The El Paso shooter was believed to have been carrying a WASR-10 rifle, a civilian version of a Semi Automatic AK-47.... so would that still be an assault rifle?
Incorrect. An assault rifle is a magazine-fed automatic rifle designed for infantry use... and cant legally be obtained by most civilians and those that can usually have special licenses and are directly screened by the ATF and FBI.
Nope. Assault rifles are select fire. If it is semi-auto only, it's just a rifle. If it's automatic only it's a machine gun. If it's burst-fire only, it's stupid.
Any combination of the above would be an assault rifle, if it was also using intermediate ammunition, fed by detachable belt or magazine, and was operable by a single man.
The paperwork is public domain, the check itself is looking for warrants, felony convictions, domestic issues, criminal or terrorist affiliation, restraining orders, or involuntary admission to a mental institution with cause. Among other things.
New Zealand gun control is going quite well. When they started doing hand ins at stations, they had to open earlier and stay later than they intended, because so many people showed up
It's the optics of the thing. New Zealand may be predisposed to becoming sheep or cattle, but that it was done immediately after and explicitly because of an act of terror empowers the terrorists without stopping them.
Stateside, noncompliance rates to confiscations are so high that many attempts don't want to release the numbers, whereas the government buying guns is usually used to offload junk weapons, or famously exploited by DIY weapons to purchase higher quality arms.
Frankly, I'm also concerned that so many New Zealanders identified themselves as terror threats or likely to commit homicide. The fuck is going on down there?
I mean, people here tend to obey the law, not commit terror threats or mass shootings. Bill was passed, people grumbled but eventually acknowledged it as a good thing. People didn't bitch about their Second Amendment rights because we don't have those
It's not a "2nd Ammendment" right.
It's an inherent right. Natural or God- given. Not a privilege to be bestowed by the state.
Y'all are happy being cattle because cattle actually have cush lives, just know that the wolves still have their teeth.
@famousone The technology to fling bits of material around at dangerous speeds that has only been around for maybe a thousand years is a God-given right? If you aren’t being tongue-in-cheek then I’m not sure you understand the term.
But... they are.
Water? Literally falls from the sky. Shelter? Shack up in a cave or build yourself a lean-to. Food? Gather, farm, and hunt (preferably with guns but arrows are cool, too).
Again, that’s not how a “god-given right” works. People who happen to be in the desert are not having their rights violated because there is no rain, building material, or abundant plant and animal life.
.
Let me give you a different example. It used to be that the most effective way to cook food was fire. Now we have microwaves. Access to microwaves is not a god-given right even though it is arguably more important than access to guns since if you don’t eat you don’t live long enough to need to defend yourself.
Ah yes, call everyone who opposes you cattle and sheep, just because we don't need guns. We don't need guns to protect ourselves because most people here also don't have guns. See how that works? There is no reason for us to have guns, this isn't cave times. Please explain why you have a right to guns, or why you need them at all
We have a right to effective arms as an extension to the right to live.
We need them for hunting.
To give the small and weak a fighting chance against a larger, stronger, aggressor(s).
To deter aggression from all threats, foreign and domestic.
Because power comes from the barrel of a gun, and no free man wants to be powerless.
Hey, remember that time when supermarkets existed? We have food now. You do not have to hunt to live. Power doesn't come from the barrel of a gun, it comes from the voice of the people. If you try to fight a larger, stronger, more powerful opponent, then 9 times out of 10 you will be stomped. Locals owning guns does fuck all against domestic threats, in fact, it makes them easier to commit because guns are given out in fucking cereal boxes.
Tell my friends in northern Alaska about how unnecessary hunting is. And my poor friends in Oregon and Idaho while you're at it, who spend a good few months living off of homegrown food and hunted meat.
Tell it to the Jews in Europe back in the 30s and 40s how powerful they were. The Imperialists in Russia and anti-Communists in China, Loas, Vietnam, etc, too.
Tell the native Americans slaughtered in the 1800s, the blacks enslaved, and the kids at Kent state how their voices are more powerful than rifles.
