Date of AWB introduction

[mgfguevara]

:^ this

We just need to cone together as a nation. Address the real issues at hand. Last thing we need is an attempt at a civil war.

 

[Lazarus]

That's true, until you think about the Civil War. They fought against their "brothers"
You said you need these weapons to be able to resist the government, and I said you will be a well armed corpse should you try it.

Not even remotely. Families back then didn't relocate like today, they stayed on the farm so they might have been fighting against their "fellow man" but they weren't fighting against their families and friends. The military back then was drafted from the local regions, today our military is drafted from all over the country and station at random forts throughout. You really can't compare the Civil war to any modern day circumstance where we would have to defend ourselves against an oppressive government.

More food for thought: You mentioned tanks, jets and drones. Those are great for taking out heavy armored vehicles, enemy bases etc but do you actually think the government would send in a tank into a subdivision to address a guy that refuses to surrender to disarmament at the risk of blowing up the neighbors? Highly unlikely. So yes I believe that an AR with 30 round mags is a powerful tool against tyranny. If that wasn't the case we might as well just all throw our guns down now right? Why even bother with fighting an AWB?

 

[Gunfighter]

Not even remotely. Families back then didn't relocate like today, they stayed on the farm so they might have been fighting against their "fellow man" but they weren't fighting against their families and friends. The military back then was drafted from the local regions, today our military is drafted from all over the country and station at random forts throughout. You really can't compare the Civil war to any modern day circumstance where we would have to defend ourselves against an oppressive government.

More food for thought: You mentioned tanks, jets and drones. Those are great for taking out heavy armored vehicles, enemy bases etc but do you actually think the government would send in a tank into a subdivision to address a guy that refuses to surrender to disarmament at the risk of blowing up the neighbors? Highly unlikely. So yes I believe that an AR with 30 round mags is a powerful tool against tyranny. If that wasn't the case we might as well just all throw our guns down now right? Why even bother with fighting an AWB?

But if your hypothesis of the second amendment being for defense against a "tyrannical" government is the argument, then armed resistance will be met with an overwhelming force. That's just SOP.
Let one, just one, gun owner fire on government forces attempting to illegally (in their eyes) take their weapons, and you will quickly see "urban pacification vehicles".
The government has no qualms shooting you and yours: Waco, Ruby Ridge, etc.

And yes the military will follow the orders given to them. See the Civil War.

 

[Lazarus]

But if your hypothesis of the second amendment being for defense against a "tyrannical" government is the argument, then armed resistance will be met with an overwhelming force. That's just SOP.
Let one, just one, gun owner fire on government forces attempting to illegally (in their eyes) take their weapons, and you will quickly see "urban pacification vehicles".
The government has no qualms shooting you and yours: Waco, Ruby Ridge, etc.

And yes the military will follow the orders given to them. See the Civil War.

Ok, think what you will but I've personally heard from active duty soldiers that if they were given orders to attack citizens on the basis of disarmament of the general populace that they would disobey orders. Waco, Ruby Ridge, and what ever other compound seige events you want to mention are a little different then what could be classified as confiscation of firearms, violation of 2nd amendment rights which could lead to the violation of all the others at which point everyone not following that current regime would be screwed. So while you can reason that the government dealt with the Weaver family at Ruby Ridge and the Davidian nuts at Waco, having them turn on the 80 million? registered gun owners in America??? I'm betting the outcome wouldn't be the same, the course of action wouldn't be the same.

But again, my original point was I was wondering if the argument could be made that the 2nd amendment supports the right to have "hi-capacity" magazines?

 

[Gunfighter]

ok, think what you will but i've personally heard from active duty soldiers that if they were given orders to attack citizens on the basis of disarmament of the general populace that they would disobey orders. Waco, ruby ridge, and what ever other compound seige events you want to mention are a little different then what could be classified as confiscation of firearms, violation of 2nd amendment rights which could lead to the violation of all the others at which point everyone not following that current regime would be screwed. So while you can reason that the government dealt with the weaver family at ruby ridge and the davidian nuts at waco, having them turn on the 80 million? Registered gun owners in america??? I'm betting the outcome wouldn't be the same, the course of action wouldn't be the same.

