So, can we at least agree you don't need an assault rifle as a civilian?

 Pages PREV 1 . . . 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 NEXT
 

Jayemsal:

Not G. Ivingname:

the clockmaker:

I have shown repeatedly how an armed revolution would be worse than peaceful opposition and advocacy in a first world nation whereas you have done nothing but repeat yourself that there is hope that it would work. If you believe that, then fucking back it up please, show something other than you just saying that it could work.

My contention is that there is no way on god's green earth that an armed rebellion against the US government could work, if you want to know why, read the fuck over the half dozen times I have explained it, I am open to the idea that I am wrong, but just show something to back yourself up.

Furthermore, who gets to decide when it is time for a revolution, because all that differentiates you from the mad bastards who camp out in the hill and claim to be the sovereign republic of Anytown USA is timing.

The Iraq War.

When faced with a clear enemy who went out in the open to fight, we wiped the enemies army clean in mere weeks. However, the war dragged on because of various insurgents, tribes, and other groups all went down and opposed the new Iraq government and the US military that supported it.

Most military doctrines and equipment were designed during the Cold War. We were preparing to be able to wipe out an army that can before us. People using extremely low tech equipment, in places where any corner a person with a gun is ready to shoot you, blowing up trucks and building weapons in caves, that is what caused the war to drag on and on, becoming more unpopular and costing billions upon billions of dollars. The point of such a rebellion or a revolution would realistically not be to win, but to make it SO unpopular and SO expensive that the larger side is forced to withdraw because of political pressure. Is their anyway an armed rebellion could win in a straight, fair fight against the US government? No, of course not. But people could fight, fight long and hard, making the US government looking more like the oppressive totalitarian state that the rebellion says it is, bringing in international pressure to cut the crap.

You have this.
image

The government has this.
image

Perhaps we should make this clear.
image

Now here's the problem with the government's arsenal, how do they avoid killing innocent people? There's really no way for them to have a positive outcome, if they were killing innocent Americans like we're killing kids overseas with those stupid drones other countries would at least have sanctions against the government to encourage them to negotiate with Americans. Meanwhile government soldiers would be faced with american soldiers and US militia at every turn. I don't think the government could beat the country.

farson135:

Jayemsal:
Perhaps we should make this clear.
image

So you are going to use a multi-million dollar aircraft to drop several million dollars of ordinance onto every rat hole in the US.

Then you are going to send out multi-million dollar helicopters that use up thousands of dollars in fuel for a few hours so that you can then have over 100 hours of maintenance.

Then you are going to send in a multi-million dollar tank armed with a giant cannon to take on infantry (because that has worked out so well in the past). Plus, tank treads destroy paved roads. So you have just pissed off every civilian in the area.

Are you insane? In order for that equipment to even function you need a massive supply of soldiers to keep and maintain it (all aircraft spend way more time with a mechanic than with a pilot). In addition you need clear and open supply lines (something that becomes difficult when your home base is in rebellion). And you need a clear target. Sure you can carpet bomb an entire area to try and kill a couple of people but with your supply lines stretched that is probably not a good idea. You also need a military force that will keep following you. Once the US military decides to carpet bomb an American town, or orders you to drive a tank through an American home, or orders you to attack a American civilian target then you probably will not be nearly as loyal.

Plus, would you care to try and use those planes without a runway? Rebels can take it out. Can you use a tank without fuel? Rebels can cut supply lines. And all of this is made much easier by the fact that US military bases are designed to protect the US from an external enemy but not from the American population. Which is why some of the most important military facilities are in the middle of nowhere while some of the most important training bases are on the coast lines. Tell me how good those planes are going to be to you when the NORAD command centers fall. Also, the east and west are virtually cut off from each other by one giant rats nest. Inside that area are some of the most well armed anti-government people in the entire country. You want to invade Idaho? They hated the government before it was cool and that state has the highest gun ownership rate in the country. Your tanks are no good in the mountains. I can hit a target at over 1,000 meters effectively. Are you going to carpet bomb my area every time I take a shot? Well guess what, any idiot knows that after you take a few shots you move. So you will just be wasting millions of dollars in ordinance to take out one person. And even if you do hit me, there will be millions more to take my place.

BTW I actually have an equivalent of this-

image

And I can use it at 1,000 meters which might I add is 700 meters further than what your average American soldier can even engage a target at. Better equipment does not mean jack if you cannot use it effectively or if you cannot use it at all.

You do realize that we WON the Iraq War, right?

We won against people who have trained and fought their whole lives against organized armies, but you can surely defeat the most bloated military budget in the country, right.

When people like you are murdering civilians in the street, I hope you can look yourselves in the mirror. Because you're one step away from becoming a domestic terrorist.

Jayemsal:
snippen ALL DAT

Consider the following, In a situation where the military of a country is fighting an internal war there is always desertion. This is true for officers and enlisted personnel alike. This happened in places like Libya where the law was nothing more then what was said by the man in charge. Now consider the United States Military has it's members swear an oath to defend defend the constitution against enemies foreign and domestic and obey the Uniform Code of Military Justice. The Enlisted personnel are also required to swear to obey the orders of the President and Officers above them. So why is this significant?

It is significant because this is a sign of a different set of priorities held by the military. They are bound mainly to the constitution and the law and not to the Government. This is different from other countries such as the UK, or Finland. These are an allegiance to the Government. I point this out because these other oaths are from what I can tell the norm for most countries. The US is different. We are a nation that was forged in the fire of rebellion.

In the case of some situation where the Government became so detached from the citizenry that there was a real rebellion I can guarantee you that large parts of the military if not the majority would no longer back the government. Thats not even including things like the National Guard which would certainly hold with their states.

Soldiers, Airmen, Sailors, Marines, it doesn't matter. They are citizens first and if it ever got so bad that they were fighting other Americans it would not be as simple as combat.

Jayemsal:
You do realize that we WON the Iraq War, right?

Against a regular army with our supply lines intact.

We won against people who have trained and fought their whole lives against organized armies

Key word there being organized.

but you can surely defeat the most bloated military budget in the country, right.

I believe you mean in the world.

Anyway, have you ever heard of Paul Emil von Lettow-Vorbeck? He is not a well known name in the world primarily because the English do not want people to remember he kicked their ass. During the 4 years of WW1 his force of 14,000 men led the Allied force of 150,000 men (plus 1 million porters) around in circles. All the while von Lettow never lost a single battle. The British lost over 100,000 men (if you include porters) while the Germans lost only 2,000 men. The British force sent against von Lettow had a budget the size of the entire British military budget for the YEAR 1913. Von Lettow received virtually no supplies from Germany.

You say it cannot be done. Well, the most bloated military establishment in the world at the time got its ass kicked by a man leading a force 1/10th its own size and von Lettow did it without losing a single battle. In fact the only reason he lost the war was because Germany surrendered. In fact, he only surrendered AFTER the armistice because he did not even know what the hell was going on in Germany (that is how cut off he was). The British used armored vehicles, air planes, the artillery the British could provide, and on. Of course von Lettow was fine with that. To the victor go the spoils. Von Lettow was better supplied in 1918 than he was in 1914 thanks to the British budget.

When people like you are murdering civilians in the street, I hope you can look yourselves in the mirror. Because you're one step away from becoming a domestic terrorist.

I will be murdering civilians?

Really- http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/05/25/jose-guerena-arizona-_n_867020.html

And-

I think the government is more likely to start murdering civilians. They are already practicing.

farson135:

Jayemsal:
You do realize that we WON the Iraq War, right?

Against a regular army with our supply lines intact.

We won against people who have trained and fought their whole lives against organized armies

Key word there being organized.

but you can surely defeat the most bloated military budget in the country, right.

I believe you mean in the world.

Anyway, have you ever heard of Paul Emil von Lettow-Vorbeck? He is not a well known name in the world primarily because the English do not want people to remember he kicked their ass. During the 4 years of WW1 his force of 14,000 men led the Allied force of 150,000 men (plus 1 million porters) around in circles. All the while von Lettow never lost a single battle. The British lost over 100,000 men (if you include porters) while the Germans lost only 2,000 men. The British force sent against von Lettow had a budget the size of the entire British military budget for the YEAR 1913. Von Lettow received virtually no supplies from Germany.

You say it cannot be done. Well, the most bloated military establishment in the world at the time got its ass kicked by a man leading a force 1/10th its own size and von Lettow did it without losing a single battle. In fact the only reason he lost the war was because Germany surrendered. In fact, he only surrendered AFTER the armistice because he did not even know what the hell was going on in Germany (that is how cut off he was). The British used armored vehicles, air planes, the artillery the British could provide, and on. Of course von Lettow was fine with that. To the victor go the spoils. Von Lettow was better supplied in 1918 than he was in 1914 thanks to the British budget.

When people like you are murdering civilians in the street, I hope you can look yourselves in the mirror. Because you're one step away from becoming a domestic terrorist.

I will be murdering civilians?

Really- http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/05/25/jose-guerena-arizona-_n_867020.html

And-

I think the government is more likely to start murdering civilians. They are already practicing.

Who is more likely to kill an innocent person?

