I don't know why I said "elective", because I was thinking more of a mandatory class akin to Drivers' Ed.

An optional class (theory only if needs be) on safe handling wouldn't hurt.

This is basically what I was talking about as well, it would basically end the debate regarding gun control, at least as far as I see it.

You do not have to take Drivers Ed (at least not in my state). I understand what you mean tho.

You would be amazed how easy it is to get people to pay attention in school when you get to mess around with rifles in class.


edit: Also a question for those here more knowledgeable on fire arms. I am also looking around to buy a silencer for the AR-15 I am going to be purchasing.

They are labeled under "Class 3 devices"

http://www.gunsamerica.com/Search/Categ ... essors.htm

Does this mean I go about getting the proper paper work for them the same way I would an automatic weapon? Or are there different hoops I need to jump through for these.

second edit: And yes I know I have to be 21, I figured that much out but I am just trying to learn now what cost I am looking at.

Also if anyone has any good gun forums that they have had favorable experience with and are helpful it would be much appreciated to link em .

Nazi Germany did not invace Switzerland because she was already an axis-sympathizer, and even did a lot of their banking. There were far more reasons for not invading the United States than just gun-ownership. Mainly, most of the Japanese army was already tied down in garrisons in occupied territory, so they could not muster a large enough force. Then you have the issue of actually getting across the ocean and gaining a foot-hold. Britain and the United States had a difficult enough time doing it and they only had to cross the English Channel.

And after all that you would have to deal with an entire country whose civilian populace is armed to the teeth. But hey lets not listen to an Admiral of the Japanese Navy, clearly he did not know what he was talking about eh?

Lets just throw it out there again because I really like that quote .


"You cannot invade the mainland United States.
There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass."

- Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto
(Japanese Navy)

http://www.thehighroad.us/index.php
That website is owned by the same guy that owns http://www.a-human-right.com/ .
Don't go to the old .org address for THR for the time being, as it has been hijacked (the cause of the legal dispute between him and Oleg). Go to the .us site for the time being.

Including myself...

I bet you're wondering how they would justify this to the type of liberals who tend to be anti-gun. Well, I believe the campaign could point to the Summer Olympics, which obviously has the shooting event, and convince the proper committees to pour some money into school weapons/martial arts programs. You can further justify this move by saying we're lagging behind China in medal count(a very PC-friendly approach). Then, as that starts to work, you could quietly bring in the military branches to oversee the operation(recruit like mad) and guide the teaching force as necessary. It's perfect!
edit: I forgot about the Winter Olympics; this brings the frequency to every two years!

Yeah, I'm not even very knowledgeable on the subject, but I can still say with confidence that most criminals do not obtain their guns legally.

Kind of a one trick pony, aren't you? You don't bring a yo-yo to combat. No conspiracy theories, please.

QUICK WHILE I HAVE YOUR ATTENTION!


"Assault weapons are not the weapons of choice among drug dealers, gang members or criminals in general. Assault weapons are used in about one-fifth of one percent (.20%) of all violent crimes and about one percent in gun crimes. "

"And I wonder how many of that % obtained the weapon illegally?"


Comments?


edit: and thank you for the link Josephus.

Indeed, real men use bombs and don't face their foe. You've got balls of steel and a head to match. Just trust in ole uncle Sam, for he is the law and you are not.

Deep down I've always believed that mainstream liberals and neo-cons are not all that different when issues of war and peace are the point of discussion, thank you for confirming this, so by all means go and be all you can be.

Let me rephrase my question, despite the assault weapons intended purposes, if they are not prevalently used to carry out crimes, what good will restricting them to the public do? It doesn't matter that they're weapons designed by the military, a lot of bolt action semi and automatic weapons in current civilian use were former weapons of the military. When the militaries technology proceeds that of the gun, should current assault weapons then be legal?

FYI: you can buy tanks in the United States. Also, I would like to see your evidence of people being able to purchase rocket propelled systems.

I've haven't been speaking under the guise of reducing crime, and the statistics on this don't particularly matter to me. Under that subject though, it's probably worth mentioning that by tightening border security to stop illegal trafficking, you'll reduce things such as drug trafficking that contribute to gang violence.

In the same manner you and others wants to maintain your right to arms out of concern that the military may crumble or turn against you and you need to use them, I prefer restricting assault weapons in case someone goes batshit insane and wants to give the tombstone business some revenue.

