…Because Government Troops Have High Capacity Magazines

When I am asked why I need a magazine for my “assault rifle” larger than 10 rounds, the answer is “because soldiers carry magazines larger than 10 rounds.” The 2nd Amendment was written to protect the people from more than just criminals. It was also understood that each sovereign state in the union would need to depend on its citizen militias to project power as needed. That meant well-armed men . . .

Our founding fathers also understood the danger of too much power in the hands of a government. They took great pains to hobble it through a system of checks and balances. The 2nd Amendment gave us the means of rebellion should the government go too far in encroaching on our freedom.

I’m not an anarchist or an insurrectionist. I think government is a good thing. Liberty must be ordered to be meaningful. To prosper, civil matters like contracts need to be adjudicated peacefully and fairly. Criminals must be punished sufficiently to suppress their activity.

That said, too much government is lethal. Untold millions suffer under the malignant brutality of all-powerful governments. Western European fascism, eastern European communism, communism in the Far East and Southeast Asia, totalitarian socialist nations from Cuba and throughout Central America. Over and over again, these governments resort to oppression and murder to maintain power over a helpless populace.

Could this happen in America? Consider this scenario: What if Texas decided to rebel against excessive taxation. What if a law passed that permitted Lone Star citizens a right to give themselves a tax cut of 20% and promised protection from Federal arrest or property seizure by Texas Rangers?

While I would hope that law enforcement officials and military units wouldn’t obey orders to quell an otherwise peaceful rebellion violently, our history says that’s not necessarily a safe bet. To what degree would millions of well-armed citizens in the Republic of Texas deter the arrest of the governor and state legislators?

Socialists like Senator Feinstein and President Obama have access to the same data you and I do. They know that confiscating baseball bats would save more murder victims than confiscating AR-15s would. They know that the Clinton assault rifle ban did nothing meaningful to reduce crime. Why then are they hell bent on making a move that’s already proven worthless for the ostensible reason it’s been proposed?

We have no reason to think these college-educated adults have fully benign intent. What would they do different if they were working to set America up for a future tyranny that today’s Americans would openly rebel against?

Socialists the world over have disarmed the populations they went on to enslave. Americans – at least some of us – are quite a bit different than the peasants of Russia and Central America. Many of us will fight, though under exactly what circumstances is less than clear. Are the American socialists in charge today as malignant as all the other socialists? Rifles with high-capacity magazines in the hands of citizens skeptical of government power are one way to ensure we never find out.

128 Responses to …Because Government Troops Have High Capacity Magazines

  1. avatarLowne says:

    Completely agree with your statement but I have yet to use that justification to anyone I’ve had a discussion with recently, and this is cowardly of me, because I’m afraid that it will make me sound insane.

    I’m not proud of it.

    Years ago I used this very logic in a discussion and I swear, the people I was speaking with reacted like I had just shown them the extra hole in my head where the retractable eye-stalk was stored.

    • avatarJon says:

      I know what you mean. I think it’s crucial to point out when making this argument that there is no “hunting” or “sporting ” clause in the Second Amendment. Rather, its purpose lies in the phrase “security of a free state.”

      • avatarLodatz says:

        Shame you didn’t also remember the part about the militia being well regulated, also.

      • avatarJohn Thompson says:

        The 2nd addmentment should have been the 1st addmentmentas it was put in to protect the constitution and the admentment’s!!

        • avatarJim says:

          For Lodatz:

          The organized militia created by the Militia Act of 1903, which split from the 1792 Uniform Militia forces, and consist of State militia forces, notably the National Guard and the Naval Militia.[2] The National Guard however, is not to be confused with the National Guard of the United States, which is a federally recognized reserve military force, although the two are linked.

          Constitution – Article II – The Executive Branch Section 2 – Clause 1:The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States…
          The reserve militia[3] or unorganized militia, also created by the Militia Act of 1903 which presently consist of every able-bodied man of at least 17 and under 45 years of age who are not members of the National Guard or Naval Militia.(that is, anyone who would be eligible for a draft). Former members of the armed forces up to age 65 are also considered part of the “unorganized militia” per Sec 313 Title 32 of the US Code.[2]

          “Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms
          each man against his own bosom? Congress shall have no power to disarm the militia.
          Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an
          American … The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or
          state governments, but where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the People.”
          – Tench Coxe, 1788.

          In other words, we are all the militia; unless you are over 45 and not a prior military member.

          Regards

      • avatarjohndillinger says:

        They are sleeping, 70 years of liberal education. No history taught. Our big threat is the Mohammedans, on the rise, soon they will be attacking our christian churches..This white house guy is a Muslim amongst many other undesirable things and letting them pour into the country.We will need to defend ourselves..We have been killing Mohammedans since the sixth century. Spanish inquisition, Crusades, quiet for 300 years, now on the rise again..WAKE!

    • avatarCasey T says:

      I mentioned this to my father who isn’t on our side as he’s been brainwashed by the media. He actually admitted that insurance against a tyrannical government was one of the reasons for the second amendment but said that he didn’t care because he’s sick of innocent people getting killed. My father is very intelligent and not one to buy into a lot of bs, which means that the media has done a really good job of convincing the public of their lies. It’s a really sad day for me to see that but I figure that once things die down a little, I will get him back on track since I can say things to him that no one else can and he listens.

      • avatarBilly Wardlaw says:

        The media would have one believe that this is a choice between a piece of paper and dead children. Once you are convinced by this choice, no rational person can choose the piece of paper.

        So the question is really this – how do you educate people about what the stakes really are, so that they can make a rational choice between those REAL stakes?

        • avatarLodatz says:

          As if you’re even slightly interested in education.

          I mean, seriously. “Soldiers have multi-round clips, therefore we do too!!!”

          Yeah, you know what else they have? Tanks. Bombs. Aircraft. Nuclear submarines. Missile launchers. Drone strikes. Biological weapons.

          And yet you think that your private collection is going to keep you ‘safe’ from the government? You bunch of clueless, deluded monkeys.

