tandembrent 0 #51 September 9, 2004 i stand corrected! yes it was legal pre- 1934 to own and operate a fully automatic weapon. brent ***~~~~Green grass and high clouds forever~~~~ no matter where you go, there you are! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DrewEckhardt 0 #52 September 9, 2004 QuoteQuote 3. To resist a tyranical government which also has automatic weapons. Unfortunately the government will also have tanks and helicopter gunships and A10s and artillery and mortars and RPGs... Which aren't effective against guerillas operating amongst a civillian population, and should also be legal to own provided that you're a free person with the capital to acquire them. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tandembrent 0 #53 September 9, 2004 i wrote that about the ARMY, not the total of U.S. forces! brent ***~~~~Green grass and high clouds forever~~~~ no matter where you go, there you are! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jimbo 0 #54 September 9, 2004 Quoteyes it was legal pre- 1934 to own and operate a fully automatic weapon. Ownership and transfer of Class III firearms is still legal in many states. - Jim"Like" - The modern day comma Good bye, my friends. You are missed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest #55 September 9, 2004 QuoteNext week you lot in the States will have a law that was passed 10 years ago, repealed. The law was to bann assault weapons. It had a 10 year life with a sunset clause that said is it was no renewed that it would be revoked. Well apparently it has not been renewed (even though GWB said he would). So can anyone here give me (a senssible & serious) reason WHY any civillian NEEDS an automatic assult type weapon, as opposed to a breech loader or semi auto? I don't want a debate about gun law ownership in general, it's been done to death already. IT'S THE BILL OF RIGHTS, NOT THE BILL OF NEEDS. Respectfully, mh . Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
peacefuljeffrey 0 #56 September 10, 2004 QuoteQuote 3. To resist a tyranical government which also has automatic weapons. Unfortunately the government will also have tanks and helicopter gunships and A10s and artillery and mortars and RPGs... And a willingness to use these against its own people? And an ability to do so and retain support of the people, who are not their (initial) targets? And a willingness to destroy the infrastructure of the nation in a guerrilla war that would be, to other guerrilla wars, as the planet Jupiter is to a grain of sand? --Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
juanesky 0 #57 September 10, 2004 And can you tell me WHY any civillian NEEDS to skydive? As opposed to just bunji jumping or flying in an airplane?"According to some of the conservatives here, it sounds like it's fine to beat your wide - as long as she had it coming." -Billvon Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
peacefuljeffrey 0 #58 September 10, 2004 QuoteQuoteAnd if it came down to a national revolt against the gov't, so would the other side. After the exodus from the ranks of the government's troops--those unwilling to kill their fellow Americans on behalf of a tyrannical government--I would say the people would be well equiped with the big stuff. This is the biggie that everyone who tries to belittle the significance of our Second Amendment rights tries hard to ignore. How long could a government that uses F-15s to bomb Main Street USA remain popular? People are fed up here in Florida with the anti-looting curfews! And it's not like the police are killing people and destroying homes, highways and other infrastructure! A government that tried to use the most potent weapons of war that it has against its own people, even a small subset of those people (and gun owners are NOT a SMALL subset) could never prevail. The very potency of those weapons is what would preclude their use. --Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
crzjp20 0 #59 September 10, 2004 yeah i have read the federalist papers and i truly believe the reason for the second ammendmant was so that if the goverment became to powerful the people could rise against it. i see that understand that and respect that, but in reality the likley hood of that ever having to happen is probly 100000000000000000000 to . anywyas, i dont see a need for me to have one. if someone goes through the proper test and backround checks then well oh well. but i have no desire for it,-------------------------------------------------- Fear is not a confession of weakness, it is an oportunity for courage. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jimbo 0 #60 September 10, 2004 Quoteyeah i have read the federalist papers and i truly believe the reason for the second ammendmant was so that if the goverment became to powerful the people could rise against it. i see that understand that and respect that, but in reality the likley hood of that ever having to happen is probly 100000000000000000000 to . Do you remember studying the Revolutionary War, maybe the Civil War? It's happened at least twice in our country's short history. - Jim - Jim"Like" - The modern day comma Good bye, my friends. You are missed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
crzjp20 0 #61 September 10, 2004 yeah it has happend before but lets look at the history. terrifys out the ass that caused southerners to have to pay terrifs to ship anyting even to the north, in return destroying profits and crushin the industry. Slavery and the fight for slave states to have more power in congress. In return the people of the south got to the point where they felt they "had little to no repersentation" not to mention the whole situation with Lincoln. So yeah it has happened before but htis country has much better repersentation now. At the time literal fist fights were breaking out on the floor of congress. Senators were not elected by the people at that time. and not to mention that less that half the country could vote. if we want to take the federalist papers that literaly then people need to be arming themselves with tanks and fighter jets. i can go on but i am tired of typing. but one final point. Both times that (rev war and civil war) happened there is a coman factor: way to high of taxes without anyreason, and the idea of lack of repesentation. anyways, thats my .02 on that-------------------------------------------------- Fear is not a confession of weakness, it is an oportunity for courage. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