Is it more righteous for my cousin to be raped and murdered by a stalker that had a hundred pounds on her than for her to shoot the son of a bitch?
Tell her and the millions of people who use guns for self-defense every year how their weapons do "fuck-all against domestic threats".
There are more mass shootings in America than there are days in the year. Hunting to survive in the wilderness is fine. We have guns fro hunting here too. But this is not the 30's or 40's. The average American does not need a gun in their day to day lives.
Amazing. Every word of what you just said... was wrong.
Mass shootings are not the epidemic that the media is trying to paint them as. You're more likely to be struck by lighting while suffering from a lethal case of food poisoning than being in a mass shooting.
And who the fuck are you to tell anybody what they need in their lives?
Fucking what? You mean I've been living in WWII all this time and haven't realised it?! I knew the government was up to something, hiding the abolition of supermarkets from us! And it looks like my teachers were right, Wikipedia is lying to us with backed up and well cited sources!
List_of_mass_shootings_in_the_United_States_in_2019
Because we all know how fair and objective Mother Jones is.
You mean to tell me that there have been no civil wars, genocides, ethnic cleansings, or political violence whatsoever since Hitler offed himself?
Supermarkets don't have fuck all to do with anything.
Now tell me who the fuck you are to dictate what the average person should have? No, wait. I don't care. Nobody has that power.
Of course there has been violence. The violence is only enhanced by the presence of guns. There is violence without guns, yes, but guns make it much easier to perpetrate violent acts. Supermarkets were rebutting the point that in most places, it is not necessary to hunt for your food. And I'm not dictating what people should have, I'm offering my opinion and counterpoints. Me bringing up WWII (which took place in the late 30's to mid 40's) and supermarkets in my previous comment was me responding to how you claimed everything I said was wrong. The final line is half of a Wikipedia link that shows the number of mass shootings in the US this year alone.
With respect, why hasn't the NZ government banned smoking? 15,000 people a year die due to smoking or 2nd hand smoking related illness a year in NZ, that's roughly 13 people a day and much higher than any mass shooting in the US could even hope to compete with. If you're main concern was preventing death, then I'm wondering why we arent focusing on the actual deaths.
"In the past 48hrs, the USA horrifically lost 34 people to mass shootings. On average, across any 48hrs, we also lose… 500 to Medical errors 300 to the Flu 250 to Suicide 200 to Car Accidents 40 to Homicide via Handgun Often our emotions respond more to spectacle than to data." Neil DeGrasse Tyeson, 8/4/2019
Considering the top 10 worst countries by murder rate in the world also have extremely strict gun control laws--strict to the point that it makes Australia and Japan look like Texas, the kicker is, even with the strict gun control laws in these countries, many of the deaths are still firearm related because criminals dont care about the law.
Honduras (90.4 per 100,000) ...Venezuela (53.7 per 100,000) ...The United States Virgin Islands (52.6 per 100,000) ...Belize (44.7 per 100,00) ...El Salvador (41.2 per 100,000) ...Guatemala (39.9 per 100,000) ...Jamaica (39.3 per 100,000) ...Lesotho (38 per 100,000)
Now I'm not saying this to push for more or less gun control, I'm going through all of this to clarify that the dirty little secret here is that violence and criminality doesnt directly correlate to gun control legislation. Its also just as easy to build explosives using what's underneath your kitchen sink. Or you can just hop in a car and run down 40 kids when they're leaving school at the end of the day. Until we start acknowledging that there's an inherent issue with mental health here nothing is going to change.
I'm a native Texan, I've lived here all my life and I've known 0 people killed by a firearm. I've known 34 who were killed in car accidents. Are we going to ban cars? All you folks saying a car isnt a tool meant to kill, doesnt that eliminate the intent of someone using it to kill? Is it a problem with the person driving like a maniac or with the car?
I also think its extremely interesting how schools, businesses or locations In general with strong security protocols, and in some cases armed security guards or trained, onsite police officers, never see this type of violence--but that's too much of a financial investment right? You're okay with your bank having heavy duty security but not your kids elementary school? "Oh, but my kids shouldn't have to have heavy duty security." Or "I shouldnt have to/dont want to pay more taxes so the schools can do that, but I'll still complain about it." Yeah, there shouldn't be evil in this world... but there is. You want something done about it but you dont want to help pay for it, and yeah higher city taxes suck but I'm fine with them if this is where it goes.
