INTERESTING TV: WHAT IF IT GOES FRANKENSTEIN?

Forums: Guns, Gun, Debating The Insane
Email this Topic • Print this Page

I have been watching the Military Channel today.
Thay had very interesting evaluations of the World's Best Small Arms.
I just LOVE the submachineguns; thay are so cute n cuddly.
My favorite is the little 9mm H&K MP5 KA4 (it has almost NO recoil)
tho of course, who can resist the .45 Thompson gun, with round drum magazine?

Anyway, thay also showed some heavy firepower.

It was indeed very, very impressive, but I can 't help wondering:
what if thay turned that stuff against us ??
In other words, how do we respond if Obama decides
to declare a moratorium on democracy since the Demos are already in control?
What do we do if he or a subsequent president finds a clever excuse to stop elections??
( I did not say that he is going to do it; I said what if ?)

This Republic was founded upon the concept that it 'd be IMPOSSIBLE
for government to take over the country because the citizens were so well armed
that thay 'd take it back again.

The Federalists argued that impossibility in support of ratification
in the Federalist Papers, and indeed, in furtherance of that spirit,
the First Congress by statute capped the maximum size of the US Army at 840 men.
(Congress has since changed its mind about that.)

Shoud we simply be complacent trusting government employees
to be too sweet n nice so that thay will not screw us out of our liberty,
because that has never happened anywhere in the world before ??

The Military is almost to the point of having weaponry like that
of the robots in the Terminator movies.

On the other hand, we need the Army to be powerful to fight
America 's enemies; it was proven on 9/11 that thay are not just imaginary.

U can decide whether or not we are in the middle of the Fourth
World War by now against the Moslems or not.

Before calling me paranoid or psychotic, please note that I did not say
that anything like this WILL happen; I dunno,
but it might be among the possibilities.

What shoud we do ???

( I expect a lot of ad hominem invective. )

`

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 7 • Views: 4,673 • Replies: 69

@OmSigDAVID,

Nut case big time...................

0 Replies

@OmSigDAVID,

Quote:

( I expect a lot of ad hominem invective. )

.
Not from me. My conservative side just does not include the doctrine of universal armament.Otherwise I can celebrate diversity of opinion. LAst time we discussed machine guns, it was in the context of what to do about letting little nine year old kids blow their heads off at a full-auto shooting booth.
DID the founding fathers envision 1000 rounds a minute (or even worse, a chain gun with 3000 rounds a minute).

I recently fired a Barrett 50 cal and am suitably impressed with its capability for reaching out and touching something more than a mile away. You keep your spray and pray armaments. Give me a high muzzle velocity and good optics.

3 Replies

@OmSigDAVID,

I'm afraid Dave that effemm takes every opportunity to parade his machismo whilst remaining a sweety.

He never answers any simple questions such as the one you posed.

Your question about atheists and science is not a simple one. The answer is in Spengler's The Decline of the West. I can't be expected to reduce that to a few lines.

If our trust in government employees proves misplaced we only have sticks and stones.

2 Replies

@spendius,

Ill let DAve decide who , between the two of us, actually even addressed his topic.

0 Replies

@farmerman,

Not from me. My conservative side just does not include the doctrine of universal armament
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To me you can not beat a good old BAR as it fired real rifle rounds not side arms rounds as in the Thompson or the light down size rounds of the M16 assault rifle.

Give me a weapon with range where needed, stopping power where needed and firepower where needed.

The BAR...............A weapon for the ages from your great grandfather in WW1 to the next century.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

Quote:

( I expect a lot of ad hominem invective. )

.

farmerman wrote:

Quote:

Not from me. My conservative side just does not include
the doctrine of universal armament.
Otherwise I can celebrate diversity of opinion.

Its a choice between fundamentally different cultural mindsets:
one is Individualism, replete with freedom and very stingy
in granting authority to the collective or to its henchman, government.

The other is reliance (ala Kitty Genovese and Reginald Denny)
upon security from the collective, subordinating the rights of the Individual thereto.

Quote:

LAst time we discussed machine guns, it was in the context of
what to do about letting little nine year old kids blow their heads
off at a full-auto shooting booth.

Note that there was a picture of other children firing there also,
none of whom was injured.
Its a question of proper training beforehand,
to wit: he shoud not bend his elbows.
Thay shoud have advised him to begin experiencing it on semi-automatic.
Its the same as not drowning while learning to swim,
not falling off while learning to ride a bike
and not crashing into something while learning to drive a car,
or not getting hit, while learning how to cross the street.

