I think you used "apprehend," but that's splitting hairs. To "apprehend" but not take any risks, use the Russian sniper tactic and shoot him thru his pelvis bone with a high velocity rifle, which could be .223 or .30 caliber. He'll probably live (not certain, but likely). He won't be fighting anymore. In certain settings, Russian snipers aimed for the pelvis. This made it likely other German troops would come for him, the German's wounded eliminated him from the war and it would tax German manpower and resources more than if the German was KIA. Again, you defeat your own claim as you claim no particular weapon is necessary for self defense. Therefore, restricting many types of firearms does not prevent self defense. You sort of change the comparison when you add "within 15 feet." A person holding a 460 magnum single shot could stop anyone with a knife as close as 15 feet. So could someone with a 44 magnum, though the shots have to better placed. So could someone with a AR - though would need better placed shots. Hit someone at 15 feet with a 460 magnum? Whatever you hit is gone. Just hit an arm or leg? It's gone. Hit anywhere in the torso? Instant kill even a low gut hit. Not much different than setting a grenade off inside that person - massive energy. The comparison for the knife is always with the pistol holstered - not pointed at the person with the knife. There are a whole lot of people dead from .25 and .22 shorts out of $29.95 Saturday night specials too. No question AR15s are lethal. Rather, they are not the king of the hill. I'd put such as the M1A and other 30 caliber high velocity semi autos with replaceable magazines as king of the hill. My point actually is one you keep confirming. A person does not need an AR15 or a 30 round magazine or the person is unable to defend themselves with a firearm. I don't like the AR15 because it not a heavy hitter. You ever been had a wild hog take a run at you out of undergrowth at 20 mph and you have 1.5 seconds to react? An AR15 .223 isn't going to cut it. Both barrels of a 12 gauge - slug and AA - luckily to the head did - dropped at my feet. Another time I didn't have any firearm reaction time and it became a ground fight - tusks versus my WW2 trench art Japanese bayonet converted to a machete and I bleeding out fast. Luck went my way. It was close, close as could be. I don't like the AR15 for 2 reasons: First, I like hard hitting big bullets. Either extremely high velocity in the 30 caliber category OR HUGE if slower, such as 12 gauge. The one-shot-one-kill the military had was proven wrong in battle. But one-hit-one-stopped becomes more accurate the more energy and/or size of the bullet making the impact. Second, the AR15 is an ugly firearm in my opinion. Looks too toy gunnish, too warlike. If I wanted a .223/5.56 and it not a bullpup style, I'd opt for a wood stock Mini 14 or other model that doesn't make me look like I'm in some militia group or trying to pretend I'm SWAT or military. I want my civilian firearms to look civilian. I prefer wood stocks generally for that reason. One of the hardest hitting rifles I have is a 50+ year old Remington semi-auto 30-06. Standard 3 round mag or a custom 7 round. I paid $200 for it. It is so sleek, so ordinary looking, barrel seemingly so small in diameter, a person might guess its a .22 from a distance. Yet it has all the firepower of an M1 30-06 (and unfortunately twice the kick for how lightweight it is). Some, like the bullpup design, are not suited for wooden stocks. The difference: 30.06 = 2900 ft/lb muzzle energy. .223 = 1300 ft/lb muzzle energy. Getting hit by a 30.06 is like getting hit by two .223 plus a 22LR all at the identical spot in the identical instant. But the AR15 certainly LOOKS more lethal. That's my personal opinion. Yes, the AR15 is lethal. No, it isn't the king of the hill in high capacity magazine lethality. Do I want AR15s, 30 round magazines etc banned. No. I would be ok with raising the legal buy and legal possession age to 21.
True, but I was talking about walking into a liquor store "portable". Inconspicuous would have been a better addition. Hard to be inconspicuous walking down the street with a 12 gauge pump shotgun or an AR-15.
OK, its a combination of the man and the weapon. Almost every man is dangerous given a knife and the will to use it. A man with the best weapon in the world but not the will to use it is not dangerous. And a man with no ability to use a given weapon (such as being 1,000 yards away with a great big rifle) is also not very dangerous. And smart people adapt their tactics to the situation and their resources. A man with a knife isn't going to charge down the middle of the street, he's going to pick the time and place where a knife is the proper weapon. You don't pit your weakness against the enemy's strength.
