Laci, you need to do better proofreading the things you find. its a 300 lilometer range, not 300 miles. I've also notices that you seem to gravitate towards the larger weapons. Yet you seem to accuse us of compensating? Though I think your personal fetishes might run more to the control thing. As for the concept of going toe to toe against the all powerful might of a modern military, lets see how well that has worked so far in Afghanistan. It only took about nine years for the Russians to decide going there was a bad idea. The US has been there longer, and I suspect that once we are gone it will likely closely mimic what has been happening in Iraq. And we can see how well the tactic of putting a missile through someone's front door has worked for us in Pakistan. And you think that doing the same thing to our own people will work out well? You could even resurrect an old quote from history afterwards,
'It became necessary to destroy the town to save it', a United States major said today. He was talking about the decision by allied commanders to bomb and shell the town regardless of civilian casualties, to rout the Vietcong."
I read a thing recently which said at the time of the founders, the government's maximum weapon was a musket and the individual citizen's maximum weapon was a musket. A 2A written during times like that could hardly have the same meaning today, at least as far as the fighting-tyranny justification goes.
Isn't that the same point Laci is making with this post?
"I read a thing recently which said at the time of the founders, the government's maximum weapon was a musket and the individual citizen's maximum weapon was a musket."
So Laci is saying that in the founders' time, the citizens' personal weapons were of similar capabilities as a soldier's. In modern times, in the US, you could make the argument that they are no longer comparable because possession of selective fire weapons are strictly regulated, and therefor fairly rare. Keep in mind that we aren't talking about crew served weapons such as those that seem to turn Laci on so. I personally don't think that automatic fire capability is necessarily an advantage since it tends to make a person less accurate.
It's not just "crew-served weapons" that are denied civilians. Grenade and rocket launchers are too, as well other small items classified as ordnance. But even so, what the government has on hand makes the "protect against tyranny" justification pretty silly, right?
Nope. They can't use that shit here. If they did, they'd quickly find that their soldiers were so disgusted they'd be deserting, not from cowardice, but from conviction that led them to join the fight on the other side--just like my Great great great (however many greats) grandpappy who left the British army and joined the NY militia during the unpleasantness of the 1770's.
As far as I can tell, we have some 500 of these. Sarge can provide more information, possibly. But if that number is correct, it leaves a lot of territory to cover, especially since those rockets would have to be transported to the launchers. That's not taking into account the large numbers of U.S. service personnel who would make the honorable choice of refusing an order to fire on our own country.
I dropped into this discussion to try to educate the ineducable Laci about how poorly fighting a counterinsurgency campaign by indiscriminately slaughtering anyone in the same square kilometer as the insurgents, but I see you folks have it well in hand.
Meet Laci the gun grabber. This dumbass thinks U.S. military personnel are stupid enough to send a GPS guided (500 lb.) High-Explosive warhead through a citizen's door in a suburban neighborhood.
Laci you really are a piece of work. If our military personnel are willing to drop 500 pound high-explosive warheads on homes with no regard for due process much less the lives of innocent family members and neighbors, we desperately need everything we can get our hands on, including rifles.
For reference if the unorganized militia needed to stop a criminal military force, the unorganized militia is wise enough to engage on terms that are favorable to the unorganized militia. And standing up against a tank with a rifle is not a favorable situation for the guy with the rifle. There are much more effective ways to stop a military force when the military force lives and works amongst us. Firearms are just one element (albeit an important element) in the entire bag of tricks available to the unorganized militia.
Laci, you need to do better proofreading the things you find. its a 300 lilometer range, not 300 miles. I've also notices that you seem to gravitate towards the larger weapons. Yet you seem to accuse us of compensating? Though I think your personal fetishes might run more to the control thing.
ReplyDeleteAs for the concept of going toe to toe against the all powerful might of a modern military, lets see how well that has worked so far in Afghanistan. It only took about nine years for the Russians to decide going there was a bad idea.
The US has been there longer, and I suspect that once we are gone it will likely closely mimic what has been happening in Iraq. And we can see how well the tactic of putting a missile through someone's front door has worked for us in Pakistan. And you think that doing the same thing to our own people will work out well?
You could even resurrect an old quote from history afterwards,
'It became necessary to destroy the town to save it', a United States major said today. He was talking about the decision by allied commanders to bomb and shell the town regardless of civilian casualties, to rout the Vietcong."
I read a thing recently which said at the time of the founders, the government's maximum weapon was a musket and the individual citizen's maximum weapon was a musket. A 2A written during times like that could hardly have the same meaning today, at least as far as the fighting-tyranny justification goes.
DeleteIsn't that the same point Laci is making with this post?
No, government and citizens both had cannons.
Delete"I read a thing recently which said at the time of the founders, the government's maximum weapon was a musket and the individual citizen's maximum weapon was a musket."
DeleteSo Laci is saying that in the founders' time, the citizens' personal weapons were of similar capabilities as a soldier's. In modern times, in the US, you could make the argument that they are no longer comparable because possession of selective fire weapons are strictly regulated, and therefor fairly rare. Keep in mind that we aren't talking about crew served weapons such as those that seem to turn Laci on so.
I personally don't think that automatic fire capability is necessarily an advantage since it tends to make a person less accurate.
It's not just "crew-served weapons" that are denied civilians. Grenade and rocket launchers are too, as well other small items classified as ordnance. But even so, what the government has on hand makes the "protect against tyranny" justification pretty silly, right?
DeleteBut even so, what the government has on hand makes the "protect against tyranny" justification pretty silly, right?
DeleteNope.
Nope. They can't use that shit here. If they did, they'd quickly find that their soldiers were so disgusted they'd be deserting, not from cowardice, but from conviction that led them to join the fight on the other side--just like my Great great great (however many greats) grandpappy who left the British army and joined the NY militia during the unpleasantness of the 1770's.
DeleteAs far as I can tell, we have some 500 of these. Sarge can provide more information, possibly. But if that number is correct, it leaves a lot of territory to cover, especially since those rockets would have to be transported to the launchers. That's not taking into account the large numbers of U.S. service personnel who would make the honorable choice of refusing an order to fire on our own country.
ReplyDeleteC'mon, Sylvester Stallone could handle them all by himself - Arnold too.
DeleteAt least you're consistent. Gun control is cartoonish as well.
DeleteNice one, Greg.
DeleteI dropped into this discussion to try to educate the ineducable Laci about how poorly fighting a counterinsurgency campaign by indiscriminately slaughtering anyone in the same square kilometer as the insurgents, but I see you folks have it well in hand.
Carry on, and excellent work.
Yup--Laci's favorite fantasy is about how our government will carpet bomb the population someday.
DeleteMeet Laci the gun grabber. This dumbass thinks U.S. military personnel are stupid enough to send a GPS guided (500 lb.) High-Explosive warhead through a citizen's door in a suburban neighborhood.
ReplyDeleteLaci you really are a piece of work. If our military personnel are willing to drop 500 pound high-explosive warheads on homes with no regard for due process much less the lives of innocent family members and neighbors, we desperately need everything we can get our hands on, including rifles.
For reference if the unorganized militia needed to stop a criminal military force, the unorganized militia is wise enough to engage on terms that are favorable to the unorganized militia. And standing up against a tank with a rifle is not a favorable situation for the guy with the rifle. There are much more effective ways to stop a military force when the military force lives and works amongst us. Firearms are just one element (albeit an important element) in the entire bag of tricks available to the unorganized militia.
-- TruthBeTold
Ah the old, "these are weapons of war, so we need to ban them, but they're useless for actual war" argument.
ReplyDelete