Quote from: Hastur T. FannonAsk the Iraqis?

Killing soldiers in a foreign country who have no more orders than "drive around and patrol looking for insurgents" is probably a lot easier than overthrowing the entire weight of the US army - and I'm fairly there would be very few soldiers left off-duty if it came to an insurrection against the government - and that they're racking up a body count doesn't mean they're winning. Does anybody really think they'll take back the country if the Americans don't leave? Or if they had a lack of foreign aid? Or if the local population didn't harbor a cultural (and otherwise deservedly earned) antipathy towards their foes?

Leaving alone that explosive booby-traps and suicide attacks are doing most of their work, and I presume a freedom-oriented American insurrection wouldn't be blowing up malls full of uninvolved American citizens. Or at least, not without abandoning the principles they're fighting for.

Quote from: Christmas ApeKilling soldiers in a foreign country who have no more orders than "drive around and patrol looking for insurgents" is probably a lot easier than overthrowing the entire weight of the US army

Ask the Somalis then

Quote from: Dominus NoxDuring the holocaust, the jews in thw warsaw ghetto held off the nazis for weeks with a few civillian firearms. In fact they resisted the nazis longer than some countries did.
 
 
Seems the nazis were afraid of going in after jews who could fight back.

The Warsaw Uprising is a tragic, amazing, and uplifting story of WWII all at once.  I'm trying to think of the book I read not too long ago on the topic--perhaps you'd like it.

Quote from: Christmas ApeKilling soldiers in a foreign country who have no more orders than "drive around and patrol looking for insurgents" is probably a lot easier than overthrowing the entire weight of the US army - and I'm fairly there would be very few soldiers left off-duty if it came to an insurrection against the government - and that they're racking up a body count doesn't mean they're winning. Does anybody really think they'll take back the country if the Americans don't leave? Or if they had a lack of foreign aid? Or if the local population didn't harbor a cultural (and otherwise deservedly earned) antipathy towards their foes?

Leaving alone that explosive booby-traps and suicide attacks are doing most of their work, and I presume a freedom-oriented American insurrection wouldn't be blowing up malls full of uninvolved American citizens. Or at least, not without abandoning the principles they're fighting for.

Not quite right. Many in the anti-government movement have accepted that deaths among non combatant civillians are likely, and accept it.

The americans who don't resist the governmetn are gasically supporting it thru compliance, taxes, etc. As such, they're fair game in the war against the government and the corporate oligarchy that runs it.

But the main target will be the leaders of the oligarchy since they're more important than the meat puppet government they run the country thru.

Here's a link to a military survey that askes US military personal some questions about how willing they'd be to submit to UN domination, and if they would fire on US citizens who were refusing to surrender their guns to government confiscation.

This is why we need weapons in the first place, and why the second amendment was written.

Quote from: BalbinusDo many people use assault rifles as sporting weapons?  How?

Serious question, I mean presumably people don't mow down deer with M16s.

Well, I go to competitions with my SKS and do okay.  I know many people who use their SKSes to shoot wild hogs and deer.  I've seen people use AR-15s (the civilian equivalent of the M16) for deer hunting.  The AR-15 is an extremely accurate rifle, as is the M16, but in the US civilians can't own automatic weapons unless they are a legitimate dealer and pay outrageous amounts for licensing.    

Hunting isn't the point, nor are guns meant to be owned for "sporting purposes."  If I want a Beretta 92FS 9mm handgun, which is the US military's primary combat handgun, to keep in my home for defense that is allowed currently.   Same with my SKS, which is a  Soviet combat rifle.

Quote from: joewolzWell, I go to competitions with my SKS and do okay.  I know many people who use their SKSes to shoot wild hogs and deer.  I've seen people use AR-15s (the civilian equivalent of the M16) for deer hunting.  The AR-15 is an extremely accurate rifle, as is the M16, but in the US civilians can't own automatic weapons unless they are a legitimate dealer and pay outrageous amounts for licensing.    

Hunting isn't the point, nor are guns meant to be owned for "sporting purposes."  If I want a Beretta 92FS 9mm handgun, which is the US military's primary combat handgun, to keep in my home for defense that is allowed currently.   Same with my SKS, which is a  Soviet combat rifle.

You know, the whole hunting thing really is a crock. I don't hunt, I've never had an urge to kill an animal with more than two legs. We should be open and honest about it and say we want guns, including "Assault weapons" so if the government passes laws to violate our rights and sends agents to enforce and impose those laws on us we can shoot them.

I mean, let's be honest about it. As for the inevitable counter cry, we should simply say "If people don't want to be shot, don't try imposing laws on us that violate our rights."

I have no problem with people shooting those who violate their rights. Take prohibition, for example. The fedgov had zero business imposing the ban on alcohol on american adults, but was driven to it by shrill religious fanatics. AFAIC the "bootleggers" were heroes for freedom and had every right to drop the hammer on every "agent" who came after them.

Likewise I have no problem with drug users defending themselves from laws that violate their right to kill themselves. Maybe if enough DEA agents got wasted while trying to impose unworkable unconstitutional and ineffective laws on people, the system would figure out that those laws don't work, and stop passing/trying to enforce them.

Then there'd be no black market for drugs, no profit motive for criminal gangs to fight over and the druggies, god bless them, would quickly kill themselves off thru overdose, solving the whole issue.

