• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Guns

What do you think gun control should be like?

  • Let everyone have a gun

    Votes: 19 22.4%
  • Quick background check to purchase and carry

    Votes: 25 29.4%
  • Quick background check to purchase, but more difficult to carry

    Votes: 11 12.9%
  • Background check, waiting period for purchase and carrying.

    Votes: 17 20.0%
  • Background check, waiting period, no carrying

    Votes: 5 5.9%
  • No guns at all

    Votes: 8 9.4%

  • Total voters
    85
Status
Not open for further replies.
Putting people in jail for merely owning something is tyrannical and disgusting and violates the constitution and again you prove how little you know-more bullets does not necessarily mean more lethal

if that were true we'd hunt elephants, lions and bears with 50 shot 22 caliber rifles rather than double barrelled 458 magnums and our soldiers would be issued machine guns with the same 22 ammo since you can carry 1000 rounds of 22 far more easily than 200 rounds of 308 NATO
Like I said, my background is basic hunting and common "sporting" arms - or whatever you want to call them - like AK-47's and Uzi's. My friends don't typically jet to Kenya for hunting expeditions, usually the Ozarks provide plenty of entertainment for them. I didn't realize this discussion was limited to millionaires and gun enthusiasts. I thought a more common viewpoint unspoiled by fanaticism might be welcome - and apparently I was wrong. Well, it should't surprise me that a self-reported Rich Boy would be uninterested in anything past the end of this nose.


Ed:
I guess I am behind the times. Last I checked NATO rounds were 7.62mm - but that was years ago.
 
Last edited:
7.62mm = .308 in

Although not identical, the 7.62×51mm NATO and the commercial .308 Winchester cartridges are similar. And even though the Sporting Arms and Ammunition Manufacturers' Institute (SAAMI) considers it safe (by not listing it) to fire the NATO round in weapons chambered for the commercial round, there is significant discussion about compatible chamber and muzzle pressures between the two cartridges based on powder loads and wall thicknesses on the military vs. commercial rounds. [4]
7.62×51mm NATO - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
7.62mm = .308 in

Although not identical, the 7.62×51mm NATO and the commercial .308 Winchester cartridges are similar. And even though the Sporting Arms and Ammunition Manufacturers' Institute (SAAMI) considers it safe (by not listing it) to fire the NATO round in weapons chambered for the commercial round, there is significant discussion about compatible chamber and muzzle pressures between the two cartridges based on powder loads and wall thicknesses on the military vs. commercial rounds. [4]

7.62×51mm NATO - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
That would seem to imply there has been no change in designation and that "308 NATO" is a misnomer, which is kinda' what I was getting at. Unless you're saying that refers specifically to the commercial versions as some kind of slang.
 
Last edited:
Folks have lost touch with the need and utility of the militia because, thankfully, we haven't been invaded.

The National Guard is not big enough to repel an invasion, and the regular Army takes time to mobilize. Armed private citizens are very much a vital piece of homeland security.
 
Folks have lost touch with the need and utility of the militia because, thankfully, we haven't been invaded.

The National Guard is not big enough to repel an invasion, and the regular Army takes time to mobilize. Armed private citizens are very much a vital piece of homeland security.
Personally, I kind of like Switzerland's idea. I think it would be good for most American adults to go through required training around the age of 18 and be part of a part-time unit for a couple of years. Requiring firearm ownership past that time is a different story but at least most people would have a smidgen of military training including firearms.
 
something tells me, that's not exactly true.
I'll make it easy for you:
Randy Weaver - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Be careful how you read it has many twists
MOVE - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Here the government ended up destroying over 60 houses in PA :doh
AIM Press Conference - 6 december 1999
Wounded Knee incident - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (not the massacre)

Do you need more or do you trust yet that I am not making things up.

Seriously, Weavers wife was shot and killed in the doorway of their home while holding an infant. This is because Weaver was a separatist and the gov't thought they could use him to get in with more nefarious folks. Weaver did nothing wrong other than forget to submit a change of address notice to the court. The US Government ended up paying out to his family for their "errors" :shocked2:

The MOVE folks were the cause of the "WACO" incident of the 1980's
Mayor W. Wilson Goode soon appointed an investigative commission called the PSIC or MOVE commission. It issued its report on March 6, 1986. The report denounced the actions of the city government, stating that "Dropping a bomb on an occupied row house was unconscionable."[13] No one from the city government was charged criminally.

In a 1996 civil suit in US federal court, a jury ordered the City of Philadelphia to pay $1.5 million to a survivor and relatives of two people killed in the incident. The jury found that the city used excessive force and violated the members' constitutional protection against unreasonable search and seizure.[12] Philadelphia was given the sobriquet "The City that Bombed Itself."[

MOVE - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Thunder-- it is all there. The government sometimes does come after you, regardless of being paranoid or not.
 
