Or are marksmen good against incoming missiles?

no, they use rifles similar to our rifles, however they could nuke us but it is irrelevant if they cant hold the ground.

have you never played strategy/tactical games?

if the enemy bombards/nukes that territory, but is unable to send in the appropriate amount of troops to secure that territory, they will lose said territory.

No men involved

with a few rifles?

Looking at maintaining a long term tyranny as a simple battle or even a war is shortsighted.
Freedom is the natural state of people.

aren't rifles.

Kindly note that this was without benefit of tanks, helicopters, or fixed-wing aircraft,
all of which the current Afghan government possesses.

Guess who won?


https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/mar/23/afghan-taliban-seize-key-district-sangin-helmand-province

"Those who forget history..."

Are most frequently used to support oppressive government, not to fight against it.

the US Constitution protects the right to chose, the right to marry whomever you want, the right to free speech and freedom of religion, the right of the free press, the right to a fair trial and against cruel and unusual punishment, the right to privacy, the right to not testify against yourself, the right of the individual, and the right to keep and bear arms.

Unfortunately the majority of activist gun owners don't support the right to chose, the right to marry whoever you want, and so on. Who's side do you think they will take between conservative oppressive government and the right of minorities?

"Unfortunately the majority of activist gun owners don't support the right to chose, the right to marry whoever you want, and so on. Who's side do you think they will take between conservative oppressive government and the right of minorities?"

i will fight for me and mine.

better to die fighting than live a slave.

we know what the Nazis did to their enemies.

i have plenty of arms to fight.

Siege of Masada https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Masada

Warsaw Ghetto Uprising https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warsaw_Ghetto_Uprising

Taking a nice long look at the historical record, I would say that the statement above is nonsense. If you have evidence to the contrary, would you please provide it?


Maybe so, but I'd like to see some empirical data on that. In any case, who cares? I certainly don't. I support all those rights. If somebody else want to practice selective-rights hypocrisy, it has nothing to do with my choices.


If it's the right of minorities to keep and bear arms, I would say the latter. Other rights involve political stances that are irrelevant to this argument.

Who shot "uppity blacks". Night riders were groups often synonymous with the clan that spread terror through out the post war South.

In California anti Chinese vigilantes killed dozens of people.

Across Texas and the other former Mexican possessions violence by armed white racists terrorized Americans of Latin descent.

Native Americans have been killed out of hand by private citizens.

This is all stuff you should have learned in High School.

Other rights involve political stances that are irrelevant to this argument.

The OP includes those "other" rights so they are relevant to this thread.

You seem to be advocating para-military violence with armed groups supporting oppression on one side and on the other using armed violence in retaliation.
Wouldn't a nation ruled by laws be a better alternative?

Lynchings and vigilante killings may have had tacit approval of oppressive governments, but they were not law enforcement efforts by any stretch of the imagination. Mob rule of any kind delegitimizes and weakens any government that allows it to happen.

To your examples, I counterpose the Deacons for Defense, Robert Williams and the Black Guard, the IRA, the countless resistance movements to German and Japanese occupation in the Second World War, the equally numerous liberation movements in the Cold War era, and every action undertaken by Native Americans against the agents of the US government. There is more, lots more, but that will do for now.

That's all stuff you should have learned in high school.

Only in your mind, Buzz, only in your mind. I'm advocating nothing of the kind.


Certainly the rule of law is better, but only if it is just. What do you do when the rule of law is unjust, oppressive, and murderous? Would you prefer that the armed groups supporting oppression go unopposed?

Just to be clear, I think that selective support of rights is a hypocritical stance, whether it is taken by Republicans or Democrats.

To call it equal with the other right is laughable.

Yes oppressive government in the Jim Crow South was oppressive. Saying that doesn't eliminate the actions of private citizens.
http://www.pbs.org/independentlens/negroeswithguns/rob.html

The Ku Klux Klan was a powerful and feared force in Monroe, and the community where Williams grew up experienced regular brutalization at the hands of whites.

