What would happen if "they" banned the ar 15 rifles? - Page 10
Firearm & Gun Forum - FireArmsTalk.com > General Firearms Forums > Legal and Activism > What would happen if "they" banned the ar 15 rifles?

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 03-31-2013, 05:34 AM   #91
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Vancouver,WA
Posts: 6,077
Liked 4886 Times on 2368 Posts
Likes Given: 1524

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruger22lr View Post
I hope so too anything to bide more time to try and stop it is good time spent indeed.
Yes... Writing reps, attending rallies, donating money... All of it will be necessary to avoid conflict...

Our adversaries would not hessitate to use the levers of Government against us... If they could ever get the votes to do so.

This reality is the reason I promote the honest and straight forward message of NO COMPLIANCE. Yes, we must strive to win peacefully, but at the end of the day, we WILL win by any means necessary.

Tack
__________________
Tackleberry1 is offline  
3
People Like This 
Reply With Quote
Old 03-31-2013, 08:54 AM   #92
FTF_SUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 1,771
Liked 1166 Times on 648 Posts
Likes Given: 500

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tackleberry1 View Post
I can't tell if your a Vet or a guy who loves reading about hardware and capabilities?

I can tell that if you are a Vet... Counter Insurgency was not your specialty.

I've not encountered anyone here who's entertaining a fight with the US Military... but there are plenty who would not back down regardless of the Uniform they faced.

F22's again... Really?

Tack
Well, Tack, you're correct counter-insurgency was not my specialty. Was that your specialty? If it was, then tell me how Al-Qaeda and the Taliban fared against our military? They have years of experience fighting insurgencies, do they not? Can you name a particular battle where they won? I can't recall any. Granted, I'm not omnipotent and don't have a crystal ball, but with a media that spares no opportunity to try to demonstrate to us how much of a mistake Iraq and Afghanistan were (and how it was all Bush's fault), I'd think they'd be all over that like flies on cow manure. There's lots of stuff that the media never sees with respect to military operations, but any major defeat would surely be front page news.

Initiating violence against the military and police is tantamount to a Darwin award. That was the point I was trying to make. The examples I used were outlandish and silly because they were directed against people making outlandish and silly statements about resisting the government's attempts to seize their AR-15's. If that comes to pass, I don't think it will work out well for the government or the people, but it definitely won't end well for the folks on the low end of the firepower spectrum who decide to start popping rounds off at the police and, presumably, the state/national guard. That was the point, in its entirety, that I attempted to make through numerous posts in this thread.

With respect to the silly F-22 example, I can tell you that a general, retired thankfully, thought that the F-22's could be used against pirates. Really? Using 250 mil a crack stealth interceptors against street criminals who can't spell their own names? I'm not saying it's an intelligent idea or that it will come to pass, but it clearly demonstrates the thinking or lack thereof of some of our military commanders. Once they have a new toy to play with, however silly the use is, they want to play with it.

I sincerely hope you're wrong about there being another civil war. That's not something I want my children to see.
__________________
kbd512 is offline  
locutus Likes This 
Reply With Quote
Old 03-31-2013, 02:25 PM   #93
FTF_SUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
locutus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Wyoming
Posts: 9,613
Liked 5953 Times on 3370 Posts
Likes Given: 5521

Default

F22s indeed.

They could take out this bunch with a Sopwith Camel.

Ever been within 100 yards of where one of those tiny little 250 lb bombs detonated?? Or a 155 shell?

__________________
“We sleep safely at night because rough men stand ready to visit violence on those who would harm us.”


Winston Churchill
locutus is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 03-31-2013, 04:01 PM   #94
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Vancouver,WA
Posts: 6,077
Liked 4886 Times on 2368 Posts
Likes Given: 1524

Default

My former MOS is clearly identified by my Avitar and all relevant tactics circle back to basic Infantry Common Tasks.

Nothing our troops have faced in sandbox would be relevant to an internal conflict in Conus.

Neither our military our US Law Enforcement have ever faced a situation on a land mass this size or against a population anywhere near the size of ours.

Complicating matters further is the compartmentalized structure of our government and society. Dictators with "absolute" authority can not hold power once a revolution has been sparked... How could anyone think the US Government could win given the hoops it must jump through to do anything?

Civil War would not be the correct term and in no way would it look like our last Civil War or even the War of Independance.

No... When it happens here, it will be fought in densely populated urban areas where insurgents can drop a weapon and blend into the population negating the Governments firepower advantage.

It will consist of a mixture of all walks of life and differing interest ranging from pure patriots to street gangs who's business gets interrupted by martial law... "the enemy of my enemy is my friend".

Sporadic leaders will emerge who at time will lead larger style offensives with mixed success and sometimes heavy casualties... But everytime a man is killed, a son and 2 brothers will step into the fray to avenge him.

