[Templar]

Wow, I don't even know what to say...

[MiddleAgedAl]

Is it a bit far fetched? Sure, but the point I'm trying to make is that 2013 Manhattan filled with people who probably would struggle to start a fire because they've spent their time playing with their iPhones, makes for a very different target than hardened rebels who can survive in harsh conditions. Look how white collar, urban professionals struggle when they go on Survivor TV show, and then the producers give them some food and water.

Bring them down to the level of having to fend for themselves in a very old fashioned way, and you've got them on their knees asap.

If we were like Afghanistan, or like anytown USA circa 1800, then yes, being able to shoot back would be the most useful ability to have.

Someone going thru Facebook withdrawal who hasn't even gone camping in years would soon be more concerned about getting food and water than almost anything else. Modern urbanites are wussies now, compared to their ancestors.

Although I do have to admit, having more firepower than your neighbor might help you take his flat of bottled water, but that's not quite what the 2nd amendment is for, is it ?

[MP0WER]

Originally Posted by MiddleAgedAl

Not saying you should choose to, I'm saying, in modern day 21st century, most people would end up having to do so anyways, not out of choice, even if the 2nd amendment grants you the ability to shoot back with your AR-15. See the scenarios Ive described above....

Yes, this is far fetched.... Most major cities are blue and there by not usually stockpiling weapons and ammo. Some cities, like NY would be vary easy to over run and take control of as you pointed out. Even still, i believe you vastly under estimate the power of numbers. A mob of few hundred thousand to a million hungry and angry citizens can have a significant impact on a situation. What do you think the army would send to secure a utility station? A platoon? Maybe a company of men? So maybe 100-200 personnel. You don't think a group of 50,000 even 20,000 people who are starving and pissed off with nothing to lose couldn't overrun their position?

Coming back from the far fetched... you continue to revert back to the scenario of the government making an "attack" on the citizens. This will not happen, ever, while the American public is armed. With an unarmed public there is no need for any type of an attack. They could simply change the laws to suit their agenda and enforce them at will.

[MP0WER]

Lets say 99 out of 100 times you buy gas from exxon you get a tank full of bad gas. When you buy gas from Shell you only get 1 tank of bad gas out of every 100 tanks. Upon knowing this, you decide to boycott Shell for selling you bad gas. Why?

Lets say the government gets involved because they can't have oil companies selling bad gas. The government says something has to be done, this bad gas is damaging our expensive beloved cars. So the government decides to ban Shell.

These actions wouldn't raise red flags? As if the government had something against shell before the bad gas started flowing?


Pistols are responsible for the vast majority of firearm deaths in America, so why is the government bent on banning rifles?

[BKsBimmer]

Originally Posted by Templar

Wow, I don't even know what to say...

Yep, pretty bizzare really, but at least now we're really getting to the nut. This has nothing to do with owning guns for hunting, hobbies or even the for the protection of home and hearth. This is really about a bunch of survivalists mainly in red states intent on arming themselves to the teeth in preparation for the next civil war.

[Templar]

Originally Posted by BKsBimmer

Yep, pretty bizzare really, but at least now we're really getting to the nut. This has nothing to do with owning guns for hunting, hobbies or even the for the protection of home and hearth. This is really about a bunch of survivalists mainly in red states intent on arming themselves to the teeth in preparation for the next civil war.

We aren't getting to anything. You two are still at it with the veiled insults and stereotypes. Not all gun owners are the same as the way they depict them on Doomsday Preppers (I'd say the overwhelming majority aren't like that at all). However, there really isn't anything else I can say that I haven't said already (that was ignored). So I'm all done here. Have fun...

[pgviper]

Originally Posted by MiddleAgedAl

Is it a bit far fetched? Sure, but the point I'm trying to make is that 2013 Manhattan filled with people who probably would struggle to start a fire because they've spent their time playing with their iPhones, makes for a very different target than hardened rebels who can survive in harsh conditions. Look how white collar, urban professionals struggle when they go on Survivor TV show, and then the producers give them some food and water.

Bring them down to the level of having to fend for themselves in a very old fashioned way, and you've got them on their knees asap.