Generally speaking, my scenario has a better chance of happening, too.



Troops on the ground in Iraq aren't chucking bombs most of the time, bud. I bet the real men actually use broadswords, all the while screaming something like "En guarde!"

Kinda like how Seung-Hui Cho went batshit insane with two hand guns and killed 32 people? It was only the deadliest shooting incident by a single gunman in United States history and need I say again... Two hand guns.

edit:

"and the statistics on this don't particularly matter to me"

What the hell?

We have shown you proof Assault rifles account for an amazingly low amount of crime. Furthermore the poll did not even mention if these were illegal or not. As said before I highly doubt a drug dealer goes and registers his rifle with the ATF.

That was more of an analogy to "shock and awe" than the urban warfare going on now, I altered my post to reflect my intended meaning afterward. I think I made the incorrect assumption that you were a Neo-Lib as well based on some past posts, although now the rhetoric sounds a little closer to the "make it 100 years" McCain stuff.

I'm going to ease up on the military rhetoric after this post just so I don't fully sabotage the thread, but when I see things like US North Com, I see a fiasco like Waco looking like a candy store shopping spree compared to what happens when people get tired of the military in their backyard. The notion that a lone psycho might fill some body bags (something that does not happen as often as the media suggests) isn't nearly as scary as a bunch of steroid injected meat heads getting pissed off and recreating the Kent State shootings.

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/226 ... ets02.html

Hells, thanks for living up to my previously stated thoughts on you. You don't disappoint.

Statistically speaking, how many times has the US been invaded and how many times has the US military turned against the country at the behest of the government. Neither of us are on particularly sturdy footing here, since some of our reasoning comes from the fear of what may be, but I'm feeling a bit more stable.

Other than the Civil War, not very often on a national scale. I could maybe pick out a few thousand cases of police abuse resulting in deaths in urban areas and ex-military people who went bat shit because the government decided it might be fun to place Risk with a few 3rd World countries, as well as a series of incidents involving government agencies/military using heavy handed tactics against certain groups inside the country (Native Americans probably more than others). But all of this wouldn't point to the nightmare scenario of civil disorder, but if you put them altogether you do get a body of power that has a pretty poor track record for treatment of it's citizens, be they political dissenters or bystanders.

That has nothing to do with the fact you have not gave us any reason what so ever on not allowing ownership of assault rifles. The legal ones are HEAVILY regulated and assault rifles account for only about 1% of gun crimes.

That 1% does not take into account how many were actually illegal.

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/t ... onstab.htm
golly gee look at all those handgun deaths!

You have yet to give us any real good reason other than your personal opinion of why assault rifles should not be made available to the public.

My reason? If for anything else I like them, honestly we can go into all the militia/liberty/protecting America stuff but for me I just really enjoy firearms.

I am still waiting for some more proof on why assault rifles are bad to be publicly owned as long as you can pay the taxes and pass the regulations the ATF sets out for you.

However after hearing you say "and the statistics on this don't particularly matter to me." I am not going to hold my breath

I stated before, handguns do serve a 'positive' role in society for self-defense. A better measure would probably be the reduction in crime that possessing a handgun or rifle achieves compared to deaths that occur, but then how are you going to measure that on a national scale.

I have less of a problem owning assault weapons incapable of fire, for gun enthusiasts who like to have a collection, but unless the barrel or the clip load are fused, it's not particularly hard to make the weapon capable of firing.

You say "why not?" and point to evidence that the assault rifles are not a major part of violent crime in the US. I think along the lines of, "why not?" stamp out the last remnants of that.

Ideological debates go nowhere.

Despite you know criminals... ok are you ready for this?

Do not exactly follow the law when they purchase weapons. Have you even looked into how hard it is to legally purchase an assault rifle?

Once more drug dealers,cop killers and so on are not going to stroll on down to a gun store and fill out the necessary paper work work to legally own one of these rifles.

I am still waiting for you to make your case against people who legally own assault rifles and enjoy shooting them at ranges and what not for fun.

So far all I have seen is "Assault rifles are bad because they were made for military use thus civilians should not be allowed to use them". Despite the fact you have yet to provide evidence that legal assault rifles are used in a large amount of gun related crimes. Also considering Assault rifles (legal AND illegal count for only 1% of ALL gun crime I doubt you will be providing that).