A trained army on their own soil, or an individual who is itching for a reason to start a civil war?

There would be massacres because of the crazy motherfuckers on your side.

Jayemsal:
Who is more likely to kill an innocent person?

A trained army on their own soil, or an individual who is itching for a reason to start a civil war?

There would be massacres because of the crazy motherfuckers on your side.

Itching? After the number of innocent people killed by our government I think that it is swiftly losing any justification it has to exist.

This trained army has already committed atrocities and it continues to do so. Historically, you never want an army in your territory. Hell, having an allied or even your own army in your territory is dangerous. The Great Elector learned that the hard way during the 30 Years War. Also, did you see the civilians killed by those trained police officers?

BTW the crazy motherfuckers on my side would be too busy protecting their plot of land to care about anything else. Most anti-government militias are just plain anti-government. The only people that would be massacred are the soldiers that try and take their land.

From reading the comments here, most pro advocates here seem to have an irrational fear of a home invasion. I'll just suggest alternatives to guns in case it happens. A dog that barks and a baseball bat. Maybe even a panic room if you can afford it.

mattttherman3:
From reading the comments here, most pro advocates here seem to have an irrational fear of a home invasion. I'll just suggest alternatives to guns in case it happens. A dog that barks and a baseball bat. Maybe even a panic room if you can afford it.

Most control advocates have an irrational fear of being shot, so we're even. (Firearm related homicide is statistically insignificant)

I said it before, didn't I? If you can aim well, you don't need an automatic weapon. All you need is training and your wits when you use the weapon.

mattttherman3:
From reading the comments here, most pro advocates here seem to have an irrational fear of a home invasion. I'll just suggest alternatives to guns in case it happens. A dog that barks

A trained guard dog=far more expensive than a shotgun.

and a baseball bat.

Can't swing for shit.

Maybe even a panic room if you can afford it.

Working on it already.

farson135:

Anyway, have you ever heard of Paul Emil von Lettow-Vorbeck? He is not a well known name in the world primarily because the English do not want people to remember he kicked their ass. During the 4 years of WW1 his force of 14,000 men led the Allied force of 150,000 men (plus 1 million porters) around in circles. All the while von Lettow never lost a single battle. The British lost over 100,000 men (if you include porters) while the Germans lost only 2,000 men. The British force sent against von Lettow had a budget the size of the entire British military budget for the YEAR 1913. Von Lettow received virtually no supplies from Germany.

Thats a nice amount of numbers you have Im sure you have sources.

You say it cannot be done. Well, the most bloated military establishment in the world at the time got its ass kicked by a man leading a force 1/10th its own size and von Lettow did it without losing a single battle. In fact the only reason he lost the war was because Germany surrendered. In fact, he only surrendered AFTER the armistice because he did not even know what the hell was going on in Germany (that is how cut off he was). The British used armored vehicles, air planes, the artillery the British could provide, and on. Of course von Lettow was fine with that. To the victor go the spoils. Von Lettow was better supplied in 1918 than he was in 1914 thanks to the British budget.

Pretty sure Russia and Germany had the "most bloated military establishment" at the time.
But on topic and more to the point his whole campaign was worthless, he achieved nothing. Germany lost the first world war, Von Lettows plan failed.
When these imaginary forces, or what ever you feel is going to, invade the US what do you feel that their objectives are?
Are they going to impurify your precious fluids?
Are you going to lead them a merry dance around the country to stop them from harvesting your Orgone energy?

Apparently assault rifles are important. Well America you really have some interesting individuals.

mattttherman3:
A dog that barks

Expensive, needs to be constantly fed, barking doesn't do me much good if I am out of the house, and dogs can be quieted by robbers using simple tricks as pieces of meat or bones.

A baseball bat.

You have to get yourself in melee range of the people who are best trying to take your stuff, at worst trying to kill you. I personally can't swing for crap, and many older people would not even be able to swing much at all.

Maybe even a panic room if you can afford it.

1. Can't afford it and no where to put it.

2. Robbers have free reign to grab anything before the police arrives.

3. Doesn't do you much good if you have family or children on a different room or a different floor.

Semes:
Thats a nice amount of numbers you have Im sure you have sources.

Plenty-

"East Africa, Military Operations." In Encyclopedia Britannica. 12th ed. 29 vols. London, UK: Encyclopædia Britannica Company, n.d.

Farwell, Byron. The Great War in Africa, 1914-1918. New York: Norton, 1989.

Hoyt, Edwin P. Guerilla. New York, NY: Macmillan Publishing, 1981.

Paice, Edward. World War I: The African Front. New York: Pegasus Books, 2010.

von Lettow-Vorbek, Paul Emil. My Reminiscences of East Africa. East Sussex, UK: Naval & Military Press, n.d.