And people can say what they want about Texas but I see a lot more togetherness and people working together for a solution on this then most other states. In dozens of cities you're seeing both conservative, liberal, Christian, Jewish, atheists--any number of different people but all Texans--all opting for higher taxes or offering to personally donate to pay for the security and the jobs needed. People who cant afford to donate or opt for tax breaks volunteering time and services. You're seeing nonprofits donate money as well as local businesses. It's interesting that Texas gets all this hate about gun control but seems to be one of the few states doing anything about the actual problem.
Let's blame the guns, not the shooters... let's blame the materials for the explosives, not the guy who made the bombs. Let's blame the F250 not the guy who mowed down 30 innocent people. We have a mental health and a bad people problem but people want an easy solution. People want to flip a switch and for everything to be solved. If all guns, knives, and flammable materials were banned tomorrow I guarantee you we would see such creativity in the new ways and methods evil people and criminals would develop to keep killing innocents. But we have a gun problem, right?
The genie's out of the battle already. I don't care to put him back because Glock, Browning, and company are the only chance my mother and grandparents have against a larger, stronger, drugged up, or batshit crazy criminal.
But there’s a tradeoff. They now also have to worry about the smaller, weaker criminals. Guns, as you mentioned, can make anyone deadly but that includes the bad guys too.
.
Anyway, @famousone, you never explained how access to guns and access to microwaves are different. You merely deflected saying that no one is trying to take microwaves away which is irrelevant to the question.
The Genie is loose already. You think Johnny McFelon is going to give up his shit?
You can't use a microwave to effectively defend your life or liberty. What's it matter? We aren't talking about microwaves.
We are talking about your definition of “god-given rights.” Guns are merely a developed technology just like microwaves. Why are guns a right and microwaves are not?
Not guns in particular, just effective arms.
Before that meant spears, maces, swords, and battle axes.
Tomorrow it might be singularly nodes, lazer eyes, and magic feathers.
Today it's guns.
Because microwaves, as far as I know and at this point in time, don't do much for protecting an individual's or the masses' life and liberty.
It can effectively and efficiently cook food which is overall more important than self-defense. You keep dodging the actual question which is what makes one technology a “god-given right” and not another.
The ability to produce food is far more necessary to preserve life, and liberty is only for the living, so by your logic microwaves at least on par with arms and as such are a “god-given right”. If that’s not accurate please let me know what I’m missing.
Microwaves aren't the sole means of eating. A grill or an open flame work just as well to heat things up. And life may be necessary for liberty, but it is far better to die free than to live enslaved and oppressed.
If the dead could talk, would those in Auschwitz be more content dying like vermin than the badasses in Warshaw would falling upon a bed of brass surrounded by the corpses of their enemies while protecting their brothers' and family's escape?
Effective arms are the only things preserving life and liberty. Try standing up to a drugged out motherfucker with just your bare hands, or even a bat or knife. Now try to do something when trained motherfuckers with armor and modern weapons are trying to get you.
Since you are displaying severe cognitive dissonance I will just break it down for you. Even in the US, where there is a state granted right to arms you can’t legally just shoot anyone who attacks you. No matter how big he is, if he’s unarmed you have to use an equal type of force or you go to jail. Hence why NZ is ok with giving up guns. If there are few to no guns in the private sector then private citizens can effectively carry a knife to defend themselves. I think everyone agrees you have the right to defend yourself against an attacker but no one guarantees you get to use any particular technology in order to do it.
The bottom line is a gun doesn’t make the person carry it safer, it just makes them feel powerful and superior to those who don’t have one. That feeling is what gun advocates are scared to lose and they are really good at being scared.
The right is not state granted. If the state grants it, it isn't a right, it's a privilege.
And you're wrong about the law, if a person is attacked unjustly by someone capable of killing them, they or a bystander can use whatever means are necessary to make them stop, up to, including, and beyond overwhelming force.
