Embarrassed by my own state today

[HudsonGator]

Originally Posted by helix139

No, I didn't serve, and thank you for your service. I've got several friends who have served, though, and have spoken to them about weapons and tactics in depth. I wasn't trying to argue that M16s aren't used for suppressive fire, moreso that they aren't designed for that purpose and will have problems if run in fully automatic mode for a sustained period of time, which I would venture is why squad units lay down suppressive fire rather than individual members of the squad unit. Yes, 5.56 is perfectly adequate to lay down suppressive fire, and definitely can kill someone (I never argued that it couldn't), but it's less likely than one of the larger rounds to kill or incapacitate someone with a single shot that doesn't hit the CNS of the target or take out a major blood supply, especially outside of 100 or so meters with M193 or inside of 100 or so meters with M855 due to where in their respective flight paths each type of round begins to tumble and fragment. I'm not discounting your experience, but numerous terminal ballistics tests show the above to be true, and especially true if the target is in an altered state of mind.



Perhaps, provided the stress of the situation doesn't cause you to miss and that the number of attackers is small. It also doesn't allow for the possibility that you may have to lay down suppressive fire against armed attackers to allow family members to move to a safe location. In most cases, yes 8 rounds of .45 will probably be enough, but you plan for the worst case, not the best.

Look, bigger is almost always better when it comes to firepower. Given the choice, every soldier would much rather have an M-1A1 providing suppressive fire than an M-16. That’s not the point, the issue at hand is that you don’t need a 30 round magazine to protect yourself or your family.

If you can't get your point accross with 5 rounds, you probably shouldn't own a gun, and if you are still firing after 20 rounds have gone down-range, you missed your target and he is half way down the street with your wife's purse.

[MichiGator2002]

Originally Posted by HudsonGator

That assumes that there are millions of people in this country willing to take up arms against their Nation's government. History would suggest you are wrong.

In our entire history we have had only one civil war, and it was not a spontaneous uprising of the people, but rather a rebellion organized at the State level against the Federal government (and the Federal government won, by the way).

Look at segregation, the AFCA, the 2000 Presidential election or abortion, issues which outraged millions (and in the case of abortion, continues to do so), but we didn't see millions of people in the streets taking up arms against a government they disagreed with or even hundreds for that matter.

Why? Because Americans, except for a lunatic fringe, generally go along. We all have too much invested in our society to want to blow it all up. I am not going to war with my government just so a bunch of nuts can keep their assault weapons. Moreover, if we, as a society, through our elected officials, ultimately decide that a disarmed society is preferable to an armed society, the vast majority will go along, including myself.

That lunatic fringe that I spoke of that won't go along I suspect will ultimately share the same fate as the Branch-Davidians.

And the rest of us will continue with our lives as before, we'll get up in the morning, send our kids to school, go to work, pay our taxes, go to church, buy our ipads, take our Summer vacations, and enjoy our lives.

Your figuratively, and push comes to shove possibly literally, fatal miscalculation is that Americans "go along" because Americans know they ultimately have the ultimate veto of force against the government. All laid out in the Declaration -- "... It is their right, it is their duty...".

Pardon the metaphor, but in the BDSM violent kink that is the relationship between the government dom and the citizen sub, the Second Amendment is our "safe word". You see the dom decide they don't want to let you have a safe word, you will see a very sobering shift in that relationship, you will find the sub isn't up for nearly as much. Or anything, ever again.

A look through history will find that there has really never been an occasion on which disarming a civilian population and/or forbidding it weapons has been a benign act. A government doesn't need to disarm a population that it plans to govern gently and unobtrusively. This country more than any other is still hardwired to recognize that the attempt itself is a per se tyrannical act.

[PIMking]

Originally Posted by HudsonGator

A "war?" Hardly. You gun people who honestly think you scare the government with your AR-15's are laughable. Did you serve in any branch of the armed services? I bet you didn't, because if you had, you would know that the sheer firepower of the US military is far beyond anything a bunch of disgruntled citizens could possibly put together. It would be a slaughter on an epic scale. Not saying that it would be a good thing, but to suggest that the right to bear arms is somehow a deterrent on the Federal government is moronic.

A war? No. At most, we may see a few gun nuts go down like the Branch-Davidians at Waco.

you realize that not only does the military have the right to disobey an illegal order but must right?

but I guess the people that fought for our freedom should of just quit because they couldn't beat the big bad English army.

[Dreamliner]

Want to be safe ? Move to a liberal state with more stringent gun laws.

Oh, wait, California just had ANOTHER shooting spree. This per Yahoo News.

