The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > General Discussion Forum

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old January 9, 2013, 05:06 PM   #251
mayosligo
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 16, 2006
Location: Baton Rouge, LA
Posts: 301
They knew what governments could do. They also knew what a king could do. Also, historically, Oliver Cromwell was relatively fresh in their minds - remove the king and become the king. The idea was to give the new country a chance by protecting specific rights that historically did not exist in other countries ruled by kings and queens - to put the power in the people's hands. Blue Train - in essence they were giving up control - a truly new way of thinking for a group of victors.
mayosligo is offline  
Old January 9, 2013, 08:14 PM   #252
PH/CIB
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 2, 2007
Location: Iowa
Posts: 281
"Congressmen are apparently expected to toe the (party) line when it comes to important issues and woe to him who doesn't. There's also the issue of influence from big money donors, which is corruption in a very basic form. The end result is that citizens, even the voters, become irrelevant."
Quote from BlueTrain

I really think you answered your own question, BlueTrain! "Taxation without Representation" Big money controlling government, we the people never had or have a Democracy or a Tyranny of the Majority which I would prefer, but a Democratic Republic with elected Representatives who do not represent us so much as the rich elite, an Oligarchy or Plutocracy. Government has done and will do incredibly good things, but the pendulum has shifted away from the common good to elite evil.
__________________
Life Member,,,Military Order of the Purple Heart, Veterans of Foreign Wars, American Legion, Amvets, Disabled American Veterans, 173rd Airborne Skysoldier Association, National Rifle Association, Member,,,IDPA, USPSA, Iowa Sheriffs and Deputies Association,,Website http://www.handgunholsters.net
PH/CIB is offline  
Old January 9, 2013, 08:32 PM   #253
johnwilliamson062
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 16, 2008
Posts: 6,632
People who constantly rag on POTUS forget congress lets him run free. Both parties have had chances to reign in EOs, but in the end neither wants to. The idea that you can win the next election than do whatever you want is too sweet for either party to turn away from.
__________________
$0 of an NRA membership goes to legislative action or court battles. Not a dime. Only money contributed to the NRA-ILA or NRA-PVF. You could just donate to the Second Amendment Foundation
First Shotgun Thread First Rifle Thread First Pistol Thread
johnwilliamson062 is offline  
Old January 9, 2013, 08:41 PM   #254
johnwilliamson062
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 16, 2008
Posts: 6,632
People who constantly rag on POTUS forget congress lets him run free. Both parties have had chances to reign in EOs, but in the end neither wants to. The idea that you can win the next election than do whatever you want is too sweet for either party to turn away from.

https://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&tab=wl
That is the Voinovich building at the Greene Center of Clark State. Turn 180 degrees and another state school, Wright State, is visible. Why did they build this one building "full service" campus that wasn't cheap and has lots of support staff in order to be full service(guidance, placement exams, registration, etc)? They needed Voinovich's vote on something. That simple. They plopped down this waste of money inorder to get a vote. Google Voinovich building and you will see there is a very nice one on many of Ohio's University campuses. All of them can be tallied up to bought votes.
__________________
$0 of an NRA membership goes to legislative action or court battles. Not a dime. Only money contributed to the NRA-ILA or NRA-PVF. You could just donate to the Second Amendment Foundation
First Shotgun Thread First Rifle Thread First Pistol Thread
johnwilliamson062 is offline  
Old January 9, 2013, 08:44 PM   #255
WildmanWilson
Member
 