Last edited:
Personally, I kind of like Switzerland's idea. I think it would be good for most American adults to go through required training around the age of 18 and be part of a part-time unit for a couple of years. Requiring firearm ownership past that time is a different story but at least most people would have a smidgen of military training including firearms.

...and not just requiring any firearm, but the kind of assult rifle which is banned in America, featuring burst settings.
 
That would seem to imply there has been no change in designation and that "308 NATO" is a misnomer, which is kinda' what I was getting at. Unless you're saying that refers specifically to the commercial versions as some kind of slang.

I have never heard ".308 NATO" either. I am not a "gun guy" but after 26 years of active duty, I have been around my safe of them.

My post was a fact/knowledge post that was not directed at any specific person.
 
...and not just requiring any firearm, but the kind of assult rifle which is banned in America, featuring burst settings.
If you mean for use in the militia, I agree completely. Whatever they're currently using and teaching in army basic should apply to the militia. Personal use once you're out of the militia should be a different story, though.
 
If you mean for use in the militia, I agree completely. Whatever they're currently using and teaching in army basic should apply to the militia. Personal use once you're out of the militia should be a different story, though.

Melitia duty is 'personal use'.
 
Maybe. But the reason for the right is largely obsolete. While I have no problem with hunters have weapons, or people in dangerous situations ahving them, I am bothered by the mythical reverence we give guns in this country.

Not really. If (I understand that this is a huge if) the government decides to become oppressive...they have to use guns to do it. Stealth bomber technology, cruise missiles, drones, and all that aren't going to help in an urban setting where someone can take 1 well placed shot at a random time when the leaders are unaware. Not to mention you don't have to take out the top dog to take out the leadership. You can destabalize and demoralize by attacking officers. Haven't you seen The Patriot? lol.
 
Not really. If (I understand that this is a huge if) the government decides to become oppressive...they have to use guns to do it. Stealth bomber technology, cruise missiles, drones, and all that aren't going to help in an urban setting where someone can take 1 well placed shot at a random time when the leaders are unaware. Not to mention you don't have to take out the top dog to take out the leadership. You can destabalize and demoralize by attacking officers. Haven't you seen The Patriot? lol.

The average citizen simply cannot match their fire power. It can't be done. We don't live in the world that is depicted in the Patriot.
 
How does anyone know how much danger they will face until they are in a certain situation. People are crazy. You never know what situation you could end up in. I'll be prepared for a dangerous situation. Hopefully I am never in a dangerous situation. If I am in one I will be prepared.

I find the world fairly straightforward in that regard. even in the inner city, where I grew, situations can be assessed rather quickly and accurately. And in all of them, being smart enough to avoid them is much more valuable than having a weapon. ;)
 
Melitia duty is 'personal use'.
Then you'll have to explain yourself farther. I was talking about a mandatory service time (maybe 2 years?) in a militia unit just after turning 18 - for both men and women. Once you're past your mandatory service you can certainly elect to remain in the militia if you so desire, up to whatever age seemed appropriate (50?).
 
The average citizen simply cannot match their fire power. It can't be done. We don't live in the world that is depicted in the Patriot.

Ask the French how those guys with home made guns and bolo knives were able to kick them out of Viet Nam.
That is what makes an insurgency so scary to governments. You cannot fight an insurgency with stealth bombers and tanks... That is why we were getting our ass kicked in Iraq until the troop surge.
 
Ask the French how those guys with home made guns and bolo knives were able to kick them out of Viet Nam.
That is what makes an insurgency so scary to governments. You cannot fight an insurgency with stealth bombers and tanks... That is why we were getting our ass kicked in Iraq until the troop surge.


Again, not the same situation, time, place or likely to work here. You first have to have a country invaded, without our army fighting, and with only your hunting rifles. Do you really see that?
 
Then you'll have to explain yourself farther. I was talking about a mandatory service time (maybe 2 years?) in a militia unit just after turning 18 - for both men and women. Once you're past your mandatory service you can certainly elect to remain in the militia if you so desire, up to whatever age seemed appropriate (50?).

Ok check this out:
The "Regular" military are armed forced owned and commanded by the Federal government with the President of the United States at the top of their 'chain of command'. Please see US code Title10 for more information.

Each individual State owns their own air force (Air National Guard), army (Army National Guard) and if applicable, navy (Coast Guard). These military units do not report to the President of the United States, but are commanded by the Governor. When a Guard unit activates for a deployment in support of a Federal war, such as Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan, the State essentially loans out it's state-military to the Federal government.