But again, my original point was i was wondering if the argument could be made that the 2nd amendment supports the right to have "hi-capacity" magazines?

you are right it wouldn't be the same. It would start by demonizing guns, and those that use them(good and bad lumped in together). Then, comes the legislation (the legal basis) all over time.
The gov't was serving a warrant @ waco due to the weapons. Agreed, different time, the doj operates a little differently today than then.

To say that you would disobey a direct order now and to do it to your co's face at the time the boots hit the ground are two totally different thing. Right or not, i am not going to leavenworth for your friggin ar. Period. And if fired upon, just remember bullets go both ways. I'm glad i'm not active duty anymore, miss it every single day, but if we had been given a legal order to come take your gun, you would not have the gun. Period.

The argument can be made, but won't stand, as it wasn't found unconstitutional in 94 the first time they were banned

 

[2005Redfire6]

you are right it wouldn't be the same. It would start by demonizing guns, and those that use them(good and bad lumped in together). Then, comes the legislation (the legal basis) all over time.
The gov't was serving a warrant @ waco due to the weapons. Agreed, different time, the doj operates a little differently today than then.

To say that you would disobey a direct order now and to do it to your co's face at the time the boots hit the ground are two totally different thing. Right or not, i am not going to leavenworth for your friggin ar. Period. And if fired upon, just remember bullets go both ways. I'm glad i'm not active duty anymore, miss it every single day, but if we had been given a legal order to come take your gun, you would not have the gun. Period.

The argument can be made, but won't stand, as it wasn't found unconstitutional in 94 the first time they were banned

I'm not trying to jump into this but you are a veteran and you said if you were active military still and you were ordered to confiscate guns you would? What happened to the oath you took to uphold the Constitution?

 

[Kalashnikov]

you are right it wouldn't be the same. It would start by demonizing guns, and those that use them(good and bad lumped in together). Then, comes the legislation (the legal basis) all over time.
The gov't was serving a warrant @ waco due to the weapons. Agreed, different time, the doj operates a little differently today than then.

To say that you would disobey a direct order now and to do it to your co's face at the time the boots hit the ground are two totally different thing. Right or not, i am not going to leavenworth for your friggin ar. Period. And if fired upon, just remember bullets go both ways. I'm glad i'm not active duty anymore, miss it every single day, but if we had been given a legal order to come take your gun, you would not have the gun. Period.

The argument can be made, but won't stand, as it wasn't found unconstitutional in 94 the first time they were banned

I will post this again:

oathkeepers.org

 

[Gunfighter]

I'm not trying to jump into this but you are a veteran and you said if you were active military still and you were ordered to confiscate guns you would? What happened to the oath you took to uphold the Constitution?

Yep. If the law was such, and that was my order. I ain't going to prison for disobeying an order for your gun. If the laws were the way they currently are, then possibly. Again, I'm not sitting in prison whole someone else debates the constitutionality of the order that I refused.
Did you challenge the original 94 ban in court? No. You obeyed the law. As would I.

 

[Gunfighter]

I will post this again:

oathkeepers.org

And I will say this again, LAWFUL ORDER.

 

[2005Redfire6]

Yep. If the law was such, and that was my order. I ain't going to prison for disobeying an order for your gun. If the laws were the way they currently are, then possibly. Again, I'm not sitting in prison whole someone else debates the constitutionality of the order that I refused.
Did you challenge the original 94 ban in court? No. You obeyed the law. As would I.

I was 3 in 1994 so no. So your oath to uphold the Constitution is meaningless then? I see where you are coming from I'd feel the same way, but whats the point of the oath then?