The Gun Thread

[Botnst]

Originally Posted by cmbdiesel

OK, thanks for the Constitutional primer course.

Did I miss the clause stating 'The right to pistol grips and large volume magazines shall not be infringed'?

If it was so cut and dried what the framers of the constitution had in mind, we wouldn't be having this discussion. The 2nd amendment is very open ended and it is the different interpretations that cause all the uproar. Personally, I agree with the interpretation that it is intended to keep the gov't honest (kinda failing there), but if we start revolting against the gov't, the pistol grips and large magazines aren't going to help. We will need the army on our side, or we'll lose. Can't fight a tank with a rifle.

One doesn't need to match the military weapon-for-weapon. That fact is amply demonstrated in every successful popular revolution in history.

[Botnst]

Originally Posted by JollyRoger

I would suggest you look into the "Bonus Army".

They were not popularly supported.

[Medmech]

Originally Posted by JollyRoger

Yes, they keep ignoring that "well regulated militia" part, and like many here, prefer "unregulated mob".

****** please, what are you going to lay on us next that they are being sent without body armor and sent directly into combat without training?....again.

[Secret Squirrel]

Originally Posted by JollyRoger

Yes, they keep ignoring that "well regulated militia" part, and like many here, prefer "unregulated mob".

I'm glad the SCOTUS put an end to this weak argument.
You surely know about Heller, yet you continue to bring it up.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller

Militia has nothing to do with this thread.

[LUVMBDiesels]

Originally Posted by strelnik

I guarantee you it is NOT that easy to do, unless you want to kill yourself in the process by converting a gun made to fire with a closed bolt into one that fires with an open bolt, but oh it can't and the parts come together and they are not supposed to kinda like when a timing chain breaks and the gears and the valves and the pistons all clash and BBBBBOOOOOOOOOMMMM! in your face, baby!

The only one that I know of that was easy to convert was the M1 Carbine.
They sold a kit at the shows with a template, a drill bit and a spring. The instructions went something like this

1) Do NOT place the template over the receiver as shown in the picture.

2) Do NOT drill a hole using the provided drill bit at the place marked on the template

3) Do NOT hook the spring from the hole to the place on the trigger mechanism shown in the instructions



For laws, we should go with the laws in Vermont or WV. Open carry, pistols are not licensed, but to conceal carry you need a license. The license should be relatively easy to get. In WV the background check took less than five minutes and I was done. I think you need a check to make sure the person you are selling to is a legal resident, not a convicted felon (traffic court does not apply here) and not too crazy...
I am not in favor of restricting pistols to store owners and bankers as they do in NY. It is almost impossible to get a pistol permit in NY.

For guns, right now just the 12 Ga pump. Doing skeet and trap for now. Got my kid into it and now he is better than me. He wants a Browning O/U $$$$

Soon I will get the Taurus Judge with the ability to fire .45 and 410 shells! Perfect home defender...

I also want the K98 I passed up a few years ago. Love old bolt action mil rifles!

The wifey wants a Thompson! but $4000 for a semi-auto Tommy gun is a bit much. Also it will knock her on her @ss!

[Botnst]

Originally Posted by Secret Squirrel

I'm glad the SCOTUS put an end to this weak argument.
You surely know about Heller, yet you continue to bring it up.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller

Militia has nothing to do with this thread.

Hope springs eternal in the hearts of fanatics.

[Botnst]

Originally Posted by LUVMBDiesels

...

The wifey wants a Thompson! but $4000 for a semi-auto Tommy gun is a bit much. Also it will knock her on her @ss!

I'm with Mrs LUV. I've wanted one of those since forever."Saving Private Ryan" rekindled it. I fired the M-1 Carbine when I was a teenager but didn't much care for it. It was owned by a guy who used one during WWII. A former Seabee. Said it was good for shooting Japanese soldiers at night. His language was more colorful.

[DieselAddict]

Originally Posted by pj67coll

Not necessarily. Plenty of oppressive governments have been overthrown thruought history when the army was on their side. What's really the deciding factor is the will of the citizenry. Do you realize just how small and inadequate the US military actually is?

- Peter.

It's not just the will of the citizenry that's the deciding factor, but also the will of the government. In some countries, well-armed insurgencies have been going on for decades without much success for their side (Sri Lanka, Colombia, etc.). In some other countries, oppressive governments fell at the hands of an unarmed citizenry and without a single shot being fired (Czechoslovakia, Poland, etc.). I think in the end a successful revolution must have a political resolution. If the US citizenry ever decided to violently take on the government, it would be a never ending blood bath (mostly on the civilian side) until some resolution was reached.

[Botnst]

Originally Posted by DieselAddict

It's not just the will of the citizenry that's the deciding factor, but also the will of the government. In some countries, well-armed insurgencies have been going on for decades without much success for their side (Sri Lanka, Colombia, etc.). In some other countries, oppressive governments fell at the hands of an unarmed citizenry and without a single shot being fired (Czechoslovakia, Poland, East Germany, etc.). I think in the end a successful revolution must have a political resolution. If the US citizenry ever decided to violently take on the government, it would be a never ending blood bath (mostly on the civilian side) until some resolution was reached.

You just can't tell. You are absolutely right about the differences in duration of revolutions and insurgencies. There are certainly no guarantees. They vary from completely peaceful like the collapse of the USSR & Warsaw Pact to bloodbaths like the French experience. And there are those that last for centuries, like Northern Ireland. Is there any doubt that the UK outguns the "Real" IRA? Yet those people have been killing and maiming for over a decade since the entity formerly known as the IRA entered into peace negotiations. Also there's the Jewish experience vs Rome or the Palestinians vs Israel.

