tyeo098
Member
Sry, wat?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kent_State_shootings
I am not in any way anti-military or any kind of nonsense that puts the military in a bad light. Those men and women fight the for us here.
However, never say never.
What's the best Second Amendment purpose rifle/caliber?
- Thread starter henschman
- Start date
- Status
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kent_State_shootings
I am not in any way anti-military or any kind of nonsense that puts the military in a bad light. Those men and women fight the for us here.
However, never say never.
The_Armed_Therapist
Member
Springfield M1A .308
Since most modern battle rifles are in .308, I'll choose that, even though I am not a fan of the .308 compared to the .270, 7mm, and .30-06 for hunting/long range work. It's the practical choice.
If not the M1A, then an AR10, LR308, FAL, or PTR/HK91... All have effective ranges with adequate accuracy to shoot to 500-600 yards with plenty of power. The ammo is readily available, lots of choices, etc.
The .223/AR-15 is a distant 2nd in my opinion. While it is good for military work due to lower costs, less material used, etc, for suppressive fire and such, it doesn't have the range that a true rifleman would need for 2nd amendment purposes.
Everything else is at least a distant 3rd.
Since most modern battle rifles are in .308, I'll choose that, even though I am not a fan of the .308 compared to the .270, 7mm, and .30-06 for hunting/long range work. It's the practical choice.
If not the M1A, then an AR10, LR308, FAL, or PTR/HK91... All have effective ranges with adequate accuracy to shoot to 500-600 yards with plenty of power. The ammo is readily available, lots of choices, etc.
The .223/AR-15 is a distant 2nd in my opinion. While it is good for military work due to lower costs, less material used, etc, for suppressive fire and such, it doesn't have the range that a true rifleman would need for 2nd amendment purposes.
Everything else is at least a distant 3rd.
WinThePennant
Member
I'm going to say either AR15 or AK47.
Sidearm: Glock 19.
Sidearm: Glock 19.
surfinUSA
Member
I think most shooters shoot targets rather than hunt, so I'll say 5.56/.223 especially with all of the folks comming back from Iraq and Afghanistan.
After that I'd say the .22 long rifle. Best learning tool and practice arm there is. It's also a hell of a small game hunter and emergency food gatherer.
For some reason, with no basis in reality, we don't talk about SHTF situations here. Apparently, the Admin and mods have never lived through a real SHTF situation like Andrew or Katrina or now Sandy. I have. What I know from that experience is that having a firearm, any firearm is good. Nobody wants to be shot especially when no emergenncy medical services may be available.
Even a little Beretta .22 flip up barrel will do you right. An AR 15 or Remington 870 will do you better, but when the SHTF any gun will do. But to answer your question the 2nd amendment gun is either a 5.56 or .22 long rifle that everyone can afford and be capable of shooting well.
After that I'd say the .22 long rifle. Best learning tool and practice arm there is. It's also a hell of a small game hunter and emergency food gatherer.
For some reason, with no basis in reality, we don't talk about SHTF situations here. Apparently, the Admin and mods have never lived through a real SHTF situation like Andrew or Katrina or now Sandy. I have. What I know from that experience is that having a firearm, any firearm is good. Nobody wants to be shot especially when no emergenncy medical services may be available.
Even a little Beretta .22 flip up barrel will do you right. An AR 15 or Remington 870 will do you better, but when the SHTF any gun will do. But to answer your question the 2nd amendment gun is either a 5.56 or .22 long rifle that everyone can afford and be capable of shooting well.
TCBPATRIOT
Member
- Joined
- Jan 25, 2012
- Messages
- 178
M134d
fanchisimo
Member
M134d? While totally awesome, I don't think that would be a practical weapon since your ammo would be expended in a matter of minutes. Lol.
When I think everyday people. I think hunting rifles. 30-30, 308, .22, .243...
If you have to form up a militia, you are going to have to have weapons on hand. I know everyone here has an AR or an AK, but everyday people who hunt don't. I would prefer putting rifles that people are comfortable with in their hands then putting a more complicated weapon system that they have never used before. I would think a farmer with an Marlin 30-30, would be far deadlier then the same farmer with a rifle he's never used. I think you need to look to the human side. You will need to train those men/women/children to shoot so I would think the .22 would come into play. Just my 2 cents..
If you have to form up a militia, you are going to have to have weapons on hand. I know everyone here has an AR or an AK, but everyday people who hunt don't. I would prefer putting rifles that people are comfortable with in their hands then putting a more complicated weapon system that they have never used before. I would think a farmer with an Marlin 30-30, would be far deadlier then the same farmer with a rifle he's never used. I think you need to look to the human side. You will need to train those men/women/children to shoot so I would think the .22 would come into play. Just my 2 cents..
M4s and M14s come to mind.
If a person is effective with a lever .30-30 it won't be terribly difficult to get them at least as effective with a reliable semi automatic.
