JPH wrote:There are some excellent points being made here and I appreciate the conversation. Be that as it may, no one has addressed the question that brought me into this thread.
What is the necessary level of armament needed for an individual to maintain a reasonable ability to defend oneself and sereve as member of the militia in modern America and what level of armament represents a danger?
Excuse me? Your question(s) are the only thing I have addressed. And I stand by my answer. "The necessary level of armament needed is whatever it takes to stop the threat".
Now if you can tell me what the threat is, and what it will take to stop it, we'll have a more specific answer. If the threat is a lone intruder in the middle of the night, and one well placed shot stops him in his tracks, is that to say that the same level of armament is going to be needed if the threat is three intruders all armed with at least 2 firearms with 15 plus round magazines? Or what if the threat is two high school kids that walk into a building with multiple handguns, a couple shotguns and a duffel bag of magazines (all ten round magazines of course)?
In the previous conversation you stated “I’m worried about some of the company we keep, as gun lovers” in the context that some use the extremist argument that we should be able to have RPG's and tanks and that you feel these people hurt the pro gun argument.
Then when I answer that “No gun represents a danger on its own” in regards to the second part of your question, you respond to me saying “The potential threats are limitless if you have an active imagination. Aircraft could pose a threat. So should we all be able to go out and buy shoulder fired surface to air missiles?”
You can’t condemn this line of thinking on one hand and then use it as your argument.
You previously stated “There is no room for free thinking on the pro gun side”. It’s an argument of “control” vs. “rights”. Which one of those terms do you feel is indicative of “free thinking”?
I’ll try to demonstrate a few of the flaws in the anti modern sporting rifle/high capacity magazine argument that the gun control proponents are supporting with a couple of videos.
The first one was in response to an anti gun legislator that claimed he didn't need an AR15 to hunt duck. The premise being that an AR15 with high capacity magazines is more dangerous than a commonly used shotgun.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w0o7YgiTFm4
5 rounds per target with AR15 = 33 seconds
The same 5 targets:
9 rounds per target with Gramps' duck gun = 3 seconds
The second clip demonstrated the difference between an “assault rifle” and the modern sporting arms that are currently being discussed, and a demonstration in the effectiveness of a 10 round magazine limit.http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=8C-CLsMRcA0
Live to Hunt, Hunt to Live.