Forum Replies Created

Viewing 5 posts - 671 through 675 (of 675 total)
  • Author
    Posts
    • Sun, Nov 09, 2008 - 11:23pm

      #37

      Aaron M

      Status Platinum Member (Offline)

      Joined: Oct 22 2008

      Posts: 790

      count placeholder

      Re: Buying Guns, for Fear of Losing the Right to Bear Them

    Doug,

    Thanks for the reply and for sharing some of your experience.

    The military is a uniquely evolved organism in our society. As of now, we have a huge quality disparity between our Special Operations Forces, and our "regular" troops. The nature of insurgent warfare is to attack the "weak" links in the fence. Avoid the infantry, shoot the transportation and fuels guys.

    The war at this point, is as you say. A brushfire conflict akin to Vietnam in strategry (to use a Bush word). The Russian empire collapsed from an extremely similar "bleeding wound" (as described by Gorbachov) – Afghanistan.

    We’re also seeing a trend that the Roman empire would recognize – and I absolutely mean NO disrespect to our immigrants in service – but we have a large portion of our "influx" population that are ethnic and have failed to assimilate.

    The "gravity" that America has for immigrants draws them in, but we’re now taking in cultures faster than we can "assimilate" them. I don’t mean in a "borgish" way, but educating them to the prevelance of our constitution, Bill of Rights and so on. Many academics now reject facts and have adopted revisionist views.
    I recently heard a guy saying that the phrase "Indian Giving" came from the US Government giving and taking back land from the Native Americans.

    As politically correct as that is, it’s untrue. Instead of acknowledging experiences as positive or negative and learning, we’ve adopted a mentality of "changing" the history to reflect our wants.

    Similarly, we heard the arguement that because assault rifles didn’t exsist in colonial times, the Founding Fathers would have objected to the standards they themselves set. I could provide quotes for hours to disprove this line of thinking, but our academia has been shaped by socialism to reject everything and embrace a sort of orwellian doublethink. It’s extremely easy for a "common" person to rationalize this arguement based on emotion alone.

    Without tribulation, weakness sets in rapidly.

    With regards to citizen ownership of Machine Guns – no, most of them are Doctors, Lawyers, Engineers or Businessmen.
    However, because a "corporation" is not a human – a "corporation" can possess automatic weapons, suppressors and so on by placing it in corporate ownership.

    So many of those organizations aquire Class III weapons through that method…
    One of the most notable examples of this is your local Police Department.

    I agree with you entirely on "gun nuts". I think of guns as I would a hammer or wrench. Certain tools for certain jobs. An American man or woman who truly believes in a constitutional republic should own and be proficient in the use of "fighting" weapons, as a safeguard from the draconian nonsense we’re seeing with our government presently.

    It’s becoming more obvious that the left wing and the right wing are attached to the same diseased vulture.

    Cheers brother, and thanks again for the reply.

    Aaron

     

    • Sun, Nov 09, 2008 - 03:49pm

      #33

      Aaron M

      Status Platinum Member (Offline)

      Joined: Oct 22 2008

      Posts: 790

      count placeholder

      Re: Buying Guns, for Fear of Losing the Right to Bear Them

    I’ve taken the liberty of itemizing your quotes for ease of addressing them. 

    [quote]This statement is simply silly. 
    1. If the military and police don’t train people to use them, who does? 
    2. And if no one is trained to use them, where are the weapons? 
    Of course military and police have the weapons and are trained to use them.  And I bet they’re pretty damned careful about not letting civilians have them. [/quote]

    Ironically – I agree with you. That statement is silly. It’s absolute lunacy to give your troops only a couple hours of time on the firing range bi-annually. But that is exactly how it is. I’m in the military presently. So I can tell you with authority, the firearms handling skills of our American troops is in steady decline. I’ve gone for training at several private civilian institutes for weapons handling and tactics over the years – and the average troop is literally 40 years behind the technical and tactical curve.

     1. The military and police allot a budget of time and funds for "training". However, this is almost always limited to simply the "qualification" process. It is NOT training, but 101 level handling and marksmanship. It has nothing to do with surviving in armed combat. If you’re not familiar, look up the term "suppression fire". Then look at the "Fired to Kill Ratio". In Iraq, something akin to 250,000 rounds are fired for every one insurgent killed. This is a verifiable statistic, though the exact figure may have changed.

    2. The weapons are STILL in the hands of the people who "qualified" on them. I’m sure you’ll agree that simply "qualifying" with or for something does not denote quality, profiency or expertise.

