patrick.net

StillLooking says

We got rid of machine guns.

We regulated machine guns. You can still own machine guns in certain States, and the regulation of machine guns drove the price of them up.

There are still those fire arms that are easily convertable to full auto that are in circulation, but again the price of them has gone up.

The reason full auto weapons never became a hot button was the price of amunition. You can own the weapon, but it became extremely expensive to practice with it. You can also rapid fire other weapons that give you a very similar effect.

StillLooking says

We can get rid of guns.

We can't. Criminals in the UK can have any gun they want.

M16 with rock-and-roll option found in London

Submachine guns are a preferred weapon among the Yardies.

London MAC 10 sub machine gun murder

It's also worth nothing that open-bolt submachine guns are the simplest repeating arm to manufacture. There's no bolt lockup or disconnector to deal with (not that these are complicated - Sam Colt had them figured out for his model 1900 as in year-of-design) and you don't even need a moveable firing pin.

So your whole premise is flawed. We got rid of machine guns.

Nope. There are 240,000 legally owned machine guns in private hands. Since 1934 only two have been used in crimes, the last in 1988 by a corrupt Ohio police officer who used his personal MAC to murder an informant.

We did increase the price over 10X.

mdovell says

Homeboy says

The Supreme Court upheld the right to have an abortion, yet it is still argued by right-wingers to this day.

Not quite. They stated that it is legal or at least should be legal and held up as constitutionally as such.

Rights are not dependent on the actions of others. Freedom of speech does not demand a given venue, that is you can speak at any time.

For abortion to be an actual right it would mean that you would have the right to another persons labor. Basically what I am saying is at least for the purposes of the surgical procedure it is dependent on access to the practioner. A women cannot simply "demand" an abortion clinic come to her overnight and perform one. It is also a procedure that requires compensation on some level.

There's a difference between something being legal and something being a right. Just as you do not have a right to vote as you have to register and various states restrict voting depending on if you are in jail.

I'm sorry, but this is gibberish. Nobody has any idea what you are trying to say.

drew_eckhardt says

There are 240,000 legally owned machine guns in private hands.

That doesn't account for the number of Model A Uzis, or Steyr Augs, or any receiver changable M16, or Heckler, and Koch just about anything they make, that has the capacity to be converted to full auto.

For those who state that gun possession is necessary to prevent a tyrannical state, let me ask a few questions.

It seems to me that when faced with an army, handguns or even an AR15 are not going to be sufficient. So, shouldn't the laws be loosened to allow individual ownership of RPGs, rockets, Sarin, etc? Would this apply to a dark-skinned guy with a long beard and turban who wants to purchase chemical weapons, or a bomb?

When does something cross the line from regular crime to fighting the tyrannical state? I think we can all agree that shooting schoolchildren is never warranted. But, if one really hates the IRS' "tyrannical confiscation" of wages, why not bomb the office? I read about a guy who bombed a school in the 1920s because he was unhappy about a property tax increase. Why wouldn't that be ok? When does such anti-government action become ok under the 2nd amendment?

Homeboy says

Now you're finally starting to get it. Around 9,000 gun murders in the U.S. each year. How many in the U.K.? Less than 50. As you say, both countries have a culture of violence. What's the difference? We have guns, and they don't.

To slightly change an oft-used quote: "It's the guns, stupid".

Hum! really...

seems they like the Sweds and Germans also have Semi and Automatic Ar-15

Shooting Silenced AR-15 (in the UK)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bnoEmp_hjgM

SiO2 says

It seems to me that when faced with an army, handguns or even an AR15 are not going to be sufficient.

Read up on the US Revolution for that one.

thomaswong.1986 says

SiO2 says
It seems to me that when faced with an army, handguns or even an AR15 are not going to be sufficient.

Read up on the US Revolution for that one.

OK, let me amend my statement.

when facing an 18th-century army, muskets are sufficient. But when facing a 21st-century army, they would not be sufficient.

If handguns are sufficient in military actions, then why are we spending hundreds of billions of dollars on airplanes and tanks, if we just need to go to the gun show and pick up some Glocks and AR15s?

thomaswong.1986 says

Read up on the US Revolution for that one.

