Effects of a Democratic Congress?
 

Anyone else going to buy up a "scary" gun between now and Jan 20? While I have been mildly considering getting an AR-15 to compete in NRA Service Rifle competitions, the change in leadership in Washington has me more anxious to make the purchase. I feel like one of the first things Pelosi will do is dust off her A.R. ban and Brady Bill (she wrote the A.R. ban), it we will all be back to 10 round mags and no ARs.

Never in my life have I felt more threatened about losing my rights to bear arms, and it's a sad day when you will purchase a weapon that you wouldn't normally rush into, simply because you believe your right will be taken from you very soon.

Others feel this way?

The Dems will be sidetracked by the War and the mess the Republicans left behind. You'll probably be fine for at least the next 8-10 months.

Also, Magnum P.I. is going to be taking over for Heston, you really can't lose. Ferraris for everyone!!

1) can the color, it's hard to read ;)

2) how about letting us fuck up before you whine about it eh? It's not like the republicans did a great job. It's time to let someone else have a turn. The newly elected democrats (who were elected BECAUSE your side screwed things up so badly) haven't even taken office yet, and already you're complaining about them. That's absurd.

Oh and BTW, Will is right. We have a lot of work to do cleaning up your party's messes before we ever get around to worrying about assault weapon bans, but if it reaches the point where we have enough breathing room to look into it, I'll support it. You don't need an AK-47. I swear you guys are incredible. Ban nail clippers from airplanes, but submachine guns in suburbia is just fine? Sheesh.

I'm not saying that Nancy wouldn't want to ban it, but with the moderate democrats and Bush still in the White House, I don't think it will happen.

Are AR-15s really a problem? I don't hear about them being used in crimes very often. And there are plenty of people like me that don't own a gun, but have to hold it every time I go into Cabela's.

On a side note...I'm still pissed that I didn't get that free gun from that bank in Michael Moore's movie. I lived in Michigan and would have opened an account with them to get a gun.

Right now, I can't really justify buying a AR-15 either. But I want the option to.

This is my favorite military gun, but there is really no reason anyone in the general public would need one. If everything went to hell, and we had to stop an armed invasion, I want this gun. :D
http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...round/m107.htm

There are already laws in place to strictly regulate the ownership of AK-47's. I have a lot of shit i don't need, many of them could be used to kill people if I were so inclined. Outlawing things because people don't need them is just fucking stupid.

Outlawing things becuase they have no reasonable use outside of shooting (i.e. seriously injuring or killing) another human being is smart. There is a reason that it's illegal to build, keep, or use a nuclear weapon in the US. That's why Democrats, after years and years of cleaning up the republimess, will probably turn their attention on certian guns. If you don't like it, vote Libertarian.

That's news to me. I better hide that centrifuge out back.

I can't believe that I can't have a nuclear arsenal to protect my house from a invading foreign country (surely it wouldn't be used in a US civil war).

:thumbsup: :lol:

Nuclear weapons and material isn't the same as assault rifles. However, I'm sure there are people out there that say that the public should have access to any weapon our military has, just in case we need to defend ourselves from them one day.

You're right.
On both counts.

So...where is the line drawn? Certainly no sane person believes that Joe P. Citizen should be allowed to have a nuclear warhead out in his backyard storage shed. Nor, I think, should he be able to own a tank, a bazooka, a grenade launcher, an aircraft carrier....and so on and so forth.

Look...I'm not in favor of gun control. I fully support the 2nd amendment. I am a hunter. I am a hunter safety instructor (NRA certified). I own guns. I own rifles. I own shotguns. I own handguns. I do not own an assault rifle. I don't see the point. Since I can't (for good reason) own one that fires on full auto, then the only other benefit to having one is...that it looks badass? I don't think so. I got enough of looking badass when I had to carry one in the military, thank you.

So, I really haven't made my mind up on the whole assault rifle ban...still. No one has yet to provide to me, a strong enough argument. One way...or the other.

