Author Topic: Firearms in the home  (Read 415515 times)

dramaman

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 700
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #500 on: March 17, 2016, 06:35:32 AM »
I know handguns have military applications, but that didn't really answer the question. I know they are protected by the 2nd amendment. The question is does the 2nd amendment even make any sense in a modern society? Does anyone here think that normal US gun owners would actually be able to fight the US armed forces if they turned all oppressive on you? And I agree about the military grade encryption software. However, that is just another modern tool of opression you can't fight with handgunds.

So does the 2nd amendment actually do anything to protect the people (in a modern society) if the government starts turning oppressive? I feel the US government/society is actually in many ways more oppressive than the European counterparts. I hear people criticizing the restrictions of e.g. free speech, corruption (i.e., Big <insert here> paying for politcal campaigns) and lobbyists, but I don't see anyone fighting the fight with guns.

If the premises for the 2nd amendment are no longer valid, I think it's quite incorrect to still use it as an argument for reduced gun control.

Of course you can fight the U.S. military. Whether you will be successful in that fight is an entirely different argument. The Constitution does not grant us the power to overthrow the government should it turn oppressive, only the means to try. It is absolutely valid.

So the whole point of the 2nd amendment is that the constitution guarantees the right to TRY to overthrow the government created by the constitution?

mak1277

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 571
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #501 on: March 17, 2016, 06:47:04 AM »
I know handguns have military applications, but that didn't really answer the question. I know they are protected by the 2nd amendment. The question is does the 2nd amendment even make any sense in a modern society? Does anyone here think that normal US gun owners would actually be able to fight the US armed forces if they turned all oppressive on you? And I agree about the military grade encryption software. However, that is just another modern tool of opression you can't fight with handgunds.

So does the 2nd amendment actually do anything to protect the people (in a modern society) if the government starts turning oppressive? I feel the US government/society is actually in many ways more oppressive than the European counterparts. I hear people criticizing the restrictions of e.g. free speech, corruption (i.e., Big <insert here> paying for politcal campaigns) and lobbyists, but I don't see anyone fighting the fight with guns.

If the premises for the 2nd amendment are no longer valid, I think it's quite incorrect to still use it as an argument for reduced gun control.

Do you consider our military actions in Afghanistan and Iraq to have been wildly successful?  Why would a theoretical military action against armed US citizens be significantly different, especially considering the vastly larger scale on which such an action would take place (across the whole US).

GuitarStv

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8329
  • Age: 36
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #502 on: March 17, 2016, 07:48:37 AM »
I know handguns have military applications, but that didn't really answer the question. I know they are protected by the 2nd amendment. The question is does the 2nd amendment even make any sense in a modern society? Does anyone here think that normal US gun owners would actually be able to fight the US armed forces if they turned all oppressive on you? And I agree about the military grade encryption software. However, that is just another modern tool of opression you can't fight with handgunds.

So does the 2nd amendment actually do anything to protect the people (in a modern society) if the government starts turning oppressive? I feel the US government/society is actually in many ways more oppressive than the European counterparts. I hear people criticizing the restrictions of e.g. free speech, corruption (i.e., Big <insert here> paying for politcal campaigns) and lobbyists, but I don't see anyone fighting the fight with guns.

If the premises for the 2nd amendment are no longer valid, I think it's quite incorrect to still use it as an argument for reduced gun control.

Do you consider our military actions in Afghanistan and Iraq to have been wildly successful?  Why would a theoretical military action against armed US citizens be significantly different, especially considering the vastly larger scale on which such an action would take place (across the whole US).

Rocket launchers, IEDs, and suicide bombers.  Those are the reasons that the Afghanis have done so well.  Small arms alone aren't remotely damaging to the military.

Chris22

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2881
  • Location: Chicago NW Suburbs
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #503 on: March 17, 2016, 08:17:20 AM »
My roommate and best friend in college and I used to get drunk and mess with each other, and he'd always say "maybe I can kick your ass, and maybe you can kick mine, but neither one of us is going to have any fun."  In other words, neither had a decisive advantage over the other, and even the winner would end up in pain.  Same with the military versus the US population.  The citizens don't have to be able to BEAT the military, they just have to be well-armed enough to not be pushovers, which we are.  Short of the military doing something ridiculous like bombing our own cities, civilians with small arms are plenty capable of disrupting a potential military occupation, which would only be using slightly larger arms in any reasonable scenario (their M-16s would be full-auto vs. our AR-15s, for instance, but that's not necessarily an advantage). 

Honestly, I think anyone worried about a full-scale US military campaign against the US population is a bit silly.  What is a lot more realistic, as we've seen on occasion, is small municipalities run as fiefdoms with the police serving as an occupying force.  There are enough examples of corruption (and incompetence) that I like that if a cop is going to pound on my door in the middle of the night, he has to think about whether or not I'm armed inside.  Am I truly worried and think this is going to happen?  Not really, but the fact that the citizenship is armed helps prevent it.
"If I could get all the money back I ever spent on cars, I'd spend it on cars." - Nick Mason

dramaman

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 700
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #504 on: March 17, 2016, 08:31:25 AM »
Honestly, I think anyone worried about a full-scale US military campaign against the US population is a bit silly.  What is a lot more realistic, as we've seen on occasion, is small municipalities run as fiefdoms with the police serving as an occupying force.  There are enough examples of corruption (and incompetence) that I like that if a cop is going to pound on my door in the middle of the night, he has to think about whether or not I'm armed inside.  Am I truly worried and think this is going to happen?  Not really, but the fact that the citizenship is armed helps prevent it.

I'm not sure being armed is going to make you any safer if a cop pounds on your door in the middle of the night.

GuitarStv

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8329
  • Age: 36
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #505 on: March 17, 2016, 08:41:30 AM »
Honestly, I think anyone worried about a full-scale US military campaign against the US population is a bit silly.  What is a lot more realistic, as we've seen on occasion, is small municipalities run as fiefdoms with the police serving as an occupying force.  There are enough examples of corruption (and incompetence) that I like that if a cop is going to pound on my door in the middle of the night, he has to think about whether or not I'm armed inside.  Am I truly worried and think this is going to happen?  Not really, but the fact that the citizenship is armed helps prevent it.

