Join the fight

[IDBoating]

The reason the second amendment exists is so that the people as a whole can defend themselves from a corrupt tyrannical government. Many say that should not matter anymore since average citizens with an AR-15 cannot stop an army tank, and that is true. So we've already started down the slope where the government has banned the type of arms the people would need to stand up to the Army.

The difference is in numbers. Let's say 1/3rd of the population owns firearms. That's ~100M citizens with "lesser" weapons. How big an army could they field - two million? Three million? The citizens would still outnumber them 30-50 to one.

"But they have big guns, nukes, biological/chemical weapons, etc." Yes, but those are not useful in a tactical ground war. The goal of most wars is generally one of two things: 1) Control of resources (land), or 2) Control of people. Weapons of mass destruction leave the earth scorched and the people dead. "Winning" doesn't mean much if the land is useless and there's nobody to rule over. So now we're down to traditional weaponry, and while they would still have fullautos and grenades and such, a 30-50:1 ratio combined with the homefield advantage is really tough to overcome. Look at Vietnam, the Soviets and (later) the USA in Afghanistan, etc... it's REALLY HARD to outright "win" against an entrenched local population even if you have superior weaponry. Give the locals a 30-50:1 numeric advantage and it's going to be a long, hard slog.

I have an older coworker who grew up in the Bronx. Back before the USSR dissolved there was a discussion at work about an "invasion" by Soviet soldiers. This guy just started laughing, and said "Just let 'em try to take the Bronx. They won't last 30 minutes." Repeat that in every hometown across America, where the locals know all the hidey-holes, have righteous indignation behind them, and outnumber the invaders by 30:1 or better, and how do you think it's going to work out?

Bottom line: The Second Amendment still matters and its intent would still work, even against a modern military. But we'd better keep our semiautos.

[chpthril]

We already have this data. The 1994 Clinton Gun Ban, which lasted for ten years, tested this exact theory. The data shows that there was no significant reduction in gun-related crime while the ban was in effect.

What was the definition of insanity again? Oh yeah - "Doing the same thing again, but this time expecting different results."

Maybe we need to do background checks on those seeking elected office. The ability to right laws, or enact executive order, to suite your agenda, is a far more dangerous weapon then any AR-15

Ewok makes some great points. a simple riffle is mo match for a tank or gun-ship, but it stands a better chance then the sticks and rocks that the Gov would rather we have. Look at some of the 3rd world countries in the middle east. The common people, called "rebels" are fighting an armed ruling ragime with their bare hands. These are countries where only the military is allowed to have guns, and there used to defend the gov from the people, not from and evasion from other countries.

[IDBoating]

I will say it again:

Criminals should not control the rights of law-abiding people.

Should you lose your rights because of the criminal actions of someone else? That is the exact opposite of "Innocent until proven guilty." You are essentially being found guilty while having committed no action at all. You are being penalized when you haven't done anything.

The slippery slope here isn't "firearms". They're just a convenient boogieman. What's really at stake here is the central, fundamental premise of our judicial system and our civil liberties.

[Nobody]

I will say it again:

Criminals should not control the rights of law-abiding people.

Should you lose your rights because of the criminal actions of someone else? That is the exact opposite of "Innocent until proven guilty." You are essentially being found guilty while having committed no action at all. You are being penalized when you haven't done anything.

The slippery slope here isn't "firearms". They're just a convenient boogieman. What's really at stake here is the central, fundamental premise of our judicial system and our civil liberties.

NEWS FLASH...........it's guilty until proven innocent.

[dom w. forte]

If anybody has time research the Battle Of Athens 1946 , I believe it happened in Tennesee! Citizens against the goverment.

[Nobody]

If anybody has time research the Battle Of Athens 1946 , I believe it happened in Tennesee! Citizens against the goverment.

The Battle of Athens was an armed rebellion led by WWII veterans and citizens in Athens and Etowah, Tennessee, United States, against the tyrannical local government in August 1946.

Here's the movie on YouTube. The best part is when everyone opens fire and nobody gets shot, how Hollywood is that? A Very entertaining show. The ending was so good I cried. The question is.......who plays "Mr. Mayor"???

