Where do you draw the line on weapons?

[guzzijohn]

Yes, the primary purpose of the 2nd amendment is protection against a tyrannical government. At the time the 2nd amendment was written the top armies had muskets, swords and cannon. As far as I know the general public could own all three if rich enough. Now armies possess everything from pistols to nuclear weapons. 200 million plus rifles currently possessed by citizens could make for some speed bumps but hardly stop a modern army. Where do you draw the line? If the general citizen is suppose to take up arms against a tyrannical government should not that citizen have legal access to what he military has?
GuzziJohn

[Conan The Librarian]

I have heard the question before, and it misses some important historical information. First of all, the founders probably had a much broader view of what constitutes arms. Every one of them was keenly knowledgeable of human history, and could reflect back on days prior to the invention of firearms. Secondly, firearms at the time were important, but it was armies that brought them to life. In effect, the army or navy was the contemporary equivalent to the nuclear bomb. That is to say that large numbers of men in the form of infantry, artillery and spies were the tools of mass destruction.
 
The power of the government is little changed since those days despite the development of modern weapons that essentially replace portions of an army with machines. The role of the tyrant is the same. And an uprising of people in grass roots fashion is still a formidable foe to any despot.
 
Keep in mind that guerrilla warfare is alive and well today, and has done much to thwart very powerful attacks by highly mechanized and well equipped armies. For example, Viet Nam, Iraq, and Afghanistan come readily to mind.
 
A small number of people can create a great deal of friction and fog to use against a larger force with superior weapons.
 
Another thing to remember is the reluctance of both the Japanese and the Russians to launch a ground attack on the US. They knew what an armed civilian force could do, and they respected it.
 
 
 
 
 

[guzzijohn]

"Keep in mind that guerrilla warfare is alive and well today, and has done much to thwart very powerful attacks by highly mechanized and well equipped armies. For example, Viet Nam, Iraq, and Afghanistan come readily to mind."


Point taken but also keep in mind how much more difficult it is to move large armies or equipment in those countries as compared to the USA which has multiples better and more roads and flatlands.
GuzziJohn

[two-blocked]

Today the lead combatants in any battle with a tyrannical government will be the computer geeks not a bunch of old guys with their tricked out ARs.

[Conan The Librarian]

Transportation in outlying areas seems to favor natives familiar with terrain. I can't think of a place where it didn't. It's amazing how quickly roads can be rendered worse than useless. In fact, roads have recently and conspicuously been used as weapons against US troops. The IEDs that have killed and wounded thousands of Americans during the past decade essentially use the roads as a kind of bait because the bombers know that soldiers patrolling an area will be moving by vehicle, using the most convenient paths.
 
Roads seem to facilitate the major movements of an army, as they did for Patton, but when it comes to engagement, they don't seem to help much. Generals that were able to use unconventional paths, like Romel and Hannibal, had some memorable successes by not being constrained by conventional paths.
 
The technique of ambush is an old one, and it depends on using known paths as bait.
 
Then there's raw ingenuity. The flash mobs of the Arab Spring showed that a loosely organized "armies" were able to topple regimes despite having few conventional weapons. They used existing infrastructure brilliantly, including roads, and did it in ways that police and soldiers could not react to.
 
 

[BUGEYE]

conan, you seem to have some plans, and I'll add that small bridges can be blown up behind you,
that'll slow'em down, plus you've made a good ambush opportunity.

[briarpatch]

Give it up guys. Modern military equipment, night, all weather vision. Stealth warfare, no access to military equipment like the countries mentioned. Families they would take out to call you home. A nation of cowards, sheep.
No match, no how.

[yellowtail3]

I draw the line at what I can afford, and to a lesser degree what I need. Right now I've got a Marlin, a Mosin, and a Rem 870 - well-equipped for anything that I might hunt in this hemisphere. At this moment I'm kind of wishing I'd replaced the AK clone a few weeks ago, or bit the bullet on an AR, since prices are likely to start rising. And I should have moved on the Glock 23 a few weeks back. Dang. Better get me another spam can of 7.62x54R..

[308Win]

If you have the money buy it..

[Swift One]

Keep in mind that guerrilla warfare is alive and well today, and has done much to thwart very powerful attacks by highly mechanized and well equipped armies. For example, Viet Nam, Iraq, and Afghanistan come readily to mind.

+1 on that. 

[Empty Quiver]

 I suppose crew served weapons are the logical place to draw the line. I am without crew and I'll be damned if I'm gonna put deadbeats to work playing with my weapons and ammo stash.
 
I suppose I am as well armed as any colonial adult male fast forwarded thru time. I own a solid weapon and have adequite ammunition to supply it for a moderate amount of time. After that I would be dependant upon resupply from outside, as were the colonial militiamen. I would certainly hate to be beholden to a bunch of damned frogs and worse would hate to be waiting on their support.
 
Honestly I just cannot see a point at which a US soldier would fire on the general populace of this country. If I find myself in the sights of a US soldier perhaps I'm on the wrong side and need to re-evaluate my thinking.
 