peacefuljeffrey 0 #62 September 10, 2004 Quoteyeah i have read the federalist papers and i truly believe the reason for the second ammendmant was so that if the goverment became to powerful the people could rise against it. i see that understand that and respect that, but in reality the likley hood of that ever having to happen is probly 100000000000000000000 to . If it's that unlikely we'll ever have to use our firearms to rise up against a tyrannical government... I call them a successful deterrent. Blue skies, --Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BartsDaddy 4 #63 September 10, 2004 Quotethank you for the correction. i should have been more detailed in that statement to say, without a permit or licensing or registration ! the loop holes are getting smaller, but you are correct , a person with a Federal Firearms license can own and with very detailed permits fire an automatic weapon in the United States. and i am extremely well informed about what i speak and write! not trying to say you are not knowlegable about what you speak. But if we pro-gunners want tojump all over the anti-gunners that state false information. We have to make sure we put out correct information. It does our cause no good if we put out false information also-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Handguns are only used to fight your way to a good rifle Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnischalke 0 #64 September 10, 2004 Quoteanywyas, i dont see a need for me to have one. if someone goes through the proper test and backround checks then well oh well. but i have no desire for it, I did all the full-auto I really needed when I was in. I still get to play a lot because of my job. I really don't feel the need for full auto, because I like to make each shot count-like it's its own match, or that my life depends on each one. I do seem to have an abundance of .223, and in an imperfect world, it's only 1 hacksaw blade and 30 minutes away... mike Girls only want boyfriends who have great skills--You know, like nunchuk skills, bow-hunting skills, computer-hacking skills. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnischalke 0 #65 September 10, 2004 QuoteIf it's that unlikely we'll ever have to use our firearms to rise up against a tyrannical government... I call them a successful deterrent. DING DING DING DING We have a winner! Jeffrey gets the boobie prize!!! (sorry, I was excited and I figured this thread needed boobies) mike Girls only want boyfriends who have great skills--You know, like nunchuk skills, bow-hunting skills, computer-hacking skills. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
slug 1 #66 September 10, 2004 Hi PJ Maybe you could trade in one of those guns/swords/ weapons for a standby electrical power source, Think about it Air conditioning, hot showers, cold food in the fridge. We bought a preban AR-15, foldable stock, bayonet lug flash suppressor all the good stuff. When I got a bayonet for the AR -15 (for a drive by bayoneting) found out the distance from the bayonet lug to the end of the barrel was to long or the bayonet handle to short. "Pre ban" whoopee who needs a bayonet anyway. We almost traded a guy the AR-15 last week for a 16" Laguna band saw even up. I waited to long and missed the trade. Anyone want to trade a olympic arms pre ban AR-15 for some nice woodworking tools? Sorry already have my own generator for the house. Need to do the deal in the seattle metroplex. R.i.P. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
peacefuljeffrey 0 #67 September 10, 2004 I've been groovin' this whole time on the phrasing of the thread header: "Sunset clause ends next week" I swear, before I entered the thread, I thought it was gonna be about the end of Daylight Saving Time -- and I thought, "Shit, is that over next week, already?!" --Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #68 September 10, 2004 Quote i see that understand that and respect that, but in reality the likley hood of that ever having to happen is probly 100000000000000000000 to . You have to remove quite a few of those zeros just to catch up with our past. The Civil War wasn't the last time it got dicey - people were pretty upset with the power exhibited by FDR, you have the McCarthy era in the 50s, Nixon's reign of terror in the 70s, and the latest string of Carnivore/Patriot Acts from Clinton and Bush. We seem to cycle in and out on the edge of liberty, but string a few events like the NYC attack and we could easily slide down the slope to something less pleasant. The Germans elected Hitler and the Nazis. There is always concern that Russians could bring back the hardliners from the Cold War - many are still alive and kicking. This new world war between the north and the south is very destablizing and make the odds far less than you suggest. Maybe 1000 to 1. Lots of Democrats proposed gun bans in the immediate wake of the attacks. Arab plane bombers are buying too many assault rifles at gun shows, you know. Any first step would be a ban on new sales, so if you think you might ever want to own one, buy it now. Stored appropriately, they last indefinitely. (California thought they were discouraging buyers, but I spent far more to beat deadlines than I would have otherwise) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
crzjp20 0 #69 September 10, 2004 its callen an anology -------------------------------------------------- Fear is not a confession of weakness, it is an oportunity for courage. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #70 September 10, 2004 Quote Quoteyeah i have read the federalist papers and i truly believe the reason for the second ammendmant was so that if the goverment became to powerful the people could rise against it. i see that understand that and respect that, but in reality the likley hood of that ever having to happen is probly 100000000000000000000 to . Do you remember studying the Revolutionary War, maybe the Civil War? It's happened at least twice in our country's short history. - Jim - Jim Don't forget about the Bonus Army of 1932 when Patton had the 12th Infantry and 3rd Cavalry fix bayonnettes and march against tens of thousands of WWI vets in Washinton D.C. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #71 September 10, 2004 QuoteOf licensed hunters in the US, the figures I have seen have been about 15 million (in 2000). The total active duty military strength was measured at 1.38 million that year. Not to mention the millions of veterans, former members of the armed forces, who are now out there in the civilian world, and who would fight a government that turns its military against its own citizens. If things ever went that far, the government would deserve to be overthrown. And the number of citizens fighting against such action, would vastly outnumber government-loyalist troops. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #72 September 10, 2004 Quoteits callen an anology that would be spelled analogy, and I suggest you look up the definition. You didn't make any. You made a WAG (wild assed guess) as to what the chances are of us needing to overthrow a tyrannical government. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DrewEckhardt 0 #73 September 10, 2004 Quote Not to mention the millions of veterans, former members of the armed forces, who are now out there in the civilian world, and who would fight a government that turns its military against its own citizens. Even if those citizens are allegedly child molesters, white supremacists, cop killers, and/or terrorists? Exciting press releases from the government are ratings-raising front-page news items. Retractions earn fewer Nielsen points than cute animals at the local zoo giving birth and end up much farther back in printed media. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #74 September 10, 2004 Ummm...what the hell are you talking about? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Nightingale 0 #75 September 10, 2004 *scratching head in confusion* BUNNY! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
