I really need to buy a new gun...

As a European who will never know this joy, can I ask what Americans' obsession with guns is all about?

 

For me, it seems to be one of:

Exercising your rights

Protection

Sport

 

Anything I'm missing? The American gun phenomenon blows my mind (excuse the horrible pun). What really struck me was the wording of the OP, stating that he "needs" a new gun. My immediate repsonse was to question who ever "needs" a new gun, and why. Hope this doesn't sound provocative, I'm genuinely interested.

Pretty much summed it up above. Never forget the "cool" factor which really is a subset of "Sport". It's just a really enjoyable way to spend time and money!

As a European who will never know this joy, can I ask what Americans' obsession with guns is all about?

 

For me, it seems to be one of:

Exercising your rights

Protection

Sport

 

Anything I'm missing? The American gun phenomenon blows my mind (excuse the horrible pun). What really struck me was the wording of the OP, stating that he "needs" a new gun. My immediate repsonse was to question who ever "needs" a new gun, and why. Hope this doesn't sound provocative, I'm genuinely interested.

 

Oh... I definitely needed a new gun! I couldnt shoot what I wanted to shoot with what I had. Therefore, I needed a new gun!

 

Why do I like guns (you say obsess, I say like... I like my lamborghini... To the point that I have 20,000+ posts on a forum I moderate dedicated to Lamborghinis... Am I obsessed with it? Nope... Obsession implies unhealthy, and there's nothing unhealthy with my interest in cars or guns.)

 

Guns are a tool. Like a hammer. If you need a screwdriver and dont have one there is no substitute. The same goes for a gun. (I also like tools. I may never use my 3" impact drive socket. But I own one.) And, Ive been in that situation where I really needed a gun and DIDN'T have one- Never again.

 

Guns are fun. Shooting is fun. There is a reason Michael Bay and Jerry Bruckheimer are multi millionaires. People, particularly men, like things that go "boom". Beyond that theres the sport of it... Anybody can pick up a gun and shoot it... Hitting a bullseye at 1000 yards... That takes skill... And practice...

 

Guns are art. The craftmanship. The mechanical precision, but yet they function so simply. Ive built many of my own firearms... Its a great hobby... I wholeheartedly think more Europeans should take it up....

 

 

And finally, the politics.

 

I think theres a major evolutionary disconnect between most Americans and our predominantly european cousins. Keep in mind, OUR ancestors had a courage and spirit of adventure that made them say "fcuk this place, I'm outta here" in a day and age when that meant leaving your family and friends behind, knowing you would never see any of them again, to hop on a boat and travel to a place where they knew nobody, and could very well die in transit. YOUR ancestors stayed put.

 

We are by our very DNA individualists. We are stubbornly self sufficient. We naturally resist authority... In fact we're suspicious of it... The gun makes individualism possible. To borrow a cliche, "God created man, Samuel Colt made them equal".

 

I used to live in the city and didnt realize the entire "hunting culture" that exists all over America. I now know lots of people who only eat meat that they hunt themselves. Think about that for a fcuking second... Thats amazing! That type of self sufficiency has been lost to most of the westernized world, but millions of us hang on to it, even though the grocery store has plenty of meat all year long and is just down the street. Why? Because theres just something satisfying to a man when he knows, no matter what happens, he can provide food and protection for himself and his family. It satisfies an inherently masculine instinct. And honestly, Im shocked that that 20 million year old instinct has been successfully bred out of the rest of the world's population.

 

And... American's don't get on the boxcars. We pick up our fcuking guns and throw lead downrange- because we still can. (And which is also why we haven't had to for 150 years.)

 

At least most of us do... There is a constant war going on in America between American culture and European culture...

 

Some of us have forgotten why our ancestors took the great risks and suffered the hardships they did to get here, and their desire is to turn America into a miniature version of the places they fled.

 

Some of us haven't.

 

 

 

 

I always find it amusing when europeans wonder outloud why Americans like guns... Its kindof like a virgin saying "whats so great about sex?" Sure, maybe if you were in the military you humped a rifle... But thats a fcuking job, and nothing takes the fun out of something like being told you have to do it... Freedom is fun.... Yeah... its messy. It has its costs... And like getting on a boat in 1850 and coming across the Atlantic, its risky. But you really don't know what you're missing.

