops wouldn't break ranks after an incident where they were ordered to kill waves of pistol packing Americans defending their freedom?
Click to expand...
You think two privates in a Bradley and 20mm chain gun could not handle 40 civilians armed with the sporting rifles YOU think are a "reasonable" limit on 2nd Amendment rights?
 
Good Luck said:
You think two privates in a Bradley and 20mm chain gun could not handle 40 civilians armed with the sporting rifles YOU think are a "reasonable" limit on 2nd Amendment rights?
Click to expand...
No I don't think that they could. Hunters are pretty good at keeping hidden and surrounding the enemy, and shots would be from many different directions. Plus the increased range and accuracy of the hunting rifles....
 
Southern Man said:
No reason for you to get all emotional because we disagree on where the line should be drawn.
Click to expand...
Can you show me the wording from Hamilton or Henry (or Washington, Jefferson, etc.) that indicates the consensus of the time was there is to be some "reasonable" limit on what arms are allowed the militia (as defined in the 1780s).

Do you have a VALID reason for limiting the rights of alw abiding citizens, other than based on what YOU perceive as "need"?

Can you explain to me why ANY liberty should be based on need?

If you can, do so. Or, admit that your only defense of limiting a primary liberty of the people is based on nothing more than your own fears.
 
Southern Man said:
No I don't think that they could. Hunters are pretty good at keeping hidden and surrounding the enemy, and shots would be from many different directions. Plus the increased range and accuracy of the hunting rifles....
Click to expand...
Do you have ANY idea what you are talking about? Do you know the range of the 30mm chain gun on the Bradly Fighting Vehicle? Effective range is 1500 meters. Maximum range is 4500 meters. (that's almost 3 miles)

Or, take the 25mm M242 Bushmaster chain gun - effective range of 3000 meters.

Want to hide behind a brick wall? They'll shoot right through it. And what exactly is a hunting rifle (or 20 of them) gonna do against armor? Is your .06 gonna scratch their paint and make them sad so they run away?

OTOH, a LAW can knock one of their tracks off and then people MIGHT have a chance against it. Once disabled, there are a hundred ways of getting the occupants to cry uncle.
 
Good Luck said:
Can you show me the wording from Hamilton or Henry (or Washington, Jefferson, etc.) that indicates the consensus of the time was there is to be some "reasonable" limit on what arms are allowed the militia (as defined in the 1780s).

Do you have a VALID reason for limiting the rights of alw abiding citizens, other than based on what YOU perceive as "need"?

Can you explain to me why ANY liberty should be based on need?

If you can, do so. Or, admit that your only defense of limiting a primary liberty of the people is based on nothing more than your own fears.
Click to expand...
Right now The People don't need easy access to fully automatic weapons. That kook in CT who just killed 9 people would have probably killed a lot more if he had one, and then lots of folks would want to restrict all arms, pushing "the line" further back. The Right to bear arms is advancing nicely in this country at its current pace by legalization of concealed weapons. One event like in CT, or at the Virginia Tech campus a few years back, had the perpetrators had access to full auto weapons, would hurt the cause.
 
Southern Man said:
Right now The People don't need easy access to fully automatic weapons. That kook in CT who just killed 9 people would have probably killed a lot more if he had one, and then lots of folks would want to restrict all arms, pushing "the line" further back. The Right to bear arms is advancing nicely in this country at its current pace by legalization of concealed weapons. One event like in CT, or at the Virginia Tech campus a few years back, had the perpetrators had access to full auto weapons, would hurt the cause.
Click to expand...

8 people in conneticut are dead because their employers insurer felt that it was safer that they be unarmed. how did that work out for them? full or semi didn't matter because the 'shooter' was the only one armed. he only killed himself once he met resistance from someone who could shoot back.

Ultimately, a civilized society must disarm its citizenry if it is to have a modicum of domestic tranquility of the kind enjoyed by sister democracies such as Canada and Britain. Given the frontier history and individualist ideology of the United States, however, this will not come easily. It certainly cannot be done radically. It will probably take one, maybe two generations. It might be 50 years before the United States gets to where Britain is today. Passing a law like the assault weapons ban is a symbolic - purely symbolic - move in that direction. Its only real justification is not to reduce crime but to desensitize the public to the regulation of weapons in preparation for their ultimate confiscation. - charles krauthammer
Click to expand...

Britain is what happens when people feel that lines must be drawn and 'reasonable regulation' must be applied to inalienable rights.
 
SmarterThanYou said:
8 people in conneticut are dead because their employers insurer felt that it was safer that they be unarmed. how did that work out for them? full or semi didn't matter because the 'shooter' was the only one armed. he only killed himself once he met resistance from someone who could shoot back.



Britain is what happens when people feel that lines must be drawn and 'reasonable regulation' must be applied to inalienable rights.
Click to expand...

Again, if the kook had full auto a lot more would be dead. And your British analogy is a weak one.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top