question for gunowners

[RetiredGySgt]

so your telling me that each individual state has made a consious, if not legislative decision, to forgo any state militia sarge?


each individual state feels it isn't in any way threatened by the examples you forward of civil unrest or natural disasters NO threat exists that they would require a 'well regulated Militia' for their security....?

yet 'abled body people' are what?, supposed to jump outta the woodwork 'well regulated' as needed...?

gee, i didn't see that happen with Katrina, did you?

Trying to change the subject won't help you. IF the States wanted Militias again they would of course train them. As it is they mostly feel the Nationalized militia ( the National Guard) is sufficient. You are aware of course that what happened was the standing militias were all incorporated into the National Guard in the late 1800's?

 

[sparky]

Trying to change the subject won't help you. IF the States wanted Militias again they would of course train them. As it is they mostly feel the Nationalized militia ( the National Guard) is sufficient.

it is your point i'm asking about here sarge, i'm aware of no individual state desire or movment towards it's own militia, ergo they do an injustice to the 2nd by ignoring it

 

[RetiredGySgt]

it is your point i'm asking about here sarge, i'm aware of no individual state desire or movment towards it's own militia, ergo they do an injustice to the 2nd by ignoring it

The States just accept that the militias they have are all Federalized. The National Guard is the State Militia. And I would venture to say it is "well regulated" However North Carolina has an infrastructure for a new Militia. They maintain command personnel and small numbers of people in some of their old disbanded regiments.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

ok, i'm a gun owner

i understand the responsibilities

can anyone here inform me as to how this makes me a free man in America...?

It doesn't... What makes you free, is your God given right to be free and the protections established in the US Constitution to prevent the US Government from usurping your means to exercise those rights. The protections of your right to keep and bear arms merely provides you with the means to defend your freedom; to defend it from individuals as well as the collective that would usurp your means to exercise your rights as a free sovereign.

 

[Gunny]

It doesn't... What makes you free, is your God given right to be free and the protections established in the US Constitution to prevent the US Government from usurping your means to exercise those rights. The protections of your right to keep and bear arms merely provides you with the means to defend your freedom; to defend it from individuals as well as the collective that would usurp your means to exercise your rights as a free sovereign.

God given right to be free? You have the "God given right" to exist. You are only as free and alive as you are strong enough to keep yourself. Those words on paper ain't worth shit without the might to back them up.

 

[editec]

Or perhaps when people go to the ATM machine...and no money comes out like what happened in Argentina...

Yeah, like that.

The more complex the machinery of a modern society, the more different kinds of way it can break down.

As we watch more and more state governments cutting back on social services in order not to go bankrupt, we are watching the erosion of that civil authority.

At what point does a revolution really start?

It comes to us first, usually not with flags of liberation flying, but rather it comes to us as crimes.

One could easily make the argument that gangs are the revolutionaries of our age.

While I ascribe to those people no noble reason to what they do, they are the natural outcome of the breakdown of civil authority.

Most revolutions are manned by thugs, not honorable citizens.

They are people who are already prone to taking matters into their own hands, and who have long time experience evading the police.

That's exactly why the outcomes of most revolutions are anything but liberating.

There is nothing more oppressive than a revolution lead by and controlled by a cleptocracy.

Let us remember, shall we, that many of the founding fathers were also smugglers.

Famed victim of the Boston Massacre, Crispus Mattox wasn't a noble son of the revolution, he was a petty thug and local strong arm who huanted the docks of Boston.

Now our American revolution was not the normal kind of revolution because eventually the better types of people DID become revolutionists, but they did NOT do so in the early years of strife leading up to that revolution.

The first really revolutionaries were in fact smugglers who evaded the british navy to bring in untaxed goods from non-British sounces.

The real american revolution actually started in the BARS and TAVERNS of the bad neighborhoods of Boston, folks.

Exactly the kind of people that most of us would eschew today were our nation's first revolutionaries.