The police and the Klan worked hand in hand.

https://boomcalifornia.com/2013/07/23/witness-to-a-hanging/

The American tradition of lynching transcended the white-black milieu of the Deep South. Two social historians, William Carrigan and Clive Webb, have made a strong documentary case that the “lynching rate” for Mexican-Americans was comparable to that for African Americans.3 California led the way in anti-Mexican and anti-Chinese vigilantism. According to legend, Joaquín Murrieta—one of the great figures in Gold Rush and Chicano history—chose his second career in banditry in response to the hanging of his half brother. Even after the placer gold petered out, Californians of Mexican descent, Californios—often called “greasers,” a word on a par with “niggers”—continued to be lynched at a rate wildly disproportionate to their overall population. (As for Indians, settlers were more likely to murder them without any pretense of legality).

As I said people with guns tend to support oppressive government.

Partisans during time of war rarely if ever use private firearms. The French resistance depended on captured arms and supplies from the allies. The same is true of partisans such as Tito being supplied by the Soviet Union.

Just how much utility did armed African Americans have? Besides getting open carry laws changed in California they played into the hands of racist propaganda that still lives today. Witness the rights reaction to a member of the Panthers being near a polling place.

The end of the 20th century was the greatest revolutionary period in history. The fall of the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact happened with a populace that didn't own private firearms, with very very few exceptions.

The largest revolution in history was led by a little man wearing a diaper whilst preaching non-violence.

History is not on your side here.

History also shows us that successful revolutions tend to have some governmental ideal and or a structure that the revolution is subservient to. The Colonial committees of correspondence, Sons of Liberty, local governments and finally the Continental Congress are prime examples of that. The African national congress, is a successful example, the Free French, and other governments in exile during WWII are also example. Even when that ideal fails during or after the revolution as with the French Estates General, the structure of government is still there.

(Just as an aside the British marched on Concord and Lexington to seize weapons and powder controlled by local government, not those owned by private citizens. Even when the British did seize weapons owned by the public as they did in Boston, it had no effect of the revolutionaries ability to wage war.)

Would you prefer that the armed groups supporting oppression go unopposed?

This is a silly question. It's like when conservatives used to ask if the world was a better place with Saddam Hussein out of it.
It presumes that there is only a binary choice.
King and Gandhi stood up to oppressive government without firearms, Boris Yeltsin drunkenly stood in front of a tank. They won their battles, though the wars sill continue.

We live in a nation that is still partly democratic. As such we have lots of options to act on without playing Red Dawn.

I don't think the right to bear arms is a right of the individual. Imo Heller was wrongly decided just as Citizens United was.

I also think that confusing the philosophical right to revolution with the civil ability to own firearms is just silly.

..snip very real historical examples of white violence against minorities-which are
nonetheless merely 'argument by association'.



Why, yes, you did- but your examples of violence against people of color neither proves nor disproves
your argument.



I'd say that the fact that we're even discussing the idea, and that *some* AA's think it
was and is a good idea demonstrates its value as an exemplar, if nothing else...



Or witness the reaction to the Huey P. Newton Gun Club marching in the Dallas area ...




Black Panthers & Huey P Newton Gun Club Outnumber Armed White Hate Group At Mosque #48

The white hate group BAIR(Bureau of American Islamic Relations) went armed in front of Muhammad Mosque #48 in South Dallas,Tx. The hate group was met by Black Panthers,Huey P. Newton Gun Club,Bloods,and Crips. The hate group left after being encouraged by police to leave.(Sources allas Morning News,Original Man Visions,KDFW Fox 4,Breitbart News)

...and Austin:



Good on them for helping to keep the racists in line!



This elides several factors: the roles of Jawaharlal Nehru, Muhammad Ali Jinnah and the All-India Muslim League,
British realization that they could not continue to hold India after the Second World War, and the fact that
Gandhi-ji was somewhat influential in Britain proper- the Brits had no compunction about rather brutally
repressing the Mau Maus in Kenya during the Fifties.