Oh... I definitely needed a new gun! I couldnt shoot what I wanted to shoot with what I had. Therefore, I needed a new gun!

 

Why do I like guns (you say obsess, I say like... I like my lamborghini... To the point that I have 20,000+ posts on a forum I moderate dedicated to Lamborghinis... Am I obsessed with it? Nope... Obsession implies unhealthy, and there's nothing unhealthy with my interest in cars or guns.)

 

Guns are a tool. Like a hammer. If you need a screwdriver and dont have one there is no substitute. The same goes for a gun. (I also like tools. I may never use my 3" impact drive socket. But I own one.) And, Ive been in that situation where I really needed a gun and DIDN'T have one- Never again.

 

Guns are fun. Shooting is fun. There is a reason Michael Bay and Jerry Bruckheimer are multi millionaires. People, particularly men, like things that go "boom". Beyond that theres the sport of it... Anybody can pick up a gun and shoot it... Hitting a bullseye at 1000 yards... That takes skill... And practice...

 

Guns are art. The craftmanship. The mechanical precision, but yet they function so simply. Ive built many of my own firearms... Its a great hobby... I wholeheartedly think more Europeans should take it up....

 

 

And finally, the politics.

 

I think theres a major evolutionary disconnect between most Americans and our predominantly european cousins. Keep in mind, OUR ancestors had a courage and spirit of adventure that made them say "fcuk this place, I'm outta here" in a day and age when that meant leaving your family and friends behind, knowing you would never see any of them again, to hop on a boat and travel to a place where they knew nobody, and could very well die in transit. YOUR ancestors stayed put.

 

We are by our very DNA individualists. We are stubbornly self sufficient. We naturally resist authority... In fact we're suspicious of it... The gun makes individualism possible. To borrow a cliche, "God created man, Samuel Colt made them equal".

 

I used to live in the city and didnt realize the entire "hunting culture" that exists all over America. I now know lots of people who only eat meat that they hunt themselves. Think about that for a fcuking second... Thats amazing! That type of self sufficiency has been lost to most of the westernized world, but millions of us hang on to it, even though the grocery store has plenty of meat all year long and is just down the street. Why? Because theres just something satisfying to a man when he knows, no matter what happens, he can provide food and protection for himself and his family. It satisfies an inherently masculine instinct. And honestly, Im shocked that that 20 million year old instinct has been successfully bred out of the rest of the world's population.

 

And... American's don't get on the boxcars. We pick up our fcuking guns and throw lead downrange- because we still can.

 

At least most of us do... There is a constant war going on in America between American culture and European culture...

 

Some of us have forgotten why our ancestors took the great risks and suffered the hardships they did to get here, and their desire is to turn America into a miniature version of the places they fled.

 

Some of us haven't.

 

 

 

 

I always find it amusing when europeans wonder outloud why Americans like guns... Its kindof like a virgin saying "whats so great about sex?" Sure, maybe if you were in the military you humped a rifle... But thats a fcuking job, and nothing takes the fun out of something like being told you have to do it... Freedom is fun.... Yeah... its messy. It has its costs... And like getting on a boat in 1850 and coming across the Atlantic, its risky. But you really don't know what you're missing.

 

Damn this is amazingly well put. Nice job RD.

 

Damn this is amazingly well put. Nice job RD.

Totally. Impressive.

 

Guns are a fun hobby. It's a "guy" thing. Someday they'll probably be less/not available. It's also the semi-vestigal fourth arm of the check/balance system in this country.

 

Oh... I definitely needed a new gun! I couldnt shoot what I wanted to shoot with what I had. Therefore, I needed a new gun!

 

Why do I like guns (you say obsess, I say like... I like my lamborghini... To the point that I have 20,000+ posts on a forum I moderate dedicated to Lamborghinis... Am I obsessed with it? Nope... Obsession implies unhealthy, and there's nothing unhealthy with my interest in cars or guns.)

 

Guns are a tool. Like a hammer. If you need a screwdriver and dont have one there is no substitute. The same goes for a gun. (I also like tools. I may never use my 3" impact drive socket. But I own one.) And, Ive been in that situation where I really needed a gun and DIDN'T have one- Never again.

 

Guns are fun. Shooting is fun. There is a reason Michael Bay and Jerry Bruckheimer are multi millionaires. People, particularly men, like things that go "boom". Beyond that theres the sport of it... Anybody can pick up a gun and shoot it... Hitting a bullseye at 1000 yards... That takes skill... And practice...

