Glock Firearms banner
1 - 17 of 17 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
38 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
I own a AR because it is accurate and fun to shoot and I like to shoot. I also own an AR because I believe in the Second Amendment, which is not about hunting. The Second Amendment is about self protection and that includes protection from a tyrannical government. Our schools systems have dumbed down the education level that most believe our forefathers fought a Revolution against the King because of the cost of Tea. In actuality our forefathers fought the Revolution because the King tried to take their guns away. For this reason the "Right to Bear Arms" was their highest priority when drafting our Constitution. I for one will not give up a right that so many, better than me, died to protect.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,141 Posts
I own a AR because it is accurate and fun to shoot and I like to shoot. I also own an AR because I believe in the Second Amendment, which is not about hunting. The Second Amendment is about self protection and that includes protection from a tyrannical government. Our schools systems have dumbed down the education level that most believe our forefathers fought a Revolution against the King because of the cost of Tea. In actuality our forefathers fought the Revolution because the King tried to take their guns away. For this reason the "Right to Bear Arms" was their highest priority when drafting our Constitution. I for one will not give up a right that so many, better than me, died to protect.
I'd love to see some evidence that kids are being taught anywhere that the Revolutionary War was fought over the cost of tea. The war was not fought over an attempt by the King to take guns away - unless you think the ONLY reason for the war was the single episode of British attempt to seize the weapons at Concord and Lexington. It was about taxation without representation, citizens being forced to billet the King's troops, and other abuses.

As for the original question, I think it's a mistake to engage the question "Why do you need X?" because that question is not a genuine question. They don't want an answer, and no answer to why I need one is going to satisfy them. My answer is "the Constitution says I don't have to have a reason that satisfies you." If someone genuinely wants to know, I'm happy to have that conversation, but I rarely find the questioner genuinely wants to know.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
4,108 Posts
How do you feel about allowing access to grenades, rocket launchers, mortars, etc? This line of thought would be the natural extension of serious preparations.
Call me crazy, but I'm all for citizen having access to those. I know it will never happen, but in my ideal world every free adult citizen would be able to purchase anything they could afford with out restrictions.

If a person was deemed a danger to the pubic with those items, than they are a danger to the public with a pitchfork too, and should not be on the streets. Sure, a full auto gernade launcher is going to allow that person to take out alot more people quickly than a pitchfork, but if you or your loved one is the first of the victims it doesn't much matter to you now does it? The weapon is the not the problem it's a symptom, the person is the problem, attack the problem not a symptom.

Common sense gun laws are not common sense, they are the ones that the public has been conditioned to accept as reasonable restrictions. It's just like every other liberty the government takes away under the guise of public welfare. The government will take away as much as the current average sentament will allow.

Full autos were open to all until the government convinced people back in the 30s that gangsters with them were a threat to everyone, and had to be regulated so we got the NFA of 1934.

Than Kennedy was assasinated and the government convinced the public that firearm sales needed to be more strictly overseen because Oswald bought his rifle by mail order.

Than in 86 the government convinced the public that there needed to be further restrictions on the transfer of firearms, and the posession of full autos tagging onto the growing gang problems as the need for these new regulations.

Than in 94 we got the 'assault weapon' ban again because the government convinced enough people that gangs are more dangerous with 'high capacity' magazines and black rifles.

In every case the government attacked a symptom (the guns), and not the problem (the criminals).

That's my ideal, and I know it will never be a reality.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
479 Posts
As for the original question, I think it's a mistake to engage the question "Why do you need X?" because that question is not a genuine question. They don't want an answer, and no answer to why I need one is going to satisfy them. My answer is "the Constitution says I don't have to have a reason that satisfies you." If someone genuinely wants to know, I'm happy to have that conversation, but I rarely find the questioner genuinely wants to know.
This is indeed the best approach against anti-gun tactics but a line should be drawn somewhere. Or should it?

