Opinions/Discussions on Guns

[IrishinSyria]

Originally Posted by SoCal_NDfan

I would say pretty much the same.

However problems seem to come up with what we (by "we" I mean law abiding gun owners) are defending ourselves against.

Is it criminals or a tyrannical gov't? If it's the first, then IMO most people would be in favor of the max clip law and assault rifle ban. But if it's the second, that's when things get very murky.

The government owns billions and billions of dollars worth of planes, tanks, submarines, warships, artillery, machine guns, assault weapons, etc... believe me when I say a few assault rifles aren't going to do sh or it against a government in the "Red Dawn but versus America*" fantasy.


*What's a "Red Dawn but versus America" fantasy, you ask? It's the conservative man's alternative to the stock "Zombie Apocalypse" fantasy, where the well-prepared man uses his knowledge of the terrain, some canned food, and his personal store of ARs to take on an over-reaching liberal government. Been a favorite amongst conservatives ever since the Clinton years, at least.

[BobD]

It's a waste of time to debate this issue.

What's the one thing all great empires throughout history have in common? They've all eventually failed, usually because they didn't notice one or more of their perceived strengths had become their greatest weakness.

[SoCal_NDfan]

Originally Posted by IrishinSyria

The government owns billions and billions of dollars worth of planes, tanks, submarines, warships, artillery, machine guns, assault weapons, etc... believe me when I say a few assault rifles aren't going to do sh or it against a government in the "Red Dawn but versus America*" fantasy.


*What's a "Red Dawn but versus America" fantasy, you ask? It's the conservative man's alternative to the stock "Zombie Apocalypse" fantasy, where the well-prepared man uses his knowledge of the terrain, some canned food, and his personal store of ARs to take on an over-reaching liberal government. Been a favorite amongst conservatives ever since the Clinton years, at least.

That's exactly what I said in another thread, can't remember which one though.

Nevertheless are you or anyone else for that matter going to convince people who believe that that they are wrong?

The liberal government is heading towards tyranny argument, 2nd amendment argument etc are what I think make this "murky".

[Domina Nostra]

Originally Posted by IrishinSyria

The government owns billions and billions of dollars worth of planes, tanks, submarines, warships, artillery, machine guns, assault weapons, etc... believe me when I say a few assault rifles aren't going to do sh or it against a government in the "Red Dawn but versus America*" fantasy.


*What's a "Red Dawn but versus America" fantasy, you ask? It's the conservative man's alternative to the stock "Zombie Apocalypse" fantasy, where the well-prepared man uses his knowledge of the terrain, some canned food, and his personal store of ARs to take on an over-reaching liberal government. Been a favorite amongst conservatives ever since the Clinton years, at least.

I am not trying to argue here, so don't find an argument.

I am not sure if anyone thought that a bunch of farmer's with muskets were going to be able to take on the whole British army either. And I am pretty certain the right to bear arms did not protect the right for private citizens to own canons, warships, etc. The right just does not deal with the ability to withstand a frontal assault from a standing army.

The point of the right was always that a government does not have the right to prevent free men from defending themselves. This was one of the rights that free Birtish men assumed to be theirs by nature and custom. That right has and had practical limits, but then so does the government's right to limit self-defense.

[OutintheBend]

Originally Posted by IrishinSyria

The government owns billions and billions of dollars worth of planes, tanks, submarines, warships, artillery, machine guns, assault weapons, etc... believe me when I say a few assault rifles aren't going to do sh or it against a government in the "Red Dawn but versus America*" fantasy.


*What's a "Red Dawn but versus America" fantasy, you ask? It's the conservative man's alternative to the stock "Zombie Apocalypse" fantasy, where the well-prepared man uses his knowledge of the terrain, some canned food, and his personal store of ARs to take on an over-reaching liberal government. Been a favorite amongst conservatives ever since the Clinton years, at least.

Why should the effectiveness matter?

[woolybug25]

Originally Posted by Domina Nostra

That right has and had practical limits, but then so does the government's right to limit self-defense.

I say, yes.

Would you be ok with your neighbor owning biological warfare materials? What about him rigging his property with land mines? What if they felt that these were appropriate measures to protect themselves?

These are two exaggerated examples, but they prove the point that everyone has their personal limit on what they deem to be over the line of "self-defense". Assault Rifles and automatic weapons aren't on the same plane as the examples above, but I think its fair to have a national conversation on how to properly manage these rights in order to find a compromise between rights to bare arms and the unalienable right of Life, Liberty and Happiness that those arms can take away from the rest of us. Both are guaranteed by the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence (respectively), but we find ourselves in days where they are conflicting with each other.

[General Colon Bowel]

This has been making the rounds on facebook today. I'm not saying I agree or disagree with it. I'm just posting it as a conversation piece.
The Anarchist Soccer Mom: Thinking the Unthinkable