Well, here are a couple of reasons:
- Why should I, a sane, balanced individual who has never harmed anyone in my life, not have such a weapon for my defence or indeed my pleasure, if that is how I want to spend my time? I mean, people collect stamps or do morris dancing or watch cookery programs for fun. I can't understand doing any of those things for fun, but it doesn't mean I think they should be banned.
- "Nobody needs more than 30 rounds to defend themselves." Perhaps if you're John Rambo, or Ethan Hunt; but in the real world, things are very different. It's surprisingly difficult to shoot a moving target, even for trained professionals like soldiers and the police. I was once involved in someone running a road block with a car, where around 80 rounds were fired and only 3 hit the car, none hit any of the occupants. (I wasn't shooting mind, if I had been, no rounds would have hit the car!)
- "There is no need for anyone but the government to have such powerful weapons." This fundamentally misunderstands the skeptical view that the Founding Fathers had of government. It is precisely because the government has such powerful weapons that the common man should have them too, to be able to bear equivalent arms against the state. You need to keep the state's monopoly on violence as weak and counterbalanced as possible.
So there.
31 comments:
Thank you.
Very good post.
Just to be an irritating pedant, that is three reasons, not a couple.
But three very good reasons!
"It's surprisingly difficult to shoot a moving target, even for trained professionals like soldiers and the police. "
Who, when the chips are down (Boston, escaped dangerous cattle) seem less like 'trained marksmen' and more like your average man in the street!
Good point about the government not having a monopoly on violence. A problem seen in the UK when the police and the courts accept the government has a right to use violence when keeping the public (especially the underprivileged) under control.
As an Aussie, I'm not very knowledgable about the thoughts of the Founding Fathers of the USA, but I didn't find the third point very convincing. Surely it's the function of the separation of governmental powers (supreme court, executive, congress) that is meant to keep the government under control. What you are suggesting is tantamount to support for armed rebellion against a duly elected government.
Let me say that being an aussie does not mean that you should necessarily be ignorant of the US constitution.
It just means you are ignorant, which could be forgiven, but also lazy as you do not even try to educate yourself, and arrogant because you also assume that your opinion if of any value in spite of your ignorance.
Let me just add by saying that you effectively do not understand the intentions of the FF, and you just spout some uneducated nonsense.
It appears there are idiots in aussiland.
Freedom has nothing to do with 'needs'.
Does anyone "need" a new sports car?
Does anyone "need" lots of money?
Does anyone "need" booze, a private yacht, and everything they ever 'wanted'?
The way I see it, a slave can have all his needs met for the lifetime he spends in captivity. What a slave doesn't have is a choice of his own.
Bunny,
With reference to 30 rounds, at the start of WWI with the British Army at its highest level of marksmanship in that War or possibly any war, and even taking into account Mons the level of rounds fired per 'kill' was 1500. So statistically a 303 Lee Enfield SMLE should be allowed 1500 rounds at least.
Why does anyone need guns?
Because the government has them.
Not for armed rebellion, but to ensure the government know they cannot just walk all over their people as they do in the UK.
Yep—people need large magazines because they don't know how to use guns properly, and why should they? Indeed it's a miracle Breivik, Holmes, Lanza et al managed to hit anything at all.
And it's not like the 2nd Amendment said anything about "well-regulated militias" or anything.
Mr Clown, I totally agree. I like shooting people. Preferably I would like to tie them down and place the end of the barrel against their head. In this way I'm assured of placing all 30 rounds in the brain. After that I would burn them.
"I mean, people collect stamps or do morris dancing or watch cookery programs for fun. I can't understand doing any of those things for fun, but it doesn't mean I think they should be banned."
If theres one thing that fucking annoys me more than anything else it's this "moral equivalence" bullshit.Stamp collecting,morris dancing or cookery is the same as shooting people/things is it? When was the last time you heard of someone killed by a speeding stamp or a high-velocity morris dancers bell? I had high hopes for you Obo but as soon as you stopped to this "moral equivalence" horse manure you blew it.
"It is precisely because the government has such powerful weapons that the common man should have them too, to be able to bear equivalent arms against the state. You need to keep the state's monopoly on violence as weak and counterbalanced as possible."
Ah so violence is inherently ok as long as it's a level playing field. I see where you're coming from.
I was going to say a bunch of things but the comments here have covered them already. You gots good readers, mister clown.
