The Firing Line Forums

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

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old January 13, 2013, 01:25 PM   #26
Jo6pak
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 5, 2010
Location: West Coast...of WI
Posts: 1,472
.
December 29, 2012 marked the 122nd Anniversary of the murder of 297 Sioux Indians at Wounded Knee Creek on the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation in South Dakota. These 297 people, in their winter camp, were murdered by federal agents and members of the 7th Cavalry who had come to confiscate their firearms "for their own safety and protection". The slaughter began AFTER the majority of the Sioux had peacefully turned in their firearms. When the final round had flown, of the 297 dead or dying, two thirds (200) were women and children.

Around 40 members of the 7th Cavalry were killed, over half cut down by friendly fire from the Hotchkiss guns of their overzealous comrades-in-arms. Twenty members of the 7th Cavalry were deemed "National Heros" and awarded the Medal of Honor for their acts of cowardice.

We do not hear of Wounded Knee today. It is not mentioned in our history classes or books. What little does exist about Wounded Knee is normally the sanitized "Official Government Explanation" or the historically and factually inaccurate depictions of the events leading up to the massacre on the movie screen.

Wounded Knee was among the first federally backed gun confiscation attempts in United States history. It ended in the senseless murder of 297 people.

Before you jump on the emotionally charged bandwagon for gun-control, take a moment to reflect on the real purpose of the Second Amendment- The right of the people to take up arms in defense of themselves, their families, and property in the face of invading armies or an oppressive government. The argument that the Second Amendment only applies to hunting and target shooting is asinine. When the United States Constitution was drafted "hunting" was an everyday chore carried out by men and women to put meat on the table each night, and "target shooting" was an unheard of concept, musket balls were a precious commodity in the wilds of early America, and were certainly not wasted "target shooting". The Second Amendment was written by people who fled oppressive and tyrannical regimes in Europe, and refers to the right of American citizens to be armed for defense purposes should such tyranny rise in the United States.

As time goes on the average citizen in the United States continues to lose personal freedom or "liberty". Far too many times unjust bills are passed and signed into law under the guise of "for your safety" or "for protection" . The Patriot Act signed into law by G.W. Bush, then expanded and continued by Barack Obama is just one of many examples of American citizens being stripped of their rights and privacy for "safety". Now, the Right to Keep and Bear Arms is on the table, and will, most likely be taken away for "our safety".

Before any American citizen blindly accepts whatever new firearms legislation that is about to be doled out, they should stop and think about something for just one minute- Evil does exist in our world. It always has and always will. Throughout history evil people have committed evil acts. In the Bible one of the first stories is that of Cain killing Abel. We can not legislate "evil" into extinction. Good people will abide by the law, defective people will always find a way around it.

And another thought Evil exists all around us, but looking back at the historical record of the past 200 years across the globe, where is "evil" and "malevolence" most often found? In the hands of those with the power- governments. That greatest human tragedies on record and the largest loss of innocent human life can be attributed to governments. Who do governments target? "Scapegoats" and "enemies" within their own borders … but only after they have been disarmed to the point where they are no longer a threat. Ask any Native American, and they will tell you it was inferior technology and lack of arms that contributed to their demise. Ask any Armenian why it was so easy for the Turks to exterminate millions of them, and they will answer "We were disarmed before it happened". Ask any Jew what Hitler's first step prior to the mass murders of the Holocaust was- confiscation of firearms from the people.

Wounded Knee is the prime example of why the Second Amendment exists, and why we shouldn't be in such a hurry to surrender our Right to Bear Arms. Without the Second Amendment we have no right to defend ourselves and our families.

Author Unknown
Seeking attributi
__________________
NRA Life Member, SAF contributor.
Jo6pak is offline  
Old January 13, 2013, 01:38 PM   #27
sigcurious
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 25, 2011
Posts: 1,755
Quote:
Because someday I may need to repel an assault.
Carne, when the moose band together to assault your place with air support from the ptarmigan, you let me know. Sounds like a chance for good eats!
sigcurious is offline  
Old January 13, 2013, 01:49 PM   #28
44 AMP
Staff
 
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 11,337
The list is endless...

enough food to survive, and enough shelter to do the same thing (and clothing is shelter). Beyond that, humans don't physically NEED anything. Everything else is a want, not a need.

