Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The most deadly act of mass-murder on US soil in living memory was done by a group of guys with box cutters. According to the NY Times it cost America 3.3 Trillion dollars and took around 3000 lives. Today is the 17th Anniversary of that dark day.
Think about that for a minute.
There is no end to the "creative" ways bad people can kill lots of people. Banning the ownership of things that are currently legal (like semi-auto rifles) will NOT make the world a safer place... it will only make American individuals less free.
So if you get no objective improvement to your personal safety and only loose personal power (and a very limited, small-fry power it is) how could it ever be a good idea?
You just said that it's "pretty easy" then you explained that it's cheaper than the price of a new car... not many people have the disposable cash laying around to legally purchase a full auto AK which would land firmly in the $15K - $20K range for a single rifle. It takes about "10 minutes" to fill out the form and then you wait 6 months for the tax stamp to come back assuming that you pass the extensive background check, finger print search and assuming you can find someone who'll sell you a legal to transfer full auto rifle built before 1986. You're clueless.
You took the words right out of my mouth... And replied before me. Spot on.
No, obviously I'm not. And even if they were available to citizens, so few would be able to buy such things it would be pointless.
If it's pointless, why not make them available?
We can use the government to give each person a tank like welfare program to help those in need.
Quote:
Originally Posted by James Bond 007
That argument cuts both ways. If that's the case then you could also say a completely unarmed populace could defeat a tyrannical government. In fact, that's precisely what happened in 1989.
Why don't you tell our troop to leave their weapon at home when they go to wars? Hey, there's a chance they would win without being armed. How much more stupid can your argument be?
Why give the people the disadvantage? Let them be armed and they would put up a much better fight than being unarmed.
We can use the government to give each person a tank like welfare program to help those in need.
Go ahead, but as I said, very very very few people will take advantage of it. It's not as if a lot of people have enough money for a tank sitting in their savings account.
Quote:
Why don't you tell our troop to leave their weapon at home when they go to wars? Hey, there's a chance they would win without being armed. How much more stupid can your argument be?
Are you denying that unarmed civilians toppled several communist governments in 1989?
Quote:
Surely it could, but why give the people the disadvantage? Let them be armed and they would put up a much better fight than being unarmed.
You are right, they might last 10 minutes instead of 5 minutes.
Last edited by James Bond 007; 09-11-2018 at 12:09 PM..
I doubt anyone needed a study to tell them that. But the 2nd Amendment folks will tell us it's too bad, we have to live with it, because the founding fathers were more concerned about the rights of unhinged people wielding weapons of mass destruction (that they didn't know were coming) than the rights of their victims. Because guns are more important than people.
Oh, they'll couch it in different words, but that's basically what it comes down to.
Exactly. Same sort of pretzel logic that they use to continue supporting Trump. In many respects, their interpretation of the Constitution is the same way that Pentecostals view their interpretation of the Bible, complete with snake handling and speaking in tongues. And they are both equally dangerous with their extreme and rigid views. The difference of course is that we have ways to change the Constitution, we've seen fit to do it 27 times.
Exactly. Same sort of pretzel logic that they use to continue supporting Trump. In many respects, their interpretation of the Constitution is same way that Pentecostals view their interpretation of the Bible. And they are both equally dangerous with their extreme and rigid views.
Says the people who actually think writing a law and giving yet another piece of their personal power to the overlords in Washington will stop bad people from doing bad things.
Says the people who actually think writing a law and giving up a piece of their personal power to the overlords in Washington will stop bad people from doing bad things.
"Overlords in Washington". "Giving up a piece of their personal power". Paranoid much?
That's extremely lame, comparing armed people to an army of 1775 to armed people to an army of 2018. Heck, I can even understand the reasoning back in 1775, but nowadays it's a joke. An armed rebellion now would stand precisely ZERO chance against an army, navy and air force with tanks, bazookas, machine guns, fighter jets, bombers, and so on. It's so ridiculous seeing people make that argument it's really kinda sad they actually believe it.
Wars are won with supply chains and boots on the ground. The civilian citizen is producer/supplier of the military's supply chain, and has ~20x more boots on the ground. The big weapons of war that are exclusive to the military are only as good as the people who build them, maintain them and operate them. We aren't ruled by Skynet just yet.
Right off the bat, who feeds the military if the civilian farmer shuts their machines down? Who supplies the weapons and fuel when the civilian defense contractors shut their machines down? The armed citizen in America represents an army of ~100 million people, with ~350 million weapons and a few trillion rounds of ammunition, and that army controls the national supply chain. Guess how effective a tank or fighter jet is when it runs out of fuel? The best supply chain will always prevail.
Deer hunters alone outnumber the entire military by ~3 to 1. And these are people who are highly proficient in various sniper techniques like stealth, camouflage, extended solo operations in the field, etc. And given their target is generally accepted as being way more defensively equipped for spotting snipers than any human and the operator only gets one shot and has to make it count, they are actually really good snipers. 10 million skilled, well equipped snipers on their home turf is formidable, terrible, scary thing. And that is just the people who hunt deer with licenses every fall.
Don't underestimate the farmer and their pitchforks versus the big dog military. For the modern reference, ask a backwards, uncivilized, neanderthal goat herder in Afghanistan if small arms and marksmen can hold the super duper US military at bay.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
