Can Gun Nuts Please Stop Saying You Need Guns to Protect Yourself From A Potential Tyrannical Government!!!

[Confederate Soldier]

Pure fantasy. And no one is trying to ban guns altogether, only guns that do not belong in the hands of the private sector, those designed for military and police to kill people as efficiently and as many as possible.

By banning guns that "shouldn't" be in private hands, I assume you mean the AR-15. AR-15's are not military guns. They are semi-auto guns that are extremely popular, nothing more, nothing less.

The AR-15 (AR stands for ArmaLite, not Assault Rifle, common misconception), was designed for military use during the Vietnam war, but that version was fully automatic. The name was changed to the M16 after a few modifications, and the semi-auto AR-15 became available for civilian use. So no, the AR-15 was never a military gun. Police gun yes, why wouldn't you use it?



And for the whole government taking over thing, yes, it could happen. It can happen anywhere, at any time, and anyone too naïve to not realize that, deserves the concentration camp they are sent to.

 

[2aguy]

By banning guns that "shouldn't" be in private hands, I assume you mean the AR-15. AR-15's are not military guns. They are semi-auto guns that are extremely popular, nothing more, nothing less.

The AR-15 (AR stands for ArmaLite, not Assault Rifle, common misconception), was designed for military use during the Vietnam war, but that version was fully automatic. The name was changed to the M16 after a few modifications, and the semi-auto AR-15 became available for civilian use. So no, the AR-15 was never a military gun. Police gun yes, why wouldn't you use it?



And for the whole government taking over thing, yes, it could happen. It can happen anywhere, at any time, and anyone too naïve to not realize that, deserves the concentration camp they are sent to.

Actually, the original patent for the AR-15 rifle was as a civillian rifle...it wasnt chqnged and takennup by the army for a few years....the original patwnt made it a civillian rifle, not a military rifle.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Pure fantasy. And no one is trying to ban guns altogether, only guns that do not belong in the hands of the private sector, those designed for military and police to kill people as efficiently and as many as possible.

The right to keep and bear arms, as protected by the 2nd, directly relates to the occasional need for people to kill other people, and thus guarantees access to the means necessary to do so - given this, what argument is there that the citizenry should not have access to these weapons?
How are these weapons not "bearable arms"?

 

[Rumpole]

By banning guns that "shouldn't" be in private hands, I assume you mean the AR-15. AR-15's are not military guns. They are semi-auto guns that are extremely popular, nothing more, nothing less.

The AR-15 (AR stands for ArmaLite, not Assault Rifle, common misconception), was designed for military use during the Vietnam war, but that version was fully automatic. The name was changed to the M16 after a few modifications, and the semi-auto AR-15 became available for civilian use. So no, the AR-15 was never a military gun. Police gun yes, why wouldn't you use it?



And for the whole government taking over thing, yes, it could happen. It can happen anywhere, at any time, and anyone too naïve to not realize that, deserves the concentration camp they are sent to.

I am not a firearms expert. I'm assuming that authentic military weapons are designed to kill as many people, as efficiently as possible.

Whatever those weapons are, I feel it is reasonable to disallow them in public and nonprofessional hands.

That's it. As to which guns, I'll leave that up to regulators to sort out.

 

[2aguy]

I am not a firearms expert. I'm assuming that authentic military weapons are designed to kill as many people, as efficiently as possible.

Whatever those weapons are, I feel it is reasonable to disallow them in public and nonprofessional hands.

That's it. As to which guns, I'll leave that up to regulators to sort out.

The AR-15 is not a military weapon……it is a standard, basic rifle.

So…..what next?

 

[M14 Shooter]

I am not a firearms expert. I'm assuming that authentic military weapons are designed to kill as many people, as efficiently as possible.
Whatever those weapons are, I feel it is reasonable to disallow them in public and nonprofessional hands.

Hello Patricio.
These weapons are covered by the NFA 1934, as amended in 1986.
They are rare, expensive, and almost never used to commit a crime.

