It's time to show all you assault rifle hating flower weenies the truth!!!!

[Gibsie]

Going back a little, given that militias wouldn't really be useful to overtly fight against a ruling power, and anyone resisting would have to resort to guerilla tactics, does that mean the second amendment is pro-terrorist?

[GhengisFarbâ„¢]

Yeah, an assault rifle is on the top spot on my Christmas list this year.

[DinoDoc]

Automatic weapons weren't covered under this ban and have been banned since the 1930's. It was a cosmetic ban from the start. So why the hysteria of the, "TERRORISTS ARE COMING!" ?

[GePap]

Originally posted by Sikander


They didn't ban clips over 10 rounds, they banned magazines over 10 rounds. Which seriously reduces the viability of a weapon for its constitutionally intended military purpose while doing almost nothing to its fear-mongered intended purpose as a murder weapon. I doubt that many people even know what flash supressors do or why one might want to have one, but I can't think of a single instance where a weapon with one was used in a crime where the flash supressor aided the criminal materially. And flash supressors add to the length of weapons that are somehow scarier because they can somehow be "concealed", much like a baseball bat can be concealed under a trench coat. No one will ever suspect it, no siree!

Then you are not a police officer, obviously, being ignorant of the circumstances of many crimes. Every single police department in the country is for this ban, and for good reason. As for "the military purpose"- nowhere does it say any citizen at any time should have any weapon with "military viability". You can;t leaglly own a tow missile system- is that your constituional rights being denied? No, not anymore than you can decry not owning a howlitzer.

And we forgot to mention that bayonnet lugs have also now become legal. I guess they were banned because if they hadn't been, people who bought the right sort of bayonnet could have turned their modern semi-automatic carbines into fearsome spears!

What would be the point of a bayonnet? to hunt dear with?

As for the militia argument. It seems that the people of Iraq don't seem to believe your argument that they have no chance against the U.S. Army. They also seem to value even the sorts of weapons that are still legal in the U.S. as well as real assault weapons. Note that for all of our bombers, tanks, artillery etc. the most common weapon deployed by the U.S. is still the assault weapon, with the machine gun in second place. This is because these weapons still have a great amount of utility in modern warfare. How would we be doing in Iraq if the Army decided to simply trash all of our lead throwers because they are obslete? Not as well I can tell you.

Wonderful piece, but utterly ignoring the basic realities of both Iraq and what you claim people need assault rifles to do. I don;t think anyone in Iraq thinks they can, by a pitched battle, defeat the US. They can't. But that is not their aim (maybe fantasy, not aim). Their aim is to defeat the US politically- to create chaos, undermine the new interim authority, and then drive us out that way, not by a total military victory.

The aim of any militia would be to "defend their homes", 1., and to undermine the control of a "dictatorial regime". Just having assault weapons would simply jnot do much in the way of achieving that aim. Great example of that- Iraq itself. Do you think that multiplicity of assault weapons now in Iraq came out of nowhere? Or solely from the armies armories? No, people in Iraq were hevaily armed- Saddam gave out assault weapons to the people-to protect him. So many Iraqis had assault rifles, and as far as I know, it did diddly for their freedom or ability to fight off the Saddam Regime, which is not even in the same order of magnitude as strong as the US.

The only part of Iraq where people were able to keep Saddam at bay was in the North, were foreign powers interveend to limit Saddam's abilities.

Personal firearms provide enough of a force multiplier that simple police operations in their face are severely complicated. Replacing police operations with military operations are often even more complicated, with huge political implications. This is the whole foundation of guerilla warfare, and I can't believe I have to explain that to two very intelligent posters, one of whom is a communist!

Which is all very nice, but only has a chance of success if the enemy regime has some inherent weakness that some other non-violent opposition that can use the crackdown as an excuse for its own actions. Without another weakness a guerrilla war will collapse. Guerrila wars can bring down regimes with internal crakcs, but not strong ones, which will simply ruthlessly crush the opposition. BUt you miss something more insidious, which is the control of the media. As I have said before, it never need get to the point were you have a militia at all- the modern states has multiple ways of undermining any possibly violent opposition from the start-cutting them off at the knees without consequence. Anyone so isolated that they can't be brought to ruin otherwise is too isolated to be political significant (like the freemen in Montana).

A simple method would be to accuse them of tax fraud and ruin them financially as they fight the charges. Or even simple "identity theft". I mean, the ways to find and eliminate someone as a possible resistor in the modern world are endless. And having an assault rifle won't help you worth ****.

[Provost Harrison]

Yes you Americans need to defend your home from intruders...you can justify a handgun just about on those grounds. But the kind of firepower you are talking here is just completely unnecessary...these weapons were designed for combat situations, not shooting annoying pigeons or something.

[The diplomat]

Originally posted by GePap
Thank God we can allow any jokel to buy fully automatic weapons again- I mean,without them, wehat are terrorists going to use to kill us?

it works the other way too. Maybe the terrorist would not have highjacked the planes on 9-11 with boxcutters if the passengers had UZIs pointed at them?

[Provost Harrison]

Then they'd just puncture the fuselage and send the plane crashing down randomly over New York

[Az]

@provost.

Any connection with the WOT, for better or for worse is stupid, really. However, guns can help people defend themselves. This is the fact. That's why guns should be legal. I know from personal knowledge that people going around with guns isn't something to worry about.

[Spec]

And this will increase the sales of assault rifles on the black market in Canada.

In Canada, like most other CIVILIZED countries, assault weapons are illegal for any citizen.

What does that tell you.


Spec.

[GePap]

Originally posted by The diplomat


it works the other way too. Maybe the terrorist would not have highjacked the planes on 9-11 with boxcutters if the passengers had UZIs pointed at them?

Right, cause we would allow people with guns on planes..

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by GhengisFarb
Yeah, an assault rifle is on the top spot on my Christmas list this year.

You'll shoot your eye out.

[Az]

And this will increase the sales of assault rifles on the black market in Canada.

In Canada, like most other CIVILIZED countries, assault weapons are illegal for any citizen.

What does that tell you

Yet you have IIRC, more guns per person than in the US.

[Kontiki]

Originally posted by Azazel

And this will increase the sales of assault rifles on the black market in Canada.

In Canada, like most other CIVILIZED countries, assault weapons are illegal for any citizen.

What does that tell you

Yet you have IIRC, more guns per person than in the US.

Um, no, not even close. Stats as of 1995 show that the US has almost four times the per capita ownership of firearms, including almost 10 times the per capita ownership of handguns.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Provost Harrison
Then they'd just puncture the fuselage and send the plane crashing down randomly over New York

Better than ramming right into the side of the WTC

[Japher]

Stats as of 1995 show that the US has almost four times the per capita ownership of firearms, including almost 10 times the per capita ownership of handguns.

I don't care about the per capita numbers, I would like to see the per household number. I think that if you own one gun you are more likely to own 2, and in the south 27...