The only reason I can think of to own an assault riffle would be entertainment (I'm assuming we're not talking about light assault rifles, like the Fedorov Avtomat...but more like modren, full assault rifles like he M16, SIG, or AK). It's major overkill for anything else: hunting (you'd have to pick pieces of the deer from a hundred yard radius), home protection (you're likely to bring down your house, and possibly a neighbors with a gun of that power...not to mention they'd have to do dental to ID what was left of the home invader), skeet (you could take down a plane right after atomizing a clay target or bird), that crazy biathalon event where you ski and shoot (you'd fall off your skiis, and that would mean that you'd be shooting out of control). So target practice is the only thing it's really slated for besides people killing. Maybe they should just be allowed on gun ranges.

If I see someone walking down the street with an assault rifle, I'm calling the police, and following them to make sure they don't kill anyone. It's a little more serious than a handgun because it's too powerful.

Every home should have at least one machine gun with 1,000 rounds, someone who's familiar with shooting it, and participate in weekly shoots to keep in practice in accordance with the militia act.

The Second Amendment has absolutely squat to do with hunting. It's about keeping the people in power over the government. The socialists of this country have done way too much damage to the 2nd Amendment, another attempted gun ban COULD be the match that lights the fire.

Even if I wanted to do this, I doubt I have the money to fire off that many rounds.

This argument is the sole reason I'm opposed to people owning assault weapons. Attitudes like this are insane. Sure, you have a machine gun. Great. One tank and your day is over. The only logical conclusion is either 1) we engage in a government / citizen arms race (government obviously wins since they can buy a lot more missiles than you can) or 2) we stop being ridiculous about insisting on gun ownership.


No one's trying to take your hunting rifles away, but really, do you really think that overall we'd be safer if everyone, including the idiots, had machine guns? That's just crazy.


And that worked great when the best weapon the government could obtain was a flintlock rifle. The citizens had a chance because their weapons were as good as the government's. Now, there's absolutely no chance for the ammendment to work as you say it's intended. I buy a machine gun, Bush buys a B-52. He wins. So since there's no way the citizenry is going to overcome the power of the government, that argument is null and void.

But if the citizenry really does want to exercise their 2nd amendment rights, they should certainly buy a gun and join a well-regulated militia. Unless you're in a WELL REGULATED militia, the 2nd simply does not apply to you. Period.

Let's boil this down. A well regulated militia. We all know what a militia is, right? It's a civilian force that answeres to the government in a time of trouble. It's not a potential insurgent force, as an insurgent force does not answer to the government. The well regulated militia is ...*drumroll*... the National Guard! Te right of the civilians (read: people) to bear arms is protected. I'm not in the militia, so I don't have the constitutional right to bear arms.

I guess we're back to kicking that dead horse again.

Is it a problem for gun rights advocates that Bush just secretly signed into law the John Warner Defense Authorization Act of 2007, which gives him right for to call up the National Guard of any state (with or without the approval of that state's governor) for purposes of "suppressing public disorder"?

If I were a gun advocate who was concerned about the public being able to overthrow the government if needed (versus just really liking noisy dangerous toys), I'd have a real problem with that.

ONLY because of current prohibition laws.

And this is where we let a cowardly group of people screw us. Posse Comitatus is SUPPOSED to ensure that the military would NEVER be used against the citizenry, but now all the gov has to do is make a claim of drugs being involved and BOOM, instant armored vehicles abound. I won't bother going over the people vs. military issue again since that would be beating the dead horse.


How many of those 'idiots' would walk out in public and start firing, KNOWING that everybody else has a machine gun and WILL be firing back? I don't think a whole lot will, in fact, do you know how many LEGALLY owned machine guns have been used in a crime? ONE, and that one was owned by a police officer.




dead horse.

Again, ALL of us are the well regulated militia, or at least we should be had the democrats not infringed on our rights to keep and bear arms. Well regulated does NOT mean government regulated. It also does not mean that you HAVE to be in the militia to keep and bear arms, since the militia act qualifies members of organized and unorganized militia as american citizens.