 

[GigiBowman]

I think the idea of the Ron Paul Revolution was a good one...but once Ron Paul stepped down I watched all the Revolutionaries break into factions. You had your 9/11 truthers ,your anti-truthersyour, Bob Barr Libertarians, your Chuck Baldwin Constitutionalist.....the infighting got serious....and it made me realize that this Revolution was never strong enough to go anywhere outside a messageboard. Even the organized rallies didn't fare too strongly and different people wanted to be king.

Which is why...and I believe you are 100% RIGHT, that when the shit hits the fan...the gangs aka thugs are going to be running the show and I'll be damned if I let anyone disarm me before that happens. Because you can bet your life, those gangs don't have license to carry in their pockets. So why should they be carrying guns while Ordinary Citizens are denied a license because their wife threw a Polish Pie Plate at their head <wink> and they ended up in the emergency room.

No one is getting my gun.

 

[editec]

I think the idea of the Ron Paul Revolution was a good one...but once Ron Paul stepped down I watched all the Revolutionaries break into factions. You had your 9/11 truthers ,your anti-truthersyour, Bob Barr Libertarians, your Chuck Baldwin Constitutionalist.....the infighting got serious....and it made me realize that this Revolution was never strong enough to go anywhere outside a messageboard. Even the organized rallies didn't fare too strongly and different people wanted to be king.

Which is why...and I believe you are 100% RIGHT, that when the shit hits the fan...the gangs aka thugs are going to be running the show and I'll be damned if I let anyone disarm me before that happens. Because you can bet your life, those gangs don't have license to carry in their pockets. So why should they be carrying guns while Ordinary Citizens are denied a license because their wife threw a Polish Pie Plate at their head <wink> and they ended up in the emergency room.

No one is getting my gun.

I totally understand that sentiment.

If things get too weird in my neck of the woods I will arm myself, too.

If I lived in some of the shitholes in America where civil authority is already a joke, I'd already be armed to prpotect myself, just as I am sure most of you folks are doing.

My kind of reality based liberalism isn't a suicide pact, after all, I just happen to live in a place where there isn't much real crime.

But if I'd had a gun a month ago the police would already have confiscated it when they violated my constitutional right to privacy and busted into my house looking for hemp.

Why?

Because every seach warrant for drugs gives them the right to take arms, money and anything else they decide might have something to do with drug dealing no matter how unrelated those things might be to drugs.

The fact that they police knew perfectly well that I am not a drug dealer (I'm a model citizen to be honest and they know it) made absolutely no difference.

They're not going to take away American guns in one fell swoop, folks.

They're going to do it piecemeal by making felons of more and more of us with passing time. And as someone has already pointed out, you don't even have to be a felon anymore. Now all you need to be is someone who they imagine might do something felonious in the future.

I'm a meance to society because I grow my own hemp for my own personal use in a medical hemp state!?

Please, do give me break. What sheer insanity this nation is suffering from.

We are in a CLASS WAR, folks, make no mistake about it.

And this CLASS WAR is leading us into a police state, too.

Like I keep telling you people who bitch about the Patriot Act.

All the things that you think are in that ACT which are a threat to your civil liberties were laws already on the books thanks to the WAR ON DRUGS and the WAR ON ORGANIZED CRIME.

Most of you people THINK you have consitutional rights which you lost long ago.

They just haven't kicked down your doors yet, that's all.

But when the do, if they do, believe me the first thing they'll be taking away are your guns regardless of what excuse they're using to harass you.

 

[xaxeptance449]

no you may not. It's called the second amendment. look into it.

Whoa there Sparky yall missed the point completely I am oh so far from gun control. What I am against is incompetent people owning guns. If one is truly concerned and not just out to make a point would one really ask the question on a board or seek like minded individuals whom they could talk to face to face and thereby get great advice on the issue? There must be a local militia group you could not only seek advice from but perhaps even join?

 

[rayboyusmc]

Don't worry, you will be able to buy guns after Obama is elected.

That's just more of the scare talk. There will however be a ban on bible sales and reduced costs of the Koran.