Pretty sure Russia and Germany had the "most bloated military establishment" at the time.

Russia, during WW1, not a chance in hell.

Germany, not really. They increased spending considerably just before the war but that was just general buildup. German spending stayed relatively flat in that period while the British were panicking at virtually every move Germany made (due in part to the German naval buildup)- http://eh.net/encyclopedia/article/eloranta.military

But you can call it whatever you want. The UK had one of the most bloated military establishments. Better?

But on topic and more to the point his whole campaign was worthless, he achieved nothing. Germany lost the first world war, Von Lettows plan failed.

He achieved nothing? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

He managed to force the British to fight a pointless war and spend an ungodly amount of money on it. Lord Kitchener stated that he viewed German East Africa as having "no strategic advantage whatsoever". Yet he continued to order more and more troops and equipment to be sent to that useless front because, "the blacks of the whole continent soon heard that von Lettow with his handful of men had routed the British lions".

Achieved nothing my ass.

When these imaginary forces, or what ever you feel is going to, invade the US what do you feel that their objectives are?
Are they going to impurify your precious fluids?
Are you going to lead them a merry dance around the country to stop them from harvesting your Orgone energy?

You do realize that the US is being invaded right now right? Deserters from the Mexican military have joined the cartels and they are funneling weapons and drugs into the US. A friend of mine lives on the Arizona/Mexico border and he has drug runners going through his property on a regular basis. These are not paranoid delusions. We are already being invaded.

Also, I did notice the fact that you have switched from the initial discussion of the American military to foreign invasion. Have you surrendered the point? Is this move just a way to save face?

Kopikatsu:
Most control advocates have an irrational fear of being shot, so we're even. (Firearm related homicide is statistically insignificant)

If by "statistically insignificant," you mean "the leading cause of violent death in the US between the ages 15-34" (Homicide generally is the second-leading cause of death in the US between the ages 15-24). Death by firearms is the leading cause of violent death in the US across almost every age demographic except "under age 1" (suffocation with a lot of unknown data) and "10 to 14" (suffocation followed by getting shot).

The Gentleman:

Kopikatsu:
Most control advocates have an irrational fear of being shot, so we're even. (Firearm related homicide is statistically insignificant)

If by "statistically insignificant," you mean "the leading cause of violent death in the US between the ages 15-34" (Homicide generally is the second-leading cause of death in the US between the ages 15-24). Death by firearms is the leading cause of violent death in the US across almost every age demographic except "under age 1" (suffocation with a lot of unknown data) and "10 to 14" (suffocation followed by getting shot).

I mean what I said.

There are about 300 million legally owned firearms in the US as of 2010. 47-53 million households, as of 2010, have at least one of those. Persons per household is roughly at 3

So that's roughly 150 million people with at least relatively easy access to a legal firearm. As of 2010, where I pulled the rest of those numbers from to keep it level, there were 11,000 homicides linked to firearms. That's 0.00733% of people with easy access to firearms who use them for homicides.

Total number of deaths in the US in 2010 was 2.5 million. That means firearms caused 0.44% of the total deaths that year.

Statistically insignificant.

According to this article, firearms prevent roughly 2.4 million crimes a year (Yes, 2.4. It says 2.5 in the heading, but if you read the article, it's 2.4). It's unknown how many would potentially have ended in the death of the gun carrier since it didn't happen, but...let's say you were given the choice of taking a medication; and there was a 0.44% chance that it could kill you with an unknown potential to save your life. Would you still take it? Is 0.44% so much of a risk that you would live in crippling fear of it?

farson135:

He achieved nothing? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
He managed to force the British to fight a pointless war and spend an ungodly amount of money on it. Lord Kitchener stated that he viewed German East Africa as having "no strategic advantage whatsoever". Yet he continued to order more and more troops and equipment to be sent to that useless front because, "the blacks of the whole continent soon heard that von Lettow with his handful of men had routed the British lions".

Achieved nothing my ass.

He could have spent 4 years on vacation and the outcome would have been exactly the same. He had no impact on events outside of a strategic unimportant location. He achieved nothing at all that would help his side during the war that was being fought thousands of miles away.

You do realize that the US is being invaded right now right? Deserters from the Mexican military have joined the cartels and they are funneling weapons and drugs into the US. A friend of mine lives on the Arizona/Mexico border and he has drug runners going through his property on a regular basis. These are not paranoid delusions. We are already being invaded.

If you're so sure the US is being invaded why don't you get the army to deal with it? Im pretty sure the US has an army, I think I seen it somewhere.

