Does the Well-Regulated Militia exist as a bulwark against a tyrannical government?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Tin foil hats and fat guys in mismatched bdu's? Must be what I call the "Camo Family". Thats the family I see at every gun show (and monster truck show, and tractor pull) that is wearing camo clothes and white sneakers carrying surplus SKS rifles and buying MRE's by the case.
 
On a side note, it does appear as if some posters are just itching for the day when they can go out in a hail of bullets cut down by tyrannical cops and soldiers coming to take their Mini 14 and throw them in the slam.

And in my opinion, the Government that was overthrown in 1776 was not a Government of the people, it was a Government that was oppressive, not elected by the people and did not represent the people.
 
M-16's are hardly more "dangerous and unusual" than AR-15's. The only "modern development" which prevents them being "the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home" is the 1986 ban. We managed to get by with no ban on new machine guns until that time.

You strike me as a guy of an age to vote and be active back then. Just out of curiousity, did you think it was important in 1985 to pass a permanent ban on new machine guns?
 
TN Gent said:
So are some posters on this thread.

Conn Trooper said:
it does appear as if some posters are just itching for the day when they can go out in a hail of bullets cut down by tyrannical cops and soldiers coming to take their Mini 14 and throw them in the slam.

I must have missed those posts. Please provide screen names and post numbers, both of you.
 
publius42 posted:
M-16's are hardly more "dangerous and unusual" than AR-15's.

Whew boy. Here we go again. I agree with you publius42, but TG battled several other posters and me over this issue for about a week before the thread was locked. TG thinks that M16's are far more dangerous than AR15's. You'll not change his mind. But then again, he hasn't changed anyone's mind about that either, from what I've seen. :D
 
Read posts by Monsterman and Dog Confetti. Plus, other posts throughout this entire board, not just here. Plenty of posters are here for information exchange, exchange of ideas, healthy discussions of guns and gun ownership, etc. Which is why I think most of us joined. However, there is an element that want to be internet commandos, mall ninjas, keyboard kommandos, whatever name you like. There are some members on here that have heard guns go bang in anger (myself included) and still no macho jackass comments. Makes us all look bad and feeds fuel to anti gun people. Remember, this is a public forum, anyone can see whats posted, only have to be a member to post, not read.
 
I must have missed those posts. Please provide screen names and post numbers, both of you.
Oh, can I play? I love this game.

There's this new kid who calls himself "Contingency":
http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=304471

And there's these posts about killing soldiers and police officers from this very thread by the kid who calls himself "Monsterman":
http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2947210&postcount=72
http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2947540&postcount=74
Like he says, he's the reason that this country has a military and police. :rolleyes:
 
You strike me as a guy of an age to vote and be active back then. Just out of curiousity, did you think it was important in 1985 to pass a permanent ban on new machine guns?

I didn't even know it passed. I did have access to machineguns and other weapons back then. I got enough of them though. By the way why do you always just say M-16s when the fact is you think civilians should have access to ALL military weapons. Does it look better when you just say you want the M-16? I would go with that .22 rimfire full auto I saw at Knob Creek.

Whew boy. Here we go again. I agree with you publius42, but TG battled several other posters and me over this issue for about a week before the thread was locked. TG thinks that M16's are far more dangerous than AR15's. You'll not change his mind. But then again, he hasn't changed anyone's mind about that either, from what I've seen.

Whose mind does get changed about this kind of stuff on this board? Not many I think.

TN Gent, should we all agree to never, ever, under any circumstances, carry out another revolution?

Do you now or have you ever owned a tin foil hat? God, that idea is so funny!

As is this:
Must be what I call the "Camo Family". Thats the family I see at every gun show (and monster truck show, and tractor pull) that is wearing camo clothes and white sneakers carrying surplus SKS rifles and buying MRE's by the case.

Who in God Almighty's name would EVER eat those damn things if they didn't have to!? I preferred C rations over that sh*t!

Please provide screen names and post numbers, both of you.

Why? Will they get kicked off the board? Lets see nate45, homefires come to mind.
 
I have to say I much preferred the whole steer we roasted at the end of Scout School in Ft. Hood. Some "Texicans" ( Their own words) roasted an entire cow on Friday. Being from New England I have never seen anything bigger than a pig get roasted whole before.
 
Stagger Lee, you did leave out the detail that Monsterman was talking about killing cops and soldiers in the event a dictatorship arose in the US, and those cops and soldiers were tools of the dictatorship. Check the post to which he was replying:

If the poop really hits the fan, and a man would try to become a dictator in the US, you'd then have members of the military, national guard, reserves, police, sheriffs, and armed citizens rising up to resist. That would be a lot more powerful of a force than some people understand. There's a difference between fighting an army or a force of men in a foreign land where you don't necessarily care what happens to the infrastructure and the people. It's a lot different trying to establish control over a mass of people who don't want you to control them if you can't destroy everything these people rely on for their daily lives. Thus, war planes, war ships, tanks, artillery, etc, may not be applicable to control the population of the US in the long run.

