Almac Wrote:It amazes me how our societies the US and UK are so different. 
It doesn't surprise me a bit. The second amendment is all about kicking the British out by whatever means necessary. LOL. The Americans have a reason for this law. The British, since they are British, really don't see a need to kick the British out of Britain . . . mores the pity. But seriously, after the Revolutionary War, "the Right To Bear Arms" was designed to provide the people a defense against tyranny, especially since the Revolutionary War was largely fought by farmers and merchants against the most powerful military on the planet at the time.
Frankly, the right has outgrown its usefulness considering the fact that military technology vastly overpowers weapon availability to the public. The only remaining reasons are hunting and defense (and I really don't agree with it as a defense method unless it is during a zombie apocalypse).
![[-]](https://gayspeak.com/images/duende_v3_local/collapse.png)
•
If weapons weren't available to the public, the formation of militias in the case of a full-scale war wouldn't be possible. It's sort of weird to consider it, but the need of a local militia could be VERY possible as it was in the past. Once I think about it, our military aside, the United States of America would be difficult to engage in a battle that would take place on our own soil. Many civilians have firearms, ammunition, and more than a few have training and experience due to hunting/military/police/leisurely activities. I mean, to attack a civilization that was built on war where even the civilians are freely armed...it seems to be an insane idea. Ethics aside and on a global view, the best defense is one that involves everyone in the country.
•
A gun is a tool, and like any other tool you pick the right tool for the job. I keep a glock 22 at home, and I love shooting it as well. It's a bit large for concealment but as long as you wear something loose fitting it works. For small and concealable a good choice I think would be a nice .380 or a small snubby like a Smith & Wesson Cheifs special.
Richard
•
Inchante Wrote:It doesn't surprise me a bit. The second amendment is all about kicking the British out by whatever means necessary. LOL. The Americans have a reason for this law. The British, since they are British, really don't see a need to kick the British out of Britain . . . mores the pity. But seriously, after the Revolutionary War, "the Right To Bear Arms" was designed to provide the people a defense against tyranny, especially since the Revolutionary War was largely fought by farmers and merchants against the most powerful military on the planet at the time.
Frankly, the right has outgrown its usefulness considering the fact that military technology vastly overpowers weapon availability to the public. The only remaining reasons are hunting and defense (and I really don't agree with it as a defense method unless it is during a zombie apocalypse). that's not really true, because as conflicts like the vietnam war and (in germanies case) ww2 has shown us, superior technology doesnt always garantee victory, plus evan today, well armed militia (along with a standing army) is just as important for national security as it was a couple centuries ago.
•
Flowerydreams Wrote:If weapons weren't available to the public, the formation of militias in the case of a full-scale war wouldn't be possible. It's sort of weird to consider it, but the need of a local militia could be VERY possible as it was in the past. Once I think about it, our military aside, the United States of America would be difficult to engage in a battle that would take place on our own soil. Many civilians have firearms, ammunition, and more than a few have training and experience due to hunting/military/police/leisurely activities. I mean, to attack a civilization that was built on war where even the civilians are freely armed...it seems to be an insane idea. Ethics aside and on a global view, the best defense is one that involves everyone in the country.
Good points, certainly but there are a few aspects I cannot agree with you on.
Well, in my opinion, Geography has proven far more of a deterrent to invasion than the number of civilians with fire arms. The second certainly doesn't hurt when it comes to foreign invasion, but I think the Atlantic and Pacific compounded with the sheer size of the country has had far more to do with the fact that no military has attempted to invade the U.S. since the war of 1812.
Having said that, it seems far more likely that the U.S. would come under the rule of a domestic tyrant or dictator than a foreign one, in which case, the militias would be fighting with guns against smart bombs, bunker busters, drones and tanks . . . not exactly a fight I would want to be in.
Finally, those who tend to be in militias scare the SHIT out of me, and are, in my opinion, more likely to bring on a fascist state than prevent one.
Though, I certainly could be wrong, that is my perspective. I certainly don't mind people hunting . . . so long as they do it responsibly and legally. I'm kind of nervous about the whole personal defense scenario, but what can I do, it is their prerogative. And as above, I don't really think it is a viable form of national defense in this day.
•
A well-armed citizenry would be very difficult for the military to suppress, and even if they did it would be at great cost to the infrastructure. Sabotage would also plague the military, and I expect many in the military would side with the civilian rebels if a revolt were ever that popular as a great many have stronger loyalties outside the military than mindlessly obeying orders (like look at the Communist Revolution which succeeded because when the Tsar ordered the troops to fire on their own families the troops instead joined their families in storming the palace).
That said, I fear that too many NRA types would happily accept being deputized by say the likes of Rick Perry in establishing a theocratic state rather than defending liberty. And having mixed with armed survivalists and militias myself in my youth I can say many are no friends to the gay community (though they're more likely to be religious extremist than racist), though I met a few who were ok. In short, I don't trust the 2A to keep up free, especially when the other amendments of the Bill of Rights (especially 1st, 4t, and 5th) are generally ignored & subverted (if not outright vilified) by many championing the 2A. Oh, I think the 2A could be a great threat to a FOREIGN invader, but not so much a domestic tyrant.
•
Pix Wrote:A well-armed citizenry would be very difficult for the military to suppress, and even if they did it would be at great cost to the infrastructure. Sabotage would also plague the military, and I expect many in the military would side with the civilian rebels if a revolt were ever that popular as a great many have stronger loyalties outside the military than mindlessly obeying orders (like look at the Communist Revolution which succeeded because when the Tsar ordered the troops to fire on their own families the troops instead joined their families in storming the palace).
That said, I fear that too many NRA types would happily accept being deputized by say the likes of Rick Perry in establishing a theocratic state rather than defending liberty. And having mixed with armed survivalists and militias myself in my youth I can say many are no friends to the gay community (though they're more likely to be religious extremist than racist), though I met a few who were ok. In short, I don't trust the 2A to keep up free, especially when the other amendments of the Bill of Rights (especially 1st, 4t, and 5th) are generally ignored & subverted (if not outright vilified) by many championing the 2A. Oh, I think the 2A could be a great threat to a FOREIGN invader, but not so much a domestic tyrant.
I don't know, perhaps you are correct and an armed civilian population could defeat an army. Perhaps the military would side with the people if it came down to it, though, as we have seen, propaganda can make people do strange things.
Well, lets hope at least no such thing will ever be necessary.
•
How did this become a Second Ammendment debate the question was about revolvers vs semi-autos.
Richard
•
ardus Wrote:How did this become a Second Ammendment debate the question was about revolvers vs semi-autos.
Richard
I'm sorry Ardus but it was me who shamefully took this thread off track, I shall leave this thread with my head bowed in shame and allow everyone to carry on dreaming of being a Rambo..! 
•
any mg is a friend for me
•
|
revolver vs semiauto?
