I don't agree with the NRA

[Jeff Higgins]

I think the one key point in the argument of what might happen in a large scale conflict between our citizenry and our government is that most of the men and women who are in the military or on our police forces would side with the citizenry. Granted, the higher up officers and commanders - the career guys and gals - might follow orders and attack the citizenry, but I honestly think they would probably just get their asses fragged. The rank and file would be on our side. They would take the side of their families and friends. I honestly believe that if relations between our government and our citizenry deteriorated to that point, our men and women in arms would count themselves with us, not the government.

[Porchdog]

Originally Posted by cabmando

Take the gloves off our military and it would be over in a matter of days. Don't believe me? Look at what we did twice in Iraq. We wouldn't stand a snowball's chance in hell.

You don't need to tell me. My son is a Marine. I am fully aware of their effectiveness in battle and how their hands are tied in recent conflicts.

You think that our military is eager to turn their guns on their friends, family and neighbors because the politicians tell them to? Those folks are, by and large, very patriotic. That doesn't mean that they are happy about politicians eroding their rights and freedoms. If anything, the opposite.

General Lee was a standout US officer before he was a confederate officer.

Nobody wants a civil war. Nobody wants to be in the position of shooting at government officials, police, soldiers, their fellow citizens or anyone else.

Give the politicians to much power and they turn into Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Maduro. The constitution and our freedoms are our only defense against that here.

[fintstone]

That is why officers swear to support and defend the Constitution:

"I ___, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic..."

[john70t]

Originally Posted by cabmando

It's a fantasy to believe the people could rise up and take down an oppressive regime.

Certainly not with that attitude, young man.

[Rapewta]

Jeff...

I agree. So ugly. A tragedy. It is on the horizon. Terrible but necessary.

[techman1]

After reading the many comments, I think we can all agree, this is like shoes, not a "One size fits all"
If you see no reason to have flood insurance, due to living in the mountains of Colorado, don't be so dense to think all policies should not have the option. Some may need it.

Magazine size / detachable. Look up the video of the Kehoe brothers shootout. With police. Lookup how many shots the police fired, AND DID NOT HIT! Many on the side of "You do not need that many bullets" argument equate each bullet to a kill. In a defensive situation, you may be firing to prevent being killed, not to kill. In a situation where you are forced to use deadly force, what do you think will happen if you run out of ammo before the bad guy? He or they will walk away?

Do you live on a ranch, away from everyone, and have a ranch rifle in the cab in a rack? It is as essential as a spare tire (or AAA) living in the city. But is it viable solution if you live in the city?

To the person who makes the statement "A person not in the military or an LEO have no need of a AR 15" ask yourself "What do I do to protect myself and family, and am I willing let someone force me to stop?" Some folks in the country leave the keys in the car, and even leave their doors unlocked a good bit of the time. How would you feel if they banded together and forced their beliefs regarding safety on you?

[Jeff Higgins]

Very well said, techman1. Our individual needs are as varied as we are, and no one has the right to tell another man what he "needs" in terms of self protection. It is each individual's right to choose for himself. If a guy is happy with limited magazine capacity for his own use, more power to him. I support his choice. He has every right to make that choice - for himself, but not for me. If he supports a third party making that decision for me, then he has reduced my right to a privilege allowed me by that third party, subject to the terms and conditions dictated by that third party.

[KFC911]

When I bought my Marlin on my 18th b-day, I could not purchase the ammo, nor a pistol until I was 21. I still have it, and 3 pistols....all owned since before I was ALLOWED to purchase them. Were my 2A rights infringed....naw. What if the "kids" of today could not purchase the "glamour" guns, and high capacity mags until they were older? Ain't none of us/US gonna have our guns taken...we ARE different, and we have learned....

I want more scrutiny on "kids" buying guns....though guns are NOT the problem, but we have a problem. Lot of you guys would have been killed when the Marshal asked fer yer gun in the old west .

I'd have lived to drink some more

[cabmandone]

Originally Posted by Jeff Higgins

I think the one key point in the argument of what might happen in a large scale conflict between our citizenry and our government is that most of the men and women who are in the military or on our police forces would side with the citizenry. Granted, the higher up officers and commanders - the career guys and gals - might follow orders and attack the citizenry, but I honestly think they would probably just get their asses fragged. The rank and file would be on our side. They would take the side of their families and friends. I honestly believe that if relations between our government and our citizenry deteriorated to that point, our men and women in arms would count themselves with us, not the government.