          The REAL safety catch against tyranny is democracy, not your pathetic compensation for your small penises. That’s what our Framers understood, which is why we’re a democratic state. The 2nd Amendment was to defend us with ease against an external threat — defense of our free STATE.

          Don’t believe me? Ask the Confederate army, you bunch of know-nothings, before warbling on about how others need your ‘education’.

        • avatarCarlosT says:

          And how helpful has all that been in Afghanistan, against an enemy with not much more than rifles and improvised bombs?

          That heavy hardware is great for winning territory. Holding territory requires boots on the ground and that means small arms. Unless the US military is going to practice scorched earth tactics on its on soil, the fight is going to be a lot closer than you think.

        • avatarNicholas says:

          The rifleman is the primary unit of battle.

        • avatarSUTTON says:

          The firearms of the militia of the Founders time were PRIVATELY OWNED professor…
          in fact, the militia- comprised of private citizens, as opposed to the Continental Army- commonly had RIFLES which were much more accurate and deadly than those SMOOTHBORES muskets( the “Brown Bess”) carried by the Continentals.

        • avatarSUTTON says:

          oh and b.t.w.:
          read the Constitution. The founders gave us, by constitutional law, a REPUBLIC…NOT A DEMOCRACY.

        • avatarpat says:

          You are quite the little commie, aye Lodatz. The semiautomatic rifle with detachable magazine interface is the backbone of asymetrical (Gorilla) warfare. But you already knew that, didnt you. Nobody will shoot (poop where they eat) and kill their friends and family while nuking their own towns. The soldiers would overthrow the government first.
          Educate yourself and use your skull. You sound like a child.

        • avatarWLCE says:

          “Yeah, you know what else they have? Tanks. Bombs. Aircraft. Nuclear submarines. Missile launchers. Drone strikes. Biological weapons.”

          …which arent helping us win two bloody wars over seas. you forgot that part.

          can we stop brining up that argument? it has been refuted countless times. the powerful weapons of the government, intended to destroy opposing, equivalent armies, are less effective in asymmetric warfare. you somehow falsely believe america’s gun owners would meet them in battle face to face.

          “And yet you think that your private collection is going to keep you ‘safe’ from the government? You bunch of clueless, deluded monkeys.”

          Read works by john poole. your tactical illiteracy is laughable.

          “The REAL safety catch against tyranny is democracy, not your pathetic compensation for your small penises. That’s what our Framers understood, which is why we’re a democratic state.”

          Were not a “democratic state”. were a constitutional representative republic. not mob rule democracy. try again.

          oh and the phalanx argument. how original! you must be projecting.

          “The 2nd Amendment was to defend us with ease against an external threat — defense of our free STATE.”

          that’ll have to be your little secret. http://guncite.com/gc2ndpur.html

          “Don’t believe me? Ask the Confederate army, you bunch of know-nothings, before warbling on about how others need your ‘education’.”

          the irony of that statement is so delicious it must be fattening.

          regardless of what you may have learned when you were asleep in history, the confederates were not pushovers and the civil war was not won quickly.

      • avatarTim McNabb says:

        “The REAL safety catch against tyranny is democracy, not your pathetic compensation for your small penises. ”

        Why are liberals so affixed on penis size? Projection?

        • avatarstyrgwillidar says:

          Well, Freud said that a fear of weapons was an indication of arrested sexual development. Perhaps that would explain it?

  2. avatarAharon says:

    Tim, absolutely great post! Thank you.

  3. avatarJim Barrett says:

    I have to admit that I struggle with this sort justification for 30+ round magazines. For me, the simple fact is that the overwhelming majority of large magazines are in the hands of law-abiding citizens and will never be used for evil. The argument that we need to take them out of the hands of everyone because a few people can’t use them responsibly goes against some of the basic principles of this country. Hell, we might as well close all bars and stop serving drinks outside of the home to reduce the number of people killed in drunk driving accidents – which by the way is a far larger number than the ones killed by weapons employing large magazines.

    The specific issue that I have with the “I’m using my guns to defend myself from government oppression one” is that I’ve seen that movie. It ends badly for the guy who stands up to the government. Take the Waco situation a few years ago. Koresh and his boys had some pretty serious hardware – likely a lot more and with more power than what most folks have in their gun cabinets. The only reason the standoff lasted so long is that the government was trying to avoid bloodshed (which didn’t work out so well). Seriously, any time the Feds wanted, they could have wiped out the compound with almost no danger to themselves. All it would have taken is a small explosive delivered by air and no more house.

    I know that it makes some people sleep better at night thinking that their guns would be of help if the government ever came for them, but really, do you think it would make all that much of a difference? The Feds have better weapons, better protection, and better training. The average American is not a battle hardened Afghan who has been at war all his life – in most cases, he/she has never had to defend their lives or take another.

    As for the example of the Texas secession, let’s play that scenario through. Let’s argue for the moment that the secession is not brutally crushed by government forces in much the same way that the South was defeated during the last Civil war. Let’s say that the U.S. decides to let Texas go without incident. What happens next is that the heavily armed cartels from Mexico sweep north and begin taking land. Anyone who gets in their way gets killed. They have more guns and are more brutal than most Americans are.

    I agree that we need to resist disarmament because it does make the society more compliant. Mexico is one example of that sort of thing happening. However, it is also an example that disarming the population does not always work out for the Government. Most folks would argue that the Mexican Government is not in control of the entire country, so things do always go as planned.

    What I also realize is that the technique for keeping our rights is to maintain the high moral ground in the eyes of the large number of undecided people who don’t own guns themselves. As long as we are seen as the guarantors of freedom and that by keeping our guns is society made safer, we have them on our side. As soon as we start to get perceived as unstable nutjobs, the regulation and restrictions will increase.

    • avatarAdam says:

      A lot of good points here though a lot of people may think otherwise.
      The truth may really be that only when you have nothing left to lose and the situation is truly dire for everyone and you are not the minority in your thinking, only then will you rise up and do what has to be done. Yes there are exceptions for people that are in that situation possibly already who don’t have to worry about leaving their kids/family behind, are retired kids are grown up, etc

      But if the libs have the country going along as business as usual as us gun owners are seen as a minority and a a law passes that in some way or another makes you have to turn in your guns or be held on charges I don’t think you would risk your life and family for it (basically dictatorship since you have no options and the govt walks all over your rights which pretty much don’t exist anymore)

      By that time everyone is mostly disarmed so good luck with a revolution without a LOT of bloodshed.

