threeplusfire | in which I ramble about guns

Looks like Jared got sick of Subway.

Seriously, though, I tend to agree with the basic premise of the 2nd Amendment. But a civilian has no need for a military rifle.

The purpose of the second amendment is to allow citizens to defend their rights and freedoms against the power of their government. This was built into the constitution as this is EXACTLY what the 13 colonies did to protect their freedom from an opressive English regime. If you think that sort of thing cant happen in the modern world have a look at the laws of the Stalinist Soviet Union, Communist China and Nazi Germany. Youll notice one of the things THEY made a point of legislating is the banning of private ownership of firearms. Those laws have nothing to do with crime prevention and everything to do with controlling the freedom of the populace.

Military style firearms are designed for conflict. However, even the most untrained marksman can kill just as easily with a 30 year old single shot shotgun as with a fully automatic assault rifle. All of the killing done by the Washington "snipers" could have been done with a single shot hunting rifle. If someone were truly determined to kill someone, they would use any means available, and things like magazine capacity or a pistol grip have nothing to do with the decision to kill. The responsibility lies with the individual, not the tool used. Criminals by definition ignore laws, and banning any kind of weapon will have no affect on their ability to procure any tools which they are determined to use to commit crime. The decision to break a law when you think it is an affront to your basic freedoms (which you may be prepared to defend at the expense of your own life) is also one which will be unaffected by such legislation. When one needs to protect themselves and their freedom, they want the most reliable, most durable, highest capacity weapon possible. The only thing hunting and target shooting have to do with protecting freedom is that they're good practice.

We take it for granted that what our forefathers did to create this country. We as a country dont spend much time thinking that what they did was to use force against the law of the land that they felt to be unjust and take up arms against what was then the most powerful military might on the planet. To the English they were CRIMINALS. The citizen's right to keep and bear arms guarantees that a free citizen has a choice ultimately to defend his freedom against what he believes to be an unjust affront to his freedom. Whether he or she succeeds is another matter. The founding fathers didnt know they would succeed when they started out either. To deny citizens of their new country the right to do the same if they felt their freedoms once again constrained is yet another check on the power of goverment and is just as important as the other checks and balances in our system.

"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote... If you make yourselves sheep, the wolves will eat you."
--Benjamin Franklin

The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants.
- Thomas Jefferson

I agree that the right to bear arms is a needed part of this nation's continued existance. That the ability to say to an opressive regime "Enough!" is needful. I do not personally own a gun, but then I am broke. I use knives and a sword. At any rate, the right to keep and bear arms is the right to protect outselves from the animals and monsters of the night. Again, this is needful. The wonderful qoutes on the lower murder rates in some European nations is not due to the difficulity in getting personal weapons. Rather, it is the sure knowledge that every house has an assault rifle in the closet. Compulsory service does that.

So, I advocate an armed populace. As they say in Texas, and armed society is a polite society. My sole objection is to military weapons. I don't give a rat's ass what a gun looks like, so long as it is safe and effictive. But there is a reason that the sale and posession of a military weapon is controled and often illegal. These are not civilian weapons. If someone wants an AR-15, hey, nifty. But why? It looks like an M-16A2. Is this more effective than a shotgun for home defense? Actually, no. A load of 00 will hit something in the fire arc, a civilian AR15 may not. And the sound of a racking shotgun is known the nation over, and in itself may deter an intruder. Having locked and loaded an M16, it is not so memorable a noise.

So, my position stripped of the rambling? Guns are good and needful to guard against tyrants and opression. Military weapons are not needed in civilian hands. Simple.

"Not needed" and therefore its allright to ban them? What part of "shall not be infringed" is confusing?

