Biden announces proposed gun control measures

[bsnedeker]

Every law has to be interpreted by human beings. The 2A has been examined and re-examined for 200+ years. And it will be re-examined again, most likely to determine what the current definition of "arms," is.

My point about the ship sailing is specifically about defending oneself from a "tyrannical government." That was possible in the 1700's when tyrannical governments had men with muskets and at best, cannons. But now they have nukes, and aircraft and chemicals and tanks, etc, etc, etc. So yea, that ship has sailed.

Man, that's good to know! You should tell the guys in Afghanistan about how they can't stand up to a modern military.

 

[LongWayAround]

But they have nukes... Lol

 

[Dos Perros]

My point about the ship sailing is specifically about defending oneself from a "tyrannical government." That was possible in the 1700's when tyrannical governments had men with muskets and at best, cannons. But now they have nukes, and aircraft and chemicals and tanks, etc, etc, etc. So yea, that ship has sailed.

You're wrong dude.

 

[Dos Perros]

I wonder how the hell the Bundy's stood up to the Feds....the Feds had nukes and tanks and shit! LOL.

 

[spike camp]

I wonder how the hell the Bundy's stood up to the Feds....the Feds had nukes and tanks and shit! LOL.

No one wants to deal with the fallout, of what could really be done to handle people.

 

[Dos Perros]

No one wants to deal with the fallout, of what could really be done to handle people.

100% agree

 

[Hoodie]

I wonder how the hell the Bundy's stood up to the Feds....the Feds had nukes and tanks and shit! LOL.

The Bundys are clowns. I wouldn't attribute their ability to "stand up to the Feds" to tactical proficiency. And I don't mean because of nukes and tanks. I mean because I'd expect a radically different level of individual proficiency with a firearm between them and an FBI HRT member.

ROE's play a large part in that sort of stuff. I don't think law enforcement stand-offs are the best examples to use to rationalize either side of the "How would civilians fare against a tyrannical government" debate. I'm not a LEO, but I'd imagine that in those scenarios they're mostly hoping the ass clowns in question will pack up their toys and go home before violence becomes necessary,

It does not, however, always work out that way. When it doesn't, it usually isn't a triumphant moment for the "resistance." It certainly wouldn't serve as an example of successful resistance.

In the specific instance you mentioned, one civilian was killed. No law enforcement were. The occupiers, who just days before made bold statements about "fighting to the end," packed up their Crye Precision and went home. Several were incarcerated.

Ten days before he was killed Lavoy Finicum stated "it needs to be very clear that these buildings will never, ever return to the federal government."

It didn't play out that way.

This isn't mean to say anything one way or another about the 2A, just that that's probably not the best example to use. It could almost serve as evidence to support the opposite of the argument you're making.

 

[Newtosavage]

Man, that's good to know! You should tell the guys in Afghanistan about how they can't stand up to a modern military.

Only because we follow "rules." You may have missed my point earlier about tyrannical governments and following rules. I wouldn't expect them to, which means bye bye.

Turn the desert to glass... wasn't that the cry?

 

[Newtosavage]

You're wrong dude.

It's your opinion that I'm wrong, and you're entitled to it. I pray we never find out which one of us was right.

 

[Newtosavage]

No one wants to deal with the fallout, of what could really be done to handle people.

Like I said about following rules. Tyrannical governments rarely do.

 

[Newtosavage]

So here's my point - if you have a reasonable government then AR's aren't necessary and if you have a tyrannical government, AR's aren't going to save you.

But they do make people feel safer, which probably keeps them from over-reacting and doing truly foolish things (like making their own weapons) so in the end it might be safer for everyone to allow the citizenry to just own AR's.

 

[30338]

How do you judge what is necessary?

 

[30338]

Or perhaps, who are you to judge what is necessary for me?

 

[30338]

Most recent year I saw 400 deaths from rifles, 7,000 deaths from handguns. Where's the science?

Crossing the Street, Riding a Bicycle, Kills More Americans than Rifles Do

As Democrats focus on banning and confiscating AR-15s, now is the time to look at 18 of the leading daily causes of death for Americans.

www.breitbart.com

 

[30338]

If I am calling coyotes and have 3 coming in, being able to shoot accurately and quickly is very important. So I guess for me they are necessary. If you decide for you they are not, then sell yours. Seems easy and full of freedom. Ahh yes, freedom!

 

[Newtosavage]

Or perhaps, who are you to judge what is necessary for me?

Nowhere have I said I was. Don't let someone's opinion trigger you.

I get one vote, and so do you. That's how all this "democracy" works.

 

[Newtosavage]

If I am calling coyotes and have 3 coming in, being able to shoot accurately and quickly is very important. So I guess for me they are necessary. If you decide for you they are not, then sell yours. Seems easy and full of freedom. Ahh yes, freedom!

I have a Mini-14 and Mini-30 for feral hog control. I understand as well as anyone that there is a proper tool for every job.

 

[30338]

I have a Mini-14 and Mini-30 for feral hog control. I understand as well as anyone that there is a proper tool for every job.

"So here's my point - if you have a reasonable government then AR's aren't necessary and if you have a tyrannical government, AR's aren't going to save you."

You stated above if we have a reasonable government that AR's aren't necessary. I stated I felt they were regardless of what type of government we have. Leave it up to freedom loving Americans to choose if they need them or not.

I don't live in a democracy. I live in a republic. It is my belief that there was widespread voter fraud. As a result, I am quite confident that the value of my vote was reduced. You will not convince or shame me into thinking otherwise.

So per science since more deaths are attributable to handguns, why the push to ban AR15s?

 

[Newtosavage]

"So here's my point - if you have a reasonable government then AR's aren't necessary and if you have a tyrannical government, AR's aren't going to save you."

You stated above if we have a reasonable government that AR's aren't necessary. I stated I felt they were regardless of what type of government we have. Leave it up to freedom loving Americans to choose if they need them or not.

I don't live in a democracy. I live in a republic. It is my belief that there was widespread voter fraud. As a result, I am quite confident that the value of my vote was reduced. You will not convince or shame me into thinking otherwise.

So per science since more deaths are attributable to handguns, why the push to ban AR15s?

Of course it's your believe that there was widespread voter fraud - against all documented evidence to the contrary. You didn't have to tell anyone that. We knew.

 

[Downeaster]

Of course it's your believe that there was widespread voter fraud - against all documented evidence to the contrary. You didn't have to tell anyone that. We knew.

Wow...ASTOUNDING!