If you don't even have the ability to take a competent rifle shooter and train them to operate a semi auto rifle...exactly how effective are you going to be in training them to work together on a two way range?
Now, if people are reporting with their own guns, they bring what they bring.
If a person is effective with a lever .30-30 it won't be terribly difficult to get them at least as effective with a reliable semi automatic.
If you don't even have the ability to take a competent rifle shooter and train them to operate a semi auto rifle...exactly how effective are you going to be in training them to work together on a two way range?
Now, if people are reporting with their own guns, they bring what they bring.
You should choose the rifle that is very effective, ammo is in supply, parts can be found, can be fired by citizens that don't have a lot of experience, is proven in the field. AR15 is my choice for that question. Although I have rifles for other purposes, this is the one that makes sense in broad distribution. my 2 cents.
meanmrmustard
Member
AKMs and Glocks, with a smattering of Mosins and just a pinch of 1911s. Sounds like a recipe for awesome.
Ignition Override
Member
The primary reason I wanted the SKS was because many or our irrational "leaders" don't want us to own them. No kidding here. The military appearance scares irrational people more than the looks of my (former) Mini 30, despite having the same power and very limited ammo capacity.
The SKS' ergos seemed a bit better when compared to an AK clone.
The second reason was the price of the rifle (in March '08) and its use of one of the lowest-cost centerfire rounds. I did not then know about the very nice Czech Vz-58, and it costs a good bit more than the SKS, as it should.
If the price could be justified, the Vz-58, also being viewed with smug resentment and misplaced fear by many of our so-called "leaders", would also meet a primary requirement in terms of Why I have a military-style, sport/utility rifle.
The SKS' ergos seemed a bit better when compared to an AK clone.
The second reason was the price of the rifle (in March '08) and its use of one of the lowest-cost centerfire rounds. I did not then know about the very nice Czech Vz-58, and it costs a good bit more than the SKS, as it should.
If the price could be justified, the Vz-58, also being viewed with smug resentment and misplaced fear by many of our so-called "leaders", would also meet a primary requirement in terms of Why I have a military-style, sport/utility rifle.
Last edited:
baylorattorney
Member
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2011
- Messages
- 489
Any weapon that suits your budget and is easy for you to handle and become adept with, preferably a long gun rifle is suitable for 2d amendment purposes.
baylorattorney
Member
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2011
- Messages
- 489
The purpose of the second amendment is not to buy assault rifles or weapons that test antis resolve. The purpose is to have an armed populace who can shoot weapons they own.
henschman
Member
lefteyedom said:
Certainly, but such power has its limits. If all it took to end a resistance movement was a large and powerful enough air force, we would have won the war in Afghanistan years ago. Really the main purpose of an air force is to support the boys on the ground who have to take the ground, hold it, and keep control over all the subjects inhabiting the occupied area. Air power is extremely effective when the irregulars engage the regulars for too long, or remain in one place for too long. But if the resistance movement does a good job of blending into the civilian population and using strategies that best leverage its capabilities such as ambushes, bombing, assassination, sabotage, and assaulting the enemy when they are isolated and vulnerable, air power is difficult to bring to bear. Sure an air force can level a whole city; but that sort of heavy handed strategy and the civilian casualties that go with it are extremely counterproductive in a counter-insurgency in which the State is competing with the resistance for the support of the general population.
Only if you want to engage a 1st world superpower on it's own terms. History is full of determined irregulars overcoming regulars, despite severe numerical, technological, and logistical disadvantages. A study of past and current resistance movements is very instructive for anyone interested in the idea of an armed populace keeping centralized political power in check. The Boers, the IRA, all the various Partisans of WWII, the Vietcong, the Muj, the Wolverines (OK I am kidding about the last one -- sort of)... all have lessons to teach us about what it takes to run an effective resistance movement. A lot of it boils down to determination on the part of the resisters... but I'm sure you will agree that a little determination goes a much longer way in a population that is well armed and skilled in the use of arms than it does with a bunch of unarmed peasants. A heritage of resistance, rebellion, independence, and general hell-raising counts for a lot, too!
Last edited:
The old woman who had her home invaded in order to tackle, disarm, and remove her after Katrina (well known video hit Youtube)...I think that would qualify. Just a real world example that came to mind.
Ignition Override
Member
baylorattorney:
Maybe I misunderstood the OP's intent. You made some excellent points.
From that perspective, the several Enfields or Garand could also qualify.
Maybe I misunderstood the OP's intent. You made some excellent points.
From that perspective, the several Enfields or Garand could also qualify.
Shadow 7D
Member
Not really
Talk to us, talk to we who have returned from these last two (bleep - cause Art Granma wouldn't like it and Art loves giving infractions for it)
*places*
I could call a airstrike that could level a city
Don't mean I got the guy
I KNEW there is a sniper in that tower
but I can't engage it cause it's a Mosque minnerete
Locals won't talk, some are willing to say WHO IS local... but we can't just drag everybody the finger out and let ISF (who just let them go....) figure it out....
