View Single Post
Old 2012-07-25, 01:11   Link #8
GundamFan0083
Senior Member
 
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: classified
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sugetsu View Post
You seem to be quite knowledgeable about guns, so I am sure I'll learn a lot from you. I am not against banning guns all together!. In fact, I believe they are actually useful for the following reasons:

- Self defense, which translates into saving your life or the life of your loved ones.
- Hunting, because killing ducks, deer and rabbits with your bare hands is kinda hard
In the united states those reasons are not good enough.
If you are between the ages of 17 and 45 you have an obligation under the "Dick Act of 1903" to train with military arms of your era so that you are "regulated" as a member of the unorganized militia.

There in lies the problem, as James said, we shouldn't be debating whether or not guns are legal or illegal, we should be debating whether or not training should be mandatory or not.
I say it should be.
The Department of Civilian Marksmanship was created to force young men (in high school) to become proficient in the use of military arms for the benefit of the Federal Government.
That should never have ended.

Quote:
That being said, I don't think shotguns and "maybe" (my knowledge on guns is very limited) semi automatic weapons are practical for these purposes. Automatic guns, bazookas and rocket launchers are obviously over kill.
It depends on whether weapons are the best weapons for the following criteria.
What weapons are best to meet the requirements of Article 1 Section 8 of the US constitution?

That section states that the militia is used to "put down insurrections, repel invasions, and uphold the laws of the union."

Okay, can a nuclear, biological or chemical weapon be used for any of those effectively.
Answer, no.

Can a tank, jet fighter, or warship be used effectively for those missions?
NO.

Can a machine gun, rocket launcher, or grenades be used for those missions effectively.
Machine gun...maybe for repelling invasions but not the other two (which is why SWAT teams SHOULD NOT have machine guns, yet they do).

Can a real assault rifle be used for those (i.e. select-fire, semi-auto/auto-loading and full-auto/machine gun)?
Yes, a real assault rifle would be useful for all three missions and is better suited to those missions than a field-rifle/GPMG or heavy machine gun.

Rocket launchers, good for invasions, but not the other two missions.
Grenades: tear and smoke yes, frag, or incendiary? NO way.

Also in US verses Miller the SCOTUS determined that "hunting guns" are not protected by the 2nd Amendment and my opinion is based on their decision which was as follows:

The Militia which the States were expected to maintain and train is set in contrast with Troops which they [307 U.S. 174, 179] were forbidden to keep without the consent of Congress. The sentiment of the time strongly disfavored standing armies; the common view was that adequate defense of country and laws could be secured through the Militia- civilians primarily, soldiers on occasion.

The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. 'A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline.' And further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.


Quote:
Why are shotguns effective for hunting and self defense? Correct me if I am wrong, but aren't shotguns low on range? Wouldn't a manual rifle be more effective with its long range to hunt fast moving targets?
The scatter shot is excellent for hunting birds like ducks, phesant, or geese.
Shotguns are a food hunting weapon.
Sadly they are also an excellent people hunting weapon as James Holmes proved in Aurora.

Quote:
Why would you want a shotgun for self defense? If you fire it at close range it deemed to cause massive damage and it is most likely to kill than to injure? Unless your idea of self defense is to kill the person attacking you. They are also hard to conceal, so what self defense purposes can they serve to a lady walking down a dark alley all by herself?
Low penetration.
Shotgun slugs are best for home defense since they don't scatter and damage to your stuff is limited. They have more knock-down power than a pistol, but lack the penetration of a rifle.

Quote:
I realize I don't know about semi automatic weapons, as long as they comply with regulations I don't see any harm in them. I am under they impression that they can be reloaded very quickly and can fire many rounds at once though. But again, how does my knowledge of weaponry, or lack thereof, be in conflict with the regulations I outlined? If I were the law maker drafting the law and if I gun expert tells me that some kind of semi automatic weapons can be safely made public because they comply with the self defense and hunting premises, then I would have no problem agreeing with him.
Self-defense and hunting are not protected by the 2nd Amendment no matter what SCOTUS may rule.
The 2nd amendment exists for the benefit of the people (as a last defense against tyranny) and as a last defense for the Federal Government (in the form of Article 1 Section 8).
Semi-automatic weapons ARE militia weapons which is why military forces no longer use them.
A semi-automatic miltiary rifle is sometimes refered to as a battle rifle and while bolt-actions are also classified that way, semi-autos are best described this way.

Quote:
Again, I don't need to be gun savvy to realize that many weapons are overkill for self defense and hunting purposes and need to be taken off the shelves. Hell, if you are a gun guru and can prove to me that certain machine guns are perfectly fine for personal use then I would agree with you.
Doesn't matter under US law because self-defense and hunting are moot.
The reasons for these weapons in the hands of citizens is because under the US constitution there are no civilians in the US.
We are all supposed to be citizen-soldiers.

Quote:
I don't think it is wise to assume they are all anti second amendment. Maybe some of them are, but those with an inch of common sense can clearly see that owning a gun can indeed save the owners life, specially in a dangerous zone. Maybe Rush Limbaugh in getting to you?
Every one of them has made comments similar to Dianne Fienstein who said this:

"If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them -- Mr. and Mrs. America, turn them all in -- I would have done it."

So yes, they want ALL guns banned, which by it's very nature is an anti-government sentiment since our government benefits from having an armed population.
[/QUOTE]

@James
Do guns actually protect people?

Yes they do:


There are many more like her, but the media ignores most of the stories (except local media) because it doesn't fit the narrative they want.
__________________
GundamFan0083 is offline   Reply With Quote