[StratComm]

Actually the right to bear arms isn't intended to be used against invaders, it's intended to allow the population to have the ability to stand up to the government if all other means of change fail.  It's supposed to allow rebellion, and prevent a dictatorship from forming.  Modern laws have rendered that aspect of it moot, but in principle that's why it was put in to the constitution in the first place, and that's why it stays there.

[Rictor]

Well, it's not so much the laws that have rendered it moot, as has the standing army of a quarter of million people. Without that, it wouldn't actually be too hard to stage a coup, provided that most people really were opposed to the government.

Originally posted by Raa
You need a license to carry automatic firearms. It's not impossible to get one. The real estate broker who sold our home in florida had a machine gun license. And he'd go to ranges and fire them, too.

This is the sort of person you need looking out for your real-estate. I'm guessing he doesn't have people trying to steal his commisions or anything like that.

[Taristin]

Well... he did manage to sell our house...

[Kosh]

albeit.... isn't even an unarmed but mobile tank a pretty effective weapon of destruction anyways?

Actually, someone stole an M60 Bradley tank from a National Gaurd armory in San Diego 10 years ago. He drove around in a suburb for a while running over virtually everything in his path.

I remember seeing police video from that incident, it was pretty amazing.

[Clave]

Originally posted by StratComm
Actually the right to bear arms isn't intended to be used against invaders, it's intended to allow the population to have the ability to stand up to the government if all other means of change fail.  It's supposed to allow rebellion, and prevent a dictatorship from forming.  Modern laws have rendered that aspect of it moot, but in principle that's why it was put in to the constitution in the first place, and that's why it stays there.

And a bunch of armed rednecks would be better than a dictatorship?

The statement falls down simply because the government can declare the end of democracy at any time - remembering that the citizens may have guns, but the government has stealth bombers...

There is no justification for owning anything other than a pistol for self-defence....

[aldo_14]

AFAIK the only real / primary need for gun ownership post-independence was fear of a reinvasion by the British Empire (or another of the colonial powers).

I have a feeling the meaning of it was interpreted in court from being for an organized militia (i.e irregular but trained army) during a case on assault weapons, though; IIRC the wording was regarded as indicating a trained, organized unit rather than irregular or paramilitary (i.e. independent) individuals.

To me, any government which would establish a dictatorship requiring rebellion, would have made sure to prevent even widespread gun ownership becoming a problem to them.

[Clave]

Oh, I'm sure it made perfect sense at the time of the colonists, and when the pesky redskins were shooting the place up, but right now? in 2005?

You know it says a lot about where you live, if you feel the need to have a gun in your home....

[Grug]

Hehe Russia anyone?

As for someone raiding this guys place, how stupid would you have to be?

Being a billionaire he no doubt has guards, and I bet they're not carrying batons either...
He probably sleeps with a grenade under his pillow. =|

[Thrilla]

but does that now mean you can lawfully own an M16 or AK-47?

No...That just means you can own anything with a 3 Round burst.  The M16A1 you still have to have a liscence for, but you can own the M16A2 because it only has 3 Round Burst.  AK-47 is still very illegal.  It also allowed people to buy the flash supressors, and the collapsable stocks again which was dumb to outlaw them in the first place.

Actually, someone stole an M60 Bradley tank from a National Gaurd armory in San Diego 10 years ago. He drove around in a suburb for a while running over virtually everything in his path.

The video footage was kind of funny.  Except the part where the police finally catch the Bradley and shoot the guy killing him.

There is no justification for owning anything other than a pistol for self-defence....

So you're saying the people that like hunting sporting shooting, collectors, etc.  Have no justification?  Guns aren't going away in America anytime soon.  You have too many groups out there and too many companies out there that play a large part of the economy to get rid of them.

[EtherShock]

Originally posted by StratComm
Actually the right to bear arms isn't intended to be used against invaders, it's intended to allow the population to have the ability to stand up to the government if all other means of change fail.  It's supposed to allow rebellion, and prevent a dictatorship from forming.  Modern laws have rendered that aspect of it moot, but in principle that's why it was put in to the constitution in the first place, and that's why it stays there.

I know that. It's our right to overthrow the government if we don't like it. It was a joke to a certain extent.

Originally posted by aldo_14
AFAIK the only real / primary need for gun ownership post-independence was fear of a reinvasion by the British Empire (or another of the colonial powers). I have a feeling the meaning of it was interpreted in court from being for an organized militia (i.e irregular but trained army) during a case on assault weapons, though; IIRC the wording was regarded as indicating a trained, organized unit rather than irregular or paramilitary (i.e. independent) individuals.

To me, any government which would establish a dictatorship requiring rebellion, would have made sure to prevent even widespread gun ownership becoming a problem to them.

Nah, it's quite possible today. All you need is control of information. Ever read 1984? Information is the most powerful weapon in the world. If you control the flow of information, almost all your people will do your bidding/never question you. Essentially, they become mindless drones/zombies that serve the Party.