So there it is, I currently reside a short couple hundred miles from the border, I might be needed as a tripline when the Canadians start crashing the fences trying to reclaim there Molsons.    I stand ready to do my part, I can take 3 six packs a day if the frozen pizza holds out.

[Squib]

for civilian ownership and/or use: no nukes, no chemical, no biological, no landmines, no rockets, no ied's, no grenades, no tanks or helo/gunships, no aerial bombers.

small arms of any kind are not WMD by any stretch of the imagination.  any school, nursing home, hospital, etcetera full of soft targets could be done in by a dedicated guy with a knife, or arson.  I don't see why guns are so scary, especially handguns, not much worse than being stabbed- it just gives reach to the user.  citizens armed with "small arms" cannot be corraled and enslaved, since they fight back and win, or die trying.  it doesn't matter what tanks are in the neighborhood, because some troops have to be exposed to order seek out dissidents to capture/enslave them.  dead troops don't snatch people up, and dead people cannot become prisoners.  which is the point, I think, of the second amendment.  also, blasting goons in general.

[ironglow]

Even if they could take away the guns..a nutcase could cause even worse mayhem than at Colombine or Connecticut..
      Just a knocking a connector of a propane tank off..caused the loss of an entire BLOCK in Buffalo in 1983.  Fortunately, the area was in a virtually deserteed couple of blocks of old buildings, or more would have died.     
     http://thecompanyofficer.com/tag/buffalo-ny-propane-gas-explosion-dec-1983/     

  Check the video here (on the left)   http://www.wivb.com/dpp/news/buffalo/Firefighters-remember-North-Division-Street-explosion
   

   Perhaps they had best register backyard grills..before the onslaught!
 
   Tim McVey did his murders in Oklahoma city without a gun....just some diesel fuel and fertilizer.  Perhaps if they could remove guns from the nutcases..the casualty rate would only climb.

[Shu]

Hysterics in the news seem to think bans on firearms and magazine capacity will solve the problem. When an adult attacks children it really doesn't matter with what. The adult will harm many children before the adult is stopped. Whether it with a gun, knife or golf club it is really to easy to take a life. Teaching moral responsibillity to our youth, helping those kids that seem a little different. Being active in our communities and being citizens will go much further than any ban.
 
A citizen should not be kept from owning any weapon the citizen desires to posses. It is the citizens responsibillity to ensure his weapons are not missued.

[Redtail1949]

Right on Shu

[mrcooper]

this all started because of all those poor little children that were murdered, i only know of one kind of people that murder women and children,    MUSLIMS  and are we going to punish them? NO were going to get our guns taken away.

[boomerralph]

Our ancestors speak! Washington should listen.
 
 "Rightful liberty is unobstructed action, according to our will, within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others."

-- Thomas Jefferson

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government"

-- Thomas Jefferson, 1 Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

"The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil interference - they deserve a place of honor with all that's good"

-- George Washington

"The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed."

-- Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers at 184-188

[Ranger99]

i don't have any weapons. . . .

[mechanic]

The truth be told, we can own many of those weapons, if we had the money and desire.  Certainly not nukes, but we can buy and own howitzers, etc.  if we suddenly win the lottery.  I just really have no desire for them.  I do want to own what I consider necessary for my own families protection, and one of those happens to use large capacity magazines. 
 
Explosives are relatively easy to make, and so are biologics, illegal or not.  I have no need for such, so I don't concern myself that they are illegal.
 
A man with a bush axe against little children and a handful of women will be unstoppable until the police arrive.  All this talk of bans just fills the anti's with glee.  They've been hoping for just such an opportunity.
Ben

[RaySendero]

Where do you draw the line on weapons?
 
For me myself or for others?

[yellowtail3]

If I could afford it - and the maintenance? - I'd like a F4U-4.

[nw_hunter]

If I could afford it - and the maintenance? - I'd like a F4U-4.



[/quote




The Corsair...........Flapping it's wings for a take-off

[Conan The Librarian]

These days with so many people with allergies, a squirt gun that can shoot a puree of nuts, dairy, and wheat is powerful enough to wipe out an entire school in minutes. Add a little bear spray for its disorienting effect, and you can rule the world.

[BBF]

Give it up guys. Modern military equipment, night, all weather vision. Stealth warfare, no access to military equipment like the countries mentioned. Families they would take out to call you home. A nation of cowards, sheep.
No match, no how.

 
 1  All wishful thinking if you are of different opinion. The Govt. can starve you out and neutralize you without ever firing one shot. If it makes you feel good to store more firearms and ammo so be it. You won't get much of a chance if any to use it. Now if it comes to civilian mobs rampaging thru the country I'd be of a different opinion.

[Brett]

If I cannot carry it by myself I guess that's where I draw the line. 

[SHOOTALL]

those looking in might get nervous reading this topic.  . I would consider what I could protect . Why have a weapon that would be easy to take ? Why have a weapon that everyone could see ? Or why make yourself a target ? Better to have weapons you can secure and manage . Also ones you can feed .

