So now thoughts are criminal?

[johncmcleod]

but the 2nd amendment's a bit archaic, isn't it?

No, it isn't. If we couldn't have guns, and the government destroyed democracy we couldn't rebel.

The kid maybe should get in trouble with the school for what he did but not with the law.

[Kuciwalker]

Do you really think the American citizenry could fight off the Army? The weapons available to civilians are simply incomparable to those available to the military. Revolt in a country such as the US is simply not possible without the support of the military, in which case the citizens don't need guns.

[Elok]

Yeah...I always thought the NRA paranoia routine was rather interesting that way. Sure, the government has tanks, bombers, and armored attack helicopters with miniguns capable of firing thousands of rounds per minute from a stationary position in the air while at the same time possessing greater mobility than ground troops, and yeah, they have navy seals and all that junk, but they're not gonna push us around as long as we have .22 rifles, right?

[st_swithin]

I have a PMC 9mm Luger.

[Elok]

Well, those too. My point is that they all make a scary noise when they bounce off of tank armor, and that's about it.

[st_swithin]

Actually, a .22 is a great way to cause mayhem and havoc - the bullets are usually travelling at a very high velocity and have a strong tendency to ricochet off solid objects, particularly metal.

[ajbera]

Until you can absolutely guarantee that the police will be at my door instantly if someone breaks into my house, and until you can guarantee that I will never need to defend myself and my wife (and dog) in my own home, I will keep my weapons. I can understand that conventional small arms can't match military might, and are thus largely unsuitable for preventing the gov't from taking control, but they are very useful for personal defense from miscreants and other criminal scum.

And remember - if someone breaks into your house and you have to shoot, shoot to kill, because the scumbag will sue you if you just injure him. Sadly, it seems (in many cases) that a criminal sh!thead has a greater right to break into your house than you do to defend your life and property.

[st_swithin]

I'd aim the gun at his balls, then ask him why he was breaking into my house in the first place. I mean, at least you'd get a good story out of him before you have to kill him.

I'd shoot at least twice, and blame it on my nervous fingers for pulling the trigger more than once. Stupid hairtrigger.

[ajbera]

Originally posted by st_swithin
I'd aim the gun at his balls, then ask him why he was breaking into my house in the first place. I mean, at least you'd get a good story out of him before you have to kill him.

I'd shoot at least twice, and blame it on my nervous fingers for pulling the trigger more than once. Stupid hairtrigger.

I like you st_swithin. You're really neat.

[st_swithin]

Yep, no mixers with me - just straight up.

[Elok]

I never said guns should be eliminated, I just think that the story about the government being scared into good behavior by our shotguns is ridiculous. The main thing that keeps any military from wiping out urban resistance factions is a reluctance to fight really dirty. If the government was bent on oppressing the people and blahblahblah they wouldn't object to bombing an apartment building every day until the restistors cut the crap. In such circumstances, people would probably rat their own "saviors" out to avert future reprisals.

[ajbera]

I do hope that if the sh!t comes down, though, that a big enough chunk of the military will refuse to kill civilians, and possibly even be willing to fight against the goverment.

Although I hope this would be the case, I don't think it would. The proportion of intra-military rebels would probably be too small to make much of a difference.

[st_swithin]

It all starts with one.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by st_swithin
It all starts with one.

And if it's only one, it ends there too.


While this is a big hassel for this kid, I think the law is unlikely to stand up to Contstitutional challenge. The 1st Amendement clearly protects this kid.

[Elok]

Originally posted by ajbera
I do hope that if the sh!t comes down, though, that a big enough chunk of the military will refuse to kill civilians, and possibly even be willing to fight against the goverment.
Although I hope this would be the case, I don't think it would. The proportion of intra-military rebels would probably be too small to make much of a difference.

In that case though, what saves the day is still not the military strength of the people, but their moral strength. Guns can't really protect our civil liberties from within, so I'd say that argument's pretty much null. Now, owning guns for self-defense is another issue entirely...