What's your point?  I'm not aware of anyone who would either minimize the effectiveness of small arms in warfare, or who is advocating the obsolescence of the 2nd Amendment.  Your premise is wrong.  Straw man arguments without validity.

Your thread title is ridiculous.  As a former wartime tank crewman, I'm aware of both the lethal nature of armored assault vehicles, as well as their vulnerabilities under certain conditions such as night defensive positions.

Are you trying to justify arming the US civilian population with assault rifles because murderous Rwandans used them as a scare tactic prior to committing genocide with machetes?  Please explain.

My point is the 2nd amendment is a valid basis for defense against a tyrannical government.

If Rwandans had access to small arms in the general population the genocide would have been twarted. Instead most people were clueless about fighting back because of their lack of knowledge about guns.

The liberal mass media always fails to mention how often those familiar with firearms can figure out when the gun is being reloaded which gives a few seconds to act and disarm the perp. Which is what happened a few times during some shootings.

If the population is at least educated about guns, their limitations and how to use them, without even requiring compulsory possession, then gun death will be limited.

For example in Newton the teacher went to the corridor to investigate what they thought were gunshots... FUCKING BAD IDEA.

Any cop or someone in the military normally DUCKS and/or locks any access door to the place where they are whenever hearing anything remotely similar to a gunshot.

Even with multiple gunshots one can also operate and immobilize a shooter, unless it is a headshot.

Reality vs. what the masses are shown on TV is what can make a difference during a real shooting.

who says that? they are very useful in a war, the US isnt being invaded last I heard and if it is Im sure the military has plenty of small arms and is able to deal with it

The 2nd Amendment is primarily intended to assemble a militia from the local populace in order to stop a foreign army.  It was adopted in 1791.  The wording, also makes it applicable for lawful self-defense of one's home, family and person, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States.  The Supreme Court has also ruled that prohibitions and restrictions on firearm ownership and usage is NOT inconsistent with the 2nd Amendment.  The SC has ruled that the rights of citizens to keep and bear arms must be balanced against the common good.  So, lawful prohibitions on fully automatic weapons, grenade launchers, and the assault weapons ban of 1994 to 2004, do not infringe on the rights of citizens to keep and bear arms.

At Columbine, there was an armed guard on duty, and it made no difference in the carnage that ensued.  In the Arizona massacre in which Gabby Giffords was shot through the head, an armed citizen was at the scene but was unable to get a clean shot at the perpetrator.

Citizens do not need military-style assault weapons, and high-capacity magazines.

Supporting your cause by likening the US of A with Iraqi insurgents !

I think that in any balanced persons mind that is an immediate fail.

Which is why the NRA's proposal would need to employ several million people in order for it to stand any chance of being a deterrent. All of whom would, naturally, be supplied with weapons and training provided by members of the NRA. It is easy to see where the argument for more guns is coming from. It is not based on a real understanding of their 'rights', it is based on money.

Not true. In fact, not even close. The power to assemble militia, form armies, etc. as needed to repulse foreign armies is covered in Article I, Section 8, Clauses 15 & 16. The Second Amendment specifically addresses an individual right and the Federalist Papers make it abundantly clear that right exists in order for the population to protect its other rights from its own government.

http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndpur.html

http://www.uhuh.com/guns/2ndquotes.htm

http://www.constitution.org/mil/rkba1982.htm

http://jpfo.org/filegen-n-z/six-about-2nd.htm

http://jpfo.org/filegen-n-z/six-about-2nd.htm

http://www.foundingfathers.info/federal … s/fedi.htm

So, you think that the American population would be less effective than Iraqi insurgents?

It made no difference?

I read the reports on what happened. Sounds to me like that guard kept a gunman engaged and focused on him for a significant length of time, time that otherwise could have been used to kill kids.