      I myself am a member of multiple pro gun groups (NRA, GOA, etc) and have contacted my house reps/senators though only one is a republican :/

      Keep up the good fight

    • avatarAaron says:

      Just ask the Syrians how they’re holding up.

    • avatarAlphaGeek says:

      I have a shorter, simpler answer that you touch on in your comment, Jim.

      I’ve previously shared the first half of my answer, which is the tactical part: it is my solemn duty to defend my family, and I want the most effective tools available to do so.

      The strategic part of my answer, and the one you mention in passing, is that the road to a narco-anarchy like Mexico is paved with incremental steps towards reducing the ability of citizens to defend themselves. Steps like magazine capacity limits, feature-based rifle bans, and arbitrary bans on 50BMG firearms with zero actual crimes to cite as good cause.

  4. avatarstateisevil says:

    I don’t know how many Americans would fight. If they do another 1994 ban but make it permanent no one will fight it and we’ll be set up for another ban in 10 years. 10 years after that it will be just like the UK.

  5. avatarIdahoPete says:

    “Why then are they hell bent on making a move that’s already proven worthless for the ostensible reason it’s been proposed?”

    Because, as Thomas Jefferson said, “a fair and just government has nothing to fear from an armed citizenry.”

    The obvious corollary is that the current government has plenty to fear, and they are taking steps to ensure that the citizenry is disarmed.

  6. avatarRockThisTown says:

    When I am asked why I need a magazine for my “assault rifle” larger than 10 rounds, the answer is “because soldiers carry magazines larger than 10 rounds.”

    When I’m asked that question, my answer is ‘Okay, let’s talk about needs and who gets to decide them. Are you able to walk? If so, then you don’t need a car because 1. You can walk, and 2. Cars kill people.’ For the intelligent, that ends the conversation. No answer will end the conversation with the unintelligent.

    • avatarLodatz says:

      FLAME DELETED

      • avatarLodatz says:

        LOL. You’re deleting ‘flames’, are you? So, despite the fact that the poster is actively calling anyone who doesn’t agree with him stupid, throwing it back in his face is ‘not allowed’ here?

        I can see you really take that 1st Amendment to heart. ;)

        • avatarRobert Farago says:

          I’ve gone back to remove all flames. Please email guntruth@me.com with link to any that I missed.

          Meanwhile, warning: persistent flamers will be permanently banned from posting.

        • avatarpat says:

          Lodatz, if you dont get asymetrical (Gorilla) warfare, then you dont get it.

  7. avatarCasey T says:

    One thing that I think everyone doesn’t realize when they talk about things like this is that I would not count on the military executing orders contrary to the Constitution. When you enlist, you swear to protect and defend the Constitution. Many who enlist are patriots and will not stand idly by and watch the Constitution be trampled on. Those who aren’t necessarily patriots become ones (at least in the Marine Corps). I think that if tyranny rose to power, it would be short lived because I believe that the Marines would not stand for it. I assume this is the case with the Army, Navy, and Air Force too, though I do not know for sure since I was never in any of those organizations.

    • avatarOHgunner says:

      I don’t know about that. At Christmas dinner I was talking to my wife’s cousin who is in the Army. He said he’s not worried about any gun grabs because they’ll affect the civilians before they make it law for members of the armed forces also. That was his viewpoint. Don’t count on him to face court-marshal so that you can keep your guns.

    • avatarMike C says:

      Enlisted also swear to obey the orders of the president and the officers appointed over them. Only officers can disobey unlawful orders that violate the Constitution.

      • avatarAccur81 says:

        As an NCO, I never took it that way. I saw no reason to obey an unlawful order, or one that clearly violates the constitution. I still don’t.

        -Former USMC Infantry Reserve Platoon Sgt. and current active duty CA LEO.

      • avatarWLCE says:

        not true.

        case in point, abu gharaib.

        ALL military personnel have a obligation to deny executing illegal orders.

    • avatartdiinva says:

      I hear a lot of talk about what the military will or will not do if came it down to using the military against the people if this President went that route. I got good news and bad news for you. First the good news.

      The red state governors will not let their national guard units participate and would oppose the central government. Before you sneer at the Guard there is something you ought to consider. Every NG brigade had been Iraq and/or Afghanistan. In addition, many soldiers who got out joined Guard units. So what about the blue states. They will sit it out because those units will be split and lack cohesion. So any attempt by regular forces to go it alone would risk a civil war. Furthermore, the regular military would also be unreliable so now for the bad news:

      Faced with a planning order to implement martial law the Joint Chiefs would most like send troops to remove the President. That would be the end of Republic as we know it. Even if the military quickly returned a civilian government to power the precedent would have been set.

      Back to some good news. I don’t think Obama wants to be the next Salvadore Allende and despite his desire to be a dictator he understands where he ends up if he tries.

      • avatarLodatz says:

        Would those be the same red states who are making use of voter suppression, and whose poster child drafted the Patriot Act?

        Yeah, keep faith with the most power-hungry and despotic force in American politics: the GOP. That seems to work out so well for us.

        Your only reason for thinking that Obama is a wannabe-dictator is because it’s what Sean Hannity told you.

        • avatartdiinva says:

          Like all red staters I am in favor of suppressing the votes of illegal aliens, felons where prohibited and the dead. I also believe in one person one vote so I will gladly suppress multiple votes by one person. Unlike you guys I want to make sure the votes of military personnel get counted. Just because you engage in voter suppression and vote fraud doesn’t we do.

          One question: did you post on your own or did you get paid?

        • avatarLodatz says:

          That’s a quite hilarious claim for you to make, when the cases of voter fraud that you claim to be so rampant account for 0.023% of ALL voting.