Now take your conclusion and shove it. You can choose to live at the mercy of whoever is bigger and tougher than you, I'll live free, thank you very much.
"Political power flows out the barrel of a gun" - Moa Zedong.
A man who used guns for his revolution, then took them away from his subjects, right before killing them.
"The only real power comes from a long rifle" - Josef Stalin
"The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subjugated races to possess arms" - The big H himself.
Well if the state can’t grant rights then I guess you don’t find the 2nd amendment to be valid in granting the right to bear arms since God didn’t write the constitution. And your statement is misleading if not outright wrong despite what you have worked up in your head. In most jurisdictions, the use of deadly force is justified only under conditions of extreme necessity as a last resort, when all lesser means have failed or cannot reasonably be employed. Translation: big guy says he’s going to beat your ass then punches you in the face, you shoot him, you go to prison.
American Freedom is a the freedom of choice not the freedom from fear. We all still have to deal with bigger and tougher people. It doesn’t scare most of us so we don’t need a gun as a safety blanket to make us feel better. Want to really live free? Stop being such a coward.
The Bill of Rights recognizes them, it does not grant them. Do you know anything about the foundation or history of the US?
It doesn't say what the government won't allow, only what the government cannot do.
And you are still wrong about the law. You can use lethal force as soon as you fear for life. A man is big enough to be fucking strong relative to his victim, expresses the intent to do serious potentially lethal harm, and then attacks her? She can blow him away at that point, and by law is completely justified.
You've got it backwards now. You're actively advocating against my choice to be a free citizen.
I'm a coward for wanting to take my life in my own hands? Fuck no. It ain't about being afraid, it's about being prepared. Next you're going to say that having a fire extinguisher, cell phone, umbrella, multi-tool, or extra jacket are signs of cowardice.
I don’t take a fire extinguisher to a water park or an umbrella to the desert. I would take a gun into combat but not to the grocery store because it’s not necessary. If you think walking in public is dangerous then you are a coward. And I’m not advocating taking away your gun. I’m saying your statement about it being a god-given right is absurd.
You think walking in public isn't dangerous? Do you not look both sides before crossing the street?
Guns aren't a God-given right, access to effective arms is.
@scarmandingo I think you're getting a little overly aggressive here, I have an LTC and I carry in public. I dont do it because I want to be an action hero, I do it because if I need to use it to defend myself or someone I love i can have the tool available to do so. This isn't just hypothetical either, I grew up in a less than stellar neighborhood in the 90's and a firearm is the only reason a group of convicted rapists trying to break into our home didnt get past the front door. My mother held them off until the police came. I understand that not everywhere I go is a shit neighborhood or always equates to the same possible danger, but being prepared is being prepared and everyone has lived their own lives and experiences. I feel like you're painting with a broad brush here... I wouldnt call you a coward so let's not start lobbing insults. It's a hot topic and I get it, but come on man.
I also have over a thousand hours of training with my EDC and I'm a gold rated pistol marksman, so I'm not just some guy carrying a weapon he just picked up at walmart... and the training I have is actually quite common for a lot of people in Texas.
I’m attempting to discuss the validity of a statement that @famousone made that God has blessed us with the absolute right to have random technology. He called the citizens of NZ sheep and cattle and I counter with the idea that giving up guns so that no one is in as much danger is braver than using divine providence to justify keeping yourself in a position of power over others. I didn’t bring up “dying on a mountain of brass” or any of the other dramatic stuff. I just want to understand why he believes God gives a crap.
I believe I have a right to defend myself and the people I love, God has nothing to do with it. Look man I'm Jewish so I wake up every morning with a target already on my back. I've gotten into a close call before where I did have to draw my weapon and hold someone until the police could arrive. I'm not saying I think everyone should have a weapon, (felons, people with a history of assault, etc.), but I do think it's insane when people think they can legislate against violence. Criminals dont care about the law. There are times when I see a store that has a 30.07 posting and I just want shop at that store, (30.06 is fine, I think open carry is silly anyway because it lets the bad guys know who to try and kill first). Statistically the areas with the highest rates of violent crimes in the US are those with the restrictive gun control. The guy breaking into your house gets an advantage if he knows you dont have a firearm--especially when he bought one off the street.
