108 replies to this topic

[Stellar]

Quote

During a ground invasion, the force of their armored vehicles, helicopters, fighters, assault rifles, machine guns, missile launchers etc. etc. would scare the living daylights out of any pop gun equipped militia.   It's not the 1700's anymore.

I agree. Thats why the Soviets conquered Afghanistan.

[questionmark]

Stellar, on 20 November 2012 - 05:22 PM, said:

[/background][/size][/font][/color]

I agree. Thats why the Soviets conquered Afghanistan.

Without Western aid the Taliban would not have gotten anywhere. And if the fight is between the citizens and the government of the USA there will be no Western aid.

[F3SS]

Corp, on 20 November 2012 - 05:03 PM, said:

Well isn't the big fear about the federal government? Seems to be given all the talk about how great state rights are. So wouldn't state approved militia be fine?

I guess you're right. I didnt consider the state but the way things are these days the state and federal lines can be very blurry. If the government would just back off and quit being so intrusive nobody will have to consider anything. Either way I don't even own a gun and if I did it'll probably be just one so it's pretty much useless against anything more than a couple of bandits breaking in my house. BTW, you see that dog <<<? She'll kill anyone by death of a thousand licks!

Edited by -Mr_Fess-, 20 November 2012 - 06:28 PM.

[Stellar]

questionmark, on 20 November 2012 - 05:25 PM, said:

Without Western aid the Taliban would not have gotten anywhere. And if the fight is between the citizens and the government of the USA there will be no Western aid.

I disagree. Even without western aid, the taliban would have achieved a very similar outcome. Infact, look at Afghanistan today. The taliban will be back in power as soon as the coalition forces leave.

[Black Red Devil]

Stellar, on 21 November 2012 - 03:31 AM, said:

I disagree. Even without western aid, the taliban would have achieved a very similar outcome. Infact, look at Afghanistan today. The taliban will be back in power as soon as the coalition forces leave.

Well I'll be damned, I think you've nailed it.  With 700 billion smackeroonies he'd save on national security expenditure, Obama could improve the US (and world) economy or increase financial resources to areas such as medicine, environment, science etc.  He could even afford to chuck a couple of billion dollars to aid third world countries from poverty and starvation.  All he needs to do is equip the US militia with some donkeys to travel around canyons and mountains like the Taliban and the US would be unconquerable.

Seriously, you really don't believe that resistance fighters can win wars on their own do you?

Edited by BlackRedLittleDevil, 21 November 2012 - 09:58 AM.

[The Unseen]

preacherman76, on 14 November 2012 - 01:27 PM, said:

Try living in NY, getting a CC is like jumping through hoops.Tons of paper work and fee's. Cops stoping by for a home visit. Then you have to go before a judge and explain to them why you want it, what you are going to use it for ect ect. And he can denie you without having to explain himself at all. Thats of course if you can find 5 refrences with CC's themselfs. And it cant be a cop, or a family member.

Dang man What state you live in? Here in Texas it is easier to get,Course I own a Ranch and carry a rifle and a shotgun with my .40.Oh my bad You live in New York,I think it is time for you to move to Texas,Heck there is a house on my street for rent/Rent to own,Heck Ill even pay for your C.C.L and give you a gun and a shotgun Just so you can sleep at night and have neighbors who care and watch out for one another.Crimminals hate this neighborhood because they can never get away with anything.This is how we live in peace.This is a good neighborhood,and were going to keep it this way.

Edited by The Unseen, 21 November 2012 - 10:39 AM.

[The Unseen]

preacherman76, on 14 November 2012 - 01:58 PM, said:

I was just talking with my wife about this last night. Once in awhile I have to go outta town for work. When I do, I have my 3006 ready for her, just in case. She asked me if God forbid she ever had to shoot someone, should she just try to shoot them in the leg. I told her to aim for the chest, and not to worry wether or not they lived. To much chance that she will miss her shot if going for the leg.

I also think you need to tell her to empty the rifle in said crimminal then call the police.My wife would .with no second thought,she has done so before,she is almost as good of a shot than I am.she'd do it to protect our children and property and do it  with no hard feelings.

[aztek]

Stellar, on 21 November 2012 - 03:31 AM, said:

I disagree. Even without western aid, the taliban would have achieved a very similar outcome. Infact, look at Afghanistan today. The taliban will be back in power as soon as the coalition forces leave.

no they would not.  when soviets came to Afghan in 79, mujaheddins has flint lock\blackpowder rifles for the most part. they would not get there if it wasn't for us\pak help.

look at this pic, from 1980, you wont find a single ak in their hands, their most valuable rifle was lee enfield, from ww2, they did shoot soviets with it from 1000yards, with no optics, and very often they hit the target.
the only treason taliban is as strong as they are today is that they have help now, from pak, iran, and god knows who else.
but i agree, once nato leaves, karzai's head will  be on a stick next day, and in a week country will be under taliban rule.

Edited by aztek, 22 November 2012 - 12:13 AM.

[xCrimsonx]

I'd rather prepare for Obama zombies that Rommeny Vampires! O.o Didn't matter who got in, the country is rampant with weapons anyway! An oreless blacksmith is a poor one! Yet the money still keeps flowing and taking the loved ones and the countries weapons to create war elsewhere! The government see revinue in weapons.

[aztek]

ShadowSot, on 19 November 2012 - 02:54 AM, said:

The sentiment that there's a mistaken belief that we are secure because people are able to own weapons in order to take out better trained and equipped invasion forces?

There's a reason the Second Amendment included well regulated militia.

that is a good point, true, however times have changed, as you see,  now you need guns for more reasons.

[questionmark]

aztek, on 22 November 2012 - 01:47 AM, said:

that is a good point, true, however times have changed, as you see,  now you need guns for more reasons.

Well, those other reasons are not covered under the second amendment. So who is abusing the constitution now?

[questionmark]

Stellar, on 21 November 2012 - 03:31 AM, said:

I disagree. Even without western aid, the taliban would have achieved a very similar outcome. Infact, look at Afghanistan today. The taliban will be back in power as soon as the coalition forces leave.

We don't use Genghis Khan methods like the Russians. Take a good look at Chechnya where the starting position for the Russians was the same as the one in 'Stan.

[F3SS]

questionmark, on 22 November 2012 - 09:10 AM, said:

Well, those other reasons are not covered under the second amendment. So who is abusing the constitution now?

Ooh, that hurts, right on the chin but just like Obamacare dug into print so fine you'd need a microscope to find it I'm sure there are ways to argue your point.

[aztek]

questionmark, on 22 November 2012 - 09:10 AM, said:

Well, those other reasons are not covered under the second amendment. So who is abusing the constitution now?

there is no abuse, unless you see it that way, and i'm sure you do, lol. there is a second amendment that says "right of ppl...... you know the rest.
it is on paper, so it is the law, other reasons even thou exists, are not covered by constitution,  weather you agree with it or not is irrelevant.
until this amendment rewritten, any argument how one should interpret it, is pointless.
accept it, guns are here already, they always will be, no laws, or "stricter gun control" will change it. as long as man knows what gun is, and how it works, they will be here regardless, just like alcohol was, and drugs are now, and to think that some new stricter legislation will change that, is extremely dumb, but i wouldn't expect anything less from you.

Edited by aztek, 22 November 2012 - 05:16 PM.

[preacherman76]

questionmark, on 22 November 2012 - 09:10 AM, said:

Well, those other reasons are not covered under the second amendment. So who is abusing the constitution now?

The second amendment cant be abused. It says the government has no authority to infringe on gun ownership what so ever.