If you're setting the Wayback Machine to the 18th Century, bear in mind that a lot of the time "the militia" was considered a method of violently repressing slave rebellions, not a method of protecting white folks against the excesses of the government. An armed populace isn't always that concerned about protecting certain rights.
It's a method used to address any damned thing considered a threat. At the time, slave revolts, along with Indian revolts were major uses of militia. Militias, and armies, are simply tools for enacting the will of whomever controls them. At the time, the widely held belief, of both the gov't and the people, was that these groups had no rights. The militia concept is enshrined in case the populace's and gov't's views on rights diverge.
The only thing that is an absolute stupidity in my mind is any reauthorization of an assault weapons ban. What a USELESS fucking law.
Yep.
To be fair, the ban on high-capacity magazines made sense, even though that whole "Congress shall pass no ex-post facto law" thing made it only marginally effective.
I don't really see how that makes sense at all really--considering I can reload my M4 in about 3-4 seconds anyway.
The only ban ive' ever seen sense in is a handgun ban (not that I would support it) considering that statistically NO crimes are committed with assault weapons
However, you make a point about the use of the military that bears discussion. The Romans (and many civs before them) proved overwhelming conventional power could be used to rule with. However, a major shift happened in how most people of the western world viewed the rights of man. Before Christianity flamed through the world, the idea was "might made right" I personally think the general personal injustice of this lead directly to Christianity, however, that's another topic. Post Christianity, this use of power is not accepted on an intrinsic level.
Today, if someone uses these tactics on a Western people, I think the reactions of an armed populace will be very different. In any revolution, the military WILL split. How much goes one way, and how much goes another, thats up for debate. There will be hvy weapons battles. However, the difference between an armed populace and a not armed populace on such a conflict would be night and day.
So if the military would have massive desertions then it's foolish to think owning guns would be the reason for the government's downfall. It's people not bombing their own countrymen that saved you, not the revolver.
Just the opposite I believe. MOST of the military will probably stay loyal to the gov't. It's built that way. It's the added drain to the Tory Forces (like that?) of an armed populace that makes a revolution more than prayer. If it was an unarmed populace, the liklihood of any resistance forming that would push the issue is very low. Additionaly, without the support of a generally armed populace, the small military faction would most likely be overwhelmed rapidly. Leaving the only way to change this kind of gov't a military coup. The sociological environment needed for that does not generally lead to a free democracy on the other side. OTH, a successful revolution run by the populace is much more likely to result in a limited gov't.
However, you make a point about the use of the military that bears discussion. The Romans (and many civs before them) proved overwhelming conventional power could be used to rule with. However, a major shift happened in how most people of the western world viewed the rights of man. Before Christianity flamed through the world, the idea was "might made right" I personally think the general personal injustice of this lead directly to Christianity, however, that's another topic. Post Christianity, this use of power is not accepted on an intrinsic level.
Today, if someone uses these tactics on a Western people, I think the reactions of an armed populace will be very different. In any revolution, the military WILL split. How much goes one way, and how much goes another, thats up for debate. There will be hvy weapons battles. However, the difference between an armed populace and a not armed populace on such a conflict would be night and day.
So if the military would have massive desertions then it's foolish to think owning guns would be the reason for the government's downfall. It's people not bombing their own countrymen that saved you, not the revolver.
Just the opposite I believe. MOST of the military will probably stay loyal to the gov't. It's built that way. It's the added drain to the Tory Forces (like that?) of an armed populace that makes a revolution more than prayer. If it was an unarmed populace, the liklihood of any resistance forming that would push the issue is very low. Additionaly, without the support of a generally armed populace, the small military faction would most likely be overwhelmed rapidly. Leaving the only way to change this kind of gov't a military coup. The sociological environment needed for that does not generally lead to a free democracy on the other side. OTH, a successful revolution run by the populace is much more likely to result in a limited gov't.
So a minority of the military defects and gets carpet bombed with everyone else. How exactly did having a shotgun help? This is not Iraq. The government has declared war on its own people. All lives are forfeit, no mercy will be taken, you will not see the bombs come.
Do you think the government is going to target some ICBM's at "us" anytime soon?
I don't, and I think it's ridiculous to think they will. I also think it's ridiculous for others to think that if they did their M9 would somehow save the day. I'm all for gun rights, but the argument that they're to fight off the government should it turn on us is stupid.