How many auto manufacturers produce high performance vehicles who can easily exceed the maximum speed limit of every state in this union? How many people are killed every year due to excessive speed and unsafe driving of high performance autos? Quite a bit more than are killed by military style firearms, I can assure you (less that one percent of all violent crimes as a matter of fact). Why dont we ban high performance automobiles? Or for that matter, why dont we ban EVERYTHING that is in any way remotely dangerous that isnt immediately practical in all situations? Wow, there goes our culture.

Of course a military style firearm is EXACTLY the most practical thing to use to defend oneself against those who would curtail your liberty through political means. If the gestapo comes to your town, they arent going to sneak into your windows or be armed with saturday night specials. For the past 50 years or so, a quality, reasonably accurate high powered autoloading rifle is exactly what has been issued to all miltary personnel in just about every country whose job it is to exert the will of the government. And the very same sort of tool is what is required to match force as much as possible in the event of an incongruent conflict like an armed civilian uprising. Theres a good reason why we as civilians arent allowed to have tactical nuclear weapons, but theres no reason at all to prevent us from having any sort of small arms technology available to the modern military (other than perhaps to drive the demand and prices up to fatten the wallets of gun manufacturers and dealers at the expense of americans who dont happen to be rich).

For those who are curious, exact numbers, facts and attributions concerning so called "assault weapons" can be found at this site: http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcassaul.html

Ah, I see. Let me know when you purchase the Barrett Model 50. Why ban it? It is even better then an M16.

See, the problem here is people don't know what they are doing. You don't let them own a tank or fighter, and you don't need a military weapon. Again, I don't care about style, I am talking about military hardware, your actual in-service weapons designed for miliraty use (so no Glock/Colt M1911/Baretta comments). The most effective home defense weapon for the average user is the shotgun, not the AR15.

And yes, if the gestapo was to rise from the ashes of Nazi Germany and show up, then they would be armed with military hardware. This then becomes a "watch the watchers" issue. Eventually you have to trust that someone is OK, or you get the kind of paranoia rampant in Eastern Europe in the last 50 years. When the militaty and civilian weapons were the same, then no one knew the difference. That has not been the case since 1945, however, and there is a real seperation now. Yes, to defend against the oft-used 'secret police' or gestapo something better than a .22 match pistol might be nice. But there is a line. Responsibility is not in great supply these days. And I for one loose too much in taxes already. I am not willing to endorse the expense of training people to handle full auto weapons. And the M16 is being phased out. The new military battle rifle will have a built in 20mm grenade launcher (see here (http://www.secretweapon.com/) for more. It is rather...geeky? but accurate). This is not, repeat not, something that belongs in the hands of someone who can't figure out how to vote on a simle ballot.

The main reason to keep military hardware in the military hands is that they are trained to use it, we are not. Simple and direct. Under no reason should rifles, pistols, revolvers, shotguns, etc. be banned. That is in direct opposition to the second amendment. For simple logical reasons, military hardware should be, and must continue to be.

Oh yes, please note I know the difference between "assault weapons" and military weapons. Again, I don't care if it has a clip, looks like death on a bad day, and a pistol grip. So what? Many really good shotguns have pistol grips. Anyway, the difference I am trying to make is the distinction in the second section on weapons with burst or full auto abilities. By the moronic HCI definitions, a .38 revolver is an automatic weapon.

Important things to think about.
I tend to think saying one gun is allowed and another isn't is not really the most rational way to go about it.

But there must be a line somewhere. I would not trust the majority of the people I work with to use a cap gur properly. And the concept of them with something with full auto abilities makes me gibber in fear. There needs to be some demarkation, or we will find ourselves in some serious trouble.

Of course, the dark side in me says that the idiots will kill each other off, and we will all be happier, but that is a high price to pay.

Well, I wouldn't trust a hell of a lot of people I know with a gun either. This is another issue that I think boils down to education, teaching people to think, to respect and not to be so damnably selfish all the time. But hey, I'm allowed to have fits of idealism every now and then.

Hehe, I love the graphics! :D

in which I ramble about guns

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

Re:

no subject

Re:

Re: