TexasCHLforum.com

ilovetabasco wrote:Today’s technology makes small arms irrelavent

Wrong. Time and time again, in conflicts worldwide, it is proven that freedom fighting forces armed with small arms like semi-automatic rifle and standard capacity magazines often have great success against the most technologically advanced militaries.

At the end of the day, a person standing on a piece of ground with a gun in hand owns that piece of ground until he is removed and another person with a gun in hand overcomes him and stands in his place. Infantry is the backbone of any army. Wars cannot be won with technology alone. The biggest force in the world is perhaps the armed Citizenry of the USA.

Also, don’t rule out that members of our Armed Forces and Law Enforcement are Citizens too! Most will not bring to bear the might of deadly technology on their own people. They value freedom and liberty as much as the civilian population and are sworn to protect and uphold the constitution not some heck bent misguided evil politicians or the president. Most will side with the people.

Enslavement will be achieved by those with guns who are against us.
Freedom will was gained and will be preserved by those with guns who are for us.

Yes, I agree. I also pointed that out in my original post. I guess it was too long and people skipped over it. LOL

Just had a thought, I guess the reason more people don't use the real reason for the 2A and "assault weapons" is not to further alarm the anti's so they can call us terrorists.

Carry on.

I agree with TAM and what others have said, I was writing up something on this topic when I saw it had already been posted. So in my previous posting on this thread, I make some of the same arguments.

But also, we should not only be making valid but less meaningful arguments such as guns vs. cars etc. etc. Instead we should alway start off with making arguments that clearly state the real reason for why we need semiautomatic rifles with standard 30 rd magazines and why the 2nd Amendment exists at all. We need to have the ability to defend ourselves against tyranny (1. government-foreign or domestic, 2. criminals-self defense). To do that we need to have at least what the tyranical oppressors (military and police) have.

Answers like "because I can" and the "the 2A gives me the right" are not good enough, the liberals will alway side step the real argument-oppose tyranny/self defense with the hunting one, Its the only one they can sell to the other useful idiots. Let's get down to the heart of the matter. To often the hunting arguments are being used. Its the wrong argument. I have never needed 30 rds for hunting, some may, but I haven't. But I bet they sure come in handy when fighting for real, not that I have had to experience that.

Why do we need “assault weapons and high capacity magazines?

The term “assault weapons” and “high capacity” magazine is something the Government and Gun Control crowd has made up to demonize guns of a particular category with a particular reason in mind. That reason is simply because it’s the technology of the day that our police and military use and many others throughout the world to keep peace, order and also control.
Gun Control is not about Guns, it’s about Control.

The 2nd Amendment advocates should not use gun control terminology and refer to “arms” in an inappropriate manner that is only meant to negatively stigmatize those “arms”.

We should use terms that more appropriately describe what they are like simply “semi-automatic rifles” or use terms that describe the reason we need them and the 2nd Amendment like “Freedom Rifles.” We should call 30rd magazines “standard magazines” because 30rds is the standard magazine size for many semi-automatic rifles (AR/AK). So we should refer to these “arms” as “semi-automatic rifles” with “standard magazines” because they are standard small arms.

The Revolutionist‘s were armed with the same technology as their oppressors and had a strong will to overcome them. This made victory possible.
At the time of the revolution they used the “arms” technology of the day which was cannons for artillery and muskets for rifleman. All firearms were black powder, loaded one shot at a time. It was the same technology that the British possessed. This leveled the battlefield and is what gave a bunch of rag tag colonist the ability to overcome, at the time, the world’s mightiest army. I don’t think stick and stones would have had the same effect.
The 2nd Amendment doesn’t specify which “arms” we have the right to bear for at least a couple of reasons. The first is much like the reason we almost didn’t have a bill of rights. Some of the founding fathers did not want to leave any right out so that it could later be argued that only a certain type of rights were protected. The same is true of what kind and how many “arms” we could bear. Another reason is that they had no idea of what kind of technology would be developed in the future and did not want to limit “arms” to the technology of the day.

It is imperative that the Armed Citizenry have at least the same technology as the Government and Police. If not, then it is much more difficult to defend against tyranny and a police state.

But another thing to consider is that criminals by definition are people who do not obey the law. They will not cease to use any type of weapon that will give them an advantage in committing their crimes.

So to use anything less than the technology and standard weapons of the day put law abiding citizenry at a disadvantage to defend themselves from tyranny and from criminals.

Today’s technology makes small arms irrelavent

Wrong. Time and time again, in conflicts worldwide, it is proven that freedom fighting forces armed with small arms like semi-automatic rifle and standard capacity magazines often have great success against the most technologically advanced militaries.

At the end of the day, a person standing on a piece of ground with a gun in hand owns that piece of ground until he is removed and another person with a gun in hand overcomes him and stands in his place. Infantry is the backbone of any army. Wars cannot be won with technology alone. The biggest force in the world is perhaps the armed Citizenry of the USA.

Also, don’t rule out that members of our Armed Forces and Law Enforcement are Citizens too! Most will not bring to bear the might of deadly technology on their own people. They value freedom and liberty as much as the civilian population and are sworn to protect and uphold the constitution not some hell bent misguided evil politicians or the president. Most will side with the people.

Enslavement will be achieved by those with guns who are against us.
Freedom will was gained and will be preserved by those with guns who are for us.