What would you do about Virginia Tech?

[[Phill]]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If given the choice, I would rather live in a society without guns (voluntarily without guns), but if I'm going to live in one with guns I'd prefer that they be spread around and not concentrated in the hands of a few. Gun control is about as stupid as any other type of prohibition.

That being said, I think the 2nd Amendment defense often latched onto is basically irrelevant. The 2nd Amendment had less to do with the right to have guns, than the right to protect yourself against a dictatorial government and the ability to overthrow that government, violently if necessary.

Which stops making sense when the government has apache helicopters and tanks and you have a couple handguns.



[/ QUOTE ]

I could be wrong, as I often am, but don't people in Iraq fight the US Soldiers who have tanks and helecopters, etc etc with mostly guns?

[/ QUOTE ]

Its ok, not your fault you are wrong.

There is very little fighting done with guns in Iraq against US forces. The majority of the fighting is small groups using bombs of one descript or another.

Plus most of the fighting has switched to attacking civilians. Its not enough to drive out the coalition, you need to have control when you do so.

But yeah, the concept that any dictatorial government will ever be overthrown by its people is silly. Its relies on a notion that:

a, A government like the US Gov can turn dictatorial
b, The people in the form of a malitia would be able to fight against the government

For A to happen, it would rely on a 100% loyal military, at which point B could never happen on a pure toe to toe environment. Also for A to come about you would need a large amount of your population to be willing to toe the line and accept the new dictatorship.

It would equate to asymetrical warfare. You might as well change the right to bear arms to the right to suicide bomb key targets in your objectives.

Again, all 100% hyperthetical, because it would never happen.

[lehighguy]

Nothing

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
I could be wrong, as I often am, but don't people in Iraq fight the US Soldiers who have tanks and helecopters, etc etc with mostly guns?

[/ QUOTE ]
Pretty much. Add in the Afghani's vs the Soviets in the 80's and the N. Vietnamese in the 60's/70's. I suppose you could throw in the Swiss. There's a reason the Germans didn't mess with them during WWII.

Hell, even the Japanese admiral Yamamoto said invading the U.S. mainland would be impossible because there would be a rifle behind every blade of grass (or something like that).

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
But yeah, the concept that any dictatorial government will ever be overthrown by its people is silly.

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't King George III was laughing... [img]/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img]

[John Kilduff]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You realize that the militia fought the government right? That's not 'fun' that is serious business and should not be taken lightly at all.

[/ QUOTE ]

Where did I take it lightly? My post had anti-gun ownership undertones; never did I insinuate guns were a light matter. I grew up around many guns and take them very seriously. But I don't believe in the absolute ownership of guns by all people. I agree that guns are necessary to protect oneself from tyranny, but that goes back to the well regulated militia argument, not to every person owning a gun.

[/ QUOTE ]

Given that in those days the militia was considered to be every able-bodied free male who could bear arms in time of need or emergency, it basically does go back to everyone owning a gun. The militia was not the National Guard or a government body.

[pdjplano]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If someone invades your home you are able to use force in your defense provided it is reasonable given the situation - if the burglar is holding a weapon then a fatal blow from a cricket bat or 7 iron is fine. If you are a woman and there is a burglar there is virtually no limit to what you can do (assuming you arent trained for such a situation, of which a self defense course does not count as training).

[/ QUOTE ]

You kill me. Like you should have to make a decision when a criminal is in your house ... "hmmm, let's see, you suppose he is here to kill me, or just maim me, or maybe he just wants my stuff. Yeah, I think he just wants my stuff, so I can't shoot him."

Talk about BS. You come into my house, without permission and I don't know you, there is a good chance you're going out in a black bag. I'll protect my family and property, thank you very much.

NCAces

[/ QUOTE ]


fwiw, most states (including Texas just recently- yeah!) have so-called castle doctrine laws that take away the former "duty to retreat" and put the safety / security of the victim at the forefront.

in other words, if you break into my house now, and I don't know you, it really doesn't matter what your intentions are, i'm going to shoot you and ask questions later, and legally i'll be in the clear without fear of prosecution.

as it should be.

also, someone mentioned that cops are 100% trained for guns/shooting situations. that is laughable, the average cop is woefully undertrained and does VERY poorly in high stress shooting situations, that is well known and well documented. but that's another topic i'm sure [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[pdjplano]

[ QUOTE ]
There is very little fighting done with guns in Iraq against US forces. The majority of the fighting is small groups using bombs of one descript or another.

[/ QUOTE ]

this is laughable, care to share where you are coming up with this 'factoid'?

[John Kilduff]

[ QUOTE ]
There is a well-written article here, that examines why the situation in Japan (population 100m+ 29 murders with guns - including suicides) can not be replicated in the USA. Essentially you would be attempting to get the toothpaste back into the tube on a impossible historical scale. That said, to say there isn't a better way to go strikes me as overly fatalistic. In particular, the constant recourse to the Constitution always strikes me as tragic. It was over 200 years ago and the situation was completly different, rationally, it should very little bearing on the way we conduct our lives now.

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

It's important to be selective when we reference ancient documents:
If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father.
Deuteronomy 22:28-29 NLT

[/ QUOTE ]

As the 20th century has well shown, the need for citizens to be able to defend themselves against a government should it turn to tyranny, has not lessened over the years. Actually, such need may have increased. Didn't someone just post that in the 20th century, governments murdered over 200 million of their own citizens? The Founding Fathers wisely foresaw that a citizenry could never trust any government so completely as to allow themselves to be completely disarmed.

[NCAces]

Obviously we agree, but I'll point out one other thing:

[ QUOTE ]
also, someone mentioned that cops are 100% trained for guns/shooting situations. that is laughable, the average cop is woefully undertrained and does VERY poorly in high stress shooting situations, that is well known and well documented. but that's another topic i'm sure

[/ QUOTE ]

It isn't only a matter of their training ... they simply can't be everywhere, all the time. The idea that anyone would rely only on the protection from the police for your safety is crazy, and the cops will tell you so. They can't always be there, and when they aren't you better be able to defend yourself.

NCAces

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
There is very little fighting done with guns in Iraq against US forces. The majority of the fighting is small groups using bombs of one descript or another.

[/ QUOTE ]

this is laughable, care to share where you are coming up with this 'factoid'?

[/ QUOTE ]
Even if true, it doesn't help the anti-gunner's case much as it's not that hard to make a bomb. McVeigh killed ~170 people and destroyed a large building with fertilizer and diesel fuel.