Indecision 08 Wingnut thread

[Cain]

Of course, you could just vote people in who mostly disband the armed forces, thus making them easier to defeat.  But then you'd have to give up the empire.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

You keep using that word.....
I do not think it means what you think it means...

I probably don't.
Why don't you enlighten me?

It was originally used in the German 'sturmgewehr' StG44 which was the result of Germany realizing that combat had evolved from shooting over long distances of no man's land to shooting shorter distances in urban settings.  They developed a medium strength cartridge of smaller caliber and made the rifle select fire (meaning it can shoot fully automatic).  So, those are the features of an assault rifle.
In the AWB of 1994, they used the term 'assault weapon' which they defined as a gun on a 'bad list' or having over a minimum amount of some features which they deemed evil:

Semi-automatic rifles able to accept detachable magazines and two or more of the following:
        * Folding stock
        * Conspicuous pistol grip
        * Bayonet mount
        * Flash suppressor, or threaded barrel designed to accommodate one
        * Grenade launcher (more precisely, a muzzle device which enables the launching or firing of rifle grenades)

    Semi-automatic pistols with detachable magazines and two or more of the following:
        * Magazine that attaches outside the pistol grip
        * Threaded barrel to attach barrel extender, flash suppressor, handgrip, or silencer
        * Barrel shroud that can be used as a hand-hold
        * Unloaded weight of 50 oz (1.4 kg) or more
        * A semi-automatic version of an automatic firearm

    Semi-automatic shotguns with two or more of the following:
        * Folding or telescoping stock
        * Pistol grip
        * Fixed capacity of more than 5 rounds
        * Detachable magazine

They were essentially dictating against aesthetics, and none of these met the actual definition of 'assault rifle' because none of them are fully automatic.
They can all be used for whatever purpose you want.  So to say "...people owning assault weapons but rifles, shotguns and pistols for protection and hunting, non automatic, seems perfectly reasonable" doesn't fly because they are declaring wide swaths of them to be assault weapons.  and they are used for protection and hunting.  This last weekend, when i went out hunting i used a Remington R-25 which would be banned under the current ban legislation in the pipe (which is more restrictive yet) even though it was specifically designed for hunting.

and, again.  the whole point of the 2nd amendment, is not for protection against criminals or for hunting. it is to act as a deterrent against gov tyranny.... we should be armed with the equivalent of an infantryman, in my opinion.

The average infantryman has the ability to call in arty, an airstrike or just a couple of friendly gunships to back him up. The second amendment is bullshit because your government has bigger guns - they will win. It's not like the good old days when a couple of hicks with a horse and some black powder could take on the might of the british empire. Your guns are fucking useless against tanks so we're back to my original point - the only way the 2nd amendment would be feasible is if everyone in america had an ICBM in their back yard. I have sky news and a bigscreen teevee so I'm happy enough to support this legislation in any way I'm able.

They may have you outgunned...                        
but we have some skills                                      
you might be able to use.                                     Yeah? You one of dem Freedum Fyters?
     \                                                                                   \
                                                                   

[P3nT4gR4m]

Of course, you could just vote people in who mostly disband the armed forces, thus making them easier to defeat.  But then you'd have to give up the empire.

The price of guns would skyrocket. Be realistic FFS!

[Elder Iptuous]

The average infantryman has the ability to call in arty, an airstrike or just a couple of friendly gunships to back him up. The second amendment is bullshit because your government has bigger guns - they will win. It's not like the good old days when a couple of hicks with a horse and some black powder could take on the might of the british empire. Your guns are fucking useless against tanks so we're back to my original point - the only way the 2nd amendment would be feasible is if everyone in america had an ICBM in their back yard. I have sky news and a bigscreen teevee so I'm happy enough to support this legislation in any way I'm able.

I'm guessing you're just trolling, since you seem like a fairly smart fellow in an argumentative forum, and i'm sure this isn't a new argument here.  But like i said, i'm a sucker for the gun argument, so i'll bite:

You're saying that assymetrical warfare isn't viable, huh?
You're saying that a gov with tyrannical ambitions is just as likely to use a standing army against a population of millions armed with rifles as they would be against a population armed with sticks, huh?

and you next line is.......

[Cain]

ENJOY YOUR DEATH SQUADS!

[Elder Iptuous]

Ba-DOOM!
you win!
srsly, tho, cain. what do you think about that?

[Kai]

You keep using that word.....
I do not think it means what you think it means...

