Remind me not to watch television anymore. After watching the National Geographic shows on MSNBC last night, a show came on about 50 caliber rifles, and how certain militia groups exist in the United States that are armed with these things, quoting the Bill of Rights 2nd Amendment... right to bear arms.
I was SHOCKED that anyone would consider it a right for a civilian to have a gun that can pierce bulletproof glass, steel, and concrete block and is accurate from a mile away, if not further!
Now, I'm absolutely in favor of the 2nd Amendment - the right to own a gun - be it a pistol, rifle, or shotgun for home defense or hunting, but not these monster rifles.
The 50 caliber rifiles are used in a military application as tank stoppers and sniper rifles. IMO there is no civilian application for such a weapon.
Even a 30/30 rifle can fire a bullet over five miles, not accurately, but there is still killing force at that distance should it happen to strike a person...
Scary. (Back In Black)
Delissandra Splitshadow - Marauder of Clan X
Grandmaster Poisoner (250), Master Potter (191), Grandmaster Lush (200)
Dragyn, speaking from a bit of experience I am guessing you are talking about the M82A1 50 cal sniper rifle.
Check out the specs
There may be killing force behind it but none but a very trained marksman would be able to hit anything out of a 50 cal rifle over a couple hundred yards. I would be a lot more worried of some guy walking up to me with a shotgun or a pistol and actually doing some damage close range.
Quote:Yes. At least in part, the Second Amendment is a giant governmental reset button when all else fails.A group of farmers, no matter how well armed, is no long capable of overthrowing the government, and a silversmith with a horse is no longer an acceptable source of field intel. If you want a revolution I suggest you infiltrate the military and stage a coup.
The Second Amendment is a relic, take it out back and bury it with the Three Fifths Clause.
While I have my .22 in the closet and my .25 in the nightstand, I dont see any need for something like that either. Its just a **** extension, or else for someone whos really, really looking to kill some cops.
Youve got a point in that the US military would be a very, very tough target for even the best organized militia to take out (assuming its that simple, an 'all the army' vs 'all the militia' conflict).
But the point is not one of feasibility, but of intent. The founding fathers intended citizens to have guns. Not for hunting, not for target practice, not as a hobby. Although those are all certainly legitimate uses as well.
The reason for the second amendment is so we can use those guns to overthrow the government. Yes, killing people. Killing cops, if it comes to that. Killing military folks, if it comes to that. I dont believe in violence and am not advocating this, but its 100% crystal clear that this is the reason for the second amenment.
With that in mind, arguments about whether its feasible seem a little pointless. Unless you;re arguing that we need to open up for types of weaponry for citizens to own...
Hmm, and I was thinking that the right to bear arms was concieved so that it would be easier to defend your own home and living space. I guess it's alot more shallow, but still? Currently known as Bagheera in Savage and Day of Defeat
A bunker full of guns in Idaho gets you some column space on page four, a rental truck full of fertilizer a week on CNN. If you want to have an impact, to actually change things, you'll need cruise missles and high explosives, tanks, chemical agents and airliners full of jet fuel.
If the intent of the Second Amendment is not served by the letter, why follow it at all?
They were showing the Barrett, but the bigger threat to me was a gunsmith, Bob Stewart, who, in his garage, was making what he called the "Maadi Griffin" for about $2,000, rather than the Barrett's $8,000 or so pricetag.
He got around his restriction from making weapons (due to a previous conviction for making automatic weapons) by selling the Maadi Griffin as a mail-order do-it-yourself kit. None of these guns thus produced had serial numbers either.
The Michigan Milita and other militia groups were speaking out on this program about how they thought it was such a horrible thing that the government seized Stewart's customer records (including credit card information). This is the only way they have of knowing who might have one of these guns since the weapons have no serial number.
Getting a gun through legal means is easy enough in most states - I really don't want do-it-yourself non-serialized sniper rifles available to people that don't even need to pass a background check.
