2nd amendment, tactical rifles, and large capacity magazines

I have to say that up until recently my views on gun ownership and gun controls have had a typical Canadian slant, which tends to have us looking at our southern neighbours as gun lovers. I had never take the time to really and truly understand the Second Amendment, which by and large I just viewed as an "enshrined permission" to own guns, for whatever reason, which was being rather enthusiastically embraced by waaaay too many people for (my) comfort. This view is of course widely perpetuated in the MSM.

Since I started to follow this site and the great discussions with many of the exceptional people who take part, I find I am awakening to the fact that this view point is not as valid as I thought it to be. I have not grown up with any kind of mindset whatsoever that I need to fear my own government; that my own government would take action against its citizens; that I need to protect myself from my government.

While I still do not perceive nearly as much of a threat here in Canada, the blinders are now off, and I realize I can no longer ignore the realities of how things are evolving. The big picture is becoming more clear, and it absolutely appears to be evident that extra-ordinary preparations are taking place in the US in anticipation of wide spread social unrest. We are joined at the hip as countries, and as the US goes, so too do we. Do not forget that we have so many of the resources that are greatly coveted...when push comes to shove, we all know that our resources will be shared, willingly or not.

Having witnessed the sudden savagery of the mob mentality in the recent Vancouver hockey riots, as well as reading about the grave effects of the Argentine currency crisis, I can only imagine how the masses will react to another financial crisis, hyperinflation, or long term stagnation - essentially, when they realize how we have been royally screwed. So many are unaware and unprepared, and will be blindsided. Then they will get angry, really angry. We are getting glimpses of awakenings in the outbreaks happening all over the globe. The most dangerous people of all are the people who have lost hope, with nothing left to lose. The powers that be know this too, and thus the preparations they are taking. It is truly frightening.

The good and decent person in me wishes I did not have to think in these terms, much in the same way I wish that the financial calamity that is bearing down on us is just a bad dream. I am awake now to the fact that wishful thinking is useless, and must replaced with a dose of reality. I have not thus far taken seriously prepping for protecting myself and that which I own. It is time to add that element to my plan, based on the realities of where I live and the potential threats that might exist. I do this begrudgingly, knowing as always that it is better to be a year too early than a day too late.

Jan

Absolutely agree it makes a great case for needing the fire power! There are TONS of these types of cases out there where someone has been shot multiple times and continues to fight, even without the influence of drugs (the man in said FBI report only had trace amounts of THC in his system!).

Add that to the fact that the wonderful new game called 'home invasion robbery' is usually perpetrated by 3-4 assailaints and your standard sized magazine becomes woefully under armed.

A general rule I hear many police I know state is (paraphrased) "In a gun fight you miss half the time (real data shows you miss about 70%) and it takes 2 hits to stop someone".  That rule which is overly generous means in theory you need 12 rounds to defend against 3 attackers or 16 to defend against 4... Or if you are me, you have a reinforced panic room where you go hide and cry like a small child.

I too cracked up reading about the gangs of women!  truly scary thought. 

Great summary of the issue and much appreciated contribution. The rifle has always been the primary weapon of self defense.  Reminds me of this old Joke:

"An old time Sheriff showed up at the church social wearing his revolver. An elderly lady asked, "I see you brought your sidearm, Sheriff, are you expecting trouble?" The old lawman politely replied, "No ma'am, if I was expecting trouble I'd have brought my rifle."

I will pass assault rifles to my children and grandchildren - regardless of any outside dictates, social norms, or risk.  

Rector

Actually, the purpose of the Second is to justify the formation of well-regulated militias. The right to bear arms should require no approval from government because it is an intrinsic right, part of the right to self-defense and of English common law. But because the need to defend others is not intrinsic, then the right to bear arms as part of defending oneself was used as justification to form militias needed for people to defend their country.

"State" was used in place of "country" because militias that were already formed were used as slave patrols. Thus, as state legislators could use the militias for whatever purpose was needed for their region, the federal government could also use the same militias to quell rebelling whites as well as Amerindians. Proof can be seen in Art. 1 Sec. 8 and the Militia Acts.

The same Militia Acts required conscription (removed much later), i.e., all white males of a certain age range had to arm themselves and serve in militias regulated by state legislators and answerable to the federal government.

Thus, the claim that the Second is meant to allow people to protect themselves against the government is wrong. The purpose of the Second is actually the opposite: to make people serve the government through militias using the right to bear arms as justification.

Finally, examples involving the Soviets, etc., show not only the effects of gun control but also the effects of the opposite, i.e., arms proliferation and mechanized armies. That's why even in the U.S. the police and military have better armaments and provisions such as surveillance and prison systems, all ironically supplied by the same arms industry that lobbies for gun control and costs passed on to citizens. The same arms industry, through lobbying, is also able to profit from arms sales to other countries. In several cases, the same government uses those sales as part of military aid to influence some countries and destabilize others, with costs once more passed on to citizens.

This is a good discussion.  People need to think about self defence in a serious way as in the not too distant future you may have to defend yourself.  One thing I keep thinking is why does the government not want us to be able to defend outselves.  If they don't trust me with firearms then I don't trust them with firearms as the government is basically us.  For the most part the government is made up of Americans - us.  There are people who live all around me who are armed to the teeth and I never worry about them coming over to the house to kill us.  Just the opposite, I am glad they have firearms and know how to use them.  We may need that in the coming months and years.

I know there is a political agenda in the Dem party to try to get our firearms and it seems like they are willing to run an extensive media campaign in an effort to inflame public opinion to get them.  That is backfiring on them and firearm sales are at an all time high as a result.  I do not believe the Repubs will agree to a law to take our guns but you never know - the Repubs keep surprising me to the downside.

It really comes down to the constitution.  Are we a civil society operating under the rule of law grounded by the constitution or not ?  It is all coming down to that one question.  Are we or aren't we...