April 21, 201016 yr I know that in this day and time it seems farfetched that “We the People” would have to rise up against our government. The possibility does still exist though. I’ve heard the arguments about how we would be no match for our military. My father retired from the Air Force, my son is a Navy Veteran and I know several military members and families. With that being said, depending on the circumstances in which the people (Heaven forbid) were to rebel against our government, I can see many commanding officers and servicemen refusing to kill family members, friends and American citizens. I just don’t see our military slaughtering us over a legit revolution. Our founding fathers realized the possibility of government getting over intrusive and abusing its power, and in turn made amendments to the constitution, one of which give us the right to bear arms, no matter what they “look” like. The federal government has no business knowing what kind and how many guns a law abiding citizen may have. If we don’t have the right to bear arms then the possibility of rising up in extreme situations is nearly impossible. I guess the best way I can answer you question is...IF we don't have the right to bear arms, we are pretty much defenseless in most cases. If things were to really turn sour, they could come to your home with one armed government employee and control you and your family. Highly unlikely, but possible. We are really having this discussion . . . really??? :ohbrother:
April 21, 201016 yr We are really having this discussion . . . really??? :ohbrother: I agree that it is far fetched and highly unlikely. But seeing as when drafting our constitution the founders had just fought a war against an oppressive government it isn't too hard to see that they wanted to provide an option for the people at a time when it could happen again. Frankly I can't think of many things within the realm of reality that are less likely to occur but at the same time I don't feel we should scoff at the fact that it is possible.
April 21, 201016 yr Author I responded to the poster who said they should have a right to buy assault weapons. His words, not mine. Again...there you go..... A night out could go a loooong way for you.
April 21, 201016 yr I know that in this day and time it seems farfetched that “We the People” would have to rise up against our government. The possibility does still exist though. I’ve heard the arguments about how we would be no match for our military. My father retired from the Air Force, my son is a Navy Veteran and I know several military members and families. With that being said, depending on the circumstances in which the people (Heaven forbid) were to rebel against our government, I can see many commanding officers and servicemen refusing to kill family members, friends and American citizens. I just don’t see our military slaughtering us over a legit revolution. Our founding fathers realized the possibility of government getting over intrusive and abusing its power, and in turn made amendments to the constitution, one of which give us the right to bear arms, no matter what they “look” like. The federal government has no business knowing what kind and how many guns a law abiding citizen may have. If we don’t have the right to bear arms then the possibility of rising up in extreme situations is nearly impossible. I guess the best way I can answer you question is...IF we don't have the right to bear arms, we are pretty much defenseless in most cases. If things were to really turn sour, they could come to your home with one armed government employee and control you and your family. Highly unlikely, but possible. First, let me thank you for the honest answer. I appreciate reading your thoughts. I don't have a political agenda. Honestly, I'm not even positive which side supports the guns & which side doesn't want them. I couldn't care less. Your post leads me to believe that you feel the only effective way to rebut the government is through violence / sheer force. I'd argue that the most powerful weapon that every citizen has in their arsenal is the right to vote. As stated after your post, the founding fathers had just fought a war & were sensitive to the idea of the government taking over their country. As a result, they introduced some amendments which lessened the likelihood of oppression - back in the late 1700's. Today, if the government truly wanted to control our lives through physical force, it could do so with relative ease (albeit violating our constitutional rights). My point is that the government's weapons are more advanced than virtually any private citizen's weapons. I understand your sentiment, although I feel it's horribly far fetched & outdated. So much so that I'm not sure that it even applies at all today. Regardless, you stated, "The federal government has no business knowing what kind and how many guns a law abiding citizen may have." I think this is the biggest point over which we disagree. We both realize that your scenario is far fetched & highly unlikely; however, I feel that the government does have an interest in regulating guns. Notice, I said regulating, not prohibiting guns. I see no problem with a law that requires gun owners to register their guns. The benefit to the government and local authorities far outweighs the burden that it places on a gun owner to fill out a few relatively simple forms. Paperwork can grow tiresome, but it's done for a reason. You have to fill out significantly more paperwork when you purchase a home, a car, or any other big investment. It adds accountability to the purchaser, so that, if the purchaser abuses their property, somebody can do something to fix it. Although I am not a gun owner, I respect the right to bear arms and would object to any legislation which tries to take that constitutional right away.