I'm not sure being armed is going to make you any safer if a cop pounds on your door in the middle of the night.

Quite the opposite actually . . .

Chris22

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2881
  • Location: Chicago NW Suburbs
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #506 on: March 17, 2016, 08:47:27 AM »
Honestly, I think anyone worried about a full-scale US military campaign against the US population is a bit silly.  What is a lot more realistic, as we've seen on occasion, is small municipalities run as fiefdoms with the police serving as an occupying force.  There are enough examples of corruption (and incompetence) that I like that if a cop is going to pound on my door in the middle of the night, he has to think about whether or not I'm armed inside.  Am I truly worried and think this is going to happen?  Not really, but the fact that the citizenship is armed helps prevent it.

I'm not sure being armed is going to make you any safer if a cop pounds on your door in the middle of the night.

There have been plenty of cops shot by law-abiding homeowners who were the victims of incompetence when the cops crashed the wrong house. 
"If I could get all the money back I ever spent on cars, I'd spend it on cars." - Nick Mason

dramaman

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 700
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #507 on: March 17, 2016, 08:54:12 AM »
Honestly, I think anyone worried about a full-scale US military campaign against the US population is a bit silly.  What is a lot more realistic, as we've seen on occasion, is small municipalities run as fiefdoms with the police serving as an occupying force.  There are enough examples of corruption (and incompetence) that I like that if a cop is going to pound on my door in the middle of the night, he has to think about whether or not I'm armed inside.  Am I truly worried and think this is going to happen?  Not really, but the fact that the citizenship is armed helps prevent it.

I'm not sure being armed is going to make you any safer if a cop pounds on your door in the middle of the night.

There have been plenty of cops shot by law-abiding homeowners who were the victims of incompetence when the cops crashed the wrong house.

It would be interesting to compare that with the number of armed persons who were shot by cops when the cops carried out a raid, regardless of whether it was the right or wrong house.

Chris22

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2881
  • Location: Chicago NW Suburbs
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #508 on: March 17, 2016, 09:01:39 AM »
Honestly, I think anyone worried about a full-scale US military campaign against the US population is a bit silly.  What is a lot more realistic, as we've seen on occasion, is small municipalities run as fiefdoms with the police serving as an occupying force.  There are enough examples of corruption (and incompetence) that I like that if a cop is going to pound on my door in the middle of the night, he has to think about whether or not I'm armed inside.  Am I truly worried and think this is going to happen?  Not really, but the fact that the citizenship is armed helps prevent it.

I'm not sure being armed is going to make you any safer if a cop pounds on your door in the middle of the night.

There have been plenty of cops shot by law-abiding homeowners who were the victims of incompetence when the cops crashed the wrong house.

It would be interesting to compare that with the number of armed persons who were shot by cops when the cops carried out a raid, regardless of whether it was the right or wrong house.

Either way, if the cop is there for other than honorable purposes, I want him second guessing whether or not he should knock on that door.
"If I could get all the money back I ever spent on cars, I'd spend it on cars." - Nick Mason

dramaman

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 700
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #509 on: March 17, 2016, 10:26:00 AM »
Honestly, I think anyone worried about a full-scale US military campaign against the US population is a bit silly.  What is a lot more realistic, as we've seen on occasion, is small municipalities run as fiefdoms with the police serving as an occupying force.  There are enough examples of corruption (and incompetence) that I like that if a cop is going to pound on my door in the middle of the night, he has to think about whether or not I'm armed inside.  Am I truly worried and think this is going to happen?  Not really, but the fact that the citizenship is armed helps prevent it.

I'm not sure being armed is going to make you any safer if a cop pounds on your door in the middle of the night.

There have been plenty of cops shot by law-abiding homeowners who were the victims of incompetence when the cops crashed the wrong house.

It would be interesting to compare that with the number of armed persons who were shot by cops when the cops carried out a raid, regardless of whether it was the right or wrong house.

Either way, if the cop is there for other than honorable purposes, I want him second guessing whether or not he should knock on that door.

You logic just doesn't hold up. Cops are trained to go into unknown situations assuming that their lives may be at risk. They assume someone may be armed and are trained to act accordingly. Doubt regarding whether or not you are armed should have little influence one way or the other.

ncornilsen

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 597
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #510 on: March 17, 2016, 11:08:10 AM »
Dramaman, it's your logic that does not hold up.

In a scenario where someone is running an oppressive police state, and the populous has decided enough is enough, the police can be effectively resisted by the larger, armed population.

Unless you have some credible threat of force, any freedoms you enjoy are entirely at the will of whoever is in power.

dramaman

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 700
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #511 on: March 17, 2016, 11:43:29 AM »
Dramaman, it's your logic that does not hold up.

In a scenario where someone is running an oppressive police state, and the populous has decided enough is enough, the police can be effectively resisted by the larger, armed population.

Unless you have some credible threat of force, any freedoms you enjoy are entirely at the will of whoever is in power.

That isn't the scenario that I was addressing, but I will bite.

The 'we need to be armed to overthrow our oppressors' argument is based on a force vs. force paradigm that is rarely successful and when it does succeed often replaces one armed ruler with another. In the past century, non-violent resistance has proven to be a more effective tool for successfully throwing off the yoke of oppression. In our modern age, I would argue that the modern smartphone is a much more potent instrument than the gun for addressing injustice and oppression.

MoonShadow

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2544
  • Location: Louisville, Ky.
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #512 on: March 17, 2016, 11:54:21 AM »
I know handguns have military applications, but that didn't really answer the question. I know they are protected by the 2nd amendment. The question is does the 2nd amendment even make any sense in a modern society? Does anyone here think that normal US gun owners would actually be able to fight the US armed forces if they turned all oppressive on you? And I agree about the military grade encryption software. However, that is just another modern tool of opression you can't fight with handgunds.

So does the 2nd amendment actually do anything to protect the people (in a modern society) if the government starts turning oppressive? I feel the US government/society is actually in many ways more oppressive than the European counterparts. I hear people criticizing the restrictions of e.g. free speech, corruption (i.e., Big <insert here> paying for politcal campaigns) and lobbyists, but I don't see anyone fighting the fight with guns.

