gun control (Reagan, wars, african, Iraq)

[rickyh]

there is no such thing as a small amount of gun control this is the reasoningthat cost us rights every day

[rickyh]

I am so sad that so many people have given there lives for all the freedoms that we have had in the last 230 or so years and then so many people would be so willing to give them up rather than teach a little about responablity. when you give up that first right look how easy it is to give another and so on and so on.I wish these people would find a history book and read how it was under Einglish rule or just ask someone from the middle east.

[texdav]

Most home invasions are because the person thought or knew that the people inside were gambling with large amounts of money or there are narcotic or someone in the home is a gang member.Drop those and the incidents are prtty rare compared to other robberies.

[rifleman]

Originally Posted by Noahma

they are not as "Rare" as you try to make them. Just because you did not happen to see it, it did not happen to you, or you did not read about it does not make it not happen. Things do happen in this world that do not involve RL

Originally Posted by swagger

They're so rare that the police inspector is issuing press releases telling residents how to avoid being a victim.

Face it, rl. You're way behind and lagging. ....and you want to strip law abiding citizens of the only equalizer they have. Why would you want such a thing?

Because! He Knows Best!

Originally Posted by rlchurch

One home invasion a year certainly isn't a rationale to overturn DC's gun law...

You're right for once, rl. Aside from the fact that it's far more that "one" home invasion, it was overturned because it was unconstitutional. Simple.

BTW, stay tuned; more DC "revisions" coming.

Originally Posted by Cliffie

Wow, I disagree totally. All that does is make the victim feel even worse -- now she feels responsible for him landing himself in prison.

Actually, not the case. Unless the shooter does so with malice aforethought, and plans his or her revenge, if it was done in immediate and direct response to a threat or hostile action, it's called self-defence or neutralization of that threat to the safety of you and/or your family.

Juries, a lot of judges, the local citizenry (who are, ditto, on that jury) and local law enforcement, all congratulate the shooter for saving the taxpayer money and making the streets safer.

Originally Posted by OhioUberAlles

Cracking down on guns does absolutely nothing to help stop domestic violence.

Correct and proven, Ohio. FBI Uniform Crime Report, etc. Kleck et al, etc. Etc etc etc.

As far as gun control in Canada goes, they have this neat little idea that they can stop abusers from getting guns by requiring the spouse to sign off on a gun permit application. Imagine a woman is being brutally abused by her husband and he asks her to sign his gun paperwork. Does the Canadian believe she'll actually refuse? Imagine the woman asks him to sign her paperwork, do they believe he'll actually help her obtain a firearm?

Does that make sense to you?

As for suicide, that is a personal issue, not a societal problem.

And Canada has, in the last three years, seen a documented spectacular increase in drug-gang-related full-auto homicides in the streets. At lunchtime in busy malls, in their SkyTrain LRT, at downtown bus stops, and as part of the growing number of property crimes (home invasions happening by the score recently, BTW). rl's knowledge to the contrary of course, because... well, see my first green comment at the top.

Logic and experience and statistics have all PROVEN that increasing gun legislation does NOTHING to prevent or lower crime rates. Rigorous law enforcement, hard time in prison, and "de-populating" this country of criminal illegal aliens, will do so much more, but the Admin doesn't want to because all of those cohorts, as well as the "criminal's rights" groups and softy liveral bleeding-heart types who "Know Best" all vote Democrat.

Who wants to lose THAT ace in the hole? Better that the law-abiding conservatives be demonized, punished and made to be easier victims.

Frankly, if they try such legislative antics, we won't take it laying down. Never. Sorry.

[Tricky D]

Originally Posted by Tin Knocker

Ok, I'm sorry that was over your head. I assumed, wrongly, that you would understand how utterly stupid it is for a person in your position to NOT recognize the difference an armed citizenry can make.

LoL, I guess American gun fetishists have repressed the Vietnam trauma and have stricken Custer's Last Stand from their history.
Even with superior firepower the US lost in Vietnam and the Battle of the Little Bighorn.