Also, I did notice the fact that you have switched from the initial discussion of the American military to foreign invasion. Have you surrendered the point? Is this move just a way to save face?

I didnt realise I had switched my argument from the American military randomly deciding to attack civilians at all. That was the purpose of the paranoid delusional reason for invading. Your military forces aren't going to be ordered to attack civilians, no one would be able to order that without being sectioned, no one would follow out those orders without having the other people serving on them stopping them. So once again why would, and just to be clear, the US military, the US government, or any other US based organisation of similar capabilities behave in sure away to cause rebellion in the public. What would they hope to achieve?

farson135:
Itching? After the number of innocent people killed by our government I think that it is swiftly losing any justification it has to exist.

You're basically reciting the silly ideas held among Sovereign Citizen domestic terrorists.

Really, reconsider. Even you should be able to understand that a bunch of paranoid rednecks who murder innocent people and then end up having to answer for that (because guess what, the police does their work, also against armed people).

farson135:
The only people that would be massacred are the soldiers that try and take their land.

The idea that a bunch of dumb rednecks with guns, stuck in their house in fear because of paranoid delusions, could take on an army, is rather ridiculous, and this has been explained to you at least five times now.

For one because this will never happen.

Secondly because if it were to hypothetically happen, you just get a big pile of dead paranoid gun owners because armies always win from armed civilians.

Semes:
He could have spent 4 years on vacation and the outcome would have been exactly the same. He had no impact on events outside of a strategic unimportant location. He achieved nothing at all that would help his side during the war that was being fought thousands of miles away.

Really? Wasted money, equipment, and personnel. On top of that the immense number of casualties forced the British to take more and more troops from India which caused unrest with forced the British to take more troops in order to maintain control. The entire British colonial sphere was in an uproar. The failure of the main German army does not change what he achieved. He is one of the principle forces behind decolonization.

If you're so sure the US is being invaded why don't you get the army to deal with it? Im pretty sure the US has an army, I think I seen it somewhere.

We already have- http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-11020174

Several times-http://www.npr.org/2011/10/06/141128178/u-s-troops-increase-aid-to-mexico-in-drug-war

I didnt realise I had switched my argument from the American military randomly deciding to attack civilians at all. That was the purpose of the paranoid delusional reason for invading.

What?

Your military forces aren't going to be ordered to attack civilians

Really- http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/oct/25/un-inquiry-us-drone-strikes

no one would be able to order that without being sectioned

Really- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Dresden_in_World_War_II

no one would follow out those orders without having the other people serving on them stopping them.

Really- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/My_Lai_Massacre

So once again why would, and just to be clear, the US military, the US government, or any other US based organisation of similar capabilities behave in sure away to cause rebellion in the public. What would they hope to achieve?

You are working under a very questionable assumption. That there is any sure way to cause a rebellion or deescalate one.

Blablahb:
You're basically reciting the silly ideas held among Sovereign Citizen domestic terrorists.

Silly? Are you saying that the SWAT team refusing medical treatment to a man they just shot is not murder? Oh wait, he is a gun owner. I am sure Saint Blablahb would have loved to drag him outside and put a bullet in his head in front of his wife and child.

Even you should be able to understand that a bunch of paranoid rednecks who murder innocent people and then end up having to answer for that

And who exactly was murdered by the homeless man on the video?

because guess what, the police does their work, also against armed people

And against unarmed people. And some of the people who the police are "arresting" are executed by the police for no good reason.

Does anyone else find it interesting that Blablahb supports the government's right to execute an innocent person on the street but does not support my right to defend myself using a firearm?

The idea that a bunch of dumb rednecks with guns, stuck in their house in fear because of paranoid delusions, could take on an army, is rather ridiculous

As for your insults, your funeral if you decide to attack these, "dumb [paranoid] rednecks with guns". Sorry, but I am better educated, better trained, and far more fit than you are. And considering you are a product of the Dutch military, I would say that I could take on your entire army by myself.

And of course, you guys are making the situation even worse- http://www.defencetalk.com/dutch-army-readiness-rapidly-going-downhill-30019/

So, your army is made up of a bunch of underequipped poorly-trained city boys who likely never held a firearm outside of a video game. And with the budget cuts your military is scraping live fire exercises and wasting equipment. Why don't you try talking to some of those African nations. Shit armies are regularly defeated by civilian armies that are poorly trained and equipped. An American militia can put more firearms and equipment on the field than African militia.

this has been explained to you at least five times now.

And I have explained to you why you are wrong at least 10 times now.

For one because this will never happen.

Right- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sierra_Leonean_Civil_War

Secondly because if it were to hypothetically happen, you just get a big pile of dead paranoid gun owners because armies always win from armed civilians.