We are all the militia. one district court ruled that the militia was the national guard. This is incorrect insofar as it is only one part of the militia, the organized militia. Also, since the constitution prevents states from maintaining a standing army, the PEOPLE naturally make up the security of a free STATE by keeping and bearing arms equal to that of the standing federal army.

especially since the national guard, being federalized, is no longer a state militia, therefore, the people make up the actual militia and hence the individual right shall not be infringed.

For a better look at how congress has usurped power from the people, read my signature.

Uh, no, because ammo is expensive.

If the civilians attack the government, it is crazy to think the government will not respond with the tools available to them.

What? The ATF and the Marines are two seperate entities. . . .

And you don't have any logical arguments on that subject either. You can't. A rifle cannot beat a bomber.


Hell all you need is one nutcase to start something like that.

Next question: How many LEGALLY bought guns have been stolen and THEN used in crimes?


No, we're not well regulated. I don't have a commanding officer, and neither do you. We are, in fact, completely UNregulated.

It was unregulated before the democrats were democrats.

I know that. I'll settle for ANY regulation. Hint: When you're in a regulated organization, you generally attend at least one informational meeting in your lifetime. Funny, i don't recall going to any meetings of the militia.

The constitution supercedes any other act you can come up with. Unconstitutional laws are null and void.



Legal precedent.

Not according to the law it isn't.

Organized = regulated. Non-regulated militias do not fall under the 2nd.

Woah! I had no idea all the governors were breaking the law with the national guard!

So I CAN buy a nuclear weapon now. Excellent.

Your logic is breaking down bigtime



It can be both at once. And it is.

This is an illogical conclusion.

sorry shak, your reasoning, interpretation, and conclusions are wrong and illogical.

It should be interesting to you that it wasn't until 1905 that the first court determined specifically that the 2nd Amendment was a collective right, I guess that those first 125 years of our countries existence consisted of moronic judges who probably couldn't even name the signers of the declaration OR the constitution.

Which is the exact reason WHY the people should have all arms available to them, but that's something that the socialists/communists/statists can't have because it interferes with their agenda.

yes, they are. But just like YOU said that the government would use all of it's tools available, so they will shift military hardware (tanks) over to law enforcement agencies. They did it at waco.

to order such an attack would be COMPLETE political suicide. It will never happen.

He'd be dead pretty quick, wouldn't he. One nutcase gone from the gene pool. I would think that would make you MORE comfortable with less nuts having guns, after a time.

irrelevant because we're discussing machine guns.

regulated does NOT mean having a government run structure. YOU are a member of the unorganized militia, therefore YOU are part of the militia. IF you were to be called in to service, try to say you're NOT well regulated and see if that gets you out of it. It won't. Because you don't have a CO, you are part of the UNORGANIZED militia.

Do you have a good explanation WHY you aren't 'regulating' yoruself? It is YOUR responsibility to be well regulated...meaning you can shoot, maintain, and keep your weapon and follow basic orders.

Before 1903, they weren't. It was a ready reserve, meaning that they were NOT a standing army. The Dick Act federalized them, essentially making them available upon notice, turning them in to a standing army, hence they were no longer a state militia.

Strawman argument and you couldn't afford a nuke anyway, much less bear one. There is that political suicide thing also.

If it can now be called in to federal service, bypassing the governers authorization, they are no longer a state militia.

Only because you still choose to ignore the founding fathers intent of the 2nd Amendment. That is ok though, I understand not wanting to be wrong so badly that you'll not concede despite all historical evidence to the contrary.

which was contradicted in numerous higher court cases afterwards. no legal precedent.

You just said "all arms". You can't say "all arms", then get pissed when nukes get brought into the coversation. There absolutely, positively has to be a line drawn. I don't think anyone at all should have nuclear weapons, especially civilians. I feel the same way about all weapons, but for the sake of your statement, let's stick with serious weapons, as serious weapons like land-to-air missles, heavy, full auto machine guns, sniper rifles, and possibly nukes would be necessary in order to take the US military head on. In order for there to be the necessary force to deter the full power of the military, so as to protect us from the phantom menace of the marshal law, military police state. The current populace, including the uber-gun nuts, would be totally outguned in every way by the US military. Even if you managed to get together all of the former and retired military officers, you'd still have your ass handed to you.