Why must you lie & exagerate? Must really suck to be so intellectually bankrupt you need to stoop to this level. Whats going on between the Isreali's & Gaza has nothing in common with Hitler & the Jews at all. I dont think Israel is conquering all of the mideast & killing all the Arabs. They want & faught for one little chunk of desert.

Unless you like to post nonsense I'd suggest ya study history.
You're living proof that ignorance truly must be bliss.
If there was no WWII Europe would have no reason to grant the Jews Israel and the Jews would have no reason to have a home country.

Actually, unless they restored you in your homeland its pretty meaningless. Cant even wipe your butt with an apology.
No wonder you are content to be a serf. You sure deserve no better.

LoL, then why does your US secretary of state Hillary Clinton asked the Dutch to organise an Afghan summit?*

You dont think you are owed more than that?

We're not American capitalists and we understand why the Dutch government lied to us, cause if they didn't none of us would've obeyed the order to go to Holland.

*Friday 06 March 2009

The Netherlands has been asked by US secretary of state Hillary Clinton to organise an international summit on the security of Afghanisan, Trouw reports on Friday.
Source: DutchNews.nl - Netherlands may organise Afghan summit

Originally Posted by jdavid93225

Can you come up with anything new? There no point in continuing to revisit what's already been beaten to death.

Why should I fix or change something if it ain't broke?

Again, you're covering topics that have already been covered. I do not agree with you about this, and no matter how many times you mention it, I am not going to change my mind.

You assume I care about you changing your opinion.

Football, as we call it, has nothing to do with anything I've mentioned on this thread, except the statement that the best defense is a good offense, as you brought up a few messages back, which I replied to.

Strategy (philosophy) has everything to do with this thread.

I don't know what you mean when you say "most conformist people in the world." Are you talking about conforming to the dictates of the government, or to something else?

I'm talking about Americans wanting to be seen as a part of the (American) majority and keeping up with the Joneses.
Many Germans who had nothing in common with the Nazi ideology still obeyed their Nazi government during WWII; simply because it was the government.
And if the majority of the Germans voted Hitler into power he can't be that bad, right? The majority of the nation can't be all wrong, right?
So the German citizens also were conformists and history has shown us were conformist behaviour leads to.
Anywayz: conformist behaviour + guns = a terrible idea.

[OhioUberAlles]

Originally Posted by Tricky D

Even with superior firepower the US lost in Vietnam and the Battle of the Little Bighorn.

Thanks for trying to give us a history lesson... BUT...

Custer's men were outgunned and seriously outnumbered. They did NOT have superior firepower. They were using single-shot breach-loading Springfield rifles (model 1873) while the Indians were armed with Winchester repeating rifles.

The US didn't lose in Vietnam due to military failures, it was a political issue.


I don't know who you think you are, but you don't know American history as well as you clearly would like to think you do.

[Tricky D]

Originally Posted by OhioUberAlles

Custer's men were outgunned and seriously outnumbered.

And that is exactly my point: my people would've been slaughtered if they had stayed on Ambon.

The US didn't lose in Vietnam due to military failures, it was a political issue.

False, the Americans lost because they were unable to adapt their strategy.
They believed that war in Vietnam would be the same as fighting the Japs or the Nazis.

[OhioUberAlles]

Originally Posted by Tricky D

Originally Posted by OhioUberAlles And that is exactly my point: my people would've been slaughtered if they had stayed on Ambon.

False, the Americans lost because they were unable to adapt their strategy.
They believed that war in Vietnam would be the same as fighting the Japs or the Nazis.

Obviously they didn't fight it the same way they fought Japan or else they would occupied North Vietnam with conventional forces!

You have no idea what you're talking about!

Vietnam was a body-count war, with most engagements being either meeting engagements between small units, ambushes, or search/destroy. It was small-unit operations, nothing like the fight against Nazi Germany.

The Americans did not attempt to engage the Vietnamese in division and corps sized battles with huge spearheads of armored forces. The war was basically a light infantryman's war.