April 21, 201016 yr Been a while since I priced them but if I recall a couple years ago a true selective fire M14 ran around between $3000 and $5000 plus the $200 tax stamp. When I posted that response I was not taking into account the cost of the gun. You are correct, it would be pricey to own one. Although if I had $3000-$5000 to blow I can't think of too many things that would be cooler to have. Let me ask this, the full auto's available to the public have to be pre 1987 or something like that don't they? I may be misremebering.
April 21, 201016 yr First, let me thank you for the honest answer. I appreciate reading your thoughts. I don't have a political agenda. Honestly, I'm not even positive which side supports the guns & which side doesn't want them. I couldn't care less. Your post leads me to believe that you feel the only effective way to rebut the government is through violence / sheer force. I'd argue that the most powerful weapon that every citizen has in their arsenal is the right to vote. As stated after your post, the founding fathers had just fought a war & were sensitive to the idea of the government taking over their country. As a result, they introduced some amendments which lessened the likelihood of oppression - back in the late 1700's. Today, if the government truly wanted to control our lives through physical force, it could do so with relative ease (albeit violating our constitutional rights). My point is that the government's weapons are more advanced than virtually any private citizen's weapons. I understand your sentiment, although I feel it's horribly far fetched & outdated. So much so that I'm not sure that it even applies at all today. Regardless, you stated, "The federal government has no business knowing what kind and how many guns a law abiding citizen may have." I think this is the biggest point over which we disagree. We both realize that your scenario is far fetched & highly unlikely; however, I feel that the government does have an interest in regulating guns. Notice, I said regulating, not prohibiting guns. I see no problem with a law that requires gun owners to register their guns. The benefit to the government and local authorities far outweighs the burden that it places on a gun owner to fill out a few relatively simple forms. Paperwork can grow tiresome, but it's done for a reason. You have to fill out significantly more paperwork when you purchase a home, a car, or any other big investment. It adds accountability to the purchaser, so that, if the purchaser abuses their property, somebody can do something to fix it. Although I am not a gun owner, I respect the right to bear arms and would object to any legislation which tries to take that constitutional right away. If I gave the impression that I “feel the only effective way to rebut the government is through violence / sheer force” I grossly misled you. Our vote is indeed the most powerful arsenal every citizen has…Problem is, not near enough of those able to register are using that arsenal. We will just have to disagree about the government “regulating” the guns of law abiding citizens. I do understand and respect your stance though. I do agree that the paperwork is a very simple thing to do, I do it every time I buy a new gun. The problem I see in it is that absolutely nothing is gained in the registering or regulating of guns when it comes to criminals. They will ignore registration and laugh at regulations. If I thought for one second it would (effectively) keep guns out of criminals’ hands I wouldn’t care a bit. The fact I register my guns may benefit the government and local authorities as to what I have but not what criminals might have. I’ve got a drawer full of butcher knives that I could wreak havoc on a crowd with, why not register those? Not trying to be sarcastic, just making a point, maybe. My scenario of rising up against government may indeed be highly unlikely. I think the odds of a hurricane shelter paying off are very unlikely too. Should some unlikely catastrophic event happen where I needed to protect my family I don’t think government needs to be regulating it. Just think where the Wolverines (In the movie Red Dawn) would have been if they didn’t have all those neat guns. If records had been kept of every gun the enemy would know who and how many they had and they wouldn’t have stood a chance. I hope you know I'm kidding about all the Wolverine/Red Dawn stuff.:thumb: I bet Ace don't.