If we were zoo animals, and nothing else, with our physical needs provided, and our protection assured by keeping us in cages or pens, arguing about if we "need" this or that might be a way to pass the time. Other than that, it is a useless waste of both time, and breath.

In the real world, we need arms. Because when seconds count, the police are just minutes away. Also, they don't respond until after something happens.

Do I need an "assault weapon"? Before the right deniers in the press, anti-gun groups and certain politicians began demonizing them, "assault weapons" were just semi auto firearms. And that's ALL they were.

Forget the lies coming out of the administration, for many decades the FBI has published yearly compilations of the "weapons used to commit murder". Long guns of ALL types are something like 3% of the firearms used. And the long guns classified by the right deniers as "assault weapons" are something like 1.5% (of that 3% total) of the long guns used.

Now true, they have been used in some spectacularly horrifying mass murders, and are in constant use 24/7 on our video screens in movies and games, but the actual use of these arms in crime is so low as to be statistically insignificant. Why is it that they are such a threat today?

It is because of the perception that they are in mass use in crime, when they are not. That perception if fostered by the entertainment industry. THey are all over the screen, all the time. This does translate to most people thinking that they are all over real crime, all the time. They aren't, but that might be changing, thanks to the dedicated efforts of our media.

They are now the glamorous thing. Ordinary folks are buying them like hotcakes, to get one, before the ban. And I would expect that at least a certain element of the criminal culture is getting them beacuse of how they look, and all the attention being focused on them. They are "cool" (or whatever the current slang word is).

As to need? well, leaving aside all the rational arguments, try this one...the bad guys have them, so we need them too!!

Or this counter argument...the govt says minimum wage is all we need to live on. So everyone who thinks that allowing the govt to decide what we need to own should be fine with having all their wages above minimum wage confiscated by the govt. RIGHT????
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.
44 AMP is offline  
Old January 13, 2013, 01:55 PM   #29
NickySantoro
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 14, 2008
Posts: 217
Why does anyone NEED to own an assault weapon anyway?

I refuse to acknowledge the term "assault rifle" when applied to any semi-auto rifle that does not fire full auto. It does not fit the definition. The correct term is "modern sporting rifle". If some one asked me if I owned a so-called "assault rifle" I would respond that "No, I do not, you ignorant (fill in the blank with the epithet of your choice)."
NickySantoro is offline  
Old January 13, 2013, 04:18 PM   #30
LRChops
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 12, 2013
Location: Placer County
Posts: 125
Exactly!
__________________
May God make smooth the path you follow!
LRChops is offline  
Old January 13, 2013, 06:45 PM   #31
Darren007
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 18, 2007
Location: Colorado
Posts: 1,034
Asking why you "need" to have an assault weapon is just shifting the burden of proof. Gun ownership in the U.S. is a right and thus the default position and requires no explanation. The onus is on those asserting that not having or taking away guns or certain guns would produce the results they desire.
Darren007 is offline  
Old January 13, 2013, 06:57 PM   #32
Punisher_1
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 16, 2012
Location: Florida
Posts: 136
You ever notice the media has never (that I have seen) reported on or freaked out about class III firearms? You would think they would plaster all that on the front page. Is it because you have to be rich to own one therefore they don't mess with them? The anti people would have to seek counseling if you took them to Knob Creek, lol.
Punisher_1 is offline  
Old January 13, 2013, 07:17 PM   #33
Spats McGee
Staff
 
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 5,084
When someone asks,
Quote:
"Why do you NEED an assault weapon?"
just say to them,
Quote:
"Why do I NEED to NEED one? The Bill of Rights says I get to have one. It doesn't say I have to NEED it to do so."
__________________
A gunfight is not the time to learn new skills.