For the moment...



Unfortunately for that viewpoint, both dissents in Heller found it to be an individual right
(Note: emphasis added)

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZD.html




https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZD1.html

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Fisking

The word is derived from articles written by Robert Fisk that were easily refuted, and refers to a point-by-point debunking of lies and/or idiocies.
Here we have a great example of a fisking of a clearly biased writer.

I happily admit my bias. And I await you easy denbunking.

.snip very real historical examples of white violence against minorities-which are
nonetheless merely 'argument by association'.

Sadly you use the association fallacy wrongly.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_fallacy

A proper example would be Arms are in the constitution and guns are arms there for guns are in the constitution. That it the fallacy by association.

Here's my argument. Guns in the hands of private citizens are frequently used to support oppressive government. An example of that is committees of vigilance using guns to support the anti minority government of California. It's called evidence you see.

Why, yes, you did- but your examples of violence against people of color neither proves nor disproves
your argument.

So how many examples of private citizens using firearms against minorities are enough? There comes a point were correlation and causation meet. Lynching could not have reached the level it did without the tacit support of government and we know the non governmental forces were organized to terrorize minorities.
It is odd that you're challenging the existence of the KKK.

Or witness the reaction to the Huey P. Newton Gun Club marching in the Dallas area ...

Yes I read the news. In my reading I never saw were the Huey P. Newton Gun Club advocated violence in the same manner that the Aryan Brotherhood does. And I have yet to see a Black Nationalist in the Oval Office as I see members of the Alt Right are.

So choose Black Lives Matter or the Huey P. Newton Gun Club. Which has a better chance of making positive change?
Sorry don't answer its a false dichotomy.

This elides several factors: the roles of Jawaharlal Nehru, Muhammad Ali Jinnah and the All-India Muslim League,

Yes I should have mentioned them while I was referencing the ANC and the Sons of Liberty etc.

Lastly I'm disappointed at your quote mining.
But first to be clear, my belief is that the 2nd amendment's militia clause is the active part of that amendment. At the time the states were fearful of the power of the federal government and wanted to be assured that they could maintain there own armies, just in case. While there were Northerners that held this belief, it was the Southerners, even at that early date jealous to maintain slavery, that championed the 2nd.

So, from your link.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZD1.html

The majority’s conclusion is wrong for two independent reasons. The first reason is that set forth by Justice Stevens—namely, that the Second Amendment protects militia-related, not self-defense-related, interests. These two interests are sometimes intertwined. To assure 18th-century citizens that they could keep arms for militia purposes would necessarily have allowed them to keep arms that they could have used for self-defense as well. But self-defense alone, detached from any militia-related objective, is not the Amendment’s concern.

The second independent reason is that the protection the Amendment provides is not absolute. The Amendment permits government to regulate the interests that it serves. Thus, irrespective of what those interests are—whether they do or do not include an independent interest in self-defense—the majority’s view cannot be correct unless it can show that the District’s regulation is unreasonable or inappropriate in Second Amendment terms. This the majority cannot do.

Here's were you cut your quote.

(2) As evidenced by its preamble, the Amendment was adopted “[w]ith obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of [militia] forces.” United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, 178 (1939) ; see ante, at 26 (opinion of the Court); ante, at 1 (Stevens, J., dissenting).

(3) The Amendment “must be interpreted and applied with that end in view.” Miller, supra, at 178.

(4) The right protected by the Second Amendment is not absolute, but instead is subject to government regulation. See Robertson v. Baldwin, 165 U. S. 275, 281–282 (1897) ; ante, at 22, 54 (opinion of the Court).

