LR1955 Wrote:Stan: Sorry but you aren't going to change the meaning of your statements after your arguments have been soundly defeated.:confused: I'm not attempting to change their meaning.
LR1955 Wrote:You stated that there is no need for an American to own a AR-15 type of rifle because they would be useless when faced with tanks or armed helicopters from our military given an attempt by a regime to impose what we consider tyranny on the American people.I most certainly did not state that.
LR1955 Wrote:And assuming that a wannabee tyrant who somehow gets elected president won't move against the American people because he may not have the military to support him is also patently false. A military that supports them would be great but one that does nothing is almost as good. Hitler didn't have the military solidly behind him when he turned loose his Brown Shirts. Tyrants tend to use those they can depend on to get the momentum going that pushes fence sitters on to their side. They use their followers to start the movement -- militias and mobs.Good point. I was focused on enforcing gun confiscation, and figured that the military would have to be used in any effort to implement such a law.
LR1955 Wrote:You focus on an AR-15 design as one that isn't 'needed' by the public in the event that some tyrant wants to push a bit too far in taking away our rights and property. Because after all, a AR-15 isn't capable of stopping a M-1 Tank or Apache. I guess if it were, you would be saying it is OK to own? Yet you don't mention firearms like the M-1A, Garand, or even the puny M-1 Carbine. So why does the AR-15 make the cut in your book and not a M-1A or Garand?Oh, jeez. I was just using "AR15" as representative of military-type semi-auto rifles, because it's the most common such rifle owned by the public.
What I said in regard to the AR15 also applies to the M1A, M1 Garand, M1 carbine, Steyr AUG, SIG AMT, etc, etc.