Quote from: Dominus NoxHere's a link to a military survey that askes US military personal some questions about how willing they'd be to submit to UN domination, and if they would fire on US citizens who were refusing to surrender their guns to government confiscation.

This is why we need weapons in the first place, and why the second amendment was written.

I thought Kent State University had already answered the shooting on US citizens questions.

Quote from: BalbinusI thought Kent State University had already answered the shooting on US citizens questions.

Well, that was a national guard (weekend warrior) commandant who got out of hand and had a personal vendetta against the protestors, or "commie traitors" as he saw them. The government sanctioned his actions later, but didn't order them in advance.

Quote from: joewolzA bill introduced on 13 February in the United States Congress proposes to not only reinstate the AWB of 1994, but also "improve" it, in order to make criminals more heavily armed than those of us who follow the law, apparently.

I think that anyone in the United States who supports banning the personal ownership of guns should put a nice sign in front of their house that says, "This house is a gun free zone."

Quote from: joewolzHere in the United States, we have the RIGHT to BEAR arms.  THat's BEAR arms, not "enjoy a touch of fun in firearm sports."

If you read the early drafts of the Bill of Rights by Madison and Mason, it becomes much more clear why the "militia" clause is there.  Madison's earlier draft of the First Amendment read:

"The people shall not be deprived or abridged of their right to speak, to write, or to publish their sentiments; and the freedom of the press, as one of the great bulwarks of liberty, shall be inviolable."

George Mason's version read:

"That the People have a right to Freedom of speech, and of writing and publishing their Sentiments; that the Freedom of the Press is one of the great Bulwarks of Liberty, and ought not to be violated."

Madison's earlier draft of the second amendment read:

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed, and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country: but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service in person."

George Mason's draft read:

"That the People have a Right to keep and to bear Arms; that a well regulated Militia, composed of the Body of the People, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe Defence of a free State; that Standing Armies in Time of Peace are dangerous to Liberty, and therefore ought to be avoided as far as the Circumstances and Protection of the Community will admit; and that in all Cases, the military should be under strict Subordination to, and governed by the Civil Power."

And, yes, it's clear from Mason's draft that he was concerned that the government would take guns away from people and felt that a Standing Army (something that we now take for granted, even though it's restricted by the Constitution -- the US Army must be "reauthorized" every two years) was a bigger menace to people than the people bearing arms.

What I find fascinating is that if the Bill of Rights had retailed the "as one of the great bulwarks of liberty" just as it retained the abbreviated, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" as an explanatory clause, if the purpose of the Militia clause would be more clear.  Of course I think it should also be clear to anyone who understands English that the Militia clause does not qualify the rights clause of the second amendment and if they want to ban guns, the proper way to do it is not through the courts but through an amendment followed by legislation.

Quote from: BalbinusDo many people use assault rifles as sporting weapons?  How?

Serious question, I mean presumably people don't mow down deer with M16s.

not to split hairs, but there is a difference in an assault rifle and an "assault weapon".

The former is a rifle that is capable of fully automatic fire, which has been banned since the mid 30s unless you have a class c (or is it 3?) dealers license.

the later consists of semiautomatic weapons that look mean. functionally there is little difference between a semi automatic hunting rifle and an SKS, or other semi automatic military style rifles.

this is all done (again) to make it look like the politicians care, but in the meantime it goes after the law abiding and does nothing to stop the criminal element.

Quote from: joewolzIf I want a Beretta 92FS 9mm handgun, which is the US military's primary combat handgun, to keep in my home for defense that is allowed currently.

Bear in mind that there are people who do not thing you should own guns for self-defense and there are people who do not think you should have the right to use force in self-defense.  Frankly, I think the right  to use force to protect yourself from an attack is a more fundamental right than free speech.

If Gun control laws could work I'd be all for them. Unfortunately, it's the nature of criminals to break the law, and the nature of law abiding citizens to follow it. all gun control does is put more power in the hands of the criminals.

Screw gun control. Stricter penalties for gun related crime would be much better. Like if you kill someone with a knife you get the death penalty, but fi you kill them with a gun you get the death penalty twice.

Quote from: John MorrowBear in mind that there are people who do not thing you should own guns for self-defense and there are people who do not think you should have the right to use force in self-defense.

I omitted your stance, so I can fully address the point, so this isn't a dig on you, sir.

I find this sentiment ludicrous.  Absolutely without thought.  I don't understand how anyone can think that making guns illegal to own could possibly have an effect on gun ownership within the criminal element.

I know that the state level and local level differences in gun laws contribute to this, but look at Chicago for a perfect example of a gun ban in effect.  You are not allowed to own a pistol in the city of Chicago, or in Cook county. Unless you are a peace officer, licensed PI, or a bodyguard of the Mayor...however, pistols are still common enough in "bad neighborhoods" that the law is enforced on a daily basis.  Combine with this the absolutely racist enforcement of the Unlawful Use of Weapons Act (UUW)  and you have a  volatile mixture.

The UUW in Illinois, for those not in the know, is the most commonly cited reason for random traffic stops of African Americans, after "probable cause" for narcotics possession.

Nox, your example has many failings.

But the most important one: If having an armed Joewolz in your country increases freedom, then, by all means, he oughta have a Stinger and a Antitank Gun too. You know those RPGs the Iraquis use really help them against Helicopters etc.

And especially Hand Grenades should be legalized, as they are of utmost importance to any insurrectionist and urban warfare.

All in all, Joewolz should be allowed to bear Handgrenades, at the very least.