[MoneyPity]

I carried three shotgun and small caliber hunting rifles in my trunk all during hunting season and never. Had issues.

What has changed since I bought my weapons assault rifles were not an option. My 30:30 handled a clip of 5 rounds. Shot guns were plugged for hunting to handle no more than 3 rounds. I figure if you cannot hit your target game like a pheasant, rabbit or dear in one to two rounds you need to practice on the range and not get an assault weapon with a large bayonet style clip.

What has changed is assault rifles and higher cycle rate on semi automatic weapons.

Maybe gun control laws should be different based on locality. If the weapon is in a rural area it has less impact than same weapon say in a large metro area.

Background checks are most likely are not going to help. It won't help with a person suffering from depression who suddenly cracks. We do have the right to bear arms but allowing assault style weapons that have high repetition rate will still have issues like Connecticut, NIU and other acts of violence that would have smaller repercussions than current assault style weapons and their design. Rifles don't kill crazed people do with the help of an assault rifle.

I must have issued why we need assault weapons and Glock style pistols.what has changed between the 70's,? The types of weapons are not mainly focused to hunting.

[Wickedcummins]

Give them a inch they will take a foot. FIve them a foot they take a yard give them a yard they will take a football field.. ETCCCCC...

STand and fight they can not have our weapons take tehm from the criminals... Inforce the laws we have NOW! If you all want a free country let things be the way they are.. Trying to solve this will only take more freedom away.. Wanna be safe! ARM YOUR SELF.. Criminals dont like good guys with guns!

[Nobody]

Give them a inch they will take a foot. FIve them a foot they take a yard give them a yard they will take a football field.. ETCCCCC...

STand and fight they can not have our weapons take tehm from the criminals... Inforce the laws we have NOW! If you all want a free country let things be the way they are.. Trying to solve this will only take more freedom away.. Wanna be safe! ARM YOUR SELF.. Criminals dont like good guys with guns!

Five them a foot?

[bryce2320]

The Battle of Athens was an armed rebellion led by WWII veterans and citizens in Athens and Etowah, Tennessee, United States, against the tyrannical local government in August 1946.

Here's the movie on YouTube. The best part is when everyone opens fire and nobody gets shot, how Hollywood is that? A Very entertaining show. The ending was so good I cried. The question is.......who plays "Mr. Mayor"???

Pussyfart

[laserfish]

Here is a great interview. Very intellegent and articulate. I wish the Sunday talking head shows would have Mr. Morgan as a guest. He calmly educates the interviewer on the facts surrounding the second amendment. All people that believe in LIBERTY should be able to articulate these facts. Unfortunately, facts do not mean much to people like Nobody. Watch this video link:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ECxDv...layer_embedded

[Nobody]

Here is a great interview. Very intellegent and articulate. I wish the Sunday talking head shows would have Mr. Morgan as a guest. He calmly educates the interviewer on the facts surrounding the second amendment. All people that believe in LIBERTY should be able to articulate these facts. Unfortunately, facts do not mean much to people like Nobody. Watch this video link:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ECxDv...layer_embedded

Thats a pretty low blow laserdude. FYI...Your not the majority in this country.

It helps to embed the video....show here's to facts.

[laserfish]

Nobody, thanks for the help with the video. And thank God that we live in a Constitutional Republic and the majority do not always rule!(even though I question the stats that say the majority want to ban even some guns).

[Nobody]

Nobody, thanks for the help with the video.

Ur welcome.

Just click the "youtube" button (2nd from the right), then cut and past your youtube "share" link, embed in between these, then remove the parts that are highlighted in bold and keep the parts highlighted in red.http://youtu.be/q2LSmpqAZ74

Then proceed to tell me how wrong I am, or some offensive name, or that I'm a ?????? for being a nobody democrat that hates guns.

[Timmy!]

So in that video they refer to the Federalist papers. Here's an excerpt from the article:
http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa46.htm

Extravagant as the supposition is, let it however be made. Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger. The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops. Those who are best acquainted with the last successful resistance of this country against the British arms, will be most inclined to deny the possibility of it. Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of.