If the premises for the 2nd amendment are no longer valid, I think it's quite incorrect to still use it as an argument for reduced gun control.

Do you consider our military actions in Afghanistan and Iraq to have been wildly successful?  Why would a theoretical military action against armed US citizens be significantly different, especially considering the vastly larger scale on which such an action would take place (across the whole US).

Rocket launchers, IEDs, and suicide bombers.  Those are the reasons that the Afghanis have done so well.  Small arms alone aren't remotely damaging to the military.

This is a simple falsehood.  You speak from a position of ignorance.  There is nothing about the military that is more fundamental than the rifleman, expecially in the era of 4th generation warfare.  Granted, the US miltary are the world champions at 4th generation warfare, but there are more veterans trained in those tactics living as citizens than are active members of the US military.  As others have said, a domestic insurrection isn't about "winning" in any traditional sense, and it's not the same game as a foreign occupation.  The term "war is economics by other means" is very true, the US military is expensive, and it doesn't need to be defeated if our leadership should ever turn full tyrant, it only needs to be starved.  The US military cannot outright attack US populations, because that is where they extract their salaries & resources from.  To do so would not subjugate the insurrection, as give it fuel by destroying the infrastructure, capital & human resources that had previously been part & parcel of it's support structure.  If one city, or even one state, were to revolt; it wouldn't matter.  But if 5 states, or 10 (depending on which ones) were to tax revolt, that very action would cripple the government as well as the standing US military.  As for the availability of military grade hardware such as missiles, states actually do have them, both as 'guard' gear & as privately owned weaponry.  Certainly not anywhere near to the degree that the US military presently does, but the US military already knows that they can be resisted by a non-trivial portion of the US population, and they certainly know that wouldn't work out well for either side.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth-generation_warfare

MoonShadow

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2544
  • Location: Louisville, Ky.
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #513 on: March 17, 2016, 12:32:57 PM »
Dramaman, it's your logic that does not hold up.

In a scenario where someone is running an oppressive police state, and the populous has decided enough is enough, the police can be effectively resisted by the larger, armed population.

Unless you have some credible threat of force, any freedoms you enjoy are entirely at the will of whoever is in power.

That isn't the scenario that I was addressing, but I will bite.

The 'we need to be armed to overthrow our oppressors' argument is based on a force vs. force paradigm that is rarely successful and when it does succeed often replaces one armed ruler with another. In the past century, non-violent resistance has proven to be a more effective tool for successfully throwing off the yoke of oppression. In our modern age, I would argue that the modern smartphone is a much more potent instrument than the gun for addressing injustice and oppression.

I can certainly agree with this statement.  Still, even Gandhi did not refuse the possibility of resorting to force of arms if peaceful means failed. 
Quote
Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the Act depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest...

Although I will admit that this quote is out of context, and is often misused to imply that Gandhi supported individual firearms ownership as a political tool (which he did not, it was much more complex than that).  Still, that quote is authentic and does show that Gandhi fully understood that all political power ultimately flows from the barrel of a gun.  In this particular case, he was referring to the Arms act of 1878, and that it left the civilian population without the means to defend their own cities during World War 1, nor without the opportunity to train the young men who might otherwise be able to contribute to the collective defense of the British Empire.  (i.e. What the British called the Coastal Scouts, and what Americans still call the Boy Scouts, it was only later that he hardened against the idea that British rule could ever be softened, and that independence was necessary).

The usefulness of cameras to capture misbehavior & apply political pressure notwithstanding, cameras cannot actually be used as an effective form of self-defense.  Even if the 2nd was repealed outright tomorrow; the basic human right to an effective form of self-defense will not simply vanish, regardless of how well governments or society at large honor that basic human right.

MrMonkeyMustache

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 60
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #514 on: March 17, 2016, 12:36:29 PM »
Wow, some really eye opening stuff here :P

I don't think the talk about local law enforcment is that relevant. I mean, don't you guys have some federal level dudes you can call i your local sheriffs office is not under control? And if you argue that calling for the feds are too slow, I would argue that you can't stop a sherrifs office from doing what they want by owning a couple of guns. Or if you can, you have a much larger scale problem of not having an efficient law enforcment in the first place.

GuitarStv

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8329
  • Age: 36
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #515 on: March 17, 2016, 12:39:50 PM »
Moonshadow, I suggest you to look at the fatality rates in Afghanistan for yourself.

http://icasualties.org/OEF/Fatalities.aspx

By my count, less than 15% of the fatalities from Afghanistan are the result of hostile small arms fire (that wasn't preceded by an IED, suicide bombing, rocket attack).  I also filtered out the suicides and friendly fire small arms accidents, which made up a large portion of the dead.


Alone, small arms are not really a problem for a modern military.

jamesvt

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 51
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #516 on: March 17, 2016, 12:50:58 PM »
I know handguns have military applications, but that didn't really answer the question. I know they are protected by the 2nd amendment. The question is does the 2nd amendment even make any sense in a modern society? Does anyone here think that normal US gun owners would actually be able to fight the US armed forces if they turned all oppressive on you? And I agree about the military grade encryption software. However, that is just another modern tool of opression you can't fight with handgunds.

So does the 2nd amendment actually do anything to protect the people (in a modern society) if the government starts turning oppressive? I feel the US government/society is actually in many ways more oppressive than the European counterparts. I hear people criticizing the restrictions of e.g. free speech, corruption (i.e., Big <insert here> paying for politcal campaigns) and lobbyists, but I don't see anyone fighting the fight with guns.

If the premises for the 2nd amendment are no longer valid, I think it's quite incorrect to still use it as an argument for reduced gun control.
Easily, and this is coming from someone in the military that also analyzes military forces for a living. Even assuming the vast majority military members would turn against their own family friends(which they wouldn't) the military would lose. People bring up how the military has fighter jets, UAV's, tanks etc., which are valid points fighting a conventional force on a foreign battle field. People seem to forget those pieces of equipment are located at military bases located in their own backyards. Bases are not very secure, they were built to stop a rogue individual or small group from running the gate and gaining access to the base, not hundreds or even thousands of well armed people from taking over the base. A F-15 that doesn't have a safe place to land after it drops it's ordinance is useless.

