Should STY get a machine gun?

SmarterThanYou said:
when people make the suggestion of predators, tanks, and nukes, one has to wonder if they really think that the US government would send that kind of artillery and weaponry against US citizens. I find it extremely unlikely that they would do so. I do find it easy to believe that they would send military units armed with automatic weapons against american citizens though.

the problem we would run in to is one of escalation. how far would the feds go to maintain power and authority over us? answer that one, and we can then set the line of what weapons we should have. especially since posse comitatus doesn't mean anything anymore.
Click to expand...
So you do have a line. I find it unlikely that the US army would use full auto in a confrontation with the citizenry. They didn't in Kent State.
 
Southern Man said:
So you do have a line. I find it unlikely that the US army would use full auto in a confrontation with the citizenry. They didn't in Kent State.
Click to expand...
That was then, people have gotten crazier, remember one in five and just think how many in the military are now on mood enhancing drugs! What if their supply ran out?
 
Southern Man said:
How ironic. Coxe wasn't a member of the Constitutional Congress, and therefore not a Founder. With regards to the Founder's quotes, if they had meant cannon they would have been more explicit.
Click to expand...
Coxe was the Pennsylvania delegate to the Continental Congress. The Continental Congress was the governing body of the fledgling United States during the Revolutionary war through the Articles of Confederation, through the Constitutional Convention, and right up to the point the Constitution was ratified. Coxe, like Hamilton, was a federalist.

He was as much a founder as Hamilton was. Being on the Constitutional Convention is not a prerequisite for being a founder. Either you are ignorant, or a liar. Take your pick.

As for explicit mentions, they did not mention muskets either. Does that mean we cannot own rifles? They did not mention ANY firearms by specific name nor type. They simply named ARMS. Cannons clearly fall under the category of arms of that time.

Your arguments are specious and full of ignorance opf history. The founders INCLUDING COXE clearly indented the people to be as well armed as a standing army. It does not MATTER how much weapons technology has advanced - if it is carried by the common army infantry, it should be available to the people. Otherwise government has a monopoly on military power, and that is a threat to liberty. That includes Predators with full complement, if the person can afford it. And M1 Abrahms tanks. And D2 howitzers. And 106 recoiless rifles. Etc. etc. etc.

Nucs is a boogie - a typical brain dead liberal pull-it-out-of-your-ass piece of ignorance.

And you still have not come up with ONE actual reason law abiding citizens should not have full auto weapons (or anything else) - just a lot of liberal fear mongering bullshit. Your entire argument has been based on lies about what the founders meant when they wrote the 2nd Amendment and nothing about why a liberty needs to be curbed due to your own fears and mistrust.

BTW: ever seen what a 10 pounder full of grape shot can do to a group of soldiers at 200 yards? It can be VERY "effective at mass murder." - just a bit difficult to haul around.
 
Good Luck said:
Coxe was the Pennsylvania delegate to the Continental Congress. The Continental Congress was the governing body of the fledgling United States during the Revolutionary war through the Articles of Confederation, through the Constitutional Convention, and right up to the point the Constitution was ratified. Coxe, like Hamilton, was a federalist.

He was as much a founder as Hamilton was. Being on the Constitutional Convention is not a prerequisite for being a founder. Either you are ignorant, or a liar. Take your pick.

As for explicit mentions, they did not mention muskets either. Does that mean we cannot own rifles? They did not mention ANY firearms by specific name nor type. They simply named ARMS. Cannons clearly fall under the category of arms of that time.

Your arguments are specious and full of ignorance opf history. The founders INCLUDING COXE clearly indented the people to be as well armed as a standing army. It does not MATTER how much weapons technology has advanced - if it is carried by the common army infantry, it should be available to the people. Otherwise government has a monopoly on military power, and that is a threat to liberty. That includes Predators with full complement, if the person can afford it. And M1 Abrahms tanks. And D2 howitzers. And 106 recoiless rifles. Etc. etc. etc.

Nucs is a boogie - a typical brain dead liberal pull-it-out-of-your-ass piece of ignorance.

And you still have not come up with ONE actual reason law abiding citizens should not have full auto weapons (or anything else) - just a lot of liberal fear mongering bullshit. Your entire argument has been based on lies about what the founders meant when they wrote the 2nd Amendment and nothing about why a liberty needs to be curbed due to your own fears and mistrust.

BTW: ever seen what a 10 pounder full of grape shot can do to a group of soldiers at 200 yards? It can be VERY "effective at mass murder." - just a bit difficult to haul around.
Click to expand...

Coxe served only briefly in the Continental Congress. He was hardly influential enough to be called a Founder. Civilians are not going to line up neatly to get killed by grape shot.
 
Southern Man said:
Explain.
Click to expand...
Article 1, Section 8 of the United States Constitution clearly states that among congressional powers, they have the authority
To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
Click to expand...

This is a letter that allowed privateers (private citizens who owned ships) to capture enemy vessels during a time of war (or peace). How are you going to capture a ship if you do not own any cannons? The practical implication is that the founders not only envisioned the possibility but INTENDED the citizenry to be just as well armed, if not better armed, than the military.

Also you should note that the Founders disdain for a standing army did not cross over towards a navy.
 
Southern Man said:
Good point, but by that logic we should have Predators and such. So where would you draw the line?
Click to expand...
You currently CAN purchase a predator drone. If you have several million dollars, the land to use it, and someone is willing to sell it to you. There are people who own modern fighter aircraft (Donald Trump and John Travolta are two). They almost never fly them because of the immense expense in doing so. Meaning the cost of ownership is prohibitive to almost anyone in the first place. To those it ISN'T prohibitive to, the law is hardly going to stop someone who wants said item.
 
Rana said:
That was then, people have gotten crazier, remember one in five and just think how many in the military are now on mood enhancing drugs! What if their supply ran out?
Click to expand...

We need guns should their supply run out.
 
Southern Man said:
So you do have a line. I find it unlikely that the US army would use full auto in a confrontation with the citizenry. They didn't in Kent State.
Click to expand...

they had M14s at kent state. those aren't full auto. they did have M16s in L.A., but they weren't loaded. they had M4s and M16s after Katrina, those were full auto, loaded, and used against civilians.
 
Bender Bending Rodriguez said:
You currently CAN purchase a predator drone. If you have several million dollars, the land to use it, and someone is willing to sell it to you. There are people who own modern fighter aircraft (Donald Trump and John Travolta are two). They almost never fly them because of the immense expense in doing so. Meaning the cost of ownership is prohibitive to almost anyone in the first place. To those it ISN'T prohibitive to, the law is hardly going to stop someone who wants said item.
Click to expand...
You mean they are allowed to use them without weapon capability, like having a Tommy with a plugged barrel.
 
Bender Bending Rodriguez said:
Article 1, Section 8 of the United States Constitution clearly states that among congressional powers, they have the authority


This is a letter that allowed privateers (private citizens who owned ships) to capture enemy vessels during a time of war (or peace). How are you going to capture a ship if you do not own any cannons? The practical implication is that the founders not only envisioned the possibility but INTENDED the citizenry to be just as well armed, if not better armed, than the military.

Also you should note that the Founders disdain for a standing army did not cross over towards a navy.
Click to expand...
You just helped make my case. The "letter" gave specific permission. This wasn't a blanket "right". Thanks. :good4u:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top