Why Do You Need an AR or AK?

Originally posted by Alfie1
reply to post by murphy22

 

I don't think the 2nd Amendment is anything to do with hunting or opposing the government with arms. The Amendment says nothing about either.

I have been asking therefore why some people claim it supports armed resistance but I haven't got anywhere beyond personal spin and dubious quotes.

Because you're not bothering to do the homework.

In the age of information ignorance is YOUR CHOICE.

I gave you a reference to follow. The Federalist Papers are THE authority for a reference to what the founders thought of each Amendment to the Constitution. It was written in their words and is often used in court cases relating to the Constitution.

Either read it and learn something or don't.

Originally posted by Alfie1
I have been asking therefore why some people claim it supports armed resistance but I haven't got anywhere beyond personal spin and dubious quotes.

The part that says "necessary for the security of a free state" is interpretation enough. As I've already told you earlier in this thread, if you type that phrase into Google you'll come up with numerous papers written by scholars and court cases clarifying what that phrase (and the rest of the 2nd Amendment) is defined as.

There doesn't need to be any personal spin. Read the papers, read the court rulings. Or don't and keep on the present path you're on now.

reply to post by Alfie1


Alfie, Alfie, Alfie...... What are "arms" or weapons used for?
Let me dumb it down.... to kill. Plain and simple.

The founders were not insuring we could "...keep and bear arms..." to look at, although that is good times.

Originally posted by projectvxn

Originally posted by xedocodex
reply to post by projectvxn

 

So an AR or an AK is going to stop an M1 Abrams or a Stealth Bomber?

The argument is absolutely ridiculous...Rambo is a fictional movie, not a documentary.

I see the Afghan insurgency is still going after 12 years of war. Just saying.

Yes, and I'm sure we are all looking forward to living like the Afgans.

If they are your model and aspiration of rebellion, good luck.

reply to post by Alfie1

Alfie....try reading the Declaration of Independence and between the lines. It would seem to be evident in a world ruled by force , that some force would be required to be freed from an oppressive government .

Originally posted by murphy22
reply to post by Alfie1

 

Alfie, Alfie, Alfie...... What are "arms" or weapons used for?
Let me dumb it down.... to kill. Plain and simple.

The founders were not insuring we could "...keep and bear arms..." to look at, although that is good times.

Not necessarily to kill! More like to deter enemies from perverting justice, be they foreign or domestic. Domestic is usually overlooked because the media usually portrays foreigners as less than americans, corrupt, under-developed, tyrannical etc....while ignoring domestic problems caused by gross corruption.

Guns can cause fear, they can wound and they can kill. It depends on what kind of gun you buy and for what purpose.

Originally posted by xedocodex

Originally posted by projectvxn

Originally posted by xedocodex
reply to post by projectvxn

 

So an AR or an AK is going to stop an M1 Abrams or a Stealth Bomber?

The argument is absolutely ridiculous...Rambo is a fictional movie, not a documentary.

I see the Afghan insurgency is still going after 12 years of war. Just saying.

Yes, and I'm sure we are all looking forward to living like the Afgans.

If they are your model and aspiration of rebellion, good luck.

What an asinine comment.

Insurgency works. That's the point I was trying to make.

Your dismissive and lazy attitude toward this debate is noted.

reply to post by EarthCitizen07


So you are saying I/we can not trust you with arms? You will be corrupt?

I understand if you do not feel the need to be a rifleman.

But my rifle/weapon has never and will never be used to deprive another of life, liberty or happiness. Unless they strive to deprive me and my family of theirs.

I was deployed in war for their "right and cause" I will not be unarmed for mine.

reply to post by murphy22


I may stand corrected. I may have misunderstood your post. For that I am sorry. If I didn't? I'm not.

Originally posted by xedocodex

Originally posted by projectvxn

Originally posted by xedocodex
reply to post by projectvxn

 

So an AR or an AK is going to stop an M1 Abrams or a Stealth Bomber?

The argument is absolutely ridiculous...Rambo is a fictional movie, not a documentary.

I see the Afghan insurgency is still going after 12 years of war. Just saying.

Yes, and I'm sure we are all looking forward to living like the Afgans.

If they are your model and aspiration of rebellion, good luck.

They have been victims of religious fanaticism, russian and american imperialism.

They have lived through hell and keep perservering. What else can they do??

You went off-topic there because you refused to acknowledge his point.

Thanks bro, needed one of these for a while now, I get so overwhelmed with all the bad news, that I forget how many bad-asses believe in the concepts enshrined in the Constitution. Hope restored for a while yet.