All true. Add this to the mix, in the event of a revolution, it's not the guy charging into the enemy with an AR who is most dangerous, but the guy with a Mosin-Nagant sitting 500 yards away and picks off an Officer, a NCO or a political leader then slips away who will be the most feared by the bad guys.
I began with that premise actually, In WW2, Russian and German snipers with bolt action rifles killed hundreds of enemy, focusing on officers. I have never read of any infantry or Marine killing hundreds with a full auto Tommy gun, M1 or M1 Carbine - though they all could sling out a lot of bullets. Your choice of weapons interesting because now that's a $200 rifle - and every bit as deadly now as then.
Agreed, although good ones have gone up a bit. Still, it's a bargain; solid, reliable and very effective. Additionally, a "spam can" of 440 rounds of ammo can be had for about $150. More than enough to be an effective freedom fighter. https://www.shootingillustrated.com/articles/2016/1/15/build-your-own-mosin-nagant-sniper-rifle/ Adding a small scope won't be much more; I have two, a classic and a modified:
Nice! I have an old one in fair condition somewhere. Removed the bayonet/pike. I've posted I've gotten away from modern firearms to classic, antique etc firearms. They are certainly still viable weapons and definitely have character. Yes, the ammo is low cost for your rifle - and the modifications are awesome and it does make it YOUR rifle. That is something very special. Well done, sir, and you have a good head on your shoulder plu quite a bit of class. Your's is a rifle - and owner - I can definitely respect.
No, I wouldn't. And I have a strong belief that law enforcement would not be enthusiastic about enforcing such a law. (excluding certain liberal bastions). But a great many law enforcement agencies would just refuse.
This argument is getting very lopsided as if snipers are all that's needed. If all one side has is snipers then they have lost. Snipers have their place, just like infantry and demolitions and engineers and supply. In Iraq and Afghanistan, IED's are bigger problem than snipers. Depending upon the report, IED's have caused up to 2/3rds of all casualties. You have to use the right tool for the job.
I agree law enforcement would not hunt people down. Rather, it would be opportunistic. A traffic stop. Person caught carrying one. The rare occasion of hunting with or firing it. House fire that allows it discovered. Many complaints by neighborhoods. Drug raids and vehicle searches most still for drugs. For probation revocation etc. That's how it is about illegal guns now. But why would you keep them? They would be a felony each that would cause all your firearms to be seized, you possibly with a conviction and never legally could own a firearm again other than maybe a muzzleloader when probation is over. Would you keep them out of patriotic duty to keep and hide them - forever? Certainly you wouldn't fire on any government agents who came to search for and seize them with a warrant, would you? Lawyer-up when they find them if that ever happens? What are you going to do with them? Try to sneak out and fire one now and then? Just look at and admire them as one of your many earned personal points of pride - that you are resisting on principle? Me? I'd get rid of them before the deadline and be able to document doing so. Bust, weld and grind them up enough to be destroyed and then drop it all in deep water videoing it with witnesses, but certainly would not post it on YouTube or make any announcements. Its not like I would be short of firearms for self defense. A 44 magnum is not self defense? A double 12 gauge coach gun is not defense? A Weatherby 300 mag is not viable? Even my old trapdoor 50-70 and Martini-Henry Mark I are viable. My collectible antique target muskets - long guns, shotguns and mostly pistols are still viable. Every bolt action rifle and shotgun I could still legally own are all viable for self defense. Lots of viable self and home defense weapons. A 5 shot alloy 38sp is a fair level of self defense, though I suppose could notch it up to .357 and still be concealable or fit in the glove box. Anyway, that's my view. After such a law many people would turn in a lot of guns, mostly cheap typical firearms, the law would never go back. In my lifetime it would never be declared we could bring our illegal guns out of hiding. BUT if that long shot happened? I'd be buying a couple or more rather quickly. I'm not going to become a felony or fire at the government over some of my guns. That seems rather extreme and something I absolutely would not do. I would not kill to keep my guns - that truly seems off-the-charts immoral and horrific to even consider - and if I did my fate would be far worse than if I just turned them in or got convicted for having them. While I can understand the great desire to not get rid of them or give them up, this too is part of being in a law and order Democratic society such as we have. Gun and weapon restrictions is nothing new. It dates back 200 years to banning swords and dirks, switchblades to daggers, brass knuckles and blackjacks, cannons and grenades, no guns in city limits not checked with the Sheriff. No guns in bars and many other locations. Also sorts of limitations on caliber. Restrictions on the nature of the bullets. Even where some of the parts were made. Yes, I would not like restrictions that take my guns away - or would take away anything else I have. I do not like it being told how I may or may not use my land, do not like being required to get permits - more things I don't like being told I may or may not do that I could list. This would just be another thing on the list of things I don't like that the government makes me do and prohibits me from doing. Such is my analysis looking at it from reality as I would calculate it.
We honestly do not think that way The “ Prepper” is almost unknown here We are more likely to throw rotten eggs at our leaders than bullets
What are you going to do? Go house to house and shoot all the people who don't want guns? The majority of Americans don't want guns. Seven in 10 Americans want stricter gun control. Fifty percent of the guns in America are owned by 3% of the people. First of all, there won't be a law that bans all guns. There will be stricter gun laws and if you break them, the authorities will come after you just like they do all law breakers. If you fight them with your weapons, you will end up dead. If you don't comply with the law, you'll go to jail. Be normal and don't fight what the majority of Americans want. http://time.com/5167216/americans-gun-control-support-poll-2018/ The police and ATF will go after everyone who is breaking the law. If you don't comply with the law of the land, you'll go to jail. If you try to fight them, you'll be dead. Grow up. Life isn't like you see in the action movies you watch. And threatening to kill UN troops? Wow. That's pretty sick. https://www.politico.com/story/2018/02/28/gun-control-polling-parkland-430099
Jake, I think I would just put up a passive resistance by simply not complying. I think I would join millions of people who would do likewise. What are they going to do? Arrest, jail, and put on trial millions of otherwise peaceable, law-abiding citizens? And how many police chiefs and county sheriffs, especially in midwestern, western, and southern states would just say, "Nope. Not gonna do it"? Under current laws that prohibit felons and certain other people from possessing firearms, I have taken firearms from people before. I had no misgivings about that. But if I were back on the job again, I would not enforce a law that targeted otherwise law-abiding citizens. Lots of law enforcement officers I know would not do it. Seth
Only 32% of Americans either own a gun or live with someone who does. The law will go after you if you own a banned gun. The ATF will go after you. Not complying with the law will mean big fines and/or jail time. When any other law is inacted, like the seat belt law or not using your cell phone while driving, do you ignore it? These laws are designed to make everyone safer and protect us from *******s who think they should be able to do anything they want despite endangering others. Are you going to be a law abiding citizen or an *******?
You have to remember.....your leaders still have guns. Rotten eggs, though not mind changing in themselves, might be sufficient enough in themselves for them to use those guns.
No we don't..... Ever hear the adage "Come and take it"? You don't seem to understand. Criminals will always have guns. It sounds to me you are really up front about doing away with the 2nd Amendment. Couldn’t happen in the USA? Are you sure? “Those who don't know history are doomed to repeat it.” Edmund Burke! A LITTLE GUN HISTORY Interesting !! In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, a total of 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated. China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated. Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million educated people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. 56 million defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century because of gun control: You won't see this data on the US evening news, or hear politicians disseminating this information. Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives and property and, yes, gun-control laws adversely affect only the law-abiding citizens. Take note my fellow Americans, before it's too late! The next time someone talks in favor of gun control, please remind them of this history lesson. With guns, we are "citizens". Without them, we are "subjects". During WWII the Japanese decided not to invade America because they knew most Americans were ARMED! If you value your freedom, please spread this antigun-control message to all of your friends. SWITZERLAND ISSUES EVERY HOUSEHOLD A GUN! SWITZERLAND'S GOVERNMENT TRAINS EVERY ADULT THEY ISSUE A RIFLE. SWITZERLAND HAS THE LOWEST GUN RELATED CRIME RATE OF ANY CIVILIZED COUNTRY IN THE WORLD!!! IT'S A NO BRAINER! DON'T LET OUR GOVERNMENT WASTE MILLIONS OF OUR TAX DOLLARS IN AN EFFORT TO MAKE ALL LAW ABIDING CITIZENS AN EASY TARGET. Spread the word everywhere you can that you are a firm believer in the 2nd Amendment! It's time to speak loud before they try to silence and disarm us. You're not imagining it, history shows that governments always manipulate tragedies to attempt to disarm the peopl
Guerrilla warfare is a mixed set, so IEDs are a legitimate tool. Still, the problem with IEDs is indiscriminate killing. The entire idea of guerrilla warfare is to win over the support of the population. Blowing up their kids in an effort to kill off a few bad guys isn't conducive to maintaining support of the public. Agreed: Use the right tool for the job. We're speculating about a civil war in the US, not a Third World Muslim shithole.