Kent State... Ohio National Guard. While one side wasn't armed, the National Guard didn't seem to have a problem shooting them. While not active duty, they're still part of the armed forces. I don't think there's any guarantee where they would fall in the whole thing if it came down to it. Like I said earlier, the side trying to overtake the oppressive government better be damn sure they can make a persuasive argument that the government is indeed oppressive.

[Sooner or later]

Cab, you have now used two examples of law enforcement /military killing when killing was not needed. What better reason is there to suppport civilian armament.

It is not about who would win. It is about government knowing that the masses are armed and the risks of initiating a conflict.

[cabmandone]

Originally Posted by Sooner or later

Cab, you have now used two examples of law enforcement /military killing when killing was not needed. What better reason is there to suppport civilian armament.

It is not about who would win. It is about government knowing that the masses are armed and the risks of initiating a conflict.

I'm not against civilian armament. Never once said I was. They knew the people in Oregon were armed and armed pretty well by most reports... Yet one of the people who took over the facility died. It's a losing proposition whether they know we're armed or not.

[fintstone]

Originally Posted by cabmando

Kent State... Ohio National Guard. While one side wasn't armed, the National Guard didn't seem to have a problem shooting them. While not active duty, they're still part of the armed forces. I don't think there's any guarantee where they would fall in the whole thing if it came down to it. Like I said earlier, the side trying to overtake the oppressive government better be damn sure they can make a persuasive argument that the government is indeed oppressive.

I see it as an example of just the opposite. The soldiers were outnumbered and if they had been equally armed (with rocks)...they might have been killed. Soldiers have been sent in during riots elsewhere as well.

No one claimed that soldiers could/would not do their duty or defend themselves...or make mistakes. That is a far cry from siding with an unconstitutional government.

[cabmandone]

Originally Posted by fintstone

I see it as an example of just the opposite. The soldiers were outnumbered and if they had been equally armed (with rocks)...they might have been killed. Soldiers have been sent in during riots elsewhere as well.

No one claimed that soldiers could/would not do their duty or defend themselves...or make mistakes. That is a far cry from siding with an unconstitutional government.

They took up arms against their fellow countrymen. Paint it how you want but they shot unarmed people. I had to brush up on what happened since I wasn't born yet and hadn't read much about it in years but the closest person to them that was killed was 81 yards away.. If that person was threatening them with rocks, they should have been a pitcher for the Cleveland Indians.

[tabs]

Originally Posted by cabmando

Kent State... Ohio National Guard. While one side wasn't armed, the National Guard didn't seem to have a problem shooting them. While not active duty, they're still part of the armed forces. I don't think there's any guarantee where they would fall in the whole thing if it came down to it. Like I said earlier, the side trying to overtake the oppressive government better be damn sure they can make a persuasive argument that the government is indeed oppressive.

Nobody gave the order to shoot at Kent State.

[fintstone]

Originally Posted by cabmando

They took up arms against their fellow countrymen. Paint it how you want but they shot unarmed people. I had to brush up on what happened since I wasn't born yet and hadn't read much about it in years but the closest person to them that was killed was 81 yards away.. If that person was threatening them with rocks, they should have been a pitcher for the Cleveland Indians.

If you shoot at a person 10 feet away, your bullet just might kill someone 81 yards (or a mile) away. Do you really believe they were shooting/aiming at targets almost a football field away? Doesn't look peaceful to me:

[tabs]

I once told Field Marshall Shabaz of the NBP that while he and his Homies are plotting to kill white people in his 5600 sq ft crib with 6 burner Viking range down in Scottsdale that a drone flying at 15000 feet will shoot a Hell Fire missile right through his bathroom window wiping himself and his Homies out....No need to even send the Swat to get em...

[fintstone]

Lots of militants (Weathermen, etc.) on campus at the time...violence, bombings, etc. Windows were broken and buildings burned. Firemen were assaulted when trying to put out fires. Tough situation to put kids in.

[fintstone]

If you are really interested in Kent State, this two-part video is pretty good.

[red-beard]

Originally Posted by cabmando

Take the gloves off our military and it would be over in a matter of days. Don't believe me? Look at what we did twice in Iraq. We wouldn't stand a snowball's chance in hell.

I suggest you look at what happened to the Russians in Afghanistan. And maybe the British. That country sucks. The best you can do there is surround it and keep it from spreading.

[Jeff Higgins]

Kent State was a bunch of spoiled brat, uber liberal protesters with absolutely no support from patriotic Americans. It has, however, served as a bit of a rallying cry against what can happen when National Guard, or other troops, are illegally deployed against American citizens.