 

[LibertyKid]

Very well done presentation on the history of fire arms, the 2nd Amendment, and in general, the idea that the founding fathers wanted to keep the people armed in case their own gov't needed some assistance in keeping to the constitution. Don't let the title keep you away. Even if you're a staunch anti gun person, there is some decent history to be learned.

 

[AZrailwhale]

I am not a firearms expert. I'm assuming that authentic military weapons are designed to kill as many people, as efficiently as possible.

Whatever those weapons are, I feel it is reasonable to disallow them in public and nonprofessional hands.

That's it. As to which guns, I'll leave that up to regulators to sort out.

That's a cop out. The BOLT ACTION M-1903 Springfield was an authentic military weapon, as was the M-1 Rifle and Carbine, the Krag single shot rifle the Mauser 98K, SMLE Enfield and Arisaka, all bolt action rifles.

 

[M14 Shooter]

That's a cop out. The BOLT ACTION M-1903 Springfield was an authentic military weapon, as was the M-1 Rifle and Carbine, the Krag single shot rifle the Mauser 98K, SMLE Enfield and Arisaka, all bolt action rifles.

Model 70 Winchester rifle
Model 700 Remington rifle
Model 12 Winchester shotgun
Model 590 Mossberg shotgun
Model 19 S&W revolver

 

[LibertyKid]

I am not a firearms expert. I'm assuming that authentic military weapons are designed to kill as many people, as efficiently as possible.

Whatever those weapons are, I feel it is reasonable to disallow them in public and nonprofessional hands.

That's it. As to which guns, I'll leave that up to regulators to sort out.

But the concern, no matter how extreme one may believe it is, is the right to bear arms was meant to protect the citizens from foreign or domestic terrorism.
Check out the youtube video I posted above. In one segment, after the WWII, what did the gov't do with the surplus of arms, sold them to the public. That's why military surplus stores existed.

Also, because you may not be comfortable with a firearm, doesn't mean that other should be. If a situation were to occur, regardless of the context, and you needed protection that required the use of a firearm, who you going to look too when the police are minutes away, or even unavailable? Or what if the situation was bigger than a single isolated event. What if there was anarchy of some type? What about civil unrest due to race. What if someone saw you as white and decided you're a racist because you're white and didn't want to stop and ask questions. You going to lay down and take your death like man?

It's okay to not like guns. But it's not okay to allow the gov't to continue to restrict and skirt the constitution any which way the left can try.

 

[Rumpole]

The AR-15 is not a military weapon……it is a standard, basic rifle.

So…..what next?

I don't believe I referred to the AR-15, did I? I referred to 'military weapons' (whatever they are).

 

[M14 Shooter]

I don't believe I referred to the AR-15, did I? I referred to 'military weapons' (whatever they are).

These.

Model 70 Winchester rifle
Model 700 Remington rifle
Model 12 Winchester shotgun
Model 590 Mossberg shotgun
Model 19 S&W revolver

All of them have been issue to the US military and used in combat.
Thus, military weapons.
Not being an expert, if you aren't sure what they are, Google is your friend.

 

[AZrailwhale]

But the concern, no matter how extreme one may believe it is, is the right to bear arms was meant to protect the citizens from foreign or domestic terrorism.
Check out the youtube video I posted above. In one segment, after the WWII, what did the gov't do with the surplus of arms, sold them to the public. That's why military surplus stores existed.

Also, because you may not be comfortable with a firearm, doesn't mean that other should be. If a situation were to occur, regardless of the context, and you needed protection that required the use of a firearm, who you going to look too when the police are minutes away, or even unavailable? Or what if the situation was bigger than a single isolated event. What if there was anarchy of some type? What about civil unrest due to race. What if someone saw you as white and decided you're a racist because you're white and didn't want to stop and ask questions. You going to lay down and take your death like man?

It's okay to not like guns. But it's not okay to allow the gov't to continue to restrict and skirt the constitution any which way the left can try.

You can still buy surplus US Army weapons from the government. The Civilian Marksmanship Program sells M-1903 Springfields, M-1 Garands, M-i Carbines and M-1911A1 pistols to qualified civilians, and getting qualified is easy.

