Gun control

[murox]

After another school shooting the left is doing all it can to ban guns under the guise of "gun control." I'll preface this post by saying that while I own firearms, I'm no "gun nut." I have a couple guns in my bedroom just to ensure any intruder trying to break into my house doesn't walk out. I don't hunt or carry a gun on me ever. It's purely for self-defense.

Why can't we be logical about this issue? Banning or "controlling" guns isn't going to do a goddamn bit of good. Prohibition never works, and the only people whose guns would be taken away are law-abiding individuals who are never going to use the weapon unless its in self-defense. A black market for guns will develop overnight supplying guns and ammo to anyone who doesn't care about being lawful. And just like our prohibition on drugs, with black markets come more nefarious people selling their product and even more crime.

But lets say we could actually ban guns (we can't). Some lunatic wants to kill a school full of kids. You don't think he's going to find a way? You don't think he could make a homemade bomb? Or rent a box truck with some fertilizer? He's going to find a way to kill people one way or another, so why are we wasting time talking about gun control?

Another argument from the left is their misunderstanding of the 2nd amendment and thinking an armed citizen militia wouldn't be able to do anything if the government became totalitarian. Their argument is "John Doe with a rifle stands no chance against the greatest military in the world." Well, no, probably not, but we need to think logically here too. John Doe isn't going be fighting the greatest military in the world, because the overwhelming majority of the service men and women of the US Armed Forces would be on the side of the citizens in a dispute with the government. Most in the military lean right, tend to support the 2nd amendment and wouldn't follow the orders of bureaucrats to forcefully confiscate guns from their neighbors.

But again, live in leftist world and pretend they would. You don't think an armed militia of 175-200 million armed Americans would defeat the US military? Do you really think the government would use WMDs on our own soil?

 

[Marine03]

After another school shooting the left is doing all it can to ban guns under the guise of "gun control." I'll preface this post by saying that while I own firearms, I'm no "gun nut." I have a couple guns in my bedroom just to ensure any intruder trying to break into my house doesn't walk out. I don't hunt or carry a gun on me ever. It's purely for self-defense.

Why can't we be logical about this issue? Banning or "controlling" guns isn't going to do a goddamn bit of good. Prohibition never works, and the only people whose guns would be taken away are law-abiding individuals who are never going to use the weapon unless its in self-defense. A black market for guns will develop overnight supplying guns and ammo to anyone who doesn't care about being lawful. And just like our prohibition on drugs, with black markets come more nefarious people selling their product and even more crime.

But lets say we could actually ban guns (we can't). Some lunatic wants to kill a school full of kids. You don't think he's going to find a way? You don't think he could make a homemade bomb? Or rent a box truck with some fertilizer? He's going to find a way to kill people one way or another, so why are we wasting time talking about gun control?

Another argument from the left is their misunderstanding of the 2nd amendment and thinking an armed citizen militia wouldn't be able to do anything if the government became totalitarian. Their argument is "John Doe with a rifle stands no chance against the greatest military in the world." Well, no, probably not, but we need to think logically here too. John Doe isn't going be fighting the greatest military in the world, because the overwhelming majority of the service men and women of the US Armed Forces would be on the side of the citizens in a dispute with the government. Most in the military lean right, tend to support the 2nd amendment and wouldn't follow the orders of bureaucrats to forcefully confiscate guns from their neighbors.

But again, live in leftist world and pretend they would. You don't think an armed militia of 175-200 million armed Americans would defeat the US military? Do you really think the government would use WMDs on our own soil?

No, I don’t think an armed militia would defeat the US military, not even close. Will your militia have armed helos, Jets, drones, etc? Are you fvcking insane?

 

[i am herdman]

The US military could never control this country. As rox mentioned, many of them would be on the other side. There are not enough troops to control 350 million people. The US military has been fighting in a war in Afghanistan for nearly 17 years. Think about that for a minute. Anyway, that is a different discussion for a different time. Most of the military would walk off and take the side of the people against a lunatic commie or dictator. The 2nd Amendment is going nowhere and neither are the guns. Who the hell is going to take them?

Anyway, you could outlaw ever AR15 there is. Nut jobs are still going to find a way to kill. They would obtain guns or use a shotgun or use a propane tank or a chainsaw or a Ryder truck. Rox is again correct.

 

[i am herdman]

No, I don’t think an armed militia would defeat the US military, not even close. Will your militia have armed helos, Jets, drones, etc? Are you fvcking insane?

Who the **** is going to fly them all? You are assuming that every one in the military would stay and take the order to take guns and suppress their own people. You are making a false assumption.

You know damn good and well an armed insurrection would be a horrible event.

Let's say some nut leader say I am abolishing the 2nd Amendment and he ordered the miltiary to go take them. You think every solider, sailor, airman, marine is going to follow that order? Or hell a dictator took over.

Hell no. There is no way they could control this country.

 

[Marine03]

Who the **** is going to fly them? You are assuming that every one in the military would stay and take the order to take guns and suppress their own people. You are making a false assumption.

You know damn good and well an armed insurrection would be a horrible event.

That wasn’t his question was it? Stick to the facts you read not hypothetical. You know damn well a militia of regular joes wouldn’t stand a chance here

 

[murox]

No, I don’t think an armed militia would defeat the US military, not even close. Will your militia have armed helos, Jets, drones, etc? Are you fvcking insane?

The US military couldn't even defeat the Vietnamese. You think it can defeat 200 million armed-to-the-teeth gun nuts?

The US military could never control this country. As rox mentioned, many of them would be on the other side. There are not enough troops to control 350 million people. The US military has been fighting in a war in Afghanistan for nearly 17 years. Think about that for a minute. Anyway, that is a different discussion for a different time. Most of the military would walk off and take the side of the people against a lunatic commie or dictator. The 2nd Amendment is going nowhere and neither are the guns. Who the hell is going to take them?

Anyway, you could outlaw ever AR15 there is. Nut jobs are still going to find a way to kill. They would obtain guns or use a shotgun or use a propane tank or a chainsaw or a Ryder truck. Rox is again correct.

Marine thinks Nancy Pelosi is going to get in an M1 tank, covered by Bernie Sanders overhead in an Apache.

 

[Marine03]

The US military couldn't even defeat the Vietnamese. You think it can defeat 200 million armed-to-the-teeth gun nuts?


Marine thinks Nancy Pelosi is going to get in an M1 tank, covered by Bernie Sanders overhead in an Apache.

Vietnam would’ve ended as quick as the Persian Gulf had politics not been involved. Get a clue moron. We’d take hills and give them right back the next day.

 

[NutcaseConservative]

We are on a path that one day guns will no longer be a right in this country, but instead will be a privilege. It is inevitable. You guys won't live to see. I doubt I will either. But it is inevitable.

 

[i am herdman]

That wasn’t his question was it? Stick to the facts you read not hypothetical. You know damn well a militia of regular joes wouldn’t stand a chance here

Really? Marine, we have been in Afghanistan for 17 years.

And, you are making a hypothetical that every remember of the member of the military would turn on its own people. That was the discussion. You are the one off topic.

Sure, if you want to line up a 1,000 militia and put them up against an infantry regiment then the militia is going to get destroyed.

But, we were discussing a nationwide insurrection . Hell no, the US military could never control this country.

 

[Herd Fever]

The US military could never control this country. As rox mentioned, many of them would be on the other side. There are not enough troops to control 350 million people. The US military has been fighting in a war in Afghanistan for nearly 17 years. Think about that for a minute. Anyway, that is a different discussion for a different time. Most of the military would walk off and take the side of the people against a lunatic commie or dictator. The 2nd Amendment is going nowhere and neither are the guns. Who the hell is going to take them?

Anyway, you could outlaw ever AR15 there is. Nut jobs are still going to find a way to kill. They would obtain guns or use a shotgun or use a propane tank or a chainsaw or a Ryder truck. Rox is again correct.

No the US Army have been guarding and protecting the Poppy fields from being burned down by the Taliban

 

[Marine03]

The US military couldn't even defeat the Vietnamese. You think it can defeat 200 million armed-to-the-teeth gun nuts?


Marine thinks Nancy Pelosi is going to get in an M1 tank, covered by Bernie Sanders overhead in an Apache.

You said the US military, implying the MILITARY itself at full strength would not defeat an army of militia, that’s laughable given the fire power in the arsenal. Now, if you’re looking to spin that like herdsman is and wanting to state that half of its members wouldn’t take arms against their own people? Then no probably not, but that wasn’t your original statement here was it?

 

[Marine03]

Really? Marine, we have been in Afghanistan for 17 years.

And, you are making a hypothetical that every remember of the member of the military would turn on its own people. That was the discussion. You are the one off topic.

Sure, if you want to line up a 1,000 militia and put them up against an infantry regiment then the militia is going to get destroyed.

But, we were discussion a nationwide insurrection . Hell no, the US military could never control this country.

Again, I just answered the question as it was written. I never dealt with hypothetical until you and rox brought them up.

 

[i am herdman]

You said the US military, implying the MILITARY itself at full strength would not defeat an army of militia, that’s laughable given the fire power in the arsenal. Now, if you’re looking to spin that like herdsman is and wanting to state that half of its members wouldn’t take arms against their own people? Then no probably not, but that wasn’t your original statement here was it?

Damn it. Did you read his next to last paragraph in the original post? Helllloooo.

 

[murox]

You said the US military, implying the MILITARY itself at full strength would not defeat an army of militia, that’s laughable given the fire power in the arsenal. Now, if you’re looking to spin that like herdsman is and wanting to state that half of its members wouldn’t take arms against their own people? Then no probably not, but that wasn’t your original statement here was it?

I think you need to go back and re-read my original post. I offered both scenarios. I don't even believe in the fairytale pipe dream scenario where the military is at full strength that it could defeat an armed citizenry. Think of the logistics. What is it going to do, nuke all the population centers?

 

[i am herdman]

Again, I just answered the question as it was written. I never dealt with hypothetical until you and rox brought them up.

888 damn, did rifle hack your account. Go back and read the damn first post. Read the whole thing again.

 

[NutcaseConservative]

I think you need to go back and re-read my original post. I offered both scenarios. I don't even believe in the fairytale pipe dream scenario where the military is at full strength that it could defeat an armed citizenry. Think of the logistics. What is it going to do, nuke all the population centers?

If it's a tyrannical government it might.

 

[Marine03]

I think you need to go back and re-read my original post. I offered both scenarios. I don't even believe in the fairytale pipe dream scenario where the military is at full strength that it could defeat an armed citizenry. Think of the logistics. What is it going to do, nuke all the population centers?

Nuke? No? But you’re fighting with civilian weapons against military firepower. There’s no civilian weapon that can put rounds down range to withstand it.

 

[countryroads89]

After another school shooting the left is doing all it can to ban guns under the guise of "gun control." I'll preface this post by saying that while I own firearms, I'm no "gun nut." I have a couple guns in my bedroom just to ensure any intruder trying to break into my house doesn't walk out. I don't hunt or carry a gun on me ever. It's purely for self-defense.

Why can't we be logical about this issue? Banning or "controlling" guns isn't going to do a goddamn bit of good. Prohibition never works, and the only people whose guns would be taken away are law-abiding individuals who are never going to use the weapon unless its in self-defense. A black market for guns will develop overnight supplying guns and ammo to anyone who doesn't care about being lawful. And just like our prohibition on drugs, with black markets come more nefarious people selling their product and even more crime.

But lets say we could actually ban guns (we can't). Some lunatic wants to kill a school full of kids. You don't think he's going to find a way? You don't think he could make a homemade bomb? Or rent a box truck with some fertilizer? He's going to find a way to kill people one way or another, so why are we wasting time talking about gun control?

Another argument from the left is their misunderstanding of the 2nd amendment and thinking an armed citizen militia wouldn't be able to do anything if the government became totalitarian. Their argument is "John Doe with a rifle stands no chance against the greatest military in the world." Well, no, probably not, but we need to think logically here too. John Doe isn't going be fighting the greatest military in the world, because the overwhelming majority of the service men and women of the US Armed Forces would be on the side of the citizens in a dispute with the government. Most in the military lean right, tend to support the 2nd amendment and wouldn't follow the orders of bureaucrats to forcefully confiscate guns from their neighbors.

But again, live in leftist world and pretend they would. You don't think an armed militia of 175-200 million armed Americans would defeat the US military? Do you really think the government would use WMDs on our own soil?

You're not listening. Get the goddamned car keys out of your ear. No one is proposing a ban on guns. I own a lot of guns - rifles, shotguns and handguns.

There are restrictions on guns already. Don't pretend like there aren't. You can't saw off a shotgun shorter than a certain length. You have to have a special permit to own a fully automatic rifle.

The AR platform rifles with large capacity magazines and bump stocks are a human killing machine. That is the purpose of the bump stocks - to fire more rounds in a given period of time. Larger magazines mean less time switching them out and more time shooting. We don't need machines intended to be very effective at war fighting in the hands of the general public.

 

[countryroads89]

The US military couldn't even defeat the Vietnamese.

