Time to join the NRA....

[Templar]

Originally Posted by MteK

The topics in these discussion seem to float back and forth across two distinct points and cloud the argument. First is the right to own weapons. The argument presented goes to the heart of that. I don't argue with the fact that this is the current law of the land.

The second is the ability of the government to control or limit what type of weaponry you can have. Well the law is pretty clear here. For example you can't own a grenade or an anti-tank missile, or a machine gun without special permitting. In California you can't own a clip that holds more then 10 rounds. None of this have been overturned by the SCOTUS, so it's clear the government can have a say.

What's being proposed at the Federal level is a ban on high capacity clips. You can argue your rational for why we should or shouldn't do this, but you can't say that it's a constitutional right to own one.

My point is simple, I do not think there is a rational reason for owning high capacity clips or semi-automatic rifles without fixed magazines and that no weapon should be able to hold more the 10 rounds at a time. This is based on my reasoning that weapons should be used for personal defense or hunting, both of which can be done effectively with those restrictions in place.

You are certainly entitled to your opinion, especially one based on logical points as you have displayed.

While I don't agree completely, I'm not going to berate you for making a point. Extremely high capacity clips is one thing, but my Savage .22 is a semi-auto, small magazine-fed (10 round) rifle. I must say, it is extremely efficient while small game hunting. I likely wouldn't take nearly as many squirrels or what-have-you without it being the way it is, but I would still snag a few.

[sjk9671]

Originally Posted by MteK

The topics in these discussion seem to float back and forth across two distinct points and cloud the argument. First is the right to own weapons. The argument presented goes to the heart of that. I don't argue with the fact that this is the current law of the land.

The second is the ability of the government to control or limit what type of weaponry you can have. Well the law is pretty clear here. For example you can't own a grenade or an anti-tank missile, or a machine gun without special permitting. In California you can't own a clip that holds more then 10 rounds. None of this have been overturned by the SCOTUS, so it's clear the government can have a say.

What's being proposed at the Federal level is a ban on high capacity clips. You can argue your rational for why we should or shouldn't do this, but you can't say that it's a constitutional right to own one.

My point is simple, I do not think there is a rational reason for owning high capacity clips or semi-automatic rifles without fixed magazines and that no weapon should be able to hold more the 10 rounds at a time. This is based on my reasoning that weapons should be used for personal defense or hunting, both of which can be done effectively with those restrictions in place.

You are leaving out the purpose of the public being armed enough to overthrow a tyrannical government.

Just as we did in the 1700's

[carve]

Originally Posted by MteK

My point is simple, I do not think there is a rational reason for owning high capacity clips or semi-automatic rifles without fixed magazines and that no weapon should be able to hold more the 10 rounds at a time. This is based on my reasoning that weapons should be used for personal defense or hunting, both of which can be done effectively with those restrictions in place.

Our right to bear arms has nothing to do with hunting, and hunting regs already limit magazines to 4+1

Would limiting magazine capacity make the arms less suitable for armed conflict? If so, it's an infringement. I don't even think grenades, mines and RPG's should be banned without an amendment as they're all infantry arms, and I'm sure most people would be behind an amendment like that.

BTW- are you sure you're prior military? You seem to not know the difference between a magazine and a clip. Magazines are the part of the weapon that are boxes to holds the cartridges until they're chambered. Clips are little metal strips that hold bullets in a neat little row to make magazines faster to load. They might exist, but I'm unaware of any clips that hold over 10 round. On a few rifles, such as the M1 Garande, the clip stays inside the magazine rather than having the rounds stripped off.

[Fresh Face]

no one is getting my Big O reference. Big O is a robot...

[MisterSkiMask]

Originally Posted by Fresh Face

no one is getting my Big O reference. Big O is a robot...

[JasonCSU]

Originally Posted by sjk9671

You are leaving out the purpose of the public being armed enough to overthrow a tyrannical government.

Just as we did in the 1700's

As some posters have already eluded to, how exactly would we overthrow a tyrannical government in the modern age? When it happened in the 1700s, the militia had the same type of weapons as the army they were fighting against. Even if a group of people decided to try and overthrow the government with their stockpile of guns and ammunition, the US military and National Guard would put a quick end to it. How do they expect to compete against trained soldiers, tanks, naval and air support? Such a group determined to overthrow the government wouldn't stand a chance against the modern military. The only way it would even be remotely feasible is if a large portion of the active military defected to the opposing group, and brought some of that military might and equipment with them. I don't see such a scenario panning out though.

