Backyard Aquaponics
A place to discuss aquaponics

nukes and wmds are not in any way able to be practically owned by individuals anyway.
Only a government spending the appropriated funds of a large populace could ever afford those sort of weapons.

Consider the term "reasonable force"

Many people own weapons for self defence, handguns and semi-automatic (or automatic) weapons are perfect for that job.
That is why the police use them. Cops primarily use handguns, but as a backup I believe they use such rifles as the AR-15.
So really, these weapons constitute reasonable force.

Even RPGs and bigger/more advanced stuff like that are much more expense than some assault rifles.
So there is no real reason anyone would buy them anyway. Cruise missiles.. cost between 0.5 and 1.5 million dollars, add to that all the launching and support equipment, the training etc required to operate them....

Have you head of a Javelin weekend shoot ?

I believe we should have all weapons carried by our military. So yes I believe AT4's (anti tank weapons) should be legal. I don't believe we should have cruise missiles, those are not a weapon that is carried by troops.

Very true, a RPG is not worth a damn against anything but a armored vehicle. There is not much explosive in a anti tank weapon. It is the design of the charge that allows it to penetrate a tank. Anyone that has seen a tank hit with a anti tank weapon knows there is not much of an explosion caused by the rocket. Most of the explosion comes from what is inside the tank.

Yes our cops carry AR-15's some carry M-16's.

Especially when raiding Branch Davidian compounds... I've used FLIR enough to know the difference between muzzle flashes and "solar reflections"

All of the Texas Game wardens carry M-16's, and some of the local sheriff departments do. Our sheriff department deputies all carry AR-15's.

Where do I sign up? :-)

Helomech, if the law enforcement were not able to carry high power rifles, would you be give up yours? If they were only allowed to carry air rifles (ridiculous i know) would you be happy only having air rifles?

Genuine Q there.

Can't speak for helo, but even if both LE and military weren't allowed to carry them I don't think you could give them up. If the govt decided to go full tyrannical it would be too easy for them to re-obtain the rifles, basically the genie is already out of the bag and you can't put it back.

Plus you could never trust they really got rid of them in the first place, they'd probably burn a pile or two for the news media and put the rest in warehouses somewhere.

No way no how. I will never give up any of my guns as long as I am alive and I will do anything to keep them. If I have to become a felon or risk arrest or death than so be it. But someone is going to have to be willing to give up their life to attempt to take my guns.

Exactly the second amendment is the amendment that protects the rest. Without the 2nd amendment we have no rights, only privileges. Remember it only took 3% of the population to win the revolutionary war.

This question for me goes back to my point about reasonable force. The reason these weapons are use is because they are perfect for the job. Just as a Javelin or minigun is overkill for self defence, and air rifle is very much "underkill?"

I think armed citizens are the most effective means of a countries self defense too.
If an attacking nation was going to choose between one where the people are armed or no armed (all else being equal) they would pick the unarmed on every time.
I Australia and the US were the same (In all meaningful aspects) with our current gun laws, it would be much easier to invade Australia than the US. Much easier.
Wars are ultimately won on the ground, from town to town.
One of the reasons the US cannot take Afghanistan is because of intense guerrilla warfare. The people are armed and know the country like the back of their hand. And the country is horribly hilly and inaccessible too.

Ireland was anarchic for nearly a thousand years, and aside from the occasional dispute was extremely peaceful, as well as productive. During this time Ireland was a mix of independent communities that, again, failed to go to war with each other. As a side note, it took the british empire over four hundred years to conquer anarchist england, whereas it took only a few years to conquer statist india

My point here is that there are obviously no gun laws in an anarchic society and the citizens look after their own personal self defense..

___

Shouldn't italics be smaller than the normal text? and NOT bold ?

I understand that an air rifle is under kill, i chose it for that very reason. My question was worded specifically to ask if helo and others would give up their guns if they didnt need to defend themselves against guns. The answer to which was no.

Even with the same guns laws Australia would be significantly easier to invade due to a significantly lower population. Much less effort is required to gain ground here than over there. We have far fewer numbers to guard our borders. Invading Australia would be a totally different kettle of fish, more about who has the most equipment to move troops than numbers on the ground. 1000 soldiers on foot would have a much harder time than 500 or even 100 with troopies etc. I am not saying you are wrong SV, an armed America vs an unarmed America then absolutely. I am not even trying to claim to be educated in this. I dont think comparing america and Australia in that way is comparing apples with apples.

I just find the difference in attitudes interesting. I want my rifle licence as much as the next guy who wants it.

But that is the last i will say on the matter, i dont want to clog up helomech's excellent thread any more

Not one single thing the president has asked for would have done anything to stop the recent tragedy. This has nothing to do with guns, they are pushing an agenda the left has been trying to push for a long time. No gun control will stop these things. I have said it before a gun is a stupid weapon to use for things like this. A 5 gallon jug of gasoline would have taken way more lives, probably most of the school. A car when all the kids where waiting for the school bus would have killed way more than 20. A bomb would have done way more also.

Besides no one will answer the simple question. If gun free zones work than why has EVERY mass shooting in the last 20 years been in a gun free zone? Gun free zones only stop the law abiding citizen from defending themselves.

Even if we had no standing army there is no way any army in the world could win an invasion on U.S. soil. It is estimated that there are between 23 and 43 million hunters in the U.S. That is not including the ones that have guns that don't hunt, like my dad.