Some gun regulation doesn't mean total confiscation (A new meme?)

The Reporter-Herald ^ | January 10, 2013 | James Ure

[2ndDivisionVet]

To the editor:

A recent editorial called for unlimited gun ownership to defend against the government. I hear this argument a lot, but what good is your AR-15 when you're fighting the full force of the United States military? All they have to do is drop a smart bomb on your house from high above and you're done. You wouldn't even see it coming. Alternatively, they could simply run over your house with a Kevlar-plated M1 Abrams tank, or shell your dwelling from cannons positioned far away.

I support the right to bear arms to protect your home and family against criminals, but your shotgun isn't going to do much against the U.S. Marines. It seems some gun advocates think any gun regulation is the first step to total confiscation of all weapons held in private hands. This is ridiculous and paranoid. Just because some want to limit gun ownership to non-semi-automatic weapons, doesn't mean the next step is a total ban on all guns. Even if there were enough people to support such a drastic measure, which there are not, they'd have to scrub the U.S. Constitution of the Second Amendment. As a historian, I can assure you that such a task would be nearly impossible...

[CIDKauf]

Check out the “Battle of Athens, TN”
http://voxvocispublicus.homestead.com/Battle-of-Athens.html

[struggle]

Hey historian friend,

1. Who’s to say 1/2 the army defects with their technology?
2. Who’s to say they remainder have to battle 10 million or so angry rednecks all driving toward DC at once?
3. Who’s to say the majority of police will simply abandon their post and protect their families?

[expat2]

Just because some want to limit gun ownership to non-semi-automatic weapons, doesn't mean the next step is a total ban on all guns.

Doesn't this idiot know that semi-automatic weapons make up more than 80% of all new guns sold?

[KarlInOhio]

So if each new round of gun laws only remove half of our freedom, we will never be totally enslaved in the end.

Zeno's paradoxes

[Obama_Is_Sabotaging_America]

All it would take is one F-22 pilot and crew on the side of the American people to completely obliterate the D.C. Marxists’ command and control center.

[WilliamofCarmichael]

Some regulation didn't mean an end to the First Amendment rights of free speech..

but for decades the "Fairness Doctrine" said that free speech meant that the licensed broadcasting industry (individual radio stations) must offer air time for opposing viewpoints on controversial issues.. or else!

The First Amendment remained but conservative opinion was stifled simply by citizens' (liberal shills') complaints about "fairness" thus threatening the station owners' licenses..

• "You might also think that they would recall the notorious Fairness Doctrine, which was used to 'harass and intimidate' right-wing radio broadcasts, in the words of one unabashed Kennedy-Johnson operative. When that censorious policy was ended in 1987 by former broadcaster Ronald Reagan, there was an explosion of talk formats that gave voice to popular concerns (for a while, Rush Limbaugh even billed himself as equal time)."
• As reported by Fred Friendly in his book appropriately entitled The Good Guys, the Bad Guys, and the First Amendment, this was part of a "massive strategy . . . to challenge and harass the right-wing broadcasters and hope that the challenges would be so costly to them that they would be inhibited, and decide it was too expensive to continue." This strategy was said to have been successful in almost all respects.

a kinda of "Fairness Doctrine" approach would give the illusion that the Second Amendment was respected. Maybe complaints from gun-grabber shills that it's not fair how Joe Gunowner does this or that so he must store his firearms at a government location or something . . . .

The point is: Some regulation didn't mean an end to the First Amendment rights of free speech but . . . .

[freeandfreezing]

No kidding, that article has to be written by a total idiot. I suspect he hasn't thought much about modern conflicts. Hopefully we never have such a situation in our nation, but how exactly, in a political sense, does the author think that our government could stay in power if it was, as he suggests, shelling residential neighborhoods?

Unlike overseas wars, it just isn't possible to use unrestrained force, like artillery, on targets that are mixed in with your supporters. Put another way, does anybody really think that any US government would order shelling of a neighborhood whose residents included the families of government employees, elected officials of the same party, and members of the military? Of course not, the idea is preposterous, and indicative of the foolish mindset of the author.

[2ndDivisionVet]

Not only that, but third-world villagers in places like Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Libya and the Sudan have been able to fashion increasingly deadly explosives out of obsolete munitions or improvised ingredients. We are a nation of engineers, technicians, scientists, reloaders, military veterans and chemists. Imagine what we’ll come up with if need be.

[expat2]

The problem is to slow down the increasing number of handguns sold in this country.

Good luck with that, given how many have been sold within the last month or so, thanks to Obama, Biden, et al. Even my Democrat ex-wife wants to buy her first handgun.

[Obama_Is_Sabotaging_America]

“Beware the government that seeks to outlaw the types of firearms they fear would be the most effective against them.” — Anonymous

[Blood of Tyrants]

I don’t plan on shooting at tanks, I plan on shooting at the politicians who send them.

[Blood of Tyrants]

What good did the PCA do for the Branch Davidians?

[Lazamataz]

A recent editorial called for unlimited gun ownership to defend against the government. I hear this argument a lot, but what good is your AR-15 when you're fighting the full force of the United States military? All they have to do is drop a smart bomb on your house from high above and you're done. You wouldn't even see it coming. Alternatively, they could simply run over your house with a Kevlar-plated M1 Abrams tank, or shell your dwelling from cannons positioned far away.

Of course, they'd have to do that to everyone who had ANY signs of fealty to the Constitution or Bill of Rights, because not everyone would declare their intentions. Stealth and surprise, or OPSEC in military parlance, is its own 'force multiplier' when a civilian is is resident in a civilian population. The best camouflage one can wear in America is not pixilated forest green; The best camouflage one can wear in America is blue jeans, a t-shirt, and some Nikes.

Those who are prepared to act, never should talk. Those who talk, never should act.

[Pox]

but what good is your AR-15 when you're fighting the full force of the United States military?

Asymmetrical warfare is very effective against any superior armed force, and to believe that having even a semi-automatic rifle when fighting our own military is useless displays exceptional ignorance or an outright fraudulent statement. Such an imbecile should ask our own military how they feel about such an absurd statement.

If such a weapon would be so useless against our own military, why worry about civilians owning them in the first place if their primary purpose is to fight against a tyrannical government? I think the government, not to mention China's government, absolutely want these weapons out of our hands, and the reason is because they know how effective such weapons are against a professional military.

All they have to do is drop a smart bomb on your house from high above and you're done.

There aren't nearly enough bombs to eradicate all of the patriots who will be fighting those who have such weaponry, nor would it be cost effective to attempt to disarm guerrilla fighters in such a fashion, obviously. Also, those dropping the bombs live here as well and by no means are they or their loved ones immune to retaliation.

Alternatively, they could simply run over your house with a Kevlar-plated M1 Abrams tank, or shell your dwelling from cannons positioned far away.

Anti-tank mines, along with other "interesting" munitions and anti armor "items" that can be acquired, are not so difficult to produce by a determined group of patriots, and are undeniably effective if positioned effectively. Also, as stated above, those who are driving said tanks and their loved ones are not immune to retaliation, and logistics for those large weapons of war are by no means going to be secure.

Artillery or mortars, or even MLRS, are very effective weapons, but the crew that serves those weapons are by no means "invulnerable", and the same I've noted above is just as true for those who are manning such weapons.

The arguments provided by this person attempting to dissuade patriots from even attempting to mount any opposition to our government is either unbelievably ignorant or simply mouthing talking points that he knows are only "partial truths", IMO.

[Lazamataz]

Be much more careful please. Say a lot less.

[crosshairs]

I don’t plan on shooting at tanks, I plan on shooting at the politicians who send them.

One would think the politicians and lamestream media will be the first to fall, since they are the cause of this mess. They must not be allowed to flee.

[Las Vegas Ron]

BFL

[onona]

He should have started his letter off like this

"Hi there, I'm an idiot, so listen to me..."

[2ndDivisionVet]

I was a Fort Hood when it was still called the XM-1 tank. We don’t have that many tanks and there are ways to defeat them.

[TigersEye]

All gun regulations are an infringement.