“We need automatic guns so to defend against the military. ” - What???

"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined.... The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun."
- Patrick Henry

"This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty.... The right of self defense is the first law of nature: in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Wherever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction."
- St. George Tucker

"What, Sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty .... Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins."
- Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts

People go on all about this right bear arms, but what would people actually do if the US government decided to suppress the populace? Do you really think the citizens would all band to together to fight back, even though they'd be massively out gunned? Would they fight against a trained army, having no combat experience themselves? Going down to the range and popping a few bullets in to a target isn't the same as being involved in a running battle with highly trained troops. This isn't "Call of Duty".

When ISIS recently started taking over towns and cities in Iraq, what did most of the Iraqi troops do? Yea, they all ditched their gear and ran away. They heavily out gunned and out numbered the ISIS fighters, but they were not battle hardened. If push came to shove, the exact same thing would happen in the US. And there is no shame in that.

It's a nice idea having guns and the illusion of the ability to resist a totalitarian government if necessary, but the reality is few people would have the stomach for a fire fight with a highly trained army that had all the latest weapon technology, armour and vehicles.

And the ridiculous idea that to solve gun crime is for more people to be armed is totally nuts. The American people prove on a daily basis that they can't be trusted with high powered weaponry, the culture that has developed over there is not suited to it. Other countries where guns are legal seem to get by without hundreds, if not thousands of incidents of gun crime a day, unlike the US.

IMO the real reason, even though the majority won't admit it to themselves is that Americans just like to shoot guns. And maybe it makes them feel a bit more secure, while in reality, paradoxically, lots of people having guns makes day to day life much more dangerous for everyone.

Happy hunting!

i think the founders would be imprisoned or at least interviewed by the FBI if they were alive today and propounded their point of view about arms resistance and tyrannical governments.

originally posted by: KudosMudos
People go on all about this right bear arms, but what would people actually do if the US government decided to suppress the populace? Do you really think the citizens would all band to together to fight back, even though they'd be massively out gunned? Would they fight against a trained army, having no combat experience themselves? Going down to the range and popping a few bullets in to a target isn't the same as being involved in a running battle with highly trained troops. This isn't "Call of Duty".

When ISIS recently started taking over towns and cities in Iraq, what did most of the Iraqi troops do? Yea, they all ditched their gear and ran away. They heavily out gunned and out numbered the ISIS fighters, but they were not battle hardened. If push came to shove, the exact same thing would happen in the US. And there is no shame in that.

It's a nice idea having guns and the illusion of the ability to resist a totalitarian government if necessary, but the reality is few people would have the stomach for a fire fight with a highly trained army that had all the latest weapon technology, armour and vehicles.

And the ridiculous idea that to solve gun crime is for more people to be armed is totally nuts. The American people prove on a daily basis that they can't be trusted with high powered weaponry, the culture that has developed over there is not suited to it. Other countries where guns are legal seem to get by without hundreds, if not thousands of incidents of gun crime a day, unlike the US.

IMO the real reason, even though the majority won't admit it to themselves is that Americans just like to shoot guns. And maybe it makes them feel a bit more secure, while in reality, paradoxically, lots of people having guns makes day to day life much more dangerous for everyone.

Happy hunting!

your view of what the odds would be is irrelevant to the fact that the founders said what they said and believed what they believed and codified it in the constitution.

a reply to: stormbringer1701

When the founders came up with the constitution the weapon technology was primitive, so people would actually be able to fight back to a degree, they could defend themselves. The ability to go on a mass murdering rampage wasn't so easy. It's pretty out dated, that second amendment.

Civilisation has come along way since those days. The future is to coexist peacefully, but that will never happen while armed to the teeth.

originally posted by: KudosMudos
a reply to: stormbringer1701

When the founders came up with the constitution the weapon technology was primitive, so people would actually be able to fight back to a degree, they could defend themselves. The ability to go on a mass murdering rampage wasn't so easy. It's pretty out dated, that second amendment.