The Soviet Union spent 10 years in Afghanistan fighting the Mujahideen and failed to eradicate them. The US spent nearly 15 years in Afghanistan and couldn't get rid of al-qaeda. Both the Mujahideen and al-qaeda never exceeded 250k people in strength. Even if just 10% of the US population took up arms against the government that's over 30 million people.   

GuitarStv, people that lived in caves can make IEDs, you don't think Americans can?
« Last Edit: March 17, 2016, 12:53:54 PM by jamesvt »

GuitarStv

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8329
  • Age: 36
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #517 on: March 17, 2016, 12:57:07 PM »
No, I totally think that Americans can make IEDs.  They're way more effective at stopping a military force than guns.  That's why the 'we need to own guns because otherwise our government will turn on us' argument makes little sense.

MoonShadow

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2544
  • Location: Louisville, Ky.
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #518 on: March 17, 2016, 12:58:51 PM »
Moonshadow, I suggest you to look at the fatality rates in Afghanistan for yourself.

http://icasualties.org/OEF/Fatalities.aspx

By my count, less than 15% of the fatalities from Afghanistan are the result of hostile small arms fire (that wasn't preceded by an IED, suicide bombing, rocket attack).  I also filtered out the suicides and friendly fire small arms accidents, which made up a large portion of the dead.


Alone, small arms are not really a problem for a modern military.

You didn't bother to read the link about 4th gen warfare did you?  Let me help you out...

Quote
Fourth-generation warfare has often involved an insurgent group or other violent non-state actor trying to implement their own government or reestablish an old government over the current ruling power. However, a non-state entity tends to be more successful when it does not attempt, at least in the short term, to impose its own rule, but tries simply to disorganize and delegitimize the state in which the warfare takes place. The aim is to force the state adversary to expend manpower and money in an attempt to establish order, ideally in such a highhanded way that it merely increases disorder, until the state surrenders or withdraws.

...

Resistance can also be below the physical level of violence. This is via non-violent means, such as Gandhi's opposition to the British Empire[citation needed] or Martin Luther King's marches.[citation needed] Both desired their factions to deescalate the conflict while the state escalates against them, the objective being to target the opponent on the moral and mental levels rather than the physical level.[citation needed] The state is then seen as a bully and loses support.

...

Fourth-generation warfare goals:[6]

   1) Survival.
    2)To convince the enemy's political decision makers that their goals are either unachievable or too costly for the perceived benefit.

No where in there does it even mention that the insurgent force actually needs to be a strategic threat to the military force, because it's not true.  It's a asymmetrical conflict, where one side has an obvious military advantage.

GuitarStv

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8329
  • Age: 36
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #519 on: March 17, 2016, 01:03:57 PM »
I did read your 4th generation link.  It doesn't indicate that small arms are necessary to defend yourself from the government, so I ignored it.

Abe

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 779
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #520 on: March 17, 2016, 01:08:31 PM »
This is somewhat off-topic (as of right now), but people who have firearms in the house, which ones do you recommend for self defense? More importantly, what bullet-resistant armor do you recommend? I am potentially moving to a state in a year or two that has both a lot of privately owned weapons, high incidence of corrupt local law enforcement who may not necessarily prosecute assaults conducted by their friends, and a lot of people who may not necessarily take kindly to my type, thus would like to be well protected. Thanks!

JLee

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3641
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #521 on: March 17, 2016, 01:27:37 PM »
This is somewhat off-topic (as of right now), but people who have firearms in the house, which ones do you recommend for self defense? More importantly, what bullet-resistant armor do you recommend? I am potentially moving to a state in a year or two that has both a lot of privately owned weapons, high incidence of corrupt local law enforcement who may not necessarily prosecute assaults conducted by their friends, and a lot of people who may not necessarily take kindly to my type, thus would like to be well protected. Thanks!
Not sure if serious.

Chris22

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2881
  • Location: Chicago NW Suburbs
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #522 on: March 17, 2016, 01:28:51 PM »
This is somewhat off-topic (as of right now), but people who have firearms in the house, which ones do you recommend for self defense? More importantly, what bullet-resistant armor do you recommend? I am potentially moving to a state in a year or two that has both a lot of privately owned weapons, high incidence of corrupt local law enforcement who may not necessarily prosecute assaults conducted by their friends, and a lot of people who may not necessarily take kindly to my type, thus would like to be well protected. Thanks!

I'd want an AR-15, a basic shotgun, and the training on how to use both effectively.

Note that possessing body armor and a firearm at the same time may be illegal where you live.
"If I could get all the money back I ever spent on cars, I'd spend it on cars." - Nick Mason

Chris22

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2881
  • Location: Chicago NW Suburbs
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #523 on: March 17, 2016, 01:30:19 PM »
In our modern age, I would argue that the modern smartphone is a much more potent instrument than the gun for addressing injustice and oppression.

That may be true on a large scale, but on a personal scale if I'm depending on a camera phone to address injustice and oppression it probably means I'm already dead.

And, on a personal scale, that's what I'm trying to avoid.
"If I could get all the money back I ever spent on cars, I'd spend it on cars." - Nick Mason

MrMonkeyMustache

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 60
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #524 on: March 17, 2016, 01:36:15 PM »
In our modern age, I would argue that the modern smartphone is a much more potent instrument than the gun for addressing injustice and oppression.

That may be true on a large scale, but on a personal scale if I'm depending on a camera phone to address injustice and oppression it probably means I'm already dead.

And, on a personal scale, that's what I'm trying to avoid.
But the 2nd amendment is about large scale, not personal protection.

MoonShadow

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2544
  • Location: Louisville, Ky.
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #525 on: March 17, 2016, 01:56:06 PM »
This is somewhat off-topic (as of right now), but people who have firearms in the house, which ones do you recommend for self defense? More importantly, what bullet-resistant armor do you recommend? I am potentially moving to a state in a year or two that has both a lot of privately owned weapons, high incidence of corrupt local law enforcement who may not necessarily prosecute assaults conducted by their friends, and a lot of people who may not necessarily take kindly to my type, thus would like to be well protected. Thanks!

