Question for gun enthusiast.

[marvin martian]

Lots of talk about bump stocks and high rate of fire rifles. I understand there is a constitutional right to bear arms, but on a practical level, is there any reason for high rate of fire for anything other than self-defense? Obviously, if you are defending your home from attackers, you need that high rate of fire, and extended capacity, but are there any other circumstances where a high rate of fire and extended capacity are required?

The whole point of having our civil rights is that we don't have to answer your question. So fuck off.

 

[AZrailwhale]

Only if he is first convinced that the kill order is constitutional. His oath is not to his commanding officers, and if ordered to kill fellow citizens for nothing more than behaving like the Founding Fathers did, would likely split the military.

We've seen in Afghanistan what a determined society armed with small arms can do to even a modern military force. The Soviets said, "The heck with this, it isn't worth it".

And the Soviets essentially had kill on sight ROEs. They used chemical weapons and air strikes on civilian villages.

 

[hadit]

And the Soviets essentially had kill on sight ROEs. They used chemical weapons and air strikes on civilian villages.

The "home team" doesn't have to have superior weaponry, they just have to make the cost of oppression high enough for the attempted oppressor to decide it's not worth the pain. And one thing most people tend to forget is that the military is composed of people who live just down the street from their "targets", and I believe that, in a true uprising, a significant portion of military hardware would end up in civilian hands.

 

[AZrailwhale]

The "home team" doesn't have to have superior weaponry, they just have to make the cost of oppression high enough for the attempted oppressor to decide it's not worth the pain. And one thing most people tend to forget is that the military is composed of people who live just down the street from their "targets", and I believe that, in a true uprising, a significant portion of military hardware would end up in civilian hands.

Not just military hardware, but the troops to operate it. In every popular uprising that I can think of, large numbers of military deserted to the rebels. Even in China, local troops refused to act against the Pro-democracy rebels at Tien an Men Square. China had to bring in units from other parts of the country to suppress them.

 

[westwall]

Lots of talk about bump stocks and high rate of fire rifles. I understand there is a constitutional right to bear arms, but on a practical level, is there any reason for high rate of fire for anything other than self-defense? Obviously, if you are defending your home from attackers, you need that high rate of fire, and extended capacity, but are there any other circumstances where a high rate of fire and extended capacity are required

Yes, having fun.

 

[hadit]

Not just military hardware, but the troops to operate it. In every popular uprising that I can think of, large numbers of military deserted to the rebels. Even in China, local troops refused to act against the Pro-democracy rebels at Tien an Men Square. China had to bring in units from other parts of the country to suppress them.

And that is true especially in the US, where we do not have a tradition of the military firing on fellow citizens. I think the first time it was tried, there would be a serious fracturing of the military.

 

[rightwinger]

And that is true especially in the US, where we do not have a tradition of the military firing on fellow citizens. I think the first time it was tried, there would be a serious fracturing of the military.

And what happens when armed civilians fire on the military?

How will soldiers respond when their best friends are killed?

 

[BULLDOG]

There doesn't need to be a "reason".
The 2nd Amendment protects the right to own and use 'all bearable arms " - those in common use for traditionally legal purposes.
Semi-automatic rifles are in common use for traditionally legal purposes; this does not change when you add a bump stock, because the rifle is still semi-automatic.

Again, I don't see why this seems complicated. Of course, the2nd is what it is. this question has nothing to do with the 2nd amendment, or bump stocks. Bump stocks are just a way to increase firing rate, which is legal anyway. I am not asking for any kind of justification for anything. Perfectly legal high capacity and rate weapons are ideal for self-defense. As a practical matter, many guns are used for non-self-defense purposes. Most guns used for non-self-defense don't have a high rate and capacity anyway. Would those non-self-defense guns serve their purpose any better with a higher rate or capacity, or are they suited to their purpose without those things? Is a high rate of fire normally USED in target practice, or deer hunting? Is that high rate and capacity mostly only used for self-defense? Again, I know the 2nd allows it, and I don't question that. That has nothing to do with the question.

 

[BULLDOG]

The whole point of having our civil rights is that we don't have to answer your question. So fuck off.

Coward.

 

[hadit]

And what happens when armed civilians fire on the military?

How will soldiers respond when their best friends are killed?

In order for armed civilians to fire on the military, they've already been ordered to take up arms against civilians. The fracture would already be well underway.

 

[rightwinger]

In order for armed civilians to fire on the military, they've already been ordered to take up arms against civilians. The fracture would already be well underway.

You still have it backwards

The armed civilians would have to be in insurrection first before the military is called up.

You seem to think you are the good guys….you are not

 

[hadit]

You still have it backwards

The armed civilians would have to be in insurrection first before the military is called up.

You seem to think you are the good guys….you are not

The terms are determined by the victor. This nation was founded by insurrectionists that we call the Founding Fathers. You guys would have been the Tories, ratting out the rebels to the British, demanding that they be hung as traitors.

 

[rightwinger]

The terms are determined by the victor. This nation was founded by insurrectionists that we call the Founding Fathers. You guys would have been the Tories, ratting out the rebels to the British, demanding that they be hung as traitors.

Again you have it backwards

The founding fathers were LIBERALS

Conservatives supported the Crown and were Tories

 

[hadit]

Again you have it backwards

The founding fathers were LIBERALS

Conservatives supported the Crown and were Tories

They were insurrectionists. Do you deny that?

 

[rightwinger]

They were insurrectionists. Do you deny that?

A Declaration of Independence says otherwise

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Again you have it backwards

The founding fathers were LIBERALS

Conservatives supported the Crown and were Tories

Slave owning liberals

 

[hadit]

A Declaration of Independence says otherwise

That makes no sense and doesn't address the question. Did they or did they not rebel against the British crown and violently overthrow the government of the colonies so they could form their own?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

A Declaration of Independence says otherwise

You don't know what it says

 

[rightwinger]

You don't know what it says

Of Course I do

 

[WinterBorn]

The funniest part is that if ol' King George had granted the colonies a seat in Parliament, we might still be a British colony.