The First Amendment allows freedom of speech yet we're not allowed to yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater. The Second Amendment grants us a right but does that right allow me to mount an M2 .50 BMG in front of my SUV's sunroof (which would be ridiculously cool BTW).

Because the written word is devoid of tonal nuances, let me just state at face value that my question is indeed genuine.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
4,337 Posts
We the people are the militia. Founders were fresh out of tyranny when the 2nd was written. They wanted to secure the God Given right to defend against tyranny with equivalent arms. The individual militiaman did not have a cannon. But the assembled unit did. I think every citizen should be trained and ready to defend against all enemies foreign AND domestic. The faulted logic that says only the "authorities" should have full auto is the same as saying the minutemen should only have had matchlock rifles and bows against the flintlock rifles of the British. Where would we be now?
Bottom line; I am a free man. I won't willingly put my head in the yoke. My ancestors will slap me in the face when I meet them again.
 

·
Glockin’ since 1993
Joined
·
41,454 Posts
bhale187 said;
Than in 86 the government convinced the public that there needed to be further restrictions on the transfer of firearms, and the posession of full autos tagging onto the growing gang problems as the need for these new regulations.

The cessation of further production of class 3 for civilian sales was slipped into the Firearms Owner Protection Act of 1986. In the morning hours of April 10, 1986, the House held Recorded Vote 74 was the controversial Hughes Amendment that called for the banning of machine guns. Rep. Charles Rangel (D-N.Y.), at the time presiding as Chairman over the proceedings, claimed that the "amendment in the nature of a substitute, as amended, was agreed to." However, after the voice vote on the Hughes Amendment, Rangel ignored a plea to take a recorded vote and moved on to Recorded Vote 74 where the Hughes Amendment failed.[5][6] The bill, H.R. 4332, as a whole passed in Record Vote No: 75 on a motion to recommit. Despite the controversial amendment, the Senate, in S.B. 49, adopted H.R. 4332 as an amendment to the final bill. The bill was subsequently passed and signed on May 19, 1986 by President Ronald Reagan to become Public Law 99-308, the Firearms Owners' Protection Act.
It had nothing to do with convincing the public of anything. It was political gamesmanship aka trickery that caused this. The author of the act and his signers knew it was a lose lose position but instead of losing the opportunity to pass the act swallowed the poison pill. The act was designed to protect gun owners and sellers from abuses by BATF among other things benefiting gun owners.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
38 Posts
Discussion Starter · #7 ·
I'd love to see some evidence that kids are being taught anywhere that the Revolutionary War was fought over the cost of tea. The war was not fought over an attempt by the King to take guns away - unless you think the ONLY reason for the war was the single episode of British attempt to seize the weapons at Concord and Lexington. It was about taxation without representation, citizens being forced to billet the King's troops, and other abuses.

I think if you visited a school now, as I have, you might be horrified as to what is and is not being taught.

As for that little skirmish at Concord, it in fact triggered the Revolution. A small group of Americans stood up to the the might of the British Empire and several lost their lives. Three Companies of British were there to take the gunpowder, leaving a firearm useless. After the British marched from Concord Americans attacked and continued to attack as the colonist number grew, decimating the British as they continued to march to Boston. At that point the war had started and yes it was over the guns! Prior to that the colonist were not united, taxation without representation was a sore point and had been an issue for years, but not enough reason to go to war.
 