Right- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_Revolution

farson135:
Silly? Are you saying that the SWAT team refusing medical treatment to a man they just shot is not murder?

Oh, two? So it's the North Hollywood shooting again? The shooting where two gun owners used their right to own guns including assault rifles like the AR 15 to go on a crime spree, which resulted in a crazy shooting that left 18 people gravely injured, many of whom never recovered.

If the US had taken that shooting as a hint, and introduced a gun ban back then, so many lives could've been saved...

farson135:
And against unarmed people. And some of the people who the police are "arresting" are executed by the police for no good reason.
Does anyone else find it interesting that Blablahb supports the government's right to execute an innocent person on the street but does not support my right to defend myself using a firearm?

That's kind of ironic. You complain police officers may have misbehaved in the past, and you take that as a reason to defend a supposed 'right' to use firearms to perpetrate murder and agrevated assault on other people.

Mate, you may take offense to this, but statistically you're far more likely to end up a murderer than any police officer. Gun owners kill thousands and thousands of people every year in the US, unjustified police shootings, most of them caused by gun culture in the first place, are much more rare. The idea that police officers are out to kill you is irrational and rather deluded. Factually, if this idea is often at the forefront of your thoughts, it's of a pathological nature and seeking psychological assistance is highly recommended.

Let's keep one thing very clear: You're the one defending a right to killing people, not me.

farson135:
As for your insults, your funeral if you decide to attack these, "dumb [paranoid] rednecks with guns". Sorry, but I am better educated, better trained, and far more fit than you are. And considering you are a product of the Dutch military, I would say that I could take on your entire army by myself. If you of all people were a part of the Dutch military then your military must be in very bad shape.

I should probably be thanking you for making outlandish claims like this, which show how far your arguments are removed from reality.

farson135:

Really? Wasted money, equipment, and personnel. On top of that the immense number of casualties forced the British to take more and more troops from India which caused unrest with forced the British to take more troops in order to maintain control. The entire British colonial sphere was in an uproar. The failure of the main German army does not change what he achieved. He is one of the principle forces behind decolonization.

Oh his plan was to cause events 30 years in the future. His crystal ball must have been very clear.

We already have- http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-11020174

Several times-http://www.npr.org/2011/10/06/141128178/u-s-troops-increase-aid-to-mexico-in-drug-war

They must not be doing a very good job then.

Semes:
I didnt realise I had switched my argument from the American military randomly deciding to attack civilians at all. That was the purpose of the paranoid delusional reason for invading.

farson135:

What?

Semes:

When these imaginary forces, or what ever you feel is going to, invade the US what do you feel that their objectives are?
Are they going to impurify your precious fluids?
Are you going to lead them a merry dance around the country to stop them from harvesting your Orgone energy?

Once again what do you think will be the objectives will be?

Really- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Dresden_in_World_War_II

A act committed during a time of war and is still analysed was whether it was necessary to this day similar to the atomic bombs dropped on Japan. Think the US military is going to firebomb Houston or nuke New York anytime soon?

Really- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/My_Lai_Massacre

You know what, I accept it the US military is going to wholesale slaughter civilians, be them on foreign soil or in America, for no reason other than they might be enemy combatants. Only those of us with access to firearms will be able to mount a defensive against the oncoming wave of tyranny.

You are working under a very questionable assumption. That there is any sure way to cause a rebellion or deescalate one.

What do we want? A rebellion! Why do we want it? We dont know! Its a great chant.

I have to say that I find it....interesting that the main argument used by gun control critics is that "you guys aren't defining an assualt rifle properly". Interesting.

Kopikatsu:

The Gentleman:

Kopikatsu:
Most control advocates have an irrational fear of being shot, so we're even. (Firearm related homicide is statistically insignificant)

If by "statistically insignificant," you mean "the leading cause of violent death in the US between the ages 15-34" (Homicide generally is the second-leading cause of death in the US between the ages 15-24). Death by firearms is the leading cause of violent death in the US across almost every age demographic except "under age 1" (suffocation with a lot of unknown data) and "10 to 14" (suffocation followed by getting shot).

I mean what I said.

There are about 300 million legally owned firearms in the US as of 2010. 47-53 million households, as of 2010, have at least one of those. Persons per household is roughly at 3

So that's roughly 150 million people with at least relatively easy access to a legal firearm. As of 2010, where I pulled the rest of those numbers from to keep it level, there were 11,000 homicides linked to firearms. That's 0.00733% of people with easy access to firearms who use them for homicides.

Total number of deaths in the US in 2010 was 2.5 million. That means firearms caused 0.44% of the total deaths that year.