          But way to tell yourself that you’re fighting some big, bad, evil demon. It must make you feel so much better about yourself, because otherwise you’d be faced with the fact that you’re really nothing more than a deluded, sad little man who is desperate to prove his machismo is a just cause.

          Look, the fact that you sucked at football is no grounds to start inventing conspiracies for you to defeat. It’s just pathetic.

        • avatarCarlosT says:

          Is this the same Obama that’s killed an American citizen without due process and has a list of others he has lined up for the same treatment? The same one that has not only defended every one of the Bush administration’s civil rights abuses, but pushed much further down the line?

          Obama makes GWB look like a card-carrying member of the ACLU by comparison.

        • avatartdiinva says:

          FLAME DELETED

          Where did you pull your number? FLAME DELETED There have been half a dozen Democratic pols who have plead guilty to vote fraud since November. One of them beat his girlfriend up too.

        • avatarAccur81 says:

          Lodatz,

          You have an interesting take on things which I do not agree with whatsoever. There are still plenty of patriots left in the military – particularly in the red states. Ordering US troops to take action against US citizens would certainly pose a lot of problems. Conversely, I would expect NATO troops to have few reservations with enforcing socialistic measures on US soil. I say that not from my experience listening to Hannity, but with my experience as a Marine and LEO. You’re certainly welcome to think differently.

          As to voter fraud, I’m extremely curious as to where your .23% number came from. One of the issues with not requiring an ID is a lack of accountability, and a lack of accountability does not facilitate accurate statistics.

        • avatarpat says:

          FLAME DELETED So you want ‘Big Gov’ to get even bigger? How much more money (and freedom) do you want shipped to DC (cuz they do such a good job)?

    • avatarAaron says:

      Well I am in the Navy and I can tell you there are a lot of antigun people in the Navy. It is a rarity when you find someone who likes firearms… My CO thought I was insane (as in recommended/forced me to go to a psychiatrist) when he found out that I have a CCW. (Nothing wrong was found obviously) I’ve had LTs (O-3s) look me in the face and ask why anyone would want a gun, and I’ve had people say that because I own one I’m a walking Colombine. I’ve even had to explain to a CAPT (O-6/Full bird Colonel for you land lovers) how a gun works. In my whole time in the Navy, I can say that I can probably count on my hands the amount of people who are into firearms. They would tell the Navy that the people are terrorists, are a threat to the country, and must be destroyed, and I’m sure most would gleefully do it, thinking the country will be better for it.

      • avatarJon says:

        That’s because people who like guns join the Marines/Army.

        The scaredy cats join the Navy. :-D

        Ducks, runs…

        • avatarTim McNabb says:

          Jon, Don’t leave out the Air Force

        • avatarstyrgwillidar says:

          You need to hang out with the gunner’s mates. A lot of the anti-gun sentiment went away when we were all required to be qualified with hand guns for watch.

          Or you could look into getting onto your region’s shooting team.

          *Qualified being a relative term. On an LHA I observed folks shooting into non-skid beneath the targets, yet the gunners mates didn’t even jump in to rectify the situation.

  8. avatarRightYouAreKen says:

    In my opinion, and I’m sure most here disagree with me, arguments like this do not help our cause with the other side. Comments like this make them think we’re all gearing up for another Waco or something. I personally think our political power is much more worrying to the left than threat of armed resistance to an AWB. There is no hope, in my opinion, of maintaining any kind of counterbalance to law enforcement. Our power is in our votes, not our firearms.

    • avatardaveR says:

      Yup. The days of organized militias are long past. Arguing otherwise is delusional and does not make us look like a very smart bunch.

      Fighting “The Government” should not be our Plan A argument (probably shouldn’t even be an argument)

      • avatarstyrgwillidar says:

        No. There were around 170 million people killed by their own governments last century. China, Germany, USSR, Iraq, Cambdia… etc. etc. etc. always preceded by gun confiscation. Not necessarily immediately proceeding the slaughters. A well armed populace is the biggest deterrent to heading down that road in the first place— That Is the Plan A that our founders provided. One of the checks and balances built into our system of government is the armed populace.

        We are human beings, no different or better than anyone else on the planet. Our leaders are just as susceptible to the temptations of power, the public just as likely to be complacent in allowing their freedoms to be eroded vice jealously guarding them.

        What is not smart is thinking we’re so much better than any group of humans that have ever lived that it can’t happen here. The ebb and flow of history has proven that to be delusional.

        • avatarLodatz says:

          What’s dumb is thinking that any of that had anything to do with how armed the citizenry were. You might be amazed to learn that Germany already had restrictive gun control in 1928, 5 years before the Nazis even got into power, 7 years before the Third Reich dictatorship was established, and 10 years before they bothered to ban guns.

          The reason why, in 1928? To prevent the Nazis (and others) from staging ARMED COUPS.

          You know the last time we tried that in the US? It’s called the Civil War.

        • avatarstyrgwillidar says:

          Lodatz, note I said ‘…. always preceded by gun confiscation. Not necessarily immediately proceeding the slaughters.”

          I am aware of everything you wrote. But it doesn’t change the fact that gun bans make it easier for those who mean to subjugate others. Whether they have to pass the laws themselves, or simply take advantage of previous gun bans doesn’t matter. But it does show, that our instituting gun bans now may have unforeseen consequences in the future. It is a right that given up, we will not be able to reacquire.

    • avatarTim McNabb says:

      “The days of organized militias are long past.”

      Heller v DC makes it clear that the 2nd Amendment is an individual right. McDonald v Chicago makes it clear that firearm ownership for self -defense is perfectly legitimate. You libs need to get with the times – your militia argument is done, and has been for several years.

  9. avatarRalph says:

    When the feds ban cars that can go faster than the national speed limit — which would stop a lot of speeding and save at least 10,000 lives a year — then I’ll believe that banning big magazines has some fair and reasonable purpose. Until then, it’s just another case of unnecessary government interference.

