Quote:
Originally Posted by shakran
They sure can. And if we get to the point where we need to fight the government, I'm sure you won't feel the need to ask Congress' permission to build a few of them, will you? And I'm sure you'll agree than an IED is not a machine gun, won't you, and is therefore not germaine to this conversation.
If we get to the point where we can, and do, start blowing up tanks, then we can get hold of automatic weaponry, too. If nothing else, snatch it off of the guys in the tank you just killed.
|
because destroyed machine guns work just as well as new ones in our safes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by shakran
I agree. Hit and run attacks wouldn't work very well unless you were hitting them with something better than a gun. Sniping would be better accomplished with a scoped deer rifle than with a machine gun. IED's as we have established have nothing whatsoever to do with machine guns.
|
We're talking tactics again, but you apparently are ill informed or unknowledgable about squad tactics, as small hit and run tactics work beautifully, especially when done with automatic fire. I had to study basic military tactics as a squad leader in the marines. I do know what i'm talking about.
Quote:
Originally Posted by shakran
You still haven't explained what you're gonna do with that machine gun - the one that, while we're waiting around for dksuddeth to begin his revolution, is being played with by some idiot that might just decide to shoot me.
|
there is absolutely nothing stopping said idiot from shooting you with a hunting rifle/shotgun, handgun, or even a bb gun. Do you think that denying machine gun possession suddenly makes said idiot a genius?
Quote:
Originally Posted by shakran
If the military weapons that the public is capable of getting hold of are incapable of carrying out the objective for which we are getting hold of them, then yes. A machine gun is not capable of stopping a tyrannical government. So there isn't any point in having one for that purpose.
|
Then there wouldn't be any point in arming standing military troops with machine guns either, would there? what you're attempting to do is elevate standing troops as superior to civilians because of 'training'. What you're failing to take in to account is the number of FORMER military people who also have that training. Do you think they deprogrammed me after my enlistment?
-----Added 9/1/2009 at 03 : 05 : 50-----
Quote:
Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru
The idea that gun ownership is the linchpin of individual freedom baffles me, especially when you consider the level of sophistication we get in Western governments.
|
One of the things I really get tired of seeing, and start refusing to acknowledge eventually, is the total misnomer that gun owners are somehow less 'sophisticated' than non gun owners. It smacks of ad hominen, elitism, or just plain envy over anothers apparent nonfear of weapons. It's really getting old.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru
If you observe things on multiple levels, you will find that governments maintain power (you might even call some of it "suppression") by structuring itself around the idea that individuals are entitled to freedom and autonomy. It governs the people through this freedom. We aren't merely free people; we are required to be free. This is something Foucault observed in his concept of governmentality. Essentially, these governments "build" their citizenry as people who have access to free enterprise and private property, and they do this so that they can empower the policies they want to enact or already have in place.
|
Here is where are cultures differentiate from one another. European culture seems to have it in their mindset that their benevolent government granted them freedom and rights and are bent on protecting those rights and freedoms. Back in the 1700s, the american colonists saw things from a whole other viewpoint. They saw their granted rights easily trod upon by this supposed benevolent government. They therefore decided that people had inalienable rights granted by their creator, not by their government, hence government could only deny rights, not eliminate them. The way to protect those rights from being denied was to be equal with a government agent in the ability of force.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru
We are all accounted for, both in policy and in the spaces in which we live—geometrically and mentally. Guns don't make us any more or less free in a system of this nature. We are all subjects, regardless.
|
That may be the case in England. It is probably the perceived situation by a majority of americans who are ignorant of history. It is not the case by a sizable percentage of individuals though. We are citizens, free citizens, and not subjects.