Where the hell are you going, and what 'type' are you?  As far as the best firearm to have for home defense, that is typically a shotgun, because you can choose the type of projectile to suit your home as well as the frame of the shooter.  Shells can also be chosen to be 'less lethal', such as a pepper pod or rock salt shell, or use smaller loads or charges with lighter materials to reduce penetration through drywall.

MoonShadow

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2544
  • Location: Louisville, Ky.
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #526 on: March 17, 2016, 01:57:38 PM »
In our modern age, I would argue that the modern smartphone is a much more potent instrument than the gun for addressing injustice and oppression.

That may be true on a large scale, but on a personal scale if I'm depending on a camera phone to address injustice and oppression it probably means I'm already dead.

And, on a personal scale, that's what I'm trying to avoid.
But the 2nd amendment is about large scale, not personal protection.

Please read the earlier posts in this thread.  That myth was thoroughly debunked quite some time ago.

Chris22

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2881
  • Location: Chicago NW Suburbs
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #527 on: March 17, 2016, 02:21:14 PM »
In our modern age, I would argue that the modern smartphone is a much more potent instrument than the gun for addressing injustice and oppression.

That may be true on a large scale, but on a personal scale if I'm depending on a camera phone to address injustice and oppression it probably means I'm already dead.

And, on a personal scale, that's what I'm trying to avoid.
But the 2nd amendment is about large scale, not personal protection.

It boggles my mind that Americans really believe that. 
"If I could get all the money back I ever spent on cars, I'd spend it on cars." - Nick Mason

MoonShadow

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2544
  • Location: Louisville, Ky.
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #528 on: March 17, 2016, 02:25:22 PM »
In our modern age, I would argue that the modern smartphone is a much more potent instrument than the gun for addressing injustice and oppression.

That may be true on a large scale, but on a personal scale if I'm depending on a camera phone to address injustice and oppression it probably means I'm already dead.

And, on a personal scale, that's what I'm trying to avoid.
But the 2nd amendment is about large scale, not personal protection.

It boggles my mind that Americans really believe that.

Really?  Why?  12 million of our countrymen seem to believe that They Live was a documentary.

http://www.thewire.com/national/2013/04/12-million-americans-believe-lizard-people-run-our-country/63799/

MrMonkeyMustache

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 60
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #529 on: March 17, 2016, 02:30:27 PM »
In our modern age, I would argue that the modern smartphone is a much more potent instrument than the gun for addressing injustice and oppression.

That may be true on a large scale, but on a personal scale if I'm depending on a camera phone to address injustice and oppression it probably means I'm already dead.

And, on a personal scale, that's what I'm trying to avoid.
But the 2nd amendment is about large scale, not personal protection.

It boggles my mind that Americans really believe that.
I'm not American, but that is how the 2nd amendment is written, right? Talking about "a militia" and "security of a free State" kind of tips it of. My point has been, that that motivation is totally outdated. If someone wants to keep a gun for personal protection, you should motivate it with personal protection, not the need of the gun to secure a free State. "Think about the freedom of the State" is just another version of "think about the children".

jamesvt

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 51
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #530 on: March 17, 2016, 02:43:20 PM »
No, I totally think that Americans can make IEDs.  They're way more effective at stopping a military force than guns.  That's why the 'we need to own guns because otherwise our government will turn on us' argument makes little sense.
They are more effective at stopping the movement of forces, not eliminating them.

MoonShadow

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2544
  • Location: Louisville, Ky.
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #531 on: March 17, 2016, 02:51:12 PM »
In our modern age, I would argue that the modern smartphone is a much more potent instrument than the gun for addressing injustice and oppression.

That may be true on a large scale, but on a personal scale if I'm depending on a camera phone to address injustice and oppression it probably means I'm already dead.

And, on a personal scale, that's what I'm trying to avoid.
But the 2nd amendment is about large scale, not personal protection.

It boggles my mind that Americans really believe that.
I'm not American, but that is how the 2nd amendment is written, right? Talking about "a militia" and "security of a free State" kind of tips it of. .

Once again, this myth has been thoroughly debunked earlier in this thread.  Please read those posts.

Chris22

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2881
  • Location: Chicago NW Suburbs
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #532 on: March 17, 2016, 02:58:40 PM »
In our modern age, I would argue that the modern smartphone is a much more potent instrument than the gun for addressing injustice and oppression.

That may be true on a large scale, but on a personal scale if I'm depending on a camera phone to address injustice and oppression it probably means I'm already dead.

And, on a personal scale, that's what I'm trying to avoid.
But the 2nd amendment is about large scale, not personal protection.

It boggles my mind that Americans really believe that.
I'm not American, but that is how the 2nd amendment is written, right? Talking about "a militia" and "security of a free State" kind of tips it of. My point has been, that that motivation is totally outdated. If someone wants to keep a gun for personal protection, you should motivate it with personal protection, not the need of the gun to secure a free State. "Think about the freedom of the State" is just another version of "think about the children".

That's not the way inherent rights work.  You may be from a location that does not believe in inherent rights, in which case, you have my sympathy. 
"If I could get all the money back I ever spent on cars, I'd spend it on cars." - Nick Mason

Curbside Prophet

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 182
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #533 on: March 17, 2016, 02:59:55 PM »
This is somewhat off-topic (as of right now), but people who have firearms in the house, which ones do you recommend for self defense? More importantly, what bullet-resistant armor do you recommend? I am potentially moving to a state in a year or two that has both a lot of privately owned weapons, high incidence of corrupt local law enforcement who may not necessarily prosecute assaults conducted by their friends, and a lot of people who may not necessarily take kindly to my type, thus would like to be well protected. Thanks!

For home defense a shotgun or AR-15 are both good choices.  Personally, I lean towards the AR-15, which may surprise people because they think overpenetration.  However, a fast moving projectile such as the 5.56 round tends to break up more upon impact than handgun calibers.  The key is to use the right type of ammo, and luckily civilians are not as restricted as the military.  You'd want hollow point for both stopping power and to eliminate overpenetration or soft point for some barrier penetration. 

