Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 May, 2005 11:28 pm
joefromchicago wrote:
Sorry, I may have missed it: has anyone explained why someone would need a .50 caliber rifle?

Sure, to resist and overthrow the government if it becomes a dictatorship.
0 Replies
 
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 May, 2005 11:34 pm
CodeBorg,

an oldie indeed... Interesting, but of course a parallel to the Iraq insurgency issue: foreign troops in your own country.

But, the interesting part in the 2. Amendment and the expressed wish of those adding it to the Constitution was 'the right to own and bear arms' as a safeguard against the own government.

Just imagine a situation like in Chile, when Pinochet took over. Was that what the Founding Fathers might have had in mind? I would say that'd be a good guess.

But of course the situation is a little bit different today than it was in 1791...

Brandon9000 wrote:
Just before the American Revolution, Boston was occupied by British General Thomas Gage's armed troops, but the people harassed them, and harassed them, and burned down the houses of any American who cooperated, and effectively made the troops stationed there completely impotent and ineffective, even according to Gage's letters home.


I doubt it very much that one would see a similar situation today. As I said before, I wouldn't recall any successful 'insurgency' of a people against a dictatorship within the last decades.

Brandon9000 wrote:
Unless the dictatorship is willing to shoot down scores of civilians in the streets on a regular basis, there is a lot that the people can do.


True. But that's the whole point, too. I would imagine what the Founding Fathers had in mind was exactly a dictatorship willing to shoot down scores of civilians. In 1791 it might have been a safeguard against such a situation if everybody owned a gun. The military didn't really have a lot more than guns and cannons.

But if a government today would 'turn evil', it would have control over hundreds of thousands of soldiers, over nuclear missiles, over all kind of tanks, ships, troops, whatsoever... I'm not sure if it would make a difference even if everybody owned a .50 caliber rifle.

Brandon9000 wrote:
Anyway, it's the principle of the thing that counts.


Not sure. Because, where's the point in it?
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 May, 2005 06:22 am
OE writes
Quote:
But if a government today would 'turn evil', it would have control over hundreds of thousands of soldiers, over nuclear missiles, over all kind of tanks, ships, troops, whatsoever... I'm not sure if it would make a difference even if everybody owned a .50 caliber rifle.


The American military is made up of mostly freedom loving, patriotic American citizens. The weakness in your argument, I think, is an assumption that a coup in the White House would automatically extrapolate into control of the military. Our military is sworn to uphold and defend the Constitution that stipulates that their Commander in Chief is the constitutionally elected President of the United States. I can't imagine more than a handful of our military of any rank throwing their support to a dictator. So given the loyalty of the military to the Constiution plus a large number of civilians well armed and ready to defend their country, the USA is a more secure place than it might otherwise be.
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 May, 2005 06:42 am
Foxfyre wrote:
OE writes
Quote:
But if a government today would 'turn evil', it would have control over hundreds of thousands of soldiers, over nuclear missiles, over all kind of tanks, ships, troops, whatsoever... I'm not sure if it would make a difference even if everybody owned a .50 caliber rifle.


The American military is made up of mostly freedom loving, patriotic American citizens. The weakness in your argument, I think, is an assumption that a coup in the White House would automatically extrapolate into control of the military. Our military is sworn to uphold and defend the Constitution that stipulates that their Commander in Chief is the constitutionally elected President of the United States. I can't imagine more than a handful of our military of any rank throwing their support to a dictator. So given the loyalty of the military to the Constiution plus a large number of civilians well armed and ready to defend their country, the USA is a more secure place than it might otherwise be.

Foxy, would the result still be the same if the change came slowly, and insidiously, rather than in some flashy coup - if the dictators presented themselves as saving the country from some threat?
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 May, 2005 06:50 am
Brandon writes
Quote:
Foxy, would the result still be the same if the change came slowly, and insidiously, rather than in some flashy coup - if the dictators presented themselves as saving the country from some threat?


An excellent question. We have seen our freedoms eroded, bit by bit, over the last several decades, and as we are mostly peace loving people, we just grumble and accept those as inevitable. So perhaps out of pure apathy, it is possible we could lose it all.

I believe there is a limit, however. And if a slow, bloodless coup was being accomplished in Washington, somebody with a voice would be smart enough to realize it and get the word out. I think Americans can be pushed just so far and only so far. The dicator would have to methodically confiscate all the guns and all the computers and seize control of the media before anybody caught on. I just don't think that is going to happen.
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 May, 2005 07:17 am
old europe wrote:
CodeBorg,

an oldie indeed... Interesting, but of course a parallel to the Iraq insurgency issue: foreign troops in your own country.

But, the interesting part in the 2. Amendment and the expressed wish of those adding it to the Constitution was 'the right to own and bear arms' as a safeguard against the own government.

Just imagine a situation like in Chile, when Pinochet took over. Was that what the Founding Fathers might have had in mind? I would say that'd be a good guess.

But of course the situation is a little bit different today than it was in 1791...

Brandon9000 wrote:
Just before the American Revolution, Boston was occupied by British General Thomas Gage's armed troops, but the people harassed them, and harassed them, and burned down the houses of any American who cooperated, and effectively made the troops stationed there completely impotent and ineffective, even according to Gage's letters home.


I doubt it very much that one would see a similar situation today. As I said before, I wouldn't recall any successful 'insurgency' of a people against a dictatorship within the last decades.

Brandon9000 wrote:
Unless the dictatorship is willing to shoot down scores of civilians in the streets on a regular basis, there is a lot that the people can do.