[nw_hunter]

Even if they could take away the guns..a nutcase could cause even worse mayhem than at Colombine or Connecticut..
      Just a knocking a connector of a propane tank off..caused the loss of an entire BLOCK in Buffalo in 1983.  Fortunately, the area was in a virtually deserteed couple of blocks of old buildings, or more would have died.     
     http://thecompanyofficer.com/tag/buffalo-ny-propane-gas-explosion-dec-1983/     

  Check the video here (on the left)   http://www.wivb.com/dpp/news/buffalo/Firefighters-remember-North-Division-Street-explosion
   

   Perhaps they had best register backyard grills..before the onslaught!
 
   Tim McVey did his murders in Oklahoma city without a gun....just some diesel fuel and fertilizer.  Perhaps if they could remove guns from the nutcases..the casualty rate would only climb.

 
True! Taking away our guns will not prevent killers from killing period!These politicians trying to disarm us know this, but they are smart (evil) enough to know this is the perfect time to push an agenda to disarm a free society.
 
Before most of us were born.....1927 A killer named Andrew Kehoe in Bath Michigan, set off a TNT bomb in the school, killing 43 people, including (39) grade-school children. Before the explosion, Kehoe killed his wife, then drove his truck, loaded with dynamite & nails, to the school, & set it off, killing himself & the school superintendent. There were plenty of guns available to him, but he wanted to kill more than he could with guns. And he did.
 
 Of the 7 Largest mass-murders in US history, guess how many involved firearms...
1. McVeigh/Nichols, Oklahoma City bombing, OKC, 1995, 168 dead.
2. Julio Gonzalez, Happy Land Social Club arson, Bronx, 1990, 87 dead.
3. Andrew Kehoe, school bombing, Bath Michigan, 1927, 45 dead (37 children).
4. Jack Gilbert Graham, dynamite on plane, Denver, 1955, 44 dead.
5. David Burke, shot pilot of plane, California, 1987, 43 dead.
6. Umberto de la Torre, Hotel arson, Los Angeles, 1982, 25 dead.
7. George Jo Hennard, Luby's massacre, Killeen TX, 1991, 23 dead.


 

[ironglow]

Even if they could take away the guns..a nutcase could cause even worse mayhem than at Colombine or Connecticut..
      Just a knocking a connector of a propane tank off..caused the loss of an entire BLOCK in Buffalo in 1983.  Fortunately, the area was in a virtually deserteed couple of blocks of old buildings, or more would have died.     
     http://thecompanyofficer.com/tag/buffalo-ny-propane-gas-explosion-dec-1983/     

  Check the video here (on the left)   http://www.wivb.com/dpp/news/buffalo/Firefighters-remember-North-Division-Street-explosion
   

   Perhaps they had best register backyard grills..before the onslaught!
 
   Tim McVey did his murders in Oklahoma city without a gun....just some diesel fuel and fertilizer.  Perhaps if they could remove guns from the nutcases..the casualty rate would only climb.

 
True! Taking away our guns will not prevent killers from killing period!These politicians trying to disarm us know this, but they are smart (evil) enough to know this is the perfect time to push an agenda to disarm a free society.
 
Before most of us were born.....1927 A killer named Andrew Kehoe in Bath Michigan, set off a TNT bomb in the school, killing 43 people, including (39) grade-school children. Before the explosion, Kehoe killed his wife, then drove his truck, loaded with dynamite & nails, to the school, & set it off, killing himself & the school superintendent. There were plenty of guns available to him, but he wanted to kill more than he could with guns. And he did.
 
 Of the 7 Largest mass-murders in US history, guess how many involved firearms...
1. McVeigh/Nichols, Oklahoma City bombing, OKC, 1995, 168 dead.
2. Julio Gonzalez, Happy Land Social Club arson, Bronx, 1990, 87 dead.
3. Andrew Kehoe, school bombing, Bath Michigan, 1927, 45 dead (37 children).
4. Jack Gilbert Graham, dynamite on plane, Denver, 1955, 44 dead.
5. David Burke, shot pilot of plane, California, 1987, 43 dead.
6. Umberto de la Torre, Hotel arson, Los Angeles, 1982, 25 dead.
7. George Jo Hennard, Luby's massacre, Killeen TX, 1991, 23 dead.

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
   I suggest it was only G J Hennard who used a gun...and he would not have gone near so far, had Suzanna Hupp been allowed to carry her .38 into Luby's restaurant.  Suzanna was a crack shot and during the rampage by Hennard, she and her parents were behind an upturned table, from where she could have picked Hennard off very early on..but her gun was in her vehicle.  Both her parents were murdered..
  Suzanna was the driving force behind Texas' current CC law.

[jhm]

     I dont draw a line!!  The ANTI 2nd. amendent idiots want to bring up the fact that when it was written their were ONLY muskets, well I would also state that when the 2nd. was written the GOVERNMENT or soon to be government only had muskets, now our government ride around in tanks and their securith has increased to a larger force than most small town police depts, and speekjing of police depts take a look at your local police officer he almost looks like and acts like he is still in the military, their weapons have kept up with improvements WHY cant the general public have the same inovations after all they ALL work for US and so many of them have forgot that important fact, we now have a POTUS who thinks he is a KING!!   Jim  Keep them loaded and handy,  and ALL have a MERRY CHRISTMAS!  As it may be the last one as we remember it to be.  Jim