This is the nature of revolution and while technology changes, human nature does not, which is why we can predict eventual outcomes.

At the onset, the majority of any population supports the powers that be, due to there fear of upsetting the "status quo", but as time goes on, abuses mount, loved ones die, and hatred grows.

The blame for the carnage must land somewhere and the Central Government is the most obvious target, this would be exacerbated in our system by politicians of lower Governments looking for there "political advantage".

One need not be a Veteran to grasp these concepts... a study of human conflict, past revolutions, insurgent tactics, and cultural hatred combine to clearly lay out the path we are headed down.

Like any sane American, I too hope that I am wrong. I hope our leaders can put the county first and right this floundering ship and I hope my children and grandchildren get to grow up in the same peace we enjoyed...

However, peace will not be possible for any people who have subjugation forced upon them and millions are waking up to the notion that ALL of our liberties hinge on our guns and there continued "deterant presence" in our hands.

Tack

Quote:
Originally Posted by kbd512 View Post
Well, Tack, you're correct counter-insurgency was not my specialty. Was that your specialty? If it was, then tell me how Al-Qaeda and the Taliban fared against our military? They have years of experience fighting insurgencies, do they not? Can you name a particular battle where they won? I can't recall any. Granted, I'm not omnipotent and don't have a crystal ball, but with a media that spares no opportunity to try to demonstrate to us how much of a mistake Iraq and Afghanistan were (and how it was all Bush's fault), I'd think they'd be all over that like flies on cow manure. There's lots of stuff that the media never sees with respect to military operations, but any major defeat would surely be front page news.

Initiating violence against the military and police is tantamount to a Darwin award. That was the point I was trying to make. The examples I used were outlandish and silly because they were directed against people making outlandish and silly statements about resisting the government's attempts to seize their AR-15's. If that comes to pass, I don't think it will work out well for the government or the people, but it definitely won't end well for the folks on the low end of the firepower spectrum who decide to start popping rounds off at the police and, presumably, the state/national guard. That was the point, in its entirety, that I attempted to make through numerous posts in this thread.

With respect to the silly F-22 example, I can tell you that a general, retired thankfully, thought that the F-22's could be used against pirates. Really? Using 250 mil a crack stealth interceptors against street criminals who can't spell their own names? I'm not saying it's an intelligent idea or that it will come to pass, but it clearly demonstrates the thinking or lack thereof of some of our military commanders. Once they have a new toy to play with, however silly the use is, they want to play with it.

I sincerely hope you're wrong about there being another civil war. That's not something I want my children to see.
__________________
Tackleberry1 is offline  
2
People Like This 
Reply With Quote
Old 03-31-2013, 07:24 PM   #95
FTF_SUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
locutus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Wyoming
Posts: 9,613
Liked 5953 Times on 3370 Posts
Likes Given: 5521

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tackleberry1 View Post

However, peace will not be possible for any people who have subjugation forced upon them and millions are waking up to the notion that ALL of our liberties hinge on our guns and there continued "deterant presence" in our hands.

Tack
I have not seen any subjugation in this country, past or present, nor do I see it in the future.

But I can see a remote possibility of a small handful of extremist radical who will have little to no public support being wiped out in very short order.
__________________
“We sleep safely at night because rough men stand ready to visit violence on those who would harm us.”


Winston Churchill
locutus is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 03-31-2013, 08:40 PM   #96
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 34
Liked 5 Times on 4 Posts
Likes Given: 7

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by locutus

I have not seen any subjugation in this country, past or present, nor do I see it in the future.

But I can see a remote possibility of a small handful of extremist radical who will have little to no public support being wiped out in very short order.
1% of colonists fought in the revolution. Roughly 3,000,000 colonists was the total population and 290,000 fought.

290,000/3,000,000= ~1%

Estimating our current population to be at 300,000,000, 1% of that is only 3,000,000.

And the patriots back then were considered "extremist radicals" I'm sure.

Sources: U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (July 1998 ), American Community Survey (2008 )
__________________

Last edited by Buskowski; 03-31-2013 at 08:43 PM.
Buskowski is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 03-31-2013, 08:56 PM   #97
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: The green, green grass of home.
Posts: 448
Liked 135 Times on 109 Posts
Likes Given: 38

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Buskowski View Post
1% of colonists fought in the revolution. Roughly 3,000,000 colonists was the total population and 290,000 fought.

290,000/3,000,000= ~1%

Estimating our current population to be at 300,000,000, 1% of that is only 3,000,000.

And the patriots back then were considered "extremist radicals" I'm sure.

Sources: U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (July 1998 ), American Community Survey (2008 )
Sure those are Buskowski. As much as the South didn't fight to keep slavery (know that may not be your opinion).