[kingofthedemo]

Originally Posted by JasonCSU

As some posters have already eluded to, how exactly would we overthrow a tyrannical government in the modern age? When it happened in the 1700s, the militia had the same type of weapons as the army they were fighting against. Even if a group of people decided to try and overthrow the government with their stockpile of guns and ammunition, the US military and National Guard would put a quick end to it. How do they expect to compete against trained soldiers, tanks, naval and air support? Such a group determined to overthrow the government wouldn't stand a chance against the modern military. The only way it would even be remotely feasible is if a large portion of the active military defected to the opposing group, and brought some of that military might and equipment with them. I don't see such a scenario panning out though.

If the military engaged in an all out war with civilians using air support etc, it would destroy the country. I think the hypothetical point is this- a government could never impose horrible action against it's own people if the vast majority of them are armed, we are talking about an army of 200 (armed) million vs 2 million active military, again the point is this- the government could never have the power to do something truly atrocious like a holocaust situation, if there would be a resistance that strong, sure the government could bomb the hell out of it's own country but what would that accomplish?

I admit the aformentioned is an extreme ''what if'' scenario that I personally don't think would ever happen.

[MteK]

Originally Posted by carve

Our right to bear arms has nothing to do with hunting, and hunting regs already limit magazines to 4+1

Would limiting magazine capacity make the arms less suitable for armed conflict? If so, it's an infringement. I don't even think grenades, mines and RPG's should be banned without an amendment as they're all infantry arms, and I'm sure most people would be behind an amendment like that.

BTW- are you sure you're prior military? You seem to not know the difference between a magazine and a clip. Magazines are the part of the weapon that are boxes to holds the cartridges until they're chambered. Clips are little metal strips that hold bullets in a neat little row to make magazines faster to load. They might exist, but I'm unaware of any clips that hold over 10 round. On a few rifles, such as the M1 Garande, the clip stays inside the magazine rather than having the rounds stripped off.

Why is it you have to resort to put downs? Typically that's what someone does when they've run out of valid points to make. Mag, clip, whatever. For what it's worth, 8 years USMC and yes, a CAR to go with my SEAS, MUC and ND medals.

[MteK]

Originally Posted by Templar

You are certainly entitled to your opinion, especially one based on logical points as you have displayed.

While I don't agree completely, I'm not going to berate you for making a point. Extremely high capacity clips is one thing, but my Savage .22 is a semi-auto, small magazine-fed (10 round) rifle. I must say, it is extremely efficient while small game hunting. I likely wouldn't take nearly as many squirrels or what-have-you without it being the way it is, but I would still snag a few.

Thank you. You make a valid point also.

[carve]

Originally Posted by JasonCSU

As some posters have already eluded to, how exactly would we overthrow a tyrannical government in the modern age? When it happened in the 1700s, the militia had the same type of weapons as the army they were fighting against. Even if a group of people decided to try and overthrow the government with their stockpile of guns and ammunition, the US military and National Guard would put a quick end to it. How do they expect to compete against trained soldiers, tanks, naval and air support? Such a group determined to overthrow the government wouldn't stand a chance against the modern military. The only way it would even be remotely feasible is if a large portion of the active military defected to the opposing group, and brought some of that military might and equipment with them. I don't see such a scenario panning out though.

The same way it primarily happened the first time: Geurilla warfare. Those tactics were a handful for our military in Iraq, where we had fewer qualms about bombing buildings and running people off the road and the population had far fewer weapons. Those tactics wouldn't be acceptable here.

MteK: Mags vs. clips wasn't an insult- it's pointing out a fact. What part was insulting? It's just not something you generally here someone with any firearms experience say. If it bothered you so much you could've always...you know...focused on the actual points I'm making instead of focusing your entire reply on the aside.

[MP0WER]

The point of having weapons isn't in case we need overthrow the government. Hell, that wouldn't be a difficult task for hand full of motivated people. There are only some 540 odd people who control this country.