Quote:A group of farmers, no matter how well armed, is no long capable of overthrowing the government, and a silversmith with a horse is no longer an acceptable source of field intel. If you want a revolution I suggest you infiltrate the military and stage a coup.
If there was enough popular sentiment to start a revolution, do you really think that the entire military would be on the same side? You'd have large portions of the military involved in any revolution, along with armed citizens.
The US military has under 1.5 million troops, total in all branches. The US population is over 292 Million. I've read in multiple places that there are more firearms than people in the US. Lets just be conservative here, and say you could only get 1/3 of the total population armed to fight.
Thats 100 million people with firearms. And you don't think that would be a significant factor in any revolution or overthrow of a tyrannical government? 100 million, along with whatever portion of the Military decided to support the revolution. Trojan Horseshoes
Need Help coming up with arguments against mine?
Here's the deal with the second amendment, and if you didn't sleep through history class you should know this already.
The second amendment exists because, no matter how well written the new government of the USA was, there was always the possiblity that it could become corrupt, and start serving only itself rather than the interests of the people, and using its control of the military to enforce its oppression.
By ensuring that people can own firearms, if things get so bad that people feel the need to revolt and overthrow their corrupt government, they will have weapons with which to do so.
Now granted, revolting againsts the US government might not seems plausible with the technology of our army, I mean, its not like Jacob the Smith can secretly make Night Vision goggles in his basement, but one thing to keep in mind is that, in the event of wide-spread revolt, its unlikely that people in the US armed forces would all remain thus. After all, when operation orders start coming in that your attacking bands of Americans, people who could be your own families, you could start seeing things like deserters and whatnot, and they would bring their equipment to the revolutionaries side with them.
Just something to think about with things like the Patriot Act and Homeland Security going around.
If the military defects, and you agree with me that chunks of it has to for a revolt to be successful, then you don't need a bunker full of guns in Idaho, you'll have access to National Guard other military munitions.
I'm actually a rather good shot with most hunting rifles (admittedly not too fond of shotguns as they've got more recoil than I'm able to handle, and I can never seem to shoulder them right because I always get a bruise) but I still can't see why I would EVER need a .50 cal.
Quote:Thats 100 million people with firearms. And you don't think that would be a significant factor in any revolution or overthrow of a tyrannical government? 100 million, along with whatever portion of the Military decided to support the revolution.
You have heard of this guy named Spartacus, right? And he raised an army of slave to 80,000. He went around terrorizing the Italian countryside and he was forced to face off against 10,000 battle-hardened Roman legionnaires, the world's most powerful fighting force at the time. The Romans butchered pretty much every last rebel.
Ever heard of Queen Boudica? Yeah, she raised an army of upwards of 100,000 rebels against the Romans too. That army was summarily slaughtered by a Roman force probably less than 1/10th its size.
Somehow, I don't think a bunch of office jockeys with hand guns could outfight the U.S. military, no matter how hard they tried. I'm just imagining New York City get carpet-bombed like it was a Viet Cong hideout in Vietnam. Oops, you just killed 10,000,000 people! And it took 100 planes and 100 pilots to do it! That's a deficit of 5 magnitudes. And I've no problem believing it could happen on a whim of the Pentagon, either, if the people of the United States actually decided to revolt.
But you're right on one thing. I highly doubt you could count on more than 1/3 of the population actually "mobilized" to any sort of action.
But that's you, and your opinion. Lots of people may think that nobody Needs High fat foods, or cigarettes, or SUVs, or programs that encrypt your emails, or violent videogames, or any number of other items.
A More apporopriate question is "Why should these guns be banned?"
In a free country, with the second amendment in place as an established constitutional right, the Burden of argument should be on those who wish to infringe upon constitutional rights, not those who wish to exercise them. Trojan Horseshoes
Need Help coming up with arguments against mine?
I'm saying the American populace doesn't have a hope in high heaven to win against a steel-edged military powerhouse (the powerhouse) like the United States armed forces.