·
Senior Member
Joined
·
289 Posts
I must say, I've read through this entire thread, and I have yet to hear anyone take ROYALE-W-CHEESE up on his original statement - 2nd page quote - about arguing the opposition position in an effort to more clearly defend our right to keep and bear the black gun.
Perhaps this should be a separate thread so RRoss doesn't have to get his intended post hijacked, but I see it as a very valuable one.
I work in a very liberal profession and I am the lone conservative that will actually speak out and defend conservative ideals such as the 2nd amendment (there are others who are like minded, but softer in the spine area if you know what I mean!!)
I have to debate this and other such positions frequently, and I would really appreciate a healthy discussion on this subject if everyone else is game.
For example, the car analogy I think is a good one...I've also used the point that because the left never stops until guns of all types are eradicated from private ownership that trying to compromise in good faith is just a slower way to the same end.
How would you defend in a debate the necessity of an AR, or a G19 with multiple 15 round mags like mine...to a leftie there is no reason for a "high capacity" mag like that...after all revolvers worked for how long ...I know that last one is a soft all, but had to toss in an easy one to start with ;-)
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
8,787 Posts
I think if you visited a school now, as I have, you might be horrified as to what is and is not being taught.

As for that little skirmish at Concord, it in fact triggered the Revolution. A small group of Americans stood up to the the might of the British Empire and several lost their lives. Three Companies of British were there to take the gunpowder, leaving a firearm useless. After the British marched from Concord Americans attacked and continued to attack as the colonist number grew, decimating the British as they continued to march to Boston. At that point the war had started and yes it was over the guns! Prior to that the colonist were not united, taxation without representation was a sore point and had been an issue for years, but not enough reason to go to war.
Jacking the thread- sorry RROSS

That's what triggered the fighting, but there were TONS of factors that lead up to the skirmish.
Simple version:
The actual cause of the Revolution can be traced back to the Stamp Act. The Stamp Act was passed due to the British Treasury being out of money b/e of the 7 Years War (AKA the French and Indian War). The prevailing thought in England was that the Crown has basically saved the colonists' from invasion etc. and depleted the national treasury but had done and were doing nothing to pay for the cost. The Stamp Act (and the Sugar Act) was, in part, an effort by the Crown to help recoup the costs of the 7 Years war and to continue to fund the "protection force" that had to be maintained on the frontiers.

Opposition to the stamp act was led to the first acts of rebellion (refusal to pay tax) and the start of the American Revolution.

So although it was an attempt to seize arms that started the fighting, the revolution had it's roots in taxation.

Back to your regularly scheduled programming.

D
 

·
If it goes boom or bang, I want to play with it!
Joined
·
1,000 Posts
Thread created....Have at it boys! :D
 

·
Senior Member
Joined
·
289 Posts
ROYALE-W-CHEESE said:
As to justification of why I, as a civilian, would "need" an AR... Honestly, I have yet to read an argument that for me reasonably substantiates pure need. For all but one instance, I can easily visualize counter-arguments: If the need is self-defense, use a shotgun. If the need is hunting, use a bolt-action. If the need is sporting competition, at least limit the round count in magazines.
ROYAL-W-CHEESE is right in my opinion...the argument cannot be won by making it about hunting, target shooting, simple self defense (i.e. home invasion robbery, etc.), etc, although all those situations have legitimate uses of the AR. The debate has to be won in my mind on the idea of necessity and freedom.

This is first accomplished by ensuring that we are all using the same terminology (i.e. machine gun vs. assault weapon vs. semi automatic rifle vs. single shot rifle.) and that the public understands what they mean. Any debate on this subject should first and always be started by correcting any terminology that is not correct. Too often the liberal media, biased politicians, and special interest anti gun groups frighten Americans by labeling every gun that does not look like a traditional hunting rifle as a machine gun (although if they thought they could get away with it I suspect they would label them as machine guns as well). To the novice, the shooter in Aurora opened fire with a mini gun right out of the predator movie.


Many have already stated that the purpose of the 2nd amendment was first to allow a citizenry to throw off an oppressive regime. And while an AR is not an end all weapon in such an event (in all likelihood such a battle would be horrific for the rebels if the armed forces elected to back the regime) it is one of the best means an average citizen has to defend our selves (other than our logic and reason if used appropriately in the first place to vote the right people into office, and to support the right legislation).

