The Japanese admiral Isoroku Yamamoto even knew it in WW2. “We cannot invade the mainland United States. Behind every blade of grass there is a rifle” It is a deterrent for sure. Plus there are a lot of military people on this site. Would you guys be willing to kill civilians who are willing to die to stand up for what they believe and what has been a right in this country for the last few hundred years? All of my military friends said they would stand down if it came to that. Sent from my iPhone using Bowhunting.com Forums
That quote, while great, hasn't ever been confirmed. True as it might be, I hope it is never put to the test. As for the military stance, I think it would probably come down to the scenario tat initiated the choice. Was the government the agressor or under attack. If the government decided to be the agressor I think many in service would not act on orders. If a civil unrest occured and a group tried to overthrow the government I think they would protect those governing. I hope none of the scenarios come to be in my lifetime, I'd rather live the rest of my days with an assumption. I do truly believe in history repeats itself though, only difference is futures learn from mistakes of the past. Who learns and adapts faster?
Amazing how everybody is not locked in on the bump stock. Now I've never measured how big of a spray pattern fully automatic fire creates at 350-400 yards but I can imagine it is pretty damn big. Just a degree or two difference at the end of the barrel would end up with bullets landing no where near the crowd. Listening to the videos, I can clearly hear huge amounts of echoing. making it sound like a lot more shots were being fired than actually were. I'd be interested to hear how many shell casings they ended up finding in the room.
Not sure of your point? Inaccuracy as a result of the "bump stock" is noted in uncertainties of the jet fuel tanks. They were hit, but were they a target? Shell casings in the room would prove what? How many did or did not fly out a breeched window? Not sure of what proves what
They will have the casings if any fell out the window also. The number of them will give a better idea of how he was firing. Will the count match up with the story line of him just raining bullets down in fully automatic form which is what they are using to try and ban the bumpstock. They are saying he fired 200 rounds at the security guard, that would be where a bump stock would be the most handy. I betting the count is going to be lower than expected. They want to make it out that shooting faster means more death. When it is usually the opposite. Fully auto usually just burns through more rounds.
Different types of guns have different rates of full auto, so it really depends on what type of guns. If they were Semi-auto's that were modified then I have no idea what the rate of fire would be. I have seen some bump stocks work and you can burn through a 30 rounds mag in no time at all.
What constitutes "armed"? We had millions of sporting guns before assault style weapons were available. Should we fight for the right to own rocket launchers so we can take out government Apache helicopters? Should I have the right to defend myself with grenades? Maybe its only right that I be allowed to possess fully auto .50 cal guns to defend my honor and country. Our citizenry is already heavily armed. I couldn't begin to shoot all of my guns as it is. Believe me, I would be standing beside you melting down the barrel of my rifles, or handguns, but it would all be futile in the fantasy world where a tyrannical U.S. government went off the rails. Our country has been built on compromise. We will likely see some sooner than later. Nobody can say what will and will not work with certainty. But many preach that they know.
They have the type of guns, they have the cartridges. They will know how many are .223 how many are .30 cal. If he was using the bump stocks the amount of spent ammo will be far greater. I'm expecting the number to be far less than people expect based on the sounds and the amount of echoing I heard.
I know you are just trying to play devils advocate. But the rocket launcher and helicopter arguments that get thrown around are about as stupid as can be. The 2nd was written intentionally under the idea that all of us would be able to own the same weapons your average soldier would carry in combat. Part of the idea of the founders is they knew we could not manage/afford to arm a force large enough to fight for and defend the country. They knew we would need to depend on citizens soldiers and they would need to provide their own weapons and those weapons should be equal if not better than the enemies.
So, we should definitely be able to have grenades and .50 cal fully automatics and a flame thrower or two. Got it.
And tanks, and fighter jets and bombers, rail guns, nuclear warheads, anti-aircraft missile batteries, napalm, nerve gas....did I miss anything? Oh yeah...armed drones.