Join Date: January 17, 2012
Posts: 18
It has little to do with the type of gun but instead...why we may need them. The more they limit you the more of an upper hand they lhave.
WildmanWilson is offline  
Old January 9, 2013, 09:00 PM   #256
amprecon
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 5, 1999
Location: Marysville, WA
Posts: 656
I don't imagine they foresaw a standing army propped up by a military industrial complex either. As has been stated, every able bodied MAN between the ages of 17 and 45 is part of the militia. They were to be adequately trained to secure their communities. I am positive we would maintain weapons equal to or surpassing in quality and in effectiveness to our enemies' weapons, WHATEVER they are.
However, as we are not to be trusted by those that work for us, what we have now is an abberation of what our founders intended.
__________________
"You can't get 'em all Josey."
"That's a fact".
"Well how come you doin' this then?"
"Cause I got nothin' better to do."
amprecon is offline  
Old January 13, 2013, 01:52 AM   #257
17ghk
Member
 
Join Date: December 16, 2007
Location: austintown, ohio
Posts: 45
As far as I am concerned this argument is poo poo. back then we were armed equally with the military if you think about it. we could have given them way more of a fight then now. both sides had muskets and knives. Maybe the only advantage would have been cannon but those could have been captured. Today the military is better trained and armed with planes tanks and helicopters that you wont stop with a ar or ak.
__________________
HOCKEY ABOVE ALL
17ghk is offline  
Old January 13, 2013, 06:47 PM   #258
alan
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 7, 1999
Posts: 3,721
In the days of The Founding Fathers, the "service" arm of the day, the one carried by the "common soldier was the flintlock musket.

The arm carried by the "common soldier" today is a light weight, selective fire, magazine fed arm. The AR-15, being semi-automatic in operation, is the civilian version of the M-16 the U.S.'s among others, service arm, and as such is EXACTLY what the Founding Fathers would have envisioned.

I doubt that the average anti-gun type would understand the foregoing, though some might.












t.
alan is offline  
Old January 13, 2013, 07:12 PM   #259
PT-92
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 20, 2007
Location: "Undisclosed Bunker"
Posts: 1,382
Quote:
alan

In the days of The Founding Fathers, the "service" arm of the day, the one carried by the "common soldier was the flintlock musket.

The arm carried by the "common soldier" today is a light weight, selective fire, magazine fed arm. The AR-15, being semi-automatic in operation, is the civilian version of the M-16 the U.S.'s among others, service arm, and as such is EXACTLY what the Founding Fathers would have envisioned.

I doubt that the average anti-gun type would understand the foregoing, though some might.
I have noticed that more and more of the Anti-2A (I refuse to refer to them as Pro-Gun Control as IMO they're Anti-Second Amendment) people have begun to "reluctantly" concede this point but then invariably qualify it by sarcastically stating 'what about drones, tactical nukes' etc.
__________________
NRA Life Member
“A free people ought...to be armed..."
George Washington
PT-92 is offline  
Old January 13, 2013, 09:29 PM   #260
Aguila Blanca
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 5,951
Quote:
Originally Posted by amprecon
I don't imagine they foresaw a standing army propped up by a military industrial complex either. As has been stated, every able bodied MAN between the ages of 17 and 45 is part of the militia. They were to be adequately trained to secure their communities. I am positive we would maintain weapons equal to or surpassing in quality and in effectiveness to our enemies' weapons, WHATEVER they are.
They foresaw it, and it was their plan that there would not BE a standing army. The Founders had a deep and abiding mistrust of standing armies. If you read some of the quotations of the Founders regarding the 2nd Amendment, it is clear that their intent was that the citizen militia be armed sufficiently to offer a force stronger than any standing army the government could muster against its citizens.
Aguila Blanca is offline  
Old January 13, 2013, 10:29 PM   #261
alan
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 7, 1999
Posts: 3,721
PT-92:

Have you noticed that these anti gun/anti gun rights/anti second amendment mobs have suddenly, oh so conveniently become "Gun Safety Organizations"?
alan is offline  
Old January 13, 2013, 10:41 PM   #262
PT-92
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 20, 2007
Location: "Undisclosed Bunker"
Posts: 1,382
Quote:
alan

PT-92:

Have you noticed that these anti gun/anti gun rights/anti second amendment mobs have suddenly, oh so conveniently become "Gun Safety Organizations"
Indeed I have alan...Oh 'how convenient '...The transparency, however, is obvious to all.
__________________
NRA Life Member
“A free people ought...to be armed..."
George Washington
PT-92 is offline  
Old January 14, 2013, 10:12 AM   #263
johnwilliamson062
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 16, 2008
Posts: 6,632
Quote:
Maybe the only advantage would have been cannon but those could have been captured.
Until at least the war of 1812 more artillery pieces were in private hands than in the hands of the government. I believe that information came from "The Founders Second Amendment" where it is detailed.

Quote:
Today the military is better trained and armed with planes tanks and helicopters that you wont stop with a ar or ak.
It blows my mind that anyone could say this now as the US government is re-instating the Taliban in Afghanistan b/c the Taliban, with almost no training, funding, less arms than US civilians, more aof an electronics disadvantage, no manufacturing, etc, etc, were able to out last all the gunships, cruise missiles, tanks, and mountains of electronics. For the SECOND TIME.

You can't win without heavy cavalry
You can't win without a navy
You can't win without gunships

When you lean on technology balance is fragile.
__________________
$0 of an NRA membership goes to legislative action or court battles. Not a dime. Only money contributed to the NRA-ILA or NRA-PVF. You could just donate to the Second Amendment Foundation
First Shotgun Thread First Rifle Thread First Pistol Thread
johnwilliamson062 is offline  
Old January 14, 2013, 10:30 AM   #264
BlueTrain
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 26, 2005
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 5,809
I have trouble believing there were more cannon in private hands before the war of 1812 than in army hands. I also have trouble believing the Taliban has no funding and fewer weapons than civilians. But how the Taliban, just like the VC, can win is simple: they don't have to go anywhere. All they have to do is wait out the enemy, which currently is us.

I still think whatever kinds of weapons the original writers of the constituion had in mind is irrelevant. However, one think I doubt they thought about was someone shooting up a schoolhouse, not that there were many schools at the time.
__________________
Shoot low, sheriff. They're riding Shetlands!
Underneath the starry flag, civilize 'em with a Krag,
and return us to our own beloved homes!
Buy War Bonds.
BlueTrain is offline  
Old January 14, 2013, 10:31 AM   #265
j3ffr0
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 21, 2012
Location: VA
Posts: 153
No Sir. I don't believe the founding fathers wanted the common man to have nuclear weapons, F22s, 1000 pound bombs, or anything of the kind.
j3ffr0 is offline  
Old January 14, 2013, 10:57 AM   #266
Aberration
Member
 
Join Date: July 14, 2012
Posts: 35
I believe they intended ANY arm that would be needed by a militia.
Aberration is offline  
Old January 14, 2013, 01:11 PM   #267
MLeake
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 15, 2007
Location: Outside KC, MO
Posts: 10,128
BlueTrain, please bear in mind that up through the War of 1812, Congress could barely agree to maintain a Navy of six frigates, and most of the time two or three of those were in mothballs.

Merchant ships carried cannon.

Most naval actions were fought for us by privateers, who also carried cannon.

You really are not much into military history, are you?
MLeake is offline  
Old January 14, 2013, 01:24 PM   #268
TDodge7
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 6, 2008
Posts: 111
I never see anyone mention this...

The Girandoni air rifle was created in 1779 and was used in service with the Austrian army from 1780 to around 1815, it had a 22 round "high capacity" magazine and fired a .46 caliber ball at near 45acp speeds . The Lewis and Clark Expedition used the rifle in the demonstrations that they performed for nearly every Native American tribe they encountered on their expedition. Seeing as how the Bill of rights was ratified in 1791, 11-12 years AFTER the Girandoni rifle was invented, I would say the founding fathers had a strong grasp on where firearm technology was, and where it was going.



There is one on display at the NRA museum in Fairfax,VA for those interested.

Last edited by TDodge7; January 14, 2013 at 01:29 PM.
TDodge7 is offline  
Old January 14, 2013, 01:33 PM   #269
Aberration
Member
 
Join Date: July 14, 2012
Posts: 35
Well done!
Aberration is offline  
Old January 14, 2013, 03:17 PM   #270
Strafer Gott
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 12, 2011
Location: New Mexico
Posts: 1,089
In colonial times the main difference in arms was what we now know as a cosmetic feature, the bayonet. After two or three rounds were fired, everything closed to bayonet range. At this point the difference of a Brown Bess to a long rifle became shockingly obvious, leaving the Colonials not much choice but to show their heels. The Hessians in their mirth totally mis-read the outcome.
The need for equivalent arms is no joke, and neither is the 2nd Amendment.
Strafer Gott is offline  
Old January 14, 2013, 07:50 PM   #271
Colduglandon
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 5, 1999
Location: Mass
Posts: 480
They had power hungry politicians in mind and that has not changed since the beginning of time. The Second Amendment is as relevant today as it was back then.
__________________
From the People's Republic of Massachusetts
Colduglandon is offline  
Old January 15, 2013, 01:33 AM   #272
johnwilliamson062
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 16, 2008
Posts: 6,632
Quote:
I have trouble believing there were more cannon in private hands before the war of 1812 than in army hands.
A noted above, the US government had no standing army to speak of and the navy was basically privatized. The field artillery was almost all captured British. When captured in the Revolution it more or less became the property of the unit commander. After the war, like most US wars until Vietnam, soldiers just walked away with pretty much all the equipment they could carry. It is said that on the fourth of July you could hear cannons being shot anywhere in the entire country for decades after the revolution b/c all of the private cannons being fired in celebration.

Post war of 1812 is where you start to see a standing army in the US. My guess is artillery was predominantly in private hands long after the war of 1812. An old Napoleonic cannon is much more devastating than a semi-automatic rifle, especially in a "mass shooting." My guess is that around 1840 the field artillery in private hands is starting to become obsolete and the US gov't invests in some newer pieces. I am sure by the Civil War the shift had occurred. If state and local militias are put in the "private" column, maybe not though. It isn't like they were registered or needed an NICS check

Quote:
I also have trouble believing the Taliban has no funding and fewer weapons than civilians.
I meant US civilians. Maybe you did not understand that. If you did and you don't agree, well, we do. We have a lot more guns also. We have a lot more everything.

Drones and guided missiles are great, when you aren't attacking targets mixed with your tax base who speak the same language and look just or may even be related to your soldiers. There are so many advantages US civilians have over the other insurgencies the US military has lost.

Quote:
But how the Taliban, just like the VC, can win is simple: they don't have to go anywhere.
Where would US civilians need to go? Nowhere. They don't need to occupy or control anything either. Just exist.

Quote:
All they have to do is wait out the enemy, which currently is us.
Would the US gov't be able to borrow ANY money with a revolution taking place? How long do you think it would take them to miss payroll? The only advantage they really have over US civilians is how much softer US civilians are than Taliban fighter or VC. "I ordered a Venti with soy, not skim."

Is this going to happen? I think not. Obama is going to try to pass some wimpy EOs that it appears may be tamed by threats of retaliation on other issues. Maybe the EOs will finally be reigned in which would be very good for 'Merica. If it does happen I am volunteering to be the diplomat to Switzerland for whichever side I am standing next to when it starts. I tried to calculate inches of concrete wall between myself and a cyclic M2 firing in my direction and extrapolate how safe I was once, all while the hospital behind me got pounded, and that was enough.

Quote:
However, one think I doubt they thought about was someone shooting up a schoolhouse, not that there were many schools at the time.
Maybe not, but launching a 6 pounder into a Tavern or shelling a city had to enter their mind. You know, because they witnessed it.
__________________
$0 of an NRA membership goes to legislative action or court battles. Not a dime. Only money contributed to the NRA-ILA or NRA-PVF. You could just donate to the Second Amendment Foundation
First Shotgun Thread First Rifle Thread First Pistol Thread

Last edited by johnwilliamson062; January 15, 2013 at 01:57 AM.
johnwilliamson062 is offline  
Old January 15, 2013, 01:57 AM   #273
jimbob86
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 4, 2007
Location: All the way to NEBRASKA
Posts: 6,452
Quote:
Where exactly do you think we would need to go?
To the grocery store...... as would the vast majority of the rest of the population.

Quote:
Would the US gov't be able to borrow ANY money with a revolution taking place? How long do you think it would take them to miss payroll?
They could not, in good faith, borrow money now..... it is just that nobody can afford to let the system collapse, for uncle sam owes them too much.

The government can not afford to continue paying 30+% of the population to do nothing, and it can not afford to stop paying those same 30+% to do nothing. Catch-22, is it not?

The thing I fear the most is the dependant dumb masses crying out for a dictator, if he will only continue to feed them.

The reckoning is comming ..... the only question is how abrupt the changes will be......

Hell or High Water, I will be armed. I'll not go out like the Armenians, the Jews of Europe, the disidents of Soviet Russia, the intelligensia of Cambodia, .........
__________________
TheGolden Rule of Tool Use: "If you don't know what you are doing, DON'T."

http://nefirearm.com/

Last edited by jimbob86; January 15, 2013 at 02:09 AM.
jimbob86 is offline  
Old January 15, 2013, 05:28 AM   #274
rickyrick
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 15, 2010
Location: Mesquite Jungle Desert, West Texas, USA
Posts: 2,450
I was wondering for a bit if there was going to be some pushback from states with Rkba in their state constitutions. At least one Texas state representative is. I hear something similar is going on in Wyoming.


http://www.house.state.tx.us/news/me...bill_code=2825
Quote:


STATE REPRESENTATIVE STEVE TOTH TO FILE 'FIREARM PROTECTION ACT'
by:Toth, Steve
01/14/2013
Austin, TX – State Representative Steve Toth (The Woodlands) has begun the process to file legislation assisting the protection of the Second Amendment of the United State Constitution. The “Firearms Protection Act” bill would make any federal law banning semi-automatic firearms or limiting the size of gun magazines unenforceable within the state’s boundaries. Anyone trying to enforce a federal gun ban could face felony charges under the proposal.

"We can no longer depend on the Federal Government and this Administration to uphold a Constitution that they no longer believe in. The liberties of the People of Texas and the sovereignty of our State are too important to just let the Federal Government take them away. The overreach of the federal administrations executive orders that are do not align with the Constitution, are not very popular here in Texas," said Representative Toth.
__________________
Navin R. Johnson: "He hates these cans!!!! Stay away from the cans!!!!"
rickyrick is offline  
Old January 15, 2013, 09:00 AM   #275
StukaJU87
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 22, 2011
Posts: 198
At the risk of sounding stupid or reposting someone else's thoughts, I was always taught that the gist of the 2nd Amendment was "to protect the right of the people to keep and bear arms, in order to protect themselves from threats from foreign enemies and more importantly, against a tyrannical government."
I was never taught to view arms as only "guns" but as "anything" that one could use to defend themselves with.
Meaning, the people should have equal access to "whatever" the military has so that we are able to posses the ability to keep the government in check and prevent it from abusing its power.

Since "arms" can mean anything, this means its not just limited to guns, but can mean access to the same level of training, right to own the same type of vehicles, etc.

So, if the military is armed with the best butter knives ever designed, we the people, should have equal access to said butter knives.

Now, with that being said, I wonder how the evolution of weapons would have differed if everyone had access to the same weapons instead of a select few deciding who has what and how many. Just a thought.
StukaJU87 is offline  
Closed Thread

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:11 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2013 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.15352 seconds with 7 queries