do i need to expound more on the definitions of clips and magazines? perhaps i'd like to inflict pain on you with a magazine. such as People.
12 killed, 50 wounded at Aurora movie theater
- Thread starter beancounter
- Start date
do i need to expound more on the definitions of clips and magazines? perhaps i'd like to inflict pain on you with a magazine. such as People.
kazyeeqen
Superb Owl
FortyTwo
Custom Title
Okay, these make more sense. It was the whole soul thing that threw me off.
Yeah, I have a Glock 22 in the drawer. My ex bought it. Personally, I like a simple revolver better, but then, I generally prefer more basic machines over ones with bells and whistles that I don't need. I need to get around to trading in the Glock for something more useful, like a revolver, if I decide to keep a gun. (And the only reason for that is to have something available in case of a badly injured or rabid wild animal that should be put out of its misery.)
I think Waco and the other situations to which you refer are prime examples of the uselessness of a home arsenal vis a vis the government or an invading force - it's always going to be outgunned. If, for any country that has at any point stepped beyond being ruled by a monarchy, dictatorship or oligarchy, you're at the point where the government is the enemy, it's either because you're what is generally considered an extremist splinter group or because through a combination of inertia and ignorance the population as a whole has allowed itself to be led down the garden path and the citizenry as a whole is complicit in what's going on.
The second amendment isn't in place for hunting, which yes 6-8 cartridges is more than adequate, but that is a moot point. At the risk of making myself look like a nut job, how do citizens protect themselves from a tyrannical government if said citizens are denied comparable arms and protection the military and law enforcement "enjoy"? And no, I don't mean to turn this into a debate that we have a right to tanks and nukes.
I stated my view on that in the post immediately above yours.
And yes, in order to not be outgunned in terms of you versus your government, you would need comparable weapons in comparable numbers - missiles, tear gas, grenades for everyone?
Yes, big if.
IMO, a country which has had a meaningful way in which the people select their own leaders loses that (absent invasion, and the answer to that threat is the military), it loses it through the inertia, shortsightedness, ignorance, etc. of its own people. Armed citizenry isn't likely to make a difference. Examples in living memory are Germany under Hitler and Italy under Mussolini. The people allowed that to happen, were complicit in it happening. In Germany, the tide might have been turned if the opposition had been successful in assassinating Hitler, but availability of firearms was not the issue.
Just like our Old West mentality, the meme of revolution still stays with us because of how the country originated.
Yes. And their property generally was confiscated. Perfectly logical, when your intent is to wipe out that particular segment of the population.
OTOH, what the NRA and the pro gun lobby isn't telling you is that as soon as the Nazis assumed power, they limited or ameliorated the strict gun control laws which had been enacted by the Weimar Republic. IOW, the Nazis greatly expanded the gun ownership rights of non-Jewish Germans.
None of who cared enough to protect the Jewish peoples "rights" who no longer could. The point is they wanted a certain segment to be unable to defend themselves so they took their guns. As you said perfectly logical as is resisting efforts to restrict, register and confiscate guns in this country.
Well, if you anticipate that the goal of the government is going to be to eradicate its citizenry, then yes.
It strikes me that a much more reasonable and rational response to a fear that the government is going to eradicate or trample its citizenry is to exercise one's voting and free speech rights to make sure that kind of government does not come into being. And if you're in the minority because too many of your fellow citizens are too complacent, too ignorant, or too self centered, then the guns aren't going to help you, because you are going to be vastly outnumbered by those same complacent, ignorant and/or self centered fellow citizens, which is exactly what happened in Germany and Italy.
Well it's not so much as anticipating it so much as a why make it easy for them. I honestly don't ever anticipate a situation or a circumstance where our government would take over and oppress our citizens militarily but part of me also acknowledges the fact having armed citizens is a deterrent to doing so.
That's where we differ - I don't think that having citizens running around with guns is a deterrent to a government taking over. If it were, there would be a number of democracies where the citizens would have no rights, and others in which citizens currently have few rights where they would haveloads of rights.
I think that, with respect to concerns about one's government and being the victim of crime, firearms are much like a security blanket - psychologically comforting without being of practical use.
I think that, with respect to concerns about one's government and being the victim of crime, firearms are much like a security blanket - psychologically comforting without being of practical use.
These paranoid worries about the government seem so strange to me. I don't respect a lot of the things my government has done recently but stockpiling weapons at my home has never crossed my mind.