If you ever have a real need for more than a couple of magazines, your problem is not a shortage of magazines. It's a shortage of people on your side of the argument. -- Art Eatman
Spats McGee is offline  
Old January 13, 2013, 07:25 PM   #34
rickyrick
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 15, 2010
Location: Mesquite Jungle Desert, West Texas, USA
Posts: 2,467
Someone said today,

"I need a semiauto rifle with a 30 round magazine because the government has fully auto rifles with 30 round magazines"

Lol
__________________
Navin R. Johnson: "He hates these cans!!!! Stay away from the cans!!!!"
rickyrick is offline  
Old January 13, 2013, 08:02 PM   #35
K_Mac
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 15, 2010
Posts: 470
This idea of defending the "need" to own an evil black rifle is currently running in many threads here, and on boards all over the interweb. Jimbob86 made the quote I have in my signature line in response. If we are a free people, then need has nothing to do with our natural rights. With those rights comes responsibility, and keeping guns out of the hands of criminals and those who are dangerously mentally ill must be a high priority. That will not, can not, and should not be accomplished by taking firearms from law abiding citizens.
__________________
"Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do." Benjamin Franklin

"If you let "need" be a requirement and Government be the arbiter of that "need", then Liberty is as dead as King Tut." Jimbob86

Last edited by K_Mac; January 13, 2013 at 08:41 PM.
K_Mac is online now  
Old January 13, 2013, 08:34 PM   #36
tirod
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 21, 2009
Posts: 1,187
I take a different stance - rather than answer the question, I ask a question.

The whole point is that it's a rhetorical argument. The person asking isn't intending to engage in thoughtful conversation and learn something. No, they are just stirring things up and seeing what reaction they get.

So, I match their rhetoric - which shows I understand their real intent. I ask, why does anyone need a 24 pack of beer, or a gallon of whiskey? That much alcohol is dangerous, either ingested or as an accelerant.

And not letting up, I ask if they know 3,000 teens a year get killed drunk driving.

I have others, all based on "If you hate guns and want to see them banned, why do you tolerate even one death by alcohol, which kills 10,000 people a year?"

Don't argue from their perspective. Argue that if it is such a good thing, then the same waiting periods, restrictions, and bans are even better saving lives that would be snuffed out from alcohol.

Like, a three day waiting period between purchases, restrictions on how much equivalent of three beers, registering ALL alcohol drinkers, requiring their vehicles to have a breathlyzer, having alcohol drinkers placed in a high cost insurance group to underwrite their expenses. It's already done with smokers - they pay higher premiums.

Yeah, I know, it might touch a nerve with some, but the reality is to get them to think about it - not bait you with a dumb comment they haven't really thought about.

If it's good for "assault rifles," how much better for maniacs under the influence? They are far more deadly. That needs to be done to put perspective on the issue.
tirod is offline  
Old January 14, 2013, 08:47 AM   #37
jason_iowa
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 30, 2011
Posts: 686
Why do I have a motorcycle that will get to 60 in 3 seconds and tops out over 200mph. Cause it makes me grin that's why. I think there is something in the constitution about pursuit of happiness! Firing off a big round and screaming down the highway at a safe speed makes me happy. So outside of the second amendment I have plenty of reason to own and use whatever I like.
jason_iowa is offline  
Old January 14, 2013, 09:08 AM   #38
Rifleman1776
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 25, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 3,309
Just responding to the question about "need" of any firearm is falling into the trap of the antis.
The 2ndA says nothing about need other than for defense. We are still America and have a right to choose for ourselves.
Rifleman1776 is offline  
Old January 14, 2013, 12:48 PM   #39
Wbdisco
Member
 
Join Date: September 3, 2012
Location: S. Pittsburg, TN
Posts: 15
Tirod,

my point exactly with my earlier post. If you are going to argue with antis you have to use their argument with something that they relate to. Most probably can relate to alcohol use, whether they use it or not.