While Federal military units are primarily composed of full-time members, Guard units are typically made of reserve components because because a given state isn't waging as much war as the Federal government. While a typical Federal military career will consist of several over-seas deployments, a Guard career will mostly consist of natural disaster response.

The above are all "organized", a word which I put in quotations because they are legally distinguished from "unorganized" military. Organized military have a formal command structure and an established, recognized office and headquarters...complete with official seal, mission statement, tax status, and yes even a letterhead.

A militia can be organized, and frequently was during the revolutionary war, but is typically unorganized, officially. While there is always some kind of command structure, it is not formal, recognized by the host country or otherwise ligitomit. Subordinates can not be charged with any crime for braking any evident chain of command in an unorganized militia, for example, while they can be in an organized militia or other official military.

***
As this pertains to our current discussion:
In the regular military and Guard, all weapons and equipment of every kind are issued by the organization to the individual soldier. The organization retains ownership of all weapons and equipment of every kind. The individual soldier never personally owns the machine gun they carry, the armored vehicle they drive, the MRE they eat, or the shirt on their back.

In a militia, every individual soldier brings all of their own gear, and at their own expense. Each individual personally owns everything they have; because there is no institution organization to have issued them those items.

In order for a citizen to have, carry and operate a military grade assault rifle to militia duty, s/he must first personally own it. Any weapon a citizen is not allowed to personally own will not be available to a militia.

Militias are used as a Quick Reaction Force when the regular army can not engage an enemy for whatever (typically logistical) reason. In the civil war, militias were 'called up' so as to present military resistance when the regular army could not get to a location in time or had to few numbers and needed to be reinforced temporally.
 
Again, not the same situation, time, place or likely to work here. You first have to have a country invaded, without our army fighting, and with only your hunting rifles. Do you really see that?

The French government was the government and Vietnam. The Dutch Government was the government in Indonesia. The French government was the government in Algeria. Granted the world was different then, after the second world war. France and the Netherlands were not economically stable. However, those are examples of uprisings from within that dominated the standing governments with out access to modern weaponry.
 
But, to answer your question. No. I do not see that I will ever need to bring arms against my own country in my lifetime.
However, if a Govt were to ever try to strip an American of their right to keep and bear arms....that would be the first step towards Tyranny.

Way too many examples in history that illustrate that fact.
 
Folks have lost touch with the need and utility of the militia because, thankfully, we haven't been invaded.

The National Guard is not big enough to repel an invasion, and the regular Army takes time to mobilize. Armed private citizens are very much a vital piece of homeland security.
We are close in a way. Yes, "Folks have lost touch with the need and utility of the militia because, thankfully, we haven't been invaded." And yes,the NG and Army may have been circumvented and/or slow. And, armed private citizens can make an invasion by a foreign force more difficult. But, to be effective, the armed private citizens have to be on the same page with some training and some primitive, hard to detect, communication, etc. The density of gun ownership in the areas I live in is such that a dozen members would be essentially neighbors. Also, the criminal element that has guns will be opportunistic in this situation; therefore it's best if they don't have guns.
 
A militia can be organized, and frequently was during the revolutionary war, but is typically unorganized, officially. While there is always some kind of command structure, it is not formal, recognized by the host country or otherwise ligitomit. Subordinates can not be charged with any crime for braking any evident chain of command in an unorganized militia, for example, while they can be in an organized militia or other official military.
Using this description I would be suggesting required service in an organized militia with continuing participation optional. Exact structure at the top would probably need to vary from State to State but should tend to be local units. Firearms required for militia duty would be exempt from any (civilian) requirements for ownership but would still be privately owned.

If you leave the militia and still want to retain ownership of a fully automatic rifle you would need to meet common sense standards for civilian ownership. I am certainly not qualified - and I doubt anybody here is, either - to determine what those standards might be in detail. I think gun related or violent felonies should probably disqualify you, though there could be exceptions. Mental illnesses of certain types should disqualify you. Excessively violent behavior coupled with alcohol or drug abuse (not use, abuse) might disqualify you. In short, if you're a fairly well-behaved, common kinda' guy you're good to go but, again, we're talking about a fully automatic firearm, not a hunting rifle; there should be stricter standards.
 
I find the world fairly straightforward in that regard. even in the inner city, where I grew, situations can be assessed rather quickly and accurately. And in all of them, being smart enough to avoid them is much more valuable than having a weapon. ;)

It's easier said than done to avoid a dangerous situation. What if you go into a convenient store and a man comes in with a gun attempting to rob that store. You do not know what that person is capable of. They could easily have the thought of leaving no witnesses. If I have a gun, I stand a chance. If I am unarmed I stand no chance. Having a gun could save mine as well as other's lives.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom