The Firearms Industry Boycott Grows.

[HudsonGator]

Originally Posted by helix139

You're correct up until this point. Britain had the standing army. The colonists had a I wholeheartedly disagree. We have a standing army to fight wars. However, what happens when the standing army fails against a foreign invasion? What about if it disbands in whole or part or turns on the people due to tyranny? Who is the last line of defense then? What exactly is the "battlefield" at that point? The citizens have a God-given right to defend themselves, their family and neighbors, their country, and their constitution from the lawless with force and that is what the second amendment is about. It is NEVER obsolete.

You left out what about if aliens land and want to take over????

We'll need every gun we can get our hands on when they start shooting those death rays at us...

Originally Posted by helix139

No, congress created the National Guard, but it does not replace the militia.

Yeah, it did. Considering the fact that the "militia" exists in name only and hasn't been called out in well over a century pretty much means that it has been replaced.

Originally Posted by helix139

One does not have to serve to be able to recognize the clear differences in function between a select-fire and a semi-automatic weapon. Again, I thank you for your service, but you're being willfully ignorant here.

Hardly, I have fired them all and I know what they can do. I simply do not see the need for you or anyone else in this country to own an AR-15 or its equivalent.

You disagree, I get it.

[gatorpa]

Originally Posted by HudsonGator

I assume you asking me to describe an assault weapon?

To me it is easy, any rifle or shotgun with a detachable magazine.
So for all you non-Mad Max wannabe survivalists out there, you can still have hunt, protect your home (although I would recommend a pistol in close quarters) and target shoot as much as you like.

Since many pistols have "detachable magazines" are they assault weapons too?
What's the difference barrel length?

[HudsonGator]

Originally Posted by gatorpa

Since many pistols have "detachable magazines" are they assault weapons too?
What's the difference barrel length?

Read first, type second.

I defined it as a "rifle or shotgun," i.e. I specifically excluded pistols.

[mdgator05]

Originally Posted by MichaelJoeWilliamson

Did you know that violent crime in the USA has been trending down for quite some time. This in the face of more guns and more relaxed gun laws? No doubt there is a causal effect, right?

It has been tracking down for some time. This is a discussion comparing municipalities at one sliver of time not over time.

As far as more guns, it is possible that some of the "gun enthusiasts" are purchasing more guns, but there is evidence of decreasing gun ownership rates in the US.



So the percentage of houses owning a gun has been tracking down since at least the early 1990s. When did crime rates start to decline?

[helix139]

Originally Posted by HudsonGator

You left out what about if aliens land and want to take over????

We'll need every gun we can get our hands on when they start shooting those death rays at us...

Classic straw man.

Have you ever stopped to think that part of the reason we haven't really had any foreign invasions on US soil or outright tyranny by our leaders is that the population is well-armed? It's a deterrent that forcefully ensures our other named rights and ultimately provides for individual responsibility for the right to life.

Yeah, it did. Considering the fact that the "militia" exists in name only and hasn't been called out in well over a century pretty much means that it has been replaced.

The militia, by definition, cannot be replaced, whether or not it is officially "called out." It is in service, though, every time a man picks up his shotgun to repel a home invader, every time a person pulls their concealed Glock to stop a robbery, every time a woman stabs an attempted rapist. That is all part of the militia, at the individual level, but if/when the need arises, it will be up to the militia to repel a foreign or domestic enemy also because the military and the national guard can't or won't. We're fortunate the need has not arisen yet and I pray it doesn't for a long, long time.

Hardly, I have fired them all and I know what they can do. I simply do not see the need for you or anyone else in this country to own an AR-15 or its equivalent.

You disagree, I get it.

So willful ignorance, then?

[HudsonGator]

Originally Posted by PIMking

unlike you Im not trying to use a tragedy to press my political agenda. I believe these kids were killed by an idiot with a pistol. But unless they want to provide us with the actual assault rifle used (inside not his trunk) your basis is false and stupid

So the Connecticut State Police are part of the anti-gun conspiracy?

Lt. J. Paul Vance, the face of an ongoing Connecticut State Police investigation into worst grade-school shooting in U.S. history, Thursday debunked media and Internet reports that Sandy Hook shooter Adam Lanza killed his victims with handguns and not the Bushmaster XM-15 E2S rifle that is now the focus of a proposed federal assault-weapons ban.

All 26 of Lanza's victims were shot with the .223-caliber semi-automatic rifle, said Vance, who bristled at claims to the contrary during an interview with Hearst Connecticut Newspapers.

"It's all these conspiracy theorists that are trying to mucky up the waters," said Vance, the longtime state police spokesman.

Multiple Second Amendment and gun owner websites have attempted to cast doubts on whether the Bushmaster XM-15, a type of AR-15 rifle that is currently legal, was used in the Dec. 14 carnage done by Lanza.

Some have cited a Dec. 15 "Today" show video clip from the day after the shooting, in which NBC News Justice Department correspondent Pete Williams said that four handguns were recovered inside Sandy Hook Elementary School and that the Bushmaster rifle was found in the trunk of a car owned by Lanza's slain mother, Nancy Lanza.

"There's no doubt that the rifle was used solely to kill 26 people in that school," Vance said.

http://www.greenwichtime.com/newtown...th-4220548.php

I see, since you are one of those people, it is impossible to have a rational discussion on this topic. At this point I think it would best if you put the tin foil back on your head and start scanning the horizon for black helicopters.

[gatorpa]

Originally Posted by HudsonGator

Read first, type second.

I defined it as a "rifle or shotgun," i.e. I specifically excluded pistols.

Read it first, but you dodged. I'll type slower....

I'll ask again, what is the difference between a pistol and a rifle/shotgun with a detachable magazine?

In your mind is it barrel length?

[HudsonGator]

Originally Posted by helix139

Classic straw man.

You really like that word, don't you.

Originally Posted by helix139

Have you ever stopped to think that part of the reason we haven't really had any foreign invasions on US soil...?

Oh, I don't know, perhaps it has something to do with the fact that we have oceans on either side of us, that we span an entire continent, that our economy is the largest in the world and has been for over a century, or perhaps because we have enough nuclear weapons to destroy every living creature on the face of the planet several times over and we've had them for almost 70 years.

I am fairly certain that if Hitler could have somehow conquered Europe and acquired the naval and air assets to land and support an army in North America he wouldn't have been dissuaded by a bunch of rednecks with guns.

Originally Posted by helix139

Have you ever stopped to think that part of the reason we haven't really had...outright tyranny by our leaders is that the population is well-armed? It's a deterrent that forcefully ensures our other named rights and ultimately provides for individual responsibility for the right to life.

We've argued this point ad nauseam. A bunch of guns in the hands of citizens doesn't ensure anything, other than an armed mob. We are a democracy. We are nation of laws. That is our strength as a nation, not what lies in your gunsafe.

Originally Posted by helix139

The militia, by definition, cannot be replaced, whether or not it is officially "called out." It is in service, though, every time a man picks up his shotgun to repel a home invader, every time a person pulls their concealed Glock to stop a robbery, every time a woman stabs an attempted rapist. That is all part of the militia, at the individual level, but if/when the need arises, it will be up to the militia to repel a foreign or domestic enemy also because the military and the national guard can't or won't. We're fortunate the need has not arisen yet and I pray it doesn't for a long, long time.

I am sure that sounded nice to you when you wrote it, but it doesn't change the fact that the idea of the militia is, at this point, theoretical at best, and in reality is pure fantasy. We might as well be talking about whether the Templars still exist.

Originally Posted by helix139

So willful ignorance, then?

Those in ignorant houses...

[GatorMid]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:
Originally Posted by HudsonGator
Read first, type second.

I defined it as a "rifle or shotgun," i.e. I specifically excluded pistols.

Read it first, but you dodged. I'll type slower....

I'll ask again, what is the difference between a pistol and a rifle/shotgun with a detachable magazine?

In your mind is it barrel length?



ARs look scarier to him...

[HudsonGator]

Originally Posted by gatorpa

Read it first, but you dodged. I'll type slower....

I'll ask again, what is the difference between a pistol and a rifle/shotgun with a detachable magazine?

In your mind is it barrel length?

I didn't dodge it, it is a silly question not worthy of discussion.

I am fairly certain any knowledgeable person on the subject knows the difference.

Find something else to debate.

[MichaelJoeWilliamson]

Originally Posted by mdgator05

So the percentage of houses owning a gun has been tracking down since at least the early 1990s.

Actually it has been stable after a decline a few decades ago.

[HudsonGator]

Originally Posted by mdgator05

So the percentage of houses owning a gun has been tracking down since at least the early 1990s. When did crime rates start to decline?

That's what I am counting on. That gun ownership will become less and less fashionable and thus politically more difficult to blindly defend.

[helix139]

Originally Posted by HudsonGator

You really like that word, don't you.

I'm indifferent towards the phrase, but you sure to like throwing them out there.

Oh, I don't know, perhaps it has something to do with the fact that we have oceans on either side of us, that we span an entire continent, that our economy is the largest in the world and has been for over a century, or perhaps because we have enough nuclear weapons to destroy every living creature on the face of the planet several times over and we've had them for almost 70 years.

I am fairly certain that if Hitler could have somehow conquered Europe and acquired the naval and air assets to land and support an army in North America he wouldn't have been dissuaded by a bunch of rednecks with guns.

The number of "rednecks with guns" even in most states would far outnumber any standing army. All of your factors contribute, certainly, but so does the armed population. Just like concealed and open carry are a deterrent to crime.

We've argued this point ad nauseum. A bunch of guns in the hands of citizens doesn't ensure anything, other than an armed mob. We are a democracy. We are nation of laws. That is our strength as a nation, not what lies in your gunsafe.

It ensured something for the colonists.

I am sure that sounded nice to you when you wrote it, but it doesn't change the fact that the idea of the militia is, at this point, theoretical at best, and in reality is pure fantasy. We might as well be talking about whether the Templars still exist.

I disagree. As I've said, the militia is put into action every day.

[Minister_of_Information]

The militia is eternal, so long as the people are sovereign.

[MichaelJoeWilliamson]

and



and



and




http://www.gallup.com/poll/150353/se...hest-1993.aspx

and

[MichaelJoeWilliamson]

Key quote;

A clear societal change took place regarding gun ownership in the early 1990s, when the percentage of Americans saying there was a gun in their home or on their property dropped from the low to mid-50s into the low to mid-40s and remained at that level for the next 15 years. Whether this reflected a true decline in gun ownership or a cultural shift in Americans' willingness to say they had guns is unclear. However, the new data suggest that attitudes may again be changing. At 47%, reported gun ownership is the highest it has been in nearly two decades -- a finding that may be related to Americans' dampened support for gun-control laws. However, to ensure that this year's increase reflects a meaningful rebound in reported gun ownership, it will be important to see whether the uptick continues in future polling.

[HudsonGator]

Originally Posted by helix139

The number of "rednecks with guns" even in most states would far outnumber any standing army. All of your factors contribute, certainly, but so does the armed population.

There is absolutely no evidence to support that argument, none.

Please direct my attention to one, just one document memorializing a discussion with Hitler, Napoleon III, Lord Palmerston, Wilhelm II, etc., deliberating on whether they should or shouldn't invade the U.S. given the number of armed citizens.

I'll be waiting with bated breath.

Originally Posted by helix139

It ensured something for the colonists.

So we should continue to make policy in the year 2013 because of something that may or may not have been true in the 1770's?

Originally Posted by helix139

As I've said, the militia is put into action every day.

Whatever it is you think is put into action every day, it is not, by any educated person's definition, the "militia."

[MichiGator2002]

Originally Posted by HudsonGator

There is absolutely no evidence to support that argument, none.

Please direct my attention to one, just one document memorializing a discussion with Hitler, Napoleon III, Lord Palmerston, Wilhelm II, etc., deliberating on whether they should or shouldn't invade the U.S. given the number of armed citizens.

I'll be waiting with bated breath.

So we should continue to make policy in the year 2013 because of something that may or may not have been true in the 1770's?

Whatever it is you think is put into action every day, it is not, by any educated person's definition, the "militia."

If you don't want an 18th century benchmark in the law, your remedy is a constitutional amendment. Or I guess the lawful but intentionally inconvenient process of amending the constitution just gets thrown on the "to be ignored" pile and it becomes to wonder... why even have law?

[HudsonGator]

Originally Posted by MichiGator2002

If you don't want an 18th century benchmark in the law, your remedy is a constitutional amendment. Or I guess the lawful but intentionally inconvenient process of amending the constitution just gets thrown on the "to be ignored" pile and it becomes to wonder... why even have law?

What a bunch of nonsense.

I realize those kinds of platitudes sell well among you Tea Party types, but they don't pass for intelligent argument in my world.

[GatorMid]

^^^Fantasyland