As always, the best choice is the one you train and feel most comfortable with.  There is no 1 perfect self-defense gun, they all have their pros and cons.  But if you look at SWAT teams and such, guys specializing in close quarter home encounters, what are they using?  AR-15s for the most part and there's a reason.

As for bullet-resistant armor, it depends on what you're trying to stop.  They rate from being able to stop a 9mm up to rifle calibers.  But more protection means more bulk.  Generally a level III soft armor is all you'll need.  You can go up to hard (and heavy) AR500 plates if you want but it's overkill IMO, you're not going to war.  Honestly, I don't think body armor is all that useful in self-defense.  Takes too long to put on and limits mobility.

MrMonkeyMustache

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 60
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #534 on: March 17, 2016, 03:00:47 PM »
In our modern age, I would argue that the modern smartphone is a much more potent instrument than the gun for addressing injustice and oppression.

That may be true on a large scale, but on a personal scale if I'm depending on a camera phone to address injustice and oppression it probably means I'm already dead.

And, on a personal scale, that's what I'm trying to avoid.
But the 2nd amendment is about large scale, not personal protection.

It boggles my mind that Americans really believe that.
I'm not American, but that is how the 2nd amendment is written, right? Talking about "a militia" and "security of a free State" kind of tips it of. .

Once again, this myth has been thoroughly debunked earlier in this thread.  Please read those posts.
Could you please provide a link. Not going to go through 550 post on your say so. Thanks.

Curbside Prophet

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 182
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #535 on: March 17, 2016, 03:07:22 PM »
I understand why the 2nd amendment was originally put in place. But how many here, really, believe that the handguns that people are buying for protection would do anything to stop the US government to oppress the people, assuming* they would have the support of the armed forces? And furthermore, the battle for control today is, in my view, concerning the restrictions of privacy e.g. online. Can't fight the government on that point with a revolver. Freedom of speech/press is lightyears more important.

As an outsider the 2nd amendment seems totally outdated in its current form, even though it might have filled a function back in the days. A modern second amendment would perhaps ensure the freedom of speech by shielding private citizens from crippling lawsuits or something like that? I don't know. But people claiming that they need the right to buy handguns to ensure that they are able to fight the goverment in a tight spot just sounds super silly.

*If they don't have the support of the armed forces, then you wouldn't need to defend yourself from the government by using guns in the first place.

Stop the US government?  Nope. 

In addition to self-defense, I think it also helps in localized scenarios.  Which businesses didn't get looted in the LA riots?  The guys standing on the roof that were armed.  Same with Katrina, I'd rather be armed in a situation like that than unarmed.  To me firearms are just another preparation just like you would prep for a hurricane, tornado, tsunami, etc.

I have a fire extinguisher I pray I'll never use and the same goes for my firearms.  I pray the only thing I'll ever have to shoot is cardboard.  But I feel safer having tools for different contingencies at my disposal.  I take the responsibility of ownership seriously, obey the laws, and choose to exercise my constitutional right.  It's a choice and I've made mine.

MoonShadow

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2544
  • Location: Louisville, Ky.
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #536 on: March 17, 2016, 03:19:42 PM »
This is somewhat off-topic (as of right now), but people who have firearms in the house, which ones do you recommend for self defense? More importantly, what bullet-resistant armor do you recommend? I am potentially moving to a state in a year or two that has both a lot of privately owned weapons, high incidence of corrupt local law enforcement who may not necessarily prosecute assaults conducted by their friends, and a lot of people who may not necessarily take kindly to my type, thus would like to be well protected. Thanks!

For home defense a shotgun or AR-15 are both good choices.  Personally, I lean towards the AR-15, which may surprise people because they think overpenetration.  However, a fast moving projectile such as the 5.56 round tends to break up more upon impact than handgun calibers.  The key is to use the right type of ammo, and luckily civilians are not as restricted as the military.  You'd want hollow point for both stopping power and to eliminate overpenetration or soft point for some barrier penetration. 

I know from personal experience, there is no 5.56 round available that wont penetrate two layers of 3/8ths inch thick drywall and still have potentially lethal momentum.  While there do exist home defense shotshells that are specifically designed towards rapid loss of momentum upon a first impact.  If you only buy one gun, the shotgun is the most versatile in any of the most likely home defense scenarios.

Quote
As always, the best choice is the one you train and feel most comfortable with.  There is no 1 perfect self-defense gun, they all have their pros and cons.  But if you look at SWAT teams and such, guys specializing in close quarter home encounters, what are they using? AR-15s for the most part and there's a reason.

And that reason is that SWAT teams take their incursion training from the US military, along with most of their personnel; both of which instills a preference for the AR-15.  Also, they are cheaper using federal grants of used military equipment.  Shotguns are rare in the military.

Quote

As for bullet-resistant armor, it depends on what you're trying to stop.  They rate from being able to stop a 9mm up to rifle calibers.  But more protection means more bulk.  Generally a level III soft armor is all you'll need.  You can go up to hard (and heavy) AR500 plates if you want but it's overkill IMO, you're not going to war. Honestly, I don't think body armor is all that useful in self-defense.  Takes too long to put on and limits mobility.

A knife shirt (Level 1 or Level2a) is about as bulky as the normal person is going to habitually wear, and they still cost too much.  A thick, leather biker's jacket can provide almost the same degree of protection. And if anyone breaks in carrying those above mentioned AR15's, then nothing less than Level 3 is going to have a hope of doing a damn thing except slow you down, and it's still going to hurt.

MoonShadow

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2544
  • Location: Louisville, Ky.
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #537 on: March 17, 2016, 03:23:56 PM »
In our modern age, I would argue that the modern smartphone is a much more potent instrument than the gun for addressing injustice and oppression.

That may be true on a large scale, but on a personal scale if I'm depending on a camera phone to address injustice and oppression it probably means I'm already dead.

And, on a personal scale, that's what I'm trying to avoid.
But the 2nd amendment is about large scale, not personal protection.

It boggles my mind that Americans really believe that.
I'm not American, but that is how the 2nd amendment is written, right? Talking about "a militia" and "security of a free State" kind of tips it of. .