 

[Rumpole]

These.

Model 70 Winchester rifle
Model 700 Remington rifle
Model 12 Winchester shotgun
Model 590 Mossberg shotgun
Model 19 S&W revolver

All of them have been issue to the US military and used in combat.
Thus, military weapons.
Not being an expert, if you aren't sure what they are, Google is your friend.

Well, let me ask you a question. Are they weapons meant for both military and non military use? Or just military?

If it were the latter, I would be curious as to why that is true.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Well, let me ask you a question. Are they weapons meant for both military and non military use? Or just military?

They were issued to the military and used in combat by the military.
This makes them military weapons.

This contrasts weapons which were not issued to the military.
This makes then non-military - that is, civilian - weapons.

 

[2aguy]

Well, let me ask you a question. Are they weapons meant for both military and non military use? Or just military?

If it were the latter, I would be curious as to why that is true.

Of those weapons losted....the only one that is not a military weapon is the AR-15.

 

[Rumpole]

That's a cop out.

No, a cop out in a debate forum is a rationalization or poor excuse to avoid taking a position or offering a counter argument.
That would not be me. Merely disagreeing with a point, that's not what a cop out is.

The BOLT ACTION M-1903 Springfield was an authentic military weapon, as was the M-1 Rifle and Carbine, the Krag single shot rifle the Mauser 98K, SMLE Enfield and Arisaka, all bolt action rifles.

What I mean, essentially, by 'military' are those above and beyond what is necessary to defend oneself and hunt for food and those arms, though not all of those arms, used by the military, are not needed for hunting and self defense. For example, is the Browning M2 .50 cal fully automatic machine gun necessary for this function? Is an anti-tank rocket launcher necessary for self defense and hunting? Is a nuclear bomb necessary for self defense and hunting? Is a bomb dropping drone necessary for self defense and hunting? I think not. It is in the rather obvious areas of arms that I believe regulation is just. I'm not against the bolt action guns you mentioned. Again, not being an expert on the subject, you can expect my less than perfectly articulated opinions, but I do hope fundamental points I raise are guided by common sense. If you believe otherwise, feel free to point it out, and any flaw in my reasoning.

 

[Rumpole]

Of those weapons losted....the only one that is not a military weapon is the AR-15.

See post

• #1,377

 

[AZrailwhale]

No, a cop out in a debate forum is a rationalization or poor excuse to avoid taking a position or offering a counter argument.
That would not be me. Merely disagreeing with a point, that's not what a cop out is.




What I mean, essentially, by 'military' are those above and beyond what is necessary to defend oneself and hunt for food and those arms, though not all of those arms, used by the military, are not needed for hunting and self defense. For example, is the Browning M2 .50 cal fully automatic machine gun necessary for this function? Is an anti-tank rocket launcher necessary for self defense and hunting? Is a nuclear bomb necessary for self defense and hunting? Is a bomb dropping drone necessary for self defense and hunting? I think not. It is in the rather obvious areas of arms that I believe regulation is just. I'm not against the bolt action guns you mentioned. Again, not being an expert on the subject, you can expect my less than perfectly articulated opinions, but I do hope fundamental points I raise are guided by common sense. If you believe otherwise, feel free to point it out, and any flaw in my reasoning.

It depends, If I'm hunting Elephants or Rhinos, I want the most powerful gun I can get. By the way, the M-1 Garand and Carbine are NOT bolt action rifles. Both are semi-automatics just like the AR-15 and the Garand is a much more powerful rifle.

 

[M14 Shooter]

What I mean, essentially, by 'military' are those above and beyond what is necessary to defend oneself and hunt for food and those arms...

An absurd and unsupportable definition, created for convenience and avoidance.

This is a sure sign you have a position that you know cannot be soundly argued.
Why don't you stop playing coy, come clean, and state that posiiton, so that we might semonstrate exacly how unsound it is.

I'll start you out:
"AR15s and the like should be banned, because..."