Note, in any case, there were never nearly that many Americans under arms at any given time.

But you're right about the radical bit -- same as real patriots are viewed today. Which leads me to Locutus' perspective...

...that we are not subjugated today in this, albeit soft, tyranny is absurd. From half our labor being taken by a government that feather's its own nest for perpetual and unquestionable Leftist authority and enrichment (the President has taken a vacation evry month this year!) to nationalized healthcare to the White House's blatent disregards for the Constitution. There's only one thing missing so far...
__________________

Last edited by MattShlock; 03-31-2013 at 09:07 PM.
MattShlock is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 03-31-2013, 09:13 PM   #98
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 34
Liked 5 Times on 4 Posts
Likes Given: 7

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MattShlock

Sure those are Buskowski. As much as the South didn't fight to keep slavery (know that may not be your opinion).

Note, in any case, there were never nearly that many Americans under arms at any given time.

But you're right about the radical bit -- same as real patriots are viewed today. Which leads me to Locutus' perspective...

...that we are not subjugated today in this, albeit soft, tyranny is absurd. From half our labor being taken by a government that feather's its own nest for perpetual and unquestionable Leftist authority and enrichment (the President has taken a vacation evry month this year!) to nationalized healthcare to the White House's blatent disregards for the Constitution. There's only one thing missing so far...
I never said the standing force was always 290,000. Just total. To be honest your post is a little confusing and I do t know what you are trying to say.
__________________
Buskowski is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 03-31-2013, 09:24 PM   #99
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: The green, green grass of home.
Posts: 448
Liked 135 Times on 109 Posts
Likes Given: 38

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Buskowski View Post
I never said the standing force was always 290,000. Just total. To be honest your post is a little confusing and I do t know what you are trying to say.
Confusing to be sure. Your colonial math is off by a factor of ten.
__________________
MattShlock is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 03-31-2013, 09:30 PM   #100
FTF_SUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 1,771
Liked 1166 Times on 648 Posts
Likes Given: 500

Default

Has anyone seen the military patrolling American streets in their town lately? I live in Houston, and apart from recruiting offices, the military is nowhere to be found.

How about DHS or the BATFE? I see them at the airports and ports, but that's about it.

Last I checked, they were trying, however poorly or misguidedly, to prevent terrorist attacks and secure the borders.

Has the response been proportionate to the threat? Well, I don't think so and I'm pretty sure I'm not alone in that opinion. No government solution to a problem will be perfect, but I think they are trying to address their shortcomings.

I've not seen or heard of any attempts to subvert the authority of our elected state and local officials or any attempt by the federal government to impose martial law or other authoritarian measures against state or municipal governments and their citizenry.

Some states have more restrictions than others regarding what weapons civilians can own (like AR-15's, for instance), and last I checked, this is in keeping with "state's rights" that so many in the midwest have ballyhooed about since Obama was elected president.

Increased taxation to support spending associated with wars, bail-outs, and government functions is not equivalent to tyranny. All of our officials who are responsible for appropriation of funds and legislation calling for increased taxation were democratically elected by, we the people.

If we don't want nationalized health care (our portion of the supposed "savings" cost us about $800 a month in extra taxes), increased government spending, or affronts to our personal liberties (like being permitted to own and use AR-15's, if we so choose to do so), then perhaps we should elect representatives who better represent our interests. Is it at all possible that the majority of the people agree with the decisions that our elected government have made? There's been little outcry over the increases in spending even though it will eventually put America out of business.

Why worry about what weapons you can have if you can't get a job commensurate with your skills? If you can't afford to drive to work every day, what good is national health care or "green" energy? What good does an AR-15 do when you don't have funding for prisons and criminals are not adequately prosecuted for the crimes they commit? Are you going to shoot everyone that does something you don't like?

Democracies tend to end in chaos or dictatorships, if the existing government is toppled, so what possible good will come of destroying our government and military just so we can all own AR-15's?

__________________
kbd512 is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Firearms Forum Replies Last Post
What kind of semi-auto "assault rifles" are good to purchase for the regular joe? SubZero Auto & Semi-Auto Discussion 33 02-16-2013 09:42 PM
Details about Feinstein's new "Assault Weapons Ban" - affects more than rifles. TimL2952 Legal and Activism 5 12-28-2012 07:05 PM
Should "Assault Weapons" Be Banned (Vote) 10P8TRIOT Legal and Activism 24 08-07-2012 03:27 AM
The "Banned" SNL skit on the bailout Angeleyes Politics, Religion and Controversy 2 10-14-2008 01:28 PM
"If It's Happening Here, It Could Happen Down There" sculker The Club House 0 06-21-2008 07:29 PM