The only thing that is an absolute stupidity in my mind is any reauthorization of an assault weapons ban. What a USELESS fucking law.
Yep.
To be fair, the ban on high-capacity magazines made sense, even though that whole "Congress shall pass no ex-post facto law" thing made it only marginally effective.
Do you think the government is going to target some ICBM's at "us" anytime soon?
I don't, and I think it's ridiculous to think they will. I also think it's ridiculous for others to think that if they did their M9 would somehow save the day. I'm all for gun rights, but the argument that they're to fight off the government should it turn on us is stupid.
People have won revolutions against superior government forces. It's not how big your gun is, it's your will to fight. I think Jesus said that.
Do you think the government is going to target some ICBM's at "us" anytime soon?
I don't, and I think it's ridiculous to think they will. I also think it's ridiculous for others to think that if they did their M9 would somehow save the day. I'm all for gun rights, but the argument that they're to fight off the government should it turn on us is stupid.
Too sleepy. Tomorrow. G'nite guys, and thanks for the discussion.
For shits and giggles, I HATE it when a discussion devolves into the stupid moniker. Surely, if it was that stupid, the efficacy of your counter argument would show it as such?
Do you think the government is going to target some ICBM's at "us" anytime soon?
I don't, and I think it's ridiculous to think they will. I also think it's ridiculous for others to think that if they did their M9 would somehow save the day. I'm all for gun rights, but the argument that they're to fight off the government should it turn on us is stupid.
People have won revolutions against superior government forces. It's not how big your gun is, it's your will to fight. I think Jesus said that.
Only when those forces held back. Please explain what scenario it is that involves the US government declaring war on its people that it cares whether or not they die in mass numbers. Because the Iraqis could have used that secret a couple decades ago.
Do you think the government is going to target some ICBM's at "us" anytime soon?
I don't, and I think it's ridiculous to think they will. I also think it's ridiculous for others to think that if they did their M9 would somehow save the day. I'm all for gun rights, but the argument that they're to fight off the government should it turn on us is stupid.
Too sleepy. Tomorrow. G'nite guys, and thanks for the discussion.
For shits and giggles, I HATE it when a discussion devolves into the stupid moniker. Surely, if it was that stupid, the efficacy of your counter argument would show it as such?
It has, you just don't want to admit it. Guns aren't magic shields that stop missiles launched miles away from a government intent on oppressing you to no end. Please demonstrate what guns did for the Iraqis, all of whom owned fully automatic weapons.
Do you think the government is going to target some ICBM's at "us" anytime soon?
I don't, and I think it's ridiculous to think they will. I also think it's ridiculous for others to think that if they did their M9 would somehow save the day. I'm all for gun rights, but the argument that they're to fight off the government should it turn on us is stupid.
People have won revolutions against superior government forces. It's not how big your gun is, it's your will to fight. I think Jesus said that.
The only thing that is an absolute stupidity in my mind is any reauthorization of an assault weapons ban. What a USELESS fucking law.
Yep.
To be fair, the ban on high-capacity magazines made sense, even though that whole "Congress shall pass no ex-post facto law" thing made it only marginally effective.
Iraq is the size of a small mid-western state (which may contain 1/4 of our Nuclear Capability within it)
The US is really really very big and very very expansive. Totalitarian regimes are not an overnight proposition.
Kay. So it takes them a few months to bomb all resistance to oblivion. Where do rifles come in to the mix?
It wouldn't be that loud. If the U.S. government started bombing it's own civilians, other nations would become involved. We're too intertwined in international politics and commerce for the rest of the world not to come stabilize us.
No, if the government was trying to smash a rebellion, they would try to keep it quiet. No big explosions, no carpet bombing - people would disappear, "random violence" would claim some lives...
The only thing that is an absolute stupidity in my mind is any reauthorization of an assault weapons ban. What a USELESS fucking law.
Yep.
To be fair, the ban on high-capacity magazines made sense, even though that whole "Congress shall pass no ex-post facto law" thing made it only marginally effective.
The grandfathering in of older weapons is a nod to the gun lobby, not some kind of Constitutional requirement. Saying that you're no longer allowed to own high-capacity mags, and forcing you to turn them in (likely with some form of compensation) is not an ex post facto law. Saying that it was illegal to own them before the ban went into place, and that now you're going to prison...that would be.
Failing to grandfather in guns or other restricted items is a feasibility requirement, not a Constitutional one.
