No one needs 10 bullets to kill a deer

[+DieChecker]

Ah yes, the government has more arms and ammo but you need bodies that will use them against the American people. If revolution comes, it's not going to be some Ruby Ridge or Waco. It's going to be widespread. There will probably be some trigger where the military takes out a neighborhood or something but after that initial event, I see the military either stepping down or joining the people. The military takes an oath to the nation, not Obama and the people are the nation. It will be the people by virtue of their arms that will force the military to make that decision. Will the diehards left in the military be willing to use nukes on the American People? So no, the question is not redundant or stupid but weather or not the politicians will listen or not.

I agree. It is the height of anti-gun belief that US soldiers will gun down their own people who are trying to Revolt against Tyranny. Since we've seen even hard core Fundamentalist Loyal True Believers turn sides in Libya and Egypt and other nations, I find it Very Hard to believe that US soldiers would go to open war with US civilians in a long term engagement. I was in the Army in the 1990s and I would bet my life that very few of the soldiers I knew would knowingly open fire on a protesting or even a rioting civilian mob. Unless it was in fear of their life. But, that would only happen once, and then the Unit would refuse to deploy.

[F3SS]

Maybe using the term machine gun was abit off , how about military style guns that are capable of shooting 20+ rounds in a short time . Is this a better terminology ?

Yes the term was very off. The only thing military about the style is cosmetics. You can buy a Lamborghini body kit for a Pontiac Fiero but underneath the hood it's still just a Fiero.

something that can launch 20 + bullets from 1 magazine is not IMO what the " average " citizen needs .

That's arguable but the great thing about America is that we can have things we want but don't need. It's not to each according to his needs here. Yet.

him?:

Besides being in his sixties at the time he hardly had to move ten flights of stairs nor did he he have (at least according to the picture) a BMI of more than 30. Many would love to be that thin.

You must be a big guy if you consider that guy thin by any means.

This is true. I have heard Obama speak on gun control. He spoke about rural vs urban areas and mentioned hunting. Not once did he mention why people actually have the right to own guns. It is the elephant in the room which noone in the govt wants to admit too.

I would love to hear Obama or any president speak to the nation on the importance of the second amendment or the constitution in general with passion and sincerity. Seems these days more like ya ya that's the law, we know about it but we must try and figure out how to work around it. Obama was a constitutional professor. You'd think he'd like to educate us all on it considering the current dialogue. How bout it Mr. Prez? Use you're power of the press just like a state of the union address and teach the confused country about it. Personally, I don't see anything wrong or wasteful about a president using his time talk to for something like that.

They might or they might not. Guns do make something a lot easier than putting together bombs.

I think public executions achieve nothing more than cheapen the society in which they occur.

When you put a person to death you eliminate any chance they might change, and make the execution of an innocent person from time to time a virtual certainty, and to what end? Obviously the death penalty didn't deter them.

I agree with occasional innocents but a swift trial and execution is reasonable compared to the fame they seek and sometimes get. Edit: I mean the no doubt about it guilty like the Auroa shooter.

Besides, they took away somebody else's chance to live. Why should I care if he changes?

Edited February 4, 2013 by -Mr_Fess-

[RavenHawk]

Assuming you mean the border to Mexico, it IS controlled. There's nothing more to do. This is now a red herring.

No, it is not controlled. In just the last few years people have been killed in Texas and Arizona by people crossing the border. In the 80s my unit ran joint exercises with the Border Patrol at Pendleton. We showed them our recon techniques and they were just totally blown away. We took them through $-hit that most people couldn’t even go, let alone dare. We rarely used trails or roads. The terrain at Pendleton is pretty rugged. And we were constantly finding evidence of illegals using Pendleton as a route up from the border. In 2004-2005 my wife worked for the Border Patrol and in social gatherings, I asked PB Officers about how their techniques have changed. And they basically stated that they rely totally on observation (electronic and human). They just don’t have enough man-power to run effective patrols. There are 6 Border Patrol Inspections sites in New Mexico that I know of, basically centered on Las Cruces. If anyone has travelled on I10 or I25, you’ll know that there are vast amounts of open space that provide cover and concealment. The border is porous. If they don’t focus on closing it then we should just admire the Emperor’s new clothes.

