'People punching' guns[W:249]

opendebate said:

Yeah, I've seen this before G. I still don't buy it. I'm standing my ground on this one

Click to expand...

and you'd still be wrong

Henrin said:

That tank coming to kill you doesn't give a **** about your pee [sic] shooter nor does that bomb care that you're on the ground running around with guns. You're still very much dead.

Click to expand...

There's an important point to be made here.

Remember the Tianenmen Square protests in China, however long ago that was? Remember that iconic image that came out of this event, of a lone man standing in front of a column of tanks? For China, this was rather amazing, but it wouldn't be so much here in America.

There seems to be a ill-formed assumption that if it came down to a war between the people of the United States, and our government, that the military would fall in line on the government's side.

But do not forget, that the military consists of people, not mindless machines. When it gets down to such a war, how many of these people in the military will take the side of government, and against their fellow Americans? Remember that these men and women have all taken an oath to defend and uphold the Constitution. When government goes so far off the rails that war breaks out between it and the people, I think it is safe to assume that a large number of the people in the military will realize that their duty is to their countrymen, and not to their government.

Terribly confusing poll title.

Henrin said:

We are not the government.

Click to expand...

Are you misunderstanding the concept of representation? Are you claiming we lack representation. Perhaps we are no longer a government of the people? We've slipped into dictatorship or monarchy and I missed it?!


Wolverines

DifferentDrummr said:

In that case, what purpose was a modern, belt-fed machine gun made for?

Click to expand...

to suppress enemy movement and to inflict casualties upon masses of enemy soldiers trying to assault a position held by friendly forces

ecofarm said:

Are you misunderstanding the concept of representation? Are you claiming we lack representation. Perhaps we are no longer a government of the people? We've slipped into dictatorship or monarchy and I missed it?!


Wolverines

Click to expand...

You don't really want to go down the democracy road with me. You will just end up looking stupid again defending a system that is unjust.

opendebate said:

the ones that shoot a lot of bullets really really fast

Click to expand...

like this



or a gun like this

Henrin said:

You don't really want to go down the democracy road with me. You will just end up looking stupid again defending a system that is unjust.

Click to expand...

Pure democracy is unjust. That's why we have a representative constitutional republic. I think that's the best form of democracy.

Or maybe we're not the government; we do not have representation. We need to take to the hills against whomever has usurped our nation and restore government by of and for the people.

Let me guess what happened while I wasn't looking... A Muslim Kenyan communist terrorist grabbed absolute power, instituted Sharia law and slaughtered white people. Who could have guessed those people would be right?!

DifferentDrummr said:

Can you at least tell me why it should be okay for a garden-variety civilian to own a military grade firearm? Do you understand this question?

Click to expand...

Most of the modern hunting rifles are far higher standard than the military grade rifles of say WWI

ecofarm said:

Pure democracy is unjust. That's why we have a representative constitutional republic. I think that's the best form of democracy.

Click to expand...

Because there is a difference. :roll: You know, when you ignore two peoples will of the five your system is **** and I don't care that you put a bunch of idiots in the way where all you need is 51% of the vote to be one. It's still ****.

Henrin said:

They're tough enough to take on your pee shooter.

People that make your argument are essentially making the argument that the government should have jets, bombs, drones, tanks, etc, while the people should have things like pistols, shotguns and rifles. Guess who wins? Guess who just showed up to a gun fight with a sword? It isn't the government.

Click to expand...

1) in such a scenario, you don't go head to head with an armored division.

2) you go to the home of the politician who caused the tanks to be attacking your neighborhood and you kill the politician

and as many of his supporters as possible. That works a bit better

Jerry said:

Most handguns store 5-10 with the upper limit being 16 in a factory mag. A few kinds of handguns can store 30 in a factory mag, and its a jump from 16 right to 30, I don't know of any handgun that stores 20something rounds.

Click to expand...

almost every IPSC "Race gun" comes with a 170mm magazine

Mine holds 26 rounds

Obama should be impeached because he was never eligible to be the president in the first place. Obama is in the White House as a result of a coup orchestrated by the most evil criminal organization in the history of mankind, commonly known as the Democratic Party.

TurtleDude said:

1) in such a scenario, you don't go head to head with an armored division.

2) you go to the home of the politician who caused the tanks to be attacking your neighborhood and you kill the politician

and as many of his supporters as possible. That works a bit better

Click to expand...

You use a home-made explosive to bust the track and then snipe the recovery crew. Take cover from the convoys return fire and retreat into the ambush you set for their dismounted security. Keep hostages so air support won't fire on you. Stash hostiges, make demands in exchange for hostages, cash-in where you can but never commit yourself such that you would get caught. Dissapear into the civilian population.

Rinse repeat.

That's how hadji does it. Works pretty well.

Live your life in perfect compliance to the givernment. Gain security clearances and access. One day you will inevitably find yourself on duty hilding a gun well within range of a high-value target, and no one will suspect you.

#MajorHasan.

DifferentDrummr said:

This poll question refers to firearms that are designed for the primary purpose of killing several people at close or medium range in a very short time. If you answer, please explain why civilians should be able to keep them or why not.

Also, the question has nothing to do with whether these types of firearms are legal and constitutional to own (in the US), but whether they should be.

Click to expand...

Forgive me if I am redundant if some/all of the following has already been said, but I didn't read the entire thread.

Why as a civilian would you not require the same firepower that is available to police?