Anyway, the original intent of the second amendment is why I always laugh when I hear about the "rights of sportsmen." Nice. They don't have any. You could ban deer rifles, and over/under shotguns, and all kinds of other "nice" guns quite Constitutionally, as they don't necessarily have any militia purpose and there are much more effective weapons available. If there's one thing the second amendment (as authored) does protect, it's the AR-15 (actually, the M16, but you have to make concessions somehwere). As well as the Beretta 92/M9, and a collection of other personal weapons commonly used by the military.
Basically, from a Constitutional standpoint, a ban on revolvers makes more sense than a ban on semi-automatic handguns. "Assault rifles" (if you don't know why that is in quotes, go educate yourself) are the weapons that most likely were intended to be protected.
EDIT: Oh, shit, has the 20 page wankfest about whether an armed populace could defend against the US government started already? I guess given the OP, we were bound to fast-track to it. I'll largely bow out, though I'll mention that you shouldn't forget the idea of US soldiers (particularly reservists) deserting with their equipment. Every state in the nation has a stash of tanks, APCs, helicopters, explosives, etc. You have to expect that some of this would fall into the hands of the resistance. As well as shit like gas masks, NVGs, etc. Anyway, have fun.
mcdermott on
0
Options
ShadowfireVermont, in the middle of nowhereRegistered Userregular
The only thing that is an absolute stupidity in my mind is any reauthorization of an assault weapons ban. What a USELESS fucking law.
Yep.
To be fair, the ban on high-capacity magazines made sense, even though that whole "Congress shall pass no ex-post facto law" thing made it only marginally effective.
Iraq is the size of a small mid-western state (which may contain 1/4 of our Nuclear Capability within it)
The US is really really very big and very very expansive. Totalitarian regimes are not an overnight proposition.
Kay. So it takes them a few months to bomb all resistance to oblivion. Where do rifles come in to the mix?
I am at a loss trying to conceptualize this scenario of "FORTRESS STATE: WASHINGTON" where the fascists decide that sudden oppression by way of tactical nukes is reasonable.
This scenario does not exist in modern America. More likely a subtle sloping into a chaotic police state due to massive unemployment and starvation after our petrol reserves have run dry. Oil wars and all that good stuff.
It wouldn't be that loud. If the U.S. government started bombing it's own civilians, other nations would become involved. We're too intertwined in international politics and commerce for the rest of the world not to come stabilize us.
No, if the government was trying to smash a rebellion, they would try to keep it quiet. No big explosions, no carpet bombing - people would disappear, "random violence" would claim some lives...
I am at a loss trying to conceptualize this scenario of "FORTRESS STATE: WASHINGTON" where the fascists decide that sudden oppression by way of tactical nukes is reasonable.
This scenario does not exist in modern America. More likely a subtle sloping into a chaotic police state due to massive unemployment and starvation after our petrol reserves have run dry. Oil wars and all that good stuff.
Which has fuck all with protecting yourself from the government so much as you wanting to protect yourself should the government implode.
We're not talking about nuclear weapons. We're talking about infantry supported by tanks, gunships, short range tactical missiles, etc.
The type of small arms commonly available legally aren't stopping that sort of force. Even against a better-armed Iraqi citizenry, the U.S. has pretty easily been able to clear cities of armed resistance when it wants to (see: Fallujah, most of Anbar.)
If U.S. citizen choose to resist forcible occupation by dying valiantly in the streets, it won't much matter whether they have a 9mm or not.
Eat it You Nasty Pig. on
it was the smallest on the list but
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
0
Options
MrMonroepassed outon the floor nowRegistered Userregular
edited August 2008
The people who wrote the Constitution did so in a different time. They lived in a time when an army could be assembled from scratch quickly enough to deal with a serious threat to our sovereignty, and they lived in a time when an armed populace actually could overthrow the government. Neither of these scenarios is at all viable in the modern world.
Basically, if you're going to defend the second amendment, do it entirely academically. Don't attempt to draw real-world reasons for keeping guns, because they aren't salient in this day and age.
No, I'm saying that a law regarding the size of a weapon's magazine does not impact the ability of a criminal to fire many rounds.
Didn't the Virginia Tech shooter reload a few times before the end?
Well, it has a marginal impact...but not a dramatic one.
