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 Warsaw Uprising took soldiers away from the fronts and helped the allies. Now if all of the victims had done so, if the people in occupied countries had resisted more...it could have been like Vietnam for the Nazis for the years before the Allies won. Vietnam, and Afghanistan against the soviets back in the 80's, prove that a well armed civilian population can indeed resist powerful armies...and win if determined.
Not very convincing argument. Please put a few numbers into the mix.
I'm much closer than you - at least I have an argument that's built from logic and common sense. You have nothing but a nonsensical statement about "the USAF and Army tanks".
As a percentage, tell me how many members of the armed forces you believe would fire on U.S. citizens, on our own soil. 100%? 80%? 40%? How many patriots serving their country today do you think would kill their own for simply trying to force their government to uphold the Constitution?
that you have to turn your house into an armed fortress?
Have not heard of anyone here doing that
Quote:
Originally Posted by jtur88
I've lived in 14 states, and never felt any need to own a gun.
Need? No. Want to own a firearm? Yes. And, there is a difference
Quote:
Originally Posted by jtur88
How lucky do you have to be to go to 14 different places, and never hit a single one where you need to defend yourself with a gun. The odds must be astronomical.
Well, I beat the odds then. I used a firearm to kill an intruder in my home.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jtur88
I have never known one single person who had a gun because he needed one, but did not like guns and did not want to own one. Doesn't that seen a little bit odd?
No - it is called freedom of choice
Quote:
Originally Posted by jtur88
I get a feeling that the people who love guns all need them,
You are being a little repetitive here - you are mistaken (as I pointed our earlier
Need? No. Want to own a firearm? Yes. And, there is a difference
Well, I beat the odds then. I used a firearm to kill an intruder in my home.
No - it is called freedom of choice
You are being a little repetitive here - you are mistaken (as I pointed our earlier
Most of your reply confirms what I said in my post. Most gun owners own guns because they want them, not because they can logically and rationally demonstrate a need for them in real life situations that are actually likely to occur.
Just curious---that intruder in your home that you killed. Was it really necessary to shoot to kill, in order to deter him/her?
The victims wouldn't stand a chance, even if individually armed, against the German police forces and military unless they formed their own organized deployment of force. That's being optimistic about it. Is that what you are assuming the Jews in Germany could/should have done? Do you have any evidence that the Jewish citizens in Germany had any reason to take this approach as of a certain point in time?
There were a good number of Jews who began leaving Germany as individuals almost as soon as the Nazis gained political power inside Germany. They were well informed about the political situation, they were probably also well educated. It was those who didn't leave that became victims. The racial policy of the Nazis had been publicized for some time prior.
This notion by gun-lovers in the U.S. that armed citizens could resist the tyranny of a miltary coup, for instance, by firing their weapons at the USAF and Army tanks, etc., is just so ludicrous as not to be even worth discussing.
I guess you dont know that we beat the biggest superpower of the time just like that to form our country. Iraq is doing it today.
One of the first things Hitler did was disarm the Jews. I guess he didn't know of the ineffectiveness of armed civilians.
This notion that we should not have guns because we cant kill tanks with them is as ludicrous as any other. I probably cant win if attacked by a pitbull either, that doesn't mean I shouldn't fight back.
Did the American soldiers have second thoughts when Viet Cong were able to fight back? This also answers your second question---about how easy it is to get people to commmit atrocities.
It doesn't answer any question, just poses one. The viet cong did real well against our superior firepower. Much better than the unarmed Jews. Do you have a point or were you trying to prove mine?
Quote:
Every Iraqi man had a rifle when our troops arrived there. What good did it do them?
Every man did not have a rifle when our troops arrived, though many did.
Looks like them having guns is serving them well. I hope we could fend off a superior enemy for over 6 years with civilian firepower, tho, given the lack of fortitude you & many others show I reckon many would just roll over & die of fright.
He stated a fact. You can argue theoreticals. The fact is our military is made up of American volunteers. Do you know many Americans that would drive a tank thru a city killing innocents? I dont.
Theres also the fact that wars cost money. If we attack ourselves & destroy our infrastructure the war will end pretty quick.
He stated a fact. You can argue theoreticals. The fact is our military is made up of American volunteers. Do you know many Americans that would drive a tank thru a city killing innocents? I dont.
Well then the typical "fear" of a tyrannical military coup is unfounded, I suppose. Do you really want the argument both ways?
Most of your reply confirms what I said in my post. Most gun owners own guns because they want them, not because they can logically and rationally demonstrate a need for them in real life situations that are actually likely to occur.
Dont you think it might be too late when you realize you need one? Its not very likely your house will burn, yet you are very foolish not to take precautions against it.
Quote:
Just curious---that intruder in your home that you killed. Was it really necessary to shoot to kill, in order to deter him/her?
I guess he coulda shouted at him, the real question is, is it worth your life to find out the intent of a criminal?
I'm sorry but if a person comes into my home uninvited to do me harm they may well die, I might too, but the odds are against it.
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.
