row_33 Posted February 13, 2018 Posted February 13, 2018 11 minutes ago, Koko78 said: Security of the state is exactly why the 2nd Amendment exists - so that the people can fight back if the government becomes tyrannical. It's the only real check that citizens have on a totalitarian state. we've watched many times that tanks can roll through and "win the war" easypeasy but the battle on the street, house by house, is more decisive....
/dev/null Posted February 13, 2018 Posted February 13, 2018 2 hours ago, Azalin said: What's to discuss? 5.56 vs 7.63 NATO 9mm vs .40SW Striker vs hammer fired 2 hours ago, The_Dude said: Im building an AR-47 right now. How exactly does an AR-47 work? Is it a an AK47 painted scary black or just an AR chambered in 762 Soviet
The_Dude Posted February 13, 2018 Posted February 13, 2018 22 minutes ago, /dev/null said: 5.56 vs 7.63 NATO 9mm vs .40SW Striker vs hammer fired How exactly does an AR-47 work? Is it a an AK47 painted scary black or just an AR chambered in 762 Soviet Its an AR that runs 7.62x39. Lots of fun.
The_Dude Posted February 13, 2018 Posted February 13, 2018 How does the board feel about 80% AR lowers? Those NEED to be outlawed imo.
The_Dude Posted February 14, 2018 Posted February 14, 2018 8 hours ago, Koko78 said: Security of the state is exactly why the 2nd Amendment exists - so that the people can fight back if the government becomes tyrannical. It's the only real check that citizens have on a totalitarian state. Replace your first “is” with “was.” And thats correct and wrong. It’s correct because it’s correct, it’s wrong because it’s half true. The idea that civilian militias could muster and augment a small army to fight of threats was practical at the time. So much so that American men were expected (possibly required but I’m not looking it up right now) to have a musket and shot on them to provide for defense of the nation. Our foundeds didn’t want a large standing army that could be turned on the people and that was a huge thing to Americans pre-WWI
3rdnlng Posted February 14, 2018 Posted February 14, 2018 33 minutes ago, The_Dude said: Replace your first “is” with “was.” And thats correct and wrong. It’s correct because it’s correct, it’s wrong because it’s half true. The idea that civilian militias could muster and augment a small army to fight of threats was practical at the time. So much so that American men were expected (possibly required but I’m not looking it up right now) to have a musket and shot on them to provide for defense of the nation. Our foundeds didn’t want a large standing army that could be turned on the people and that was a huge thing to Americans pre-WWI Those poor militia people didn't have too much trouble flexing their muscles at the Bundy Ranch, did they?
bdutton Posted February 14, 2018 Posted February 14, 2018 (edited) 4 hours ago, The_Dude said: How does the board feel about 80% AR lowers? Those NEED to be outlawed imo. I didn't know what that was and I consider myself an expert in most firearms (NRA Certified Instructor, NRA/USAS Certified Rifle Coach, NRA Precision Pistol High Master classification). I had to look up what that 80% meant. So there is a 'loophole' (Gun Contro act of 1968) whereas one could legally purchase a partially completed lower and with the help of a few hardware jigs, complete the lower and purchase the remaining parts to build completed firearm that is not registered, no background check. Honest question... is there an epidemic of murders being committed with guns built using this loophole? ETA: I imagine a vast majority of people who are building these guns are doing so because they are paranoid alt right militia types that don't want their guns to be traceable by the government. Edited February 14, 2018 by bdutton
DC Tom Posted February 14, 2018 Posted February 14, 2018 1 hour ago, The_Dude said: The idea that civilian militias could muster and augment a small army to fight of threats was practical at the time. It was practical because 1) our early military doctrine was basically terroristic in nature, 2) the technical requirements of the line infantry was low enough that, when a standing army was needed, it took about six weeks to train, and 3) there was almost no chance of facing a stand-up battle with a professional military force of any size until the late-1800s. It was a very special set of circumstances that allowed it. 1 hour ago, The_Dude said: So much so that American men were expected (possibly required but I’m not looking it up right now) to have a musket and shot on them to provide for defense of the nation. They weren't. We weren't Switzerland, there was no requirement to serve in or be prepared to serve in the militia. Most state militia ended up being armed uniformly by the standing army when called up. And the founding fathers didn't really support militias - there were grave questions about their effectiveness and usefulness. What they did support incontrovertibly was civilian control over the military. But strong state militias were anathema to the Constitutional Convention of 1787, given how they'd showed up the weaknesses of the Articles of Confederation to that point.
unbillievable Posted February 14, 2018 Posted February 14, 2018 17 hours ago, row_33 said: we've watched many times that tanks can roll through and "win the war" easypeasy but the battle on the street, house by house, is more decisive.... I always assumed "Red Dawn" was set in an alternate universe because the kids couldn't find any guns to use against the Koreans.