"Mons the level of rounds fired per 'kill' was 1500."
A million Afghani's how many rounds
fired by the "Heros" ?
It's easy for the media to jump on a mass shooting and call for gun control, the evidence is all too shocking.
What is not so easy to quantify is the number of lives that guns save.
I have American friends who tell me that small town and suburban Americans enjoy a safety that we have long forgotten.
I imagine the prospect of being shot deters many a would be assailant/housebreaker.
Totally irrelevant but I thought this was so Obo-esque as to be impossible to keep quiet about -
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oEWw2utJQJo
what's the need for guns?
"Why would anybody need an automatic rifle?"
There are at least 650 reasons...
Their postcode begins SW1A...
Anonymous wrote:
What you are suggesting is tantamount to support for armed rebellion against a duly elected government.
I don't think democracy is anything other than a figleaf to disguise thuggery, so ...
Another Anonymous wrote:
If theres one thing that fucking annoys me more than anything else it's this "moral equivalence" bullshit.Stamp collecting,morris dancing or cookery is the same as shooting people/things is it?
You're a fucking idiot, though. Collecting tactical nuclear missiles is no different to stamp collecting.
USING tactical nuclear weapons to kill people is the bad thing.
There is no reason why people shouldn't be allowed to collect and safely use firearms. It is absolutely no more dangerous than Morris dancing.
Yes, you can use firearms to kill people, but the vast majority of people who own firearms legally do not use them to run amok.
"what's the need for guns?"
----
What is the need for freedom? Cant people exist without it?
Rights have nothing to do with 'need'. Rights are a luxury that people will lay down their lives to acquire. But freedom isn't necessary to sustain human life.
Why do we need freedom of expression? We don't.
Why do we need the right to exist? If by "we" you mean society as a whole, then it isn't necessary for every member of that society to survive in order to sustain that community.
The collective has no 'need' for individual rights.
Mr Clown, you mention morris dancing. I contend it is more dangerous than guns. My uncle 'Raven Hair' Saxon actually got a nasty splinter in his eye after a particularly vigorous clashing of the sticks at a gathering of the elder folk at Saxmundham. Line dancing is much safer but inherently sillier.
As an american, the third point was the one I agree with the most. We the people have the right to overthrow the government and having the ability to fight the government equally is a major part of that.
This person is a moron.
He seems to think most Americans have automatic weapons.
He or she is not very informed on the facts.
Fully automatic weapons are illegal and the only people allowed to keep them are collectors with a special license and they do not give these out easily.
The US government tyrants consider any thing that looks like an assault weapon a machine gun or fully automatic.
Assault weapons are fully automatic and not the AR15, this weapon is semi auto.
You can not ban a weapon on looks, if that was the case they could ban the plastic guns at the toy store because it looks similar.
The weapons ban they want has nothing to do with any assault weapons which are already illegal. the bans they are pushing is to ban ever semi automatic weapon period and leave revolvers and single shot rifles and shotguns.
The founding fathers made the 2nd Amendment to allow the people to protect themselves and to protect the people from a corrupt government by allowing the people to take back that government by force if it ever becomes oppressive to its people. Which it has reached that point now.
The plan for the criminals in Washington is to disarm everyone completely. Starting with all semi autos and ending with what is left leaving everyone unarmed and leaving the people powerless to take the power back.
If you look back into history in ever country that banned weapons, everyone of them took all the power away from the people making what we are ending up with now.
A collapsing economy, highest employment rates in history, poisoned food and water, poisoned vaccines, kids that no longer belong to their parents, Government assassinating its citizens, suppressing the press by threatening reporters,sneaking low yield nuclear devices around the country off the books, illegally imprisoning Americans without due process,illegal spying across the globe, funneling most of our money and gold reserves out of the country funding terrorist, murdering innocent men women and children across the globe, and committing High treason under US laws.
If we all are unarmed do you really think criminals will turn in their weapons?
If you really wanted the truth on these shooting the school shootings were not done with any Ar type gun but with pistols this is why they will never release the video footage from the security cameras. Witnesses at both shootings including some law enforcement stated that he used hand guns.
There are hardly any crimes conducted with these rifles less then 3% if that. there are more knife crimes then all the guns combined but you do not see them banning all knives.
The truth is that they want all firearms banned so we are no threat to their power. When we are unarmed we can no long remove them if need be.
