Federal Judge obliterates anti-2A laws. Upholds the Constitution.

a reply to: superman2012

My post was merely saying that I don't understand why people feel they need guns. That's all.

Individually?

Because grandma can't fight off a 20 year old thug.

Because 120lbs, 19 year old Jenny can't fight off 220 Brock the rapist on his terms.

Because home invasions are often deadly.

Because relying on the mercy of criminals is a good way to not come home to your family.

You're absolutely right it is about fear. The fear that I won't return home from the gas station one night because some thug thought my pocket change was more important than my life. Nor, does he care about my two young kids and my wife who now would have to venture through life without my considerable effort to keep them clothed, housed, and fed.

I defend my life because I value it. I don't care about property. I care about what people are willing to do to me over that property. I care to defend not just my life, but the lives of others, because I'm not the guy who walks by the stabbing victim, I do something.

When you've never had to defend your life it is very easy to dismiss the desire in others to have the most effective tools for that job.

Some would have one believe that cutting the horns off the gazelle would protect the herd from the wolves. It doesn't work that way anywhere in the real world.

originally posted by: Logarock
a reply to: superman2012

The people need guns for the reasons Madison, for one, laid out in the Federalist Papers and then were put down in the main in the 2nd amendment. Are you sure you really know this issue?

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

^^^^
This is what we are discussing, no?

a reply to: superman2012

Just how do you think this country was secured from the grasping, taxing, regulating paws of jolly old England? With GUNS AND PROPER MARKSMANSHIP!!! The RIGHT is spelled out to prevent guvvy from getting too 'grabby' (as in 'steal from me, risk your life')!

a reply to: superman2012

You're going to shoot at a an Apache or a Cobra attack helicopter with an AR-15?

This sentence demonstrates your lack of knowledge on such issues.

As an insurgent, you don't attack the enemy when it is convenient for them. But when it is convenient for you.

You destroy the aircraft on the ground.

You see the equipment that is employed by the military. But you don't see what is required to effectively maintain that equipment.

The Apache helicopter spends 3 hours in maintenance for every 1 hour of flight time. That requires logistics, safe areas to conduct that maintenance, and other considerations.

For instance, no Apaches are gonna go after you in a thunderstorm or in atmospheric icing conditions...

But what do I know. I only ended my service in the army 10 months ago.

originally posted by: projectvxn
a reply to: superman2012

My post was merely saying that I don't understand why people feel they need guns. That's all.

Individually?

Because grandma can't fight off a 20 year old thug.

Because 120lbs, 19 year old Jenny can't fight off 220 Brock the rapist on his terms.

Because home invasions are often deadly.

Because relying on the mercy of criminals is a good way to not come how to your family.

You're absolutely right it is about fear. The fear that I won't return home from the gas station one night because some thug thought my pocket change was more important than my life. Nor, does he care about my two young kids and my wife who now would have to venture through life without my considerable effort to keep them clothed, housed, and fed.

I defend my life because I value it. I don't care about property. I care about what people are willing to do to me over that property. I care to defend not just my life, but the lives of others, because I'm not the guy who walks by the stabbing victim, I do something.

When you've never had to defend your life it is very easy to dismiss the desire in others to have the most effective tools for that job.

Some would have one believe that cutting the horns off the gazelle would protect the herd from the wolves. It doesn't work that way anywhere in the real world.

Seems like it is a societal issue then, and not a gun issue.

I wonder what would happen if they attempted to fix the problem instead of making bandaids available?

You're right though, I have never been in a position (nor anyone I know) where I had to defend my life or any others. I wonder if it is because guns aren't as widely available in Canada, or because of our society?

a reply to: superman2012

Seems like it is a societal issue then, and not a gun issue. I wonder what would happen if they attempted to fix the problem instead of making bandaids available?

It's never been a gun issue.

The government has created most of the problems seen in society by prohibition and other failed ideas like the War on Drugs.

The "gun issue" is exactly that band aid applied to the sucking chest wound that is reality.

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

^^^^
This is what we are discussing, no?



You are not really comfortable with rights vs. what the 'guv' lets you do, are you? Or are you a cleverly disguised troll?

originally posted by: superman2012

originally posted by: projectvxn
a reply to: superman2012

This is one right that I will never understand.

It's a right many people don't understand because Americans have been leading easy and heavily insulated lives from the kind of chaos that is seen around the world.

It's called normalcy bias. It's what causes people to walk around an injured person and not render assistance.

There are thousands of years of philosophical development and understanding that went into the rationale for the second amendment. The founders didn't simply say "we like guns, make it a right".

Further, you've asked if we think we can beat the government in a war. YES is the answer to that.

Take it from me. The government spent a lot of time and money to teach me counterinsurgency and combat tactics, and I'm not even a special troop. Just a Blackhawk crew chief and door gunner. Imagine what they teach EOD techs, SF soldiers, and others.

The military is a cross section of the population, albeit a small one, but many of the same sentiments you find here from people like me are mirrored in the military. At least half would not fight, or even defect to the side of revolutionaries and bring all their toys with them.