IDIOT!

 

[Marine03]

888 damn, did rifle hack your account. Go back and read the damn first post. Read the whole thing again.

I did, and I’m not going to say what those in the military may or may not do hypothetically regarding following orders if given to take weapons away. I’m only arguing the point our military at full strength would decimate an armed militia. That’s a fact, you know that. Anyhow, it’s a stupid argument as neither WOULD NEVER HAPPEN

 

[Herd Fever]

Vietnam would’ve ended as quick as the Persian Gulf had politics not been involved. Get a clue moron. We’d take hills and give them right back the next day.

Yup the CIA had to kick start their drug trafficking and needed the Vietnam war as a Cover

 

[i am herdman]

You're not listening. Get the goddamned car keys out of your ear. No one is proposing a ban on guns. I own a lot of guns - rifles, shotguns and handguns.

There are restrictions on guns already. Don't pretend like there aren't. You can't saw off a shotgun shorter than a certain length. You have to have a special permit to own a fully automatic rifle.

The AR platform rifles with large capacity magazines and bump stocks are a human killing machine. That is the purpose of the bump stocks - to fire more rounds in a given period of time. Larger magazines mean less time switching them out and more time shooting. We don't need machines intended to be very effective at war fighting in the hands of the general public.

The thing is you lefty cock suckers would take them all if you could. Just too chicken shit to say it.

 

[murox]

You're not listening. Get the goddamned car keys out of your ear. No one is proposing a ban on guns. I own a lot of guns - rifles, shotguns and handguns.

There are restrictions on guns already. Don't pretend like there aren't. You can't saw off a shotgun shorter than a certain length. You have to have a special permit to own a fully automatic rifle.

The AR platform rifles with large capacity magazines and bump stocks are a human killing machine. That is the purpose of the bump stocks - to fire more rounds in a given period of time. Larger magazines mean less time switching them out and more time shooting. We don't need machines intended to be very effective at war fighting in the hands of the general public.

That's the entire point, you retard. What do additional restrictions on guns accomplish? Black markets will always exist on prohibited goods and people who want to do harm will always find a way to obtain them. So we waste valuable time and resources placing more restrictions on law-abiding citizens and not doing a goddamn thing about the actual problem.

 

[i am herdman]

I did, and I’m not going to say what those in the military may or may not do hypothetically regarding following orders if given to take weapons away. I’m only arguing the point our military at full strength would decimate an armed militia. That’s a fact, you know that. Anyhow, it’s a stupid argument as neither WOULD NEVER HAPPEN

Well no crap, but I don't think that was the original question. Plus, you know as well once you defeat then you have to control and it occupy it.

 

[countryroads89]

That's the entire point, you retard. What do additional restrictions on guns accomplish? Black markets will always exist on prohibited goods and people who want to do harm will always find a way to obtain them. So we waste valuable time and resources placing more restrictions on law-abiding citizens and not doing a goddamn thing about the actual problem.

Why have a legal drinking age?
Why have speed limits?
Why have blood-alcohol level limits?
Etc etc..

 

[Marine03]

Well no crap, but I don't think that was the original question. Plus, you know as well once you defeat then you have to control and it occupy it.

Easy to do once deafeated, you simply take the weapons away. Which is the original point here wasn’t it?

 

[i am herdman]

Easy to do once deafeated, you simply take the weapons away. Which is the original point here wasn’t it?

How are you going to take guns from 350 million people?

 

[murox]

Here are some numbers I found in a posting on the same subject. A good read:

The question is could the combined might and intransigence of the armed American civilian population be able to take on and defeat the US military and police. And to that question, the answer is an unqualified yes.

Let's look at this, for a moment, rationally.

The number of people in the US military is around 2.1 million. Note, that's not just the badass Navy SEALS and whatnot, but everybody - cooks, mechanics, secretaries, etc. Let's round it up, to say 3 million (I'm being a generous rounder). Give them all an M4 carbine for good measure. For police? Between federal (FBI etc) and state and local law enforcement, estimates would put that number around 1.4 million. But **** it, let's call it 3. Let's just say 6 million, all told. A nice round figure that if anything is wildly overestimating.

Six million is a huge number!

That is against 319 million Americans (less the 6, make it 313). Spread out over 3.8 million square miles of space.

We'll get back to that - just that - in a moment.

Guns though - there are between 270 and 310 million held by civilians in America. The rate of gun ownership per civilian is roughly even 101.5 per 100 civilians.