The public keeping weapons is to ensure the government doesn't see us a subjects. Without these weapons, what possible resistance would the government run into when instituting laws that eventually turn this country into a police state?

I'm not saying i believe that will happen, but it's not outside the realm of possibility. However, I'm sure that many societies never in a million years thought their government would make the decisions they did in the past. But their governments did, and millions have died for it.

[JasonCSU]

Originally Posted by kingofthedemo

If the military engaged in an all out war with civilians using air support etc, it would destroy the country. I think the hypothetical point is this- a government could never impose horrible action against it's own people if the vast majority of them are armed, we are talking about an army of 200 (armed) million vs 2 million active military, again the point is this- the government could never have the power to do something truly atrocious like a holocaust situation, if there would be a resistance that strong, sure the government could bomb the hell out of it's own country but what would that accomplish?

I admit the aformentioned is an extreme ''what if'' scenario that I personally don't think would ever happen.

I agree with the hypothetical point, and also agree that a unlikely scenario with 200 million armed citizens versus the government/military would not end well. It absolutely made sense when it was written, as at that time period it was much more possible for the people to overthrow a tyrannical government. In the event of an unlikely scenario, I just don't see how it would be possible for the people in this age to overthrow the government with the might and technology of the military that they would have to face.

[MP0WER]

Originally Posted by JasonCSU

I agree with the hypothetical point, and also agree that a unlikely scenario with 200 million armed citizens versus the government/military would not end well. It absolutely made sense when it was written, as at that time period it was much more possbile for the people to overthrow a tyranical government. In the event of an unlikely scenario, I just don't see how it would be possible for the people in this age to overthrow the government with the might and technology of the military that they would have to face.

Overthrowing the government doesn't mean you have to defeat the armed services. You just have to oust the people in control.

[MisterSkiMask]

Originally Posted by JasonCSU

I agree with the hypothetical point, and also agree that a unlikely scenario with 200 million armed citizens versus the government/military would not end well. It absolutely made sense when it was written, as at that time period it was much more possbile for the people to overthrow a tyranical government. In the event of an unlikely scenario, I just don't see how it would be possible for the people in this age to overthrow the government with the might and technology of the military that they would have to face.

keep in mind that the military is made up of 'the people' if sh*t was going that bad I bet many of them would turn against the govt too.

I also don't think any of that will happen.

[JasonCSU]

Originally Posted by carve

The same way it primarily happened the first time: Geurilla warfare. Those tactics were a handful for our military in Iraq, where we had fewer qualms about bombing buildings and running people off the road and the population had far fewer weapons. Those tactics wouldn't be acceptable here.

MteK: Mags vs. clips wasn't an insult- it's pointing out a fact. What part was insulting? It's just not something you generally here someone with any firearms experience say. If it bothered you so much you could've always...you know...focused on the actual points I'm making instead of focusing your entire reply on the aside.

Yes, geurrilla warfare tactics were key parts of winning the Revolutionary War, but that was a very different time. I just don't see how it would happen in our modern society, with untrained citizens having to face our military if such a revolt were to occur. It would be different than the Iraq example, as it would be an uprising within our homeland.

[JasonCSU]

Originally Posted by MisterSkiMask

keep in mind that the military is made up of 'the people' if sh*t was going that bad I bet many of them would turn against the govt too.

I also don't think any of that will happen.

I agree, many probably would turn if it were a scenario of all 'the people' against the government. I suppose I was thinking along the lines of a smaller group of people deciding to revolt, not the entire population. Say 100,000 people decided they wanted to revolt because they thought our government was tyrannical, how exactly would they have a chance?

[JasonCSU]

Originally Posted by MP0WER

Overthrowing the government doesn't mean you have to defeat the armed services. You just have to oust the people in control.

While that is technically true, wouldn't the armed services be under control of those in power while also protecting them? If it were a case of the entire population against the government, then as stated before there would probably be many in the armed services on the side of the people. In the example of a smaller group starting a revolt to overthrow the government, I imagine they would have to get through the armed services first in order to oust those in control.

[OldArmy]

Originally Posted by JasonCSU

While that is technically true, wouldn't the armed services be under control of those in power while also protecting them? If it were a case of the entire population against the government, then as stated before there would probably be many in the armed services on the side of the people. In the example of a smaller group starting a revolt to overthrow the government, I imagine they would have to get through the armed services first in order to oust those in control.

