The Right To Bear Arms

Some of the patriots of the militia were armed with better than military grade rifles, pistols,and edged weapons. Cannons were also in private hands prior to the war and used. Henry Knox took it on himself to arm the Continental army with arty which included both private and captured pieces. I'm a believer in the 2nd as written and intended. I have the GOD given right to defend the life, liberty, and property of me and mine with whatever tools I have(or can afford) against ALL enemies. I don't need an aircraft carrier or F-15(you priced fuel lately?) but they and my rifles with or without the rock and roll switch and pistols of any type should be MY decision and not a goob clerk swayed by the hysterical ranting of some planted spoiled brat (suck it Hogg). It looks to this old man that we're somewhere around 1770-1773 again and this time around it ain't 'ol king George I'm worried about.

 

I read in South Carolina, one can own a tank.

But the point of most of your argument is moot. Almost no one can afford such weapons, assuming they could find some one to sell them. I hear the "tactical nuke" thing a lot....ok...fine....exactly WHERE would someone buy one ?

You can legally own without restriction a hank crank or electric Gatlin gun right now...it's non NFA .....know anybody that does ?

(I do....retired machinist that built his.....but you may get my point)

 

As soon as the new mill and lathe arrive and are set up I will be building a pair of them. 1st one will be scaled down to fire .22lr then I will build the full size version. I have always wanted one ever since I saw my 1st one as a boy.

 

I do not mind the system of requiring a federal background check and taxation on NFA firearms but other than that, they are NOT restricted and in fact, you too can own your very own Abrams tank in your choice of colors complete with mini-guns and cannon. If war were to break out in our nation, you can rest assured that we'd be inundated with foreign interest provided weapons just like we send all our friends at every opportunity, do you think those RPGs grow on trees? The feds have already centralized the arsenals in the State national guards so there is little there to take but the Post Office has them, the Game Wardens, the IRS, the FBI, the BATFE, the National Park Service, the DEA, ICE, FMS, USCG, every mom and pop PD in America, so machine guns are around. Pretty much, the only people that don't have them readily available are regular citizens.

 

@TnAndy "Almost no one can afford such weapons, assuming they could find some one to sell them."
That is exactly my point. If the 2nd amendment was taken exactly how it was written then ALL weapons, to include tactical nukes, would be available over the counter for those of age to purchase them, no controls just cash on the counter. Weapons manufacturers would go nose-to-nose in competition to lower costs as would 'economy of scale.' Who would purchase them? Loads of groups and organizations, a lot of bad ones that I have already named. I'd would definitely purchase a couple of M249 SAWs and M203s for the ARs if I didn't have to go wade through all the admin nonsense. Many individuals could not afford them, that is true. The same they cannot afford a Porsche; however, many can and costs would come down. Nevertheless, if they are available, people would purchase them and then they are on the streets but it is not the individuals that pose the greatest danger but unsavory groups, organizations and even countries.

I understand our point that the 2nd was made to allow us to protect ourselves from a government that turns tyrannical; however, I am questioning the impact this could have on society, not just here, but the world in general. I think it is a slippery slope and we really should take the time and thought to consider what we are asking for. Please don't get me wrong, I fully support the 2nd but I just don't know if it is a good idea to allow groups like MS-13 to order up military grade weaponry like they would a Big Mac.

"You can legally own without restriction a hand crank or electric Gatlin gun right now...it's non NFA .....know anybody that does?"
No, but I don't know many folks that are skilled machinists that could build such a gun either. I couldn't. And, while it is a wonderful novelty piece it cannot fill the same requirements as a M240 for transport, maintenance, size, etc...so why would I want it? We're talking apples vs. oranges...

 

I am a firm believer that it covers all types of armament, past, present and future-can't wait to be the first on my block to have that plasma rifle in 40 watt range..
To the folks that say," Do you really want gangs having RPG's or M16's?" I say they already do. Not so much in this country but drive a bit further south and see what happens with Mexico's gun control laws. All of this could be solved with ONE firearm law.
If a person is found guilty of using a firearm during the commission of a crime they are themselves shot the next morning following the guilty verdict. They would be allowed ONE appeal if deemed appropriate to start the following day and not to exceed 30 days. If the original verdict is upheld then they are to be shot the following sunrise.
That would put an end to "gun crime" most riki tik and allow me and others our full pursuit of happiness.

I beg to differ Sir.
It is an insanely amount of fun. There are only a couple of things that bring a bigger smile to my face or give me greater joy than firing one of my selective fire or belt fed weapons.