Usually answering with protection, gov tyranny, or most other defenses from the pro-gun group will automatically turn a switch off in their brain, and they will just ignore you.
Wbdisco is offline  
Old January 14, 2013, 01:20 PM   #40
carguychris
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 20, 2007
Location: Richardson, TX
Posts: 5,501
Quote:
Why do I have a motorcycle that will get to 60 in 3 seconds and tops out over 200mph. Cause it makes me grin that's why. I think there is something in the constitution about pursuit of happiness!
The "pursuit of happiness" quote is from the Declaration of Independence and NOT the Constitution.

Furthermore, IMHO the "because I like it!" argument is very weak. Some people like cocaine too, but that doesn't automatically mean that it should be legal to possess.*

*FOOTNOTE: I don't intend to discuss libertarian arguments regarding the validity and/or constitutionality of federal controlled substance prohibition; it's settled law, the majority of U.S. citizens agree with it, and I'm citing it only as an example. Let's leave it at that.
__________________
"Smokey, this is not 'Nam. This is bowling. There are rules... MARK IT ZERO!!" - Walter Sobchak
carguychris is offline  
Old January 14, 2013, 01:29 PM   #41
BrittB
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 8, 2011
Location: Oregon
Posts: 554
People tend to believe that you don't need an assault rifle with a 25-30 round magazine. One wild hog hunt would change their minds!
BrittB is offline  
Old January 14, 2013, 01:39 PM   #42
Aberration
Member
 
Join Date: July 14, 2012
Posts: 35
Why do I NEED an assault rifle?

A militia is necessary to a free State.
Aberration is offline  
Old January 14, 2013, 02:33 PM   #43
Metal god
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 10, 2012
Location: San Diego CA
Posts: 1,989
Quote:
December 29, 2012 marked the 122nd Anniversary of the murder of 297 Sioux Indians at Wounded Knee Creek on the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation in South Dakota. These 297 people, in their winter camp, were murdered by federal agents and members of the 7th Cavalry who had come to confiscate their firearms "for their own safety and protection". The slaughter began AFTER the majority of the Sioux had peacefully turned in their firearms. When the final round had flown, of the 297 dead or dying, two thirds (200) were women and children.

Around 40 members of the 7th Cavalry were killed, over half cut down by friendly fire from the Hotchkiss guns of their overzealous comrades-in-arms. Twenty members of the 7th Cavalry were deemed "National Heros" and awarded the Medal of Honor for their acts of cowardice.

We do not hear of Wounded Knee today. It is not mentioned in our history classes or books. What little does exist about Wounded Knee is normally the sanitized "Official Government Explanation" or the historically and factually inaccurate depictions of the events leading up to the massacre on the movie screen.

Wounded Knee was among the first federally backed gun confiscation attempts in United States history. It ended in the senseless murder of 297 people.

Before you jump on the emotionally charged bandwagon for gun-control, take a moment to reflect on the real purpose of the Second Amendment- The right of the people to take up arms in defense of themselves, their families, and property in the face of invading armies or an oppressive government. The argument that the Second Amendment only applies to hunting and target shooting is asinine. When the United States Constitution was drafted "hunting" was an everyday chore carried out by men and women to put meat on the table each night, and "target shooting" was an unheard of concept, musket balls were a precious commodity in the wilds of early America, and were certainly not wasted "target shooting". The Second Amendment was written by people who fled oppressive and tyrannical regimes in Europe, and refers to the right of American citizens to be armed for defense purposes should such tyranny rise in the United States.
I hope you don't mind but I just sent this to my rep in my name .
.
__________________
As of this date 8-18-14 at 6:42am I became a proud grandfather I guess I'm officially old
Metal god is offline  
Old February 6, 2013, 07:35 PM   #44
Lynn
Junior Member
 
Join Date: February 6, 2013
Posts: 2
Why I have an AR15

The other day at the gun range I frequent, I was asked by a black powder shooter why I needed an assault rifle. I calmly asked him why the police needed assault rifles. He looked shocked, and just stared at me. So I asked him again why the police needed assault rifles. He mumbled something about the police needed to be able to protect the citizenry. I asked him, "who is going to protect me if the police aren't present at the exact moment that criminals are breaking into my house." I asked him, "Who protected the unarmed people after hurricane Katrina from the gangs of thugs when the police or National Guard weren't around." I told him that if the police need AR15's for protection, then I might need one as well some day.