  10. avatartdiinva says:

    I just had a polite E-mail exchange with a famous American author who has been in the news lately and I think we may be misinterpreting the grabber’smotives. I think they are under the impression that we should emulate our civilized betters in Europe rather than act like a bunch of backwoods ruffians. You know, the people who spend the 20th Century destroying their continent and killing 100+ million people in peace and war. These civilized people still required rough-edged Americans to fix their problems at the end of the Century. Here’s the thing, our famous author confuses decadence with civilization. It is we Americans who live under Federalist values who are the civilized ones not the perpetually corrupt decadent Euro-trash elites.

  11. avatarJohn says:

    I think that those who believe that our armed forces personnel would revolt against an order to A/confiscate firearms or B/kill American citizens who resist such confiscation if ordered to do so should carefully view the film ‘Dr. Strangelove.’ Especially near the end. Where US soldiers fire on other US soldiers because they were ordered to do so, having been convinced that they were ‘the enemy’.
    I truly believe that a young, ‘motiviated’ soldier who has been indoctrinated into obeying orders without question–or, for that matter, a young law-enforcement officer who is steeped in the ‘enforce the law without question’ creed taught at police academies, will follow horrific orders if told to do so. Young, impressionable Nazis did. Young, impressionable Communists did. So, too, would young, impressionable Americans. Frankly, MOST young, impressionable people can be turned into automaton lock-steppers without much difficulty.
    They voted for Obama, didn’t they?

    • avatarIn Memphis says:

      John,

      I would very much like to believe that our police and military would not turn against its own people. Im willing to bet a large portion of them would sooner turn in their badges and fight for us. BUT there will always be some high speeds following orders.

      If laws were passed banning certain guns and items (regardless of it being unconstitutional) it is still law until it is overturned. Some people probably wont risk their careers to disobey orders enforcing the new law.

      I can only hope the majority would be on our side.

    • avatarRalph says:

      I know some old b@stards who would do the same thing.

      • avatarGregg says:

        Didn’t the protesters at Tiananmen Square believe the “people’s army” would never fire on the people?

        Not that I believe it’s likely, but if it did get that bad anyone can be painted as the enemy.

  12. Tim, the original intent of the 2A does not exist any more. That’s what anachronistic means.

    • avatarMattK1 says:

      False. Your twist on the 2nd Amend may not exist, but the REAL intent lives on.

    • avatarstyrgwillidar says:

      To believe that the intent of the 2A doesn’t exist anymore, one has to believe that human beings, particularly the politicians, are so superior to any group of humans who have ever lived that they are immune to the temptations of power.

      That they are pure altruistic human beings, beyond corruption, almost saint-like and completely devoid of a desire to control the behavior of other human beings. (You know like, what kind of light bulb they use, how big a soda they can order or more important things like what beliefs they should hold)

      And that they will always be so, not just now, but stretching forever into the future.

      Only that belief would nullify the intent of the 2A, and the elimination of the means for all future generations of Americans to discourage/deter or oppose government tyranny. Since your belief is the threat of tyranny has forever been eliminated from humanity.

      I don’t suffer under the delusion that Americans are superior by nature to people anywhere else during any other time period. The intent of the 2A is by no means anachronistic.

    • avatartdiinva says:

      Mr. Bonomo;

      Wrong as usual.

      If the intent Second Amendment is no longer relevant then neither is the original intent of the First. The First was written to protect individual pamphleteers and town newspapers from government interference not giant media companies that exist for sole sake of making money.

      The Second Amendment is more relevant today than any time in the past 100 years. There are many jurisdiction that have pursued policies that are bankrupting their communities. City after city in California is going bankrupt and cutting police services. The state will soon follow. Detroit has already reach the final state of financial ruin and there are no longer sufficient resources to put police on the street. The gangs control the streets and the city can do nothing about it. Tell me how a law abiding citizen can protect himself when the community fails? That is also what the Second Amendment is about.

      • “If the intent Second Amendment is no longer relevant then neither is the original intent of the First. ”

        Please explain why that would be? Let’s add the 3A to the mix. They don’t all hang together. It’s possible that two out of the first three had their application in the late 18th century and no longer apply without in any way affecting the other one.

        • avatartdiinva says:

          Mr. Bonomo:

          I note you purposely failed address the major point in my post.

          Here it is again. Now come up with an argument [FLAME DELETED]. The First Amendment was designed to protect pamphleteers and not giant profit making enterprises like Time-Warner or the New York Times that attempt to control the free flow of Information.

          The Third Amendment is actually still relevant. Unlike the UK, the US military cannot just move in and put a Patriot battery on front lawn during peacetime without permission or compensation. During the London Olympics the British Government did just that. (Rapiers anyway)

        • Sure, the 3A is extremely relevant. Keep telling yourself that one.

        • avatarSoccerchainsaw says:

          I vote for not feeding the troll. We get it, he doesn’t think like us. If men are from Mars and women are from Venus, Mikey must be from Uranus.

        • Now that’s an intelligent answer to the question, how does it follow if the 2A is obsolete so is the 1st.

          When you answer a serious question with nothing but a silly personal attack, you don’t help your side.

        • avatarLodatz says:

          It’s funny how the Supreme Court disagrees with you, tdiinva.

        • avatartdiinva says:

          FLAME DELETED

        • avatarCarlosT says:

          Hey everybody, Mike’s volunteering to house troops again! Give the quartermaster at Aviano a call, Mike. I’m sure your offer of free room and board in your home will be accepted with gratitude.

        • Your silly joke is making my point for me. It is not an issue. It doesn’t happen in the 21st century USA.

        • avatartdiinva says:

          Perhaps are you referring to Citizens United. If you are you missed the point.

        • avatarWLCE says:

          “Sure, the 3A is extremely relevant. Keep telling yourself that one.”

          “Unlike the UK, the US military cannot just move in and put a Patriot battery on front lawn during peacetime without permission or compensation. During the London Olympics the British Government did just that. (Rapiers anyway)”

          that pretty much kills the “3rd amendment is obsolete and irrelevant” argument.

          seriously, can some of you turn on your thinking caps for once?