The_Dude Posted February 14, 2018 Posted February 14, 2018 9 hours ago, DC Tom said: They weren't. We weren't Switzerland, there was no requirement to serve in or be prepared to serve in the militia. Most state militia ended up being armed uniformly by the standing army when called up. And the founding fathers didn't really support militias - there were grave questions about their effectiveness and usefulness. What they did support incontrovertibly was civilian control over the military. But strong state militias were anathema to the Constitutional Convention of 1787, given how they'd showed up the weaknesses of the Articles of Confederation to that point. “Prior to the American Revolution there was neither budget nor manpower nor government desire to maintain a full-time army. Therefore, the armed citizen-soldier carried the responsibility. Service in militia, including providing one's own ammunition and weapons, was mandatory for all men. Yet, as early as the 1790s, the mandatory universal militia duty evolved gradually to voluntary militia units and a reliance on a regular army. Throughout the 19th century the institution of the organized civilian militia began to decline.[1]:10 The unorganized civilian militia, however, still remains even in current U.S. law, consisting of essentially everyone from age 17 to 45, while also including former military officers up to age 64, as codified in 10 U.S.C. § 246” https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_the_United_States i can’t remember where I read that other than Wikipedia just now, but I know I’ve read it in a couple sources. American men were required to own a firearm and shot. 9 hours ago, bdutton said: I didn't know what that was and I consider myself an expert in most firearms (NRA Certified Instructor, NRA/USAS Certified Rifle Coach, NRA Precision Pistol High Master classification). I had to look up what that 80% meant. So there is a 'loophole' (Gun Contro act of 1968) whereas one could legally purchase a partially completed lower and with the help of a few hardware jigs, complete the lower and purchase the remaining parts to build completed firearm that is not registered, no background check. Honest question... is there an epidemic of murders being committed with guns built using this loophole? ETA: I imagine a vast majority of people who are building these guns are doing so because they are paranoid alt right militia types that don't want their guns to be traceable by the government. I think it’s an issue. How would I deal with it? I don’t know. But it as far as loopholes go, I have used a site to buy and sell guns private party. I use a website called theoutdoorstrader.com. Ive basically quit using it. I just don’t want to be the guy that sells a maniac a gun. But yeah, I’d ban private party sales. An FFL should process all sales.
LeviF Posted February 14, 2018 Posted February 14, 2018 1 hour ago, The_Dude said: But it as far as loopholes go, I have used a site to buy and sell guns private party. I use a website called theoutdoorstrader.com. Ive basically quit using it. I just don’t want to be the guy that sells a maniac a gun. But yeah, I’d ban private party sales. An FFL should process all sales. You can still use an FFL for private party sales if you so choose. Lots of people in Vermont do it because the laws are relatively loose there and they have the same concerns you do. The difference is they aren't advocating for the elimination of 2nd Amendment rights.
The_Dude Posted February 14, 2018 Posted February 14, 2018 3 minutes ago, LeviF91 said: You can still use an FFL for private party sales if you so choose. Lots of people in Vermont do it because the laws are relatively loose there and they have the same concerns you do. The difference is they aren't advocating for the elimination of 2nd Amendment rights. ...what does “well regulated” mean?
LeviF Posted February 14, 2018 Posted February 14, 2018 5 minutes ago, The_Dude said: ...what does “well regulated” mean? What does "shall not be infringed" mean?
DC Tom Posted February 14, 2018 Posted February 14, 2018 46 minutes ago, The_Dude said: ...what does “well regulated” mean? "Well regulated" refers to militias, not guns.
TakeYouToTasker Posted February 14, 2018 Posted February 14, 2018 1 hour ago, The_Dude said: ...what does “well regulated” mean? Do you even diagram sentences, bro? 1
row_33 Posted February 14, 2018 Posted February 14, 2018 1 hour ago, DC Tom said: "Well regulated" refers to militias, not guns. you Americans....
