Gun Control

Lego guns ... I know I know! This is really not part of this topic, but this is simply to awesome not to share. And I think we can all do with a bit of humor right now ...
And besides, if I would get a bolt action rifle, the Enfield would be high on my list. Next to a Mosin.
 
A country needs it's militias, especially when they're well trained and disciplined. But I don't think they should have widespread private gun use. Perhaps the Militia's headquarters could have guns that they loan to their members without government intervention.
 
Dr Fallout said:
A country needs it's militias, especially when they're well trained and disciplined.
Click to expand...

We don't have militias in America anymore per se. What we have is the National Guard, which focuses on protection from enemy invasion and acts as Reserves to the real US Military, as well as State Guards (aka State defense forces), which are only in a few major states, that act as protectors of those specific states. The State Guards are trained like the National Guard but cannot be absorbed into the National Guard like many other state paramilitary organizations. Some State Guards, like the California State Military Reserves, have both a naval and army section, while Texas has a naval, army and air section.

Believe it or not, but the California State Military Reserves have historically played an active part in helping firefighting when we have major fires.

But I don't think they should have widespread private gun use.
Click to expand...
Okay, I'll bite. Why?
 
Operation Wignut said:
Necessary for what?


Sources?

EDIT: Not being aggressive, just wondering.
Click to expand...
It's not necessary for bloody anything (unless you're hunting or have varmints in the form or rats and foxes).

Sure that's fine.
http://www.armedwithreason.com/less-guns-less-crime-debunking-the-self-defense-myth/
http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2013/09/gun-control
http://www.livescience.com/51446-guns-do-not-deter-crime.html

Edit: I'm aware that these don't prove that widespread gun usage makes crime easier directly, though it does show that one of the most touted reasons for guns is a myth.
 
Last edited:
Dr Fallout said:
A country needs it's militias, especially when they're well trained and disciplined. But I don't think they should have widespread private gun use. Perhaps the Militia's headquarters could have guns that they loan to their members without government intervention.
Click to expand...
How many nations actually do have militias though? The ones that usually come to my mind are not really democratic or what you could consider as stable regions ...
 
Crni Vuk said:
How many nations actually do have militias though? The ones that usually come to my mind are not really democratic or what you could consider as stable regions ...
Click to expand...
Switzerland, mostly. Their armed forces heavily rely on their militias.
Aren't the National Guards in the US basically a form of militia, too?
 
That's a point of debate in the US. Some argue that it fulfills the role of a milita, others say it doesn't. I guess it depends on your definition of militia. But the second amendment talks about the possibility to form a milita, if I remember correctly, not that there has to be one at all times.
 
I doubt that it will prevent or protect them from terrorism. I can't help it, but it feels like this debate we had in Germany where a few demanded that the German army (Bundeswehr) should be used to counter terrorism, which would do absolutely nothing to the problem we're facing now. What role are national guards or the military supposed to fill in that can't be done by the police and their special units? The police is strained, lacking in suficient man power, training and funds. I know! Let us get the army in! That will solve the problem ... instead of actually properly training and outfiting (not militarizing!) the police while getting new recruits.
 
Last edited:
As pointed out previously, neither the army nor the national guard ought to count as "militia". As soon as you put the militia in direct chain of command of the army or state, it ceases to be a militia as invisioned by the founding fathers. How could you ever expect an organization under command of the potential tyrant to be used to fight against tiranny?

Same logic applies to why the US doesn't really have gun registration on federal level: how can you hope to fight the system if the system knows exactly who owns the means to oppose them?

That logic wouldn't fly in euroland, but that's what makes the USA so unique.
MutantScalper said:
As the five cops in Dallas recently found out.

Read somewhere that US blacks actually prefer the SKS over other weapons. It's affordable, powerful and looks 'gangsta', especially with a long magazine.
Click to expand...
That actually was entirely misreported. He used an AK74 variant. An AK in 5.45x39 Russian, somewhat similar to our 5.56x45mm NATO.

An SKS (and the AKM or AK47) fires 7.62x39mm Russian.

All cartridges mentioned in this post are "intermediate" btw, none are considered full power.
 
Yeah, but I feel they wouldn't agree with a lot of things if they would be around today. For example the extreme and vast militarisation which the US has seen since WW2. This so called military industrial complex. I mean the world is getting more peacefull, and yet everyone and everything is armed to the teeth in the US. They spend like 10 times as much on their defence budged like Russia.

54a9549a8ca3b179ace253e29f459f90.png
 
Crni Vuk said:
Yeah, but I feel they wouldn't be very comfortable with the extreme and vast militarisation which the US has seen since WW2. This so called military industrial complex. I mean the world is getting more peacefull, and yet the everyone and everything is armed to the teeth in the US. They spend like 10 times as much on their defence budged like Russia.

54a9549a8ca3b179ace253e29f459f90.png
Click to expand...
Saudi. Fucking. Arabia spends more money then us?

And wow, the US... Jesus Christ that's a high budget.
 
Yeah, but you have nukes, and the Saudis use their military more against their own people then anything else really ... they are a dictatorship after all. And one of our best allies in the midle east who constantly back up and finance terrorists that would love to kill us if they got the chance, while we always have no problems to criticise Russia when they just as much like fart in our general direction, despite the fact that Russia is technically a democracy - definetly a lot more then Saudi Arabia ... eh politics ...
 
Absolutely, but they have something that you don't. :P
An american presence and devotion.

No, in all seriousness. This is the sole reason why I see Islam, Islamic terrorism and Muslims as zero problem today. If it would be a real problem, either for our domestic or foreign politics, then you would see some actuall changes here. Like a real war or some serious propaganda and all that - like before WW2. The moment the US is ditching all of their muslim allies in the middle east and actually goes against the Saudis, that is the moment you know when the shit has really hit the fan. But since muslims make what? 4 or 5% of the population in europe and the US, they make a great group for scare tactics and for populism to catch voters and it works perfectly, because those extremist assholes, play along.
 
Crni Vuk said:
Absolutely, but they have something that you don't. :P
An american presence and devotion.
Click to expand...
It's sad when the land of the free, allows oppressive dictatorships to flourish only if they pay lip service. It's not like they're totally subservient to American interests (ISIS cough)...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top