Also keep in mind there are over 400 million firearms in circulation in the US right now. You could ban them tomorrow and it wouldnt really mean much. I guarantee you they arent going to go door to door, searching homes (ignoring how many laws this would break locally, I guarantee you this would start a civil war).
I've said it before and I'll say it again, I'm a native Texan, I've lived here all my life and I've known 0 people killed by a firearm. I've known 34 who were killed in car accidents. Are we going to ban cars? All the folks saying a car isn't a tool meant to kill, does that eliminate the intent of someone using it to kill? Is it a problem with the person driving like a maniac or with the car?
I'll also say that weapons are a part of our culture down here too, so expectations are high when it comes to handling a firearm. 9/10 times when I see someone doing something stupid or dangerous they're not a native. I saw a guy letting his son (they were AR transplants) letting his son dry-click a rifle at people in a hunting/camping store I was at. They were thrown out of the store SO quickly and banned... because you treat every weapon like its loaded, period.
Well I dont want to try and speak for anyone or put words in their mouths. I think famous ones ultimate point though is exactly what I described--everyone has a right to arms to defend themselves. I think he was moreso specifying that the government shouldn't have a right to restrict or remove that. To many Americans, there is a perception of extreme overreach when it comes to the NZ government. Love the people, love the food--personally not a fan of the government.. especially with their stance on deporting/not accepting immigrants with special needs children because they're considered too burdensome on their socialized medical program.**edited for spelling
What are you waiting for me to say that I haven't already? The right to bear effective arms is above any government. I believe it to be a natural or God given right, meaning it cannot be denied to a free person. Just like everything else in the Bill of Rights.
But the government does restrict and control what weapons are allowed and no one is objecting to it. You aren’t allowed to carry a hand grenade or drive a tank. You can’t buy a fully armed fighter plane and use it for travel instead of Delta. The government has the authority and responsibility to make sure our society is healthy, many times at the disadvantage of the individual, that’s why we have governments. They absolutely have the right to say what arms you can and cannot have.
Well we were talking about personal defense and immediate threats. Owning a fighter jet or tank would be considered offensive. Small arms like a pistol or even rifles would fall under personal defense or actionable use for personal safety. Certain explosives are actually legal as well, Tanarite is an explosive used in Texas for boar traps.
@famousone “I believe” was what I was looking for. You have a belief and that’s fine, some people believe the Earth is flat and Cardi B has talent. Your belief isn’t a fact so everyone else can safely ignore it.
But now we are starting to get into state versus federal law. Keep in mind that one huge hurdle that the US has to deal with that european countries do not is federal versus state law... and there are many times that these are at odds with each other.
You can drive a tank. You could even fly a jet, and make it a fighter jet with the right paperwork, but without classified tech unless you have the know how to recreate it yourself.
Even grenades can be purchased and owned with NFA paperwork.
Frankly, a lot of us believe even that to be far too restrictive. As far as I'm concerned, all conventional weapons should be available to all lawful citizens.
@famousone I mean you're not wrong, with enough money anyone can get the permits. Plus you can easily make explosives with what's under your kitchen sink so that's kind of a moot point.
Considered offensive by whom? The government? That would be restricting the people. The people themselves? What happens when they decide that handguns are offensive and hand them in voluntarily? Have we now moved the bar and everyone should be willing to give up their handgun?
@scatmandingo I mean strategically offensive and I speaking to existing Texas state law. I could purchase a tank but would need a special permit because its not considered necessary for personal defense--i can't carry a tank into a grocery store. To your point--your not wrong and that 'slippery slope' logic is unnerving to a lot of people. If you legislate anything you're building precedent.
So I think in conclusion the people of NZ get to believe what they believe and @famousone gets to believe what he believes. He gets to call them sheep and cattle for their beliefs and I get to call him a coward and irresponsible for his. And we get to do it all over again soon when the next political meme pops up. That’s the true spirit of Funsubstance.
With respect, what if some of those soldiers were the citizens in question? The military is not disassociated from the citizen population. I'm also extremely skeptical something like that would ever happen because there would very possibly be an actual civil war if it came to that because it implies a LOT of other issues like federally mandated search and seizure without a warrant from a local judge, violating private property through a federal mandate, and about a hundred other laws being broken. You would be completely circumventing judicial and legislative process to try and attempt something like that.**edited for spelling
Forcing executive exclusion on the military is exactly how revolutions start because those in the military are US citizens and usually the ones with the most strict interpretation of personal liberty. Also, to put it bluntly, the 2nd amendment exists because of questions like the one you just asked.
And I’m wondering how @famousone would react to the order. I don’t know enough to say if they provide every soldier involved the paperwork showing that the action they are taken is all above board. But in an instance where the only information is that those people are armed and your CO says they need to be taken into custody by any means necessary would that order be followed?
I would ask the sergeant or commander to repeat the order. If he relays the same order again, I'll hold him up, disarm him, and the next in command or responsibility will take over. If the order comes from above the company level, it will result in anything from a 1SG, SMJ or senior officer doing what I would do, up to and including a coup or civil war. In which case I would side with liberty.
And if the citizens were suspected terrorists who had explosives and weapons stockpiled in preparation for an attack on the civilian population who refused and threatened law enforcement when they served them with a legitimate federal warrant?
If I'm doing counter-terrorism work on American soil then shit's already FUBAR.
Is the federal warrant constitutional? Do they pose a clear and present danger? Are they even hostile? These questions and about a thousand others will be the basis of my final decision.
The fact that the military would be involved with this and not the FBI, NSA, CIA, or local law enforcement is weird--we kind of jumped over all the usual resources. Usually military intelligence might be involved, but you wouldn't have a bunch of 81 bravos on the ground doing arrests or seizures on American soil--thats the whole point of having Homeland security.
Yeah if it's at the point where things are so messed up and decentralized that the military is functioning on behalf of all the above mentioned federal agencies then things are way more messed up then just the issue of gun control.**edited for spelling
I was thinking more along the lines of Waco. The ATF leaned on the military to help them out with that siege. It’s not beyond reason that they would request direct intervention from the Army if they were outgunned in a similar situation. If the compound had artillery or anti-tank weaponry I doubt the FBI has the right manpower and equipment to deal with it
If I got the order I would have no qualms putting down some Homicidal cultists, but that ain't the Army's job.
Texas has it's National Guard, state militias, Rangers, and everything they need to handle it in house.
Most states do.
Yeah that whole thing turned into a shit show BECAUSE the ATF asserted jurisdiction and circumvented local resources. I 100% get the point you're trying to make, but the thing in Waco went to hell because the ATF wanted to get credit for taking them down, bit off way more than they could chew, and then everything went to heck in a handbasket. The event in Waco has actually become a case study for a lot federal agencies on what NOT to do. Truthfully, if they'd just sent in the Texas Rangers with local law enforcement from the county the whole thing would have been over in an hour... but the ATF wanted to try and flex for the cameras.
problem is in the u.s guns mean money..simple. every way you look at it they mean money..sell them money.. bullets money..hospital money. graves money..maybe if they passed real laws banning guns they could spend that money on other stuff like the homeless ect: you should not be afraid to bring in new laws you should be afraid if you don't
Any combination of the above would be an assault rifle, if it was also using intermediate ammunition, fed by detachable belt or magazine, and was operable by a single man.
Stateside, noncompliance rates to confiscations are so high that many attempts don't want to release the numbers, whereas the government buying guns is usually used to offload junk weapons, or famously exploited by DIY weapons to purchase higher quality arms.
It's an inherent right. Natural or God- given. Not a privilege to be bestowed by the state.
Y'all are happy being cattle because cattle actually have cush lives, just know that the wolves still have their teeth.
Once that was sticks. Now it is firearms.
Water? Literally falls from the sky. Shelter? Shack up in a cave or build yourself a lean-to. Food? Gather, farm, and hunt (preferably with guns but arrows are cool, too).
.
Let me give you a different example. It used to be that the most effective way to cook food was fire. Now we have microwaves. Access to microwaves is not a god-given right even though it is arguably more important than access to guns since if you don’t eat you don’t live long enough to need to defend yourself.
We need them for hunting.
To give the small and weak a fighting chance against a larger, stronger, aggressor(s).
To deter aggression from all threats, foreign and domestic.
Because power comes from the barrel of a gun, and no free man wants to be powerless.
Tell it to the Jews in Europe back in the 30s and 40s how powerful they were. The Imperialists in Russia and anti-Communists in China, Loas, Vietnam, etc, too.
Tell the native Americans slaughtered in the 1800s, the blacks enslaved, and the kids at Kent state how their voices are more powerful than rifles.
Is it more righteous for my cousin to be raped and murdered by a stalker that had a hundred pounds on her than for her to shoot the son of a bitch?
Tell her and the millions of people who use guns for self-defense every year how their weapons do "fuck-all against domestic threats".
Mass shootings are not the epidemic that the media is trying to paint them as. You're more likely to be struck by lighting while suffering from a lethal case of food poisoning than being in a mass shooting.
And who the fuck are you to tell anybody what they need in their lives?
List_of_mass_shootings_in_the_United_States_in_2019
You mean to tell me that there have been no civil wars, genocides, ethnic cleansings, or political violence whatsoever since Hitler offed himself?
Supermarkets don't have fuck all to do with anything.
Now tell me who the fuck you are to dictate what the average person should have? No, wait. I don't care. Nobody has that power.
.
Anyway, @famousone, you never explained how access to guns and access to microwaves are different. You merely deflected saying that no one is trying to take microwaves away which is irrelevant to the question.
You can't use a microwave to effectively defend your life or liberty. What's it matter? We aren't talking about microwaves.
Before that meant spears, maces, swords, and battle axes.
Tomorrow it might be singularly nodes, lazer eyes, and magic feathers.
Today it's guns.
Because microwaves, as far as I know and at this point in time, don't do much for protecting an individual's or the masses' life and liberty.
You're also begging the question.
If the dead could talk, would those in Auschwitz be more content dying like vermin than the badasses in Warshaw would falling upon a bed of brass surrounded by the corpses of their enemies while protecting their brothers' and family's escape?
Effective arms are the only things preserving life and liberty. Try standing up to a drugged out motherfucker with just your bare hands, or even a bat or knife. Now try to do something when trained motherfuckers with armor and modern weapons are trying to get you.
And you're wrong about the law, if a person is attacked unjustly by someone capable of killing them, they or a bystander can use whatever means are necessary to make them stop, up to, including, and beyond overwhelming force.
Now take your conclusion and shove it. You can choose to live at the mercy of whoever is bigger and tougher than you, I'll live free, thank you very much.
A man who used guns for his revolution, then took them away from his subjects, right before killing them.
"The only real power comes from a long rifle" - Josef Stalin
"The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subjugated races to possess arms" - The big H himself.
It doesn't say what the government won't allow, only what the government cannot do.
And you are still wrong about the law. You can use lethal force as soon as you fear for life. A man is big enough to be fucking strong relative to his victim, expresses the intent to do serious potentially lethal harm, and then attacks her? She can blow him away at that point, and by law is completely justified.
I'm a coward for wanting to take my life in my own hands? Fuck no. It ain't about being afraid, it's about being prepared. Next you're going to say that having a fire extinguisher, cell phone, umbrella, multi-tool, or extra jacket are signs of cowardice.
Guns aren't a God-given right, access to effective arms is.
Even grenades can be purchased and owned with NFA paperwork.
Frankly, a lot of us believe even that to be far too restrictive. As far as I'm concerned, all conventional weapons should be available to all lawful citizens.
Is the federal warrant constitutional? Do they pose a clear and present danger? Are they even hostile? These questions and about a thousand others will be the basis of my final decision.
Texas has it's National Guard, state militias, Rangers, and everything they need to handle it in house.
Most states do.