 

Guns are art. The craftmanship. The mechanical precision, but yet they function so simply. Ive built many of my own firearms... Its a great hobby... I wholeheartedly think more Europeans should take it up....

 

 

And finally, the politics.

 

I think theres a major evolutionary disconnect between most Americans and our predominantly european cousins. Keep in mind, OUR ancestors had a courage and spirit of adventure that made them say "fcuk this place, I'm outta here" in a day and age when that meant leaving your family and friends behind, knowing you would never see any of them again, to hop on a boat and travel to a place where they knew nobody, and could very well die in transit. YOUR ancestors stayed put.

 

We are by our very DNA individualists. We are stubbornly self sufficient. We naturally resist authority... In fact we're suspicious of it... The gun makes individualism possible. To borrow a cliche, "God created man, Samuel Colt made them equal".

 

I used to live in the city and didnt realize the entire "hunting culture" that exists all over America. I now know lots of people who only eat meat that they hunt themselves. Think about that for a fcuking second... Thats amazing! That type of self sufficiency has been lost to most of the westernized world, but millions of us hang on to it, even though the grocery store has plenty of meat all year long and is just down the street. Why? Because theres just something satisfying to a man when he knows, no matter what happens, he can provide food and protection for himself and his family. It satisfies an inherently masculine instinct. And honestly, Im shocked that that 20 million year old instinct has been successfully bred out of the rest of the world's population.

 

And... American's don't get on the boxcars. We pick up our fcuking guns and throw lead downrange- because we still can. (And which is also why we haven't had to for 150 years.)

 

At least most of us do... There is a constant war going on in America between American culture and European culture...

 

Some of us have forgotten why our ancestors took the great risks and suffered the hardships they did to get here, and their desire is to turn America into a miniature version of the places they fled.

 

Some of us haven't.

 

 

 

 

I always find it amusing when europeans wonder outloud why Americans like guns... Its kindof like a virgin saying "whats so great about sex?" Sure, maybe if you were in the military you humped a rifle... But thats a fcuking job, and nothing takes the fun out of something like being told you have to do it... Freedom is fun.... Yeah... its messy. It has its costs... And like getting on a boat in 1850 and coming across the Atlantic, its risky. But you really don't know what you're missing.

 

 

Well said and always love your comments on LP!

On another note...Much respect going out to my friend Ed Byers! Ed will be honored today with the nation's highest valor award. Senior Chief Special Warfare Operator (SEAL) Edward Byers will become the Navy's first living Medal of Honor recipient in Decades when he is honored today at the White House. Hooyah Ed!

On another note...Much respect going out to my friend Ed Byers! Ed will be honored today with the nation's highest valor award. Senior Chief Special Warfare Operator (SEAL) Edward Byers will become the Navy's first living Medal of Honor recipient in Decades when he is honored today at the White House. Hooyah Ed!

I read his commendation last week. Holy fcuking badass.

On another note...Much respect going out to my friend Ed Byers! Ed will be honored today with the nation's highest valor award. Senior Chief Special Warfare Operator (SEAL) Edward Byers will become the Navy's first living Medal of Honor recipient in Decades when he is honored today at the White House. Hooyah Ed!

Just dropped by my gunsmith's to check out how the stipling project is going on my Glock 26, ended up seeing this gem and had to take a nice pic of it...

As a European who will never know this joy, can I ask what Americans' obsession with guns is all about?

 

For me, it seems to be one of:

Exercising your rights

Protection

Sport

 

Anything I'm missing? The American gun phenomenon blows my mind (excuse the horrible pun). What really struck me was the wording of the OP, stating that he "needs" a new gun. My immediate repsonse was to question who ever "needs" a new gun, and why. Hope this doesn't sound provocative, I'm genuinely interested.

 

 

I'm actually surprised you don't get the appeal since I find it very similar to cars. Nobody "needs" a Lambo, a civic will provide transportation, but the experience is cool, the capability of the vehicle (or in this case gun) is a feeling of empowerment that when enjoyed responsibly is a blast to play with. Much like with a sports car, the precision and efficiency that some of these firearms are capable of is amazing. And much like with a car, there is an element of raw power in your hands that turns grown men into children based on the appreciation of the machine's capabilities. Oh and they do keep you safer (and more in control of an ugly situation) than any European could understand:P

What do you all think about the Walther PPQ (9mm)? I am between it, a G17, or a 911. Right now I am really liking the PPQ.