An article published in the UK [** see link at the end] about the American gun situation produced two very interesting images. One must surely ask what is going on in the images:


Notice this guy claims to have "a" gun for "self protection" - a .223 cal AR-15 style gun appears against the wall. BUT - look at the ammo - a case of 50cal linked machine gun ammo is front and centre; a box of various [obviously mixed] other small arms ammo on the floor; and there are two boxes of shotgun ammo on the table. Oh, really? Everything else aside, and considering that in the article he only claims to have "a" gun as he displays, just exactly why does he have 50cal linked machine gun ammo? Is there something else about him that we should know?

and this one


A collection of small arms for "self defence". BUT out of 11 items shown 6 are clearly fitted with silencers / suppressors. Why does a private citizen need suppressed / silenced firearms? So when he shoots the burglar he doesn't disturb the neighbours? Could it be that he is some kind of wannabe Rambo - ya' think? Either that, or this guy has a VERY small dick.

Studio36

**headline: "Trigger-happy families: After the school massacre that horrified the world, meet the U.S homeowners armed to the teeth - and ready to kill"
L I N K

ofcourse they are a major factor, especially in urban warfare but they do have limitations (like all weapon systems).
A tank commander driving into a town without infantry support is an idiot, a pilot flying towards a position with heavy AA without support is also an idiot and an army commander walking into the open without air, artillery and tank/armoured support is also an idiot.
That's why an army needs a bit of all weapon systems, you can come a long way with guns alone but there comes a point and place where you will fail miserably.

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

The wording of the 2nd Amendment makes it's intent known with terms like "well regulated" and "necessary to the security of a free state".  In the analysis of the 2nd Amendment, the only authority having any legal standing is the US Constitution, and it's interpretation by the US Supreme Court.

The Federalist Papers are opinion pieces by three individuals, and Hamilton did not even see the need for a Bill of Rights.  If he had had his way, there wouldn't be a 2nd Amendment.  The Federalist Papers are irrelevant to the conversation.

The SCOTUS has upheld the right of citizens to possess firearms for lawful purposes; specifically self-defense in the home.  The SCOTUS has made no rulings which invalidate regulations against fully-automatic weapons, sawed-off shotguns, interstate transport of weapons, concealed carry, and the assault weapons ban of 1994-2004, etc, etc.  What the 2nd Amendment says to me very loudly, is that the states and local governments have sovereignty in this matter.

If legal challenges to local and state gun regulations were to prevail in federal courts, and be upheld by the SCOTUS, then the picture would change.  Thus far, it has not, with the exception of District of Columbia v. Heller in 2008.  In that instance, a portion of the ordinance requiring weapons to be stored unloaded, disassembled or with trigger locks was ruled unconstitutional.    In McDonald v. Chicago 2010, the SC ruled that the local law infringed on the 2nd Amendment because registration for handguns was required, and Chicago refused to issue any registrations.  A state like New York could also have state-level challenges to strict New York City laws, and have them overthrown.  Thus far they have not.  Strict gun regulations have not yet been found to be unconstitutional, except for the above-mentioned exceptions regarding storage of weapons in DC, and issuance of permits within Chicago city limits. 

The 2nd Amendment is not some all-encompassing right to possess and discharge firearms.  It speaks to states rights, and those states that choose to have either strict or lenient gun laws may do so at their own discretion.  Court challenges to state and local laws will undoubtedly continue, but most gun restrictions have been upheld by Federal Courts.

To answer your question, yes and the evidence is all too clearly out there given the struggles of trained military forces to cope with them.

As usual though you seem to have completely failed to show any understanding of the point being made. People like to think of the US of A as an advanced, civilised western superpower. Paralleling with Iraqi insurgents in order to support gun ownership is something of a comedown from this.

That is a far less than certain proposition.

The Iraqi's pretty much relied on a common weapon [AK-47 and the related but identically chambered models] using a common ammunition of which the country was already awash, and that, in the alternative, was also commonly obtainable in the region even from outside sources.

That would not be true with the US's civilian population's holdings. They would likely soon run out of resources... mainly ammo.

In addition, as Iraq had been at war for years with Iran even before invading and stripping Kuwait's military resources, the country also provided insurgents a rich source of heavier weapons and rounds, e.g. RPGs and light mortars, and, again, readily able to be re-supplied, which would not be available at all in the US.

There is a completely different fire-power dynamic between what existed, and still exists, in Iraq [and most other second and third world countries] and the US.

Studio36

Dr. Strangelove: Of course, the whole point of a (triggering a weapon that cannot be untriggered) is lost, if you *keep* it a *secret*! Why didn't you tell the world, EH?

Ambassador de Sadesky: It was to be announced at the Party Congress on Monday. As you know, the Premier loves surprises.

This is all wrong. In Rwanda guns are more plentiful than food or toilet paper.

The average AK in African countries like Uganda and Rwanda costs $6-$12 and is taught to and wielded by children as young as 5.

Yes because most idiots with guns watch 80s action movies and think that if a conflict breaks out they can pull a John Rambo and be a "True American Hero".

Yes actually, because the average American lacks the knowledge those people have used and needed for over 50 years active warfare.

Most of the "Militia" members in the US look like this:


Or check out the Hutaree militia of Michigan.

All over weight or dimwitted, not a college education between them....sad.

So he doesn't have to put on ear protection before protecting himself. The man is concerned for his hearing. Good for him.

And yet there are thousands of graduates of the Special Warfare Center in the US population, not to mention a significant number of veterans.

It isn't the ones that you pointed out that are the concern, its the ones that actually know what they are doing, and have been trained to do so. And there are more of us than there are Afghanis.

Ever been in a National Guard armory?

M2 HBs. 81mm mortars. M240 MGs. 40mm GLs. Stingers. TOWs.

And the keys in the hand of a local.

The bottom 10% of our classes who go into the armed forces, still come out as the bottom 10%.
Its not all that hard to teach a monkey how to push a button on a weapon that has an AI with an IQ higher than the soldiers paycheck.

And for every kid on the internet who claimed they were SF actually was the Military population would be 10x what it is.

Notice when a good argument is made the up pops the "i am special forces with a thousand commando's and bombers at my command" bs that every angry little kid does on COD.

Yeah I have and by M2 HBs, 81mm mortars, M240 MGs, 40mm GLs, Stingers, and TOWs you mean shovels, sandbags and emergency storm gear then yes.

Weapon armory are restricted to NG BASES, which are patroled, regulated and over seen by REGULAR MILITARY.

I take it you have no idea of what it takes to be an Infantryman in today's army, nor do you know what SWC is. I'm certainly not talking about the bottom 10%.

Now, if you want to claim I'm a poser? Well, you better tell the Special Forces Association. I was the President of Chapter 3 for two terms. It's real easy to check and find out that I'm what I claim.

And the SFA and SOA have tens of thousands of members, the great majority of which are trained in unconventional warfare. The US Army spent millions of dollars to teach us how to wage warfare and used the combined lessons of the resistance in France and the Philippines (OSS), the lessons of Korea, Hungary and Greece, the operational experience in Vietnam, followed by the experience of waging unconventional war in Central America (Honduras, Nicaragua, El Salvador and Guatamala), the additional skills of force multiplication in Panama and Kuwait, and then the variety of skills of working with the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan before switching to more raid focused operations - while still running CI operations in Southern Thailand and the PI.

The fools are those who think their only opponents would be the guys who run around in the woods on weekends. No, the real opponents would be the guys who have waged war on behest of the USA around the world, who are quiet, law-abiding citizens who value their rights and won't have them taken away by those who have never fought for them.

LMAO

Wrong. Might be true in Kentucky, what with Knox and Campbell right there. Not true in most of the country.

Lets see Copy and Paste any selection of your post to google and..... there are 95,700,000 results.

You are not the first idiot to claim to me they were SF, and you will not be the first. But the last idiot who took his BS claim and keep running with it, ended up in the hospital.
So much for all that "SF" training.

And you've served when and where?

Oh, wait. Let me guess. You haven't.

You're a short drive from FT Campbell. Go visit the 5th Special Forces Group. That's their home station.

Ask to see back issues of "The Drop" from 2005 or 2006. That's the magazine published by the Special Forces Association.

Look up the officers for SFA Chapter 3. Listed in every issue that has an article from the Chapter.

Its that way in EVERY state. While NG posts may have some weapons, the most dangerous things they have are rifles, hand guns and some gas grenades.

All major weaponry are regulated to NG bases.

Yes I am sure you claim you are some big shot like everyone other internet SF wannabe.

Suppressors are sold over the counter in some European countries.  I don't know why they have to be licensed here.  It's just common courtesy to the neighbors when you practice and I guess Europeans are more polite.  Cars are required to have mufflers, and maybe we ought to have the same requirement for guns.  If you are hunting in the public preserves during hunting season, the first guy to fire gets the game spooked for some distance around.  Silencers reduce that problem.  For smaller calibers, a silencer can eliminate the need for hearing protection on the ears, which means you can listen out for sounds of game, or burglars, such as the case may be.  And thinking of burglars, have you ever fired a gun indoors?  The sound pressure is enormous.  Considering that someone jumping out of bed in the night to face a burglar isn't likely to have time to put on hearing protection, and might not want to suppress his hearing anyway, a suppressor is the way to go so that he's not left with a permanent hearing loss.

So you didn't know, and now you do.  That's the usefulness of these forums.

I'd take you on a tour, but you aren't actually allowed in. No military ID, have you?

I agree with this post. Though there are a quite a lot of people who think that suppressors are actually those fictional hollywood "silencers".

I have seen people get really upset when reality hits them and they don't work the same. The best on the market only to from 40-50 decibels at best.

I like using them so that I don't have to use ear protection.

Suppressors also help farmers to shoot varmints without spooking livestock.

Still amusing coming from a long-hair wannabe model that has clearly never served a day in his life.

I gave you the source to check. It isn't hard, and it isn't far. Or maybe one of our other forum members is near FT Bragg, NC or FT Lewis, WA or FT Carson, CO and can go check out the issues of the Drop at SWC or 1st or 10th SFG(A)s.

You really have no clue do you? Every year across this country they have these things called "Job Fairs" you may have heard of these. It places were people like you go to get a job.

Anywho the branches of the military show up to lie to kids to trick them into signing up. One thing the NG does is a tour of their local posts.

Also I have driven onto several Military bases and have NEVER had them check my ID, and one time I was driving a van full of weapons.
And as long as you are with pretty much any authorized staff member, you can go anywhere they take you.

No one cares or believes you, you can claim any guy in a magazine was you like every other wannabe rambo online does, doesn't change that fact.

Now move along.

I'm lmao. You really think you've seen all there is to see, don't you?

Without ever having enlisted. Without ever having any background check. Without ever having a security clearance.

LMAO

I have a CCDW, meaning I get a background check every two weeks.
I have had military security clearance twice; when working with EDS and when training at Fort Indian Town Gap and Fort Dix

Since you have never enlisted I guess that's about the only thing you are qualified to talk about.

Which is nothing like a military background check. It might mean you qualify to apply for USMA. Doesn't mean you qualify to be commissioned.

As for your "military security clearance", all military security clearances have a level. Name what level you were given. It'll be on the paperwork if you had any.

You could not be more wrong.

Every two weeks I am subject to a FEDERAL LEVEL Background Check. Its SUPPOSIDLY the same level background check given to Military personal, except more criminals get into the military than get CCDWS.

Now that we have established yet again you are an idiot please move along.
And military background checks are only done once upon enlistment unless required, and even then only once and its not a continuously scheduled event.