Awesome unrelated analogy. The full force of the U.S. military is not in Afghanistan. Different setting, different group of people... analogy is plain stupid. The only valid argument that can be made is if the U.S. Military turned on its own people, there will be many troops who will not be able to take arms against there own and side with the rebels. And you are referencing a very broad and general span. If we look at a more practical likely scenario, you having a concealed carry will have no affect when a squad full of Marines or Soldiers, or a tank is coming after you. Please do not be overly optimistic here. You are really trying to stretch your point if you honestly believe that the second amendment has a practical purpose today when it comes to the right to bear arms to defend against a tyrannical government.
You failed to answer my question. Semantics aside, do you really think inexperienced citizens armed with a simple handgun and the occasional assault rifle are going to be able to take on a well-trained and experienced American military (or remnants of the military as you imply)?
What do you expect when all kids ever see these days are guns and violence? Most kids won't grow up to be murderers or criminals, but when these graphic images are constantly in their minds, coupled with mental instability, and/or parental neglect, a small group of these children can grow desensitized to gun violence and their real world ramifications. How do we rectify this cultural problem? Freedom comes with it's dangers. Is there anything we can do? Or are we just lucky it only happens once every 10 years or so?
So we should give up our right to bear arms simply because we are at a severe disadvantage when it comes to protecting ourselves against a professional army? While weaponry and war strategies have no doubt advanced, the British were still an incredible force compared to the untrained militias of the American Colonies. I just jumped in this thread, but are you advocating a removal of the 2nd amendment? Or are you saying we should be able to have automatic and semi-automatic weapons to protect ourselves against a 21st century military force? Once we have lost our weapons, what stops the government from turning on its citizens? We already know how corrupt our politicians can be, what's to stop them in the future from wielding the force of our army in order to subdue us when we are unhappy? BTW, thank you for your service chowd.
Duh, of course it's a different setting and different group. My point being that the full force of the US govt hasn't been able to defeat a "a bunch of untrained citizens with pistols and semi automatic weapons" after a war of 10 years. Defeating a large domestic guerrilla force on US soil would be practically impossible. Due to the reasons you mentioned above as well many others. I never referenced anything about concealed carry or the 2nd amendment in my comment. Wtf are you reading?
Britain kept most of their firepower at home because of a possible war on their front. Not to mention nearly every nation that hated Britain sent us aid, troops, experienced officers, and did all in their power to cripple Britain's capacity for war. Tell me. How did we fare in the War of 1812? America's fine crop of untrained militiamen and vastly inferior navy were destroyed until the post-war battle of New Orleans.
So we should keep assault weapons legal because the US might turn into Syria and we'll need a plethora of small arms to defeat the US military. Got it.
I really don't see what your point is? The War of 1812 ended in a virtual stalemate. We lost roughly 700 more soldiers in action, but there were no territory exchanges, our military wasn't crippled, and we weren't saved by the Battle of New Orleans...the tide had turned months before in New York and Baltimore. New Orleans just put the lid on the can. All of that seems completely irrelevant to me. What is your point? Are you advocating gun-control because you think we don't have the ability to defend ourselves against a large and powerful military? So we should just throw in the towel and leave ourselves vulnerable? I don't own a gun, I doubt I ever will. I don't care for them, they are dangerous, I don't hunt, and I don't want to ever have to kill someone. However, we have a constitutional right to bear arms, and your reasoning for altering the Constitution are not justified. Gun-control does not solve violent crime. E.g., after decades of strict totalitarian rule with forced gun-control, Russia's violent crime rate exploded. People just stopped using guns to kill people. Like I said just jumped in this 1 page ago, so I apologize if I am mistaken in your intent.
What constitutes an assault weapon? Anything semi-automatic? Is it a certain caliber? The VAST majority of legal gun owners are law abiding NON mass murderers. Do you think we should cut down the apple tree just because one apple was bad?
you would be surprised how many trained capable fighters there are in Afghanistan. These people lived war for 40+ years. And small arms shooting is not what is slowing progress in Afghanistan. hidden explosives are.
Point taken. Far be it for me to debase the fighting ability of the of the forces on the ground over there(either side)....more so the pentagons inability to provide the resources needed to close it out.
meh, without the small arms the post IED ambushes are not effective. Plus IED patrols would have carte blanche to prevent their deployment. Every weapon system needs support. Set off IED, wait for medevac and support to enter killzone, ambush with RPG's and small arms fire.
One of the authors is an attorney working in association with this august Thinktank - the Pacific Research Institute http://www.pacificresearch.org/about/default.asp While "policy is too important to leave the the experts" slant is obnoxious, and the organization that produces this article is funded basically by Exxon, Big Tobacco, Gun Companies, Health Insurance companies etc. I found the article to be fairly interesting until this gem: This article doesn't really provide ammo for either side unless people are arguing exclusively that guns result in more death in all situations, but it made for a interesting read, thanks for sharing.
My 44 makes sho all yo kids don't grow. :grin: Rep for the first person that can tell me where that's from!
Not sure whether this has been posted in the thread, but I thought this discussion was interesting, especially coming from O'Reilly: <iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/FXTT3A0B1Vs" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
If you take the 2nd Amendment in its totality regulation and registration of guns doesn't conflict with it. The wording of the 2nd Amendment shows that it is not an unlimited right to own arms but is a right for the states to provide for their security. This is also supported by Hamilton in the Federalist papers. I think it is clear and the right to bear arms (specifically firearms) is a Constitutional right but regulation of they type of arms isn't.