And yes, the V-Tech shooter did have to reload several times. He had a whole backpack full of mags, IIRC. Where he was brilliant (hate to use the word, but it's true) is in bringing more than one gun...so that even while reloading one, he likely always had the other ready to go....eliminating any real chance for an unarmed person to "charge" him without a high likelihood of death.
A change in magazine capacity would likely not have affected the death toll much there at all.
Which is irrelevant anyway, since arguing about gun control in the context of school shootings is like arguing about pedestrian safety in the context of falling pianos. Yes, I say that every time. No, it's no less true.
The people who wrote the Constitution did so in a different time. They lived in a time when an army could be assembled from scratch quickly enough to deal with a serious threat to our sovereignty, and they lived in a time when an armed populace actually could overthrow the government. Neither of these scenarios is at all viable in the modern world.
Basically, if you're going to defend the second amendment, do it entirely academically. Don't attempt to draw real-world reasons for keeping guns, because they aren't salient in this day and age.
There are decent reasons. I have no problem with someone completing a course and obtaining a gun(s) for home protection or hunting.
Obtaining them to reenact Red Dawn is ridiculous though.
All I can say is that you are ignoring critical factors and the inevitable lead up to such a firestorm. It is impossible to say what shape an armed resistance to the seated government would take--as such a government that we are describing herein is currently not in power.
What is a guarantee is that the right to bear arms is not an insignificant factor for the purpose of conscription to state militias. Very likely that in a nightmare scenario states would break away along with entire National Guard contingents.
All I can say is that you are ignoring critical factors and the inevitable lead up to such a firestorm. It is impossible to say what shape an armed resistance to the seated government would take--as such a government that we are describing herein is currently not in power.
What is a guarantee is that the right to bear arms is not an insignificant factor for the purpose of conscription to state militias. Very likely that in a nightmare scenario states would break away along with entire National Guard contingents.
Which means that, once again, your hand gun has done fuck all because you're getting equipped with an M16, explosives, armored vehicle, and air support.
Very likely that in a nightmare scenario states would break away along with entire National Guard contingents.
In which case we have access to some amount of professional training, as well as large armories.
Basically, every "OLOL citizens stand no chance" argument tends to rely on a worst-case scenario (or close to it). It's entirely likely that an armed populace would be of some use against a divided government, where a signficant portion of the military (particularly the reserves) was on their side.
Then you get into the idea that such a resistance might have control of ports, and that state governments might have the ability to buy more equipment. Basically civil war rather than revolution, but with the tyrannical government on one side.
This isn't coming out well, but basically what I'm saying is that "OLOL you'd just get carpet-bombed" is just one very simplistic view of how such a scenario would take place, and true it is one in which my ownership of an AR-15 won't do much good. But it's not the only possible situation.
EDIT: And a million guys with rifles (who know how to use them and aren't afraid of them) in addition to a bunch of tanks, APCs, helicopters, planes, and bombs is better than the tank/APCs/helicopters/planes/etc.
Basically, every "OLOL citizens stand no chance" argument tends to rely on a worst-case scenario (or close to it). It's entirely likely that an armed populace would be of some use against a divided government, where a signficant portion of the military (particularly the reserves) was on their side.
Then you get into the idea that such a resistance might have control of ports, and that state governments might have the ability to buy more equipment. Basically civil war rather than revolution, but with the tyrannical government on one side.
This isn't coming out well, but basically what I'm saying is that "OLOL you'd just get carpet-bombed" is just one very simplistic view of how such a scenario would take place, and true it is one in which my ownership of an AR-15 won't do much good. But it's not the only possible situation.
If a significant portion of the military was on the civilians side the military would arm the populace itself, if it felt the need, people owning small arms could be some what useful but not really.
They don't want some civilian on the front lines with his hunting rifle, they want trained disciplined soldiers. They'd only arm citizens if they had to, they'd probably much rather have us working desk jobs and doing more mundane tasks.
The citizens would need to buy proper arms, or get them from raiding the military to have a chance. You need a way to reliably take out tanks, apcs, air craft, helicopters, etc or you don't stand a chance. Having a gun collection at home isn't going to help, except hey, maybe you can sell it to buy something useful.
I've learned from experience it doesn't really matter if guns are legal or not. For the most part, people who purchase guns through legal means you don't have to worry about. It's the people who buy guns illegally that worry about. Have you ever talked to a banger on how easy it is for them to get guns?