[Cobra]

WOW! Panzers? dude...

heh, dad's got a stash of weapons: 1 12-gauge, 1 magnum, 1 colt45, sniper, automatic rifle that looks suspiciously like a SAW, and a couple of others i don't remember (been a while since i saw 'em)

[Kosh]

remembering that the citizens may have guns, but the government has stealth bombers...

Yeah. The government has more, bigger guns. Would you try and take a shot at an M1A1 tank with a fully loaded cannon pointed at you with your pistol?

[achtung]

Originally posted by Kosh



Yeah. The government has more, bigger guns. Would you try and take a shot at an M1A1 tank with a fully loaded cannon pointed at you with your pistol?

I would because if your a rebel they would probably just shoot you anyway.  Hell, I'd rather die fighting than become a prisoner of war in a rebellion.  Because if the American people began to rebel that would mean the government had gotten pretty nasty by then.

You can take a tank out with a pistol (or at least disable it) just shoot for the cameras on an M1A1 and after thats done the commander will pop out o' the top and then BLAM!  Of course thats assuming it doesn't shoot first:D

[achtung]

Here's those pics I promised sorry their late.

Left to right:  .30 carbine, 7mm, SKS, 16 guage, 16 gauge, .22 magnum, 30-30, Model 88 12 Gauge.



Left to right: MAK-90, .45 Combat Commander, .22 LR



Edit: The links work now!

[Cobra]

the links don't work.

[krisvek]

i concur with the earlier statement about invading our mainland...impossible...a land force could never get to us

seriously, i've thought about it...now, i live in the usa, so i'm biased, but feel free to tell me the weakness in my idea

sure, you can nuke and bomb, but then the land is ruined
and to bomb us more strategically, you need to have a launch platform close by, in the ocean...which would get annihilated by our fleet of subs, carriers, etc.
but let's say someone rivals our ocean might, and gets close enough for the tact missiles and bombing runs...at that point, we got our land-based defenses in range to make strike
ultimately though, yeah, we could get bombed to hell with enough force
but i dont think we could gever get occupied (occupying the rubble of what used to be the USA wouldnt count...and really, dya think that the aggressor would really be left standing at that point?  "sir, we're being bombed alll over the place!  it's all over!  ahh!"  "ok, press the button"  NUKES, boom, the end of that
so, to occupy us, they'd have to get land forces over here...they'd have to truck them by sea or air; both options would have to fight through our defenses there
but even if they got land troops on our soil, they wouldnt be able to get them there quick enough or in enough numbers to be useful....too many would die before the rest arrived...china's million man army isnt a threat to US, cuz they cant use that army on us...it's impotent...unless they all swim real well...
only option is to land them in another country that is land-locked with us, and that would be impossible to keep secret "wow....sure are of chinese people (or whoever) in venezuela (or wherever) these days, jim"

and i've long imagined the results of invading troops trying to take a city like LA or new york...man....sure, they'd prolly EVENTUALLY kill all the civs and such, with tanks and whatnot, but youre in trouble when you peek around a corner and there's the glint of scopes, binoculars, and various weapons pointing out of every single window in that building over there;  urban fighting is possibly the deadliest, so many hidey spots

america's danger lies in stretching our necks out too far, and losing the money game;  attacking other countries to drag us into it is likely the best way to hurt us...and the best way to use land forces against us, if that's your particular strength (trying not to pick on china, but it's the one ya hear about lately, other than n.korea...and dammit, why cant china just back off of tawaiin?  that's a war waiting to happen....)

[Swamp_Thing]

Originally posted by krisvek
and dammit, why cant china just back off of tawaiin?  that's a war waiting to happen....)

Uh...because Taiwan IS chinese territory, maybe?
Would you give up Hawai if they rebelled against the mainland govt.? I think not. So why should they?

[EtherShock]

Ah, but the deal with China and Taiwan is that Taiwan is capitalist. They make lots of money. No one's going to let go of that, but Taiwan wants to be free from communist rule, and yeah, hopefully that can be settled peacefully.  I think comparing it to Hawaii doesn't make sense today. If referring to the Hawaii of post annexation/pre-territory, then maybe it could.

[krisvek]

under what authority is tawaiin china's?  uhh...didnt britain and others claim america?  and what happened?  america got some friends to help, and rebelled, became their own;  tawaiin is doing the same

the people who live there should have a right to choose who they want to govern them

and yes, if hawaii wanted to go off on their own, fine by me....no way they would, since the tourist industry is their lifeblood;  why the hell should i care what hawaii does?  do i live there?  are they doing anything for me?  not really...nothing i would miss, seriously

if hawaii wanted to be sovereign again, i'd support it
i support tawaain being soveriegn
and hell...if texas wanted to be it's own nation again, i'd support that, so long as they had good reason (i happen to live in texas, so it affects me more)

[EtherShock]

I never knew this before until recently, but apparently Taiwan is part of China. They also threatened to occupy if they showed the slightest sign of declaring independence. I am not supporting China. I was just merely trying to see the other's point of view.