Bluth Corporation wrote:No, no, still true. In order to ensure liberty, we've got to be able to fight back against the state.
Yeah, and just how effective do you think a hunting riffle is going to be against an Abrams tank?
Advertisement
by NERVUN » Tue Jun 09, 2009 8:16 pm
Bluth Corporation wrote:No, no, still true. In order to ensure liberty, we've got to be able to fight back against the state.
by Red Guard Revisionists » Tue Jun 09, 2009 8:16 pm
Brogavia wrote:Maurepas wrote:true, I really meant more like, having weapons capable of doing serious damage to it, like Machine Guns, Grenade Launchers, Bazookas, etc...
Why not?
by Brogavia » Tue Jun 09, 2009 8:19 pm
by Bluth Corporation » Tue Jun 09, 2009 8:19 pm
NERVUN wrote:Bluth Corporation wrote:No, no, still true. In order to ensure liberty, we've got to be able to fight back against the state.
Yeah, and just how effective do you think a hunting riffle is going to be against an Abrams tank?
by Techno-Soviet » Tue Jun 09, 2009 8:21 pm
Bluth Corporation wrote:NERVUN wrote:Bluth Corporation wrote:No, no, still true. In order to ensure liberty, we've got to be able to fight back against the state.
Yeah, and just how effective do you think a hunting riffle is going to be against an Abrams tank?
Who said civilians wouldn't have parity in weapons?
by Kadagai » Tue Jun 09, 2009 8:21 pm
Brogavia wrote:This is by far the most unlikely thing that has ever happened.
NSG, without its a gun control debate? Its madness I tell you!.
But really, where do you stand on Victim disarmarment aka gun control?
Personally, I believe that there are no constitutionally allowable restrictions on a citizens right to own a firearm.
by Secruss » Tue Jun 09, 2009 8:22 pm
by Bluth Corporation » Tue Jun 09, 2009 8:24 pm
Red Guard Revisionists wrote:Brogavia wrote:Maurepas wrote:true, I really meant more like, having weapons capable of doing serious damage to it, like Machine Guns, Grenade Launchers, Bazookas, etc...
Why not?
'
the right to bare arms isn't really about hunting or even personal self defense, its about the citizens' right to defend themselves from tyranny and you really can't do that without heavy weapons. if all the people can field against the state is light infantry they are going to lose, anti armor and anti aircraft capacity are a must. military aircraft and armored vehicles themselves would of course be better, but are far too expensive for the average citizen.
by Gun Manufacturers » Tue Jun 09, 2009 8:25 pm
Maurepas wrote:greed and death wrote:Maurepas wrote:Depends, I would say the government has no right to take your guns away....
However if your arsenal starts to out step the US military, then there are problems...
I doubt anyone person in the world could out step the US military.
true, I really meant more like, having weapons capable of doing serious damage to it, like Machine Guns, Grenade Launchers, Bazookas, etc...
Natapoc wrote:...You should post more in here so I don't seem like the extremist...
Auraelius wrote:If you take the the TITANIC, and remove the letters T, T, and one of the I's, and add the letters C,O,S,P,R, and Y you get CONSPIRACY. oOooOooooOOOooooOOOOOOoooooooo
Maineiacs wrote:Give a man a fish and he eats for a day, teach a man to fish and he'll sit in a boat and get drunk all day.
Luw wrote:Politics is like having two handfuls of shit - one that smells bad and one that looks bad - and having to decide which one to put in your mouth.
by Red Guard Revisionists » Tue Jun 09, 2009 8:25 pm
Techno-Soviet wrote:
The US Army says so?
by NERVUN » Tue Jun 09, 2009 8:25 pm
Bluth Corporation wrote:NERVUN wrote:Bluth Corporation wrote:No, no, still true. In order to ensure liberty, we've got to be able to fight back against the state.
Yeah, and just how effective do you think a hunting riffle is going to be against an Abrams tank?
Who said civilians wouldn't have parity in weapons?
by Techno-Soviet » Tue Jun 09, 2009 8:26 pm
Bluth Corporation wrote:Red Guard Revisionists wrote:Brogavia wrote:Why not?
'
the right to bare arms isn't really about hunting or even personal self defense, its about the citizens' right to defend themselves from tyranny and you really can't do that without heavy weapons. if all the people can field against the state is light infantry they are going to lose, anti armor and anti aircraft capacity are a must. military aircraft and armored vehicles themselves would of course be better, but are far too expensive for the average citizen.
Bill Gates could easily afford to purchase (if not maintain and operate) a fleet of aircraft carriers.
Any weapons system is within the reach of civilians who want to pool their resources.
Secruss wrote:"the right to bare arms isn't really about hunting or even personal self defense, its about the citizens' right to defend themselves from tyranny and you really can't do that without heavy weapons. if all the people can field against the state is light infantry they are going to lose, anti armor and anti aircraft capacity are a must. military aircraft and armored vehicles themselves would of course be better, but are far too expensive for the average citizen."
You could have one of those 3rd world assault trucks. Like... The ford with a machine gun strapped to the top.
by Brogavia » Tue Jun 09, 2009 8:27 pm
Secruss wrote:"the right to bare arms isn't really about hunting or even personal self defense, its about the citizens' right to defend themselves from tyranny and you really can't do that without heavy weapons. if all the people can field against the state is light infantry they are going to lose, anti armor and anti aircraft capacity are a must. military aircraft and armored vehicles themselves would of course be better, but are far too expensive for the average citizen."