Hawken 50 caliber. It's not that accurate at a longer range, but it's big enough to beat the shit out of someone.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

God given right to be free? You have the "God given right" to exist. You are only as free and alive as you are strong enough to keep yourself. Those words on paper ain't worth shit without the might to back them up.

In large measure that's what I just said.

But it follows that God gave you life (your existance) and each individual is endowed with the same right, thus no one has any greater right than another, thus God intended each individual to be free. It is however the duty of each individual to defend their right as well as those of their neighbor. Which brings us to the basis of the 2nd amendment. A right which per-existed the US Constitution which merely recognizes the individual right to bear arms and establishes protections from the power of government to prevent the usurpation of the individuals means to exercise that right.

 

[Turboswede]

Hey I know this has devolved into a 2nd Amendment forum (funny how that happens) but if anyone is interest here is my take on the original question:

Most Powerful Weapon : Barrett .50 Cal unless some curio shop is selling a Boys Anti-Tank Rifle

Ammunition: Is .50 Cal SLAP available commercially? If so that will punch a hole in most light armored vehicles

Powerful weapon considering cost: Depends what you want, if you are looking for a rifle / carbine I would suggest the Simonov SKS in 7.62mm Short. The ammo is about as cheap as you can get (besides .22LR) and the SKS is usually about $100 cheaper than an equivalent Kalashnikov design.

If you are looking for something that requires little skill to hit with at close range, has an undeniable intimidation factor and can fire non-lethal ammo I would think any pump action 12 gauge shotgun would do the trick.

2nd Amendment, Obama will not take anyone’s guns away at least in the 1st term and the republican’s backed the expansion of the assault weapon’s bill. I don’t think Republican politicians are much more comfortable with an armed public than Democrats. I think this is more of a Geographic Issue than a political one. Lots of Democrats in the west support gun ownership and my liberal buddies in upstate NY were happy with the NRA and hunters because they supported the state parks, etc.

 

[Turboswede]

But it follows that God gave you life (your existance) and each individual is endowed with the same right, thus no one has any greater right than another, thus God intended each individual to be free. It is however the duty of each individual to defend their right as well as those of their neighbor. Which brings us to the basis of the 2nd amendment. A right which per-existed the US Constitution which merely recognizes the individual right to bear arms and establishes protections from the power of government to prevent the usurpation of the individuals means to exercise that right.

I may not agree with what PubliusInfinitu says but I sure do like the way he says it. Now I know it’s not technically part of the “Constitution” but I would consider the Declaration of Independence to be a good reference document on the intent of our founders. I just love the Idea that:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

Ok, so it was originally supposed to be Life, Liberty and the pursuit of PROPERTY, but I am so glad that Jefferson had them change the line. I also like the idea that there are more unalienable rights that are not referenced in the declaration.

What makes the US constitution great is that in can be amended, while our country is new, our government is one of the oldest in existence because it is flexible enough to change with the times. Originally the 2nd amendment was interpreted to only Provide a limit on Federal laws regulating arms and that the primary limit on a state’s right to regulate arms is based on the Commerce Clause (states can’t make laws that impact interstate commerce basically).

That’s why different states and localities have different standards when it comes to gun ownership, for example, I think you still need a reason to get a CWP in NY while in WA you just can’t be a felon or Insane and you need to cough up $50 (and we are a strong blue state no less).

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

2nd Amendment, Obama will not take anyone&#8217;s guns away at least in the 1st term and the republican&#8217;s backed the expansion of the assault weapon&#8217;s bill. I don&#8217;t think Republican politicians are much more comfortable with an armed public than Democrats. I think this is more of a Geographic Issue than a political one. Lots of Democrats in the west support gun ownership and my liberal buddies in upstate NY were happy with the NRA and hunters because they supported the state parks, etc.

Thank you for your kind remarks...

But friend... Hussein Obama is the pure embodiment of anti-American and he is thoroughly against any notion that firearms are a legitimate means of self defense...

The Chicago Tribune reports on April 4th, 2008: "I am in record and will continue to be on record as opposing concealed carry."