Bottom line: any sane person can see that the right to bear arms has no real world connection with the responsibility of the public to keep the government in check. We have the reight to bear arms now, and I don't see one bullet being fired becuase of the loss of freedoms over the past 6 years. Not one shot rang out when we were wire tapped without a warrant. Not one bullet was fired when the Military Comissions Act of 2006 murdered Habeas Corpus. Not one shot rang out when the term "enemy combatent" was used to circumvent the Geneva Convention. Nothing. Nada. Until I see vigilantism on the rise among those who legally own weapons, I will not see the populace as a well regulated anything, and I will not support the arming of civilians. It's useless. Our military will prevent any kind of invasion, AND we have the National Guard in reserves...so that's out. If the government were to start turning on the populace, you wouldn't see lone gunmen or even organizaed terrorist cells work with any success. The only real success, as I've stated before, would come from domestic terrorism: independant terrorist bombers that have no connection to any kind of organization. That's the only way to fight the US military, and I don't see that happening until we're so far gone it may not make a difference.

That should effectively take the question or armed rebelion and well regulated militia out of your argument once and for all.

As far as nukes: all you need for a dirty bomb is some radioactive material, which is less guarded than bomb grade nuclear material.

I'm assuming you know the origianl text of the Second Ammendment:
The founding fathers wanted the second ammendment to be a barrier against a standing army. We fucked them in the ass when we let fear win over logic and created a perminant US military. See, the founding fathers understood that a standing army was a serious threat to democracy and civil liberties, so they wanted a militia: a military made up of volunteer civilians who trained for time of war, but were not full time soldiers.

The Federalists, on the other hand, wanted a perminant, federally controled military. They also didn't want a bill of rights.


BTW, San Francisco has been under the handgun ban for some time now, and crime rates have slowly dropped. Just an aside.

/threadjack

you know will, you're right. we're fucked. surrender all your freedom and work as a slave. we all shoud. we can't beat the government, you better do everything they tell you. freedom was just a dream. welcome to your new world order.

Aha! Now you know what it's been like to be a Democrat the last six years! Welcome to the revolution! :thumbsup:

I already explained the only real way to fight the US government and military:
With organization comes leadership, and with leadership comes targets of opportunity. Hierarchies have a fundamental flaw: they are dependant on leadership. Independant single person cells simply working off logic (would you bomb a DMV that keeps people in long lines fo hours at a time, or a Raytheon plant that builds missiles for the military?).

But moving back for a moment: have you shot anyone for the loss of your freedoms? No? Is that becuase I'm laying down for the NWO, or because you are laying down for the NWO? I've already explained that my best weapon is my big fat mouth. I tell people what's up, and a lot of people listen (the trick is a joke every now and again). You've made it clear that your weapon of choice has a barrel and launches little metal projectiles. My weapon is firing at a 300 words a minute. I'm doing everything I can, and you say, "welcome to your new world order."? I don't want to turn that argument around on you completly, so I suggest that we move on.

seeing no positive benefit from either republicans or democrats for the last 14 years, how do you think I feel?

I would think the argument could be made that the NRA could be a organized civilian force. I wouldn't be surprised if they have enough retired military in their ranks to give a challenge to the US military if they were to try and overthrow a extreme democrat government that wasn't doing their job right (and forced everyone to give up all guns).

Plus, having the majority republican military fighting the primarily republican NRA wouldn't sit well. There would be a lot of dissent in the military I would assume. (If your father was fighting for the NRA, and you were in the military, I couldn't imagine them shooting at each other) And you can't just nuke Birmingham and Charleston to wipe out the NRA either. They will blend into the general population. It would get ugly real fast.

When I read the second amendment, I take it to mean that if the government and military get too powerful and use their power for evil, the general population needs to be able to restore the government back to the constitution and hold new elections. The majority of people voted for the government we have, so if the majority of people want to kill some muslim religious extremists, the other 49% have to go along with it. If Bush would have blocked this election and made himself king, then there might have been a problem.