True. But that's the whole point, too. I would imagine what the Founding Fathers had in mind was exactly a dictatorship willing to shoot down scores of civilians. In 1791 it might have been a safeguard against such a situation if everybody owned a gun. The military didn't really have a lot more than guns and cannons.

But if a government today would 'turn evil', it would have control over hundreds of thousands of soldiers, over nuclear missiles, over all kind of tanks, ships, troops, whatsoever... I'm not sure if it would make a difference even if everybody owned a .50 caliber rifle.

Brandon9000 wrote:
Anyway, it's the principle of the thing that counts.


Not sure. Because, where's the point in it?

You have hardly presented a reason to give the people even less means to defend themselves. The intent of the Founding Fathers to allow gun use is clear.
0 Replies
 
roger
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 May, 2005 07:54 am
Foxfyre wrote:
Brandon writes
Quote:
Foxy, would the result still be the same if the change came slowly, and insidiously, rather than in some flashy coup - if the dictators presented themselves as saving the country from some threat?


An excellent question.


Excellent question, indeed, and maybe the only important question. I have never visualized tanks and armored personnel carriers blasting away (Waco was an abberation) at someone's front. It's the little guy with a handful of papers telling you when and where to appear to answer 'a few questions.'
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 May, 2005 08:00 am
Brandon9000 wrote:
joefromchicago wrote:
Sorry, I may have missed it: has anyone explained why someone would need a .50 caliber rifle?

Sure, to resist and overthrow the government if it becomes a dictatorship.

So then you admit that the only use for a .50 caliber rifle is to kill humans, right?
0 Replies
 
cjhsa
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 May, 2005 10:24 am
These are all .50 caliber.

http://www.eabco.com/images/TComega01.jpg

I doubt many of you arguing against me have a clue what these are.
0 Replies
 
ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 May, 2005 10:31 am
Let me take a guess. They are guns, aren't they?
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 May, 2005 10:32 am
What manly, powerful weapons, cjhsa. Can't you feel your penis increasing in size just at the thought of possessing one of those beauties?
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 May, 2005 10:34 am
Brandon9000 wrote:
joefromchicago wrote:
Sorry, I may have missed it: has anyone explained why someone would need a .50 caliber rifle?

Sure, to resist and overthrow the government if it becomes a dictatorship.


There you go again, Brandon . . . living in a dream world. If the government ever actually were become a dictatorship, you thesis would be laughably hilarious, were it not for the specter of you splattered all over the driveway while your family looks on in horror.

If the government ever come for you, they'll have lots of personnel, in kevlar vests and helmets, with machine pistols, tear-gas grenade lauchers, armored personnel carriers, helicopters . . .

So you're gonna stop 'em with your .50 cal rifle, right? Pathetic . . .
0 Replies
 
cjhsa
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 May, 2005 10:48 am
So, you don't know what they are, do you, other than just "guns"?

Why bother to argue about something you know nothing about?
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 May, 2005 10:54 am
If you're addressing me, Bubba, i'd warrant that i had been trained how properly to handle a firearm before you were born.

If you were addressing someone else, than carry on . . . and i have no doubt that you will carry on . . . and on, and on, and on . . .
0 Replies
 
cjhsa
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 May, 2005 11:01 am
I was addressing those two gun-savvy posters who came before you.

Feel free, however, to post a response to my original question.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 May, 2005 11:34 am
If you refer to your first post in this thread, there was no question. If you refer to the contribution upon which i have already commented, yes, i do know something about "guns," and pistols, and revolvers, and rifles, and semi-automatic assault rifles. I was taught firearms safety in the mid-1950s by my grandfather, who wanted me to be safe. While in the Army, in training, i took light infantry weapons as a means of avoiding KP. With the M14, i qualified as expert, hitting 84 of 86 targets in a range from 100 to 350 meters, using exactly 86 rounds of the 94 i was given (when i missed a target, i didn't waste ammo, i just moved on to the next one). I used the remaining eight rounds to take out the 300 and 350 meter targets in the lane next to mine, 'cause that poor bastard would never have qualified otherwise--he was a PhD candidate in chemistry, with very poor eyesight, but by 1970, the Army were pretty much taking any warm body they could get. I was feeling cocky, anyway--in an adjacent lane, the 350 meter target was nearly 400 meteres away from my foxhole. I only barely qualified with the M16--32 out of 86 targets--that weapon sucks, or at least the 1970 version did. I qualified expert with the M1911A1A semi-automatic pistol, the .38 revolver, the M60 light machine gun and the M79 grenade launcher.

Do i qualify to possess an opinion on the subject, as far as you're concerned? Or do i need to head back to the rifle range?
0 Replies
 
cjhsa
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 May, 2005 11:49 am
I never questioned you Set. The question I'm referring to is what is that a picture of on the bottom of the previous page?
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 May, 2005 12:02 pm
Looks like hunting rifles to me. I could be wrong, i've not handled a fire arm in more than twenty years.
0 Replies
 
cjhsa
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 May, 2005 12:03 pm
Yes but what kind? What is unique about them?
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 May, 2005 12:07 pm
I see what you're getting at now, the calibre . . . however, i suggest to you that the .50 and .45 ammo used in them is considerably different than the weapon in your first post.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

T'Pring is Dead - Discussion by Brandon9000
Another Calif. shooting spree: 4 dead - Discussion by Lustig Andrei
Before you criticize the media - Discussion by Robert Gentel
Fatal Baloon Accident - Discussion by 33export
The Day Ferguson Cops Were Caught in a Bloody Lie - Discussion by bobsal u1553115
Robin Williams is dead - Discussion by Butrflynet
Amanda Knox - Discussion by JTT
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 07/12/2024 at 10:53:17