I hope you don't mind, but I posted this on my wall as a quote by projectvxn, along with a link back to ATS.

Originally posted by murphy22
reply to post by EarthCitizen07

 

So you are saying I/we can not trust you with arms? You will be corrupt?

I understand if you do not feel the need to be a rifleman.

But my rifle/weapon has never and will never be used to deprive another of life, liberty or happiness. Unless they strive to deprive me and my family of theirs.

I was deployed in war for their "right and cause" I will not be unarmed for mine.

You miscomprehended what I posted. I don't view guns as strictly killing tools. They are multi-purpose. They cause fear, they can wound and ultimately they can kill. Many millions of humans own guns and I am sure they did not do so just because they WANT to kill.

I guess we are arguing semantics but it is still important imo....

reply to post by EarthCitizen07


I stand corrected. I did misunderstand your post.

I can say I agree with you, that arms are a good deterrent. If that is all they will ever have to be to protect our liberties, I pray it is so.

the preamble to feinstein gun confiscation bill states.....that the 2nd amendment does not allow for unlimited gun ownership.

that means "assault rifles" today...then "how many guns do you really need"? tomorrow!!

they will start to limit types and how many you can own!

and remember this bill says you can keep your rights...but you are selling out your childrens rights!! and the rights of future americans!!

reply to post by Dekard1138


Feinstein is banking on the "me first" attitude of many in this country.

I think her bet will be wrong.

This is an easy question to answer if you grasp the reasoning of our Founding Fathers when creating the 2nd amendment, and too many people do not grasp this, and our country will suffer for it in the future, if not soon. We NEED "assault" weapons, which still are only semi-automatic mind you and not fully automatic, because the government already has far superior firepower. We would be at a disadvantage with these types of rifles, but at least we would stand a chance.

If you did not grasp what I was implying, it was that the 2nd amendment is designed for US, the people, to protect ourselves against the federal government of the United States. It is that simple. The fact that we have had no military action taken against citizens as a whole in an attempt to obtain power is a testament that the 2nd amendment works. If that goes away, I can guarantee you that the government will attempt to get away with a lot more, if someone doesn't come along and attempt to completely abolish democracy in the US.

Those who founded this country knew that the only way to ENSURE democracy was to arm the people, because the people will not openly submit to a government that turns tyrannical, and it was ensured that we had means to protect ourselves. What about that is hard to understand? The need for the 2nd amendment will never go away, because the power-hungry individuals who do not mind bloodshed will never go away. You think we are immune from historical occurrences here in America? Nope, and without guns, we will see what has happened to other countries throughout history happen here. You think that the USSR would have lasted as long as it did if the people were all armed? That goes for just about every totalitarian state. And the US politicians have already been overstepping their authority for a long time, so imagine what they will do when we have no means to defend ourselves.

reply to post by projectvxn


If all of what you say is true, then you would understand it is your duty to uphold and defend the constitution (not the people), from all enemies, foreign and domestic....I'll leave the math to you...

I don't "need" them, but as an American Citizen, resident of the State of Oklahoma, and Veteran I have the freedom to own one.

Here are some things I want, but don't need:

A 2012 Corvette ZR1

A new Bass Boat

A date with Liv Tyler

A 1958 Gold Top Les Paul

A Ruger Vaquero .357

And you know the great thing about it all? I have the freedom to have all of them, I would just have to work on the means. America may not be the best place, but it's up there as one of the best at least. As long as we stick to the Constitution and Bill of Rights, we'll be fine. We, As Americans, can live in nearly any climate we want, and never leave the Continental U.S. We have prairie, desert, mountains, foothills, farm lands, and some of the worlds largest cities. You can do basically anything you want, though you may have to work a little harder for some things than others.

reply to post by projectvxn


Our government has already proven they can force our military to fire on American civilians. They already did the unthinkable at Kent State during the Vietnam protests.

I do not own an 'assault' rifle at all; however, my personal position on the matter would be that regular American citizens should be allowed to own assault rifles for the purpose of defending their country against all enemies - foreign and domestic.

It is no secret that the heavily armed U.S. population (along with its sprawled population) is a deterent to invasion by foreign nations, and it should likewise come as no surprise that it is also a deterent against organized crime (on the scale of mafia, gangs, and drug cartels - it aids in the stability and regional recognition of a government for, of, and by the People).

If there were any really good reason for private ownership of 'assault' weapons there would be two:

1. It is patriotic to do so and...
2. It aids in national and regional security which further promotes global stability.

That is my position on the matter.