Well first it's 118 years because before 1787 we were under the Articles of Confederation (and judges between 1776 and 1787 would have been quite amazing if they had been able to name the signers of the constitution)

Second, I'm not sure what point you're driving at here. Want to elaborate?


OK. You first. Go buy a nuke. Have fun getting your hands on one. FYI it's gonna cost you several million so you might wanna polish off that platinum Visa. See, my point is that even if the 2nd meant what you think it means (it doesn't) it wouldn't matter because the people cannot financially keep and bear arms that equal the government's.


well I'm glad you brought that up! Waco is an excellent point. Koresh and his gang had one of the biggest civilian arsenals around, and what happened? They all died in a fire. They managed to drop a few ATF agents, and that's it. And that wasn't even a coordinated military assault. See my point here? You're not going to win if the government decides to get you, so why endanger the rest of the public with your fantasies about warding off an evil government with your rifle?


6 years ago I'd have said that to order a bullshit war in a foreign country would be complete political suicide after Vietnam, but Bush managed to get reelected.

And how many would die from him shooting them before he was dropped? How many would die in the crossfire as everyone around them whipped out their machine guns and started blasting away? You need to think these scenarios through. "Kill all them motherfuckers" is almost never the answer.

Bullshit. That's not irrelevant at all. You tried to slip an argument past me but it didn't work. You tried to suggest that legally posessed machine guns aren't used in crimes very much. Nice try, but if someone steals my machine gun that I bought legally, the machine gun is no longer legally owned and therefore drops off your narrow statistical analysis. As the old saying goes, figures may not lie, but liars can figure. Manipulating the statistics to try and prove a point that's broader than the statistics you limit yourself to is dishonest.


Yes, I know that. I've said that.

Great, and since an unorganized militia is unregulated, I don't have a 2nd amendment right to a gun.

I won't be.

Then if it's unorganized who the hell is going to be calling me into service?



Are you really suggesting that the constitution's framers considered a militia well regulated as long as it was composed of people who were supposed to control themselves? That's a bit of a kindergarten approach to it don't you think? And if I'm the one that's supposed to be regulating myself, who's basic orders are you suggesting I follow? Your arguments fail to stand up to even the lightest logical scrutiny.


1) The dick act is named for its sponsor, Senator Charles Dick, who was a republican. So quit blaming the democrats.

2) The states still have a well regulated, armed militia. They're called cops.


My point exactly. I can't afford a nuke. The government can.

If the government has turned totalitarian and is out to oppress us, they don't give a damn about political suicide, because you can't commit political suicide in a dictatorship. Do you think the Iraqis who were killed by Saddam's soldiers were tittering into their beards thinking "haha! He's committing political suicide!"

And btw Iraq was a society that DID have much more powerful weapons than American civilians had, and it STILL took an outside army to topple Saddam.



Their intent was to insure states had militias. Not to insure that hunters get a deer, or that you get to play with guns and pretend to be a freedom fighter.

Wow. So for you, all government boils down to the Second Amendment? If those bad Democrats try to take our guns away, we better have the good Republican populace be armed enough to overthrow them?

I've heard of single-issue voters, but that's just nuts.

The NRA isn't regulated at all. All you need is $35 for a membership. You don't even have to own a gun...so that thins out the ranks a bit. Even among those who own a gun, very few can shoot with the same proficiency as a freshly trained military officer, and many of the NRA members are getting on in age...so that thins out the ranks quite a bit more.

The NRA is great for lobying and fighting things like the New Orleans gun confiscations or SF's proposition H. They are not a body capable of any kind of military action.

Also, if this "extreme democrat government" forced everyone to give up their guns, what use would the NRA be at all?
That goes both ways. Some NRA members wouldn't be able to fire on US soldiers, having been soldiers themselves. Some would probably shit themselves.
The elections were both stolen, and no one did shit. Again, people love to talk big about insurection, but it's hot air. When push comes to shove, there will only be a few that stand...and in the instance of standing against the government, it's always the liberals that stand strong. The conservatives didn't burn draft cards and fight back against riot police.