Nanker Posted February 14, 2018 Posted February 14, 2018 3 hours ago, The_Dude said: “Prior to the American Revolution there was neither budget nor manpower nor government desire to maintain a full-time army. Therefore, the armed citizen-soldier carried the responsibility. Service in militia, including providing one's own ammunition and weapons, was mandatory for all men. Yet, as early as the 1790s, the mandatory universal militia duty evolved gradually to voluntary militia units and a reliance on a regular army. Throughout the 19th century the institution of the organized civilian militia began to decline.[1]:10 The unorganized civilian militia, however, still remains even in current U.S. law, consisting of essentially everyone from age 17 to 45, while also including former military officers up to age 64, as codified in 10 U.S.C. § 246” https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_the_United_States i can’t remember where I read that other than Wikipedia just now, but I know I’ve read it in a couple sources. American men were required to own a firearm and shot. I think it’s an issue. How would I deal with it? I don’t know. But it as far as loopholes go, I have used a site to buy and sell guns private party. I use a website called theoutdoorstrader.com. Ive basically quit using it. I just don’t want to be the guy that sells a maniac a gun. But yeah, I’d ban private party sales. An FFL should process all sales. You should take the time to visit Colonial Williamsburg. The Governor's mansion has a particularly nice collection of weaponry from Cutlasses to Flintlock guns. Their armory is in a different place - which is where they stored their communal gunpowder. From Lexington, the Brits marched on Concord, MA where "The Massachusetts colonial assembly responded to these provocations by directing townships to ready their militias. War was coming, and Boston’s patriots were preparing for it. The British were preparing, too, and in April 1775, they directed Gage to disarm the rebels. Gage ordered Lieutenant Colonel Francis Smith to gather 700 British Army soldiers and march to Concord, where the rebels were reportedly storing mass quantities of arms and ammunition. Their orders were to find the stash and destroy it." Not a standing army per se, but the Colonies did have militias with communal stores of arms and ammunition.
GG Posted February 14, 2018 Posted February 14, 2018 (edited) What's wrong with the headline and opening paragraph? Quote Several hurt in shooting near National Security Agency By Makini Brice FORT MEADE, Md (Reuters) - Several people were injured in a shooting incident on Wednesday Of course, someone realized that the headline doesn't really match the incident and subsequently changed it. But the narrative was set and why there can't be a real gun "dialogue" Edited February 14, 2018 by GG
The_Dude Posted February 14, 2018 Posted February 14, 2018 5 hours ago, DC Tom said: "Well regulated" refers to militias, not guns. And do well regulated militias control their weapons? The answer is yes. 3 hours ago, Nanker said: You should take the time to visit Colonial Williamsburg. The Governor's mansion has a particularly nice collection of weaponry from Cutlasses to Flintlock guns. Their armory is in a different place - which is where they stored their communal gunpowder. From Lexington, the Brits marched on Concord, MA where "The Massachusetts colonial assembly responded to these provocations by directing townships to ready their militias. War was coming, and Boston’s patriots were preparing for it. The British were preparing, too, and in April 1775, they directed Gage to disarm the rebels. Gage ordered Lieutenant Colonel Francis Smith to gather 700 British Army soldiers and march to Concord, where the rebels were reportedly storing mass quantities of arms and ammunition. Their orders were to find the stash and destroy it." Not a standing army per se, but the Colonies did have militias with communal stores of arms and ammunition. It’s definitely on my list to visit. I’d really enjoy that. I do wish more Americans would remember that the revolution would have been a massive failure but for the French. I’m not sure why I noted that....they just never get their due. 6 hours ago, LeviF91 said: What does "shall not be infringed" mean? Look guy, if anybody try’s to take my guns I’ll kill them. I’m about the right to bear arms. But the 2nd amendment is vague. All I’m sayin.
TakeYouToTasker Posted February 14, 2018 Posted February 14, 2018 18 minutes ago, The_Dude said: And do well regulated militias control their weapons? The answer is yes. It’s definitely on my list to visit. I’d really enjoy that. I do wish more Americans would remember that the revolution would have been a massive failure but for the French. I’m not sure why I noted that....they just never get their due. Look guy, if anybody try’s to take my guns I’ll kill them. I’m about the right to bear arms. But the 2nd amendment is vague. All I’m sayin. The Second Amendment is vague if you don't understand how the English language works. Do you not understand how the English language works?
Recommended Posts