[The Silver Thong]

Ah yes, the government has more arms and ammo but you need bodies that will use them against the American people. If revolution comes, it's not going to be some Ruby Ridge or Waco. It's going to be widespread. There will probably be some trigger where the military takes out a neighborhood or something but after that initial event, I see the military either stepping down or joining the people. The military takes an oath to the nation, not Obama and the people are the nation. It will be the people by virtue of their arms that will force the military to make that decision. Will the diehards left in the military be willing to use nukes on the American People? So no, the question is not redundant or stupid but weather or not the politicians will listen or not.

The politicians will first make the miltary think that there own citizins are the enemy just as we see the police being trained to think that now.

[AsteroidX]

Might try stoppin treatin the border like a novelty. you build a fence and put a bunch of carrots on the other side the rabbits gonna jump the fence or dig under it to get the carrot. If you throw some stuff over the fence then the rabbit dont have the need to get through so bad. Unless its trying to find someplace to have babies away from a bunch of racoons. You see where I live the racoons are bigger then the rabbits. So the rabbits gotta hide. Big deal. The land was there way before me the fence the rabbit or the racoon. Its a stupid fence anyways.

[The Silver Thong]

Might try stoppin treatin the border like a novelty. you build a fence and put a bunch of carrots on the other side the rabbits gonna jump the fence or dig under it to get the carrot. If you throw some stuff over the fence then the rabbit dont have the need to get through so bad. Unless its trying to find someplace to have babies away from a bunch of racoons. You see where I live the racoons are bigger then the rabbits. So the rabbits gotta hide. Big deal. The land was there way before me the fence the rabbit or the racoon. Its a stupid fence anyways.

Rabbit aka Mexican Racoon aka black right. funny thing is these are your own home grown issues.

Edited February 4, 2013 by The Silver Thong

[AsteroidX]

Nah man the rabbits having babies. The racoon is bigger then the rabbit they have babies too.. I see em all the time. Im just saying its a stupid fence. Buildin fence is hard work. I done it before. Its lame to build a fence where you dont want one because its too damn much work.

[CrimsonKing]

Rabbit aka Mexican Racoon aka black right. funny thing is these are your own home grown issues.

I dont think you got what he was saying at all lol

[The Silver Thong]

I dont think you got what he was saying at all lol

Could you explain it for me please.

Nah man the rabbits having babies. The racoon is bigger then the rabbit they have babies too.. I see em all the time. Im just saying its a stupid fence. Buildin fence is hard work. I done it before. Its lame to build a fence where you dont want one because its too damn much work.

If I got ya wrong sorry just didn`t make sence to me.

[CrimsonKing]

Could you explain it for me please.

If I got ya wrong sorry just didn`t make sence to me.

Just meant a fence is pointless nothing to do with anything being black haha

[AsteroidX]

Yeah. Its about getting along.

[+joc]

Might try stoppin treatin the border like a novelty. you build a fence and put a bunch of carrots on the other side the rabbits gonna jump the fence or dig under it to get the carrot. If you throw some stuff over the fence then the rabbit dont have the need to get through so bad. Unless its trying to find someplace to have babies away from a bunch of racoons. You see where I live the racoons are bigger then the rabbits. So the rabbits gotta hide. Big deal. The land was there way before me the fence the rabbit or the racoon. Its a stupid fence anyways.

If you don't want the rabbits on your side of the fence...start shooting them as they cross. Crude? Barbaric? Effective!

[ninjadude]

In the 80s my unit ran

In 2004-2005 my wife worked for the Border Patrol and in social gatherings,

again, ancient history. Are you going to cling to this fear mongering for the next 50 years? In the CURRENT year the statistics are quite different.

[RavenHawk]

again, ancient history. Are you going to cling to this fear mongering for the next 50 years? In the CURRENT year the statistics are quite different.