If we were like Afghanistan, or like anytown USA circa 1800, then yes, being able to shoot back would be the most useful ability to have.

Someone going thru Facebook withdrawal who hasn't even gone camping in years would soon be more concerned about getting food and water than almost anything else. Modern urbanites are wussies now, compared to their ancestors.

Although I do have to admit, having more firepower than your neighbor might help you take his flat of bottled water, but that's not quite what the 2nd amendment is for, is it ?

Even thoguh Manhattan is a small island with a massive population, NY is much much more than just Manhattan. Have you looked at a map lately??

[pgviper]

Generally in larger cities gun laws were already extremely strict. It is close to impossible to get pistol permits or even house a weapon. THe people that laws like this are affecting are the rest of the state. Those not living in cities. NOT those that Al for some reason described in his NYC occupational blitz theory.

[pgviper]

Originally Posted by BKsBimmer

Yep, pretty bizzare really, but at least now we're really getting to the nut. This has nothing to do with owning guns for hunting, hobbies or even the for the protection of home and hearth. This is really about a bunch of survivalists mainly in red states intent on arming themselves to the teeth in preparation for the next civil war.

Cute, where did you get that stereotype from ...

Some hick reality tv show?

[pgviper]

NYS gun laws forgot to exempt cops so revisions have to happen asap. Here is what happens when you rush into something and care more about getting it done than about doing it right. Goes to show how little thought went into these laws.

http://hotair.com/archives/2013/01/1...ity-magazines/

[MP0WER]

I get that he's the POTUS and needs protection from those who wish him harm.

But for a minute, forget that he needs more protection than a normal family and focus on the fact that he just needs protection and wants to feel safe. To achieve this there is huge amounts of secretive planning prior to him making an appearance, a second dummy motorcade where ever he goes, massive amounts of surveillance and several thousand police fanning out to a 2 mile perimeter and i'm sure there are other things that go in to providing security for him as well. However, in addition to all this that has taken place, his personal secret service detail arms themselves with guns.

And not just guns with 7 rounds mags, not just semi automatic guns either. Many of them are armed with sub-machineguns. For those who don't know what a sub-machinegun is, it is a FULLY AUTOMATIC weapon sized just a bit larger than a pistol, it shoots a pistol cartridge, and typically has a rate of fire around 900 rounds per minute while being loaded with 20 to 30 rounds mags.

If all that preemptive security, surveillance, planning ect doesn't provide enough protection to the point that the 20 to 30 secret servicemen in his immediate presence needs to be armed with sub-machine guns; then why can't i, without a huge wall and security network, without constant threat surveillance, without dummy motorcade on the way to work, have a semi-automatic rifle and hand gun with the capacity magazine that it was designed for in order to protect me, my family and our rights?

[MiddleAgedAl]

Originally Posted by MP0WER

You don't think a group of 50,000 even 20,000 people who are starving and pissed off with nothing to lose couldn't overrun their position?

20,000 organized, coordinated people could, absolutely.

Half a century of observing the good, the bad, and the ugly of human nature has led me to believe that is not a given outcome. Look at New Orleans after Katrina. Without infrastructure, it took a short period of time for people to turn on each other, looting, start actually shooting at the rescue helicopters, etc. And that was when the National Guard did move in, by the thousands, and food help did arrive, even tho it took too long. Now imagine, instead of a few days too long, how about, not at all. Weeks go by and no federal help shows up to provide water or food. You have Lord of the Flies faster than many would like to admit. When your wife and kids are starving to death, that tends to distract you from other things.

Originally Posted by MP0WER

With an unarmed public there is no need for any type of an attack. They could simply change the laws to suit their agenda and enforce them at will.

The full-auto ban of '86 remains in place today, even tho many feel that it's a pretty compelling example of people ignoring the constitution, and exercising powers that they dont legally have. Given that, I'd say that it's pretty damn clear that even WITH an armed public, who all still have mags that hold more than 7 rounds, you have gov changing laws to suit their agenda, and enforcing them at will.

[MP0WER]

I'm assuming many will say that these guys don't know what they were talking about either.....

