Like us on Facebook


Follow us on Twitter





Page 8 of 9 FirstFirst ... 6789 LastLast
Results 106 to 120 of 121
  1. #106
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Fayettenam
    Posts
    7,926
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by stephkyle7 View Post
    all the "personal" firearms in the world wouldnt slow the US military one second from steam rolling through anywhere they wanted...dont kid yourself.

    The Right to bear arms was written in a different world.
    Governments routinely abused peoples rights world wide,standing armies were expensive and rare so two birds with one stone was the idea.

    Now we do have a huge standing army, and at least in our case the Government has 250 years of understanding they exist at our discretion.

    Having firearms is a good thing, but having limitations and regulations would be even better.
    The idea that we need them to protect ourselves from a Government gone crazy is a silly scenario.If it were to happen, a group of middle aged men with neckties around the tops of their head and a few AR -15s will be absolutely irrelevan.
    Quote Originally Posted by flips333 View Post
    I have no clue if the licensing process actually limits accidents on the road. I would guess so but I have no data to back that up.

    I think guns generally lead to violence. I'm not saying they should be outlawed... I'm not trumpeting that. I just think they are unnecessary tools of violence. In flips-land they are not allowed. In America they are...I think this sucks because it means our society is more violent... But it's part of the price of being American I guess.

    Lastly, no gun you have in your home is going to successfully defend against the might of the American military... seriously... that's silly. Hitler's rise to power had nothing to do with the people not possessing guns, and everything to do with a bunch of people liking Hitler. A hand gun will not protect you from the patriot act. A machine gun will not stop a drone bomb from blowing you to smithereens. It's OK to believe this, **** think what you want, but it's a load of propaganda and malarkey that just doesn't make much sense once you think pass the surface of the idea.
    Please pass this along to those that fought against us in Afghanistan and Iraq, 2 places that are still facing heavy guerrilla resistance against our Army that not only failed to get rid of them, but has nearly bankrupted the entire country and caused a serious look at our military limitations in the process...

    I think you put too little stock on what a well regulated guerrilla warfare campaign against a technologically superior force can accomplish.

    If our 2 most recent wars won't suffice, please also look up Vietnam, Korea, Russian invasion of Afghanistan, the French-SE asian combat, the English vs Swahili's, the US Revolutionary war, the French Revolutionary War, and pretty much a 1,000 other examples through history...
    Quote Originally Posted by AmsterNat View Post
    How unsurprising. Dude, give up trying to argue with valade. He cut you into little pieces, had you for breakfast, and shat you out.
    Quote Originally Posted by mariner4life View Post
    Valade you have totally owned this thread. Well done
    My fanbase is growing.

  2. #107
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    3,508
    vCash
    1500
    A plethora of handguns and even automatic weapons isn't comparable to guerilla warfare in Afghanistan for example.
    When the Mujahedeen fought the Soviets they received weapons and financial support from China,Saudi Arabia,USA and other countries via Pakistan. They had heavy artillery and soldiers from other arab states. It is apples to oranges.
    The idea of a revolutionary war against the military is completely lunatic.

  3. #108
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Baltimore now, but born and raised on the south side of Chicago.
    Posts
    6,938
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by valade16 View Post
    Please pass this along to those that fought against us in Afghanistan and Iraq, 2 places that are still facing heavy guerrilla resistance against our Army that not only failed to get rid of them, but has nearly bankrupted the entire country and caused a serious look at our military limitations in the process...

    I think you put too little stock on what a well regulated guerrilla warfare campaign against a technologically superior force can accomplish.

    If our 2 most recent wars won't suffice, please also look up Vietnam, Korea, Russian invasion of Afghanistan, the French-SE asian combat, the English vs Swahili's, the US Revolutionary war, the French Revolutionary War, and pretty much a 1,000 other examples through history...
    OK. Which countries do you think we should follow as a model. Iraq, Afghanastan. Or great britain and Sweden?

    I do believe there has been relative peace in 2 of those places for roughly 70 years, and war after war after war in the other 2. I'll pick the peaceful nations.

    These are also not internal revolutions. Unless you want to go way back. and for each I can point to say something like the Civil war where the revolution failed.

    You keep your gun. If you think that you can overthrow the government with it great. I think that's beyond silly. So we disagree... I think guns are a sign of a violent society, like we are. i would like to move beyond that. But honestly this is far less important for me than many other issues.
    Last edited by flips333; 12-06-2012 at 09:32 AM.

    Quote Originally Posted by MrPoon
    man with hair like fire can destroy souls with a twitch of his thighs.

  4. #109
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Fayettenam
    Posts
    7,926
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by keymax View Post
    A plethora of handguns and even automatic weapons isn't comparable to guerilla warfare in Afghanistan for example.
    When the Mujahedeen fought the Soviets they received weapons and financial support from China,Saudi Arabia,USA and other countries via Pakistan. They had heavy artillery and soldiers from other arab states. It is apples to oranges.
    The idea of a revolutionary war against the military is completely lunatic
    Several things

    You are assuming a lot of things. That we won't have more advanced weapons or financial support from other parties. That our civilian populace won't create some of these advanced weapons themselves. That some Soldiers won't defect. That we don't have enough former military personnel who would rise agains the government.

    But the biggest assumption is thinking that a Country with a population of around 300 million fighting against an armed force that is comprised over just over 1 million, would be lunacy...

    Quote Originally Posted by flips333 View Post
    OK. Which countries do you think we should follow as a model. Iraq, Afghanastan. Or great britain and Sweden?

    I do believe there has been relative peace in 2 of those places for roughly 70 years, and war after war after war in the other 2. I'll pick the peaceful nations.

    These are also not internal revolutions. Unless you want to go way back. and for each I can point to say something like the Civil war where the revolution failed.

    You keep your gun. If you think that you can overthrow the government with it great. I think that's beyond silly. So we disagree... I think guns are a sign of a violent society, like we are. i would like to move beyond that. But honestly this is far less important for me than many other issues.
    You can spin that anyway you want it. Who should we follow, Nazi Germany, Communist Russia, and Communist China under Mao, all of who denied their citizens guns, or Canada?,

    One group is responsible for over 200 million deaths and the other enjoys one of the lowest crime rates in the world?

    We obviously disagree on whether you can effectively overthrow the government should the need to revolt arise.

    But tell me, if the Government does become an oppressive one, without the use of physical force, how do you expect to stop the oppression?
    Last edited by valade16; 12-06-2012 at 11:22 AM.
    Quote Originally Posted by AmsterNat View Post
    How unsurprising. Dude, give up trying to argue with valade. He cut you into little pieces, had you for breakfast, and shat you out.
    Quote Originally Posted by mariner4life View Post
    Valade you have totally owned this thread. Well done
    My fanbase is growing.

  5. #110
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Baltimore now, but born and raised on the south side of Chicago.
    Posts
    6,938
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by valade16 View Post
    Several things

    1). You are assuming a lot of things. That we won't have more advanced weapons or financial support from other parties. That our civilian populace won't create some of these advanced weapons themselves. That some Soldiers won't defect. That we don't have enough former military personnel who would rise agains the government.

    But the biggest assumption is thinking that a Country with a population of around 300 million fighting against an armed force that is comprised over just over 1 million, would be lunacy...



    You can spin that anyway you want it. Who should we follow, Nazi Germany, Communist Russia, and Communist China under Mao, all of who denied their citizens guns, or Canada?,

    One group is responsible for over 200 million deaths and the other enjoys one of the lowest crime rates in the world?

    We obviously disagree on whether you can effectively overthrow the government should the need to revolt arise.

    But tell me, if the Government does become an oppressive one, without the use of physical force, how do you expect to stop the oppression?
    Yes you are right both peaceloving nations and non peace loving nations have outlawed guns. Brining me back to my original point. It doesn't matter for freedom.There are countries that have strict gun control that are bad, and once that are good. Same goes for those where it is easy to access weapons. No coorelation either way.

    As to your question I'd ask Egyptians, they are the authority on that. As far as I can tell they succeeded to do just that... you could repond with Libia, But in Libia it took fighter jets controling the skys from other coutries to do something similar with weapns against a far less powerful foe.

    Bottom Line: You want your guns. I really don't care that much. As long as you are held responsibile for your use of them.

    In other words when someone kills some poor unarmed schmuck because they are afraid of their loud gangsta music... they should be sent to prison. Anxiety + guns doesn't give one the right to use them on people.
    Last edited by flips333; 12-06-2012 at 11:46 AM.

    Quote Originally Posted by MrPoon
    man with hair like fire can destroy souls with a twitch of his thighs.

  6. #111
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    38,222
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by valade16 View Post
    Please pass this along to those that fought against us in Afghanistan and Iraq, 2 places that are still facing heavy guerrilla resistance against our Army that not only failed to get rid of them, but has nearly bankrupted the entire country and caused a serious look at our military limitations in the process...

    I think you put too little stock on what a well regulated guerrilla warfare campaign against a technologically superior force can accomplish.

    If our 2 most recent wars won't suffice, please also look up Vietnam, Korea, Russian invasion of Afghanistan, the French-SE asian combat, the English vs Swahili's, the US Revolutionary war, the French Revolutionary War, and pretty much a 1,000 other examples through history...
    The one difference, I think, is that we're trying to minimize civilian casualties. If we didn't care about it, we could literally just carpet bomb the place and be done with it.

    If there is some kind of uprising against the government, some war of government vs. citizen or whatever, it's not hard to see who wins in hunting rifle vs. cruise missile/tank/MOAB/etc.
    Visit my Blog.



    "Glad the GOP finally came out with an Obamacare alternative. Can't wait to see their alternative to the Iraq War." - @LOLGOP

  7. #112
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Fayettenam
    Posts
    7,926
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by flips333 View Post
    Yes you are right both peaceloving nations and non peace loving nations have outlawed guns. Brining me back to my original point. It doesn't matter for freedom.There are countries that have strict gun control that are bad, and once that are good. Same goes for those where it is easy to access weapons. No coorelation either way.

    As to your question I'd ask Egyptians, they are the authority on that. As far as I can tell they succeeded to do just that... you could repond with Libia, But in Libia it took fighter jets controling the skys from other coutries to do something similar.
    I'd argue there is absolutely coorelation between countries that turn oppressive and their limiting of personal freedoms relating to firearms...

    Quote Originally Posted by natepro View Post
    The one difference, I think, is that we're trying to minimize civilian casualties. If we didn't care about it, we could literally just carpet bomb the place and be done with it.

    If there is some kind of uprising against the government, some war of government vs. citizen or whatever, it's not hard to see who wins in hunting rifle vs. cruise missile/tank/MOAB/etc.
    I'm glad you weren't around during the revolutionary war to spread such sentiment, or it might never have got off the ground!

    I believe that no matter the chances of failure, we owe it to our forefathers, our country and the ideals it was founded on, as well as ourselves, to at least try.
    Quote Originally Posted by AmsterNat View Post
    How unsurprising. Dude, give up trying to argue with valade. He cut you into little pieces, had you for breakfast, and shat you out.
    Quote Originally Posted by mariner4life View Post
    Valade you have totally owned this thread. Well done
    My fanbase is growing.

  8. #113
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    6,460
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by valade16 View Post
    Please pass this along to those that fought against us in Afghanistan and Iraq, 2 places that are still facing heavy guerrilla resistance against our Army that not only failed to get rid of them, but has nearly bankrupted the entire country and caused a serious look at our military limitations in the process...

    I think you put too little stock on what a well regulated guerrilla warfare campaign against a technologically superior force can accomplish.

    If our 2 most recent wars won't suffice, please also look up Vietnam, Korea, Russian invasion of Afghanistan, the French-SE asian combat, the English vs Swahili's, the US Revolutionary war, the French Revolutionary War, and pretty much a 1,000 other examples through history...
    I thought I had read you served?
    I did...for twelve years.I left as an E-6 (staff sergeant in the Army, Tech,in the airforce...I served in both).

    Im amazed you would compare any of those campaigns to an actual war.
    We are not at war in Afghanistan, which I did a tour in, and we werent at War In Iraq which I did two tours in, nor were we at war In Vietnam.

    In war, the goal is conquest.If we wanted to conquer Vietnam,or Iraq, or Afghanistan, then we would have.That is the problem with our current strategies around the globe.We are trying to change behaviour through agression, that wont work once you leave.
    If we were out to conquer...there would be nothing left except a bunch of rocks.
    If they wanted to put down a domestic issue, I find it shocking for someone with even a limited exposure to what our military can do would argue for one second that a bunch of good ole boys might know the type of hell that we could drop on them....Im guessing you were a single enlistment , never down range kinda guy...I know first hand the level of destruction we can put on a place , and we never even use a significant percentage of what we can REALLY do if we wanted to.
    The 2nd amendment at this point is a joke, it is a hiding place for plutocrats,psychos and firearm enthusiast to embrace commerece ,mayhem, and power...

  9. #114
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    38,222
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by valade16 View Post
    I'm glad you weren't around during the revolutionary war to spread such sentiment, or it might never have got off the ground!

    I believe that no matter the chances of failure, we owe it to our forefathers, our country and the ideals it was founded on, as well as ourselves, to at least try.
    During the Revolutionary War, there were no cruise missiles to be launched. No tanks to go against, no planes that could fly overhead and drop bombs, certainly no drones that could literally rain death from the sky and you'd never even know they were there. The difference in armaments between the revolutionaries and the British Army wasn't nearly what it is between the American citizens and the American military now.
    Visit my Blog.



    "Glad the GOP finally came out with an Obamacare alternative. Can't wait to see their alternative to the Iraq War." - @LOLGOP

  10. #115
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    6,460
    vCash
    1500
    I mean honestly, Ive have been a big fan of convential weaponry for a while and we dont use half of what we have...ever. Im not talking nuclear there is a whole boatload of other weapon systems that are just to damn destructive to justify using.

    In a world where we can paint a target from a satelite, and launch a missle from more then 6 miles from the hot zone...I dont really get your perspective, this is the real world, not Humans Vs Terminators...

  11. #116
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Fayettenam
    Posts
    7,926
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by stephkyle7 View Post
    I thought I had read you served?
    I did...for twelve years. I left as an E-6 (staff sergeant in the Army, Tech,in the airforce...I served in both).

    Im amazed you would compare any of those campaigns to an actual war.
    We are not at war in Afghanistan, which I did a tour in, and we werent at War In Iraq which I did two tours in, nor were we at war In Vietnam.

    In war, the goal is conquest.If we wanted to conquer Vietnam,or Iraq, or Afghanistan, then we would have.That is the problem with our current strategies around the globe.We are trying to change behaviour through agression, that wont work once you leave.
    If we were out to conquer...there would be nothing left except a bunch of rocks.
    If they wanted to put down a domestic issue, I find it shocking for someone with even a limited exposure to what our military can do would argue for one second that a bunch of good ole boys might know the type of hell that we could drop on them....Im guessing you were a single enlistment , never down range kinda guy...I know first hand the level of destruction we can put on a place , and we never even use a significant percentage of what we can REALLY do if we wanted to.
    The 2nd amendment at this point is a joke, it is a hiding place for plutocrats,psychos and firearm enthusiast to embrace commerece ,mayhem, and power...
    I'm currently AGR, E6. I'm on my 2nd enlistement and I deployed for 15 months. You are absolutely right those weren't true wars in the traditional sense, which is why I referenced them. I was trying to point out how a technologically inferior opponent could wage an effective campaign against a superior foe through guerrilla warfare.

    Something I still maintain. Hell, even one of our greatest Generals in history, Eisenhower practically begged America to watch out for the Military-Industrial complex and here we are about to give them any hope of resistance on a silver platter. What you are advocating is stopping the threat of oppression by our government with your belief they won't oppress you.

    If you believe that, cool, it's your perogative. I disagree.

    Quote Originally Posted by natepro View Post
    During the Revolutionary War, there were no cruise missiles to be launched. No tanks to go against, no planes that could fly overhead and drop bombs, certainly no drones that could literally rain death from the sky and you'd never even know they were there. The difference in armaments between the revolutionaries and the British Army wasn't nearly what it is between the American citizens and the American military now.
    While true, I still maintain the need to try.

    With the "guns aren't needed to defend from our government" troupe there seem to be a lot of questions they never want to ask or answer.

    1). Why did the Founding Fathers feel the need to make it the 2nd amendment?

    2). How do we propose to stop government oppression without the threat of foce?

    As the old quote goes "Those who give up the 2nd Amendment have just given up the 1st".
    Quote Originally Posted by AmsterNat View Post
    How unsurprising. Dude, give up trying to argue with valade. He cut you into little pieces, had you for breakfast, and shat you out.
    Quote Originally Posted by mariner4life View Post
    Valade you have totally owned this thread. Well done
    My fanbase is growing.

