Guns used for lawful self defense

[laklak]

Maybe someday there will be a super majority that wants to ban handguns, fine. If 2/3 of both the Senate and House agree on a joint resolution to amend the Constitution, and then 3/4 of the 50 state legislatures agree, the 2nd will be history. That means 17 states must disagree in order for the amendment to fail. 17 is nothing, do that with our eyes closed. It doesn't work like the electoral collage, you could have a vast majority of the general population favor restrictions and it won't matter, each state is equal in the ratification process.

The Deep South would never approve. Northern states like Vermont and New Hampshire would never approve. The Dakotas, Montana, Idaho, Colorado, New Mexico, Arizona, Utah, Michigan, Wyoming, Alaska - never approve. That's 24 states right there.

Nope, we'll be carrying our guns and having shoot outs at the corral for the foreseeable future.

[Blind groper]

I don't think the second amendment will be overturned any time soon. However, I am not suggesting the right to bear arms be dumped. Just the right to own hand guns. I mean, Americans do not have the right to own nukes, so 'arms' clearly is a limited definition. So, why should hand guns not be put in the same class as nukes? After all, they do more harm.

[Jason]

we'll be carrying our guns and having shoot outs at the corral for the foreseeable future.

Will that be the fancy corral, the luxury corral, the coach corral, or just the OK corral?

[Jason]

IAmericans do not have the right to own nukes, so 'arms' clearly is a limited definition

You raise an excellent point Groper. Clearly we need to push for delimitation on the scope of what is considered 'arms' in civilian possession. Tactical nuclear weapons, ICBMs, SAMs.. these are all necessary for the populace to fight off the threat of tyranny in the face of a modern military force.

[laklak]

Ah, the nuclear weapons debate. I fully understand that ownership of strategic nukes makes little sense in the home or personal defense arena. However, tactical weapons below a certain yield should certainly be legal. The W54 SADM (special atomic demolition weapon) has a variable yield of between 10 tons and 1 kiloton, perfect for personal use. It will dig one fuck of a big swimming pool in one fuck of a hurry. Larger weapons should probably be restricted to Class III licensees.

See? We gun nuts can be reasonable.

[Blind groper]

Give Americans the right to bear nukes, and the problem of American firearms murders will soon be solved. In fact, the problem of America will be solved........

[amused]

At least Colbert will be happy when we nuke bears.

[Blind groper]

Accidental extra post. Sorry.

[Seth]

That's precisely what the Founders knew, and exactly why they said that the citizenry must NEVER be disarmed by the government, because that is a sure and certain path to despotism.

The the 22 out of 23 richest (non USA) nations on this planet, that do not have hand guns available to the citizenry, but are still free, shows this hypothesis to be wrong.

No they aren't. They are enslaved and don't even recognize it because they are indoctrinated sheeple. Watch what happens when some despot takes power. He'll do it without opposition and then eat the sheeple.

[Blind groper]

Seth

You have a weird view of what enslavement means. You think that owning guns makes you free, and not owning them makes you a slave. But that is not correct. Lots of people owning guns means lots of people shot. No more than that.

Your view is very Seth-centric. It could not exist in any other country on this globe, apart from the USA, which has lots of weirdness about it. A better, and more universal definition of a free country is one that follows and applies the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights. My country does, and I am free, in spite of your weird personal definitions.

[Seth]

Seth

You have a weird view of what enslavement means.

And you have a flatly insane view of what freedom means.

You think that owning guns makes you free, and not owning them makes you a slave.

Yup.

But that is not correct.

It's absolutely correct. One can only be enslaved if one is either willing to be enslaved (like you) or one is unable to resist and prevent being enslaved, which is why those who would enslave others first strip them of any effective tools of armed resistance to their attempts at slavery.

No one can enslave me. They can perhaps kill me, but it'll cost them dearly to try.

You, on the other hand, wear the chains of a slave and don't even understand that you do. Failing to recognize one's status as a slave is a sign of terminal ignorance I'm afraid.

Lots of people owning guns means lots of people shot. No more than that.

Lots of bad people who need to be shot mostly.

Your view is very Seth-centric.

Of course it is. I'm a free man obligated to no one except by my express choice and consent. Your problems are your own. Don't expect me to solve them for you or support you financially while you try to solve them yourself. You may politely ASK me if I'd be willing to help you out financially if you're in need, and if you present me with a compelling story as to why it is in my best interests to contribute to your well-being, then I may consider granting you charity to assist you.

But if you come to my door and point a gun at me, even through the proxy of the State, and demand that I give you what is mine, I'm going to simply shoot you dead on the spot because I don't tolerate thieves threatening me, even if they have a shiny badge that they think gives them the power to enslave me to your interests.

It could not exist in any other country on this globe, apart from the USA, which has lots of weirdness about it.

More's the pity. The world is indeed a festering open sore of nearly universal slavery. What the slaves need is more guns so they can kill their oppressors and be free, like me.

A better, and more universal definition of a free country is one that follows and applies the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights.

Which mean absolutely nothing without the human right to keep and bear arms with which the people can enforce those rights against those who would enslave them, particularly including their own governments. Platitudes and nothing more, that's what that document is. It's all just Kabuki theater painted up to mesmerize the credulous masses into thinking they have rights, when in reality they have nothing that their masters who are in control do not choose to grant them at their whims and caprice.

Without the means for individuals whose rights are being infringed by government to use effective force to resist and overthrow a despotic government that refuses to respect their rights, those individuals are slaves to whatever tyrant or despot comes along and seized power. It's just exactly that simple.