And then there was Stevens.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZD.html

The Second Amendment was adopted to protect the right of the people of each of the several States to maintain a well-regulated militia. It was a response to concerns raised during the ratification of the Constitution that the power of Congress to disarm the state militias and create a national standing army posed an intolerable threat to the sovereignty of the several States. Neither the text of the Amendment nor the arguments advanced by its proponents evidenced the slightest interest in limiting any legislature’s authority to regulate private civilian uses of firearms. Specifically, there is no indication that the Framers of the Amendment intended to enshrine the common-law right of self-defense in the Constitution.

The logical fallacy of quote mining is that someone might actually read the text selectively quoted from.

intended to enshrine the common-law right of self-defense in the Constitution. The BoR limits government, not individuals. Wait for, say, Glen Beck to use Sevens' logic when it comes to abortion.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/ninth_amendment

but they were big fans of the Enlightenment and Natural Law Theory.

While there examples of the majority using weapons against the minority. However, only after the minority has been disarmed. That is why places like North Carolina and Michigan had UBC for over 90 years. Of course, back then purchase permits were based on race. That is also why, historically, the south and California had stricter laws after the Civil War.

While I have a low opinion of MTV "news", this writer does have a point

http://www.mtv.com/news/2900230/the-really-really-racist-history-of-gun-control-in-america/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/01/29/negroes-and-the-gun-a-winchester-in-every-black-home/?utm_term=.6226c3264635

the "well regulated militia" was often used to quell slave revolts or intimidate blacks and other minorities.

Rosewood Florida is a twentieth century example of white vigilantism, black self defense and the "militia" being used to enforce racism.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosewood_massacre

Here's my take away from that article.

On January 8, 1923, a telegram was sent to the US Attorney General in Washington, DC, asking for an investigation; the reply stated that the federal government had no jurisdiction and referred the matter to state officials.

Rarely does one encounter such a vague and unfounded generalization. Guns = Oppression. How much more reductive could you get?

As has been pointed out, many of your historical references are sketchy to the point of being misleading. I have never heard so many rationalizations for an oppressive policy (the disarmament of the general public) couched in so much pseudo-liberationist rhetoric.


Gandhi wasn't facing a Hitler or a Pol Pot. What chance would his non-violent revolution have stood there? And as has been pointed out, many other factors were involved in Indian independence.

Here is Gandhi in 1930:


And I sincerely think that calling Gandhi a "little man wearing a diaper" is at best culturally tone-deaf and patronizing, and at worst ... well, never mind.

It's usually conservatives that do that. Nice to know that other liberals can stoop that low as well. Maybe if I'd put "little man in a diaper" in quotes you wouldn't have had to clutch your pearls.

Your quote mining of Gandhi is a good case in point of poor argumentation.
http://www.bl.uk/reshelp/findhelpregion/asia/india/indianindependence/indiannat/source3/

My personal faith is absolutely clear. I cannot intentionally hurt anything that lives, much less fellow human beings, even though they may do the greatest wrong to me and mine. Whilst, therefore, I hold the British rule to be a curse, I do not intend harm to a single Englishman or to any legitimate interest he may have in India.

snip

It is common cause that, however disorganised, and, for the time being, insignificant, it may be, the party of violence is gaining ground and making itself felt. Its end is the same as mine. But I am convinced that it cannot bring the desired relief to the dumb millions. And the conviction is growing deeper and deeper in me that nothing but unadulterated non-violence can check the organised violence of the British Government. Many think that non-violence is not an active force. My experience, limited though it undoubtedly is, shows that non-violence can be intensely active force. It is my purpose to set in motion that force as well against the organised violent force of the British rule as the unorganised violent force of the growing party of violence. To sit still would be to give rein to both the forces above mentioned. Having an unquestioning and immovable faith in the efficacy of non-violence, as I know it, it would be sinful on my part to wait any longer.

This non-violence will he expressed through civil disobedience, for the moment confined to the inmates of the Satyagraha Ashram, but ultimately designed to cover all those who choose to join the movement with its obvious limitations.

