Well, if a cop has never been killed by one, how is the label “cop-killer” accurate?
I mean, as long as were calling a spade a spade and not a rutabaga.
It is worth noting that the “rifle” the Minuteman grabbed was probably a .75 cal. Tower Musket that was provided by the Crown and not Grandpa’s fowling piece. Also the Minuteman himself was a member of the Mass. Militia’s equivalent of the Delta Force – a man pledged to be ready to march in pursuit of Indian raiders on the Mass frontier within 30 minutes of the alarm.
Well in this case, my deer hunting rifle is actually the rifle of choice for many police and military snipers, although mine is of a different caliber than some of those snipers would choose, so it’s not like that one has no military value whatsoever.
Also, the standard sidearm for military use is typically 9mm, which also happens to be one of my pistols.
I didn’t choose those firearms for their value as ‘military like’ weapons, but because they were effective for the uses I had in mind: hunting deer and shooting targets. They would, however, not be useless in a ‘Minuteman’ sense of the word.
D the C: “fetishists?” Again, an attempt to link firearms ownership to some form of sexuality. Methinks you need help.
SentientMeat:
I dare you to quote anyone in this thread prior to the post from which I quote who has advocated private ownership of squad-level ordnance! This is the fucking Stay-Puft Marshmallow Man of a strawman!
At least it was until RandomLetters piped up. Must I once again trot out the difference between Arms and Ordnance?
As far as the “club vault” goes, why should it even be necessary to involuntarily surrender my private property to the care of a third party? It just adds another layer of bureaucracy for the gun control’s “Ban 'em all” crowd to exploit once the moderates in their midst are satisfied and go away.
By conservative estimates, there are 85,000 Defensive Gun Uses in the United States every year; that number may be up or down since it came out almost a decade ago. How many of those might be averted homicides? Averted rapes? We can’t say, as the survey didn’t break down that way.
As far as I’m concerned, if it was even just one murder/rape averted, it’s worth it.
Armor Piercing, Laser Guided, Heat Seeking, Fin-Stabilized, Discarding Sabot Depleted Uranium Bullets:
Don’t exist. The true “armor piercing” bullet was never manufactured in any quantity for civilian use, and never sold to the general public; they were restricted to law-enforcement and military-only applications.
The simple and silly fact of the matter is that standard hunting cartridges pack one hell of a wollop, and can pierce moderate levels of body armor by dint of sheer kinetic energy, without having a single armor penetrating enhancement built into it at all. At close range, the bigger hunting cartridges may pierce even strong levels of body armor or light vehicular armor. But not because it’s an “Armor Piercing” bullet!
The originally worded “Armor Piercing Bullet Ban” was so broadly worded as to ban anything more butch than a .22 Short; of course the NRA oppossed it; so did the National Shooting Sports Foundation. It was with the cooperation of the NRA and real ballistics experts that an effective ban was placed on true Armor Piercing Bullets without gutting the civilian hunting rounds.
Once again, a tip o’ the hat to DSeid.
Diogenes, SentientMeat, read DSeid and learn!
DSeid: as tactically disadvantageous as it appears, in a “give no ground” extended campaign, “taking back that ground” may have a long-term strategic pay-off.
Well, wouldn’t you, as a militia man, want to be as well armed as your average soldier? If you’re entitled to an automatic rifle, why not a heavier automatic gun or an RPG? Such weapons could be carried by one person and could be grabbed from the cupboard in the hall at a moment’s notice. Surely today’s equivalent of the minuteman would be forced to deal with tanks, armoured vehicles and so on.
I don’t really see a use in myself, as one person, having RPGs or anti-tank weapons.
I can see a guerrilla use for such things as rifles and sidearms, although I don’t think of it in terms of the ‘minutemen vs. the US Federal Gov’t.’
I suppose I tend to have the ‘rifle behind every blade of grass’ view of things. That should terrorists or something decide to try an attack like that, one of the deterrants might be that large numbers of Americans do own private arms.
Unlikely? Of course. It wasn’t a factor in my decision for buying firearms at all.
As a purely hypothetical what if Joe Terrorists are running around in the streets, I could, hypothetically, use the arms I currently own and practice with for other purposes.