        • avatartdiinva says:

          Mr. Bonomo:

          Once again your snide comments reveal a lot about your state of knowledge. The time is 1962 and the United States is beginning to deploy ICBMs dispersed in hardened silos. The Air Force requires lots land in sparsely populated midwestern farm states. Problem is the land is owned by private individuals. The Air Force was forced gain the permission of the land owners and pay them rent all because of the placement of those missiles constituted quartering of troops. So it looks like the Third Amendment is still relevant after all.

          But this is neither here nor there. You still haven’t addressed the point I made about Detroit and the increasing number of other cities that are cutting back on law enforcement because the political leaders have pursued social and economic policies have bankrupted their jurisdictions. You have a history of avoiding questions where the answers are inconsistent with your worldview or your criminal record.

        • Sorry, if you asked a question about Detroit I missed it. Please repeat.

          About the 3A, I don’t think it’s the reason the government buys land it needs instead of just taking it. The government is not tyrannical, that’s why it doesn’t take it.

          By the same token, your ability to own guns is not due to the 2A. It’s because you live in a free country. If the 2A were repealed, of simply relegated to the obsolete, total bans on all guns and confiscations wouldn’t follow. That’s just your fevered imagination, which serves to justify all your tough-guy rhetoric.

    • avatarTim McNabb says:

      Mikeb3200 “Tim, the original intent of the 2A does not exist any more. That’s what anachronistic means.”

      Mike, what the hell have I done or written that leads you to believe I do not know what “anachronistic” means.

      The technology that applies to the 2nd Amendment is comparatively less advanced that technology for the 1st Amendment. Is the 1st Amendment anachronistic? How about the 5th?

      • The 1A concepts of freedom of speech and freedom of worship are timeless. The 2A concept of arming the men so they can participate in the militia is obsolete.

        It doesn’t get any simpler than that. I knew you knew the meaning of “anachronistic.” I was just being sarcastic because you seem to have some difficulty applying it where it belongs.

  13. avatar0.O says:

    I Got it! Limit all non commercial vehicles to 35MPH and limit alcohol containers to 6 packs and/or 6oz as well as limiting purchases to one pack/bottle a week. This would reduce or eliminate DUI and alcohol poisoning. Heck, while we’re at it, lets just do an outright ban on tobacco products all together since ALL they do is kill people.

    • avatarO.E says:

      And while your there, monitor all communications to intercept all gestures of violent behavior before they are motions and the corpses are cooling to ambient temperature…

      But wait, there’s a twist. (Isnt there always?)

      Ignore all direct & overground communications that inspire and generate herding inertia for violence to actually begin. Much like the scenario as its being swept under the rug with South Africa and the reelected Jacob Zuma. This call to “shoot the” (sic)white “man with the machine gun” & “See him run” is to be patently ignored by every last one of the gun grabbing keyboard commando’s hell bent on painting an image of underground & underdog status which brings all the hawt chicks onboard (Like Sarah Connor perhaps?)

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6fzRSE_p1Ys

      There are people who are beneath contempt, mainly today its those who wish to iterate their self perceived oppression via government who really couldn’t have life much easier.

  14. avatarLance says:

    I agree unless they ave cops and solders use 10rd mags we keep our standard capacity mags too then.

  15. avatarmike says:

    Basically in analogous terms, a car with only 1/4 tank of gas is less lethal than a car with a full tank of gas. Brilliant.

  16. avatarThe smiling swordsman says:

    Why do I need high capacity magazines? Because I am afraid of the consequences of an economic collapse. When peoe get desperate they do stupid things and I want to make sure that I am able to protect myself and my family from harm. Will it happen? Probably not, but its better to be an ant and prepared rather than the grasshopper when winter comes.

    • avatarSoccerchainsaw says:

      I concur. Better to have it and not need it than to need it and not have it.

      • avatarLodatz says:

        What’s amusing is that you imagine that you will automatically be on the ‘law-abiding’ side, instead of being one of the chaps out there using your firearms to steal, bully and hoard.

        The mere fact that you’re already a gun enthusiast rather argues against those odds FLAME DELETED

        • avatarCarlosT says:

          I’m now assuming that you’re a pedophile. The mere fact that you’re a Tottenham fan argues that you are.

          Okay, I’m not, but that’s exactly the same logic.

  17. avatarIn Memphis says:

    I need large capacity magazines to protect from crime, tyranny and because I believe it is my DUTY as an American citizen to protect this country.

    Ever see thoes posters at airports, bus and train stations?The ones that say stuff like report suspicious activity or that security is also YOUR reponsability.

    Oh and there are some states I believe where security is the responsability of its citizens.

    I really believe that whether you join the military or not the moment you turn 18 (or become naturalized) you should take am oath as an AMERICAN. Not one that ties you to military service but makes national security a duty.

  18. avatarAdam says:

    I just got done reading some comments on the DailyMail (haha yea I know) about a story of a lady in her big Caddy Escalade who backed over her daughter and killed her because she “assumed” she was in the car already just because her friend (a boy) had got in the car already.

    All the UK people commenting were saying OMG shes stupid and it was her RESPONSIBILITY to make sure she was acutally in the car like you and I would think right. So its her own dumb fault for running her over.

    Cue some crazy nutjob who needed to be put somewhere (plenty of warning signs to his mother) gets a hold of guns illegally and murders innocent adults/kids and ALL OF A SUDDEN its the THING he used to kill people not HIS FAULT.

    Meanwhile all the UK commenters blasting us stupid American for our guns goes on… give.. me .. a … beeping… break .. Thank god I live far away from there

    • avatarRalph says:

      Thank god I live far away from there

      We’re one election away from being “there.”

      • avatarAdam says:

        I should ammend that to say.. for now heh

      • avatarUSMC says:

        Hate to break it to you, but we’re already there (this ran in the Star Tribune 2 days ago):

        “Paul and Judy Neiman held a photo of their daughter, Sydnee, at their home in West Richland, Wash., last week. Sydnee died in late 2011 after Judy accidentally backed over her. Judy Neiman says the government and automakers need to do more to prevent such accidents.”