Your post is full of things that are not true and are ridiculous. What you post are examples of paranoia and a misunderstanding of history and reality. It is not true that when there are strict gun laws, only criminals have them and there is more crime. In fact, it is the opposite. When Australia enacted stricter gun laws, crime did not increase and gun deaths dropped 35%. Spain has very strict gun laws and bans automatic weapons: it has one of the lowest crime rates in Europe. Switzerland does not require or train every household to have a gun. Totally not true. Switzerland is rated 18 by country as far as guns per capita. Less than Australia, less than New Zealand. Less than Norway, Canada, France, Austria, Iceland, & Finland. The government of Switzerland DOES NOT FORCE EVERY CITIZEN OR HOUSEHOLD TO OWN A GUN. The US is not going to exterminate anyone nor become some kind of dictatorship. The US is not Turkey; the US is not Nazi Germany. The US is not going to 'round up' thousands of people and exterminate them. You seem to know little about the government of your own country. You seem to have no real knowledge of history, of how things came about, of the Nazis, China andother places where at trocities have taken place. You are influenced by what is called fear mongering. That is something done to weak minded people. Don't fall for it. Whether or not Japan wanted to invade the US had nothing to do with people being armed. Most Americans were not armed in those days. Guns per capita rose from .35 in 1945, to 1.1 guns per capita in 2012. In 1945 there were 200% less guns per capita than today. All your 'facts' are not facts but falsehoods. All fed to you by pro-gun nutjobs. None of this is true. You are either very young and uninformed or very easily controlled and influenced. Perhaps both.
The ATF won't know who to go after! Very few municipalities have registration. Many states do allow in-state private sales (a right that *must be preserved*). Unless a state or municipality requires gun registration then there is NO "legal" database to track who owns what. That means making certain weapons illegal doesn't mean jack. Technically only gun owners in areas that require registration could be sent letters of demand, and the rest of the populace couldn't even be asked if they still owned the weapons since the gov is not supposed to maintain databases of what was bought or sold. They may be able to scare the general populace into surrendering some of their weapons but many simply will not comply because the gov cannot prove they even own any such weapon. Plus many American gun owners have feared confiscation for decades so they will be a lot less cooperative than the citizens of many other countries were when their rights were stripped.
You seem to live a world where reality passed you by. In 1945 there may have been fewer weapons, but in 1945 most households owned a weapon. You accuse people of fear mongering. Yet you are only interested in gun grabbing, not actual problem solving. What efforts other than bitching about firearms are you involved in that would reduce the number of people who die by firearms?
All of those who break the law are criminals and subject to punishment. Stop acting like it will be no problem. And what kind of example is that for people to show their children: breaking the law of the land, the rule of the majority, just because they want to? What happens when an accidental killing is caused by one of those illegal guns? The whole situation is against the idea of becoming lawless, fraught with problems and possible criminal penalties. Gun owners who plan to ignore the law are no better than any other criminals and are, in fact, very childish and immature, and irresponsible.
Based on your logic turning in neighbors that the government is targeting for political or ethnic reasons so they can be sent to extermination camps would be the "right thing to do" if the government told you that was the law. Some of us draw the line when laws violate our basic ethics. The founding fathers said our right to bear arms "shall not be infringed" and they said it for a reason. They realize a free people NEED the ability to resist a corrupt tyrannical government as well as to protect ourselves and our families.
In the U.S, about 80% of violent crimes don't involve weapons. Those are the ones that guns stop. I'm a 50 something year old out of shape man. My only real chance for self-defense against a fit teen or twenty-something is a gun. I'm glad the Constitution guarantees that.