And for those who think armed conflict with your own government is a pipe dream, tell that to the Libyans, or the Syrians, or the Egyptians. Now I am not suggesting that the US is anywhere near these backwater 3rd world countries...far from it. What I am saying is that if history tells us anything it is that governments fail, they falter, they turn on their people, and will take as much of their freedom as they will let them take; and in all such cases the people have either given up their abilities to throw off such a government, or they have not, and the best check for an over reaching regime is the fact that the citizenry is armed, cherishes its freedom, and has the ability to throw off its shackles if necessary.

Just some of my thoughts...I'm interested in yours. With the points above in mind, how do you justify your right to possess an AR, or a Glock with "high capacity" magazines?
 

Attachments

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,359 Posts
sigh... I suppose the anti-gun crowd will only be satisfied when civilian citizens can only own single shot muskets, provided they pay the heavy tax, pass background checks more stringent than those in law enforcement must go through, and even then you still won't be permitted to buy a bullet or powder to load into it, or flint to spark it with.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
479 Posts
CountryMick said:
sigh... I suppose the anti-gun crowd will only be satisfied when civilian citizens can only own single shot muskets, provided they pay the heavy tax, pass background checks more stringent than those in law enforcement must go through, and even then you still won't be permitted to buy a bullet or powder to load into it, or flint to spark it with.
Anti-gunners are not our target audience. It's the non-gunner's vote we should strive to influence. The better we are able to convince them, the better our cause. Just as scrimmaging helps a sports team, so do our debates here.

At least, that's what I'm taking away from GlockForum's 2A Forum.
 

·
Senior Member
Joined
·
289 Posts
ROYALE-W-CHEESE said:
Anti-gunners are not our target audience. It's the non-gunner's vote we should strive to influence. The better we are able to convince them, the better our cause. Just as scrimmaging helps a sports team, so do our debates here.

At least, that's what I'm taking away from GlockForum's 2A Forum.
Agreed!!!!!!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,359 Posts
Aha - gotchya. Thanks for helping me understand the scope better!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
287 Posts
Thread created....Have at it boys! :D
Where at - you ought to put a link in when you do that ;)

Ok. here is an argument my GF gave me.. How would you answer this...

If we as citizens are to be allowed everything like autos and such, to be able to fight against a tyrannical gubment, then what of nukes? If we were to be allowed to have basically everything they have, then should we be allowed to have these? If we were to rise against the tyrannical, whos to say they wouldn't use a nuke against us? Yes, it would be a bad thing for gub to use them against the citizens, BUT it would put them in a state of fear if they dropped one on a remote but populous city to prove a point - that they are not afraid to use them... What are the views on that? As long as they have them, they still out power us even with M16/AR/M4/grenades/powder filled pipes, etc..

Just curious...
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
1,000 Posts
Where at - you ought to put a link in when you do that ;)

Ok. here is an argument my GF gave me.. How would you answer this...

If we as citizens are to be allowed everything like autos and such, to be able to fight against a tyrannical gubment, then what of nukes? If we were to be allowed to have basically everything they have, then should we be allowed to have these? If we were to rise against the tyrannical, whos to say they wouldn't use a nuke against us? Yes, it would be a bad thing for gub to use them against the citizens, BUT it would put them in a state of fear if they dropped one on a remote but populous city to prove a point - that they are not afraid to use them... What are the views on that? As long as they have them, they still out power us even with M16/AR/M4/grenades/powder filled pipes, etc..

Just curious...
Of course they out-power us and yes they have Nukes. The whole thing is about what is right for the government to do and what is wrong. Yes we will be out armed, no question. Though many militias in the past, perhaps all, have been. I think it is more the philosophy of right against wrong and good against evil. And it isn't about having arms to overtake the government unless that is a necessary evil. As a general rule the right to bear arms is for personal protection and use in providing for ones self. If it comes down to fighting a government then you just have to outsmart them and have more people on your side than they have in the administration that still backs them. People on the right side of the law cannot just lay down an be taken. My .02 cents
 
1 - 17 of 17 Posts
Top