Hey, if people wanna sleep with a rifle next to them in bed so they feel warmer at night or something, go for it. Whatever floats your boat. Just don't be too hasty to kill anyone, as I know most of these people aren't. I've been to a gun club. I've learned gun protocol. People who own guns tend to be well-versed and very respectful of them. That's fine, I don't care. Just don't expect the gun cabinet full of .22 rifles you keep at home to win you any "revolution" against the U.S. military. Edited by: Trolo Jesterkinng at: 1/26/04 2:14 pm
Why should weapons like the .50 cal and portable rocket launchers be banned? Because they are military assault-type weapons that have no practical civilian use, unless perhaps you feel that you will need to defend your home from tanks or other bulletproof vehicles...
...which is exactly what these paranoid militia members seem to believe based upon what the news show portrayed. (was a relatively unbiased program as well, gave equal time to both sides of the arguement)
They should ban magical daggers too, because they are much too powerful. Honestly, are you going to cut steak with your Khalshazar? It has no civilian use. I mean really, the Guardians of the Vale are only using fine steel. Ban the magical daggers while there is still time.
2.4km from a Canadian sniper is the longest confirmed kill with a rifle under battle conditions I believe. (A .50 used in Afghanistan.) Really, the best you can do with a sniper rifle is hit and run scare tactics in a SMALL area, (and that is temporary because you have to repeat the action which increases your chance of being caught) or assassination. If you REALLY want to make a stink, you really need explosives. High loss of life and high collateral damage.
Oh, and I think a .50 cal rifle would be a lot of fun to use for target shooting. And a kid from my school designed one for his senior design project a few years a go. (Admitedly, the supervisor didn't realize just how big .50 caliber was when she approved it. Nor did she realize it was capable of taking down an airplain and that the test range they were firing it at was outside DIA until after the fact.) -------------------------- Gyorg Lavode, The original Phin-o-matic Safehouse Moderator Unguilded Assassin Badass
of the 65th Moon over Xegony
You're against people owning weapons which have no real use - why? Which do you think is more dangerous in the hands of a civilian, a relatively cheap .306 or an 2-8k .50 cal? What is the point of banning an impractical, overpriced weapon except to make you feel better and because those paranoid rednecks like 'em?
So, by 'I'm for the second amendment' we should take this to mean 'I'm for the second amendment except on guns that I don't think people should have. Because BIG GUNS ARE BAD!' Heaven knows, from your ivory tower you are in the best position to separate the right from the wrong.
(A better question would be, 'why the hell do you care?')
Oh oh oh, I didn't notice the new smorgasboard of generalizations you gave us!
A .50 cal Barrett is not an assault weapon. In fact, 'assault weapon' is a meaningless term bandied about by politicians who want to get the soccer mom vote. It's meaningless. Let's look at some of the things that make up 'assault weapon.' Is it automatic? Hahahaha, NO. Does it have a folding stock, a bayonet lug, or in fact can it be used at all from anything but a prone position? Nope.
I find the mention of rocket launchers interesting. Nobody has brought this up but you so far. This is a prime example of a ***** man argument, and generally a sign of someone who doesn't know how to debate her point. Edited by: Random TM at: 1/26/04 4:26 pm
Quote:Why should weapons like the .50 cal and portable rocket launchers be banned? Because they are military assault-type weapons that have no practical civilian use, unless perhaps you feel that you will need to defend your home from tanks or other bulletproof vehicles...
You mean the entire reason for the existence of the Second Amendment?
Yes, these guns would be useful for fighting back against the US government and military. Thus, we should be allowed to have them.
I think all non-fully automatic rifles really don't need to be banned. Hand guns are probably more trouble than they're worth, (though they do have a small place for self defense). Automatic weapons and sub machine guns are really the only things that need banning. Someone shouldn't be able to buy their favorite CS weapon down at the gun store and go practice urban assault tactics at work.