Civilisation has come along way since those days. The future is to coexist peacefully, but that will never happen while armed to the teeth.

again it's irrelevant that if the full force of the govt came against the citizens in a conventional war they would destroy the citizens. what would they then rule. what ensures that the army which are the sons and daughters of the citizens would kill thier mothers, fathers, frends, brothers and sisters, and fellow americans? the fact is a well armed citizenry could still bring the government to it's knees even as it stands. but until there is no other recourse any talk of initiating such a conflict is to entertain madness and criminality. that being said do not believe that because the army has all these advanced instruments of war that they would inevitably win time and again this has been shown not to be the case. how many governments have to fall to thier citizens to destroy this argument about this. 5 divisions of the iraqi army simply quit fighting or switched sides in the current conflict. what happened in eastern europe during the collapse of communism?

originally posted by: KudosMudos
People go on all about this right bear arms, but what would people actually do if the US government decided to suppress the populace? Do you really think the citizens would all band to together to fight back, even though they'd be massively out gunned? Would they fight against a trained army, having no combat experience themselves? Going down to the range and popping a few bullets in to a target isn't the same as being involved in a running battle with highly trained troops. This isn't "Call of Duty".

When ISIS recently started taking over towns and cities in Iraq, what did most of the Iraqi troops do? Yea, they all ditched their gear and ran away. They heavily out gunned and out numbered the ISIS fighters, but they were not battle hardened. If push came to shove, the exact same thing would happen in the US. And there is no shame in that.

It's a nice idea having guns and the illusion of the ability to resist a totalitarian government if necessary, but the reality is few people would have the stomach for a fire fight with a highly trained army that had all the latest weapon technology, armour and vehicles.

And the ridiculous idea that to solve gun crime is for more people to be armed is totally nuts. The American people prove on a daily basis that they can't be trusted with high powered weaponry, the culture that has developed over there is not suited to it. Other countries where guns are legal seem to get by without hundreds, if not thousands of incidents of gun crime a day, unlike the US.

IMO the real reason, even though the majority won't admit it to themselves is that Americans just like to shoot guns. And maybe it makes them feel a bit more secure, while in reality, paradoxically, lots of people having guns makes day to day life much more dangerous for everyone.

Happy hunting!

There are WAAAYYYYY more veterans in the U.S. than any possible military and law enforcement combined.The much vaunted by you,military can`t seem to contain an insurrection in afghanistan by goat herders with man portable weapons only.They have no armor,no Air Force,no Navy and no formal logistics,yet you believe the military could contain an insurrection here?Dream on....

originally posted by: KudosMudos
People go on all about this right bear arms, but what would people actually do if the US government decided to suppress the populace? Do you really think the citizens would all band to together to fight back

They have before - what makes you think they won't again?

you think the founding fathers wouldn't have written the 2nd Ammendment if they had the foresight to know that the technology was going to evolve?

If they saw the craziness of our society and our gun lunatics they would definitely rewrite the second amendment.
Most likely they would say something like "citizens in good standing will not have the right to bear arms infringed".

The founding fathers were intellectuals and gentlemen- they would absolutely hate today's gun worshipers.

"Only the dead have seen the end of war."

attributed to plato but probably orginated by George Santayana.

remember the crooked town that the war vets of world war two had to liberate by force of arms?

the battle of Athens

en.wikipedia.org...(1946)

originally posted by: CB328

you think the founding fathers wouldn't have written the 2nd Ammendment if they had the foresight to know that the technology was going to evolve?

If they saw the craziness of our society and our gun lunatics they would definitely rewrite the second amendment.
Most likely they would say something like "citizens in good standing will not have the right to bear arms infringed".

The founding fathers were intellectuals and gentlemen- they would absolutely hate today's gun worshipers.

Riiiigggghhhhhtttt!You can go back in time and ask them what the think and what they believe.You must be a prophet!
How very arrogant.

a reply to: swanne

They would have to drop alot of nukes and guess what that would just piss us off even more.

If you really think that an organized military will be scared by your machine guns, then I’m sorry but you live in a fairy tale.

Uh yeah, who wouldn't be scared of a machine gun? 50% of the military would come and fight on the citizen's side so it's not like we would be alone, hell maybe 70% or more. Their plan would never to be start a war with their citizens, you can sit here and say oh they got bombs they would win all day...doesn't matter because they would lose and they know that or like you said they WOULD OF ALREADY DONE IT. Ignorance of this thread is funny.

battle of Athens Corrupt town liberated by returned world war vets under arms.

en.wikipedia.org...(1946)

a reply to: starheart

The only insane thing I am seeing when reading your post is your method of logic and reasoning. That is quite insane, misrepresentative, inaccurate, and very delusional. In fact, I can't find anything in this post you made with all of your ideas about what an AK-47 is, does, has, etc, that even makes any sense at all!
And this is why you are so confused and have this high anxiety about guns in the first place. (Everything you have said thus far shows you just are in the wrong business, and should either do more learning, or get a new hobby, and just forget about guns. Maybe take up knitting.