You could have one of those 3rd world assault trucks. Like... The ford with a machine gun strapped to the top.
by Gun Manufacturers » Tue Jun 09, 2009 8:27 pm
Secruss wrote:"the right to bare arms isn't really about hunting or even personal self defense, its about the citizens' right to defend themselves from tyranny and you really can't do that without heavy weapons. if all the people can field against the state is light infantry they are going to lose, anti armor and anti aircraft capacity are a must. military aircraft and armored vehicles themselves would of course be better, but are far too expensive for the average citizen."
You could have one of those 3rd world assault trucks. Like... The ford with a machine gun strapped to the top.
Natapoc wrote:...You should post more in here so I don't seem like the extremist...
Auraelius wrote:If you take the the TITANIC, and remove the letters T, T, and one of the I's, and add the letters C,O,S,P,R, and Y you get CONSPIRACY. oOooOooooOOOooooOOOOOOoooooooo
Maineiacs wrote:Give a man a fish and he eats for a day, teach a man to fish and he'll sit in a boat and get drunk all day.
Luw wrote:Politics is like having two handfuls of shit - one that smells bad and one that looks bad - and having to decide which one to put in your mouth.
by Bluth Corporation » Tue Jun 09, 2009 8:27 pm
NERVUN wrote:Bluth Corporation wrote:NERVUN wrote:Yeah, and just how effective do you think a hunting riffle is going to be against an Abrams tank?
Who said civilians wouldn't have parity in weapons?
How many civilians do YOU know with a tank? An F-22? A nuke?
by Greed and Death » Tue Jun 09, 2009 8:28 pm
NERVUN wrote:Bluth Corporation wrote:Maurepas wrote:However if your arsenal starts to out step the US military, then there are problems...
No, there's not.
After all, the whole point of civilian ownership of weapons is to ensure the populace can mount an effective revolt against government should it ever become necessary.
Which might have been the case up to, say, the Civil War. Now-a-days, not even close.
by Brogavia » Tue Jun 09, 2009 8:28 pm
Gun Manufacturers wrote:
Machine guns are very expensive in the US, due to the 1986 ban on civilians buying new machine guns. Nowadays, only rich collectors buy them (M16s are $14k+, AKs are $17k+, etc).
by NERVUN » Tue Jun 09, 2009 8:29 pm
Bluth Corporation wrote:Bill Gates could easily afford to purchase (if not maintain and operate) a fleet of aircraft carriers.
Any weapons system is within the reach of civilians who want to pool their resources.
by Techno-Soviet » Tue Jun 09, 2009 8:30 pm
Bluth Corporation wrote:NERVUN wrote:Bluth Corporation wrote:Who said civilians wouldn't have parity in weapons?
How many civilians do YOU know with a tank? An F-22? A nuke?
Because it's illegal--which is the whole point!
The government shouldn't be making ownership of such systems illegal, because it makes achieving parity impossible!
by Brogavia » Tue Jun 09, 2009 8:31 pm
NERVUN wrote:Bluth Corporation wrote:Bill Gates could easily afford to purchase (if not maintain and operate) a fleet of aircraft carriers.
Any weapons system is within the reach of civilians who want to pool their resources.
Um, no. The last Nimitz class carries was 6.2 billion. Bill could afford a few, but that's just to build them, not crew and arm one.
To reach the capasity to actually challege the US military would take the money of the US government. No, civilians can't just get togther and buy one.
by Blouman Empire » Tue Jun 09, 2009 8:31 pm
by Red Guard Revisionists » Tue Jun 09, 2009 8:32 pm
Brogavia wrote:Secruss wrote:"the right to bare arms isn't really about hunting or even personal self defense, its about the citizens' right to defend themselves from tyranny and you really can't do that without heavy weapons. if all the people can field against the state is light infantry they are going to lose, anti armor and anti aircraft capacity are a must. military aircraft and armored vehicles themselves would of course be better, but are far too expensive for the average citizen."
You could have one of those 3rd world assault trucks. Like... The ford with a machine gun strapped to the top.
Why a truck? Use an El Camino. Gives you speed of a muscle car, with the bed of a pick up for mounted Machine guns..
by Techno-Soviet » Tue Jun 09, 2009 8:33 pm
Brogavia wrote:NERVUN wrote:Bluth Corporation wrote:Bill Gates could easily afford to purchase (if not maintain and operate) a fleet of aircraft carriers.
Any weapons system is within the reach of civilians who want to pool their resources.
Um, no. The last Nimitz class carries was 6.2 billion. Bill could afford a few, but that's just to build them, not crew and arm one.
To reach the capasity to actually challege the US military would take the money of the US government. No, civilians can't just get togther and buy one.
There is a difference between aircraft carriers and American Supercarriers.
He could easily do it if it was a Russian one...
by Bluth Corporation » Tue Jun 09, 2009 8:34 pm
NERVUN wrote:Bluth Corporation wrote:Bill Gates could easily afford to purchase (if not maintain and operate) a fleet of aircraft carriers.
Any weapons system is within the reach of civilians who want to pool their resources.
Um, no. The last Nimitz class carries was 6.2 billion.Bill could afford a few, but that's just to build them, not crew and arm one.
Yeah, I said that already; you really need to start paying attention.
The point is, it's not as astronomically expensive as you might want to make it out to be.
And even if it's practically infeasible, that's no reason to prohibit it.To reach the capasity to actually challege the US military would take the money of the US government.
by Taevri » Tue Jun 09, 2009 8:35 pm
Maurepas wrote:greed and death wrote:Maurepas wrote:Depends, I would say the government has no right to take your guns away....
However if your arsenal starts to out step the US military, then there are problems...
I doubt anyone person in the world could out step the US military.
true, I really meant more like, having weapons capable of doing serious damage to it, like Machine Guns, Grenade Launchers, Bazookas, etc...
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Ancientania, Emotional Support Crocodile, IC-Water, The Astral Mandate, The French National Workers State, Tungstan
Advertisement