Read up on denial.

SiO2 says

thomaswong.1986 says

SiO2 says

It seems to me that when faced with an army, handguns or even an AR15 are not going to be sufficient.

Read up on the US Revolution for that one.

OK, let me amend my statement.

when facing an 18th-century army, muskets are sufficient. But when facing a 21st-century army, they would not be sufficient.

If handguns are sufficient in military actions, then why are we spending hundreds of billions of dollars on airplanes and tanks, if we just need to go to the gun show and pick up some Glocks and AR15s?

If there was a full blown revolution or uprising:

1.) A huge number of the gun owners in the US are ex military. We are talking battle hardened dudes from enlisted to officer who understand military tactics and are experienced in combat.

2.) Every one of those dudes maintains contact with guys they used to work with. I know one dude who between him and the guys he knows and maintains active contact with, could assemble a 200 man guerilla force and be deep in the north eastern Nevada wilderness within a few hours. I'd bet it would not be long before that force would be around 500 people deep due to training wives and boys over 10 years old(and no I'm not joking).

3.) A very large number of US military divisions would turn on their government in quick order. Planes, tanks, artilery, guns.

4.) Have you not seen that Afghanistan armed resistence continues against the most powerful modern military on earth, 30 years after commencing combat with(at the time) the most powerful military on earth?

5.) Your deflection and straw man arguing against military spending is ridiculous.

Yeah, don't mess with dodgerfan - he knows a dude...

So, a lot of responses as to the feasibility of overthrowing the government with handguns. But again, if this is the point, and the 2nd amendment is to be read literally, then why not legalize ownership of every possible weapon?

also, I am interested in thoughts about my second question:
When does something cross the line from regular crime to fighting the tyrannical state? I think we can all agree that shooting schoolchildren is never warranted. But, if one really hates the IRS' "tyrannical confiscation" of wages, why not bomb the office? I read about a guy who bombed a school in the 1920s because he was unhappy about a property tax increase. Why wouldn't that be ok? When does such anti-government action become ok under the 2nd amendment?

maybe the decision point is based on who wins. USA won the Revolutionary War in 1776, therefore it was warranted. The South didn't win the Civil War, therefore it was not warranted. Timothy McVeigh didn't win his revolution, therefore it was not warranted.

Any other way to look at this?

By the way, I don't intend to draw moral equivalence between Timothy McVeigh and the revolutionary war.

SiO2 said: "When does something cross the line from regular crime to fighting the tyrannical state? I think we can all agree that shooting schoolchildren is never warranted. But, if one really hates the IRS' "tyrannical confiscation" of wages, why not bomb the office? I read about a guy who bombed a school in the 1920s because he was unhappy about a property tax increase. Why wouldn't that be ok? When does such anti-government action become ok under the 2nd amendment?"

The day a Declaration of Independence is signed. There's nothing ok about it. It simply happens. For better or worse. And it always happens. It's only a matter of time.

As suspected before the thread began, the new proposed gun control legislation asks law abiding gun owners to sign up with the national registry "or else". Now we need to to know what "or else" means, because many thousands of people will refuse to register or will under-register their arms because they do not accept the action of the federal government. This would mean that they do not find their elected officials are representing their interests any longer. They will rightly ask where in this law are you protecting my second amendment rights? How will the registry not be abused? And what will be done with the registry preemptively? If someone owns "too many" guns and has a son on antidepressants, where is the guarrantee that their 2nd amendment rights will be protected.

They will also argue that they could form "militias" for the purposes of defending their personal liberties.

It is foolish to have faith in the most powerful governmental entity in human history.

Ill tell you what comes next. Ma and Pa won't have to stare down a line of heavily armed marines in the street at high noon. The STATES will grow some balls and finally draw a line, because local governments answer directly to the people when the federal does not.

There is too much federal power. There is too much faith in Federal power. There is not enough fear of federal fiscal meddling. And too little language coming from the federal government that even pays lip-service to individual liberty over "the common good".