Before the people screwed up and gave up the power of the people to the tyrants and the foreign banks America was the most prosperous country in the world, but as people got dumber and under the threats of false terrorists and the staged terrorist attacks killing Americans the dumb ed down population gave up their power being tricked into it.
If you want to live in a place where you have no rights at all, you live and eat where and what they tell you, where you have no say so in the laws, all businesses are owned by certain people,you get what they give you and your family, a place where you can not even grow your own food, a place where the government death panel decides if you get the surgery to save your life like in obamacare, no freedom of religion or expression like is happening know, oppression and persecution like we have now. Then you need to move to another country like the old Hitlers Germany because you would love it there.
As for the rest of us we want to live in the world we used to have that offered prosperity and freedom for ourselves and our families, Freedom of Religion and to do what is right, not for money or power and help one another.
Very interesting that this article was very brief and succinct on the matter of "guns" in the hands of the freeman. This is WHAT helped to start the history of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA on its way. This would not have been possible were it not for the determined few who actually stole much of their firepower from armories and arsenals of the Royal Militaries. Let's face it, you bring a GUN to a gunfight! Anything less is just suicidal.
What you are suggesting is tantamount to support for armed rebellion against a duly elected government.
Yes, that is correct! If said "duly-elected" government becomes too powerful and tyrannical towards the governed, it is the DUTY of the freemen to "throw off" such injurious government and replace it anew. This becomes far more difficult if the government is drastically, superiorly-armed over the common man.
Ultimately,
A government which chooses to ignore the rights of the common man, and even go so far as to use disproportionate force against him to ENFORCE its ways (especially when it is against the "social contract" called the CONSTITUTION), is a government that is no longer truly democratic (a false-freedom government) and undeserving of its power lent by the people.
So, YES, if a "duly-elected" government (namely, our own) becomes more a danger to us, then YES it must and should be over-thrown! The Second Amendment was intended for exactly THAT PROVISION.
Any doubts??? Go re-read the Federalist and the Anti-Federalist Papers, please!!!
- Jim S.
Listen to the horror in voices in 911 calls - I was in a restaurant during a shooting when I was 13 - everyone under tables with small children behind them - helpless fear - I had an intimidating mob of 13 people on my property during a blackout after a hurricane - no phone service landline or cell - no 911 - on the best of days they couldn't have been there in time to save us - Though an AR-15 is fun to shoot for recreation - it is times like this that it is important to own one - with 20 and/or 30 round magazines - if you want to be able to succeed in defending your family alone against such odds - When laws are passed limiting magazine capacity retired cops are exempt - the government WANTS THEM to succeed - and wants active cops to enforce their unconstitutional laws (knowing they will be exempt when they retire)- the government wants us to think the second amendment is for us to hunt deer - and each new gun law they manage to pass is just a step in a staircase to total disarmament of American citizens - not for OUR safety - at our expense - for the safety of the government and all the law enforcement agencies they are building into military units to control (and kill) us as necessary.
Most of the rifles we use in the states are not automatic though autoloading. The antigunners want to make every rifle seem like a scary machinegun when they function the same as hunting rifles and plenty are hunting rifles. A pre 1986 machinegun is prohibitively expensive ($5k-50k) and requires a $200 tax,engraving,and registration. A newly manufactured machinegun is prohibited for most of us plebians, unless we are in law enforcement/military or deal guns to law enforcement.
"Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves?
Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American... [T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people."
Tench Coxe,Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788
Anon - Brevik et al might have found it harder if people were shooting back as opposed to being disarmed by the government which claimed it would protect them,
Amen.
Filthy? Is that you?
It should be noted that gun crime is more prevalent in those areas in the USA with strict gun control. It should be noted also that there are areas in the UK that have continual gun crime and drive by shootings and the UK has the most restrictive gun laws in the world. All anti gun legislation does is aire the criminal that they will be the only ones armed in a confrontation. Nevertheless, the real reason for the INALIENABLE RIGHT to bear arms was to allow citizens to form a militia to maintain their freedom in the face of a tyrannical government such as that imposed by King George. Worryingly for those people who remember the history, the gun control ideas put forward by the current administration are following precisely those of King George and the British government of those days.
If I did not have a gun, some of you would attempt to steal from me and do violence to me. because I do have a gun, you have hired your politicians to do your stealing and violence for you. Those who do not desire to steal from me, or do me harm have no reason to be afraid of my gun.
Post a Comment