Forum
  Classifieds
  News
  Localband
  Shows
  Show Pics
  Polls

  OT Threads
  Other News
  Movies
  VideoGames
  Videos
  TV
  Sports
  Gear
  /r/
  Food

  New Thread
  New Poll

E-mail

New site? Maybe some day.

Username:

SPAM Filter: re-type this

(values are 0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,A,B,C,D,E, or F)

Message:

UBB enabled. HTML disabled Spam Filtering enabledIcons: (click image to insert) Show All - pop

b i u add: url image video(?)

:	post by Boozegood at 2012-12-17 19:40:18

ShadowSD said	[orig][quote]
You don't believe the Founders had access to muskets and nothing much stronger, needing citation for that? I find that hard to believe, you seem to be quite educated about weapons. Is it your assertion they had Uzis? Not sure what point you're making there. They had muskets, they wrote laws with those muskets in mind. Not rocket science.

This would be mildly arguable (and still false) if it was true that the founding fathers had 'only muskets'. Which isn't true, so: next.

The only other thing I said in that quote was the individual right to have a gun in your home that the Supreme Court recently ruled was the intent of the Second Amendment, not just for militias to have guns. It was the right decision, as well as a decision all those in favor of guns agreed with - and you can google that.

Also not correct, though you are correct that home-defense was specifically mentioned in the final ruling:

"The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home."

( http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndsup.html )

Maybe you're referring to what I said about the usage of the gun, which true enough, also could make reloading faster for target shooting on a range - but I was talking about having one in the house, which is the right being described. If SWAT's after you, doesn't matter if you have a handgun or a semi-automatic they'll take you down, so the whole insurance policy against government intrusion doesn't really work as a justification for needing stronger weapons than the ones used in our early history; having one in the house just means killing more people before you die, not withstanding or thwarting the government intrusion.

Again; this isn't true. Counter Insurgency is the most difficult form of warfare to fight.

Also, the 2nd Amendment has already been used in that fashion in 'modern' times (a few of which I've already cited, but will again):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Blair_Mountain http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Athens