What do you all think about the Walther PPQ (9mm)? I am between it, a G17, or a 911. Right now I am really liking the PPQ.

 

The PPQ is a great gun, tighter tolerances than Glocks, in my opinion more accurate, however, I'm just not particularly fond of it compared to the P99 with the Anti-Stress (AS) trigger. That was a phenomenal firearm for the money, eventually I'll be picking up another second generation P99 AS in 9mm.

 

It ultimately depends on what you're going to be using it for, are you using it for training with constant trips to the range and going to get down and dirty? Or are you using it to occasionally punch holes in paper? Is it going to be a home defense pistol? Etc.

 

I would recommend looking into the Sig Sauer P229 Enhanced Elite, without knowing your particular requirements, it's currently one of my favorite pistols.

I would recommend looking into the Sig Sauer P229 Enhanced Elite, without knowing your particular requirements, it's currently one of my favorite pistols.

 

 

I have an M11-A1 229 (very similar to the EE without the beavertail frame) and it's a fantastic gun. Admittedly i'm kind of a sig-aholic now, but they make great stuff.

Thank you all for the advice! I will have to check both of those options out too. I love firearms, but know relatively little on modern handguns. I know a ton on historical firearms (and have quite a few), as well as know a good amount on assault rifles ( also have some of those lol), but handguns are my weak area. I am looking for something that is a decent blend of defense capabilities, fun to put holes in paper with, and a future concealed carry weapon. I have to shoot more .45s, but normally prefer 9mm. I would like to keep it under $1,000.00 and nothing too "delicate." Sorry if any of that sounds ignorant!

Thank you all for the advice! I will have to check both of those options out too. I love firearms, but know relatively little on modern handguns. I know a ton on historical firearms (and have quite a few), as well as know a good amount on assault rifles ( also have some of those lol), but handguns are my weak area. I am looking for something that is a decent blend of defense capabilities, fun to put holes in paper with, and a future concealed carry weapon. I have to shoot more .45s, but normally prefer 9mm. I would like to keep it under $1,000.00 and nothing too "delicate." Sorry if any of that sounds ignorant!

 

First... stop calling them assault rifles.

 

IMO a Sig 229 isn't a CCW gun. I'm a big guy and short of wearing a sweatshirt or shoulder rig under a sport coat i'm not concealing that thing. It's only a little smaller than a 226 or 227, and with the double stack mag is pretty thick in the handle. An absolute delight to shoot, but you'll hate carrying it.

 

You live close to Roman, buy the guy dinner and pick his brain, he will steer you in the right direction.

 

What does this mean?

First... stop calling them assault rifles.

 

IMO a Sig 229 isn't a CCW gun. I'm a big guy and short of wearing a sweatshirt or shoulder rig under a sport coat i'm not concealing that thing. It's only a little smaller than a 226 or 227, and with the double stack mag is pretty thick in the handle. An absolute delight to shoot, but you'll hate carrying it.

 

You live close to Roman, buy the guy dinner and pick his brain, he will steer you in the right direction.

 

Thanks for the advice! I will always take as much as I can get.

 

Lol, just out of curiosity, what is wrong with assault rifles? I consider an AK-47 an assault rifle.

Thank you all for the advice! I will have to check both of those options out too. I love firearms, but know relatively little on modern handguns. I know a ton on historical firearms (and have quite a few), as well as know a good amount on assault rifles ( also have some of those lol), but handguns are my weak area. I am looking for something that is a decent blend of defense capabilities, fun to put holes in paper with, and a future concealed carry weapon. I have to shoot more .45s, but normally prefer 9mm. I would like to keep it under $1,000.00 and nothing too "delicate." Sorry if any of that sounds ignorant!

 

Future conceal carry? Here's a list of guns you should look into, not all of them, just off the top of my head...

 

- Glock 26 (9mm)

- Glock 27 (.40)

- Glock 29 (10mm)

- Glock 30 (.45)

- Glock 43 (9mm Single Stack)

- H&K P30 SK

- H&K P2000 SK

- Sig Sauer P225

- Walther P99C w/ AS Trigger

- Springfield Armory XD/XDS

- S&W M&P C's

- 3" and 4" 1911s

 

 

 

Thanks for the advice! I will always take as much as I can get.