    [quote]Are you saying that today I can buy a $200 dollar tax stamp and own a fully automatic weapon?  You can’t mean that. [/quote]

    That is exactly what I’m saying.
    You fill out paperwork, submit your payment for the registered machinegun, submit a $200 tax for a fingerprinting and the BATFE review it. Once approved, you’re "legal" to own the machinegun.
    It’s expensive – that’s why it’s not common. I know several people who own legal machineguns, they’re all civilians, and they’re all more skilled than the Infantry or Police I’ve worked with for the last few years.

    [quote]And the larger point, no one I know, in fact no organization I know other than the police and military could afford the weapons to effectively fight today’s police or military.[/quote]

    You know… I was sitting the TOC talking to some infantry fellas. One told me that Iraqi insurgents were taking down helicopters (little birds) with kites. Copper wire as line. When the little birds flew over, it rapped around the rotors, and down they go.

    AH6J: $6,000,000 http://www.dodbuzz.com/2008/10/23/a-little-bird-for-the-army/?wh=wh
    Kite: $14.99 Available at Toys ‘r’ Us. http://www.toysrus.com/product/index.jsp?productId=2341097
    Copper Wire: $75 http://dallas.craigslist.org/ftw/mat/910235094.html

    Winning a fight is a matter of mindset, skillset and tactics.
    Our military only has ONE of these. Our police, often none.

    Scary weapons account for intimidation, but we have everything we need to match any adversary in mindset.

    A few final caveats:
    1. Don’t reject this information for the same reason people reject Mr. Martenson’s economic information.
    2. Also, please do not take this information as a "suggestion". I do not advocate a violent overthrow of the government.
    3. I advocate peaceful change through political action – though we cannot allow ourselves to dull into a weak and easily subjegated population.
    4. I resent the fact that the MOMENT I take off my uniform – I am no longer mentally competant to own or possess a rifle; without paying hefty monetary fines… And calling people "Gun Nuts" is dismissive. Most of those people value their liberty in ways that people have forgotten exsisted.

    Best Regards to you Doug,

    Aaron

    • Sat, Nov 08, 2008 - 04:31pm

      #30

      Aaron M

      Status Platinum Member (Offline)

      Joined: Oct 22 2008

      Posts: 790

      count placeholder

      Re: Buying Guns, for Fear of Losing the Right to Bear Them

    Big Ben, some biblical perspective for you;
    He that hath no sword, let him sell his garment and buy one. – Luke 22:36. 

     And by thy sword shalt thou live, and shalt serve thy brother; and it shall come to pass when thou shalt have the dominion, that thou shalt break his yoke from off thy neck. – Gen 27:40

    When a strong man armed keepeth his palace, his goods are in peace Luke 11:21

    Robert Heinlein is a personal hero of mine. His sort of centraist rational was just devoid of social pretensus and he gave us some great quotes about firearms ownership, and civic responsibility in general.

    In "Beyond this Horizion, he said;
    [quote]"An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life." [/quote]

    This statement is only true if citizens take it upon themself to shoulder the heavy weight of martial discipline.
    He said also;

    [quote]A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects.
    -Lazarus Long, Time Enough For Love [/quote]

    We have been reduced and diminished by our political handlers. I don’t believe in a NWO or vast conspiracy.
    Anyone whose spent time around men of Ego know it’s nearly impossible to get them to conceed anything.

    But there is a philosphy that persists in the world that does intend to subjegate the citizenry; there always has been, and there likely always will be.

    Cheers, and thanks for the kind words!

    Aaron

    • Fri, Nov 07, 2008 - 07:44pm

      #19

      Aaron M

      Status Platinum Member (Offline)

      Joined: Oct 22 2008

      Posts: 790

      count placeholder

      Re: Buying Guns, for Fear of Losing the Right to Bear Them

    [quote=john50]Guns are used by the people who did no preparation to rob those that have prepared. That has been what happens in other countries when things get real bad, the bad have guns. The man that has a generator chained to his home – meets the man that has a bolt cutter or gun. It makes you wonder who to fear, Big Brother or the local redneck Gang? [/quote]

    Kind of short sighted isn’t it?

    Those very same guns are used by those who’d defend themselves.
    If you’re not strong enough in your conviction to defend what you’ve earned, you’ll lose it.
    You’ve identified half of that – so do your part and civic duty and learn to use a rifle to defend yourself, your family and your nation.

    …And I highly doubt local redneck gangs would be taking your farm over.
    That sounds like a totally implausible "city slicker" thing to say. 

    I’d be far more worried about urban refugees who lack EVERY elementary survival skill.

    • Fri, Nov 07, 2008 - 06:00pm

      #13

      Aaron M

      Status Platinum Member (Offline)

      Joined: Oct 22 2008

      Posts: 790

      count placeholder

      Re: Buying Guns, for Fear of Losing the Right to Bear Them

    Doug,
    I mean this in the nicest way possible – but you sir are unconsciously ignorant.
    You don’t even know what you don’t know.

