Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
Latest activity
Classifieds
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Log in
Register
What's New?
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More Options
Advertise with us
Contact Us
Close Menu
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
The Range
Law & Order
Are you a gun controller ?
Search titles only
By:
Reply to Thread
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="haglered" data-source="post: 1189407" data-attributes="member: 12419"><p>Let's play devil's advocate for a moment.... </p><p></p><p>The founders of this nation lived in a world where the gun had the use of hunting to provide food as well as a weapon of massed men fighting together against a common enemy. They could not forsee the advent of automatic weapons or other weapons that could kill a lot of people in a hurry in the hands of a derranged criminal. <img src="/images/smilies/new/violent2.gif" class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":fullauto:" title="Full Auto :fullauto:" data-shortname=":fullauto:" /></p><p></p><p>I don't think they were worried about individuals having the firepower to hold off a group of constables with firepower that could wreck havoc on a lot of people at once.</p><p></p><p>That being said. I think they were more concerned with the possiblility that some despot could take guns away from the populace. The guns they had in mind are those which are used by men who are called out to fight shoulder to shoulder with their neighbors. <img src="/images/smilies/new/soldiers.gif" class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":soldiers:" title="Soldiers :soldiers:" data-shortname=":soldiers:" /></p><p></p><p>I think the modern equivalent would be the average A/R. Except we don't come out to fight shoulder to shoulder with our neighbors. We have a professional standing army with much more dangerous arms than most of us average men could afford. (think about some of the hardware used by the military today) </p><p></p><p>There is no way a group of average men armed with guns and weapons they could get thier hands on could stand against a professional standing army. Not just for training but because they simply don't have the firepower to go up against what millions of tax dollars can afford. <img src="/images/smilies/image1363.gif" class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":uberblast" title="Image1363 :uberblast" data-shortname=":uberblast" /></p><p></p><p>Still an armed populace is an empowered populace who does not have to be afraid of the police forces of their local government when that government breaks the laws and tries to take away rights when they have no just reason to do so. </p><p></p><p>An unarmed populace is a powerless populace. Having guns gives them power. Even if they could not take on the armed forces; in sufficient numbers, they could stand up and make it impossible for a despot to do what he/she wants.</p><p></p><p>There can be no real line at which the government can say "this weapon is too much for the people to have access to." Yet, they do so. </p><p></p><p> This is wrong because the principal given in the constitutino is that arms equal to military class weapons are what the populace has the right to keep and bear. <img src="/images/smilies/new/shoot1.gif" class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":50cal:" title="Shoot1 :50cal:" data-shortname=":50cal:" /></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="haglered, post: 1189407, member: 12419"] Let's play devil's advocate for a moment.... The founders of this nation lived in a world where the gun had the use of hunting to provide food as well as a weapon of massed men fighting together against a common enemy. They could not forsee the advent of automatic weapons or other weapons that could kill a lot of people in a hurry in the hands of a derranged criminal. :fullauto: I don't think they were worried about individuals having the firepower to hold off a group of constables with firepower that could wreck havoc on a lot of people at once. That being said. I think they were more concerned with the possiblility that some despot could take guns away from the populace. The guns they had in mind are those which are used by men who are called out to fight shoulder to shoulder with their neighbors. :soldiers: I think the modern equivalent would be the average A/R. Except we don't come out to fight shoulder to shoulder with our neighbors. We have a professional standing army with much more dangerous arms than most of us average men could afford. (think about some of the hardware used by the military today) There is no way a group of average men armed with guns and weapons they could get thier hands on could stand against a professional standing army. Not just for training but because they simply don't have the firepower to go up against what millions of tax dollars can afford. :uberblast Still an armed populace is an empowered populace who does not have to be afraid of the police forces of their local government when that government breaks the laws and tries to take away rights when they have no just reason to do so. An unarmed populace is a powerless populace. Having guns gives them power. Even if they could not take on the armed forces; in sufficient numbers, they could stand up and make it impossible for a despot to do what he/she wants. There can be no real line at which the government can say "this weapon is too much for the people to have access to." Yet, they do so. This is wrong because the principal given in the constitutino is that arms equal to military class weapons are what the populace has the right to keep and bear. :50cal: [/QUOTE]
Insert Quotes…
Verification
Post Reply
Forums
The Range
Law & Order
Are you a gun controller ?
Search titles only
By:
Top
Bottom