We've all heard Hussein mouth that he believes that the right to own firearms is an individual right... but that is pure nonsense which he evokes for the comfort of the independent, moderate, centrist, progressives that may not 'feel' comfortable with the idea that they can't get a gun should they need one. But that simple fact is that Hussein intends to prevent them from doing so... and he intends to do that through what he deceitfully refers to as 'common sense regulations: "There is an individual Right to bear arms. But it is subject to common sense regulation." Journal Sentinel Online: Feb 15th, 2008

We can rest assured that Hussein Obama is anxious to renew the idiocy of the Brady Gun Ban... where semi-auto rifles are erroneously defined as 'assault weapons': "I thinks it a scandel that this president (GW Bush) did not renew the assault weapons ban." This in the 3rd Senate debate against that fine American Alan Keyes on October 21th, 2004.

Hussein Obama wants to follow the Europeans and the Australians by DISARMING the law abiding innocents who are being stalked by human predators WHICH LEFTIST POLICY PRODUCED... "I believe in keeping guns out of our inner cities, and that our leaders must say so in the face of gun manufacturers." This from his book "The Audacity of Hope, published in 2006. Note the attempt by this reprobate to transfer blame for the idiocy of the predators in the inner city to Gun manufacturers... The simple fact is that HUSSEIN OBAMA WANTS TO EMPOWER THE THUGS BY DISARMING THEIR INNOCENT, LAW ABIDING VICTIMS!

Now some may feel that Hussein Obama's words were taken out of context... so let's look at his ACTIONS: Hussein voted to allow prosecution of innocent people that used a firearm to defend themselves and their family and property from human predators who had broken into THEIR OWN HOMES. Ill. Senate, SB 2165 vote 20 March 25th, 2004.

Hussein Obama supports increasing the tax on Guns and Ammunition BY 500%.

Hussein Obama is a Marxist friend... as noted above he is the pure embodiment of "ANTI-American"

 

[editec]

God given right to be free? You have the "God given right" to exist. You are only as free and alive as you are strong enough to keep yourself. Those words on paper ain't worth shit without the might to back them up.

Spot on.

Any nitwit with a gun can alienate my or your every right in an eyeblink.

Inalienable rights is one of those myths we like to cling to, mostly I think because people don't really understand what inalienable really means

Given how many freaking wars we've had to keep those rights you'd think we'd have wised up by now, wouldn't you?

 

[editec]

That's just more of the scare talk. There will however be a ban on bible sales and reduced costs of the Koran.

You forgot to mention that the Department of ReEducation has that homosexual agenda ready to roll out come Jan 2009.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Now friends... Every now and then a leftist will volunteer something which truly illustrates just what we mean when we speak of them as being ANTI_AMERICAN!

... Inalienable rights is one of those myths we like to cling to...

This from an advocate of the Marxist Muslim who promises to confiscate the product of the labor of those that DO so he can give it to those who claim to have a NEED of that product; which is every bit as much a function of evil as the above assertion. Without fail, there is not a SINGLE LEFTIST position which rests with a well reasoned, logically valid and intellectually sound principle.

Now despite the lip service which they spew to keep the evidence down to a minimum, these people do not believe in unalienable rights; they believe that human rights are what the government tells you they are... and there isn't a DAMN THING American about that.

And THAT is just ANOTHER sound reason why Leftists should not be allowed within 100 miles of a voting booth.

 

[Diuretic]

The Marxist Muslim line means you can't be taken seriously any longer Pub.
You're right down in the bottom of the barrel if you're going for that stuff.

 

[del]

The Marxist Muslim line means you can't be taken seriously any longer Pub.
You're right down in the bottom of the barrel if you're going for that stuff.

i stopped taking him seriously when he called me a leftist.

 

[glockmail]

Perhaps I'm just old-fashioned but I'll just take a good-ole combat shotgun. Always a show-stopper.

[Mossberg] makes several sweet ones.

Mine always goes boom when I pull the trigger with the safety off and a round in there. Pain to clean though.