Statistically insignificant.

According to this article, firearms prevent roughly 2.4 million crimes a year (Yes, 2.4. It says 2.5 in the heading, but if you read the article, it's 2.4). It's unknown how many would potentially have ended in the death of the gun carrier since it didn't happen, but...let's say you were given the choice of taking a medication; and there was a 0.44% chance that it could kill you with an unknown potential to save your life. Would you still take it? Is 0.44% so much of a risk that you would live in crippling fear of it?

While I don't exactly agree with your characterization or methodology (you include non-preventable deaths such as old age and conveniently ignore the higher chance of violent death in younger demographics), at least there's a basis for your opinion.

I would not, however, cite that article in the future. It's uncited, supposedly refers to a study that's almost 20 years old, can't be verified, and is on a site that makes Matt Drudge look like the New York Times. I'd recommend finding another source for that claim.

Blablahb:
including assault rifles like the AR 15

An AR-15 is not an assault rifle.

If the US had taken that shooting as a hint, and introduced a gun ban back then, so many lives could've been saved...

In your opinion. However you have never proven that.

You complain police officers may have misbehaved in the past

May have? Refusing medical treatment does not leave room for may.

you take that as a reason to defend a supposed 'right' to use firearms

The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

to perpetrate murder and agrevated assault on other people.

Coming from the guy who admits to assaulting his co-worker. I have never committed a violent crime in my life. That is not something you can say.

but statistically you're far more likely to end up a murderer than any police officer.

Actually no. Police kill 10 times as many people mistakenly as civilians- http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcdgcon.html

Let's keep one thing very clear: You're the one defending a right to killing people, not me.

No, I am defending the right of self defense. You are defending the right of police officers to kill innocent people without charge.

Semes:
Oh his plan was to cause events 30 years in the future. His crystal ball must have been very clear.

No, his plan had such massive repercussions that it affected decolonization.

They must not be doing a very good job then.

Duh.

Once again what do you think will be the objectives will be?

You want me to predict the objectives of some unknown group in the future? Why?

A act committed during a time of war and is still analysed was whether it was necessary to this day similar to the atomic bombs dropped on Japan.

Doesn't change the fact that it happened.

Think the US military is going to firebomb Houston or nuke New York anytime soon?

Who ever said that it had to happen tomorrow? I certainly didn't.

You know what, I accept it the US military is going to wholesale slaughter civilians, be them on foreign soil or in America, for no reason other than they might be enemy combatants.

Going to? No.

You are working under a very questionable assumption. That there is any sure way to cause a rebellion or deescalate one.

What do we want? A rebellion! Why do we want it? We dont know! Its a great chant.

So the American revolution was over taxes (among other things). The Roman rebellion against Tarquinius Superbus was over the rape of Lucretia (and definitely other things). The rebellion against the Soviet Union by the whites was over an ungodly number of issues. The rebellion against Hitler was over a number of issues. The rebellions against Rome by Boudicca and Arminius were over a number of issues. The rebellions by the slaves against Rome were over their freedom, plus a number of other issues. The Arab Spring Revolts were over a number of issues. The Civil War was over a number of issues. The rebellion by the Vietnamese against the Chinese, the Japanese, the French, and on were over a number of issues. And I can keep going.

WaitWHAT:
I have to say that I find it....interesting that the main argument used by gun control critics is that "you guys aren't defining an assualt rifle properly". Interesting.

It's hardly a main argument, but it's important because the main pillar of gun control legislation rests upon definition; partitioning weapons/accessories into groups and labels in order to properly "deal" with them (and oh my do politicians and propaganda artists love their labels).

And it's a hot-button issue for many because of the word "assault". It is word of context, action and it does not have an unconditional meaning. Thus, it is a label of publicity.

Suppose a bank robber shoots a security guard with a rifle in his escape, but the guard has a rifle and neutralizes him.

The crime is criminal assault with a deadly weapon. The robber is the assailant and the security guard is defending his life and the bank property. Were both weapons used in an assault? The term obfuscates, misleads its purpose and creates a legal misnomer. It's like naming a classes of firearm "robbery guns" and "murder weapons".

A murder weapon is a weapon used in a murder. So an assault rifle is meaningless term.

AgedGrunt:
SNIP

I'm just....surprised that people haven't taken the context around these events and assumed that when people say "assault weapon", they're talking about the relatively quick-firing, high-powered rifles that have repeatedly been used in mass shootings.

Jayemsal:
You do realize that we WON the Iraq War, right?

We won against people who have trained and fought their whole lives against organized armies, but you can surely defeat the most bloated military budget in the country, right.