My recommendations would be to do a LOT more reading about these weapons and what they can even do, and start all over again.

originally posted by: starheart
a reply to: Sunwolf

...as for the automatic gun, the AK-47 is a selective mode, meaning you can set it to a semi-automatic action, or an automatic action. Unless 2010 Wikipedia is wrong on that part too... *sarcastic*

Yes and no. Wikipedia, as is so often the case, simply doesn't tell the whole story. There are versions of both the AK47 and the AR15 (the famous scary "ASSAULT WEAPON!!!" so beloved of the media) that are NOT select fire. In fact, there are even versions of both guns that are legal for civilians to own in the UK.

Wikipedia only gets you part of the way.

Also, with all respect to your family member, military service does not automatically equate to firearms expert, just like being a policeman does not automatically equate to expert marksman.

originally posted by: KudosMudos


When ISIS recently started taking over towns and cities in Iraq, what did most of the Iraqi troops do? Yea, they all ditched their gear and ran away. They heavily out gunned and out numbered the ISIS fighters, but they were not battle hardened. If push came to shove, the exact same thing would happen in the US. And there is no shame in that.

This is a very good example. ISIS rolled over the Iraqi army... but it's hitting a brick wall as it moves into territories where the locals have formed armed militias and prepared to fight for their lives. It's not steamrolling its way through Iraq unopposed. If they didn't have access to those weapons - and ISIS are equipped with high level contemporary military equipment looted from US-supplied soliders and neighbouring countries who support them - they would be in a very bad state right now.

originally posted by: starheart



And by treating pacifist of cowards, you are insulting Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr., who brought the independence of India, and the freedom of African American people. Have at least some respect, if you can't have common sense.

Now you are just a flat out liar.
MLK and Gandhi were not pacifists.
Both stated there is an inherent human nature to self defense, and would respond accordingly.

There is a huge difference between non-violent protests and being a pacifist.

And yes, ,pacifists are cowards.

originally posted by: starheart
There's just no sense with you guys. You are bent on one fear (rather, two) and you will do anything to stop that fear from happening. In my entire family, from parents to great-grandparents, there haven't been one burglary/murder/raping. In all the sectors we've lived in, and in a range of 10-20 kilometre of those sectors, no such things ever happen. You guys talk about it as if it's something happening every single day, where in fact, it is not. And the few that does, I am pretty sure you don't need an assault rifle with a magazine of 20 rounds, which shoot 600 rounds per minutes. A simple manual Remington with 5 rounds can do the trick. And you certainly don't need a tank or a bazooka to defend your family or yourself against a burglar/rapist.

SO, anecdotal experiences of a NON US citizen should drive US law?
Let me know when you are in charge of the US, then maybe we will chat.

originally posted by: starheart
That is all the OP was trying to explain and prevent. This craze of having an assault rifle, or a tank, or a bazooka, just because the 2nd Amendment permits it, is completely insane. Since we're there, do you also want a F-22 Raptor, or a Predator drone equipped with Hellfire missiles? Because "the 2nd Amendment would allow you to have one", according to you guys.

WE, the US citizen, have the right to Bear Arms.
I am not sorry about that right.
We can also own Fighter Jets, Tanks and Drones.

originally posted by: swanne

What?? As if defence can't have many forms. This is what you don't even realize. You only see one form of defence: bullets. I sincerely pity you. I see at least three other forms of defence but hey, why would you care.

When on God's Green Earth did I saw that defense is only by the end of the gun???
So, not only do you talk down to other countries and their citizens, now you put words in peoples mouths.
Keep you pity, I bet you will need it later in life for yourself.
Here is the difference between you and I .
I will take and use any means necessary to defend myself.
You will hamstring yourself to conform to what you think the world should be.

originally posted by: swanne
The worst is, you are truly convinced that this is the only way to go about it. Man will the Guns Corporations make money.

So, you try to appeal to your argument by stating a company is going to make money??
Ummm, okay then.

originally posted by: swanne
I dare you to show me one time in the whole of History where a gun fight led to an utopia.

Show me where Utopia does exist first.

I guess laying down and being ruled brings that for some.

originally posted by: swanne
You live in constant fear of a bogeyman, so you live your life with this crutch (for some it's drugs, for others it's alcohol, and for more and more people it's guns), and I am truly sorry that you can't feel secure without weapons in your life. Maybe it's time you check a psychoanalyst for paranoia.

Like your pity, you should keep your "sorry" for yourself.
And when did I state I live in constant fear?

Man, you Progressives sure do assume a lot, and try to prove your point with semantics and the Alinsky method.