April 21, 201016 yr If I gave the impression that I “feel the only effective way to rebut the government is through violence / sheer force” I grossly misled you. Our vote is indeed the most powerful arsenal every citizen has…Problem is, not near enough of those able to register are using that arsenal. We will just have to disagree about the government “regulating” the guns of law abiding citizens. I do understand and respect your stance though. I do agree that the paperwork is a very simple thing to do, I do it every time I buy a new gun. The problem I see in it is that absolutely nothing is gained in the registering or regulating of guns when it comes to criminals. They will ignore registration and laugh at regulations. If I thought for one second it would (effectively) keep guns out of criminals’ hands I wouldn’t care a bit. The fact I register my guns may benefit the government and local authorities as to what I have but not what criminals might have. I’ve got a drawer full of butcher knives that I could wreak havoc on a crowd with, why not register those? Not trying to be sarcastic, just making a point, maybe. My scenario of rising up against government may indeed be highly unlikely. I think the odds of a hurricane shelter paying off are very unlikely too. Should some unlikely catastrophic event happen where I needed to protect my family I don’t think government needs to be regulating it. Just think where the Wolverines (In the movie Red Dawn) would have been if they didn’t have all those neat guns. If records had been kept of every gun the enemy would know who and how many they had and they wouldn’t have stood a chance. I hope you know I'm kidding about all the Wolverine/Red Dawn stuff.:thumb: I bet Ace don't. I, too, have been mislead by your posts regarding the effective ways of rebutting our government. I apologize to you for that. But, in defense, the crecendo of posts in here regarding the need to own arms for that purpose probably skewed my view of your individual posts. In all honesty, after years of debating this issue on BGP, I find I fear NOT the government, but the people who are so "up in arms" about the government that own arms. It scares the beejezus out of me that there are so many people who believe the only way they can protect themselves from the government, from me, for anything, is by owning a gun. It just doesn't make me comfortable at all. And, as I've said in many a thread, I'm not against guns. But I am for more regulation and for stricter safety requirements, and stricter penalties for not storing/using a gun safely.
April 21, 201016 yr When I posted that response I was not taking into account the cost of the gun. You are correct, it would be pricey to own one. Although if I had $3000-$5000 to blow I can't think of too many things that would be cooler to have. Let me ask this, the full auto's available to the public have to be pre 1987 or something like that don't they? I may be misremebering. Yes, unless you are a Class III dealer post ban samples. About all you could want to know - http://www.recguns.com/Sources/IIF1.html 2 websites that seel them - http://www.autoweapons.com/products/products.html http://www.impactguns.com/store/machineguns.html I will own a FA in the next 3 years.
April 21, 201016 yr If I gave the impression that I “feel the only effective way to rebut the government is through violence / sheer force” I grossly misled you. Our vote is indeed the most powerful arsenal every citizen has…Problem is, not near enough of those able to register are using that arsenal. We will just have to disagree about the government “regulating” the guns of law abiding citizens. I do understand and respect your stance though. I do agree that the paperwork is a very simple thing to do, I do it every time I buy a new gun. The problem I see in it is that absolutely nothing is gained in the registering or regulating of guns when it comes to criminals. They will ignore registration and laugh at regulations. If I thought for one second it would (effectively) keep guns out of criminals’ hands I wouldn’t care a bit. The fact I register my guns may benefit the government and local authorities as to what I have but not what criminals might have. I’ve got a drawer full of butcher knives that I could wreak havoc on a crowd with, why not register those? Not trying to be sarcastic, just making a point, maybe. My scenario of rising up against government may indeed be highly unlikely. I think the odds of a hurricane shelter paying off are very unlikely too. Should some unlikely catastrophic event happen where I needed to protect my family I don’t think government needs to be regulating it. Just think where the Wolverines (In the movie Red Dawn) would have been if they didn’t have all those neat guns. If records had been kept of every gun the enemy would know who and how many they had and they wouldn’t have stood a chance. I hope you know I'm kidding about all the Wolverine/Red Dawn stuff.:thumb: I bet Ace don't. :notworthy: I know your joking, but the first thing Ron O'Neal does is ask them to look up form something for registered guns......:sssh:
April 21, 201016 yr Author Yes, unless you are a Class III dealer post ban samples. About all you could want to know - http://www.recguns.com/Sources/IIF1.html 2 websites that seel them - http://www.autoweapons.com/products/products.html http://www.impactguns.com/store/machineguns.html I will own a FA in the next 3 years. Ohhhh, NICE! :banana:
April 21, 201016 yr Been a while since I priced them but if I recall a couple years ago a true selective fire M14 ran around between $3000 and $5000 plus the $200 tax stamp. I would say you are right. However, I purchased an M1A SOCOM this past year for 1650, which is still pretty nice, even though it is semi-auto.
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.