BigBendFishing.Net

Well ugadawg,at present there are over 200 thousand Homeland Security employees. These are the people OUR government would send after its citizens. Other countries use their standing armies to kill their citizens and keep them oppressed. Our government has a law against our military doing that in America,not that a law would stop them. I am sure you by now have heard of the billions of rounds of ammunition this (HS) and other federal agencies have stockpiled? Oh,including the IRS. The reigning governments in Egypt and Libya had major weapons at their disposal. Nevertheless,those governments were overthrown by the citizens (mostly small terrorist groups).If you look at American history of World War ll you will find the reason the Japanese never considered invading the Continental US with ground troops. It is because they knew every household was armed. As MudDucker stated,the 2nd Amendment is designed to counter the threat from within.

Jumptrout51 wrote:. As MudDucker stated,the 2nd Amendment is designed to counter the threat from within.

X2

I seriously doubt that the reason the Japanese never invaded the continental US was because of civilian gun owners. Perhaps it was 5000 miles of ocean and insufficient infrastructure needed to move a significant amount troops needed for a land invasion.

That is beside the point of my previous statement though. What makes an AR-15 ok to buy at the local gun store but not ok when it is an RPG? If the need for a militia would ever arise, a militia that contained only small arms would be very weak. A prime example is the civil war in Syria. The vast majority of the population agrees with the opposition, but when they have small arms and the Syrian army has jets, it is difficult for the opposition to make any headway, and has stretched the civil war out for 2 years.

ugadawg, I see your point, but what you are not getting is that if they make these guns illegal, then LAW ABIDING citizens will not be able to own them, but CRIMINALS will still get them.

Also I would much rather have an honest, law abiding citizen have 5 RPG's than just one criminal have an AR15. It has nothing to do with the weapon, and everything to do with the intent of the user.


Point:

"Statewide, New York enforces various firearm related prohibitions, many proscriptions similarly listed in the now-expired Federal Assault Weapons Ban. Specified rifle magazines (clips) are banned: a) manufactured after 1994; and b) the magazine holds in excess of 10 rounds. Any rifles with two or more of these features are banned: 1) pistol grip; 2) bayonet lug; 3) collapsible or folding stock; 4) flash suppressor; or 5) threaded barrel."

The ban did not stop the guy from killing his sister and 2 firemen did it.

As for silencers. there is a push now to actually let deer hunters use silencers, since many urban areas are complaining about the noise. There was actually a bill brought up before the Georgia senate about it I think. Now, I have been around guns quite a while, and I have never seen a silencer make them more deadly. And a flash suppressor banned? Come on, somebody does not know guns very well.


I found this to be very ironic in the press report. The press made sure to describe the AR15 he used as an "assault rifle with a flash suppressor"

Yet later in that same article, police radio transcripts had the following - "I could see the muzzle blasts comin' at me. ... I fired four shots at him. I thought he went down," the officer said.

Dubble

ugadawg wrote:I seriously doubt that the reason the Japanese never invaded the continental US was because of civilian gun owners. Perhaps it was 5000 miles of ocean and insufficient infrastructure needed to move a significant amount troops needed for a land invasion.

That is beside the point of my previous statement though. What makes an AR-15 ok to buy at the local gun store but not ok when it is an RPG? If the need for a militia would ever arise, a militia that contained only small arms would be very weak. A prime example is the civil war in Syria. The vast majority of the population agrees with the opposition, but when they have small arms and the Syrian army has jets, it is difficult for the opposition to make any headway, and has stretched the civil war out for 2 years.

You need to study your history. The same was true with Japan. The US did not want to invade Japan due to the number of armed citizens. You seem to forget, Japan invaded China, which had a LOT more land and a LOT more people. However, they were unarmed pheasants for the most part.

While the jets would be a problem, you assume that our military would attack civilian targets in an uprising. If the uprising was righteous in the eyes of the military, I don't see them joining the fray. You can not compare the politics of middle eastern countries where the populace has been overlorded for so many centuries to what would happen in America, where the population has been free for two centuries.

Regardless of your opinion on these matters, the 2nd Amendment is what it is and until it is repelled, which isn't going to happen, the right of free men to arm themselves for protection of this Country from threats foreign and domestic will not change.

ugadawg wrote:I understand that the 2nd amendment was designed to allow for the creation of a militia, but I see a problem with your argument. When was the last time that an organized invading force only invaded with ground troops? If America is invaded and a militia is needed, chances are that the things that will do the most destruction are planes, tanks, and ships. All of which are all but impervious to an AR-15 or any other high capacity rifle available in the US. To even begin deal with these, you need anti aircraft guns, RPGs, and grenade launchers, and a host of other large weapons that are certainly illegal in the US. who gets to decide where to draw the line and where is it drawn between what is legal and what is not legal? If we were really arming ourselves to so that we may one day create a militia, I know many people who would get guns much larger than an automatic .223 or a 7.62.

You assume that the militia supplants the military. In a foreign invasion, the militia supplements the military. These weapons you mention are NOT illegal in the US, however, we have allowed an unconstitutional intrusion into our right to own by allowing the government to establish a license system that makes it more difficult to acquire an hold anti aircraft guns, RPGs, and grenade launchers, and a host of other large weapons. I know several citizens who are so licensed and who own many of these items.

http://www.wctv.tv/home/headlines/Man-K ... 12441.html

One other reason I want to keep my second ammendment rights!

Dubble

Dubble Trubble wrote:http://www.wctv.tv/home/headlines/Man-K ... 12441.html

One other reason I want to keep my second ammendment rights!

Dubble

Damn skippy

Dubble Trubble wrote:http://www.wctv.tv/home/headlines/Man-K ... 12441.html

One other reason I want to keep my second ammendment rights!

Dubble

Agreed, I guess we can also ban knife's after a guy was killed in McDonalds on Christmas day while being robbed. Or should we ban McDonalds for being open on Christmas day causing said man to be robbed? No matter what is banned, be it guns or any other weapon it will do absolutly NOTHING to stop someone from commiting violent crimes in our country. By the way, I see no reason for any business to be open on CHRISTMAS day.

No really, the worse killer is the automobile. Far more kids and adults are killed with an automobile. I say down with the cars and back to the horses!

good news to me in Alachua Co. our co law inforcement will be at our elementary schools full time when they go back in jan. this is hard to believe in Alachua co. but I for one am proud of our county lar inforcement

The school in Washington where the Obama kids attend, along with many children of liberal media parents, have eleven armed guards in addition to Secret Service personnel.

The kids in that school surely deserve more protection than just "regular" kids....I guess!