When shooting at a human target most people - including police - don't hit the person on the first shot.

When they do, they don't halt the threat with one round.

When they do halt the threat it often requires more than one round.

Conditions are damn near never optimum. It's never going to perfect light, perfect position, non-moving target, non-covered target, single target, no wind, no rain, you have your glasses on, your shooting hand is free and clear, you weren't awaken from a deep sleep by an alarm or breaking glass, there is no one behind the person you are shooting at, the person is within perfect range and is not shooting at you, etc. You can train for all that and more. Many of us do. Training teaches you that it is nothing like television. Unfortunately a great deal of the population doesn't understand that.

(A little 17 year old girl was shot three times with a .45 caliber. One of the rounds hit her in the chest. Physically, she is going to be OK. Taking three rounds from a .45 cal didn't stop her from crawling inside and calling for help. There is a long held myth that a 45. cal is a man stopper and that one round anywhere will knock a man down. That isn't true.

About a year ago a woman defending herself and her 3 children in their home, mid-day, good neighborhood, middle of the week from a dirt bag who picked their home at random to rob shot and hit the guy 5 times in the head a close range with rounds from a .38 caliber revolver. The guy was still able to make it back down 3 flights of stairs, out the front door and down the street in his car until he lost it by hitting a lamp post.

Depending on the type of revolver she was using she may have had only 5 rounds, she only had 6 at the most. Unless she had speed loaders or strip clips ready and was adept at reloading under extreme stress the criminal was very close to being able to harm her or her children even AFTER he had been hit 5 times in the head.)

Bad people who would do you harm often do not commit their crimes by themselves.

While preferable, often escape from the threat is not a viable option.

Depending on the drugs a drug addled maniac often doesn't respond to severe wounding in the way that normal humans do.

Here is the most critical point IMHO, most people who find themselves in a situation where they must defend themselves have none of this information about their assailants before hand. You do not know what it is going to take to stop the threat before you are already involved in attempting to do so.


------

When people are seriously threatened the first contact they make is to call for someone with a gun.

When seconds count police are minutes away.

DifferentDrummr said:

This poll question refers to firearms that are designed for the primary purpose of killing several people at close or medium range in a very short time. If you answer, please explain why civilians should be able to keep them or why not.

Also, the question has nothing to do with whether these types of firearms are legal and constitutional to own (in the US), but whether they should be.

Click to expand...

While I'm against the kind of guns that are designed to kill a lot of innocent people I'm all for the ones that are designed to defend myself and others from gangs of people that might want to kill us.. Maybe you can help....what brands are my kind?

opendebate said:

the ones that shoot a lot of bullets really really fast

Click to expand...

Just a smidge vague, dear.

DaveFagan said:

how about a sawed off, double barrel shotgun, 12 ga., barrels cut to six inches, with a pistol grip. Not good for hunting. Not good for sharpshooting. Not much good for anything, except perhaps "people punching."

Click to expand...

Not much good for that either, at ranges exceeding about six feet. Pattern spread would be terrible.

However, I knew an old guy that carried one as a snake gun when he went fishing. I warned him it was illegal without a stamp, but he didn't care.

DifferentDrummr said:

One could start by looking into how the firearm is marketed and to whom. And by asking "what could this gun be good for outside of the military?"

Click to expand...

Self defense maybe.

Man defends himself and roommates with AR-15 (New York)

15-Year Old Boy Uses AR-15 to Defend Himself, Sister Against Home Invaders

Video of man defending home against men armed with AR-15 - The Firearm Blog


I dunno about you, but if I should ever have to defend myself against a home invasion, a rifle with a 30 round magazine is quite comforting. Not much worry about running out of ammo.

& I live down in the country on a farm, so hitting the neighbors isn't much of a worry.

Goshin said:

Just a smidge vague, dear.

Click to expand...

Just lighten the mood dear

DifferentDrummr said:

For the record, the term has been used before. (Feel free to research it if you want.) And like opendebate, I am totally against the idea of confiscating handguns used for self-defense or weapons designed for hunting. It's only when some civilians would insist on a "right" to military-grade weapons that I begin to question their motives.

Click to expand...

I don't know why the hate for semi-auto rifles. They are rarely ever used in crime.

Murder weapons used:

Knives 13.4%
Clubs, blunt objects and bare hands/feet 9.7%

All rifles of any kind: 2.6%

FBI — Expanded Homicide Data Table 8

DifferentDrummr said:

Can you at least tell me why it should be okay for a garden-variety civilian to own a military grade firearm? Do you understand this question?

Click to expand...

Do you even know what you mean when you say "military grade firearm"? Can you define it?

Henrin said:

So this contract is nothing but a concept? Well, thank god, I thought I agreed to something for a second there, but thankfully it's still just a concept in your head.

Click to expand...

You're not very well read on political philosophy I take it right?

No, the "Social Contract" has never been suggested or implied to be a literal, tangible, actual "contract". That's ridiculous.

Did you know Thomas Hobbes's "The Leviathan" wasn't actually talking about a giant sea monster either, right?

And the "State of Nature" is not an actual "State" nor is it necessarily LITERALLY meaning someone that's just out in "nature"

Muhammed said:

Obama should be impeached because he was never eligible to be the president in the first place. Obama is in the White House as a result of a coup orchestrated by the most evil criminal organization in the history of mankind, commonly known as the Democratic Party.

Click to expand...

Moderator's Warning:

Conspiracy section is further down the forum list. Take the threadjacking there