Are you going to cling to ignorance all your life? And what do the current statistics state? That more illegals were caught last year? What fraction of the total that get through is that? Nothing has changed in the past 30 years. That is not ancient history. It's status quo. Obama hasn't done anything to close the border. Closing the border means 0% get through. You need a series of palisades and redoubts linking non-lethal killing zones of burms and ditches between 300 to 500 yards deep. It won't prevent people from coming through but by the time they get to the other side, they'll be so exhausted that they could be collected easily. A pure fence will only encourage them. An obvious obstacle that will wear them out would be more effective. And before they are deported, they could be used to maintain the line. Use the terrain to benefit the defender, not the infiltrator. But if you want to discuss illegals then I suggest you start a new thread.

[RavenHawk]

I don't care what that is, the bottom line is simple, anyone who wants to take a stand for their rights have their own plan..and that means anyone

You had better care. Knowing what their [the Administration's] plan is determines what your course of action is.

Nah, Jesus only briefly mentions forgiveness and peace.. Jesus said it out the corner of his mouth, then cleared his throat ..*AHEM*... !!

I guess you didn't catch the focus. The Bible and Jesus speak of many things but the message of the Bible is Salvation.

Funny, Fred Phelps thinks so too ...!!

That's nice.

Now why can't I be with the ' in crowd ' Join a group of mad folk that go around thinking violence is the only way... I never got my membership.. Darn I feel so left out..

Aren't you getting things mixed up? Fred Phelps brand of violence has nothing to do with bringing down a tyrannical government. Now, you may think that he may think so but I would say he was wrong. You don't commit violence at military funerals when it is the politician that should be the target. The military are part of the people.

Isn't that a clever quote? Here's another - Smoking doesn't kill anyone, but people can die from smoking..

Yeah, it is a clever quote if you *catch* it. You're non clever comment proves that you didn't.

I knew you couldn't copy and paste a single word from Jesus about him telling people to use violence to get their own way..

I thought I did… I didn't give you chapter and verse, but I did reference a passage. Violence isn't just for *getting your way*. It is also for standing your ground. Ok, so let me look (yawn)…

Luke 22:36

He said to them, "But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one. – some will say that this was meant as a setup so that Jesus could rebuke the use of weapons but others will say only for the purpose of his Crucifixion. As I said before, Jesus was telling us to not be stupid.

Matthew 10:34

"Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. – Some versions say that the word is not sword but division, but it is still violence. From time to time, I make an equivalence between Judaism and Hinduism by stating that Yahweh = Brahma, Jesus = Shiva, & Holy Ghost = Vishnu. Now Shiva is the destructor of the Triad (or Trinity).

Matthew 21:12-13

12 Jesus entered the temple courts and drove out all who were buying and selling there. He overturned the tables of the money changers and the benches of those selling doves. 13 "It is written," he said to them, "'My house will be called a house of prayer,' but you are making it 'a den of robbers.'"

These are examples of violence used by Jesus. Now people like you and Phelps would see these as examples of using violence to get your way. I see it as standing your ground. As a last resort.

But aren't we getting away from the OP? If you want to reply further then create a new thread in the appropriate forum. Let me know and I may respond.

Do you think that the gun owners who believe in their rights, and will take a stand to fight for those rights, are they a threat?......OR is it like you first mentioned only IF they believe in god?

No! As I said before, it is the Administration that considers people who believe in the Bible as a threat. I didn't add the *if*. This is an attempt to divide the people, just as the Nazis did to the Jews. That's what I brought up.

In this thread and only in this thread alone.. You were the first and only one I saw mention god... No one else cared to.. If I never saw you mention it, I wouldn't have taken on your post..

Sigh!... I'll try it again. I didn't bring GOD into this. The Administration did. I only commented on it. And it wasn't the main focus. It was but one item on a list that the Administration identified as a possible threat. It certainly wasn't all inclusive.

The afterlife has nothing to do with the here and now.. We live for today, and the next and the next...

Exactly.