 

Lol, just out of curiosity, what is wrong with assault rifles? I consider an AK-47 an assault rifle.

 

Professor Roman explains it far better than I ever could:

The term "Assault Weapon" was coined by the Violence Policy Center (an anti gun group). The term has no commonly accepted definition. There is no consistency of what constitutes an "assualt weapon" either from state to state, or nationally... When they try to ban "assault weapons", its based on a series of cosmetic features that makes ABSOLUTELY NO DIFFERENCE TO HOW THE WEAPON OPERATES..., Each law lists different features as the "evil" ones... A "flash hider" or a "Bayonet Lug" for example.... The term was INTENTIONALLY created as a PR project to characterize ALL MODERN FIREARMS IN A NEGATIVE LIGHT. "ASSAULT (a crime) WEAPONS" Sort of the same as "Cop Killer Bullets" (Also dont exist and never have).

 

More to read here:

http://www.lambopower.com/forum/index.php?...%20rifle\

This is a long post, but just so as to give SpecialK some more information regarding the American belief in gun rights.

 

As a European who will never know this joy, can I ask what Americans' obsession with guns is all about?

 

For me, it seems to be one of:

Exercising your rights

Protection

Sport

 

Anything I'm missing? The American gun phenomenon blows my mind (excuse the horrible pun). What really struck me was the wording of the OP, stating that he "needs" a new gun. My immediate repsonse was to question who ever "needs" a new gun, and why. Hope this doesn't sound provocative, I'm genuinely interested.

 

In addition to the fun aspect mentioned by others and how you can extend the argument about "needs" to things like fast cars, the "American" gun phenomenon" dates back to ancient times and is a continuation of a principle that started, at least formally, in ancient Greece. The Greek city-states were in constant war with each other, but also had debates about the ideal way a state should be structured. Plato, student of Socrates, argued that the ideal form of a state was one in which the people were ruled by a professional class of elites, i.e. the "philosopher-kings," and the arms were kept in a centralized location. He talks about his ideal form of state in his work "The Republic." Aristotle, his student, broke with him completely on this, arguing that the ideal form of a society should be a constitutional democracy, where everyone possesses arms, arguing that if only one class of people possesses arms, then everyone else is at risk of coming under the mercy of that class. He talks about this repeatedly and describes his ideal form of state in his work "Politics:"

 

Of forms of government in which one rules, we call that which regards the common interests, kingship or royalty; that in which more than one, but not many, rule, aristoracy; and it is so called, either because the rulers are the best men, or because they have at heart the best interests of the state and of the citizens. But when the citizens at large administer the state for the common interest, the government is called by the generic name---a constitution. And there is a reason for this use of language. One man or a few may excel in virtue; but as the number increases it becomes more difficult for them to attain perfection in every kind of virtue, though they may in military virtue, for this is found in the masses. Hence in a constitution government the fighting-men have the supreme power, and those who possess arms are the citizens.

 

~~Book III, Chapter VII

 

and

 

Let us then enumerate the functions of a state, and we shall easily elicit what we want:

 

Firstly, there must be food; secondly, arts, for life requires many instruments; thirdly, there must be arms, for the members of a community have need of them, and in their own hands, too, in order to maintain authority both against disobedient subjects and against external assailants;

 

~~Book VII, Chapter VIII

 

and

 

But on the other hand, since it is an impossible thing that those who are able to use or to resist force should be willing to remain always in subjection, from this point of view the persons are the same; for those who carry arms can always determine the fat of the constitution.

 

~~Book VII, Chapter IX

 

and

 

That tyranny has all the vices both of democracy and oligarchy is evident. As of oligarchy so of tyranny, the end is wealth; (for by wealth only can the tyrant maintain either his guard or his luxury). Both mistrust the people, and therefore deprive them of their arms.

 

~~Book V, Chapter X

 

in response to another philosopher, Hippodamus:

 

The first of these proposals to which objection may be taken is the threefold division of the citizens. The artisans, and the husbandmen, and the warriors, all have a share in the government. But the husbandmen have no arms, and the artisans neither arms nor land, and therefore they become all but slaves of the warrior class.