A few minutes later, another man, also shooting black powder, approached me, looked at my AR15 and asked if I was getting ready to go into a school and shoot children. I looked at his face to see if maybe he was smiling and joking, but he looked absolutely serious. I simply told him, No, I have this for protection----same as the police."

President Lincoln said it best, "United we stand---divided we fall."

Lynn from Olympia
Lynn is offline  
Old February 6, 2013, 07:56 PM   #45
Romeo 33 Delta
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 27, 2009
Posts: 313
I'm really troubled by each of those instances from Holy Smokers. I have to admit that 95% of my shooting is with single shot rifles or rifles shot in single shot fashion (not using the magazine).

HOWEVER, I own a goodly number of magazine fed semi-auto rifles, some on the AR and AK platforms and I would NEVER think to speak as those other shooters did.

HOW IGNORANT!

PS ... I also shoot things like Sniders, Martini-Henrys ... so I know the Holy Smoke routine!
Romeo 33 Delta is offline  
Old February 6, 2013, 08:25 PM   #46
mrbatchelor
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 18, 2010
Location: South Carolina
Posts: 237
>The correct term is "modern sporting rifle".

The AR-15 platform was introduced in 1962. That's 51 years ago. Granted last month's AR is improved from 1962's AR, but the basic platform is reasonably similar.

The progressives would go berserk if you tried to sell cars based on 1982 technology, much less 1962. But they act like these things were dropped off by superior alien technologies from outer space.

The AK design is from, WOO-HOO, 1947!!! Want to drive a car from 1947 to work every day?

So why do they all claim these are so advanced.

Jeez, my Mosins were designed in 1891.
__________________
"The saving of our world from pending doom will come, not through the complacent adjustment of the conforming majority, but through the creative maladjustment of a nonconforming minority.” - Martin Luther King, Jr.

NRA Endowment Member
mrbatchelor is offline  
Old February 7, 2013, 12:23 AM   #47
Landis
Junior Member
 
Join Date: January 20, 2013
Posts: 7
Keep it simple. Why does anyone need to tell me what I need?

I think most of us on this forum find the very question offensive, as we should.

-What kind of country subscribes to ; From each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs (?)

-When anyone can tell you what your needs are, you are not free.

More like a slave or a communist, there is little difference. And that is why it is offensive. Any patriot should be offended.
Landis is offline  
Old February 7, 2013, 12:46 AM   #48
armoredman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 22, 2007
Location: Arizona
Posts: 3,792





__________________
http://czfirearms.us/ same original CZForum, new location.
armoredman is offline  
Old February 7, 2013, 01:39 AM   #49
mrbatchelor
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 18, 2010
Location: South Carolina
Posts: 237
The fundamental difference between most of the "anti-individualists" and the "individualists" - I hesitate to use the division liberal/conservative because that's skewed on this issue - revolves around concepts of the State described in a very old book named Leviathan.

If you have a Kindle or a Kindle reader you can get it free. It's old enough it's public domain.

The basic premies is that in exchange for loyalty of the subjects the central authority is obligated to provided safety and security.

This model is obviously at odds with the social contract that the USA was founded with, but clearly the pathway we seem to headed.

Under the Leviathan model, we don't need a modern rifle. The caretakers need the rifle for us, but rejecting the Leviathan model, we also reject centralized care taking.

Here's a link to the text on the web, but I encourage you to get an annotated hard copy from a bookstore so you have professional notes as well as places to write your own notes as you get "Ah-ha" moments about answering arguments.