[mdgator05]

Originally Posted by Dreamliner

Want to be safe ? Move to a liberal state with more stringent gun laws.

Oh, wait, California just had ANOTHER shooting spree. This per Yahoo News.

Actually, from a statistical standpoint, the argument you intended to mock is actually true.



McCain vote share is the strongest predictor of high gun violence in a state per capita. Obama vote share is the second strongest predictor of low gun violence in a state per capita. The three gun control laws tested, assault weapons bans, safe gun storage requirements, and trigger locks, all were associated with lower gun violence.

[HudsonGator]

Originally Posted by PIMking

you realize that not only does the military have the right to disobey an illegal order but must right?

but I guess the people that fought for our freedom should of just quit because they couldn't beat the big bad English army.

Grunts aren't lawyers, so long as you take care of them, they do what they are told.

[helix139]

Originally Posted by HudsonGator

That assumes that there are millions of people in this country willing to take up arms against their Nation's government. History would suggest you are wrong.

In our entire history we have had only one civil war, and it was not a spontaneous uprising of the people, but rather a rebellion organized at the State level against the Federal government (and the Federal government won, by the way).

Our nation was founded as a result of a civil war that was, in fact, successful. Given the right set of circumstances, the people will rebel. It's happened throughout history. Ever stop to think that perhaps the reason it hasn't happened in this country is that the people are armed, thus the government has an incentive not to badly overstep its authority into the territory of tyranny?

Look at segregation,

Most blacks were not firearms owners

the AFCA,

We still don't know the full effect of this one. Seems Unlikely the effects will be terrible at this point, but it opens the door if nothing else

the 2000 Presidential election or abortion,

Most gun owners tend to be conservative. They weren't really pissed off about this one. It's going to take something that really disenfranchises more than half the country.

issues which outraged millions (and in the case of abortion, continues to do so), but we didn't see millions of people in the streets taking up arms against a government they disagreed with or even hundreds for that matter.

Just because we haven't seen such an issue yet doesn't mean we won't.

Why? Because Americans, except for a lunatic fringe, generally go along. We all have too much invested in our society to want to blow it all up. I am not going to war with my government just so a bunch of nuts can keep their assault weapons. Moreover, if we, as a society, through our elected officials, ultimately decide that a disarmed society is preferable to an armed society, the vast majority will go along, including myself.

This is only true to a point. And let's face it, you're never going to get disarmament. A great number of people will ignore any disarmament legislation even if they don't outright resist. There comes a point, though, where Government can overstep its bounds and if it does so and it has a tangible and severe negative effect on the majority of people, they're going to revolt. It's happened over and over throughout world history.

That lunatic fringe that I spoke of that won't go along I suspect will ultimately share the same fate as the Branch-Davidians.

Most gun owners and enthusiasts are smarter about how they would go about things than I think you are giving them credit for.

And the rest of us will continue with our lives as before, we'll get up in the morning, send our kids to school, go to work, pay our taxes, go to church, buy our ipads, take our Summer vacations, and enjoy our lives.

Perhaps. Perhaps not. We've never seen it get bad for a lot of people here. If (or more likely, when) that happens, all bets are off.

[helix139]

Originally Posted by HudsonGator

Look, bigger is almost always better when it comes to firepower. Given the choice, every soldier would much rather have an M-1A1 providing suppressive fire than an M-16. That’s not the point, the issue at hand is that you don’t need a 30 round magazine to protect yourself or your family.

If you can't get your point accross with 5 rounds, you probably shouldn't own a gun, and if you are still firing after 20 rounds have gone down-range, you missed your target and he is half way down the street with your wife's purse.

Or you are issuing suppressive fire in his direction to pin him down so that others can move to a safe location. There are multiple scenarios that, though unlikely, are certainly possible where I could see the need for one or more thirty round magazines in just a home defense scenerio, to say nothing of scenerios involving foreign or domestic invasion and attack.

[PIMking]

Originally Posted by HudsonGator

Grunts aren't lawyers, so long as you take care of them, they do what they are told.

You would argue that water is dry wouldn't you? you just have no idea, I guess since the military is so bad ass then why are we having/had such a problem with people with guns in Vietnam, Iraq, afghanistan? just keep your head in the sand and move to Chicago your liberal gun free utopia

[gator1986]

Americas military has 1.4 million active duty members, 840,000 reservist/national guard. We are given the right to bare arms, to protect ourselves from our own governments possible tyranny. If our government were to proclaim war upon its citizens our 2.2 million soldiers would drop to 400,000 or less. No soldier would ever attack their families, let alone another fellow soldiers. How would our military ( short handed ) handle 200,000,000 + pissed off Americans with guns? And just an FYI most American underground militias come from military background training, most of Americas gangs are in the United States military and go in simply to learn combat training.