If you're armed, you are a free person. If you are not armed, you are a slave. You may not feel like a slave, but you are a slave who can be whipped into submission whenever those in power take it in their heads that they would like to do so. It's just exactly THAT simple.

My country does, and I am free, in spite of your weird personal definitions.

No you're not. You are just living under the illusion that you are. If someone comes along and seized power in your country and decides not to respect the UN charter, what the fuck do you think you're going to be able to do about it if the tyrant, who has all the arms and power, is willing to subdue, enslave and even kill you over your objections?

Nothing, that's what you'll do. You'll chafe at the fetters you placed on your own limbs by surrendering the power to overthrow a despot, and you'll whine and complain...if the tyrant lets you, but you'll never be free again because you have given up your most fundamental right, the right that secures all other rights, and that's the right to keep and bear arms.

What's really sad is that you're so deeply enslaved right now that you actually believe that government is a good thing and is always and inevitably benevolent.

I suggest you ask a Jew who survived the Nazi death camps how well that worked out for them before you bloviate any further about how "free" you are.

[Blind groper]

Seth

You really do have some very warped views.

Individuals do not have to defend the state. Homo sapiens is a social animal, and cooperates. Here in New Zealand, we have the least corrupt nation on Earth, according to the latest international survey, and our police and our armed forces do not serve totalitarian governments. They serve the people, which includes me.

Of course, if a sufficiently powerful outside force invaded, then I would be one of those on the hillside, with a sporting rifle, doing what I could to slow them down. But only an insane man, a right royal nut case, in my country, feels the need to use arms against the government.

You have already told me that the armed forces in the USA swear fealty to the constitution, not to the government. That being the case, they will not support a dictator. Only someone who is a total blithering idiot, feels that he needs, as an individual, to stockpile weapons in case of the US government going totalitarian.

[Jason]

If you want a good 'sporting' rifle that would double nicely as a commie killer, get yourself a rifle chambered in .338 Lapua (Lapua not Win Mag). They're good for anti-personnel and anti-material (take out a humvee at least). The Sako TRG-42 is an excellent choice but there are plenty of options out there. A .308 (commercial NATO 7.62x54) is nice, but you have to engage in under 700 yards whereas the .338 Lapua lets you reliably engage at 1500 yards and packs a mean punch and it'll blow right through an body armour they may be wearing. Also good for killing zombies.

[Seth]

Seth

You really do have some very warped views.

No, you do.

Individuals do not have to defend the state.

Individuals are the ones who hold the guns and fight and die, so you're just plain wrong.

Homo sapiens is a social animal, and cooperates.

Unless it doesn't.

Here in New Zealand, we have the least corrupt nation on Earth, according to the latest international survey, and our police and our armed forces do not serve totalitarian governments. They serve the people, which includes me.

Maybe for now. But that's what the Jews thought, and what the Chinese thought, and what the Russians thought, and what the...well, just about everyone who has placed so much trust in their government that they stupidly gave up their arms. They all eventually end up regretting it, and dying because of it. Your turn will come.

Of course, if a sufficiently powerful outside force invaded, then I would be one of those on the hillside, with a sporting rifle, doing what I could to slow them down. But only an insane man, a right royal nut case, in my country, feels the need to use arms against the government.

No you wouldn't, you'd be on your knees sucking cock after turning in your "sporting rifle" in return for food and medicine because you don't have the necessary tools to be a partisan, much less the will or training.

You have already told me that the armed forces in the USA swear fealty to the constitution, not to the government. That being the case, they will not support a dictator.

I believe this to be true, but I'm not going to disarm myself on the premise that they will do so. I'm going to retain my ability to fight to put down a tyrant just in case I'm wrong.

Only someone who is a total blithering idiot, feels that he needs, as an individual, to stockpile weapons in case of the US government going totalitarian.

Yeah, Alexander Hamilton, George Washington, Ben Franklin, and all the rest sure were "blithering idiots." What WERE they thinking, stockpiling all those weapons to use against King George?

[Seth]

If you want a good 'sporting' rifle that would double nicely as a commie killer, get yourself a rifle chambered in .338 Lapua (Lapua not Win Mag). They're good for anti-personnel and anti-material (take out a humvee at least). The Sako TRG-42 is an excellent choice but there are plenty of options out there. A .308 (commercial NATO 7.62x54) is nice, but you have to engage in under 700 yards whereas the .338 Lapua lets you reliably engage at 1500 yards and packs a mean punch and it'll blow right through an body armour they may be wearing. Also good for killing zombies.

That's exactly what I have...a Sako TRG-42 in .338 LM, with a US Optics SN3 5-25 EREK. Shot it at 750 meters at Fort Benning on the Sniper School Burroughs range after the International Sniper Competition ended, during the vendor shoots (both night and day). Gonged the 12" steel at 750 meters three times and hit four of four steel targets at 700 to 800 meters as well as a bunch of closer targets. That's me:

Don't know why it's displaying upside down, I tried to rotate it and reload it three times. If some Mod could flip it around I'd appreciate it.

Also shot my LaRue OBR in .308 with a prototype Leupold Mark 6 1 to 6 with a CNVDLR clip on in front during the night shoot out to 400 meters, under horrible no-moon lighting conditions.

Next year they are expanding the Burroughs range to beyond 1500 meters, and have started clear-cutting the trees already. Next year's competition should be even better.