Once again, this myth has been thoroughly debunked earlier in this thread.  Please read those posts.
Could you please provide a link. Not going to go through 550 post on your say so. Thanks.

No.  Use the site's search function.

Curbside Prophet

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 182
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #538 on: March 17, 2016, 03:32:25 PM »
This is somewhat off-topic (as of right now), but people who have firearms in the house, which ones do you recommend for self defense? More importantly, what bullet-resistant armor do you recommend? I am potentially moving to a state in a year or two that has both a lot of privately owned weapons, high incidence of corrupt local law enforcement who may not necessarily prosecute assaults conducted by their friends, and a lot of people who may not necessarily take kindly to my type, thus would like to be well protected. Thanks!

For home defense a shotgun or AR-15 are both good choices.  Personally, I lean towards the AR-15, which may surprise people because they think overpenetration.  However, a fast moving projectile such as the 5.56 round tends to break up more upon impact than handgun calibers.  The key is to use the right type of ammo, and luckily civilians are not as restricted as the military.  You'd want hollow point for both stopping power and to eliminate overpenetration or soft point for some barrier penetration. 

I know from personal experience, there is no 5.56 round available that wont penetrate two layers of 3/8ths inch thick drywall and still have potentially lethal momentum.  While there do exist home defense shotshells that are specifically designed towards rapid loss of momentum upon a first impact.  If you only buy one gun, the shotgun is the most versatile in any of the most likely home defense scenarios.

Quote
As always, the best choice is the one you train and feel most comfortable with.  There is no 1 perfect self-defense gun, they all have their pros and cons.  But if you look at SWAT teams and such, guys specializing in close quarter home encounters, what are they using? AR-15s for the most part and there's a reason.

And that reason is that SWAT teams take their incursion training from the US military, along with most of their personnel; both of which instills a preference for the AR-15.  Also, they are cheaper using federal grants of used military equipment.  Shotguns are rare in the military.

Quote

As for bullet-resistant armor, it depends on what you're trying to stop.  They rate from being able to stop a 9mm up to rifle calibers.  But more protection means more bulk.  Generally a level III soft armor is all you'll need.  You can go up to hard (and heavy) AR500 plates if you want but it's overkill IMO, you're not going to war. Honestly, I don't think body armor is all that useful in self-defense.  Takes too long to put on and limits mobility.

A knife shirt (Level 1 or Level2a) is about as bulky as the normal person is going to habitually wear, and they still cost too much.  A thick, leather biker's jacket can provide almost the same degree of protection. And if anyone breaks in carrying those above mentioned AR15's, then nothing less than Level 3 is going to have a hope of doing a damn thing except slow you down, and it's still going to hurt.

You're correct in that even the 5.56 will overpenetrate to some degree.  It is the biggest con in home defense.  Perhaps there is some frangible ammo that doesn't prevent drywall penetration but I'm not aware of any.

A shotgun is a perfectly fine choice.  I personally prefer the accuracy (by this I mean less spread if using buck/birdshot or less recoil if using slugs), capacity, and modularity of the AR-15.  But it is what I'm most familiar with so that goes a long way as well.

mrpercentage

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1236
  • Location: PHX, AZ
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #539 on: March 17, 2016, 07:38:17 PM »
And you think people should have guns.... Right

https://youtu.be/cnh75XCu49c?t=25s
absolute truth... prison guard that has seen shanks does not makes 45k a year managing bullshit tech that was outsourced for what?.... cheaper tech and less taxes... probably

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5313
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #540 on: March 17, 2016, 08:30:44 PM »
And you think people should have guns.... Right

https://youtu.be/cnh75XCu49c?t=25s

No one thinks people should have guns. They think people should not be prevented from having them. Big difference.  (And the men in the video, as habitual users of controlled substances, are prevented in most areas from possessing firearms.)
« Last Edit: March 17, 2016, 10:36:05 PM by Metric Mouse »
Give me one fine day of plain sailing weather and I can mess up anything.

MustacheMathTM

MoonShadow

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2544
  • Location: Louisville, Ky.
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #541 on: March 17, 2016, 10:17:07 PM »
On my way home tonight at about 10 pm, I get off my exit and run into only the 2nd police checkpoint in my driving career.  They were looking for drunk drivers.  They were so professional & polite, and were obviously making their best effort to reduce the inconvenience for sober drivers.  Because I have my CC license, I'm required to present it whenever I'm asked for ID by a policeman.  So I give him my license & CC ID, and he says in a very polite but distinct voice, "Sir, without reaching for it, (emphasis was his) do you have your weapon in the car?"  "No, I do not."  "Thank you, here are your ID's and have a lovely night."

Somehow, I don't suspect this interaction would go nearly as smoothly if I were carrying a long gun in open view behind my head in a gun rack, which is basically what the alternative is if we were to ban handguns & repeal concealed carry permit laws.

thepokercab

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 491
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #542 on: March 18, 2016, 12:46:44 AM »
Just curious, has anyone here ever had to use a gun in self-defense, or know of someone who did? 

Because, pretty much all the data on the subject (admittedly not much, just the way we like it!) says that having a gun in close proximity increases the chance that you, or someone in your household, will be, you know, shot with a gun.  So you're basically trading a super low probability event (getting violently assaulted by someone you don't know) for the increased probability that you or someone in your household will be getting shot. And by you, no less!   

Its almost like if I became obsessively concerned with my house burning down so I install some industrial strength sprinkler system that certainly stops any fire, but could also flood my house at any moment.   


Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5313
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #543 on: March 18, 2016, 02:38:25 AM »
Just curious, has anyone here ever had to use a gun in self-defense, or know of someone who did? 

Because, pretty much all the data on the subject (admittedly not much, just the way we like it!) says that having a gun in close proximity increases the chance that you, or someone in your household, will be, you know, shot with a gun.  So you're basically trading a super low probability event (getting violently assaulted by someone you don't know) for the increased probability that you or someone in your household will be getting shot. And by you, no less!   

Its almost like if I became obsessively concerned with my house burning down so I install some industrial strength sprinkler system that certainly stops any fire, but could also flood my house at any moment.   