There are approximately 3.8 million held by military and police combined.

Guns in the United States

So, roughly speaking, for every gun held by the armed forces or police, there are at least 76 in the hands of private citizens. That, in itself, presents a tremendous problem.

Granted, what other answerers are saying is absolutely right - not all guns are created equal. A handgun or .22 rifle in the hands of a civilian is not comparable to an M1 Abrams tank. Also worth noting the number of guns is certainly not evenly distributed - although I think they'd get in the hands of the right people (or wrong, from the despot's perspective) pretty quick. But the point is there are a lot of guns. So in this hypothetical, perhaps a better way to answer it is to see how the United States military did (or is doing) against other societies with a lot of guns in the hands of civilians.

Iraq is one of the most heavily armed societies in the world. 34.2 guns per 100 residents, with 37 million or so residents (or, to put that another way, Iraq is about three times less of an armed society per capita than America is - and America is nearly ten times the size). Afghanistan was significantly less, with 33 million-ish residents. We don't have numbers for North Vietnam, but they had around 20 million in population. (America is, again, for comparison, 313 million with 270-310 million guns, not included military or police).

In all those cases, the combined might of the American armed forces had difficulty "defeating" the target - and in all those cases they were many less people, with many less guns, in a much smaller area, than what you're talking about.

But, again, we get back to what other answerers rightly point out.

The US military and police are not about overwhelming numbers - they are about overwhelming tactics, firepower, and technology selectively deployed. But, what causes the US military and police to run into trouble even in the non-dictatorship scenario - and what makes the United States basically unconquerable - is this.

America is huge. It is a lot of people. These people are well armed and self sufficient.

If you gathered all these people on, say, one side of Nebraska, and put the combined might of the US military and police on the other side, and had them square off - no question who would win.

But that's not what it takes.

You have to go through the streets of Chicago and clear them, street by street.

You have to go and hold territory in Montana.

You have to clear the woods of Maine.

You have to lock down Brooklyn.

You have to hold position around D.C.

You have to take the ports of Louisiana and protect them against insurrection.

You have to meet the marching rioters from Los Angeles head on and push them back.

Hell, forget guns - if they were all armed with sticks and stones I'm not sure I'd have my money on the dictator.

But they are armed and you have to do all those things and many more, all at once.

And you have to do it knowing you have six million folks to do it with, and 313 million insurgents are surrounding you probably as armed as you are.

You are asking, could that 313 million force win?

The answer is yes.

 

[Marine03]

How are you going to take guns from 350 million people?

Back to the second half of the question, if the military at full strength vs a militia it’s not going to be that difficult. The weapons will be laying next to a lot of corpses

 

[i am herdman]

Back to the second half of the question, if the military at full strength vs a militia it’s not going to be that difficult. The weapons will be laying next to a lot of corpses

Dear God.

 

[Marine03]

Dear God.

That’s my response when gun owners battle cry is to “defend themselves against martial law.”

 

[Marine03]

Here are some numbers I found in a posting on the same subject. A good read:

The question is could the combined might and intransigence of the armed American civilian population be able to take on and defeat the US military and police. And to that question, the answer is an unqualified yes.

Let's look at this, for a moment, rationally.

The number of people in the US military is around 2.1 million. Note, that's not just the badass Navy SEALS and whatnot, but everybody - cooks, mechanics, secretaries, etc. Let's round it up, to say 3 million (I'm being a generous rounder). Give them all an M4 carbine for good measure. For police? Between federal (FBI etc) and state and local law enforcement, estimates would put that number around 1.4 million. But **** it, let's call it 3. Let's just say 6 million, all told. A nice round figure that if anything is wildly overestimating.

Six million is a huge number!

That is against 319 million Americans (less the 6, make it 313). Spread out over 3.8 million square miles of space.

We'll get back to that - just that - in a moment.

Guns though - there are between 270 and 310 million held by civilians in America. The rate of gun ownership per civilian is roughly even 101.5 per 100 civilians.

There are approximately 3.8 million held by military and police combined.

Guns in the United States

So, roughly speaking, for every gun held by the armed forces or police, there are at least 76 in the hands of private citizens. That, in itself, presents a tremendous problem.

Granted, what other answerers are saying is absolutely right - not all guns are created equal. A handgun or .22 rifle in the hands of a civilian is not comparable to an M1 Abrams tank. Also worth noting the number of guns is certainly not evenly distributed - although I think they'd get in the hands of the right people (or wrong, from the despot's perspective) pretty quick. But the point is there are a lot of guns. So in this hypothetical, perhaps a better way to answer it is to see how the United States military did (or is doing) against other societies with a lot of guns in the hands of civilians.

Iraq is one of the most heavily armed societies in the world. 34.2 guns per 100 residents, with 37 million or so residents (or, to put that another way, Iraq is about three times less of an armed society per capita than America is - and America is nearly ten times the size). Afghanistan was significantly less, with 33 million-ish residents. We don't have numbers for North Vietnam, but they had around 20 million in population. (America is, again, for comparison, 313 million with 270-310 million guns, not included military or police).

In all those cases, the combined might of the American armed forces had difficulty "defeating" the target - and in all those cases they were many less people, with many less guns, in a much smaller area, than what you're talking about.

But, again, we get back to what other answerers rightly point out.

The US military and police are not about overwhelming numbers - they are about overwhelming tactics, firepower, and technology selectively deployed. But, what causes the US military and police to run into trouble even in the non-dictatorship scenario - and what makes the United States basically unconquerable - is this.

America is huge. It is a lot of people. These people are well armed and self sufficient.

If you gathered all these people on, say, one side of Nebraska, and put the combined might of the US military and police on the other side, and had them square off - no question who would win.

But that's not what it takes.

You have to go through the streets of Chicago and clear them, street by street.

You have to go and hold territory in Montana.

You have to clear the woods of Maine.

You have to lock down Brooklyn.

You have to hold position around D.C.

You have to take the ports of Louisiana and protect them against insurrection.

You have to meet the marching rioters from Los Angeles head on and push them back.

Hell, forget guns - if they were all armed with sticks and stones I'm not sure I'd have my money on the dictator.

But they are armed and you have to do all those things and many more, all at once.

And you have to do it knowing you have six million folks to do it with, and 313 million insurgents are surrounding you probably as armed as you are.

You are asking, could that 313 million force win?

The answer is yes.

But they aren’t all going to have an M4 carbine which is where this article gets fvcked up.

 

[i am herdman]

I would love to hear you explain how they would enforce martial law on this entire country, take ever gun, and then enforce it? There is no way it could logistically be done.

 

[wvkeeper(HN)]

I can guarantee you Herdman and I could take out a whole company of admin pogues with a couple .308 bolt action rifles.

 

[extragreen]

You're insurgency wouldn't be nearly as big or well armed as you'd like to believe. Only 24% of Americans own guns. Those 24% do however own lots of guns.

 

[big_country90]

You're insurgency wouldn't be nearly as big or well armed as you'd like to believe. Only 24% of Americans own guns. Those 24% do however own lots of guns.

I think even at 80 million to 6 million the citizens of the country would still win.

 

[extragreen]

I think even at 80 million to 6 million the citizens of the country would still win.

Wrong. Not if it was actual war with the intent to win. The military could simply utterly destroy an entire state and declare that if you didn't surrender your state is next. Lots of guns hit the ground at that point.

 

[Y.A.G Si Ye Nots]

I haven't read this entire thread, but I read the first post. Murox's point about the left's alleged misunderstanding of the second amendment shows that he is the one who doesn't understand it.

The Federalist Papers explain the reason for the amendment. In the papers, it discusses the number of soldiers in the federal army. It assumes that all of them would fight for the government and goes on to discuss how many number of citizens would be needed to stop them. In other words, his claim that most (or many) soldiers wouldn't fight for the government is exactly the opposite of what the authors of the amendment stated for the reason for having it. They went as far as to use a formula showing that.

 

[Marine03]

I would love to hear you explain how they would enforce martial law on this entire country, take ever gun, and then enforce it? There is no way it could logistically be done.

Again I’m not arguing that point. I have argued the point that rox thought an armed militia could defeat our military.

 

[mlblack16.]

The AR platform rifles with large capacity magazines and bump stocks are a human killing machine. That is the purpose of the bump stocks - to fire more rounds in a given period of time. Larger magazines mean less time switching them out and more time shooting. We don't need machines intended to be very effective at war fighting in the hands of the general public.

Dear God, I must not have completely sobered up from drinking last night, because I'm actually agreeing with you on something.

I support people having the right to own hand guns, rifles, shoot guns, etc. However, no one and I mean no goddamn body needs assault style weapons.

That having said, will banning them remove them from crazy people's hands? Not all, but it has to make at least some impact to help curb mass shootings.