Out here in AZ - we have a huge Norteno community and these guys have better guns than our SWAT teams do. Generally - bangers will shoot other bangers, and I really don't have a problem with that. It's when they start targeting innocent people, that's reason enough for me to own a gun and make sure my wife carries with her and is proficient at it.
I've learned from experience it doesn't really matter if guns are legal or not. For the most part, people who purchase guns through legal means you don't have to worry about. It's the people who buy guns illegally that worry about. Have you ever talked to a banger on how easy it is for them to get guns?
Out here in AZ - we have a huge Norteno community and these guys have better guns than our SWAT teams do. Generally - bangers will shoot other bangers, and I really don't have a problem with that. It's when they start targeting innocent people, that's reason enough for me to own a gun and make sure my wife carries with her and is proficient at it.
Okay, and where are the guns they buy coming from?
Eat it You Nasty Pig. on
it was the smallest on the list but
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
Posts
It's a method used to address any damned thing considered a threat. At the time, slave revolts, along with Indian revolts were major uses of militia. Militias, and armies, are simply tools for enacting the will of whomever controls them. At the time, the widely held belief, of both the gov't and the people, was that these groups had no rights. The militia concept is enshrined in case the populace's and gov't's views on rights diverge.
I don't really see how that makes sense at all really--considering I can reload my M4 in about 3-4 seconds anyway.
The only ban ive' ever seen sense in is a handgun ban (not that I would support it) considering that statistically NO crimes are committed with assault weapons
edit: Going to the gym. Be interested to see how far off topic we get in an hour.
Just the opposite I believe. MOST of the military will probably stay loyal to the gov't. It's built that way. It's the added drain to the Tory Forces (like that?) of an armed populace that makes a revolution more than prayer. If it was an unarmed populace, the liklihood of any resistance forming that would push the issue is very low. Additionaly, without the support of a generally armed populace, the small military faction would most likely be overwhelmed rapidly. Leaving the only way to change this kind of gov't a military coup. The sociological environment needed for that does not generally lead to a free democracy on the other side. OTH, a successful revolution run by the populace is much more likely to result in a limited gov't.
I'm heading to bed soon, so I'd bet we'll be in the merits of Palin's breasts sometime before morning (EST).
There are flash-points and you will see a civil-war coming a mile away.
Do you think the government is going to target some ICBM's at "us" anytime soon?
Videos in spoiler.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CAFxgQmxbGI&feature=related
People have won revolutions against superior government forces. It's not how big your gun is, it's your will to fight. I think Jesus said that.
Too sleepy. Tomorrow. G'nite guys, and thanks for the discussion.
For shits and giggles, I HATE it when a discussion devolves into the stupid moniker. Surely, if it was that stupid, the efficacy of your counter argument would show it as such?
He really didn't.
The US is really really very big and very very expansive. Totalitarian regimes are not an overnight proposition.
So wait, you're saying that federal gun laws should be based around what professional trick shooters can accomplish?
It wouldn't be that loud. If the U.S. government started bombing it's own civilians, other nations would become involved. We're too intertwined in international politics and commerce for the rest of the world not to come stabilize us.
No, if the government was trying to smash a rebellion, they would try to keep it quiet. No big explosions, no carpet bombing - people would disappear, "random violence" would claim some lives...
The grandfathering in of older weapons is a nod to the gun lobby, not some kind of Constitutional requirement. Saying that you're no longer allowed to own high-capacity mags, and forcing you to turn them in (likely with some form of compensation) is not an ex post facto law. Saying that it was illegal to own them before the ban went into place, and that now you're going to prison...that would be.
Failing to grandfather in guns or other restricted items is a feasibility requirement, not a Constitutional one.
Anyway, the original intent of the second amendment is why I always laugh when I hear about the "rights of sportsmen." Nice. They don't have any. You could ban deer rifles, and over/under shotguns, and all kinds of other "nice" guns quite Constitutionally, as they don't necessarily have any militia purpose and there are much more effective weapons available. If there's one thing the second amendment (as authored) does protect, it's the AR-15 (actually, the M16, but you have to make concessions somehwere). As well as the Beretta 92/M9, and a collection of other personal weapons commonly used by the military.
Basically, from a Constitutional standpoint, a ban on revolvers makes more sense than a ban on semi-automatic handguns. "Assault rifles" (if you don't know why that is in quotes, go educate yourself) are the weapons that most likely were intended to be protected.
