The AR-15 Is The “Musket of Our Time”

I find it laughable and pathetic that some modern Americans think these is a limit to military arms for civilians. First, everyone is in the militia whether they like it or not, and second, Americans have always had as good as or better than weapons supplied to the American military.

Civilians had rifles capable of far more range and accuracy than the military. When lever action repeaters came along, guess what? Same for Colt revolvers and the like. It wasn't until the Garland came along that we started to fall behind. Of course NFA rags started making things difficult if not impossible.

I would not want to see civilians owning ICBMs, WMD or the like, but see no problems with anything else.

Jim

 

Serious question: what makes the government more trustworthy with WMD than civilians? Indeed, which has actually used them?

IMO, if it can't be trusted in the hands of the people, it DEFINITELY cannot be trusted in the hands of government.

 

I'd rather that potential invaders be afraid of the citizenry armed with modern arms, than fearlessly march in against single shot black powder.

 

If the government is us, why aren't we trusted with the same weapons that we buy for them...WITH OUR MONEY?

The government hasn't been us in a long time, bucko.

 

To @chimo.....

I think that ghrit was suggesting that if individuals are not acting within the moral constraints of the pack, which they themselves as individuals contribute to, and in turn gain benefit from upholding and supporting, then as individuals outside of that moral system, they will act according to their set of standards alone: which is ok, if their moral standards and values are on par with, or better than the standards of the pack. However, if the individual's self interested moral standards and values are substantially less than the pack, they may represent a serious threat to the pack as rogue agents (as criminals, political / religious motivated terrorists / psychopaths etc). A rogue agent represents a potential risk with a gun that they can buy with their own money, which may if used against the pack can be damaging enough; but a rogue agent with a WMD who can afford to buy it with WITH THEIR OWN MONEY, that takes the risk to the pack to a whole other level of mass destruction to the pack.

There are more checks and balances with the pack controlling a WMD: an individual, subject only to the vagaries of their own decision making in its use, has far fewer constraints.

My reply may not be as pithy as ghrit's might be, but I hope it makes the issue clearer.

 

I, feel I possess the maturity to own an ICBM. Hell, it makes me some kind of mad that I can't legally own a howitzer or a GE mini-gun. Why doesn't the hardware store sell C-4? For that matter, regular old 40% dynamite for clearing stumps. I'll tell ya why, because too many before us, and even a number of us, have stood by while rights have been taken a piece at a time. The AR is Americas new musket, and sadly we may one day have to use them before becoming emasculated like our Aussie and Brit brethren. Daily I wonder how the country that won WWII became such welfare suckin', Hitlerly supportin', limp wristed bunch of girly men who let some sh*t heads that can't get a job other than politics decide the fates for us all. I guess tonight we shall see where the majority of our fellow countrymen fall. I for one stand by with musket ready and powder dry.

Chimo, 2/2!

17-17-14-3-5 3-1-21-5

 

You had no point that made any sense...and if saying so...or calling you "bucko" as a term of endearment is against the CoC just freakin ban me and you'll feel all high and mighty again.

You ignored my point...THE GOVERNMENT IS NO LONGER US. We are not part of any pack, we are the servants of the political class unless they see fit to include us into their little club (which usually starts with a pay off).

AGAIN: If the government is us, then why are we individuals less trustworthy than the collective of government?

If it's good enough for government use, it is good enough for individual use...ESPECIALLY when the individuals are those who are paying the bills...ironically under threat of the same weapons we bought for them in the first place!

 

FREE people are considered to be sane, responsible and law-abiding in FREE countries UNTIL their ACTIONS prove otherwise - you know, the same way you think of government.

If you can't trust the individuals of a country to own whatever, then the government of that country DEFINITELY cannot be trusted to own it.

 

I hate to break it to you, but not all free people are necessarily sane, competent, law abiding and / or responsible. It's cold comfort for those who have died or have been injured at the hands of the insane, the incompetent, the criminal and / or the irresponsible, that other's freedoms haven't been infringed, until a perp's actions have proven that trust in them was misplaced. No doubt about it, it's a dilemma, that is cause for much hand wringing and heart ache each time tragedy strikes the innocent.

 

You miss the point...while of course any person can be a criminal, terrorist, wacko, etc, in FREE societies, FREE people are considered to be sane, responsible and law-abiding BY DEFAULT, until their actions (and due process) prove otherwise. Thus a MIRV in the hands of a citizen is no more a danger to others than a MIRV in the hands of a collective of citizens called government UNTIL their actions prove otherwise. Granted, the actions of our government with nukes might be debatable (in another thread of course).

Dangerous? Oh yeah...that individual...or government...can easily go rogue (Invasion of Iraq anyone?) and kill a lot of people...but nobody ever said that freedom was risk-free, safe or even purdy. With freedom comes danger and risk...those who can't handle those dangers and risk are "free" to become subjects...but they are not free to subjugate others who want to remain free and accept those risks. That means, if you don't want me to own a rifle or a nuke, you can either PROVE me to be a criminal/terrorist/wacko via due process...or move to another place where you will feel safer. This notion that we, as a collective, can restrict the rights of others due to only our fears of what they MIGHT do, rather than by their actions and due process...is not one that is compatible with an actual free society.

Yes, I know, under my definition, we have not been a free society in quite some time.

Back to my original premise...again...why should government be considered more trustworthy than any of the individuals who allegedly own that government?

 

My bad...I considered "bucko" as lighthearted, Happy Days stuff.

 

At least you didn't tell him to "sit and spin"...

 

Most contrarians in the Southern Hemisphere would spin clockwise (to the left), but my guess in this particular instance would be about the X or Y axis randomly changing direction and speed..

 

Did you like hack my laptop's camera and wait for me to be sipping coffee to post this?