        “she makes a plea for what she wants since she can’t have Sydnee back: More steps taken by the government and automakers to help prevent parents from accidentally killing their children, as she did a year ago this month.”

        http://www.startribune.com/nation/184868941.html?refer=y

        So much for personal accountability and all…..

    • avatarLodatz says:

      FLAME DELETED

      So, let me get this straight: when a woman misuses her vehicle, does not employ the correct safety procedures, checks and common sense required to ably and legally operate her vehicle, and ends up killing someone, apparently that’s the exact same thing as when someone uses a gun for EXACTLY WHAT IT WAS DESIGNED TO DO.

      FLAME DELETED

      • avatarWLCE says:

        um…why wouldnt it be?

        does a firearm somehow kill you even more dead than you would be with a vehicle?

        what varying degrees of “dead” are there? im curious.

  19. avatarLance says:

    You nailed it. I say two why we need regular none neutered mags is that many cases where too many bad guys to handle. IE Hurricane Katrine and Sandy. LA Riots and if you have criminal gangs after you.

    Face it 15-17rd pistol mags and 20-30rd rifle mags are standard capacity. High Capacity is 100rd Beta drum and 33rd Glock mags. PC Neutered mags are 10rd crap which 10 rounds does not make any one stop shooting long enough to blink.

  20. avatarEsh325 says:

    “That said, too much government is lethal. Untold millions suffer under the malignant brutality of all-powerful governments. Western European fascism, eastern European communism, communism in the Far East and Southeast Asia, totalitarian socialist nations from Cuba and throughout Central America. Over and over again, these governments resort to oppression and murder to maintain power over a helpless populace.”

    While it’s true those brutal regimes have murdered and oppressed millions of innocents, we should look at our own country before pointing fingers. Just look at what the USA did to the Native American Indians and Blacks. Millions slaughtered.

  21. avatarUcsbKevin says:

    no i would not defend my guns with my life. As much as i love my guns, they are not worth losing my life over as well as maybe taking a few poor law enforcement officers with me that were simply following orders. I would rather hope that this constitutional breach does not lead to tyranny and put trust in the people in government (ya, i know most of them aren’t worthy of it) to not do anything too stupid. I would defend the second amendment with all other means up to that point.
    Maybe i’m wrong though. convince me otherwise?

  22. avatarJAS says:

    Sorry, bad post all around. First, you fell for the “need” question. And your answer addresses this “need” thing. You can’t win that one. It’s not a question of “need”. There are a lot of things we don’t “need”, yet we all have them. It’s called the FREEDOM to own what you “want”, not “need”. So, your answer should be:

    “Within some very BROAD limits, we have the FREEDOM, and in some cases the RIGHT, to own what we WANT, regardless of what we NEED.”

    Then follow this up by:

    “You don’t need”:

    email
    Facebook
    Twitter
    Internet
    Cable TV
    Cell Phones
    Computer Tablets
    Education
    Manners
    Morality
    And on and on and on….

    • avatarTim McNabb says:

      “bad post all around. First, you fell for the “need” question. And your answer addresses this “need” thing. ”

      I think this is a fair point. My actual answer the “need” question is “non of your frick’n business” However, I think America “needs” the 2nd Amendment (though many at the time argued that a Bill of Rights was problematic) so I am responding under that rubric.

      • avatarJAS says:

        I agree. Originally, there were 12 amendments proposed but only 10 were ratified. However, the Right to Bear Arms was thought to be so important that they made it the 2nd, not the 10th. It is right there under Freedom of Speech. They knew then as we know now, that an unarmed society is subject to both tyranny and crime. So yes, we NEED the 2nd amendment.

  23. avatarTheSleeperHasAwakened@wakeup.org says:

    All you TTAG regulars are finally waking up (at least most of y’all)…..THANK GOD!

    I forgive any and all of you who have called those that were awake before you “Nut Jobs” and/or “Bat Shit Crazy”.

    I hope you all are prepared…stay frosty!!!

    GODSPEED MY BROTHERS AND SISTERS

  24. avatargringito says:

    Considering the very hypothetical case that the U.S. Governments becomes a tyranny and YOU feel that it is time for a militia according to the 2nd Amendmend :
    Do you REALLY think that you could survive against the U.S. Army … even with high capacity magazines?!

    • avatarRandy Drescher says:

      Do you really think that Switzerland could survive against the nazi juggernaught with just every single male over the age of 18 having an assault rifle? hitler wanted no part of Switzerland. You occupy a territory with boots on the ground. Good luck doing that against 30 million Ar’s, Randy

      • avatargringito says:

        So..Randy..you think that you would have a chance?
        Remember that in the Civil War both sides were armed – i.e. more or less equally armed? Does this apply to the current distribution of forces?
        Good luck, Randy…

    • avatarTim McNabb says:

      We live in a nation that successfully repelled the world’s superpower to become a nation in the first place. The Union won the War of Northern Agression (just kidding) but paid bitterly for it, and damn near lost. Had the South just half the industrial capacity of the north, they might have prevailed.

      But no, there is no winning against the U.S. Army – those are my countrymen, kids like my sons, nephews, nieces and the like. It would be an abject horror. It would only be worse to hand that generation a fascist state in which to live.

  25. avatarRandy Drescher says:

    I would have just told them because there are more than 10 bradys, lol. Randy

  26. avatarRémy Bertin says:

    Maybe the writer of this post believes we should make shoulder fired rocket propelled grenade launchers legal, you know, because the “framers” would have wanted us to be able to down the Government’s Apache Attack Helicopters. At the very least, Thomas Jefferson would have wanted fully automatic M-16′s at every Sport Authority. Color coordinated hand grenades free with every purchase.

    Or maybe the “framers” writing the 2nd amendment at a time when muzzle loaded muskets were the latest advance in weaponry would have understood that today an argument based on a citizens right to participate in an arms race with the US Government is dangerous and impractical.

    If we understand and accept that there are limits to the weaponry available to untrained citizenry then you must allow that acess to a 30 round magazine can just as easily be limited. How many mass shootings with 20+ casualties are going to have to happen before common sense overcomes the paranoia?