Standing up to a first rate military is a loosing proposition, and that's why nobody has done it 50 years. Rather, read up on a police state, it takes local knowledge, knowledge of WHO belongs WHERE. Insurgents top priority is to prevent that knowledge, you take out sympathizers, in a NASTY way (ask about what the VC did to village elders who didn't cooperate) Look at what the french resistance did to those who turned in a cell.
A standing fight will be what the deserter and those who REFUSE to support the regime engage in, with top flight arms, provided by those who support them and the territory they control (better hope to hell Washington (state) and Kansas are Rebel held)
Safe areas like Alaska provide training camps etc.
OTH, would you really like to try to capture LA/ southern Cali, or NYC and the North East sea boar, sorry but that's a place they can hold, means they have conscripts, but better to hold bread baskets and high tech protection centers near natural resources.
Talk to us, talk to we who have returned from these last two (bleep - cause Art Granma wouldn't like it and Art loves giving infractions for it)
*places*
I could call a airstrike that could level a city
Don't mean I got the guy
I KNEW there is a sniper in that tower
but I can't engage it cause it's a Mosque minnerete
Locals won't talk, some are willing to say WHO IS local... but we can't just drag everybody the finger out and let ISF (who just let them go....) figure it out....
Standing up to a first rate military is a loosing proposition, and that's why nobody has done it 50 years. Rather, read up on a police state, it takes local knowledge, knowledge of WHO belongs WHERE. Insurgents top priority is to prevent that knowledge, you take out sympathizers, in a NASTY way (ask about what the VC did to village elders who didn't cooperate) Look at what the french resistance did to those who turned in a cell.
A standing fight will be what the deserter and those who REFUSE to support the regime engage in, with top flight arms, provided by those who support them and the territory they control (better hope to hell Washington (state) and Kansas are Rebel held)
Safe areas like Alaska provide training camps etc.
OTH, would you really like to try to capture LA/ southern Cali, or NYC and the North East sea boar, sorry but that's a place they can hold, means they have conscripts, but better to hold bread baskets and high tech protection centers near natural resources.
henschman
Member
Certainly, a resistance movement that has little to no support among the non-combatant populace will not last long (the Weather Underground comes to mind). For a resistance movement to take hold, there must be at least some segment of the population in at least some distinct geographical area that has serious grievances with TPTB, sufficient for them to sympathize with and provide aid to those who choose to resist with force.
Of course, even in such a situation, it will take the first brave few to cross that line... but once they do, more will follow.
I realize we are getting into the larger dynamics of resistance movements with this conversation, but I do believe it is important to realize what resistance looks like in the real world to get an idea of what sort of hardware best suits the 2A role. Keep the comments coming!
Of course, even in such a situation, it will take the first brave few to cross that line... but once they do, more will follow.
I realize we are getting into the larger dynamics of resistance movements with this conversation, but I do believe it is important to realize what resistance looks like in the real world to get an idea of what sort of hardware best suits the 2A role. Keep the comments coming!
Do you have a link? I'm not familiar with the story, and your own description leaves me wondering who was doing the tackling and disarming.
I'm going to venture to say that if you were talking about the local police, the national guard or the military, that no, an armed resistance to a tyrannical state was not in order.
If you think a single entity screwing up (and I agree that if it's government authorities you're talking about, they certainly overstepped their bounds) is equal to a tyrannical state, then you and I have a totally different sense of scale.
The correct response is a legal/civil one to such an act, not a "second amendment solution."
First of all, if there's a disaster and the local authorities decide to drag you kicking and screaming out of your home, shooting at them is only going to make things worse for you.
Which only leaves actions after the event. Are you suggesting because some authorities got out of hand, that the old woman should start counter insurgency operations against the local constabulary?
Katrina didn't wipe away the court system.
Like I said, wrong answer, you will pay.
jakk280rem
Member
The "disarmed granny" scenario from Katrina is, indeed, a poor choice of example.
Time has shown that, had she decided to use armed resistance to being disarmed, she would be in jail right now for murder.
Instead, what happened happened...and now we have federal laws in place that prohibit such disarmament.
So...which playing of the scenario best promoted 2A rights?
Time has shown that, had she decided to use armed resistance to being disarmed, she would be in jail right now for murder.
Instead, what happened happened...and now we have federal laws in place that prohibit such disarmament.
So...which playing of the scenario best promoted 2A rights?
Elbert P . Suggins
Member
Every farm family in this country has a bolt action deer rifle and shotgun. 12guage and 30-06 are the norm and most every family member knows how to use them. Marlins, Remingtons, Winchesters, Savages and and the last few years we have acquired ar15s and aks. Nothing lives out to 500 yds in front of these scoped deer rifles. This country is armed to the teeth and Idaho is better armed then most South American countries. The state of Vermont back east for pete's sake has more arms than the country of Germany.
- Status