    Your first post:

    [quote]The right wing gun nuts get their panties in a wad and scare themselves silly.  The gun laws now are essentially the same as they were when I was a kid 45-50 years ago.  The bottom line is you can’t buy automatic weapons. "[/quote]

    Every portion of this post is untrue. 
    Since "40-50" years ago, we’ve had:

    1. The 1968 gun control act prohibited imports of all nonsporting firearms and created several new categories of restricted firearms and;

    2. The 1986 Firearms Owner Protection Act made illegal the production of new Machineguns via the Hughes Amendment (Hughes was some politician from NJ.)

    And the now expired "Sunset" Assault Weapons ban of the Clinton era, which arbitrarially banned certain weapons because of cosmetic features – literally vestigial features like collapsible stocks, implying that those made weapons "more powerful". The mitigating factor in any instance is, of course, skill. Crime during this period was not effectively curbed, and its enaction was with utter disregard from the FBI’s statistics stating that "Assault" weapons accounted for <1% of all Firearms related crime.

    3. You’re also incorrect about "buying" automatic weapons. They are legal under the 1934 NFA act, but require a Tax Stamp for puchase. This act "classified" weapons according to the BATFE (More or less to ensure their continuity after Prohibition) which had to be "registered" by a $200 tax stamp. Of course, at this time it was extremely prohibitive for the common person to afford. Unscruplulous to say the least.

    Your next, equally uninformed comment: 

    [quote]OTOH, there is an energetic black market in guns out there.  Go to any gun show and you can meet people who can get you just about anything short of anti-tank weapons.  And, the legal assault weapons, that have been modified to make them semi-automatic,  can again be modified to make them fully automatic.  Everybody who is into guns knows this.  As a whole we are a very well armed nation. [/quote]

    -Anti-tank weapons are legal. As are Grenades, Machineguns, Sound Suppressors and nearly anything else you can imagine. They are simply class III weapons, or Destructive Devices. Certain states have provisions outlawing certain types of weapons, but by in large, money talks. Keeping these weapons out of the hands of the proletarian is the ultimate goal.

    -"Legal" assault weapons, as you call them – have not been modified. They are Manufactured to be semi automatic. Features of these rifles Mechanically preclude them from being made "fully Automatic" as you say – especially in newer rifles like the AR-15.
    A different bolt carrier, safety and trigger group is used.

    Your second post stated (and this made me cringe, as both a Military professional and a person with LE experience)

    [quote]The military and police may be small in numbers, but they make up for it by having really scary guns.  The notion that we could put up any kind of defense against the government with the guns law abiding people have in their homes is laughable.[/quote]

    -The police and military are no different than anyone else. The military, has tight restrictions on ownership of weapons which makes it extremely difficult to "train" or practice.
    -"Scary guns" with no training are noise-makers. Unfortunately, this is common across the board with our armed forces. Many troops, like you, don’t know what they don’t know.

    [quote]At the time of the founding fathers the typical guns people had were the same guns militaries had, except cannons.  It was reasonable to think about putting down a dictatorial gov’t with those guns.  But, we don’t live in that world anymore.[/quote]

    This is incompatible with your own logic presented above – which states that you can buy anything short of anti-tank rockets. Can you justify this double think?
    Citizens are the power in any society. Even if EVERY officer of the Law and EVERY soldier turned on their countrymen and fought them – and even if the numbers were equal (which they’re not even close), the citizen would have the advantage due to their ability to "choose" the fight – just as we see with insurgents overseas.

    [quote]importantly, well trained military and police.  Going up against that kind of force on its own turf is called suicidal.

    Aside from the kinds of arms we have, you also have to recognize that any kind of uprising would at least initially be by a relatively small group of people, and would likely be viewed by the greater society as a threat to civil order.  They would probably side with the gov’t.

    So, please spare me the rhetoric about protecting ourselves against a tyranical gov’t.  We can’t. [/quote]

    This represents a mindset. It is not yours alone, but there are other points of view.
    Some believe their liberty, and their progeny’s liberty is more important than a temporal life.

    Apologies for the long post – it’s important to give more consideration to critical matters. I’ve dedicated my life to the service of the constitution, and I find it sad and discouraging that people would sooner pawn off the defense of their liberty than attempt to stand for it.
    Further restrictions on the citizens’ right to own comparable firearms should be viewed as what it is – a governmental attempt to disallow the citizen body the ability to defend itself. You’ll see quickly that President Obama’s "support" of gun owners only extends to duck and deer hunters – and his belief is that no one should carry a weapon, or train in the use of fighting weapons.

    Contrary to the constitution – and I emplore you to research Marbury v Madison’s finding that anything repungent to the constitution is null and void.

    Regards,

    Aaron

Viewing 5 posts - 671 through 675 (of 675 total)