Why should weapons like the .50 cal and portable rocket launchers be banned? Because they are military assault-type weapons that have no practical civilian use
All you did is turn it around, and make another comment asks for people to justify their need for them. Thats the same thing you did before, except that you put in in the form of a rhetorical question before.
Quote:unless perhaps you feel that you will need to defend your home from tanks or other bulletproof vehicles...
...which is exactly what these paranoid militia members seem to believe
Umm, Waco? Maybe because some of them have seen what happens when the government does send in tanks against groups like that?
Go read the crime library story as told by the Texas Rangers about WACO. :">
2nd amendment boils down to personal freedom.
If you dice it to, you can own A, B, C, but not X, Y or Z, you have dminished personal freedom. Then, go back and say, ok, you only can have A - we believe you are safe enough to have A, therefore we 'permit' you to have A. Then, later they willl say, well, we found A has problems, so only this group gets A. Well, seems they have problems too, no one gets A.
The idea behind the militia & 2nd amendment is that if the gov't gets corrupt, joe blow army guy will have a tough time blowing out the brains on his next door neighbor. That's the strength behind it.
After WWII, SS officers tried to say they were just following orders, it did not wash. Power overthrow and the aftermath would result in new hearings as to why miltary/law officers felt it was ok to act in a certain manner. Imagine the citizen's review board after that!
Who knows, I'm just wondering whether that's what you have in mind by the Second Amendment being the "reset button" on the government.
Actually there's really not much evidence (certainly not indicative from the language of the Second amendment) that violent overthrow of a constitutional government is what the Drafters had in mind with the amendment. Edited by: Lisboa at: 1/26/04 11:49 pm
Quote:Actually there's really not much evidence (certainly not indicative from the language of the Second amendment) that violent overthrow of a constitutional government is what the Drafters had in mind with the amendment.
Considering that this country was founded by violent overthrow of a tyrannical government using Personal firearms, I can't see where you get that stance from.
Quote:The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyrany in government." (Thomas Jefferson)
Quote:"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in American cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword, because the whole of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops." (Noah Webster)
Quote:"Arms in the hands of the citizens may be used at individual discretion for the defense of country, the overthrow of tyranny or private self defense." (John Adams)
Quote:To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them." (Richard Henry Lee)
Quote:As the military forces which must occasionally be raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the next article (of amendment) in their right to keep and bear their private arms (Tench Coxe)
Quote:"If circumstances should at any time obligate the government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their rights and those of their fellow citizens." (Alexander Hamilton)
Quote:Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined. The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able may have a gun. (Patrick Henry)
Quote:Americans need not fear the federal government because they enjoy the advantage of being armed, which you possess over the people of almost every other nation. (James Madison)
Quote:I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them. (George Mason)
Quote:And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms....The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants" (Thomas Jefferson)
Lisboa, were these the founding fathers you were talking about? You may want to correct your last post. I found all these in about 5 minutes of searching. I could keep going for several more pages.
I can certainly see the argument against most gun control, but I do not see how a waiting period infringes on the right to bear arms. If you are going to need a gun, and do not own one, you need to plan a little bit in advance. If you need a gun immediately, so you can settle a dispute with your neighbor, I think we would find that responsible gun owners wouldn't want to encourage that type of behavior.
Quote:Do you really understand just how heavily weapons like the .50 cal are tracked and traced?
Yeah, the ones legally obtainable, sure - but not this "Maadi Griffin" which was manufactured in a garage and shipped out as a kit, with no serial numbers.
Ok, maybe I went into this debate without knowing what 'assault' means in gun jargon, and hadn't read up on fifteen thousand web sites about the issues - but this still scares the crap out of me that anyone would feel that they need to have deadly weapons that go beyond the scope of defending one's self, family, and property, or to go out and feed their families by hunting.
Note that I do not advocate sport hunting - if you shoot it, you better be willing to cook and eat it, and/or use as much of that animal as you can.