I know that in embarking on non-violence I shall be running what might fairly be termed a mad risk. But the victories of truth have never been won without risks, often of the gravest character. Conversion of a nation that has consciously or unconsciously preyed upon another, far more numerous, far more ancient and no less cultured than itself, is worth any amount of risk.

snip

I have no desire to cause you unnecessary embarrassment, or any at all, so far as I can help. If you think that there is any substance in my letter, and if you will care to discuss matters with me, and if to that end you would like me to postpone publication of this letter. I shall gladly refrain on receipt of a telegram to that effect soon after this reaches you. You will, however, do me the favour not to deflect me from my course unless you can see your way to conform to the substance of this letter.

This letter is not in any way intended as a threat but is a simple and sacred duty peremptory on a civil resister. Therefore I am having it specially delivered by a young English friend who believes in the Indian cause and is a full believer in non-violence, and whom Providence seems to have sent to me, as it were, for the very purpose.

I remain

Your sincerely friend

(Sd.) M.K. Gandhi

It is an amazing document the focus on economic justice gets right to the point of what is wrong with British rule.

Now disarmament.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Army_during_World_War_I
During WWI Indian sent 1 million soldiers overseas. After the war those units were demobilized.

http://www.britishmilitaryhistory.co.uk/documents.php?nid=12

In the early 1920's, Indian men were permitted to attend the Royal Military College, Sandhurst, and on commissioning they became King's Commissioned Officers with the same status as their British colleagues. Then an Indian Military College was opened at Dehra Dun, with graduates being granted King's Indian Commissioned Officers. A process of 'Indianisation' commenced in the 1930's, with the intention of gradually replacing British Officers with Indian personnel. The Second World War hastened this process and brought about the recruitment of a large number of Emergency Commissioned Officers, both British and British Indian. Even so, at the end of the war, the highest rank held by a British Indian was that of Brigadier.

The Indian soldiers were all volunteers, a situation that persisted throughout the Second World War. They were drawn from various races and religions, although there was a preference for the martial races from the Punjab. As a result of the Indian Mutiny, regiments did not consist of soldiers from only one race or religion, so Punjabi Mussalman (Muslims) served in the Sikh Regiment and Sikhs served in the Punjab Regiments.

India wasn't disarmed. What it lacked was independence to control its own fate including its military. There was no "gun grab" in India that the OP is so fearful of.

But thanks for posting the link. I haven't read the letter since the 70's and hopefully other people will read it as well.

Can you really not see how insulting "little man in a diaper" is? As I said, tone-deaf at best.

As for the rest of your little history lesson, it points to nothing so much as the conclusion that non-violence is only effective when it is counterposed against the possibility of violence: "Deal with me or you will have to deal with them." Hence the condemnation of disarmament.

While it is true that some people used that phrase in a derogatory way, for most people at the time it was used in admiration.

To quote from "Great Soul" by Joseph Lelyveld "A wee little man in a diaper may have been the greatest figure of the 20th century".
https://www.amazon.com/Great-Soul-Mahatma-Gandhi-Struggle/dp/0307389952/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1491840759&sr=8-1&keywords=great+soul+mahatma+gandhi

You're the one who quote mined Gandhi not me.

I find Lelyveld's usage as patronizing and offensive as yours. What's your point?

just silly.

What's silly is referring to Gandhi's dhoti as a "diaper," a garment worn by infants to contain their incontinence. What's even sillier is that you can't see just how offensive that is.

you mean this guy correct?

should we be allowed to have M249's?

It requires a few hoops to be jumped and $8000+ per weapon but they are legal

8g's only the well off and rich can afford to have a toy like that, doesnt sound like it is a right for anyone else,,, you should be fighting for that for the poor.

With current class 3 weapon laws.

Gun control proposals of heavy taxes on guns and ammunition along with many permit and license ideas would make that right to bear arms limited to the rich. Is that an admirable goal?

You don't have a problem with some guns being only available to the rich but you do with other guns only being available to the rich. Doesn't seem like a right at all if you cant afford it.

Context being arms equivalent to what infantry of the time carries. The AR-15 is that equivalent today.