When a person wishes to stand for their rights, its for the here and now.. Many non believers will do it and make sure they get it done...Just in the same way a believer will ..

Exactly.

You all will hold the same passion for your rights.. It is arrogant and silly to think you wont..

Exactly.

Hypothetically.. IF your country were to face a massive attack, invaded and another group from a different religion and culture ( a pretend group for the sake of this discussion ) who do not like christians, atheists Jews and whatever else...You will NEED as many Americans on your side as you can You wouldn't have time to fanny about wanting to dived your people.. Your chances are greater with more on your side ........... Like when the British invaded all those years ago, the Americans didn't mess around and only hand guns to a selected crown - Only those who believe in Jesus, take a gun.. NO.. Everyone who was anyone took a stand and fought back together..

You're starting to catch on. Why do you think the Administration is doing this? It's not a pretend group. It is the Administration. The invasion is from the inside.

Well then, that gives them all the more reason to fight for their rights, for the life they live in here and now.. IF it is all they have ...Then that's all they need to fight for

OK…

Faith or no faith, if your fate is to be killed, you face it, many christians have had to face it, just like many people from every other faith known to man ...If Christians didn't wish to die, because they are so calm and collective about death due to an afterlife, then why fight to save themselves and families? ... What about the christians who went into the Colosseum, do you think they weren't frightened of what they had to face? I think so.. Being scared of dying and leaving people behind is human nature.. I am not saying everyone is scared, but it is naive to think that christians aren't, just because they believe in an afterlife . So many are and have been... I don't want to hear any nonsense that pretends they don't.. You do not speak for every last christian on the planet... Bottom line is this - So many of them even with their beliefs, will be scared, so many not so..

I didn't say they wouldn't be scared. But if you are comfortable with your afterlife, you will face death easier. And I will claim that those that believe that Jesus is their Lord and Savior will meet their end far better than a non believer. But this has nothing to do with the OP.

[Frank Merton]

Dont always agree with you at least you are rational though

Actually I try to post logically, but my gut reaction to guns is one of emotional revulsion bordering on nausea.

[CrimsonKing]

Actually I try to post logically, but my gut reaction to guns is one of emotional revulsion bordering on nausea.

I can respect that,i myself am repulsed by the idea of standing around doing nothing when i myself or one i care for is threatened

[Frank Merton]

I can respect that,i myself am repulsed by the idea of standing around doing nothing when i myself or one i care for is threatened

I'm not sure I appreciate your implication, which is a bit snide, as I would not stand around doing nothing. There is a difference between force and lethal force.

I remember one time one the back of a motorbike (the way we generally get around in Vietnam) wandering into some restricted property on the way to look at some real estate, and a smiling but very young and very well armed soldier comes out to tell us we must turn around (in the process using the most friendly and respectful pronoun available in the language). My friend who was driving didn't want to -- we just want to go "over there." "No, the man said, you can not do that (less friendly, more formal pronoun)." I nudged my friend and said, "Sun, the man has a gun and his hand is on it. Come to your senses."

Well we turned around and went a longer route. I upchucked a few minutes later.

[Capt Amerika]

Ask the Koreans during the LA riots how those 30 round magazines worked out.

They stood their ground protecting their shops and their shops were some of the only ones not looted and burned to the ground.

Everyone likes to pretend that guns are for protection in a one on one situation.

Guess what? Thats not always the case.

If you're not prepared for the worst case scenario, that's your problem.

Dont try to legislate my right to be prepared away just so you can feel good about yourself though.

Edited February 4, 2013 by Capt Amerika

[CrimsonKing]

I'm not sure I appreciate your implication, which is a bit snide, as I would not stand around doing nothing. There is a difference between force and lethal force.

I remember one time one the back of a motorbike (the way we generally get around in Vietnam) wandering into some restricted property on the way to look at some real estate, and a smiling but very young and very well armed soldier comes out to tell us we must turn around (in the process using the most friendly and respectful pronoun available in the language). My friend who was driving didn't want to -- we just want to go "over there." "No, the man said, you can not do that (less friendly, more formal pronoun)." I nudged my friend and said, "Sun, the man has a gun and his hand is on it. Come to your senses."