Also my M1 was originally intended for military use, does that mean it should be scrapped?

edit: about looking into the ownership thing.. lucky for you someone in this thread has already done the work for you and even added in some commentary!

Thanks Josephus.

I've stated earlier that it's not just a matter of restricting legal assault weapons. It's a matter of reducing (you'll never truly eliminate it) the illegal trafficking of them into the country as much as possible also.

I've not said that the weapons should be banned solely because of what they were developed before, and in talking about your M1 carbine I noted that it's current purpose is such that it has hunting functionality. A hunter won't go out with an assault rifle to shoot turkey, or use ninja stars to get rabbits.

Most all weapons were developed for killing, but whether or not they serve other purposes in society that make them more than detrimental is important to me. The marginal leisure of a few obtained from firing one gun over another doesn't weigh out to me as being comparable to any number of deaths.

I stated my friends dad goes Turkey Hunting with an Ak-47, that is another purpose.

Myself and other people in this thread also stated that just shooting for fun is greatly enjoyable with assault weapons.



That sums it up well.

Still waiting on those stats that show legal assault rifle owners are going berserk and gunning people down in the streets.


edit: More stats

however:

"* There are about 103,000 machine guns in private hands.
* Yet over the past 50 years, no civilian has ever used a legally owned machine gun in a violent crime.

Despite Hollywood's depiction of the drug trade, even the illegal use of machine guns by drug dealers and other violent criminals is extremely rare."

http://www.ncpa.org/ba/ba102.html

*note that report is from 1994 but the information still stands.

You're not paying attention. Already noted my fear of that is comparable to gun rights activist's fear of the US devolving into chaos.

Sorry, in drawing all of my knowledge of guns from Scarface, I probably overlooked that machine guns are heavy and cumbersome for little difference in killing capacity. Hold on a sec, my local drug dealers just flew over in his Tomcat.

While I never said Scarface I do question where your getting your gun information from. Probably some left wing blog using scare tactics to gain political support.

Anyways I do not have much to say, The reasons for people wanting to own these weapons has been stated and the facts have been shown that people who LEGALLY own assault rifles do not use them in crimes.

If you ever have a little more evidence (other than opinion) behind your claims on why assault rifles are bad for private ownership provided they pass all the legal checks and processes I will be waiting.

Until that time I think I will go read up more on how to go about purchasing a silencer for the AR-15 I am going to buy and which company I should order that high capacity 90 rounder magazine from


edit: Also after the rifle I think my next purchase is going to be a new hand gun. I like the 38 a lot but I am looking for something with a bit higher capacity that does not need to be reloaded as often.

I am liking what I see with these 33 round Glock mags.

I'm not sure if anybody ever told you this, but the Navy is made up of ships, which could not fight the general populace. As admiral of the navy, he indeed did not know what he was talking about when it came to land warfare. Just because the population is armed doesn't mean you can't invade. Nazi Germany tried to arm all of her citizens to defend against the Soviets; it only got them killed, but he didn't live long enough to know about that. Japan defeated well-armed, well-supplied and well-trained armies; the American people would be no match. I am not saying that Japan could have conquered the United States, but I am saying that it was not gun-owners that saved it. It was the Pacific Ocean really.

I'm not sure if anybody ever told you this, but military officers are schooled and aware of all types of warfare.

I enjoy the quote quite a bit but at the same time I am not going to write a book over it. I do not really trust his tactical knowledge but I do agree with the notion that if a foreign enemy were to invade the states they would be met with fierce resistance from both the military and civilian populace.

I have always wondered how the civilian populace would act if another nation invaded the United States. Would the neo-nazis and various black/mexican gangs join together to fight a common foe? If only I had better writing talent I think there would be some serious cash in writing a set of "alternate history" novels

The world obviously will never know what would have happened if Japan invaded the United States. If you do not think the entire civilian populace (that was able to fight) of the United States could not cause an amazing amount of grief on an invading force using guerrilla tactics,land advantages and so on I really do not know what to tell you.

You act as if smaller not so well equipped forces cannot at times hold out against larger technologically superior ones... Hmm now where I have heard that scenario before?

Not to mention they would still have the military to contend with.

edit: Rexxz said it best earlier in this thread




Ah yes and I found some pictures if anyone is interested



Random assortment of rifles and shotguns, nothing amazingly special there. Just some stuff my Grandfather left me when he died.






