How did we go 24 pages w/o a gun control debate?

[NERVUN]

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?

[Red Guard Revisionists]

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.

[Brogavia]

Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man gainst his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American. T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.

some quote from someone, I think it was one of the founding fathers.

[Bluth Corporation]

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?

[Techno-Soviet]

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?

The US Army says so?

[Kadagai]

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.

Sure. I agree that the government should have no right to control what weapons we may possess. But then again I think the government should go away and die, preferably soon.

[Secruss]

"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.

[Bluth Corporation]

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.

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.

[Gun Manufacturers]

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...

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).

[Red Guard Revisionists]

The US Army says so?

and capitalist economics, even the very rich would have a hard time affording to purchase maintain and arm a state of the art military aircraft and even a modern battle tank would be beyond the means of the vast majority of people

[NERVUN]

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?

How many civilians do YOU know with a tank? An F-22? A nuke?

[Techno-Soviet]

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.

Except HK!

"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.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technical_ ... ng_vehicle)

[Brogavia]

"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..

[Gun Manufacturers]

"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.

Those are called technicals.

[Bluth Corporation]

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?

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!

[Greed and Death]

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.

Really before 1934(The National Firearms Act), it was possible to match the government in destructive power.
Artillery pieces were purchasable as were
The history of the country where Civilians could not match the government is less then 1/3 of the entire countries existence.
As for human history it is a very slim margin indeed.

However a look at Vietnam, and possibly Iraq today shows enough people with AK-47's willing to die shows that technology can be overcame.

[Brogavia]

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).

That is of assuming however that the facisist restrictions on the 2nd Amendment are kept in place.

[NERVUN]

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.

[Techno-Soviet]

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!

Because, you just know how the government wants people to have the power to violently overthrow them at the slightest agitation.

[Brogavia]

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...

[Blouman Empire]

The thing I think about this is how in the world did this become a right?

Simply because it was writtern down?

Should not this really open a "What is a right" debate?

[Red Guard Revisionists]

"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..

i remember hearing somewhere that back in the 80s in border skirmishes between chad and libya, pick ups with recoilless rifles in the back were effective against soviet t54s because they could turn faster than the tanks turrets could swivel

[Techno-Soviet]

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...

The Russians only have two aircraft carriers. Well, one now since they gave one to China.

I seriously doubt they'd sell their only remaining aircraft carrier to Bill Gates.

[Bluth Corporation]

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.

I never realized the Taliban or the Mujahideen or the Mahdi Army or what-have-you had budgets in the trillions of dollars...

[Taevri]

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...

Is your definition of machine gun "something that shoots more than two rounds a second"?