Originally Posted by LoSconosciuto";p=&quot

I realize you weren't asking me. But I'm Truebrit's "favorite gun nut", so I figured I'd pipe up. Unless you're something of an enthusiast, and you are still somewhat concerned with its self defense potential, I'd choose a revolver over a semi-auto pistol. If you don't like the 9mm round, you probably won't care for the .38. So go with a .357 maybe (similar size, but more power). There are a LOT of exotic calibers floating around now... I can't keep up. The soundest, simplest, most reliable handgun I can think of is the Glock. Functions as well as a revolver, but has the action of a semi-auto (though it fires with a heavier double-action trigger pull). Try the Model 22 in .40 caliber. I have the .40 and my mom has the Model 19 9mm.

By the last retarded legal definition, an "assault weapon" is something like an AK47 semi-auto (the only one that's EVER been freely available in the U.S.), with a bayonet lug and/or the threaded barrel or a folding stock, etc. Sanitize the weapon with a solid (one piece) stock set, remove the bayonet lug, cover up the threads and whaddya know.. it's not an "assault weapon" anymore. It accepts the same magazines. It's no more and no less accurate than before. The only thing that's changed is the appearance.

You could buy 30 round mags, and 75 or 100 round drums before. You can buy them now. All that stuff is a dime a dozen.

As an FYI for everyone. We all know that Clinton and Johnny Chung (sic?) were pals. Find out who Johnny worked for by Googling him. Yes, that's the same company that was caught smuggling fully automatic AK47's into the U.S., destined for street gangs during Clinton's tenure as Prez.

Originally Posted by raytri

I disagree. The government has all the advantages it needs, since we've already agreed to keep civilians from buying RPGs, machine guns, tanks, artillery, A-10s and nuclear weapons.

Originally Posted by raytri

When directly fighting for it, a lot. When living with the carnage year after year absent an actual threat from the government, a lot less.

Originally Posted by raytri

And the stuff that is really effective — tanks, machine guns, artillery — we've already agreed to ban. So it's a false argument.

Originally Posted by raytri

Because if you use shells instead of slugs, they become de facto short-range machine guns, pumping out hundreds of pieces of shot with each squeeze of the trigger. There's no target shooting or hunting rationale for that, and while they're fabulous against civilians, they're not very useful against even lightly armored troops, so the defense against tyranny rationale seems particularly weak in this case.

Originally Posted by EuP";p=&quot

I completely and utterly disagree with your disagreement. History is replete with guerillas putting up a rather stiff fight against overwhelming authoritarian forces. While specific tit for tat comparisons usually fail because of the vagaries of war, just look at the general theme of the IRA against the British occupation: an extremely outnumbered and outgunned group of paramilitaries managed to engage the world's most powerful empire, the end result eventually (albeit indirectly) being a new republic for the majority of the people.

Originally Posted by EuP";p=&quot

That last comment is why I detest debating this with people of little socio-historical education and/or grasp of reality.

It's not about black helicopters, and there were quite a few people who thought the men who founded our nation here were off their nut as well.

Originally Posted by Niceguy";p=&quot

Who decides when there is time to revolt against the government? If you want to be armed in order to be able to revolt against an unjust government, understand that others will be armed as well. For instance KKK probably a different view of what the signs of an unjust government is. And there are a lot of groups with their own opinion of what kind of government that needs to be taken down in a revolution. Maybe it's better to use the ballot to vote instead of guns?