I had always read the bill of rights inside their historical context and from that determined that the second Amendment:

meant that the people of this new nation would need to be prepared to take up arms in support of this nation at any time.

I personally have always believed that no person should be allowed to own a weapon that they did not know how to use and store safely. To that end I personally believe that we should require owners of guns to obtain a license, much like a drivers license. Yes I do know that you have to have a license to own a gun, but there is nothing in obtaining that license that says you have to know how to use it.

if anyone in this world has advanced the cause of gun control in America in the last 5 years it's been our nice Republican VP. See what happens when you put a gun in the hands of an idiot? Lawyers get shot.

On second thought maybe this isn't such a bad idea.

I will never understand why people will adamantly, and with fervent vigor, attack the slightest notion of losing their right to bear arms when so many other rights have been plucked away with hardly a word in opposition.

The last AWB turned out to be a political lead balloon. They won't risk it before the next big elections in 2008. Though I am sure a few will make token speaches about bringing back a ban before then.

After the 2008 presidential race, all bets are off. Nevermind that the world didn't end when the last AWB expired.



CHI: A lot of people do oppose the loss of those rights as well. But I can think of two reasons why any erosion of the second amendment is protested perhaps more vigorously than others: 1: You are losing something tangible. One day you can have something and the next you have to surrender it or put your name on a list. and 2: The second amendment was intended to be our last-ditch defence against a government turned bad. If you remove all other liberties except the second amendment, people may through force of arms reinstate a government that serves the people.

You might be right about the tangibility, but still...

This thread brings to mind my favorite verse from the Declaration of Independence:

I doubt we'll see much, at least right away. The Dem leadership seems silent on the issue, oddly enough. They could be planning something sneaky, like attatching a nasty bill to the Defense Appropriation as a rider, though, and I wouldn't put it past them.

Their big concern right now is '08. They want that ugly oversized house-trailer back -real- bad. The Military-Industrial-Banking Complex sees the advantages too, so they and their media mouthpieces are keeping shut.

As a consequence, I think Greg has it nailed. I don't expect anything to come of it for at least the next two years; the Dem's success this time around hinged on being able to woo moderate Republicans and Independants, who were fed up with Iraq and such. That support wouldn't survive another AWB, and the Dem leadership knows it. I think they'll keep gun-grabbing out of the headlines until '08, if they can.

you continue to support this notion of a state army and keeping the redneck idiots from running around with guns, yet I've seen zero historical evidence from you to support this ludicrous theory. You can't say 'but they didn't really mean for everyone to have guns' without producing anything to support it and expect anyone to believe it.


a group of nearly 100 held off two government branches with armored vehicles for over 50 days. Do you know why the FBI pushed for a final assault? They knew that it wouldn't be long before other armed groups of citizens came to help the davidians. I see you support the notion of it's preferable to live subservient to the government than to die free.


which should tell you that propaganda can go a long way to convincing alot of people, just like goering said. But it will always have its limits even though you say it doesn't.


Until you can change your perception of americans being idiots, nothing anyone says will ever change your stance. You CANNOT prevent idiocy in some people but such is the price of freedom. Apparently the price is too high for you.



pure obfuscation on your part. don't let your machine gun be stolen. pretty simple.


wrong and wrong.


Are you really suggesting that the constitution's framers considered a militia well regulated as long as it was composed of people who were supposed to control themselves? That's a bit of a kindergarten approach to it don't you think? And if I'm the one that's supposed to be regulating myself, who's basic orders are you suggesting I follow? Your arguments fail to stand up to even the lightest logical scrutiny.[/QUOTE] And yet, that is exactly what the framers thought and believed. But you're obviously a much more intelligent and wiser individual than those bumbling fools that created this republic, since those who believe in the individual rights theory are unreasonable and illogical, despite all the evidence they put forth. What is it like being such a genius?


One has nothing to do with the other.

wrong. cops are 'law enforcement', not the militia, but another dead horse with you.

WE are that militia, not a 'state' government run body of military members.

I wonder if you are really as smart as you think you are, since you apparently have very little understanding of the historical evolution and development of the constitution.