Quote:

DID the founding fathers envision 1000 rounds a minute
(or even worse, a chain gun with 3000 rounds a minute).

Only in the sense that thay were aware of scientific, technological progress
as applied to most everything, but bear in mind that thay were very outspoken
on the point that the citizens woud be able to overthrow the government,
as thay had just finished doing. Indeed, thay explicitly argued that
in 2 of the essays of the Federalist Papers, and in that spirit,
the First Congress capped the maximum size of the US Army
at 840 men. (Congress subsequently changed its mind about that cap.)

Quote:

I recently fired a Barrett 50 cal and am suitably impressed with its capability for reaching out
and touching something more than a mile away. You keep your spray and pray armaments.
Give me a high muzzle velocity and good optics.

WoW !
How did that feel? I hope your shoulder is intact.
Thay shoud build some shock absorbers into that thing.
I have never fired a .50 caliber rifle nor .50 handgun.
.44 magnum handgun is the most power I 've used.
How good were the optics? What power?

Hit the target?

1 Reply

@spendius,

spendius wrote:

Quote:
I'm afraid Dave that effemm takes every opportunity to parade his machismo whilst remaining a sweety.

He never answers any simple questions such as the one you posed.

Your question about atheists and science is not a simple one.

I thawt it was your question.

Quote:
The answer is in Spengler's The Decline of the West.
I can't be expected to reduce that to a few lines.

Thanx anyway.

Quote:

If our trust in government employees proves misplaced we only have sticks and stones.

Not here, we don 't,
but O bama has all the nukes.

0 Replies

Dont worry about guns, worry about the almighty dollar taking us down.

1 Reply

@sullyfish6,

I think I would worry about the dollar first too. And second.

The government monopoly on firearms can only be effective if enough officers can be found to fire upon their fellow citizens.

Gun talk is essentially penis projection.

1 Reply

@spendius,

Kent State.

1 Reply

@BillRM,

Not from me. My conservative side just does not include the doctrine of universal armament
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:

To me you can not beat a good old BAR as it fired real rifle rounds
not side arms rounds as in the Thompson or the light down size rounds of the M16 assault rifle.

Give me a weapon with range where needed, stopping power where needed and firepower where needed.

The BAR...............A weapon for the ages from your great grandfather in WW1 to the next century.

Yes; stopping power is EVERYTHING.
U have superbly good taste in loving the BAR; its wonderful.

The .223 M16 round was always intended for a shoulder weapon.

0 Replies

@OmSigDAVID,

Quote:

How did that feel? I hope your shoulder is intact.
Thay shoud build some shock absorbers into that thing.

The Barret 107 has a neat muzzle break and a nifty recoil system that is tres cool. It has "day optics" with a nikor 10X 20 and several reticles for distance estimation (quarter and half stadia for checking distance). The muzz velocity is reportedly 1600M/sec(Thats about 4500 ft /sec). I was able to empty a clip into a standard 250 m target in less than a minute (a good sniper could do this in under 10 seconds), and I was mostly in the "eye of the bull" with a nice pattern for a first timer. The gun has a good spring back bipod and is very comfortable firing. Its a bit pricey for the civilian model (what with all the googaws and checkering).

They use this thing in AFghanistan mostly for detonating IED's (thus saving lives in its mission)

You make my point by concentrating on the Federalist papers. Everything subsequent to our constitution and the Federalist Papers has been "Improvised" not of a stricvt constructionist viewpoint. Consequently, an un modified view of the second amendment is really not what we should be embracing.
I like guns and use them as tools for hunting and protection. I DO NOT endorse the universal availability of all kinds of weapons.

Just because other kids were able to not kill themselves while firing a MAC, doesnt , IMO, resolve the issue to openly provide kids with opportunities to fore these things. Ive always looked at auto weapons as a demonstration of lack of abilities in eye-hand coordination.
You only need one well placed bullet at your target, you dont need to engage in wreaking all sorts of collateral damage . In Philly, and BAltimore, they had 5 murders each on one evening last weekend. Most of those hit were kids and civilians (not the cowardly gang members). The shootings in Baltimore were accomplished by auto weapons.

Quote:

Its a choice between fundamentally different cultural mindsets:
one is Individualism, replete with freedom and very stingy
in granting authority to the collective or to its henchman, government.

