Official Gun Thread

Monk said:
Why we need weapons in America !
View: http://youtu.be/ScvQx2X3Juw
Click to expand...

That is some crazy **** and we really need some explanation/transparency from our government on these camps!

If you read the Federalist Papers, one of the points about the right to bear arms is being able to rise against an oppressive government if necessary and oust those who do us more harm than good. Not to mention, we were never really meant to have a standing army.
 
Last edited:
'06Siguy said:
20130323_160748_zpsb2ec3cc7.jpg
Click to expand...

My best friend and my mom both have this gun....but they both use the manlier black grips. :giggle:
 
squiggy said:
That is some crazy **** and we really need some explanation/transparency from our government on these camps!

If you read the Federalist Papers, one of the points about the right to bear arms is being able to rise against an oppressive government if necessary and oust those who do us more harm than good. Not to mention, we were never really meant to have a standing army.
Click to expand...
I'm pretty sure the federalist papers didnt say any of that. Lol

And besides, this is 2013. There's no rising up against an oppressive government. They have air superiority, you have a couple guns.

You have to look at that critically and logically. These days, the dollar is the decision maker, and there is no vested interest in oppressing your money makers en masse. We can cool the conspiracy jets now. Lol.
 
You ever actually read The Federalist Papers? I am about a quarter of the way through them as we speak.
 
original grips...

20130323_155010_zps2670dec7.jpg


crappy pic. Pistol was dirty after shooting, and flash messed up the pic too.
 
Last edited:
I've seen that IR document. Versions of it have been floating around since the internet began. I haven't read it, and I probably never will since its presented in a conspiracy context. I already know what internment is. I still can't put any stock in it because the government isn't concerned about hiding internment operations at all. Heck, you can go on Army's website and look at being an I/R specialist. Keep in mind, any given branch of military will be prepared for any possible situation. With the recent mass misunderstanding of the NDAA2012 and heated gun rights debates and this and that and the other, all this document is, is a match to a bunch of gasoline.
 
hotshot said:
Yep. Twice actually.
Click to expand...

If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no recourse left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual State. In a single State, if the persons entrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair.
-- Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28

If circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist.
--Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 29

A standing force, therefore, is a dangerous, at the same time that it may be a necessary, provision. On the smallest scale it has its inconveniences. On an extensive scale its consequences may be fatal. On any scale it is an object of laudable circumspection and precaution. A wise nation will combine all these considerations; and, whilst it does not rashly preclude itself from any resource which may become essential to its safety, will exert all its prudence in diminishing both the necessity and the danger of resorting to one which may be inauspicious to its liberties.
--Madison, Number 41

The smallness of the army renders the natural strength of the community an overmatch for it; and the citizens, not habituated to look up to the military power for protection, or to submit to its oppressions, neither love nor fear the soldiery; they view them with a spirit of jealous acquiescence in a necessary evil and stand ready to resist a power which they suppose may be exerted to the prejudice of their rights.

The army under such circumstances may usefully aid the magistrate to suppress a small faction, or an occasional mob, or insurrection; but it will be unable to enforce encroachments against the united efforts of the great body of the people. Hamilton, Number 8

The only refuge left for those who prophesy the downfall of the State governments is the visionary supposition that the federal government may previously accumulate a military force for the projects of ambition. The reasonings contained in these papers must have been employed to little purpose indeed, if it could be necessary now to disprove the reality of this danger. That the people and the States should, for a sufficient period of time, elect an uninterrupted succession of men ready to betray both; that the traitors should, throughout this period, uniformly and systematically pursue some fixed plan for the extension of the military establishment; that the governments and the people of the States should silently and patiently behold the gathering storm and continue to supply the materials until it should be prepared to burst on their own heads must appear to everyone more like the incoherent dreams of a delirious jealousy, or the misjudged exaggerations of a counterfeit zeal, than like the sober apprehensions of genuine patriotism. Extravagant as the supposition is, let it, however, be made. Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government: still it would not be going too far to say that the State governments with the people on their side would be able to repel the danger. The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops. Those who are best acquainted with the late successful resistance of this country against the British arms will be most inclined to deny the possibility of it. Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of.
--Madison, 46
 
More to the point, here's a idem on the today's news........ 14 people attacked by a blade on a campus in Texas ............. as much as I feel for the victims ........ It's not going to get knives banned, or hammers, etc.

People can drive their car down a busy side walk at speed, are they going to ban cars?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top