Besides, I spent the better part of a year watching the US get muddled down by illiterate savages with beat up AKs and home made explosives in Afghanistan.

An American insurgency would be the deadliest and most sophisticated insurgency ever seen anywhere, ever.

That's where we differ. I don't believe a man, or a group of people, would have much of a chance against the US military. You're going to shoot at a an Apache or a Cobra attack helicopter with an AR-15?

Yes, the military would take many casualties, but the rebellion would take way more.

All they have to do is brand you and your rebel group as domestic terrorists and your neighbors and fellow military personnel would turn against you.

As for the 2nd, I don't understand how a population can get so up in arms (pun intended

) over this, when the country is falling apart. There are far more important issues facing the US (IMO) than the 2nd.

Your points are valid. An answer and reality to this would have to do with the state governments bringing to bear military powers and in reality federal units joining. Self formed citizen based units would have to be formed for the most part in order and would serve as they always have in our several wars at home.

The 2nd amendment, considering the Dems position on it for 3 decades at least and current goings on is in its own right an important issue especially if the country is falling apart. Look at the current disregard for the 1st amendment when the people use it as opposed to when the governments press organ uses it.

a reply to: projectvxn

This sentence demonstrates your lack of knowledge on such issues.

Nope. Just putting it plainly.

As an insurgent, you don't attack the enemy when it is convenient for them. But when it is convenient for you.

Right, but might I ask you, who trained the US army to think like an insurgent? That also works both ways. They will hunt you down.

You destroy the aircraft on the ground.

Think you can get close enough? Try touching a military aircraft when you don't have the proper clearance to get into the base. You sure you know your stuff?

You see the equipment that is employed by the military. But you don't see what is required to effectively maintain that equipment.

Maintenance staff need to have clearance as well to work on the equipment, no?

But what do I know. I only ended my service in the army 10 months ago.

Glad you made it home safe!

originally posted by: Logarock

originally posted by: superman2012

originally posted by: projectvxn
a reply to: superman2012

This is one right that I will never understand.

It's a right many people don't understand because Americans have been leading easy and heavily insulated lives from the kind of chaos that is seen around the world.

It's called normalcy bias. It's what causes people to walk around an injured person and not render assistance.

There are thousands of years of philosophical development and understanding that went into the rationale for the second amendment. The founders didn't simply say "we like guns, make it a right".

Further, you've asked if we think we can beat the government in a war. YES is the answer to that.

Take it from me. The government spent a lot of time and money to teach me counterinsurgency and combat tactics, and I'm not even a special troop. Just a Blackhawk crew chief and door gunner. Imagine what they teach EOD techs, SF soldiers, and others.

The military is a cross section of the population, albeit a small one, but many of the same sentiments you find here from people like me are mirrored in the military. At least half would not fight, or even defect to the side of revolutionaries and bring all their toys with them.

Besides, I spent the better part of a year watching the US get muddled down by illiterate savages with beat up AKs and home made explosives in Afghanistan.

An American insurgency would be the deadliest and most sophisticated insurgency ever seen anywhere, ever.

That's where we differ. I don't believe a man, or a group of people, would have much of a chance against the US military. You're going to shoot at a an Apache or a Cobra attack helicopter with an AR-15?

Yes, the military would take many casualties, but the rebellion would take way more.

All they have to do is brand you and your rebel group as domestic terrorists and your neighbors and fellow military personnel would turn against you.

As for the 2nd, I don't understand how a population can get so up in arms (pun intended

) over this, when the country is falling apart. There are far more important issues facing the US (IMO) than the 2nd.

Your points are valid. An answer and reality to this would have to do with the state governments bringing to bear military powers and in reality federal units joining. Self formed citizen based units would have to be formed for the most part in order and would serve as they always have in our several wars at home.

The 2nd amendment, considering the Dems position on it for 3 decades at least and current goings on is in its own right an important issue especially if the country is falling apart. Look at the current disregard for the 1st amendment when the people use it as opposed to when the governments press organ uses it.

I think we both agree that the government (everywhere) has way too much power and could put it to better use at home.

originally posted by: WAstateMosin

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

^^^^
This is what we are discussing, no?



You are not really comfortable with rights vs. what the 'guv' lets you do, are you? Or are you a cleverly disguised troll?

I'm sorry that I'm failing to understand you. I believe I asked a pretty clean cut and easy to answer question.

originally posted by: projectvxn
a reply to: superman2012

Seems like it is a societal issue then, and not a gun issue. I wonder what would happen if they attempted to fix the problem instead of making bandaids available?

It's never been a gun issue.

The government has created most of the problems seen in society by prohibition and other failed ideas like the War on Drugs.

The "gun issue" is exactly that band aid applied to the sucking chest wound that is reality.

Exactly. The government has completely failed it's own people.

a reply to: superman2012

Think you can get close enough? Try touching a military aircraft when you don't have the proper clearance to get into the base. You sure you know your stuff?