 

~~Book II, Chapter VIII

 

So we see that Aristotle pioneered the concept of a people being armed to protect against criminals and to check a tyranny. In Athens, the citizens were to be armed as well to protect the city-state itself. Of course at the time, "citizen" was a specific class, as it did not include slaves or women, but we are talking about the development of the concepts we widely accept today.

 

In ancient Rome, which adopted much of the knowledge created by the Greeks, there was understood in Roman law to be a right to self-defense. In addition, Cicero, Roman lawyer and politician, staunch defender of the Roman Republic, and considered one of the greatest orators in Rome and in history, was an advocate for the right to resist tyrannies and an advocate for the right to self-defense. He argues for this in his Defense of Titus Annius Milo:

 

What is the meaning of our retinues, what of our swords? Surely it would never be permitted to us to have them if we might never use them. This, therefore, is a law, O judges, not written, but born with us,—which we have not learnt or received by tradition, or read, but which we have taken and sucked in and imbibed from nature herself; a law which we were not taught but to which we were made,—which we were not trained in, but which is ingrained in us,—namely, that if our life be in danger from plots, or from open violence, or from the weapons of robbers or enemies, every means of securing our safety is honourable.

 

The law very wisely, and in a manner silently, gives a man a right to defend himself, and does not merely forbid a man to be slain, but forbids any one to leave a weapon about him with the object of slaying a man; so that as the object and not the weapon itself, is made the subject of the inquiry, the man who had used a weapon with the object of defending himself would be decided not to have had his weapon about him with the object of killing a man. Let, then, this principle remembered by you in this trial, O judges; for I do not doubt that I shall make good my defence before you, if you only remember—what you cannot forget—that a plotter against one may be lawfully slain.

 

Later on, Thomas Aquinas, who played a large role in the rediscovering of Aristotle and basically created a Christian version of Aristotle, spoke of the right to resist tyranny in his Commentary on the Sentences of Peter Lombard. One of the confusing parts for Christians over the centuries has been Romans 13: 1-7, which many interpret as saying that one must submit to all forms of governmental authority, no matter what, and not doing so is a sin. Christian pastors in Germany, during the Nazis, for example, said refusing obedience to the Nazis would be against God. Aquinas addressed Romans 13:

 

But, as we have already said, authority may fail to derive from God for two reasons: either because of the way in which authority has been obtained, or in consequence of the use which is made of it.

There are two ways in which the first case may occur. Either because of a defect in the person, if he is unworthy; or because of some defect in the way itself by which power was acquired, if, for example, through violence, or simony or some other illegal method. The first defect is not such as to impede the acquisition of legitimate authority; and since authority derives always, from a formal point of view, from God (and it is this which produces the duty of obedience), their subjects are always obliged to obey such superiors, however unworthy they may be. But the second defect prevents the establishment of any just authority: for whoever possesses himself of power by violence does not truly become lord or master. Therefore it is permissible, when occasion offers, for a person to reject such authority; except in the case that it subsequently became legitimate, either through public consent or through the intervention of higher authority.

 

With regard to the abuse of authority, this also may come about in two ways. First, when what is ordered by an authority is opposed to the object for which that authority was constituted (if, for example, some sinful action is commanded or one which is contrary to virtue, when it is precisely for the protection and fostering of virtue that authority is instituted). In such a case, not only is there no obligation to obey the authority, but one is obliged to disobey it, as did the holy martyrs who suffered death rather than obey the impious commands of tyrants. Secondly, when those who bear such authority command things which exceed the competence of such authority; as, for example, when a master demands payment from a servant which the latter is not bound to make, and other similar cases. In this instance the subject is free to obey or disobey.

 

Then in addition there was England. England being an island nation, its politics developed differently from the continental European systems, where absolute monarchy ruled. In England, by contrast, the people there had been fighting off invaders for many years. Rome struggled to maintain control in England, for example, and then after the fall of the Western Roman empire, certain tribes took control and established kingdoms, and then eventually a check on the power of the monarch occurred, starting with the Magna Carta. One of the very unique facets of the English was in the development of the very lethal weapon of the time, the longbow, and the English people's adoption of it.