There is no historical combination that will always work. In our own little revolution most historians agree that less than 30% of colonists wanted to sever from Great Britain in 1776. In the unsuccessful revolution of 1861 one side had far better officers and were better led top to bottom and approximately equally matched in weapons at the beginning. They won some stunning victories early and had the other side not been willing to fight at all costs, could easily have won. It was the will to win that gave the union time to gear-up it's arms and promote effective general officers. Not guns. In the end the union forces won in every measurable way. But it was not weapons alone that won the war.

[pj67coll]

Originally Posted by DieselAddict

It's not just the will of the citizenry that's the deciding factor, but also the will of the government. In some countries, well-armed insurgencies have been going on for decades without much success for their side (Sri Lanka, Colombia, etc.). In some other countries, oppressive governments fell at the hands of an unarmed citizenry and without a single shot being fired (Czechoslovakia, Poland, etc.). I think in the end a successful revolution must have a political resolution. If the US citizenry ever decided to violently take on the government, it would be a never ending blood bath (mostly on the civilian side) until some resolution was reached.

I'm not so sure. You are assuming that the military will side with the government. However this is not written in stone. Should things degenerate to such a degree that the citizenry felt the need for a shooting war to protect their freedoms, it will be against the abridgement of those freedoms by the democrat party. Probably not the US governent themselves. Remember Ruby Ridge and Waco. They may have been whack jobs but was a democrat government that went in with guns blazing. The kind of extreme "gun nuts" that would likely start such a conflict will not have much to argue against with a republican government, because, surprise surpries, such a government woudln't try to destroy the 2nd amendment.

Like I said. I'm not sure the US military would be very effective against the us citizenry.

- Peter.

[DieselAddict]

Originally Posted by Botnst

But it was not weapons alone that won the war.

Examples like these is what makes me question the fairy tale that a well-armed citizenry can defeat its own oppressive government. I think the 2nd amendment is most useful for home and self-defense against common criminals, but IMO it's next to useless in fighting your own government. It didn't work out too well for the South, did it?

[Botnst]

Originally Posted by pj67coll

I'm not so sure. You are assuming that the military will side with the government. However this is not written in stone. Should things degenerate to such a degree that the citizenry felt the need for a shooting war to protect their freedoms, it will be against the abridgement of those freedoms by the democrat party. Probably not the US governent themselves. Remember Ruby Ridge and Waco. They may have been whack jobs but was a democrat government that went in with guns blazing. The kind of extreme "gun nuts" that would likely start such a conflict will not have much to argue against with a republican government, because, surprise surpries, such a government woudln't try to destroy the 2nd amendment.

Like I said. I'm not sure the US military would be very effective against the us citizenry.

- Peter.

That's why Eisenhower used the 101st in Little Rock. Those guys had a special, personal loyalty to Eisenhower that transcended politics. It also is one hell of an intimidation factor to put fully armed and trained elite combat troops in the state capitol. It worked perfectly.

But had Eisenhower gone by half-measure -- call up the local NG -- he probably would have had widespread mutiny to deal with.

[pj67coll]

Originally Posted by Botnst

But had Eisenhower gone by half-measure -- call up the local NG -- he probably would have had widespread mutiny to deal with.

A much more succinct description of my intended point.

- Peter.

[LUVMBDiesels]

Originally Posted by pj67coll

I'm not so sure. You are assuming that the military will side with the government. However this is not written in stone. Should things degenerate to such a degree that the citizenry felt the need for a shooting war to protect their freedoms, it will be against the abridgement of those freedoms by the democrat party. Probably not the US governent themselves. Remember Ruby Ridge and Waco. They may have been whack jobs but was a democrat government that went in with guns blazing. The kind of extreme "gun nuts" that would likely start such a conflict will not have much to argue against with a republican government, because, surprise surpries, such a government woudln't try to destroy the 2nd amendment.

Like I said. I'm not sure the US military would be very effective against the us citizenry.

- Peter.

There is a reason the oath is to defend the Constitution against all threats both foreign and domestic. If a government ever decided to throw out that piece of paper, the military would have no choice but to depose it with the help of the people. The Army is also not to be used as an occupying force inside the USA. I doubt the Army would fire on civilians even if called out. The Ohio National Guard is a different story...

Remember even in China the original troops sent to Tienanmen Square refused to fire on the protesters. Troops had to be brought in from far away before the government found ones willing to shoot.

[DieselAddict]

Originally Posted by pj67coll

I'm not so sure. You are assuming that the military will side with the government. However this is not written in stone. Should things degenerate to such a degree that the citizenry felt the need for a shooting war to protect their freedoms, it will be against the abridgement of those freedoms by the democrat party. Probably not the US governent themselves. Remember Ruby Ridge and Waco. They may have been whack jobs but was a democrat government that went in with guns blazing. The kind of extreme "gun nuts" that would likely start such a conflict will not have much to argue against with a republican government, because, surprise surpries, such a government woudln't try to destroy the 2nd amendment.

Like I said. I'm not sure the US military would be very effective against the us citizenry.

- Peter.

The US military would be extremely effective against the citizenry if it stayed entirely loyal to the government. If it split, then there would be a civil war with who knows what outcome. If it decided to turn on the government, it would be all over in no time and we'd have a new government.