There is the Carbine which is by far my favorite to shoot.

I know that the upper ranks are educated in all types of warfare. I just thought the way you put it sounded really ironic Of course the American people could harass them with guerrilla warfare, but the Japanese in the Second World War were never deterred or removed by when they were faced with it.

Really I just get irritated when people use bad historical examples to prove political points. It no longer matters whether or not Yamamoto will invade continental United States. Do you know what the leaders of China and Russia have said on the subject?

I still think it applies to an extent, the United States would be amazingly hard to invade successfully based on many factors (pure size alone would suggest that).

"Most estimates range between 39% and 50% of US households having at least one gun(thats about 43-55 million households). The estimates for the number of privately owned guns range from 190 million to 300 million. Removed those that skew the stats for thier own purposes the best estimates are about 45% or 52 million of american households owning 260 million guns)."

+the resistance the actual military would give to an invading force. That is a lot of firearms gunning for you

Not to say I actually believe America will be invaded, we are not even fighting a real military right now. You never know what the future will bring tho eh?

And no do tell what Russia and China have to say on it.

On a completely unrelated side note that I am not basing on any real political situation, I think I would rather have to deal with a Russian invasion than a Chinese one.

In this day and age, any serious war against the USA would be fought with the atom. 260 million angry militiamen won't put up much of a fight against long range missiles.

Well yes but that is not fun to talk about is it?

No one would win in a nuclear war. We are still the only country to have used the bomb and me thinks if someone hit the button first we would not hesitate to use it again.

Better start saving up them bottle caps fellas.

Edit: Also a bit off topic from guns but while on the topic of future wars here are a couple of interesting articles

http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=3774348

TAIPEI - A new RAND study suggests U.S. air power in the Pacific would be inadequate to thwart a Chinese attack on Taiwan in 2020. The study, entitled "Air Combat Past, Present and Future," by John Stillion and Scott Perdue, says China's anti-access arms and strategy could deny the U.S. the "ability to operate efficiently from nearby bases or seas."


http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/editori ... 2003426904

War game prepares US forces for next threat

In a war game called “Pacific Vision” run by the US Pacific Air Forces (PACAF) in Hawaii, aviators concluded that US air power would defeat a “near-peer competitor” in the Asia-Pacific region over the next seven years — provided a strategy of dispersal is adopted and certain investments are made.

For “near-peer competitor,” read China. But Air Force officers said that the adversary could also be a resurgent Russia. In any case, the war game was intended not only to test strategy but also to deter others from miscalculating US power and intentions.


At least the U.K. will always be our buddy

T51b = Bal-Sagoth on NMA, by any chance?
josephus = Cromlech on NMA.

Yes that would be me

I am also Bal-Sagoth on the Bethesda forums.

I don't think any nation would want to escalate a war to nuclear warfare knowing that the other nation is capable of retaliating with the same.

I highly doubt any war would start off with what The_Beast_in_Black is thinking of. More than likely any war where the United States was invaded or really if any nuclear power invaded another, it would be conventional and would first move up to the use of tactical nukes.

I more or less wonder if anyone would be crazy enough to launch an arsenal of strategic nukes at another another major nuclear power.


Use of tactical nukes would probably not directly trigger a full head on nuclear exchange as seen in all the movies/games.

From Wiki

"The uses on the battlefield for TNWs would include:

* Against a large ground force
* Against a fortified underground bunker
* Against remote and/or heavily-defended target locations difficult or impossible to reach with conventional weapons
* Against a carrier battle group or any collection of surface vessels
* Against a large amphibious invasion force
* Against a 100+ vehicle supply convoy
* Against a squadron of strategic bombers"

ONLY if the enemy was sufficiently identified as Jewish, or at least Jewish controlled - and even then it wouldnt be for protection of America, but for future territory which would continue to see vicious border battles and in-fighting

Why would black/mexican gangs care about jews?

not too derail, so quickly:
http://www.thepanamanews.com/pn/v_09/is ... on_01.html
http://www.blacksandjews.com/

most Black Power and Brown Power organizations are explicitly antisemitic (see MEChA or NOI)

I'm fairly sure that a lot of Aryanist prison gangs are allied with Hispanic prison gangs, mostly because they see the black gangs as a common foe.