When people like you are murdering civilians in the street, I hope you can look yourselves in the mirror. Because you're one step away from becoming a domestic terrorist.

Well, yes, being a domestic terrorist is sort of how you resist your government.

Anyway, as much as I disagree with people feeling the need to be heavily armed to fight their government, the more rational of these recognise that it's not a matter of engaging military forces. It's a matter of being able to walk to the voting booth despite large numbers of persons hanging about that wish you wouldn't.

A lot of right wingers were very concerned with Obama stationed mobs of scary black men to drive white people away. Now, this sort of thing has actually happened to a fairly large extent in the past (well, it was the scary black men being driven away by white people, but the idea is the same).

I just want to point out the constant irony I'm seeing on the front page:

"So, can we at least agree you don't need an assault rifle as a civilian?" with 15 pages of discussion

lol, apparently not.

WaitWHAT:

AgedGrunt:
SNIP

I'm just....surprised that people haven't taken the context around these events and assumed that when people say "assault weapon", they're talking about the relatively quick-firing, high-powered rifles that have repeatedly been used in mass shootings.

You do realize that you just proved why it is important to have proper definitions.

First I am going to assume you meant to say "when people say 'assault rifles'"
Second I will assume that your disc option is that of an assault weapon.

In either case your description is just plain wrong

Relatively quick-firing: False, the are no quicker firing than other hunting rifles.

High powered rifles: False again, compared to more typical hunting rifles they tend to be far less powerful. Many places actually ban the use of AR-15's for deer hunting because they will not bring down a deer without a perfect shot.

Repeatedly used in mass shootings: No more then other types of firearms. Whether or not a mass shooter's firearm is or is not an assault weapon has no effect on the out come of the mass shooting.

Because of people not using propper terms it would appear that you do not even know exactly what is being discussed in this thread.

JSF01:
SNIP

Again. I'm still surprised that the biggest issue is "YOU GUYS AREN'T USING THE EXACT CORRECT GUN TERMINOLOGY!" instead of "well, actually, you can have these guns because....".

JSF01:
Relatively quick-firing: False, the are no quicker firing than other hunting rifles.

Which hunting rifles? Do you mean other semi-automatic rifles (in which case you are, of course, correct), or bolt action ones (in which case I'd say you weren't)?

JSF01:
High powered rifles: False again, compared to more typical hunting rifles they tend to be far less powerful. Many places actually ban the use of AR-15's for deer hunting because they will not bring down a deer without a perfect shot.

Erm...may or may not be true. There's nothing in the definition of "assault weapon" that specifies the cartridge. You could have a semi automatic .22LR, a 7.62 FAL (semi-automatic only, like the Commonwealth version) or a AR-15 with a .50 BMG upper receiver.

Actually, you could get a AR-15, and get uppers for the .22LR, 7.62 or .50BMG (or anything else), wouldn't stop it being an assault weapon.

Mind you, all this depends on the definition of "high powered"...except the .22LR, not going to listen to anyone say that is high powered.

WaitWHAT:

JSF01:
SNIP

Again. I'm still surprised that the biggest issue is "YOU GUYS AREN'T USING THE EXACT CORRECT GUN TERMINOLOGY!" instead of "well, actually, you can have these guns because....".

The problem is that it quickly demonstrates that the changes being pushed are being done by someone who knows dick all about the subject they're legislating.

If they can't even understand the basics of what they're regulating then how can they be trusted to judge what and should and shouldn't be allowed. Hell they made up a term that means nothing to anyone who knows about guns just to make them sound scary.

Would you trust a guy who was trying to regulate automotive policy if he suddenly started demanding a ban on the sale of "Woosh Cars" and when pressed to describe what that is basically said cars that have features that make them look faster regardless of actual performance effect?

Thought everyone would like to know that the Sandy Hook shooting didn't even use an "assault weapon". He had four handguns.

source

Cette:

The problem is that it quickly demonstrates that the changes being pushed are being done by someone who knows dick all about the subject they're legislating.

If they can't even understand the basics of what they're regulating then how can they be trusted to judge what and should and shouldn't be allowed. Hell they made up a term that means nothing to anyone who knows about guns just to make them sound scary.

Would you trust a guy who was trying to regulate automotive policy if he suddenly started demanding a ban on the sale of "Woosh Cars" and when pressed to describe what that is basically said cars that have features that make them look faster regardless of actual performance effect?

I'd imagine the kinds of guns that are going to be banned are the ones that have the high capacity to be used in mass shootings (e.g., semi-automatic "assault" rifles with large magazines) rather than, say, handguns, shotguns or hunting rifles.

 Pages PREV 1 . . . 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Registered for a free account here