Once again we part ways in our individual worldviews. You see everyone as basically able to handle weapons, or else you care not because you feel that, if confronted, you can overcome them with your own skill with handguns. I see a need for universal law and order as a compact between us and our governments (state and fed and local)as enforced by their agents.(Right now we have a terrible track record at accomplishing this but I dont see the answer being greater gun availability to everyone)

The four freedoms include a freedom from fear and I dont see a universally armed public guaranteeing that . We start on the slope to chaos with your worldview.

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

Quote:

It was indeed very, very impressive, but I can 't help wondering:
what if thay turned that stuff against us ??
In other words, how do we respond if Obama decides
to declare a moratorium on democracy since the Demos are already in control?
What do we do if he or a subsequent president finds a clever excuse to stop elections??
( I did not say that he is going to do it; I said what if ?)

Let's begin by asking who are "they"?
Who are "us"?
(Sorry, I just can't bring myself to use phonetic spelling.
Consider it a character flaw.)

2 Replies

@George,

Is everyone in the military and police part of "they"?
Are all elected officals part of "they"?
Are all federal, state, and municipal employees part of "they"?

Are all Americans who are not working for the government "us"?

2 Replies

@OmSigDAVID,

OmSigDAVID wrote:

In other words, how do we respond if Obama decides to declare a moratorium on democracy since the Demos are already in control?

Because Democrats hate democracy, natch?

1 Reply

David,

Obama is the Commander in Chief of the US Military.

The US Military has Tanks, State of the art Fighter Aircraft, flame throwers, rockets, artillery, napalm and nuclear weapons. (This is not to mention the mind control ray and the earthquake generators they are not telling us about).

Do you really think that even given the firepower that good folks like you have could stop the US government (given that it came to that)? Do you even have any anti-aircraft capability? The fact is, if our government ever really turns against us... we are pretty much screwed (at least militarily).

My armament of choice is an onion router and strong public key encryption.

1 Reply

@George,

Quote:

Is everyone in the military and police part of "they"?
Are all elected officals part of "they"?
Are all federal, state, and municipal employees part of "they"?

Are all Americans who are not working for the government "us"?

And the "they" have brothers and sisters and fathers and grandfathers and mothers and grandmothers and nephews and nieces and uncles and aunties and Godfathers and Godmothers and friends and neighbours and people who pushed their car in the snow and showed you how an onion router works who make up the "us". (Forget the in-laws and other personal enemies.)

It is the reason why policemen are never posted to the district they grew up in. But that's to stop corruption and stuff. Not to stop revolution.

Most of the "they" against "us" conflicts since the Iron Curtain fell have been characterised by the failure of the "they" to fire upon the "us". Everybody went home when it got cold or they were hungry and the "they" were put in the picture. The "they" are embedded in the "us". Their problem is numbers and mobile phones.

As their numbers increase they have to find themselves more and more jobs, such as fossil hunting, fossil collecting, fossil display, fossil photographic rights, litigation about fossils with special reference to fakery or ownership, speculation about fossils, fossil imitation plastic extrusion plants, ( a "they" in the post-Veblen theory of mine provisionally entitled The Economics of the Leisure Class ), (trickle down Yank style ), fossil touring professors...

That's enough fossils. There's enough fossils out there to bury us all 10ft under if they find them all which they seem intent on doing.

Kent State, tragic though it was, was an incident, but it focussed minds. Would a similar order be given today? Because of Kent--I think, believe even, not. Today they would play Elton John tunes at them very ******* loudly. Same one over and over if that didn't work.

Besides--the "they" would not be certain of winning. Not everywhere. Not even here and we are but a tiny speck on the surface of the earth. And think of the litigation if they lost and we returned to the rule of law. Phew!

You would get a Mao festering in the hills.

I'm an onion router man. We can see them off when the big dicks have been shown what's what and their pea-shooters commandeered. Commisars notwithstanding.

Still--it would make a thrilling holiday read if any budding author is up for such a challenge. Chap I--The Filibuster Set To. Take Chapter I from the record of the least interesting filibuster on record with an explanation. Something in the realistic genre. Something that reflected our competence in doing a quick fix before things get out of hand. I'll get you started--" It was snowing heavily as Congressman Tickletrout carefully mounted the steps for the photo-op with NBC. He was seething with indignation."

Every reader of that will be curious as to the source of his indignation.

1 Reply

@spendius,

Quote:

You would get a Mao festering in the hills.

I haven't a hint of it's meaning,
but I love it.

2 Replies

@George,

Chairman Mao festered a long time in the hills before getting the Long March going. And they were pretty backward at the time.

0 Replies

INTERESTING TV: WHAT IF IT GOES FRANKENSTEIN?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know