Dont interfere with anything in the Constitution. That must be maintained, for it is the only safeguard of our liberties. -Abraham Lincoln

We the people are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution. -Abraham Lincoln

There is no greater tyranny than that which is perpetrated under the shield of the law and in the name of justice. -Charles de Secondat

But constant experience shows us that every man invested with power is apt to abuse it, and to carry his authority as far as it will go. -Charles de Secondat

(Ironic that this quote came from federalist papers written specifically to New York State)

The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny. -James Madison

All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent. -Thomas Jefferson

I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them. -Thomas Jefferson

When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. When the government fears the people, there is liberty. -Thomas Jefferson

Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny. -Thomas Jefferson

A Bill of Rights is what the people are entitled to against every government, and what no just government should refuse, or rest on inference. -Thomas Jefferson

We all declare for liberty; but in using the same word we do not all mean the same thing. With some the word liberty may mean for each man to do as he pleases with himself, and the product of his labor; while with others, the same word many mean for some men to do as they please with other men, and the product of other men's labor. Here are two, not only different, but incompatible things, called by the same name - liberty. And it follows that each of the things is, by the respective parties, called by two different and incompatible names - liberty and tyranny. -Abraham Lincoln

For those who don't know, tyranny doesn't always involve attacks and taking over a city.....

tyr·an·ny - noun \ˈtir-ə-nē\


Definition of TYRANNY

1: oppressive power <every form of tyranny over the mind of man — Thomas Jefferson>; especially : oppressive power exerted by government <the tyranny of a police state>

2a : a government in which absolute power is vested in a single ruler; especially : one characteristic of an ancient Greek city-state
b : the office, authority, and administration of a tyrant

3: a rigorous condition imposed by some outside agency or force <living under the tyranny of the clock — Dixon Wecter>

4: an oppressive, harsh, or unjust act : a tyrannical act <workers who had suffered tyrannies>


Examples of TYRANNY

The refugees were fleeing tyranny.
He was dedicated to ending the tyranny of slavery.
a nation ruled by tyranny
She felt lost in the bureaucratic tyrannies of the university system.
The king sought an absolute tyranny over the colonies.
Cars freed Americans, already infamous for their mobility, from the tyranny of train schedules. —Cynthia Crossen, Wall Street Journal, 7 May 2003

[MiddleAgedAl]

I could understand how some may feel that things such as the full-auto ban of '86 does constitute a form of tyranny, (gov unilaterally imposing changes upon the people, even tho they may have no legal right to do so).

You could also argue that since the populace had access to full-auto weapons in 1985, the ideals of the 2nd amendment were being more closely upheld then, compared to even a year later.

What I cant understand, is how you could then state that upholding the 2nd amendment provides a deterrent against such tyranny?
Sure, one of the theoretical intents of the 2nd amend was just that, but observation shows us there is a big gap between theory and actual practice.

I love cars. If there was a constitutional amendment which guaranteed my right to own & drive a car, then I'd be upset if laws were passed to make it harder for me to do that. Maybe they start by saying I cant own more than 300 HP. Later, they start talking about limiting the max size of my gas tank to 3 gallons, so I cant drive far. I'd want to fight to stop such changes, of course, since I'm not smashing into people with my car. I could stand there with all the righteous indignation in the world and scream "I'm not the problem !". And I'd be right; but it wouldn't help.

If I observed that the car amendment failed miserably to stop the 300HP limit then, I'd put little hope in it helping with my gas tank issue today. I'd probably stop trying to draw attention to the importance of maintaining the ideals of the amendment, when practically, it appears to yield no fruit. Maybe it shouldnt be like that, but it is. Being more solution oriented, than tradition or process oriented, I'd look for other ways.

Remember, the only way they got Al Capone off the street was by nailing him for tax evasion. If the prosecutors got hung up on, "dammit, he committed murder, I should be able to punish him for THAT!", he woulda been a free man till his death. Just sayin'...

[BKsBimmer]

Originally Posted by MP0WER

I get that he's the POTUS and needs protection from those who wish him harm.