 

Now the longbow was a bad-ass weapon. A draw resistance of about 120-140 lbs and shot big, heavy arrows, that could penetrate the heaviest, thickest armor of the time. A force of longbowmen could stop an army of knights. The longbowmen at Agincourt, for example, slaughtered the French knights. The English longbowmen, however, consisted of peasants. Not only were peasants able to possess longbows, but their training with them was encouraged and also required by law. All fighting age males capable of bearing arms had to practice regularly with the longbow. Now in comparison to the continental European nations, this was UNHEARD OF. The ways known to maintain a monarchy are to disarm the people (and stifle speech). You do not allow the people to possess weapons, and you ESPECIALLY do not REQUIRE them to become well-trained in the primary weapon that could allow a force of peasants to slaughter a force of professional knights. So England had a big tradition of fighting off invaders, checking dictatorships (both legally and by force of arms), and of private possession of arms.

 

This caused problems of course, as England still had monarchs (albeit more limited) who sought to increase their power constantly which create constant tension with the English people. This led to a revolt against the Stuarts in the 1600s because they had tried to disarm the English people.

 

Anyhow, fast-forward to the forming of what is today the United States, and most of the original colonists were English. They brought with them English concepts, including the concept of a right to self-defense and private possession of arms by the people. In addition, arms were essential to survival, as they had to completely build a whole new society from scratch. Then, like their English forebears, they got tired of being ruled, and decided to throw off control of their rulers (England), and so fought a war and won independence. Much of this was also inspired by Romans 13:1-7, in which many Christian leaders at the time argued to the American colonists that it was not any sin to fight the English for independence, because the English dictatorship was not authority of God (adopting Aquinas's argument). Also, the Bible is replete with stories of peoples fighting tyrannies. The Protestant Reformation also played a huge role in all this as well, but that's a whole other subject.

 

Some of the critical philosophers that highly influenced the Founders, including the guys mentioned above, were Algernon Sydney, John Locke, Thomas Hobbes, John Milton, William Blackstone (English jurist), and Charles Montesquieu. Sydney, Locke, Hobbes, Blackstone, and Montesquieu all argued for an individual right to self-defense, and Milton (also known for poetry) argued for resistance theory (right to resist tyranny). The English Whigs overall, (it was said that the majority of Americans were by outlook Whigs) supported the right to arms.

 

Thomas Jefferson said that the four most influential philosophers in the writing of the Declaration of Independence were Aristotle, Cicero, Algernon Sydney, and John Locke. All four supported the concept of possession of arms by the people for self-defense and to check a tyranny.

 

England in the 20th century went a good deal socialist-leaning and gave up its right to arms as well, as did much of the rest of Europe and other Western nations where the concept of private possession of arms was never strong to begin with. The United States, by contrast, continues the tradition of having possession of arms by the people as a fundamental right, both of individual self-defense and to check a tyranny, which as said is grounded in ancient Greece, Rome, England, and Christianity, four things that were HUGELY influential in the development of America and still looked to today.

Thanks for the advice! I will always take as much as I can get.

 

Lol, just out of curiosity, what is wrong with assault rifles? I consider an AK-47 an assault rifle.

 

The technical definition of an assault rifle is a weapon that fires an intermediate-power cartridge and has select-fire capability. So if your AK-47 has automatic or burst-fire capability, it is an assault rifle. However, there are plenty of AK-47s manufactured today that are semiautomatic, and thus not technically assault rifles. The gun control proponents like to label them as "assault weapons" which as pointed out by emanon and Roman is a totally arbitrary term defined by the politicians however they please.

So I invited my friend Jeff, AKA Ghillie to take a peek at this thread... He's the ARTISAN who made this:

From a box full of parts and an unbent receiver...

 

 

If he says hi, treat him like the awesomeness he is. (And hes a badass vet too...)

Thanks for the advice! I will always take as much as I can get.

 

Lol, just out of curiosity, what is wrong with assault rifles? I consider an AK-47 an assault rifle.

 

 

Umm... Thats not what he said... What he said was, "Buy me fcuking dinner" sport.... I have a hunger for Jeff Ruby's.

So I invited my friend Jeff, AKA Ghillie to take a peek at this thread... He's the ARTISAN who made this:

From a box full of parts and an unbent receiver...

 

 

If he says hi, treat him like the awesomeness he is. (And hes a badass vet too...)

Those are integrally suppressed right?

Those are integrally suppressed right?

Correct