I probably don't.
Why don't you enlighten me?

It was originally used in the German 'sturmgewehr' StG44 which was the result of Germany realizing that combat had evolved from shooting over long distances of no man's land to shooting shorter distances in urban settings.  They developed a medium strength cartridge of smaller caliber and made the rifle select fire (meaning it can shoot fully automatic).  So, those are the features of an assault rifle.
In the AWB of 1994, they used the term 'assault weapon' which they defined as a gun on a 'bad list' or having over a minimum amount of some features which they deemed evil:

Semi-automatic rifles able to accept detachable magazines and two or more of the following:
        * Folding stock
        * Conspicuous pistol grip
        * Bayonet mount
        * Flash suppressor, or threaded barrel designed to accommodate one
        * Grenade launcher (more precisely, a muzzle device which enables the launching or firing of rifle grenades)

    Semi-automatic pistols with detachable magazines and two or more of the following:
        * Magazine that attaches outside the pistol grip
        * Threaded barrel to attach barrel extender, flash suppressor, handgrip, or silencer
        * Barrel shroud that can be used as a hand-hold
        * Unloaded weight of 50 oz (1.4 kg) or more
        * A semi-automatic version of an automatic firearm

    Semi-automatic shotguns with two or more of the following:
        * Folding or telescoping stock
        * Pistol grip
        * Fixed capacity of more than 5 rounds
        * Detachable magazine

They were essentially dictating against aesthetics, and none of these met the actual definition of 'assault rifle' because none of them are fully automatic.
They can all be used for whatever purpose you want.  So to say "...people owning assault weapons but rifles, shotguns and pistols for protection and hunting, non automatic, seems perfectly reasonable" doesn't fly because they are declaring wide swaths of them to be assault weapons.  and they are used for protection and hunting.  This last weekend, when i went out hunting i used a Remington R-25 which would be banned under the current ban legislation in the pipe (which is more restrictive yet) even though it was specifically designed for hunting.

and, again.  the whole point of the 2nd amendment, is not for protection against criminals or for hunting. it is to act as a deterrent against gov tyranny.... we should be armed with the equivalent of an infantryman, in my opinion.

I think I actually agree with the terminology of assault weapons up there as useful. Then again, I'm not really into guns and you'd be fucked to take up arms against the military so *shrug*. Every gun my dad has is within those parameters, and he uses them for hunting.

I just don't see why you need a rifle or pistol with a detachable magazine, or a shotgun that can fit more than 5 shells at once.

[fomenter]

The average infantryman has the ability to call in arty, an airstrike or just a couple of friendly gunships to back him up. The second amendment is bullshit because your government has bigger guns - they will win. It's not like the good old days when a couple of hicks with a horse and some black powder could take on the might of the british empire. Your guns are fucking useless against tanks so we're back to my original point - the only way the 2nd amendment would be feasible is if everyone in america had an ICBM in their back yard. I have sky news and a bigscreen teevee so I'm happy enough to support this legislation in any way I'm able.

because a small poorly armed force has never won a war
1 there are large numbers of armed Americans
2 they do not need to use force on force tactics (heard of asymmetrical warfare?)
3 they have plenty of ability to cause a occupational army trouble
4 survive long enough to create popular support for the resistance against an  occupying army and bigger weapons get donated (or bought)
5 most members of the military support the 2ND amendment and would defect (with there military weapons ) to the citizens side
and most importantly its not a who would win question, its a government wouldn't dare because the cost is to high answer. armed civilians even poorly armed ones act as a deterrent to tyranny.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

The US government would not win in a real fight against its citizens, unless it was the crazy ass survivalist people that were siding with the government.

They have a large chunk of the army deployed in Iraq and they have serious trouble maintaining control. I doubt that the US Army could do more than MAYBE hold one or two states (Maryland, DC and maybe something else close by).

Of course, that assumes that they haven't first been successful at splitting the nation into opposing, hate filled groups that consider each other to be "Unamerican".

Not that such an obvious ploy would ever work on us... we're way to smart for that. (All of us, except for those other damned unamerican assholes...)

[Cain]

I think a government as powerful as the United States, faced with a potential insurgency, would use every tool possible to defeat such insurgents and be free to deny their methods via their friends in the media.  So poison in the water, raping and killing your family and sending you the video, bioengineered weaponry etc etc....the methods are limitless and brutal.

Could such a method work?  Its hard to say.  Terrorism would at best reduce America to a failed state status, and that's assuming this superterrorism stuff ever gets off the ground.  A guerrilla organization may have a better chance....maybe.  Depending on the particulars, such as support, ideology, lines of supply etc

Its not something I'd wish on my worst enemy though.  Counterinsurgency, by its very nature, is the nastiest form of warfare you can see.  All the rules go out the window, though it may not be publically acknowledged.  As I pointed out with my criticism in the other thread, you'd probably need to break the socio-cultural hegemon of the US political system before you could ever hope to win militarily.

[Elder Iptuous]

I think I actually agree with the terminology of assault weapons up there as useful. Then again, I'm not really into guns and you'd be fucked to take up arms against the military so *shrug*. Every gun my dad has is within those parameters, and he uses them for hunting.
I just don't see why you need a rifle or pistol with a detachable magazine, or a shotgun that can fit more than 5 shells at once.

I don't understand what you are saying you are agreeing with.
I don't think you would be fucked up to take up arms against a military that is being used against you.  I think that makes you a free man.
As far as the 'need' thing goes; why do you have to need something for it to be legal?  You don't need anti lock brakes, but they might save your ass in certain circumstances, no?  I don't need the scroll wheel on the mouse i am using, but it sure is convenient.

[P3nT4gR4m]

I think a government as powerful as the United States, faced with a potential insurgency, would use every tool possible to defeat such insurgents and be free to deny their methods via their friends in the media.  So poison in the water, raping and killing your family and sending you the video, bioengineered weaponry etc etc....the methods are limitless and brutal.

Could such a method work?  Its hard to say.  Terrorism would at best reduce America to a failed state status, and that's assuming this superterrorism stuff ever gets off the ground.  A guerrilla organization may have a better chance....maybe.  Depending on the particulars, such as support, ideology, lines of supply etc

Its not something I'd wish on my worst enemy though.  Counterinsurgency, by its very nature, is the nastiest form of warfare you can see.  All the rules go out the window, though it may not be publically acknowledged.  As I pointed out with my criticism in the other thread, you'd probably need to break the socio-cultural hegemon of the US political system before you could ever hope to win militarily.

But it's never going to happen, cos they have the 2nd amendment and the right to shoot each other 

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

At the end of the day... I don't know how an insurgency would work here.

However, if ever the time comes when a dictator gains control of the nation, if a time comes when jackbooted thugs are rounding up citizens for using their freedom of speech, or freedom of assembly, if a time comes when the gays and the Jews get rounded up for capms.. if the day comes when we are 'the next Nazi Germany'... I'd like to have the best guns available, because I'd rather die after fighting tyranny for five minutes, than serve it for 5 years.

I'd rather die shooting the fucker that had just arrested Kai, than live to a ripe old age, knowing that I could have and didn't.

[fomenter]

I think a government as powerful as the United States, faced with a potential insurgency, would use every tool possible to defeat such insurgents and be free to deny their methods via their friends in the media.  So poison in the water, raping and killing your family and sending you the video, bioengineered weaponry etc etc....the methods are limitless and brutal.

Could such a method work?  Its hard to say.  Terrorism would at best reduce America to a failed state status, and that's assuming this superterrorism stuff ever gets off the ground.  A guerrilla organization may have a better chance....maybe.  Depending on the particulars, such as support, ideology, lines of supply etc

Its not something I'd wish on my worst enemy though.  Counterinsurgency, by its very nature, is the nastiest form of warfare you can see.  All the rules go out the window, though it may not be publically acknowledged.  As I pointed out with my criticism in the other thread, you'd probably need to break the socio-cultural hegemon of the US political system before you could ever hope to win militarily.

i suspect the government is plenty smart enough to realise the cost of war with its own people, this is why they push the some guns are "bad" propaganda this is why they push biased  gun death statistics in the media and why the gun laws they promote effect the law abiding citizen and not criminals. the long slow approach to disarming the public is the only one that will work, England and Australia are examples of the success of this method.  

[fomenter]

However, if ever the time comes when a dictator gains control of the nation, if a time comes when jackbooted thugs are rounding up citizens for using their freedom of speech, or freedom of assembly, if a time comes when the gays and the Jews get rounded up for capms.. if the day comes when we are 'the next Nazi Germany'... I'd like to have the best guns available, because I'd rather die after fighting tyranny for five minutes, than serve it for 5 years.

I'd rather die shooting the fucker that had just arrested Kai, than live to a ripe old age, knowing that I could have and didn't.

TITCM