Colion Noir - our 2nd Amendment protects our 1st
-
It would take an airstrike. Nobody's getting within 800m of me
I mean umm id hand them over.
-
Sure. We'd just say "Thank you, Obamao, for not listing us
on the "no head" list...
and turn em in.
"LONG LIVE THE FINK KING !" (in our WH)
-
-
-
-
-
So the 2nd link is just an article about the 1st link? Ok.
I don't agree with the idea that giving everyone guns will make everyone safer. Just like we can't expect criminals to follow laws, we can't expect every gun owner to be 100% responsible. I think the idea he portrays, that we are all in danger from terrorists and need guns for safety, is alarmist. The incident he was describing is terrible. Yes, maybe someone nearby with a gun could have helped. Maybe he misses and gets himself killed as well. Maybe multiple people rush in to be heroes and chaos ensues. Either way, one data point of speculation doesn't prove much.
That being said, I'm not trying to take your guns. Calm down.
Oh, and if the govt really did break in to a crazy, dictator run, military state... a bunch of dudes in their houses with some rifles aren't going to stop an army. You'd just be a minor annoyance. This isn't the 18th century. A "militia" is no where near equal in strength to our military.
oh, and I agree with Heck
-
So the 2nd link is just an article about the 1st link? Ok.
I don't agree with the idea that giving everyone guns will make everyone safer. Just like we can't expect criminals to follow laws, we can't expect every gun owner to be 100% responsible. I think the idea he portrays, that we are all in danger from terrorists and need guns for safety, is alarmist. The incident he was describing is terrible. Yes, maybe someone nearby with a gun could have helped. Maybe he misses and gets himself killed as well. Maybe multiple people rush in to be heroes and chaos ensues. Either way, one data point of speculation doesn't prove much.
That being said, I'm not trying to take your guns. Calm down.
Oh, and if the govt really did break in to a crazy, dictator run, military state... a bunch of dudes in their houses with some rifles aren't going to stop an army. You'd just be a minor annoyance. This isn't the 18th century. A "militia" is no where near equal in strength to our military.
oh, and I agree with Heck
Take a moment to read about Vietnam, the current Afghan/Iraq war, and finally the American Revolution. I'll let you see if you can find anything in common.Oh, and if the govt really did break in to a crazy, dictator run, military state... a bunch of dudes in their houses with some rifles aren't going to stop an army. You'd just be a minor annoyance. This isn't the 18th century. A "militia" is no where near equal in strength to our military.
Sure, luck means a lot in football. Not having a good quarterback is bad luck. -Don Shula -
Yeah some basic reading about guerilla resistance will probably enlighten you, Woody.
In nearly all awful circumstances, I would rather someone be armed to respond. Yes, fuckery may occur where the person goofs up. However, you know 100% that the people shooting back have only bad intentions. Having at least some percentage of chance for survival is better than none.
-
Take a moment to read about Vietnam, the current Afghan/Iraq war, and finally the American Revolution. I'll let you see if you can find anything in common.Oh, and if the govt really did break in to a crazy, dictator run, military state... a bunch of dudes in their houses with some rifles aren't going to stop an army. You'd just be a minor annoyance. This isn't the 18th century. A "militia" is no where near equal in strength to our military.
Take a moment to read about Vietnam, the current Afghan/Iraq war, and finally the American Revolution. I'll let you see if you can find anything in common.
The Revolution? How is the technology then anywhere similar to now? Civilian militias could be armed almost equal to the national army. Do you have a tank or fighter jet at your house now?
Ja.brill Peppers - Cleveland Brown OldBrownsFan, on 02 Jun 2017 - 5:09PM said: "No you are not the work of the devil but you are deceived by the devil." Who's got it better than us? Nooooobody! -
Yeah some basic reading about guerilla resistance will probably enlighten you, Woody.
In nearly all awful circumstances, I would rather someone be armed to respond. Yes, fuckery may occur where the person goofs up. However, you know 100% that the people shooting back have only bad intentions. Having at least some percentage of chance for survival is better than none.
Yeah some basic reading about guerilla resistance will probably enlighten you, Woody.
In nearly all awful circumstances, I would rather someone be armed to respond. Yes, fuckery may occur where the person goofs up. However, you know 100% that the people shooting back have only bad intentions. Having at least some percentage of chance for survival is better than none.
In the incident described in this thread, yes, if someone in the crowd had a gun, the victim's chance at survival would increase. My concern is that, overall, these isolated incidents don't outweigh the people who are injured or killed by these guns. Within that incident as well, others in the crowd may have a lowered chance of survival if a handful were given guns
-
Here we go again.
It's okay for people to be killed by cars and knives.
but by golly, "killed by guns is not acceptable".
You don't declare war on millions and millions of people who own cars, knives and guns
just because some stupidass from michigan accidently kills someone with it.
-
Can we please not go down the "let's ban cars and knives too!" road for the millionth time? There are some compelling arguments made by the pro gun side, but this isn't one of them. It's idiotic and by no means a 1 to 1 comparison. Cars and knives have purposes other than killing/injuring. Guns do not. That is their purpose, as a weapon.
-
Take a moment to read about Vietnam, the current Afghan/Iraq war, and finally the American Revolution. I'll let you see if you can find anything in common.
The Revolution? How is the technology then anywhere similar to now? Civilian militias could be armed almost equal to the national army. Do you have a tank or fighter jet at your house now?
The.The Revolution? How is the technology then anywhere similar to now? Civilian militias could be armed almost equal to the national army. Do you have a tank or fighter jet at your house now?
Current.
Fuck.
Afghan.
War.
Read about guerrilla warfare. Please. (This is the 3rd time someone has suggested it)
-
YOU used the Revolutionary War as an example. If you didn't want me to point out how bad of an example it was, you shouldn't have used it as an example...
-
It looks like in your guerrilla warfare examples (the more modern two...) the guerrilla units had access to "military grade" weapons (like RPGs). A citizen militia wouldn't (at least not many). Again, I don't think citizens with some regular guns laying around the house would be much of a threat to the largest military in the world by far. What do you have to deal with tanks? fighter jets? unmanned drone strikes?
It also doesn't seem like that would be the best strategy for defending your house in the suburbs. Even if a local town got together in like a rec center or something, our military could just blow it up. They physically do not need to be in the area to kill you. Also, they're based in the same area you're attacking. This isn't troops coming from overseas or anything. Our military would be ready to deal with any non compliance before some sort of sustainable counter force was organized.
So yes, guerrilla warfare is a thing. I just don't see how average citizens with severely underpowered weaponry could defend themselves from the most massive army in the world that is also based where they are. If I am missing something, please enlighten me. I really would like to know what your full argument is. Not even in a douchey way, I am curious.
-
RPGs don't do shit to the armored vehicles we have now. So Afghans are using whatever they can find and using them to make IEDs and using military small arms. You also have to take into account the amount of countries that would be more than enthused about arming a resistance against a government gone awry in the U.S. coupled with the U.S. military personnel who would join the resistance.
As to your "what would you do against drones, fighter jets?" question, soak up losses like the Afghans and play the long game. If their goal is to murder every U.S. citizen, why even have a government? At that point, you have no one to govern.
-
The point was from the idea that "Take my guns! Over my dead body!" or "We need the 2nd amendment / our guns to protect us from a tyrannical government." I don't think that homeowner having handguns in their homes would be able to stop the confiscation of guns or adequately defend themselves from a tyrannical government. The fact that you have a right to bear arms would not give you the ability to do those things.
Other countries funding/supplying rebel regimes takes us into a whole other talking point that I am not trying to argue one way or the other. That gets outside of what the 2nd Amendment gives us now.
-
Well even if you take away the other parts, you can still offer a resistance with the firearms civilians have now. The small arms (rifles and handguns) that U.S. citizens have now are far better than what the VC and IRA had and what the Afghans have now. They did a bang up job of using their weapons to fight off a far more advanced foreign military.
-
Thank you logic, though I'm not sure it will sink in.
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login