You have no idea how easy it is to get on a military base undetected.

Maintenance staff need to have clearance as well to work on the equipment, no?

Depends on what they are working on. General Aviation mechanics aren't require to have a clearance in standard line units.

SOAR and other sensitive units do require a clearance, but not for the maintenance work.

Nope. Just putting it plainly.

Putting it plainly you have no idea what you're talking about.

I'm not talking about reading field manuals here. I'm talking about practical knowledge and experience.

originally posted by: superman2012

originally posted by: projectvxn
a reply to: superman2012

My post was merely saying that I don't understand why people feel they need guns. That's all.

Individually?

Because grandma can't fight off a 20 year old thug.

Because 120lbs, 19 year old Jenny can't fight off 220 Brock the rapist on his terms.

Because home invasions are often deadly.

Because relying on the mercy of criminals is a good way to not come how to your family.

You're absolutely right it is about fear. The fear that I won't return home from the gas station one night because some thug thought my pocket change was more important than my life. Nor, does he care about my two young kids and my wife who now would have to venture through life without my considerable effort to keep them clothed, housed, and fed.

I defend my life because I value it. I don't care about property. I care about what people are willing to do to me over that property. I care to defend not just my life, but the lives of others, because I'm not the guy who walks by the stabbing victim, I do something.

When you've never had to defend your life it is very easy to dismiss the desire in others to have the most effective tools for that job.

Some would have one believe that cutting the horns off the gazelle would protect the herd from the wolves. It doesn't work that way anywhere in the real world.

You're right though, I have never been in a position (nor anyone I know) where I had to defend my life or any others. I wonder if it is because guns aren't as widely available in Canada, or because of our society?

Our early Colonial governments and territories had grown very independent in their own right and were very hostile to strong central government and the 2nd was born out of consideration for giving the states and individuals the FEDERAL total right to keep and bear as a tool to weaken the central government by not allowing a monopoly of arms and armies.

a reply to: superman2012

Self Defense is a Human Right , it Supercedes any Law Man might try to Impose Against it . I was Born , I Live , I Breathe , and No One has a Right to Take that away from Me .

originally posted by: Zanti Misfit
a reply to: superman2012

Self Defense is a Human Right , it Supercedes any Law Man might try to Impose Against it . I was Born , I Live , I Breathe , and No One has a Right to Take that away from Me .

I don't think I've ever said differently. I can't carry a handgun, but that wouldn't stop me from defending myself or my family.

originally posted by: Logarock

originally posted by: superman2012

originally posted by: projectvxn
a reply to: superman2012

My post was merely saying that I don't understand why people feel they need guns. That's all.

Individually?

Because grandma can't fight off a 20 year old thug.

Because 120lbs, 19 year old Jenny can't fight off 220 Brock the rapist on his terms.

Because home invasions are often deadly.

Because relying on the mercy of criminals is a good way to not come how to your family.

You're absolutely right it is about fear. The fear that I won't return home from the gas station one night because some thug thought my pocket change was more important than my life. Nor, does he care about my two young kids and my wife who now would have to venture through life without my considerable effort to keep them clothed, housed, and fed.

I defend my life because I value it. I don't care about property. I care about what people are willing to do to me over that property. I care to defend not just my life, but the lives of others, because I'm not the guy who walks by the stabbing victim, I do something.

When you've never had to defend your life it is very easy to dismiss the desire in others to have the most effective tools for that job.

Some would have one believe that cutting the horns off the gazelle would protect the herd from the wolves. It doesn't work that way anywhere in the real world.

You're right though, I have never been in a position (nor anyone I know) where I had to defend my life or any others. I wonder if it is because guns aren't as widely available in Canada, or because of our society?

Our early Colonial governments and territories had grown very independent in their own right and were very hostile to strong central government and the 2nd was born out of consideration for giving the states and individuals the FEDERAL total right to keep and bear as a tool to weaken the central government by not allowing a monopoly of arms and armies.

They do have a monopoly on some arms. I think we both can agree that the government is not weakened by the 2nd.

a reply to: superman2012

Nope. You are either trolling or not sufficiently intelligent to understand what you have been informed about. Go back to school. I do not have the time or inclination to educate you. I'm outta here!

originally posted by: WAstateMosin
a reply to: superman2012

Nope. You are either trolling or not sufficiently intelligent to understand what you have been informed about. Go back to school. I do not have the time or inclination to educate you. I'm outta here!

Thought so. Thanks for being so nice about it and not even attempting an argument or to make yourself understood.

a reply to: superman2012

I can't carry a handgun, but that wouldn't stop me from defending myself or my family.

Nor should it.

I spent a good chunk of my life learning hand to hand skills. Why? To better my chances of winning a fight or effectively getting away from an attacker.

I carry a gun for the exact same reason. I also carry pepper spray because the use of a firearm isn't always an appropriate use of force.

Guns are tools. They better my chances of surviving a deadly force encounter. I will hang on to that right.