Yes - there were several posts towards the beginning of this thread where users of this site have used firearms in self defense.

In the fire suppression system analogy, I guess you would have to decide which is worse for you? The very very unlikely feeling of helplessness as you watch your house burn, or the terrible, very very unlikely feeling of cleaning up your flooded house...
Give me one fine day of plain sailing weather and I can mess up anything.

MustacheMathTM

cheapass

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 462
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #544 on: March 18, 2016, 01:54:51 PM »
Just curious, has anyone here ever had to use a gun in self-defense, or know of someone who did? 

My wife's mother is a former police officer in a major city. There were at least 2 occasions when she was off-duty with her kids in the car and, without going into specifics, her showing her pistol to someone caused them to stop what they were doing and walk away in a hurry.

I don't want to think about what might have happened had she been unarmed.

Because, pretty much all the data on the subject (admittedly not much, just the way we like it!) says that having a gun in close proximity increases the chance that you, or someone in your household, will be, you know, shot with a gun.  So you're basically trading a super low probability event (getting violently assaulted by someone you don't know) for the increased probability that you or someone in your household will be getting shot. And by you, no less! 

See, the thing about that statistic is that it's not random chance like the lottery. You can choose to lock your firearm up away from children, you can choose not to kill your family, etc.

Also, yeah of course having a gun in the home increases the chances that someone will get shot. Having a car in the garage increases the chances that you'll get in a car accident. Having a 6 ft. rope increases the odds you'll hang yourself.
« Last Edit: March 18, 2016, 02:09:44 PM by armueller2001 »

Curbside Prophet

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 182
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #545 on: March 18, 2016, 02:44:18 PM »
Its almost like if I became obsessively concerned with my house burning down so I install some industrial strength sprinkler system that certainly stops any fire, but could also flood my house at any moment.

I don't think this analogy fits for a few reasons.  1) Because you have a gun doesn't mean you obsessively think about a home intrusion.  It's there if you need it but it doesn't occupy every waking minute (at least for me).  And 2) "industrial strength sprinkler system" implies high cost of capital when in actuality you can purchase a firearm for a few hundred bucks.

I think my fire extinguisher analogy is closer than an industrial strength sprinkler.

Gin1984

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4322
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #546 on: March 18, 2016, 03:01:23 PM »
Just curious, has anyone here ever had to use a gun in self-defense, or know of someone who did? 

My wife's mother is a former police officer in a major city. There were at least 2 occasions when she was off-duty with her kids in the car and, without going into specifics, her showing her pistol to someone caused them to stop what they were doing and walk away in a hurry.

I don't want to think about what might have happened had she been unarmed.

Because, pretty much all the data on the subject (admittedly not much, just the way we like it!) says that having a gun in close proximity increases the chance that you, or someone in your household, will be, you know, shot with a gun.  So you're basically trading a super low probability event (getting violently assaulted by someone you don't know) for the increased probability that you or someone in your household will be getting shot. And by you, no less! 

See, the thing about that statistic is that it's not random chance like the lottery. You can choose to lock your firearm up away from children, you can choose not to kill your family, etc.

Also, yeah of course having a gun in the home increases the chances that someone will get shot. Having a car in the garage increases the chances that you'll get in a car accident. Having a 6 ft. rope increases the odds you'll hang yourself.
Yes and most think they are among the "good" group.  Like if you ask people if they are a good, middle or poor most say they are a good driver. 
My brother has guns and I think nothing of having my daughter at his house because he is a responsible gun owner.  My daughter can't get the guns, they are in a safe.  And even if she could, the bullets are in their own mini-safe.  Compare that to my ILs who think by putting their guns on the shelf in the closet, they are being responsible because he assumed the kids could not get it.  My daughter (and their son) could easily reach them.  I'm not trusting personal judgement, that is why I think we need safety courses, requirements on that safety etc.  People are stupid, we know this.  Why not account for it?
« Last Edit: March 20, 2016, 06:20:47 PM by Gin1984 »

scottish

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 794
  • Location: Ottawa
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #547 on: March 18, 2016, 05:55:28 PM »
Wow, I never thought my thread would go on for so long.

Donald Trump is threatening riots if the GOP figures out some way to deny him the nomination.

The candidate selection process is a Republican thing, correct?   So it's not part of the government, in some sense it's 'owned' by the party.   Do you think pro-Trump supporters will take their firearms and riot in the streets?   I could see how angry Trump supporters might view this as an action of a  tyrannical government.


MoonShadow

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2544
  • Location: Louisville, Ky.
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #548 on: March 18, 2016, 06:27:46 PM »
Wow, I never thought my thread would go on for so long.

Donald Trump is threatening riots if the GOP figures out some way to deny him the nomination.

Is that the wording he used?  Seems unlikely.

Quote

The candidate selection process is a Republican thing, correct?
So it's not part of the government, in some sense it's 'owned' by the party.
Yes.  But the Boy Scouts are a private institution, and they were forced to allow gay boys to participate, so simply being a private institution doesn't mean as much as it once did.

Quote
Do you think pro-Trump supporters will take their firearms and riot in the streets?

No, random riots & property damage are a leftist thing.  Pro-Trump supporters are more likely to engage in 'precision impeachment'.  From where I stand, I hear whispers that Mitch McConnel is already on the short list; and I live in his district.  Actually, I live in Rand Paul's district, but as popular as Mitch is with the voter base, he does have some rather heated opposition in his own party.
Quote

 I could see how angry Trump supporters might view this as an action of a  tyrannical government.

I doubt that.
« Last Edit: March 18, 2016, 06:30:30 PM by MoonShadow »

MoonShadow

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2544
  • Location: Louisville, Ky.
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #549 on: March 18, 2016, 06:34:14 PM »
Wow, I never thought my thread would go on for so long.

Donald Trump is threatening riots if the GOP figures out some way to deny him the nomination.

Is that the wording he used?  Seems unlikely.


"I think you’d have riots... I wouldn’t lead it but I think bad things would happen.”

Interesting.  But how is such a veiled threat as this different than "No Justice, No Peace"?