No one except those pushing hyperbole will say you have the right to own any arms without any restrictions.

doesn't carry m249's? Wasn't it called SAW or squad automatic weapon? I only ask this because my brother will be glad to know he is not infantry.

you can get a saw if you want. I didn't care for the early ones; they blew back a lot of gas into the shooter's face.

Say hi to your BiL and thanks.

Any comment on using taxes and fees to deny rights?

"If" we have the right to bear arms then what arms? As for taxes and fees the taxes and fees if levied should not be prohibitive for any citizen to be able to use that right. There should not be a tax higher on any arm deemed part of the right we posses that limits only the well off or wealthy to posses that arm. We could have a progressive tax and fee system for arms so that we subsidize the poor to help them enjoy the rights currently only available to the well off and rich. Maybe even give them m249's so that they can enjoy the same right only some people currently enjoy. Otherwise we have a class based right.

has been long clear in the Constitution, writings of the framers of the Constitution, SCOTUS rulings, U.S. history and the Democratic platform. That sophomoric canard started with short legs and it is very tired so let's just put it to bed.

What arms is a valid question. WMDs are governed by international treaty which the Constitution acknowledges as valid so those are out. Explosive munitions are indiscriminate, posing and uncontrollable risk to non-combatants so those are restricted. Most belt fed automatic weapons are crew served, not individual weapons so we are in a grey area. For guidance we can look to the writings of the founders and laws of that time. They required, if a person was summoned for militia duty, they provide themselves a musket or rifle, ball and powder, i.e. the standard infantry weapons with some technological leeway. The modern equivalent would be a semi-automatic rifle. We can quibble that the M-16/M-4 has burst ability and is automatic, but in two wars I only ever set my weapon to burst once. I did not even fire it on burst so it seems that is not an especially critical ability.

Now if you wish to subsidize arms, feel free. There is precedent for that and you have reminded me I need to follow up on a program that provided shotguns to qualified residents in a high crime area. However historical precedent has required individuals to purchase their own arms.

Why would we give everyone a 249? Below you say that you are not claiming each person should have one but here you single that weapon out as a subsidy...

rights change. I can certainly debate whether it is a valid right. I wonder what other right we have that takes at least 8g's or more to fully use that right? $2700 to a federal candidate in an election and $5k to an super pac per year. That comes pretty close. I look at gun rights like I do SS, the individual right of a person to not have their money taken by the government does not supersede the inability of most people to save money for retirement and without it we would have millions in abject poverty and worse. Same thing with guns, sure your or my right to have a gun is really strong and we are probably responsible gun owners but there are millions of people every year that are effected by gun violence. The chances of a gun owner to have to use it to protect themselves is so very small compared to the amount of people killed each year by guns from violence. Not trying to be a jerk or anything and I appreciate the conversation, too much lately most discussions I get in (not on du) have me being a libtard within two exchanges.

that rights change. They may be abrogated or reasonably restricted for a greater benefit. Perhaps I am splitting hairs and we mean the same thing. I have been called pro-gun, along with other more derogatory terms, but I view myself as pro-rights. I view the RKBA as I do any other right. One which people should be allowed to exercise with the minimum necessary restriction. And, as with any other right, if a person abuses it they should face just punishment.

There is much injustice in what opportunities the average person is denied financially. We should seek to improve rather than worsen that fact.

I am pleasantly surprised when a conversation remains civil. Even if at the end the parties still disagree, it provides new perspective and food for thought. As a lifelong Democrat and Wellstone supporter I suppose I am a libtard as well.

The chances of a gun owner to have to use it to protect themselves is so very small compared to the amount of people killed each year by guns from violence.

The annual number of people murdered by firearms is roughly around 15000 -16000. The lowball estimate of annual defensive gun uses is about 50000. That's a better than 2 /12 to one ratio of defensive gun uses to people murdered by firearms - very much the opposite of what you claimed.

