questionmark Posted December 23, 2012 #51 Share Posted December 23, 2012 Insurgencies are notoriously hard to truly put down. Iraq and Afghanistan come to mind. And that is a tale of foreign troops doing the job. Imagine having to do this with your own countrymen. And imagine that many of those countrymen were current and former military trained. It's not so clear as you make it WoH. As the rules are today, if a police officer (unarmed) came in uniform to seize my guns or myself I would offer no resistance. But if a law or decree is passed legally to seize them? I become several million strong, quickly. As long as people think they have something to loose, and be it their overdue Visa bill, there will be no revolution no matter how many guns, gunships and bombs people have. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
preacherman76 Posted December 23, 2012 #52 Share Posted December 23, 2012 If it comes to an armed struggle you will lose - the Government has more trained men with better weapons and more will to kill for its position. As I said Guns offer the illusion of real power to the diempowered masses. Meanwhile people are almost completely disinterested in engaging in Democratic power - and then wonder why they are in such a bad place. Your fetish with guns will get you dead - and certainly will not rain in your government, It is far easier to open fire on a militia man than a democratic and purposeful civil disobedience movement. Br Cornelius Why do you assume our trained men would side with the government? If they take thier constitutional oaths seriously, and many do, they will be siding with we the people. And the government knows it. Thats why homeland see's returning vets as the greatest terrorist threat right now. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 23, 2012 #53 Share Posted December 23, 2012 Why do you assume our trained men would side with the government? If they take thier constitutional oaths seriously, and many do, they will be siding with we the people. And the government knows it. Thats why homeland see's returning vets as the greatest terrorist threat right now. Experience says that is almost never the case. In a conflict situation - the Government still pays well, where as become a fugitive pays nothing and gets you an appointment with the firing squad. Far better to actual take the institution of Government seriously and make it work for a change. No one wins by bloody insurrection. Br Cornelius Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stellar Posted December 23, 2012 #54 Share Posted December 23, 2012 So what's 86 years ago make it any different then today. Human life was lost including many children. The point I'm making is that now there's a cry for gun control because of Newtown CT. But this guy 86 years ago used dynamite to kill. Anybody with evil intentions will always find a why to kill even if you take away his gun. And my point is that you dont see many cases of people blowing schools up with dynamite, do you? You do see many shooting though. Whats the difference between laws concerning dynamite and laws concerning guns? Is dynamite more strictly controlled, perhaps? Maybe every Tom, Dick and Jane in America don't have dynamite... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hawken Posted December 23, 2012 #55 Share Posted December 23, 2012 And my point is that you dont see many cases of people blowing schools up with dynamite, do you? You do see many shooting though. Whats the difference between laws concerning dynamite and laws concerning guns? Is dynamite more strictly controlled, perhaps? Maybe every Tom, Dick and Jane in America don't have dynamite... Alexander The Great, The Romans and Genghis Kahn didn't conquer lands and kill millions by using guns. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsteroidX Posted December 23, 2012 #56 Share Posted December 23, 2012 As long as people think they have something to loose, and be it their overdue Visa bill, there will be no revolution no matter how many guns, gunships and bombs people have. We arent necessarily going to wait for them to make this LAW before we show are displeasure. But by the millions angrily. Not likely. After the Bane passes all bets are off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
questionmark Posted December 23, 2012 #57 Share Posted December 23, 2012 (edited) And my point is that you dont see many cases of people blowing schools up with dynamite, do you? You do see many shooting though. Whats the difference between laws concerning dynamite and laws concerning guns? Is dynamite more strictly controlled, perhaps? Maybe every Tom, Dick and Jane in America don't have dynamite... Until not so long ago anybody could have had dynamite. All you had to do is to go to some hardware store in most states and buy some. But in either case, most get gun (weapon control) wrong, they think it is forbidding certain weapons or explosives. It is not about that: it is about controlling guns, from the day they were made to the day they reach the hand of its current owner and then holding the current owner responsible for the damage those guns may cause. Edited December 23, 2012 by questionmark 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stellar Posted December 23, 2012 #58 Share Posted December 23, 2012 Alexander The Great, The Romans and Genghis Kahn didn't conquer lands and kill millions by using guns. What on Earth is your point? Armies of the past didnt use guns, therefore guns should not be controlled? The two things are completely unrelated. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+and-then Posted December 23, 2012 #59 Share Posted December 23, 2012 What on Earth is your point? Armies of the past didnt use guns, therefore guns should not be controlled? The two things are completely unrelated. I think he's just making the point that other weapons are just as lethal in the hands of a person committed to killing. Not really accurate though.... a semi auto with even an unskilled shooter on the trigger can cause a huge amount of mayhem. A single shot bolt gun in the hands of someone skilled could do almost as much in the same amount of time. If it comes to an armed struggle you will lose - the Government has more trained men with better weapons and more will to kill for its position. As I said Guns offer the illusion of real power to the diempowered masses. Meanwhile people are almost completely disinterested in engaging in Democratic power - and then wonder why they are in such a bad place. Your fetish with guns will get you dead - and certainly will not rain in your government, It is far easier to open fire on a militia man than a democratic and purposeful civil disobedience movement. Br Cornelius A militia like al queda or the Taliban? The top 2 militaries in the history of the world have tried on different occasions for a decade or more at a time to stop them. Insurgencies don't have to field armies like a country does. They just have to survive and keep fighting. You underestimate the will of people who have KNOWN freedom, only to have it taken away.... 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsteroidX Posted December 23, 2012 #60 Share Posted December 23, 2012 I think he's just making the point that other weapons are just as lethal in the hands of a person committed to killing. Not really accurate though.... a semi auto with even an unskilled shooter on the trigger can cause a huge amount of mayhem. A single shot bolt gun in the hands of someone skilled could do almost as much in the same amount of time. A lot of things can cause mayhem 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hawken Posted December 23, 2012 #61 Share Posted December 23, 2012 (edited) What on Earth is your point? Armies of the past didnt use guns, therefore guns should not be controlled? The two things are completely unrelated. Edited December 23, 2012 by Mag357 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drayno Posted December 23, 2012 #62 Share Posted December 23, 2012 Once you underestimate the American people you're betraying the American cause. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
archer95446 Posted December 23, 2012 #63 Share Posted December 23, 2012 There should be a ban on all assult weapons!!!! The general public should've never had access to them, they're made for the military use in combat situations!!!! guns were and still are manufactured for one sole intent, to kill!!!!!!!!! Sure, a gun won't kill anybody, that is, until someone picks it up to use on someone else, then it's justified to say guns do kill people!!!! If all of the guns in the world are put into a locked glass case, permanently, then you can say guns don't kill people!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drayno Posted December 24, 2012 #64 Share Posted December 24, 2012 (edited) There should be a ban on all assult weapons!!!! The general public should've never had access to them, they're made for the military use in combat situations!!!! guns were and still are manufactured for one sole intent, to kill!!!!!!!!! Sure, a gun won't kill anybody, that is, until someone picks it up to use on someone else, then it's justified to say guns do kill people!!!! If all of the guns in the world are put into a locked glass case, permanently, then you can say guns don't kill people!!!! The general public is supposed to have access to military style weapons to kill those who try to strip them of their rights. "And what country can preserve its liberties, if the rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms." - Thomas Jefferson to William S. Smith, son-in-law of John Adams Edited December 24, 2012 by Eonwe 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hawken Posted December 24, 2012 #65 Share Posted December 24, 2012 Maybe the government should make laws to regulate purchases of baseball bats, knives, bows/arrows, garden tools, etc,etc. They all could be used as potential weapons. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsteroidX Posted December 24, 2012 #66 Share Posted December 24, 2012 There should be a ban on all assult weapons!!!! The general public should've never had access to them, they're made for the military use in combat situations!!!!guns were and still are manufactured for one sole intent, to kill!!!!!!!!! Sure, a gun won't kill anybody, that is, until someone picks it up to use on someone else, then it's justified to say guns do kill people!!!! If all of the guns in the world are put into a locked glass case, permanently, then you can say guns don't kill people!!!! Angry on non Englisk speaker ? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stellar Posted December 24, 2012 #67 Share Posted December 24, 2012 Maybe the government should make laws to regulate purchases of baseball bats, knives, bows/arrows, garden tools, etc,etc. They all could be used as potential weapons. Maybe the government should make laws and regulate purchases of vehicles. Oh wait, they already do... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hawken Posted December 24, 2012 #68 Share Posted December 24, 2012 http://youtu.be/KMoX7-349Ec Check out this video. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sir Wearer of Hats Posted December 24, 2012 #69 Share Posted December 24, 2012 The general public is supposed to have access to military style weapons to kill those who try to strip them of their rights. "And what country can preserve its liberties, if the rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms." - Thomas Jefferson to William S. Smith, son-in-law of John Adams because the last couple of people who've taken up arms have shaken the government to it's core - ohh wait, they got steam rollered, callee dangerous and then killed. viva la freedom! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aztek Posted December 24, 2012 #70 Share Posted December 24, 2012 because the last couple of people who've taken up arms have shaken the government to it's core - ohh wait, they got steam rollered, callee dangerous and then killed. viva la freedom! that is your answer, right there Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maizer Posted December 24, 2012 #71 Share Posted December 24, 2012 Maybe the government should make laws to regulate purchases of baseball bats, knives, bows/arrows, garden tools, etc,etc. They all could be used as potential weapons. Ah, comparing guns to knives and bats. Might as well compare nukes to guns and let them sell plutonium as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maizer Posted December 24, 2012 #72 Share Posted December 24, 2012 The general public is supposed to have access to military style weapons to kill those who try to strip them of their rights. "And what country can preserve its liberties, if the rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms." - Thomas Jefferson to William S. Smith, son-in-law of John Adams Yeah that was true at that time. But no longer. Thomas Jefferson, a true patriot, would be screaming for gun bans today. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yamato Posted December 24, 2012 #73 Share Posted December 24, 2012 Does not bloody matter That's the point. No, they don't, so why ban them in reaction to this tragedy? Handguns are not only actually relevant, they're even more dangerous than rifles indoors because it's very difficult to disarm someone of a handgun when their hand is wrapped around it. But Obama is using the emotional dander kicked up by this tragedy as a political opportunity to spuriously ban something else. Something that only our two-faced anti-gun liberals who somehow have no problem with our lawmakers' gun-blazing policies could possibly whine our lawmakers into passing a ban on. The government will have legal credibility banning our guns after we earn some legal credibility for banning its guns. I know that somehow the government isn't mentally ill to continuously drop bombs on other countries and knowingly kill children in the process of murdering suspects, I know that every gun-hating American would immediately turn pacifist the moment a foreign country started bombing our neighborhoods with drones, so how about we limit B-52s to a maximum of six bombs per payload, and due to a new loading mechanism taxpayers will have to pay to have installed, B-52s will only be able to drop one bomb at a time. Many, many, many assault weapons to deal with, so this is only the very beginning and the first example among many. And please note, I didn't say to take the bombers away from the government, e.g. to ban them altogether. I'm not sure why I didn't say that now. It would be more equivalent to what Obama wants to do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iNvRG Posted December 24, 2012 #74 Share Posted December 24, 2012 Yeah that was true at that time. But no longer. Thomas Jefferson, a true patriot, would be screaming for gun bans today. Seriously? He'd be screaming about the treason that is going on in Government today. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stellar Posted December 24, 2012 #75 Share Posted December 24, 2012 How easy it must be to put words in the mouth of a dead man... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now