Note, this isn't the rebuttals of the anti's arguments, nor is it the distillation of the antis arguments. It's the foundational principals of centralized control instead of personal control.

http://oregonstate.edu/instruct/phl3...-contents.html


There are other links. Google is your friend.
mrbatchelor is offline  
Old February 7, 2013, 04:00 AM   #50
martygrant
Junior Member
 
Join Date: August 9, 2010
Posts: 10
The "nobody needs more then X bullets to hunt" or an ASSAULT RIFLE OF MASS DESTRUCTION arguments drive me crazy. Yes I NEED one. There. I said it. It's my right and I need to exercise my rights or they get flabby and soft. So what. Your never going to win over the vocal activist lunitrons on the left. They must be intellectually defeated and denied the choice of battleground and weapons used (no pun intended).
The pro-big-brother-government-tyranny-over-your-freedoms types often control the debate by controlling the vocabulary used. A women's right to choose! OR is it really ...A women's right to kill her fetus? We personally favor retroactive abortion rights of a child up to the age of 18 but we can compromise at 48 hours after birth if you insist. We're very socially progressive and willing to have a dialectic dialogue so we can compromise and arrive at a synthesis....blah blah blah.
I refuse to use the words "assault weapon" with the anti-gun crowd and do not allow them to use it either. I find those people mostly shallow drones ignorant of what liberty and freedom really means. They are all emotion. I ask them to please use the term "very-scary-scary gun" (say it like Elmer Fud if you can). I tell them if they don't use that term I won't waste my time dealing with their paranoid self loathing or their dictatorial desires to force me to do what they demand. I tell them straight up that I reject their terminology and insist they use mine if they want to discuss the issue(s). (I do think there are a very few reasonable limits on firearms rights and that's where a debate gets real with me.) But....If I can get them to calmly talk I might ask them if they would trust themselves to own a "very scary scary gun"? You'd be amazed how people answer that one. They often are confused. They often blurt out "no" or spaz in place trying to think of an answer. I say, "That's what I thought and that's why I'm keeping my very scary scary gun." I don't trust them either. In any case follow up on whatever they answer and keep them on the defense. He who asks the questions controls the conversation. Take the argument to them.
ALL hard core Commies I believe and some of their trained-seal liberal lefties use the Hegelian Dialectic to drive the debate towards a synthesis of their own choosing. They take the long view and seek to win incrementally over time, not all at once. That's why we have a Constitution and we need to stand firmly on principals.... like liberty and property rights. John Locke, Edmund Burke, and William F. Buckley are good inspiration.
The Hegelian synthesis....You know...10 round mags are a "compromise" between 30 and ZERO. "We are not taking away your rights." Someday the thesis/antitheses dialectic will be 10 rounds vs 1. Then 2...you know...double barrel "Joe Biden" shotguns only need two rounds and its protecting your right to hunt birds and yes deer too 'cause that's why its called Buck Shot. Have a nice hunt but why not use a camera next time to shoot them? Shoot pictures !!! Not Bambi !!! And so they chip away at the Constitution. Repel the 2nd or leave it be, damn it.
They usually only know a few talking points they parrot from TV or each other or their Holly-wierd idols or from some godless politician.... or sadly they repeat what they have "learned" from a lot of "teachers" they had in public school. They don't comprehend the true "self evident" essence of life, liberty and the pursuit of property. They think their rights come FROM the Bill of Rights and not from God/Nature...The CREATOR. They don't understand the concept that the Bill of Rights are restrictions on the Federal government to keep it's tyrannical hands off our rights.
I believe I have the right to own military grade firearms to defend my life, liberty and property from anyone or any group that attempts to infringe on those rights without due process of law made by the consent of the governed. No executive order will ever take my Second Amendment rights away. At some point I might have to man up and take a Lexington-Concord stand with others.... but for now I choose to resist with the ballot and phone calls to the politicians who claim to represent me.
Sorry for the long rant.....I seldom write anything here.
__________________
Keep the mind pure for that which a man thinks he becomes.
martygrant is offline  
Reply

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 05:39 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2014 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.14788 seconds with 7 queries