"The only thing we can know for sure is what we have empirical data on: Namely, that there is a reliable floor for defensive gun use estimates at around 1,600 a year."
https://www.thetrace.org/2015/07/defensive-gun-use-armed-with-reason-hemenway/

In his new NCVS study, Hemenway also found that defensive gun use is exceedingly infrequent. While smaller private surveys estimated that there are up to 2.5 million DGUs on an annual basis, the NCVS data indicates that victims used guns defensively in less than 1 percent of attempted or completed crimes, with an annual total of less than 70,000

All that article claims is that DGU is a minimum of 1600 and is somewhere less than 70000 per year.

I do have to wonder about a survey of gun owners the majority of whom are pro-gun being very reliable at all though. I can see this happening "yes I used my gun for defense, someone knocked on my door after 9pm so I got my gun" being a positive for using a gun for defense. Ive had my guns for over 10 years and lived in some really bad neighborhoods, never once had to use them. While that in no way is proof I do know quite a few gun owners and they have never had to use theirs for defense, but I do know a couple of people who were shot while not doing anything to warrant it.

"yes I used my gun for defense, someone knocked on my door after 9pm so I got my gun"

This would not, in and of itself, have been accepted as a defensive gun use. Those who claimed a DGU were asked permission to record statements that followed for later study, and the number of questions that followed would likely give away someone who attempted to "lie on the fly".

I can't speak for the number of surveys that supported the Kleck/Gertz project. Even "control" supporters Cook & Ludwig came up with 1.5 million DGU's a year --- upon which they belatedly came to the conclusion that all DGU surveys were useless. Interesting, that. Hard to imagine that they would have dismissed their own work had they discovered low numbers of DGU's. That's the way The Controllers roll.

in asserting that defensive gun use is at least as frequent as offensive use. Of course, restriction supporters can now ignore the organization it once bitterly complained was being "forbidden" to do research.

"The study (available as a PDF) calls the defensive use of guns by crime victims "a common occurrence, although the exact number remains disputed." While it might be as high as 3 million defensive uses of guns each year, some scholars point to the much lower estimate of 108,000 times a year. "The variation in these numbers remains a controversy in the field," the study notes."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/01/16/the-study-that-gun-rights-activists-keep-citing-but-completely-misunderstand/?utm_term=.88ec705ec937

when you can just as easily quote the study itself?
Never trust someone else's interpretation of anything 100 percent. He quotes what other people say about it, but nothing about the study itself. He also says "the CDC needs to do research", ignoring the DoJ research.

Yes, the older CDC "studies" were advocacy research, which is a nice way of saying shill study. Even the ones that tried to be honest, none of them appeared in peer review criminology journals, most of them were done by public health types and MDs. Here is the problem with that.

"Although the public generally perceives medical research as the highest order of precision, much of the epidemiologic research is, in fact, rather imprecise and understandably so because it has been conducted principally by individuals with no formal education and little on-the-job training in the scientific method. Consequently, studies are often poorly designed and data are often inappropriately analyzed and interpreted. Moreover, biases are so commonplace, they appear to be the rule, rather than the exception. It is virtually impossible not to recognize that many researchers routinely manipulate and/or interpret their data to fit preconceived hypotheses, rather than manipulate hypotheses to fit their data. Much of the literature, therefore, is nothing less than an affront to the discipline of science. . . . The fraud is so pervasive that it was considered necessary to take some liberties with the usual staid rhetoric of scientific review and inject stronger language to emphasize the problem. . . . Equally culpable are the editors of the many journals who publish articles without regard to their quality or scientific import."

Defensive uses of guns are common:

“Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million per year…in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008.”

http://www.nap.edu/read/18319/chapter/1

And there's a shit-ton of other bad news for "gun control" in this paper. Beyond that, multiple other surveys have confirmed high number of defensive gun uses in support of the Kleck-Gertz survey.

The 249 (squad automatic weapon) weighs over 20 pounds. While it is man portable, it hardly seems like an arm that each infantrymen would be carrying. A sustained RoF over 100 R/min means significant ammo use. It is basically a squad deployed weapon, operated by an individual.