And so, the flame war begins...

I need to address some dead horseshit I saw in this thread:

1) Well-regulated militia does not mean government-regulated. Nowhere does it say "A government lapdog militia being necessary..." It means able-bodied adults.

2) Rifles can beat bombers, look at wars like Vietnam, the Soviet invasion of Afganistan(which I still can't spell), and to a certain(lesser) extent Iraq. This is especially true in numbers, such as... oh I dunno... a militia vastly outnumbering an army who would probably have a serious problem attacking its own country.


I also have to address the issue of gun crimes. Apart from what I hear on the news, once or twice a year, I hear many more stories of distant acquintances and friends of coworkers about people being stabbed or beaten. Gun crimes are a sensationalized myth. We learn this from television and movies: when somebody kills somebody, it means bang bang.

That's a really great way to enter a conversation. People really are more likely to listen to you if you call their points dead horseshit. I know it's put me in a great mood.
There are three types of militia in the US:
1) The Constitutional militia. This is an unorganizated militia that consists of all able bodies men (or now adults) from the age of 18-45 who can be called into active service by Congress. These would, of course, answer to executive power, and could be construed as "government lapdogs".
2) The State Select militia. This is the National Guard (also "government lapdogs").
3) Private militia. Mercenaries organizaed into private para-military organizations. These aren't government lapdogs, but they are usually considered to be extreemists, and are unlikely to be considered the "all able bodies adults" you speak of.
Bombers are the only effective weapon against military superpowers, and the past 10 years of history proves it. How effective were rifles against the Unibomber? How effective were rifles against the Oklahoma City bombing? The USS Cole? You can't fight what you can't see.
It was hardly sensationalized when my best firend was shot.

And of those militias, we are to report with our own arms.

Bombers are useless when there is nobody to fly them. guerilla tactics work wonders.

You'd report to the National Guard or the Senate in the case that the government were to turn on us?
Are we talking about bombers (airplanes with bombs to drop) or bombers (guys that covertly plant explosives)? I'm talking about the latter. I'm actually talking about the most basic of guerilla tactics.

Of course not. That would be the moment that those of us who form the community would band together and fight against the government.

my misunderstanding then. I thought you were talking about bombers as in B52's etc.

Ah, but that's not regulated in the least. The militia spoken of in the second ammendment is well regulated.

You keep supporting the idea that the 2nd lets anyone and everyone have a gun, yet I've seen zero logic from you as to why they would bother qualifying that with the well-regulated militia clause.

I, however, have pointed out that clause, which is what supports the idea that "they didn't really mean for everyone to have guns."



Because the government sat around doing nothing for 48 of those days. Don't delude yourself.


Bull. That is absolute bunk that you're making up as you go along. I challenge you to give me a reliable, trustworthy source that claims that. They raided when they did because Director Sessions was an idiot who was already in trouble for taking taxpayer funded personal trips all over the country, and was trying to show that he was tough so he could keep his job. Many of the field agents (Sessions didn't bother consulting the guys on the ground who knew what was going on) actually were in favor of pulling back a bit to de-escalate the situation and try to calm Koresh down.

I support the notion that it is better to live in a peaceful, democratic society than it is to hole myself up in a bunker cleaning the guns in my arsenal pretending the post-apocalyptic totalitarianism is here and coming to get me.


You're damn right it is. Unless the government is actually oppressing you, you don't need to run around claiming you and your gun is the only thing standing between us and government oppression. But random shootings can and should not be excused by claiming it's all part of the price of freedom.

Pure blindness on your part. Guns get stolen every day. Pretty simple.

So you think something that's unorganized is in fact regulated? Someone get this kid a dictionary.

No, they did not. They were not that stupid.

Ahh, more insults that add nothing to the argument. Keep it up sport.


Well according to you nothing can be a militia unless it's individuals running around without any regulation or training in the use of their weapons. Not much of a militia.



Pushing for another ban, are we?

What you mean to say is that I disagree with you and am therefore stupid. Just because my historical view of the constitution is not the same as yours does not mean that you are not the one who has no clue what he's talking about.