That’s not the question though. We’re not discussing you as one person, but you as a member of a militia, presumably entitled to arm yourself to the level of the average soldier.
Given the references to militias and state defence in the 2nd Amendment, do you or do you not believe that the 2nd Amendment lays out the right to bear arms heavier than a rifle, such as heavy machine guns and RPGs? Why or why not?
It’s an open question, not just one for catsix.
I think it means ‘arms’ in the traditional sense of the word: something that is portable and operable by one person, and is not a crew serviced weapon.
RPGs don’t tend to fit into that because, as far as I know, they’re not something that just one soldier goes carrying around.
I’m thinking things like M-16s or H&K MP5s.
Aren’t they? You see lots of footage on the news of Iraqi insurgents etc carrying around RPGs and launchers and firing them. Unless the cameras aren’t showing a vital two-man lodaing job or something, it’s all a one-man job.
With the one-man carry & use definition for “arms” (I agree that this one seems likely to be implied by the phrase “bear arms”), wouldn’t this also allow heavier (both literally and figuratively) automatic weapons than the M-16? How about rifles with grenade launchers? How about stand-alone grenade launchers (no propulsion)? Do you believe that these are acceptable under the 2nd Amendment
The RPG, according to the Wikipedia:
Well, then I guess an RPG is man portable.
Far as I know, it’s still considered ordnance, and not arms. At any rate, I don’t know what you’re trying to do here. Make me say that regular people should have RPGs so that you can say I’m one of those nutjobs who believes in no limits at all?
I don’t think RPGs are ‘arms’ as referred to in the Bill of Rights.
No, I certainly don’t think you’re a nutjob, and I’m not trying to manipulate you. I’m just trying to point out that there is a bit of cognitive dissonance going on with the meaning of the Second Amendment.
Chops, what the fuck does this have to do with the OP?
Are RPGs banned assault weapons or something?
You’re beating a dead horse.
And if it were ever shown to effectively cause four times and twice as many, respectively, would it still be “worth it”?
Since you italicized “cause”, I assume you have some evidence of causation. Could we see it?
Regards,
Shodan
Since when do firearms go on out and cause crimes?
You’re going to have to prove that claim.
I asked "if it were ever shown to effectively cause a higher murder rate, would it still be “worth it”?
The US has a vastly higher murder rate than the UK, but a similar total crime rate and assault rate. Something is causing those crimes and assaults to be vastly more lethal. I contend (but cannot prove) that the most important distinguishing factor is ease of access to a far more lethal means of assaulting someone.
If murder, in general, is occuring at a much higher rate in the US than the UK, then perhaps we should look at all of the things that could be causing that difference?
That means we have to look at where these murders are happening, what population demographic they are among, whether or not they are parts of other crimes, etc.
I think this is especially true since in some of the areas where it is hardest to legally own a firearm, we see some of the highest murder rates.
I also asked whether it is entirely correct to compare the UK to the US as a whole when the US has vastly different population demographics depending upon where you are in the country at any given time.
Of course, and we ought not do so through agenda-tinted spectacles. I am perfectly willing to entertain the possibility that easy firearm access has nothing to do with it. But since all of these “extra” murders involve firearms, I struggle to see past the obvious correlation. I hope the cognitive dissonance is not causing some to simply ignore the correlation in a desperate scramble to justify their own agendum.
That may be so, but I would suggest that “legal ownership” is a red herring. If firearm access is easy (even by the simple expedient of an inter-state bus ride or outright theft) then stiff penalties for ownership are going to put a lot of people in prison. I personally believe that gun ownership must be addressed at a national level. If, somehwere, it is legal to bring firearms into the country, it is easy to distribute them to places where their presence is illegal. In the UK, even the hardest, most violence-prone criminal shits one at the idea that a random search of his house uncovering a gun he might not ever use will put him away for 5 years.
Look as hard as you like at the demographic differences between the US and UK, but keep in mind that the policy differences are staring you right in the face.
Why are they ‘extra’?
Not to say that murder is a good thing, just wondering if maybe considering the localities in the US with high murder rates (which push the national total upward), maybe there aren’t ‘extra’ murders?
You have random home searches?