  12. #117
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Fayettenam
    Posts
    7,926
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by stephkyle7 View Post
    I mean honestly, Ive have been a big fan of convential weaponry for a while and we dont use half of what we have...ever. Im not talking nuclear there is a whole boatload of other weapon systems that are just to damn destructive to justify using.

    In a world where we can paint a target from a satelite, and launch a missle from more then 6 miles from the hot zone...I dont really get your perspective, this is the real world, not Humans Vs Terminators...
    And tell me again, if it was too destructive to use on other civilian populations why would it be OK against ours?

    Remember, a revolution of effective resistance most likely wouldn't be a match of standing armies but of guerilla warfare. There would still be millions of innocents. Is the government going to blow them all up with a Railgun to get at the 2 guerilla fighters in a city? I doubt it. If they do, it would probably rally millions more to the cause as well as the international community.

    Why on earth are you guys so intent on painting a situation that would have a million variables into something as simple as "bigger guns = win"?
    Quote Originally Posted by AmsterNat View Post
    How unsurprising. Dude, give up trying to argue with valade. He cut you into little pieces, had you for breakfast, and shat you out.
    Quote Originally Posted by mariner4life View Post
    Valade you have totally owned this thread. Well done
    My fanbase is growing.

  13. #118
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    38,222
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by valade16 View Post
    While true, I still maintain the need to try.

    With the "guns aren't needed to defend from our government" troupe there seem to be a lot of questions they never want to ask or answer.

    1). Why did the Founding Fathers feel the need to make it the 2nd amendment?

    2). How do we propose to stop government oppression without the threat of foce?

    As the old quote goes "Those who give up the 2nd Amendment have just given up the 1st".
    The simple fact is, the American military could turn our cities into graveyards in shockingly little time, if they wanted. Our handguns and rifles aren't going to stop that from happen. And I see no reason why a citizenry should be given weapons that would stop it from happening, because there's virtually a 100% chance someone gets a hold of them and, instead of taking out a single theater screen of people, takes out the entire building instead. But, I don't think this is what you're advocating.

    1. Because they lived in 1776 and not 2012? The world was a different place then. People didn't massacre dozens of people at a time with a musket. Let's play a hypothetical game. Let's say 50 years from now, a focused energy weapon is invented that is the same size as a handgun. It is, basically, a laser gun. It slices through virtually anything, including body armor, and can kill a person instantly. It's energy source is almost unlimited, giving a person thousands of shots before it runs out. By holding the trigger and sweeping the beam in an arc, a person could take out an entire SWAT team in one shot. Should this gun be legal? If not, why not?

    2. The way we already do: With the vote, and through the courts. You seem to think that people with hunting rifles and handguns is the only thing stopping the government from turning the country's citizens into slaves or something. We have real-world examples of countries that have gun control laws far more strict than ours, and yet this hasn't happened. In fact, there are countries where the people are happier and healthier than the people here. How can this be?
    Visit my Blog.



    "Glad the GOP finally came out with an Obamacare alternative. Can't wait to see their alternative to the Iraq War." - @LOLGOP

  14. #119
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Baltimore now, but born and raised on the south side of Chicago.
    Posts
    6,938
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by valade16 View Post
    I'd argue there is absolutely coorelation between countries that turn oppressive and their limiting of personal freedoms relating to firearms...
    And your data for this is? I mean if there's a coorelation you should be able to find it. A correlation is something that is rooted in numbers. Not something that you surmise because it's your belief. If you have a belief and you look in the world for the evidence you are most surly going to fall to confirmation bias.

    Quote Originally Posted by MrPoon
    man with hair like fire can destroy souls with a twitch of his thighs.

  15. #120
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Baltimore now, but born and raised on the south side of Chicago.
    Posts
    6,938
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by valade16 View Post
    As the old quote goes "Those who give up the 2nd Amendment have just given up the 1st".
    there are plenty of countries with freedom of speach without having guns all over the place. This is a quote shown to be false.

    Guns are just as likely to be used to put an oppressive regime INTO power as they are to take it out.

    Again not saying they should be outlawed... But these arguments are kind of silly.

    Quote Originally Posted by MrPoon
    man with hair like fire can destroy souls with a twitch of his thighs.

Page 8 of 9 FirstFirst ... 6789 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •