Guerilla warfare with 8 rounds?[/quote]
ass. you can have thousands. if the elite/tyrants get the military on their side you will die.
and how many accurate shots are you getting off before you get shot?
[quote]big4fan wrote:<<< The founding fathers would not have wanted people to have the ability to shoot dozens of people before turning it on your self. >>>[/quote]Things are not as simple as they were then, but I believe you are in error about this.
What do you think? that they would have wanted everyone to have top of the line guns?
Some of them didn’t trust people to vote, but they would want those people to have access to machine guns? and sniper rifles? maybe C4? AA guns?
What I find ridiculous is having to pay for a permit. I just renewed and got a lifetime, which cost $100. $60 went to the state police’s donut fund and $40 went to the local police’s donut fund. Then I had to get fingerprinted…again. I’ve been printed twice for jobs, three times for gun permits, and twice for FAA clearance. It’s pretty annoying. I can do almost all of this online…except for paying that $40 to the local police and getting printed. This is the funniest part…I have to go into the city-county building downtown and am not allowed to bring my gun to get a permit to allow me to carry my gun. Shouldn’t I just be able to carry a card with the 2nd Amendment on it in my wallet?
I completely and totally disagree with the 8 rounds thing. Here’s why: You have absolutely no idea what kind of situation you will be put in. 8 may not be enough. You may need more. This is why I carry my Glock 21 which holds 13+1, two extra mags, and a 5 shot .38 special as a back up. You never know. Besides, it starts with limiting how big the magazines can be, then they start to limit the amount of ammo you can buy, then they limit the sizes available which effectively limits the kinds of guns you can buy…etc…etc…etc.
[quote]big4fan wrote:
Guerilla warfare with 8 rounds?[/quote]
ass. you can have thousands. if the elite/tyrants get the military on their side you will die.
and how many accurate shots are you getting off before you get shot?
[/quote]
I guess you don’t know how guerilla warfare works. But to answer your question anyway, if I was engaged in guerilla warfare and I was tracked down by a larger force and had no option to retreat, I would take as much cover as was available and hope to fire eight ‘accurate shots’. Seven at the enemy and the last one at my own head. I imagine the last one would be accurate enough to do the job if the enemy hadn’t already done it for me.
Who are these ‘elite/tyrants’ BTW?
[quote]big4fan wrote:
Guerilla warfare with 8 rounds?[/quote]
ass. you can have thousands. if the elite/tyrants get the military on their side you will die.
and how many accurate shots are you getting off before you get shot?
[/quote]
You may lose , but you may be able to put a little fear into them
Who ever was controlling the forces you were fighting i suppose. its hypothetical.
the fear is the point of guns, with out guns 5 big guys can kidnap protesters or organizers with little risk to themselves. with guns you must risk your life to do so. (unless you have swat teams doing so, in which case you are f*cked…)
8 shots is a ball park. my point is i don’t think you should be able to go to a stadium pull out 2 hand guns and go nuts on people before killing your self…which is the much bigger threat to people than government… government kills freedom by a thousand cuts, not internment camps and night raids.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
Removing all guns is a good idea, then no one would be killed by a hand gun. But like most liberal ideas it’s fatally flawed. All gun control does is restrict ownership of guns for law abiding citizens. Criminals don’t much care about such laws.
[/quote]
Even if the criminals could not get guns they would use crossbows and knives. You are right, it is a fatally flawed concept.
[quote]big4fan wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]big4fan wrote:
I think you should be able to have guns. But with limits… like say 8 rounds.
the right to arms is crucial to protect against a corrupt government. With guns the people arresting/seizing must risk dying to arrest the citizen, thus making it harder to have private armies terrorizing people.
However no one should be able to own 30 round semi auto assault rifles that can massacre people when the gunman goes crazy (school shootings).
thoughts?
[/quote]
Mexico is a example of that problem the cops have revolvers and the criminals have ak’s
[/quote]
that’s a problem. not one i brought up. mexicos problems stem from americas drug laws.
[/quote]
That is only partially true. Mexico’s problems are much deeper and older than that.
[quote]Big Banana wrote:
[quote]big4fan wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]big4fan wrote:
I think you should be able to have guns. But with limits… like say 8 rounds.
the right to arms is crucial to protect against a corrupt government. With guns the people arresting/seizing must risk dying to arrest the citizen, thus making it harder to have private armies terrorizing people.
However no one should be able to own 30 round semi auto assault rifles that can massacre people when the gunman goes crazy (school shootings).
thoughts?
[/quote]
Mexico is a example of that problem the cops have revolvers and the criminals have ak’s
[/quote]
that’s a problem. not one i brought up. mexicos problems stem from americas drug laws.
[/quote]
That is only partially true. Mexico’s problems are much deeper and older than that.[/quote]
While Mexico does have other problems , America’s drug problem is paramount in Mexico
[quote]big4fan wrote:
8 shots is a ball park. my point is i don’t think you should be able to go to a stadium pull out 2 hand guns and go nuts on people before killing your self…which is the much bigger threat to people than government… government kills freedom by a thousand cuts, not internment camps and night raids.[/quote]
The problem is not guns, the problem is culture. But anyways, I still disagree with you: your “8 shot ballpark” still does nothing in your illustration–and you said it yourself above. Two guns with 8 shots each is sixteen shots! Add another gun you’re at 24. Add another clip thats 32. The “ability” to go on a mass shooting spree has nothing to do with how many bullets your gun holds in one clip. Only how many guns–or clips–you can buy and carry. A number of these shootings have involved the guy shooting til he runs out, then reloading and going on because–naturally–people who are unarmed are not enthusiastic about trying to rush and tackle a guy who’s just been trying to kill you, even if he is reloading at the time and not firing.
[quote]Aragorn wrote:
[quote]big4fan wrote:
8 shots is a ball park. my point is i don’t think you should be able to go to a stadium pull out 2 hand guns and go nuts on people before killing your self…which is the much bigger threat to people than government… government kills freedom by a thousand cuts, not internment camps and night raids.[/quote]
The problem is not guns, the problem is culture. But anyways, I still disagree with you: your “8 shot ballpark” still does nothing in your illustration–and you said it yourself above. Two guns with 8 shots each is sixteen shots! Add another gun you’re at 24. Add another clip thats 32. The “ability” to go on a mass shooting spree has nothing to do with how many bullets your gun holds in one clip. Only how many guns–or clips–you can buy and carry. A number of these shootings have involved the guy shooting til he runs out, then reloading and going on because–naturally–people who are unarmed are not enthusiastic about trying to rush and tackle a guy who’s just been trying to kill you, even if he is reloading at the time and not firing.
[/quote]
fair enough. its true that if you want to take a lot of people with you, you will find a way. I would just prefer it be harder then buying a semi auto machine gun.
[quote]big4fan wrote:
[quote]Aragorn wrote:
[quote]big4fan wrote:
8 shots is a ball park. my point is i don’t think you should be able to go to a stadium pull out 2 hand guns and go nuts on people before killing your self…which is the much bigger threat to people than government… government kills freedom by a thousand cuts, not internment camps and night raids.[/quote]
The problem is not guns, the problem is culture. But anyways, I still disagree with you: your “8 shot ballpark” still does nothing in your illustration–and you said it yourself above. Two guns with 8 shots each is sixteen shots! Add another gun you’re at 24. Add another clip thats 32. The “ability” to go on a mass shooting spree has nothing to do with how many bullets your gun holds in one clip. Only how many guns–or clips–you can buy and carry. A number of these shootings have involved the guy shooting til he runs out, then reloading and going on because–naturally–people who are unarmed are not enthusiastic about trying to rush and tackle a guy who’s just been trying to kill you, even if he is reloading at the time and not firing.
[/quote]
fair enough. its true that if you want to take a lot of people with you, you will find a way. I would just prefer it be harder then buying a semi auto machine gun.
[/quote]
There is no such thing as a semi auto machine gun.
So people who have guns in their homes do dumb stuff and/or us their guns poorly…
So do cops. Should we take their guns away?
Alot of people do dumb stuff with cars. Do we outlaw cars?
Do we outlaw matches? Baseball bats? Pools?
Folks will find ways to do violence or other dumb stuff with just about anything.
[quote]big4fan wrote:<<< What do you think? that they would have wanted everyone to have top of the line guns? >>>[/quote]Yes. You had it right at first. The 2nd amendment was written to prevent the ascendancy of a despotic oppressive government. What’s the point of that if in the next breath you deny them the weaponry to do so? Seriously: “BlESS GOD, DON"T LET THOSE TYRANTS BEAT YOU DOWN!!! But, sorry we’re going to see that they vastly out gun you”. Is that how it goes? (somebody’s gonna step this up, I can see it comin)
-
lots of stuff is banned. you cant own c4, rocket launchers, automatic weapons.
-
semi auto machine gun, ok not my area obviously im not up on the terminology, i assume machine =automatic? … my point is I don’t like weapons that allow one person to quickly shoot many people.
I interpreted the second amendment to mean able to defend your self. and defense is different then offensive weapons. a pistol will discourage home invasion. double glock whatevers with extendamags seem excessive. -
if the police forces and armies are willing to defend the government or whatever forces lead them, then less then 5 % of the population could destroy/hold off the rest if they were so inclined.
whatever I don’t care that much. I think guns are stupid. Its nice to not need them. Its your country not mine. best of luck.
[quote]big4fan wrote:
-
lots of stuff is banned. you cant own c4, rocket launchers, automatic weapons.
-
semi auto machine gun, ok not my area obviously im not up on the terminology, i assume machine =automatic? … my point is I don’t like weapons that allow one person to quickly shoot many people.
I interpreted the second amendment to mean able to defend your self. and defense is different then offensive weapons. a pistol will discourage home invasion. double glock whatevers with extendamags seem excessive. -
if the police forces and armies are willing to defend the government or whatever forces lead them, then less then 5 % of the population could destroy/hold off the rest if they were so inclined.
whatever I don’t care that much. I think guns are stupid. Its nice to not need them. Its your country not mine. best of luck.
[/quote]
It is probably not a good idea to discuss things you are ignorant of, using buzz words like assault weapon, machine gun, cop killer rounds etc… only makes you look stupid to those of us who aren’t sheeple.
EX:
haha awesome. you speak against using buzzwords then call me a sheeple?
my point stands, you know what i meant even if I described the types of weapons incorrectly.
You think the gun in the video should be owned by people?
what about a tank? if you can afford a tank, can you have one too?
where do you draw the line?
[quote]big4fan wrote:
haha awesome. you speak against using buzzwords then call me a sheeple?
my point stands, you know what i meant even if I described the types of weapons incorrectly.
You think the gun in the video should be owned by people?
what about a tank? if you can afford a tank, can you have one too?
where do you draw the line?
[/quote]
What part of “shall not e infringed” do you not understand.
If the government can own it there is no reason private citizens should not be allowed to own it.
[quote]
What part of “shall not e infringed” do you not understand.
If the government can own it there is no reason private citizens should not be allowed to own it. [/quote]
to what end? the gov owns jets, missiles, and nukes.
I fear your are not just a constitutional literalist. was the world created in six days? is it 6000 years old?