Not so hard or rather not impossible. Using asymmetric warfare techniques is not new but it does work. All you have to do is make service in government, military, law enforcement dangerous enough to effect willingness to serve. Things will start breaking down shortly thereafter. Any revolutionary that is dumb enough to engage in a stand up fight with trained authority will of course, lose. But one can smile and sell the authority figure a coffee in the daytime and shoot him at night. We've had that game played on us a bazillion times and it's effective.

[kingofthedemo]

Originally Posted by JasonCSU

I agree with the hypothetical point, and also agree that a unlikely scenario with 200 million armed citizens versus the government/military would not end well. It absolutely made sense when it was written, as at that time period it was much more possible for the people to overthrow a tyrannical government. In the event of an unlikely scenario, I just don't see how it would be possible for the people in this age to overthrow the government with the might and technology of the military that they would have to face.

It's really pretty simple, 200 million people against the government that are completely unarmed would simply be sheep for the slaughter, yet 200 million armed citizens could cause mass casualties and wreak havoc if needed, we are talking about 200 million armed people here! I don't care what the disparities are with equipment the civilian army would outnumber the US army by one hundred million to 1, think about it, with those numbers, equipment can be captured.

The first thing Hitler did before he initiated the Holocaust was ban guns, he didn't want the Jews to have a chance to shoot at the gestapo as their family's were being loaded on trains destined for concentration camps. Imagine if you were one of them, imagine how many gestapo would have been shot down by the Jews if they all would have been armed, would they have stopped the Holocaust, most likely not, but they would have taken a great deal of enemy forces down with them, and saved many. Gun control isn't about guns, it's about control!

''The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to permit the conquered Eastern peoples to have arms. History teaches that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by doing so.”
― Adolf Hitler


Of course to clarify all of the aforementioned is purely hypothetical conjecture, and I don't think we will have to worry about a situation like that in our life times at least.

[MP0WER]

Originally Posted by JasonCSU

I agree, many probably would turn if it were a scenario of all 'the people' against the government. I suppose I was thinking along the lines of a smaller group of people deciding to revolt, not the entire population. Say 100,000 people decided they wanted to revolt because they thought our government was tyrannical, how exactly would they have a chance?

100,000 people who have decided to revolt would undoubtedly include ex or current military personnel. A group this size would also have attracted the attention of our NSA. It wouldn't be outside the realm of possibility that a few high ranking politicians would even secretly be a part of this group. A group like this, motivated, connected, equipped, would likely be done with eliminating the powers at be before the military knew anything was going on. With this many people you could have a coordinated strike making it over before anyone knows about it. Before you think this only happens in the movies, remember that a much smaller, less informed, yet highly motivated group of people coordinated a strike similar to this about 12 years ago.

Originally Posted by JasonCSU

While that is technically true, wouldn't the armed services be under control of those in power while also protecting them? If it were a case of the entire population against the government, then as stated before there would probably be many in the armed services on the side of the people. In the example of a smaller group starting a revolt to overthrow the government, I imagine they would have to get through the armed services first in order to oust those in control.

Speak with a hand full of enlisted service men and women. From my experience, most of them are rather disgruntled with their commander in chief. (and not just this one, they didn't care for their last CIF either)

[carve]

Originally Posted by JasonCSU

While that is technically true, wouldn't the armed services be under control of those in power while also protecting them? If it were a case of the entire population against the government, then as stated before there would probably be many in the armed services on the side of the people. In the example of a smaller group starting a revolt to overthrow the government, I imagine they would have to get through the armed services first in order to oust those in control.

Soldiers swear an oath to protect and defend the constitution- not the government. Enlisted also swear to obey the orders of the officers appointed over them, but officers don't take that oath.

[carve]

Originally Posted by kingofthedemo

Imagine if you were one of them, imagine how many gestapo would have been shot down by the Jews if they all would have been armed, would they have stopped the Holocaust, most likely not, but they would have taken a great deal of enemy forces down with them, and saved many. Gun control isn't about guns, it's about control!

More to the point, imagine how much less popular of a job "jew hunter" would've been if every 3rd door knock resulted in a firefight against someone who has nothing to lose. Those picked for that unfortunate task would definitely tend to look the other way.