[Dreamliner]

Originally Posted by PIMking

You would argue that water is dry wouldn't you? you just have no idea, I guess since the military is so bad ass then why are we having/had such a problem with people with guns in Vietnam, Iraq, afghanistan? just keep your head in the sand and move to Chicago your liberal gun free utopia

I think he's pining to move to London, where he's probably ten times more likely to be kicked in the face, by young hooligans, than in the US.

[gator10010]

Originally Posted by gator1986

Americas military has 1.4 million active duty members, 840,000 reservist/national guard. We are given the right to bare arms, to protect ourselves from our own governments possible tyranny. If our government were to proclaim war upon its citizens our 2.2 million soldiers would drop to 400,000 or less. No soldier would ever attack their families, let alone another fellow soldiers. How would our military ( short handed ) handle 200,000,000 + pissed off Americans with guns? And just an FYI most American underground militias come from military background training, most of Americas gangs are in the United States military and go in simply to learn combat training.

You would think this would be obvious, at least hope it would be obvious , evidently not.

[HudsonGator]

Originally Posted by helix139

Or you are issuing suppressive fire in his direction to pin him down so that others can move to a safe location. There are multiple scenarios that, though unlikely, are certainly possible where I could see the need for one or more thirty round magazines in just a home defense scenerio, to say nothing of scenerios involving foreign or domestic invasion and attack.

I think you've seen too many movies, if you are one of the very, very few people who has their home broken into, it won't be by a gang of well armed hardened criminals bent on your destruction, rather it will be by one or two petty criminals who will run for their lives after the first round goes by their head.

You are more likely to be hit by an asteroid than get into firefight in your living room.

[HudsonGator]

Originally Posted by PIMking

You would argue that water is dry wouldn't you? you just have no idea, I guess since the military is so bad ass then why are we having/had such a problem with people with guns in Vietnam, Iraq, afghanistan? just keep your head in the sand and move to Chicago your liberal gun free utopia

Actually I do have some idea, I was in the infantry, if they are well supplied and well fed (i.e. "beans and bullets"), soldiers will follow orders, and if those orders are to stop a bunch of gun nuts who want to go to war with the Federal government they'll do it and it won't end well for the gun nuts.

[HudsonGator]

Here's the point most seem to be missing, gun control can and will come about only as a result of laws enacted by our democratically elected officials.

It is not tyranny when Congress passes a law, even when a large number of citizens don't agree with that law.

I personally believe that gun-lovers are on the wrong side of history, it may take years, but we as a society will eventually get to a point where we will no longer see the benefit in having a large number of citizens who are armed.

Time will tell if I'm right.

[helix139]

Originally Posted by HudsonGator

I think you've seen too many movies, if you are one of the very, very few people who has their home broken into, it won't be by a gang of well armed hardened criminals bent on your destruction, rather it will be by one or two petty criminals who will run for their lives after the first round goes by their head.

You are more likely to be hit by an asteroid than get into firefight in your living room.

When did I argue it was likely? In fact, I argued just the opposite. Unlikely is not impossible, however, and it's rather foolish not to acknowledge that. And it isn't just hardened criminals that will shoot back.

[helix139]

Originally Posted by HudsonGator

Here's the point most seem to be missing, gun control can and will come about only as a result of laws enacted by our democratically elected officials.

It is not tyranny when Congress passes a law, even when a large number of citizens don't agree with that law.

It is if they attempt to enforce a law that is unconstitutional. The words "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" take precedence over other laws.

[LittleBlueLW]

Originally Posted by HudsonGator

Actually I do have some idea, I was in the infantry, if they are well supplied and well fed (i.e. "beans and bullets"), soldiers will follow orders, and if those orders are to stop a bunch of gun nuts who want to go to war with the Federal government they'll do it and it won't end well for the gun nuts.

What if it were the reverse? The Federal Govt wanting to go to war with 'guns nuts'? And please define that term.

[HudsonGator]

Originally Posted by helix139

It is if they attempt to enforce a law that is unconstitutional. The words "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" take precedence over other laws.

Only in your mind....

[mdgator05]

Originally Posted by helix139

It is if they attempt to enforce a law that is unconstitutional. The words "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" take precedence over other laws.

So you think you should be able to own any type of arm, right?