Well we turned around and went a longer route. I upchucked a few minutes later.

Was not trying to be snide,just meant i would do anything nessasary to protect myself or my own.Dont bring a knife to a gunfight you will lose.Some situations are unavoidable i will stand my ground and would rather be prepared to take it head on,not turn my back and and Try to run away.

[+DieChecker]

The politicians will first make the miltary think that there own citizins are the enemy just as we see the police being trained to think that now.

That might work if we did not have a Volinteer Military. Most soldiers serve only 3 to 5 years. The soldiers ARE the Citizens. If we had a soldier class with permanently employed soldiers, then we'd have to worry, as their entire lives would be wrapped up in support of their government which pays them. A soldier with less then a year left in the military is not going to believe that.

[+DieChecker]

again, ancient history. Are you going to cling to this fear mongering for the next 50 years? In the CURRENT year the statistics are quite different.

What Ninja is refering to is his earlier links (Maybe not in this thread?) that point out that the BALANCE of immigration is down to near a zero change. Meaning as many people are taking their earnings/savings and heading back to Mexico as are coming into the US. If we had 1 million people coming north last year, we could have 1.5 million coming north this year... as long as the number of people going back south is also increasing. Means very little toward the security and prevention of illegal Border Crossings. It is just a statistic number used for arguements sake.

People are still crossing North, it is just that many are crossing South also. You know, sort of like how people travel between New York and Pennsylvania. How people would travel over an Open Border.

Edited February 4, 2013 by DieChecker

[Frank Merton]

That might work if we did not have a Volinteer Military. Most soldiers serve only 3 to 5 years. The soldiers ARE the Citizens. If we had a soldier class with permanently employed soldiers, then we'd have to worry, as their entire lives would be wrapped up in support of their government which pays them. A soldier with less then a year left in the military is not going to believe that.

So the key to having a volunteer army not become a Praetorian Guard is to keep their terms of duty fairly short. Makes sense.

[CrimsonKing]

I'm not sure I appreciate your implication, which is a bit snide, as I would not stand around doing nothing. There is a difference between force and lethal force.

I remember one time one the back of a motorbike (the way we generally get around in Vietnam) wandering into some restricted property on the way to look at some real estate, and a smiling but very young and very well armed soldier comes out to tell us we must turn around (in the process using the most friendly and respectful pronoun available in the language). My friend who was driving didn't want to -- we just want to go "over there." "No, the man said, you can not do that (less friendly, more formal pronoun)." I nudged my friend and said, "Sun, the man has a gun and his hand is on it. Come to your senses."

Well we turned around and went a longer route. I upchucked a few minutes later.

You make my point for me,he had a gun you didnt.If he wanted to he could have done anything he wanted to and there would have been nothing either one of you could have done but died.If a criminal has a gun pointed at you,it is better to fight fire with fire and hope you are the better shot.It is atleast 50/50 then.

[Capt Amerika]

Are you going to cling to ignorance all your life? And what do the current statistics state? That more illegals were caught last year? What fraction of the total that get through is that? Nothing has changed in the past 30 years. That is not ancient history. It's status quo. Obama hasn't done anything to close the border. Closing the border means 0% get through. You need a series of palisades and redoubts linking non-lethal killing zones of burms and ditches between 300 to 500 yards deep. It won't prevent people from coming through but by the time they get to the other side, they'll be so exhausted that they could be collected easily. A pure fence will only encourage them. An obvious obstacle that will wear them out would be more effective. And before they are deported, they could be used to maintain the line. Use the terrain to benefit the defender, not the infiltrator. But if you want to discuss illegals then I suggest you start a new thread.

The Great Wall of America!

It did wonders in China, think of the employment opportunities and the only way in is through the approved border crossing stations built into it.

You drive spikes so deep into the ground tunneling is impossible and you stop the nonsense.

Fences do nothing. Massive brick and mortar structures on the other hand.....