But for a minute, forget that he needs more protection than a normal family and focus on the fact that he just needs protection and wants to feel safe. To achieve this there is huge amounts of secretive planning prior to him making an appearance, a second dummy motorcade where ever he goes, massive amounts of surveillance and several thousand police fanning out to a 2 mile perimeter and i'm sure there are other things that go in to providing security for him as well. However, in addition to all this that has taken place, his personal secret service detail arms themselves with guns.

And not just guns with 7 rounds mags, not just semi automatic guns either. Many of them are armed with sub-machineguns. For those who don't know what a sub-machinegun is, it is a FULLY AUTOMATIC weapon sized just a bit larger than a pistol, it shoots a pistol cartridge, and typically has a rate of fire around 900 rounds per minute while being loaded with 20 to 30 rounds mags.

If all that preemptive security, surveillance, planning ect doesn't provide enough protection to the point that the 20 to 30 secret servicemen in his immediate presence needs to be armed with sub-machine guns; then why can't i, without a huge wall and security network, without constant threat surveillance, without dummy motorcade on the way to work, have a semi-automatic rifle and hand gun with the capacity magazine that it was designed for in order to protect me, my family and our rights?

This is such a false argument.

How can you simply forget even for a minute that he's POTUS? You simply can't forget that because that's the whole point of the security detail. That man, who happens to be the leader of the free world, and his family receive hundreds of death threats every single day.

When was the last time you received even one death threat?

Whether you like this President or not you have to acknowledge the assissanation of any sitting US president would be devastating for this country and the for the rest of the world.

What kind of security do you think would be appropriate for the leader of the free world given all the consequences and implications of a possible assassination?

[carve]

I don't believe Mp0wers argument was the president shouldn't have security- it's that we should not be prohibited from having security.

[BKsBimmer]

Originally Posted by carve

I don't believe Mp0wers argument was the president shouldn't have security- it's that we should not be prohibited from having security.

In what way are we prohibited from having security?

[MP0WER]

Wow. You got the president shouldn't have security from that?

My point is that even with ALL the security he and his family has, they still have personal firearms as a last line of defense. And not one with a 7 round mag in the nightstand, but several, fully automatic, totally concealable, sub-machineguns. And somehow i'm supposed to be convinced that having a gun for defense my life, my family's lives and our rights is a silly idea.

[BKsBimmer]

Originally Posted by MP0WER

Wow. You got the president shouldn't have security from that?

My point is that even with ALL the security he and his family has, they still have personal firearms as a last line of defense. And not one with a 7 round mag in the nightstand, but several, fully automatic, totally concealable, sub-machineguns. And somehow i'm supposed to be convinced that having a gun for defense my life, my family's lives and our rights is a silly idea.

I don't recall seeing any posts suggesting you having a gun is a silly idea. I've never said stated that or suggested that in any of my posts.

What I'm not getting is why you're comparing your security needs with the president's. That makes no sense to me. Maybe you can explain...

[OldArmy]

Originally Posted by BKsBimmer

I don't recall seeing any posts suggesting you having a gun is a silly idea. I've never said stated that or suggested that in any of my posts.

What I'm not getting is why you're comparing your security needs with the president's. That makes no sense to me. Maybe you can explain...

What he needs is security FROM this president.

[Eagle1oh7]

Originally Posted by OldArmy

What he needs is security FROM this president.

That's what I got from his post on the POTUS security detail. Whoever said an American citizen is always the threat?

[MP0WER]

Originally Posted by BKsBimmer

I don't recall seeing any posts suggesting you having a gun is a silly idea. I've never said stated that or suggested that in any of my posts.

What I'm not getting is why you're comparing your security needs with the president's. That makes no sense to me. Maybe you can explain...

My apologies, didn't mean to imply that you made those statements. But rather than the government, through their actions and apparent intentions are saying that.

I'm only pointing out that the government views a firearm as good security tool, even for the Pres and his family. Why do some people, including many government officials believe it's not a good security tool for me or the rest of the government's employers?

Originally Posted by OldArmy

What he needs is security FROM this president.

While i don't directly think that currently, i wouldn't be surprised if that protection was necessary in the very near future.