Talking about using such tactics against a dictatorship is a bad thing? OK, I'm a bad guy, because I would fight against a dictatorship in the unlikely event one arose in the US.

TN Gent, I talk about M-16's because more people will agree with me on that point, and because it is the weapon which the 2nd amendment was most obviously meant to protect at this time. If another weapon were in common use, I would reference it.

I've never owned a tinfoil hat. Was that supposed to be an answer? Try again, and limit yourself to a maximum of three letters in your answer.

Why ask you to back up things you say? Just to see if you can or will. Can you or will you answer which posters you think believe that the government is coming to get them? Without an answer, it looks an awful lot like you are trying to smear all of those who disagree with you as anti-government kooks. Instead of smearing all of us, let's talk about the individuals in question, if any.
 
Why ask you to back up things you say? Just to see if you can or will.

I think that's called a dodge. Make the guy you disagree with spend lots of time looking up posts that you have already read and know the context and then just laugh at the effort. Sorry, not biting.

If another weapon were in common use, I would reference it.

The M16 is not now and has never been in common use by civilians pre or post FOPA 1986. But that is off topic. You use the M16 disingeniously I think to make your point seem more reasonable. The fact is you advocate unrestricted civilian access to ALL military weapons but it sounds dumb on its face so you use the M16 since it is at the low end of the scale. Like my teacher in grade school who told me the civil war was fought over "states rights" not slavery.

Was that supposed to be an answer?

I think talking seriously about an armed revolution in the USA today falls in the tin foil hat category.

Instead of smearing all of us, let's talk about the individuals in question, if any.

You've been supplied some of the names. What good does it do to talk about them? They have a right to their opinions kooky or not.
 
I was not asking about an armed revolution today. I was talking about ever. As in, throughout time. For as long as humanity and/or the USA shall endure. Do you think it impossible we could face another revolution?

As for this:

The fact is you advocate unrestricted civilian access to ALL military weapons but it sounds dumb on its face so you use the M16 since it is at the low end of the scale.
That's wrong, and it's another thing that I'll bet you decline to look up the post where I said it, but I'll ask anyway. Couldn't back up the last one, can you back up this one?

The attempted personal smear aside, I don't see why conceding that everyone doesn't hold my point of view and choosing a battle which is more popular (and admitting it) makes me disingenuous, even if I did believe what you say I believe. It just makes me practical and willing to compromise.
 
I am an anti-government kook with an aresenal of modern firepower. In fact, my whole front yard is an "infrared garden", and it's all hooked up to a system of computers with moniter, and regulate a series of 20mm autocannons. I am a loner that lives in the backwoods of Aluhbamee and my favorited book is "The Turner Diaries". "Tin foil" really isn't good enough for me, I'll tell you that much right now! I have an entire WARDROBE full of mylar! Your mind control won't work on me! I even have my own private internet connection, so I can stay connected with the world and see how they are coming to get me!

Now when I'm not alone, I go drinking and playing commando with my morbidly obese buddies. We only have our SKSs and grandpappies' 22s, as well as some "duck hunting" shotguns. We can't even read, and that thar internet thing is the devil.
 
"Monitor"

Sorry. I am illiterate too. I learned how to be that way from Michigan University, where I also learned how to use computers for the automated machine guns.
 
lib2nd.jpg


nor600.jpg
 
OK, in addition to being right (if perceived as enthusiastic) about resisting a dictatorship, Monsterman has a sense of humor. :D
 
That's wrong, and it's another thing that I'll bet you decline to look up the post where I said it, but I'll ask anyway.


Post 29 Heller, 2nd Amendment, Automatic Weapons etc. Thread: I'd say safe storage restrictions for such items would be perfectly reasonable,but yes, I'm saying infantry weapons were the primary intent of the 2A. And that includes the cannons at Lexington and Concord.

(Now, where and when you could actually fire such weapons would be a subject for further regulation, but you only asked about owning them, not using them.)

This one is from post 23 same thread. If you're going to say that these are not militia-appropriate weapons, why did we give heat seeking shoulder fired missiles to the glorious mujahudeen Afghan freedom fighters militia (before they became reviled Taliban terrorists)?

Post 25 Thread 2a Restrictions if any. Why does everyone seem to think the 2A only applies to something you can carry?

and another
Wait a second. How did aircraft get on that list? At the time of this nation's founding, Paul Revere rode a "long range delivery system" of the day: a horse. And there's still the example of the privateer Prince of Neufchatel, another private weapons system designed to project force at a distance.

and lastly:
So shoulder launched anti-tank or anti-aircraft missiles are going to be OK from a political perspective? Cool! When?

BTW just because I like some of your posts I did that but I ain't doing it again! That took too long.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top