EDIT: Oh, shit, has the 20 page wankfest about whether an armed populace could defend against the US government started already? I guess given the OP, we were bound to fast-track to it. I'll largely bow out, though I'll mention that you shouldn't forget the idea of US soldiers (particularly reservists) deserting with their equipment. Every state in the nation has a stash of tanks, APCs, helicopters, explosives, etc. You have to expect that some of this would fall into the hands of the resistance. As well as shit like gas masks, NVGs, etc. Anyway, have fun.
No, I'm saying that a law regarding the size of a weapon's magazine does not impact the ability of a criminal to fire many rounds.
Didn't the Virginia Tech shooter reload a few times before the end?
I am at a loss trying to conceptualize this scenario of "FORTRESS STATE: WASHINGTON" where the fascists decide that sudden oppression by way of tactical nukes is reasonable.
This scenario does not exist in modern America. More likely a subtle sloping into a chaotic police state due to massive unemployment and starvation after our petrol reserves have run dry. Oil wars and all that good stuff.
Which has fuck all with protecting yourself from the government so much as you wanting to protect yourself should the government implode.
The type of small arms commonly available legally aren't stopping that sort of force. Even against a better-armed Iraqi citizenry, the U.S. has pretty easily been able to clear cities of armed resistance when it wants to (see: Fallujah, most of Anbar.)
If U.S. citizen choose to resist forcible occupation by dying valiantly in the streets, it won't much matter whether they have a 9mm or not.
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
Basically, if you're going to defend the second amendment, do it entirely academically. Don't attempt to draw real-world reasons for keeping guns, because they aren't salient in this day and age.
Well, it has a marginal impact...but not a dramatic one.
And yes, the V-Tech shooter did have to reload several times. He had a whole backpack full of mags, IIRC. Where he was brilliant (hate to use the word, but it's true) is in bringing more than one gun...so that even while reloading one, he likely always had the other ready to go....eliminating any real chance for an unarmed person to "charge" him without a high likelihood of death.
A change in magazine capacity would likely not have affected the death toll much there at all.
Which is irrelevant anyway, since arguing about gun control in the context of school shootings is like arguing about pedestrian safety in the context of falling pianos. Yes, I say that every time. No, it's no less true.
Obtaining them to reenact Red Dawn is ridiculous though.
What is a guarantee is that the right to bear arms is not an insignificant factor for the purpose of conscription to state militias. Very likely that in a nightmare scenario states would break away along with entire National Guard contingents.
In which case we have access to some amount of professional training, as well as large armories.
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
Basically, every "OLOL citizens stand no chance" argument tends to rely on a worst-case scenario (or close to it). It's entirely likely that an armed populace would be of some use against a divided government, where a signficant portion of the military (particularly the reserves) was on their side.
Then you get into the idea that such a resistance might have control of ports, and that state governments might have the ability to buy more equipment. Basically civil war rather than revolution, but with the tyrannical government on one side.
This isn't coming out well, but basically what I'm saying is that "OLOL you'd just get carpet-bombed" is just one very simplistic view of how such a scenario would take place, and true it is one in which my ownership of an AR-15 won't do much good. But it's not the only possible situation.
EDIT: And a million guys with rifles (who know how to use them and aren't afraid of them) in addition to a bunch of tanks, APCs, helicopters, planes, and bombs is better than the tank/APCs/helicopters/planes/etc.
If a significant portion of the military was on the civilians side the military would arm the populace itself, if it felt the need, people owning small arms could be some what useful but not really.
They don't want some civilian on the front lines with his hunting rifle, they want trained disciplined soldiers. They'd only arm citizens if they had to, they'd probably much rather have us working desk jobs and doing more mundane tasks.
The citizens would need to buy proper arms, or get them from raiding the military to have a chance. You need a way to reliably take out tanks, apcs, air craft, helicopters, etc or you don't stand a chance. Having a gun collection at home isn't going to help, except hey, maybe you can sell it to buy something useful.
Out here in AZ - we have a huge Norteno community and these guys have better guns than our SWAT teams do. Generally - bangers will shoot other bangers, and I really don't have a problem with that. It's when they start targeting innocent people, that's reason enough for me to own a gun and make sure my wife carries with her and is proficient at it.
You don't know what I have.
XBL : lJesse Custerl | MWO: Jesse Custer | Best vid ever. | 2nd best vid ever.
Okay, and where are the guns they buy coming from?
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
err, what?
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget