Armed better than the armies, is what the citizens should be.

http://bearingarms.com/yes-professo...ve-wanted-us-to-have-rpgs-and-assault-rifles/

Do you wish to preserve your rights? Arm yourselves. Do you desire to secure your dwellings? Arm yourselves. Do you wish your wives and daughters protected? Arm yourselves. Do you wish to be defended against assassins or the Bully Rocks of faction? Arm yourselves. Do you desire to assemble in security to consult for your own good or the good of your country? Arm yourselves. To arms, to arms, and you may then sit down contented, each man under his own vine and his own fig-tree and have no one to make him afraid….If you are desirous to counteract a design pregnant with misery and ruin, then arm yourselves; for in a firm, imposing and dignified attitude, will consist your own security and that of your families. To arms, then to arms.

“The thoughtful reader may wonder, why wasn’t Jefferson’s proposal of ‘No freeman shall ever be debarred the use of arms’ adopted by the Virginia legislature? They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” (Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759.)

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jan/10/the-right-to-shoot-tyrants-not-deer/


The right of the people to keep and bear arms is an extension of the natural right to self-defense and a hallmark of personal sovereignty. It is specifically insulated from governmental interference by the Constitution and has historically been the linchpin of resistance to tyranny......

Today, the limitations on the power and precision of the guns we can lawfully own not only violate our natural right to self-defense and our personal sovereignties, they assure that a tyrant can more easily disarm and overcome us.

The historical reality of the Second Amendment’s protection of the right to keep and bear arms is not that it protects the right to shoot deer. It protects the right to shoot tyrants, and it protects the right to shoot at them effectively, with the same instruments they would use upon us

A .30-06 is far more effective at 400 yards than a M-4. Get both.

I say that if I can't own it, then the state shouldn't be allowed either. And OC for me is right, people should have an AR-10 (or something in 30 caliber) in addition to 223.

I think that is reasonable until one comes to heavy arms MOAB type and nuclear type. I am not sure I have an answer to those things.

If you are in the radius of the MOAB/nuke you won't need an answer.

OC for ME said:

If you are in the radius of the MOAB/nuke you won't need an answer.

Click to expand...

You'll need a refrigerator .. like in that movie raiders of aliens or something ... with H. Ford

77zach said:

I say that if I can't own it, then the state shouldn't be allowed either. And OC for me is right, people should have an AR-10 (or something in 30 caliber) in addition to 223.

Click to expand...

We also all agree with Thomas Jefferson: "Tyranny is defined as that which is legal for the government but illegal for the citizenry."

MamabearCali said:

I think that is reasonable until one comes to heavy arms MOAB type and nuclear type. I am not sure I have an answer to those things.

Click to expand...

The answer is the same, if we can't trust ourselves to own heavy arms, why would we trust a government to own them?

georg jetson said:

The answer is the same, if we can't trust ourselves to own heavy arms, why would we trust a government to own them?

Click to expand...

Uh, no. I would trust a great many folks that i know with heavy arms, the government, not so much.

OC for ME said:

Uh, no. I would trust a great many folks that i know with heavy arms, the government, not so much.

Click to expand...

I believe the intent of his message was as follows, we cannot grant powers to the government that we don't first have ourselves.

He just presented it in a very round about sort of way.

georg jetson said:

We also all agree with Thomas Jefferson: "Tyranny is defined as that which is legal for the government but illegal for the citizenry."

Click to expand...

Or Madison...

Madison himself wrote that a regular army that threatened liberty would find itself opposed by "a militia amounting to near a half a million citizens with arms in their hands." The Federalist No. 46, at 299 (James Madison) (Willmore Kendall & George W. Carey eds., 1966).

Or,or,or..many examples from our founding fathers ...

Freedom1Man said:

I believe the intent of his message was as follows, we cannot grant powers to the government that we don't first have ourselves.

He just presented it in a very round about sort of way.

Click to expand...

That's not what I meant. I was trying to say that the answer that MamabearCali doesn't seem to have was the same(answer) as the post I made just prior. Round about sort of way none the less.

davidmcbeth said:

Or Madison...

Madison himself wrote that a regular army that threatened liberty would find itself opposed by "a militia amounting to near a half a million citizens with arms in their hands." The Federalist No. 46, at 299 (James Madison) (Willmore Kendall & George W. Carey eds., 1966).

Or,or,or..many examples from our founding fathers ...

Click to expand...

That doesn't necessarily address the "type" of weapons. Jefferson's quote better points out the issue of 'government can, citizen can't", all weapons included.

I do not wish to grant the fedgov any domestic powers. I want them to do what they were "chartered" to do. Advocate for the US of A on the international stage and settle any disputes between the several states. If I do not like what my state is doing I will move to a state that does what I like.

OC for ME said:

I do not wish to grant the fedgov any domestic powers. I want them to do what they were "chartered" to do. Advocate for the US of A on the international stage and settle any disputes between the several states. If I do not like what my state is doing I will move to a state that does what I like.

Click to expand...

Well said.