Posted by bheid408 on 1/23/2013 9:25:00 AM (view original):

Posted by dahsdebater on 1/23/2013 12:19:00 AM (view original):

Posted by bheid408 on 1/22/2013 10:06:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 1/22/2013 9:54:00 PM (view original):
50 bad guys? Ok, I want a HCAW when I get attacked by zombies.

Ok, bad guys and zombies aside, I want a HCAW to defend myself when 50 government agents show up to take my guns away. It ain't gonna happen! And I won't be the only one who won't allow it to happen.

Lot of blowhard idiots like you.  I guarantee you if government agents come and ask for your guns you're not going to start shooting at them.  Even if it's 1 or 2.  You all talk a big talk, but you won't do it.  And frankly, the morons who say they're going to rebel if the government "comes for their guns" are the very people I want nowhere near assault weapons.  Anyone who is going to make that statement is clearly not rational/intelligent enough to be trusted with a weapon like that.

I can tell you are a very intelligent person because you try to belittle other people with insults. Once you feel superior you can even predict how other people will act.
If you think public gun owners won't form their own militia and rebel if the government tries to take away their guns then you aren't as smart as you think you are. And most of us morons already have HCAW so you're SOL there.

We seem to be on the same side of the fence but I don't believe this to be true.      Willingly surrender their guns?   Some will, some won't.   Random shootout with ATF agents?  Probably.    Form a militia?   No.

Earl Bailey has bheidi's back.

Form a Militia.......
Possible? Yes.
Probable? Very much so under the right circumstances. There are a lot of Vets that will fight to keep their guns. It only takes one leader, and it wouldn't have to be a Vet, to call a group of individuals together and form a unit that would fight together. That would be a militia.

Definition:
A militia is made up of a group of individuals who are normally civilians, but upon being called together (usually by some political leader) form a military unit for temporary duty. In pre-industrial times, they generally brought weapons from their home to fight with, and generally had very little (if any) formal military training as a unit.

No.  Unless you can rally a group of crackpots who know that they will be crushed Waco-style.   Ruby Ridge didn't end so well either.    That was 20 years ago.  Probably during the height of the Rambo movies.

A group of heavily armed individuals probably could fight off the local authorities.  Then the big guns get called in and that's that.   Not only do you lose your guns, you die or go to jail.

I never said they would win. I just said it was possible and probable under the right circumstances that it could happen. That goes back to the theory that if you are going to allow people to defend themselves, which the government does, then they need to have weapons that are equal to what can be used against them. Yeah, my HCAW won't do much good against a government run Stealth bomber sent to take out any uprising so they have the advantage. Does that mean people still won't gather together and fight for their rights? How many civilians would it take for the government to kill before the entire mass of public is in uprising? Kind of sounds like Syria, doesn't it? So don't say it couldn't happen.

what if the supreme court rules that the constitution does not cover assault weapons or weapons of mass destruction...therefore making it constitutional to ban and or confiscate assault weapons?  Is that the end of the discussion here?

OK, I'll try to explain it better.   I'm a 2nd amendment guy.   I would not hand over my guns if the local sheriff came around and said "Gimme your guns."    However, if half a dozen patrol cars rolled in and they said "Search warrant.  We're taking your firearms", I'm not slamming the door, grabbing my guns and firing off rounds.   Even without my guns, I've got a pretty good life.

Only crazies or those with nothing to loss are taking up arms against the authorities.   And that would happen.   I just don't think you'd have enough in one area to form a militia intent on fighting the feds for their guns.

Posted by The Taint on 1/23/2013 10:35:00 AM (view original):
what if the supreme court rules that the constitution does not cover assault weapons or weapons of mass destruction...therefore making it constitutional to ban and or confiscate assault weapons?  Is that the end of the discussion here?

No.

I think there's enough checks and balances built into the three branches of the U.S. government that any talk of a "tyrannical government" precipitating an armed uprising of it's citizens is just plain stupid.

I mean, seriously.  It's tin-foil hat time when supposedly serious discussion tries to go there.

Posted by MikeT23 on 1/23/2013 10:36:00 AM (view original):
OK, I'll try to explain it better.   I'm a 2nd amendment guy.   I would not hand over my guns if the local sheriff came around and said "Gimme your guns."    However, if half a dozen patrol cars rolled in and they said "Search warrant.  We're taking your firearms", I'm not slamming the door, grabbing my guns and firing off rounds.   Even without my guns, I've got a pretty good life.

Only crazies or those with nothing to loss are taking up arms against the authorities.   And that would happen.   I just don't think you'd have enough in one area to form a militia intent on fighting the feds for their guns.

I think it could happen. Just my opinion! And search warrant or not, they wouldn't get all of my guns. Only the ones they could find.

There are only 2400 special agents in the ATF and part of their duties are divided between alcohol and tobacco issues (whatever that could be). With over 129,000 gun dealers in the USA. They are kinda busy, maybe even too busy dealing with all the regulation, registration data to be concerned with coming to your house to confiscate an illegal weapon.

Seems like that would become a top priority.

Posted by winnetka1 on 1/23/2013 11:35:00 AM (view original):
There are only 2400 special agents in the ATF and part of their duties are divided between alcohol and tobacco issues (whatever that could be). With over 129,000 gun dealers in the USA. They are kinda busy, maybe even too busy dealing with all the regulation, registration data to be concerned with coming to your house to confiscate an illegal weapon.

Too bad we can't get congress to stop blowing the NRA and get back to, you know, running the country in a way that benefits everyone, not just those with fat lobbying budgets.

Where does this "fat lobbying budget" come from?

For the record, NRA membership has grown by about 250K since Obama's speech after the Sandy Hook incident.

It comes from donations. The NRA has a large membership and they have every right to be heard. But, at the same time, we have congressmen inserting language into spending bills requiring things like senate confirmation of the ATF head and preventing the ATF from requiring gun dealers to keep inventory records. That's problematic.