    • avatarjimbthepilot says:

      “If we understand and accept that there are limits to the weaponry available to untrained citizenry then you must allow that acess to a 30 round magazine can just as easily be limited. How many mass shootings with 20+ casualties are going to have to happen before common sense overcomes the paranoia?”

      EXACTLY!

      As a USAF veteran, I’m trained in the use of high-performance fighter aircraft and their accompanying missiles (radar-guided and heat-seeking) and a 20mm cannon firing armor-piercing incendiary rounds at a rate of 6000 rounds/minute.
      As a private citizen, I’ve invested my own time and money to become highly trained (and equipped) in the use of AR-10 and AR-15 rifles (with 30, 60, and 100 round magazines), bolt-action rifles, semi-automatic pistols and revolvers, pump-action and semi-automatic shotguns.
      So, now, in complete accordance with the above line of reasoning and to sufficiently allay Rémy Bertin’s obvious paranoia, I should not only be allowed, but encouraged to put common-sense into action and post myself outside the local elementary school with any/all of the aforementioned armament to dissuade any Lanza wannabes from visiting the premises.

      And when the rest of y’all get trained, come on down & join me!

      BTW, Rémy, if you’re going to try to put Alinsky’s tactics into action here, you might want to remember Rule #7: “A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag.” Don’t become old news.

      “Common sense is so rare anymore, it should be considered a superpower.”

  27. avatarJohn McLachlan says:

    The intention of progressives is to present the right to bear arms as anachronistic and unnecessary and to blame firearms for the evil actions of particular evil human beings.
    They intend that the right to bear arms appears unnecesssary, until it is revoked.
    They also intend that after it has been revoked, the arms whose ownership it protects shall become necessary, but unavailable to those who would need them.
    Many progressives do not merely fantasize about murdering 25 million of their political opponents. They also consider the logistics of murdering 25 million of their political opponents. One such progressive is a close friend of Barack H. Obama and has visited the Whitehouse.
    On a smaller scale, the willingness of the progressives in control of government to sanction political violence by their favoured constituencies, such as unions and black panthers, suggests that their concern for the protection of all citizens is false and their concern for the safety of citizens is determined by political expediency, not principle.

  28. avatarJim Greaves says:

    Consider that it is the Federal government that is the insurrectionist! They have been conducting “insurrection against republican forms of government” for nearly (if not more than) a century. 16th and 17th amendments, and creation of a phony monetary system (the “Fed”), coupled with joining such fascist-dicatatorial groups as the UN, say it all. Those who are insurrectionists MUST be “put down”. That means it is time to stop that now-foreign government in Washington DC from doing anything “to” us, or acting in any manner on our behalves. They are, like Obama, NOT my government any longer. Time to wake up and grow up and be adults and take power back. They do what they are NOT authorized to do when they exceed the LIMITATIONS enumerated in the US Constitution. The states are “the state” to which reference is made throughout that document. Read it. Know what it says, not what someone else tells you it says. 9th and 10th amendments were added for a very specific reason: to allow for the use of the 2nd amendment should it ever become necessary, as it is today.

  29. avatarDaniel Fruechting says:

    Many of posters here need to study tj

  30. avatarDaniel Fruechting says:

    Based on comments made here many of the posters need to study the writings of the forefathers of this country as well as the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution. The forefathers were fearful of a standing army because of their experience with the British. Hence, they did not authorize a standing army after the Revolution, only a standing navy. This is one reason for the second amendment. Another is to keep the country from becoming a dictatorship or monarchy, not for hunting purposes.
    For those of you who worry about military action agaimst citizenry. One million soldiers against 80+ million armed citizenry is not very good odds. The Japanese admiral Isoruku Yamamoto remarked during WW II that the United States could never be invaded because there was a rifle behind every blade of grass.
    Finally, the cartoon character Pogo once remarked ” We have met the enemy and they are us “

    • avatarRémy Bertin says:

      Ah, you mean the Continental Army was replaced by Well Regulated Militias?

      Where have I read that phrase before?

      • avatarJim Greaves says:

        “well-regulated” means, and meant at the time it was written into the Second Amendment, that the militia members from one state would be on the same page with militia members in the “several states”. The US Constitution was composed to curb GOVERNMENT, not “RIGHTS” (9th and previous 8 amendments), or powers retained by the states of the people (1oth amendment). “Who are the militia, if not the body of the people themselves?” paraphrased. The commerce clause as it has been bastardized and misused for two centuries has nothing to do with it, and there is ZERO power vested in either the Congress or the President to “regulate state militia” – otherwise, the Constitution would say so.

        • avatarJim Greaves says:

          By “the same page” I meant to say that they would have the same arms, the same bullets, and as the Constitution requires, the same training. NOT some nefarious control from Washington DC as some fools seem to think.

  31. avatarDan USMC says:

    As I have read and understood the above postings and what I believe is these goverments/countries seek is ultimate draconian control and law to do as they desire. They have accessed the collateral loss and accept…..”its citizens to die so that they may rule with an iron fist and distribute only enough to quell, apart from total loss of control”

    If we would be disarmed at the point as those in the syrian, egypt we would attempt to overthrow the a goverment with stones and nothing more. If an attempt of disarmament were to occur there would be those of us amercians and amercians alike who would stand. One day in the future a question would be asked……

    ” Why are you going to fight this war? ”Do you think you all are HEROS? No… there is no way in hell,….. nobody ask to be a hero it just sometimes turns out that way” …….would be the reply.

    Amercians….. must demand to retain Our Constitution All Of It and peacefully would be desired by all, call-write-email-tweet-facebook use any method to all elected officals all Democratic and Republic and Independents, and pray that it would not fall to the latter as to see the out come of draconian law in an attempt to use Loss of Life to enforce Firearms/type or style or amunition volume but its ultimate goal of Control ”disguised as of course prevention” but only as to prevent rights of is citizens.

    But Evil is Evil and you can not make a Law that would remove it from the Hearts of those Hell Bent on Destruction of Innocence!! Or of Life and Liberty.

Leave a Reply

Please use your real name instead of you company name or keyword spam.