 

"Gun Violence" does not mean what you think it does. Those numbers include every gun related incident including suicide, accidents, etc. The issue is a school shooting in FLA. Why does that mean people lose rights in MASS? This type of "problem, reaction, solution" is how you steal peoples freedom.

They have reduced gun deaths by 40% in Mass. Where do those numbers come from? Does that include police shootings? Does it include murder, accidents, suicide? And if so shouldn't those counteract the others? This is base propaganda.

 

Aha! Here we go. The argument is that bad people will get the good weapons. This is the critical pivot that everyone misses. There are always going to be bad people. Can you outlaw being bad? Does it work? How many criminals follow the laws? There are criminals in Congress. The ratio is much higher than amongst the people. List of American federal politicians convicted of crimes - Wikipedia
So if all of the people making the laws are the ones breaking them then what does that tell us? It tells us that we are headed for a police state where the criminals are in charge. How much fun does that sound like?

It all boils down to this: anyone who wants to legislate something away from you does not have your best interest in mind. That's it. The problem is that they need you to agree. Hence the public debate. These people are your enemy. Know your enemy.

 

The reason no one can afford those weapons is because our country has been infiltrated and our money has been stripped from us. Before 1913 we were on a direct path to being the wealthiest people in the world. The average American would have been more wealthy than any king, sultan, or potentate had the banks not stepped in.

 

I heard he was pretty handy with catapults as well!

 

This issue was a lot clearer 200 years ago. The only thing that has changed since that time are the clouds blocking our vision. It was ridiculous to think that the government would have more weapons than the people at that time because the people had the money, there were no corporations, and the govt was the only real threat to the people. We had a clear view of our past and there was no way they could have, at that time, persuaded people to give away their god given rights. To do that it would take years of brain washing and propaganda.

What's so bad about people having nukes? I mean really, these things fix themselves. Sure they may kill someone. They may kill 17 kids, but what is the alternative? Giving away your freedom seems a much worse tragedy to me. Let us not forget that every mass genocide in history has started with gun registration and every gun registration has started with some bleeding heart BS propaganda. All arms for all the people.

 

Belt fed is one thing you can argue selective fire but full auto is a waste. Fun is one thing rounds on target is something else

 

I think I want a war here/now.

 

God gave you the right to defend yourself against tyranny. We once had a government intended to protect your right. Now not so much.

I'm sorry but I don't share your confidence in a good outcome. Whether right wins or not, it's not going to be a pretty thing. Other avenues may not be fun and easy, but they do still exist.

 

Why should we have? Always a good question. I think the option should be open to any and all to decide for them selves what they want based on what they can afford! It would be an awefull lot of fun to be a rich man, able to afford any thing I wanted, but the realities are most are mere novelties, and if the teak ever came to use them, they wouldn' last very long, or I wouldn' last long enough to use them! Sure, an M-2 with a couple of belts is an awesome weapon, but how do you transport it? How do you care for and maintain it? How do you continue to read it while using it in anger? How many friends do you have available to assist, while not doing other things they could be doing to help the cause? Sure, in the right place at the right time, that would be awesome to have handy, but not very practical. Have you priced one lately? Same thing with other weapons, and while potential enemies may today not have better weapons then you or I, I'm counting on my superior skills and training to allow me to TAKE from you any thing Jay have need of! That's what it all really comes down to! In all these years since the assault weapons ban of 1934, we have had how many crimea commuted with NFA weapons? Seriously, even with the gangs, MS-13, terrorists, ect... how many crimes involving the use of an NFA? One? So, why do we have restrictions, TAXES!!!

 

LOL, I never said I thought we would have a good outcome. Just tired of the BS.

 

Selective fire weapons do have practical applications, nothing like them to put your face down in the dirt and keep it there instead of shooting back while the sharp-shooters maneuver to pick you off. Five or six rapidly fired rounds will shatter their way right through otherwise "bullet-proof" glass", and multiple rounds striking around you and banging by you will do wonders for focusing your attention on just staying alive. If forced to engage in a fire-fight, I might be more effective with my well placed and spaced shots, maybe not, but a few hundred rounds of distraction going down-range can't hurt. I always heard you shouldn't swim after eating, that was BS too. If automatic weapons were not advantageous in a conflict, no government would waste the money on ammunition for them. Next thing, someone will be saying hand-grenades are useless but by golly, they can let you know quick what's behind door number two.