You have not idea what you're talking about! Using a smiley with a hand held up in a fashion to communicate "stop" will not magically make you right.

You're one of the most arrogant and ignorant people on this forum. You think you know enough to meaningfully speak about the history of countless nations, how life in America is, etc, but you don't.

You're a know-nothing know-it-all.

[Tricky D]

Originally Posted by OhioUberAlles

Obviously they didn't fight it the same way they fought Japan or else they would occupied North Vietnam with conventional forces!

You have no idea what you're talking about!

If the US did not fight a conventional war then how can ya explain the fact that the US dropped more bombs in the Vietnam war than during the entire WWII?*
The VC fought an unconventional war and America wasn't prepared for that.
America believed they could bomb the VC into submission and history proves that this just wasn't the case.

You're one of the most arrogant and ignorant people on this forum. You think you know enough to meaningfully speak about the history of countless nations, how life in America is, etc, but you don't.

You're a know-nothing know-it-all.

An accurate description you have given of people who believe that superior firepower will win every war (read: gun fetishists).

*The U.S. tried everything to win. We dropped more than three times the total tonnage of bombs dropped by both sides in World War II. We conducted "Operation Phoenix" during which the CIA and the Saigon government killed up to 40,000 suspected members of the Viet Cong. We defoliated 10% of the land, much of it permanently. We bombed, bribed, shot, killed and burned for more than 10 years at a cost of $170 billion (and a future cost which is continuing to rise). Despite all this, we still lost.

Nixon did not pull out because the U.S. was winning but because the Vietnamese were. Some generals today are saying we lost the war but never lost a battle -- but what the hell did we "win" at Khe Sanh or in the Iron Triangle or in Laos or in Cambodia besides having some hole punched in some officer's promotion card?
The simple fact is that neither the American people nor the American GIs fighting in Vietnam thought that the goals -- real or imagined -- were worth the lives and the money being squandered. The war was lost on the battlefields of Vietnam and in the hearts and minds of the American people.

Source: Vietnam Veterans Against the War: History of the U.S. War in Vietnam

[OhioUberAlles]

Originally Posted by Tricky D

Originally Posted by OhioUberAlles If the US did not fight a conventional war then how can ya explain the fact that the US dropped more bombs in the Vietnam war than during the entire WWII?*
The VC fought an unconventional war and America wasn't prepared for that.
America believed they could bomb the VC into submission and history proves that this just wasn't the case.

An accurate description you have given of people who believe that superior firepower will win every war (read: gun fetishists).

The utilization of aerial assets has nothing to do with the nature of the war. Vietnam was a war fought primarily on the squad, platoon, and company level, with extensive use of fire support assets. Obviously you have no idea of anything in regards to the Vietnam War. Short of battles such as Ia Drang, Khe Sahn, Hue, and Saigon, the war was mostly a series of small-unit engagements.

Air support has nothing to do with whether or not a war is conventional or unconventional. If it was a strictly conventional war America would have sought to physically occupy North Vietnam, something that never happened, and something that is probably the primary reason why America's repeated military victories did not result in ultimate victory.

Vietnam was lost because of politics and senior management, the individual soldiers, NCOs, and junior officers basically did their job, they did what was asked of them, and then some.

However, were it not for superior American firepower, the losses in the war would probably have been double or triple what they wound up being. Prompt and overwhelming fire support saved many American lives.

Although for you to attempt to cheapen their sacrifice by saying that they lost the war because they were somehow inadequate or unfit not only reveals your ignorance it reveals your open contempt for America's veterans. If it the outcome of the war was decided solely by measuring the achievements of American platoons against Vietnamese platoons, the war would have been over in 1968 with a decisive American victory. For you to suggest otherwise is disgusting and despicable.


I have to conclude you're a troll. You're not just somebody who has controversial opinions, strong stances on a few hot button issues, or who is ignorant of certain topics, you try to talk about things that you clearly have no idea about, you're rude, pretentious, presumptuous, and condescending. You're a mega troll and you get the dubious honor of starting my ignore list.