IIRC this was a replacement for the M60.

"Context being arms equivalent to what infantry of the time carries". The infantry does indeed carry m249's.

It seems unclear what you're arguing for.

If the restrictions are gone from full-autos, M2s, F22s and M163 VADS tomorrow I won't be acquiring any of those either.

That we have a right to bear arms but some people with more money actually have more of that right than the majority of others. We are not talking about a little bit of money but quite a lot. The majority of Americans cant afford upwards of 8g to get a license to have a right that others have. Kinda reminds me of a poll tax. Here's a scenario, what if it cost 8g to be able to vote on the entire ticket for an election. Would that really be where voting is a right?

No, but the RKBA has traditional historic meaning. The interpretation has been to include the standard infantry arms carried by mostly all of those folks.

I don't see a lot of reasons for or against removing the tax/fees. The price of the items dwarfs the tax.

fully automatic firearms should be freely available to the general public, as well as nukeshttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapon , phasershttp://memory-alpha.wikia.com/wiki/Phaser, blastershttp://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Blaster, lighsaberhttp://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Lightsaber, and the most powerful weapon of all the Sakabatō http://kenshin.wikia.com/wiki/Sakabat%C5%8D

He's just here to shit in your thread. Off topic at that. Offer him some toilet paper so he doesn't leave stinky and let him be.

As I understand it, rifled muskets couldn't get off as many shots as smooth bore muskets, and the spiral grooves on the inside of the rifle barrel became fouled with black powder after a limited number of shots.

As far as muzzleloaders go, rifles are slower to load (tighter bore) and more prone to fouling than muskets. Arguably, those disadvantages are outweighed by the rifle's far greater accuracy at long range.

A rifleman could load at leisure if he was beyond the range at which a musket could be reliably accurate. The tactic for riflemen was sniping. For massed close-contact battle, yes, the musket would have the advantage, but a relatively small group of rifleman could wreak havoc on a column of infantry from behind cover at a safe distance.

It helped that many of the Continentals had hunting experience, with its emphasis on marksmanship. The British were trained to point in the general direction of the enemy and fire en masse: very useful against close formations, but at distance against snipers firing from cover, not so much. Snipers especially targeted officers, which the British considered low-class and unsportsmanlike.

if you own one of these previously-legal rifles and don't register or modify it and are found out by the government?

I'm not from CA either but I did read up on their registration law a few years ago. I believe there was a small grace period where if you were caught with one of the icky guns on the list you then had to register it or turn it over to the authorities. After the grace period, your poo poo gets pushed in on a felony level. Not sure about the most recent registration law.

... and register it. It will help bolster the compliance numbers, which, if New York and Connecticut are good predictors, are going to be abysmally low.

... no.

Check out SASS shooting.

the gun part has to be registered as a destructive device. IIRC, the launcher doesn't have to be registered under the NFA, but each rocket does. Prior to the National Firearms Act being amended in the 1960s, I don't think there were any real federal restrictions on ownership, of course, there is no market for them either. A solution in search of a problem.
As for nukes, definitely a destructive device. Like field artillery and thanks (Paul Allen is a tank collector) economics makes it a none issue.

functional weapons in them, those weapons (cannon, machinegun,) must be registered. Look to start about $100,000 for the lower level vehicles. An M-60 might run a mil or two.

one of the amendments of the NFA in the 1960s was that demilled weapons have to be registered. That and the addition of destructive devices was part of the reason for the amnesty.

it's been changed, and a while back. You can order de-milled guns through the mail. BATFE has to certify the de-milling when it's done, perhaps that's what you're thinking of. For many years, they've sold "parts kits" with de-milled receivers. All parts, with torch cut or partial receiver.

I was thinking of plugging the barrels and welding breach blocks closed.

Larger, (cannon, etc) bore plugged, breech cut, hole cut in chamber, etc. That it?