Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 05-30-2019, 08:21 AM
 
22,923 posts, read 15,484,713 times
Reputation: 16962

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Raddo View Post
What? Is that some sort of deflection?

If a hostile nation drops a conventional bomb somewhere in the USA, we (our military) would respond with force. If a second conventional bomb drops, a nuclear response would be highly likely. That is why we have never been bombed since becoming a nuclear superpower in the 1940's.

So your original premise, that hunting rifles < saturation bombing, does not hold water if you are a US citizen living in the USA. Saturation bombing cannot occur. We will either remain safe from being bombed, or we will all be wiped out in a nuclear holocaust. There is no in between.
But all of that has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with your private firearms ownership saturation rate...nothing.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 05-30-2019, 08:23 AM
 
3,129 posts, read 1,331,722 times
Reputation: 2493
Quote:
Originally Posted by Freak80 View Post
Oh, ok...so we DO need a military. An army of rednecks with hunting rifles would NOT be enough.

That kind of refutes your original premise.
That must be why we got off-track. My original premise says nothing about not needing a military. You must have read that into it somehow.

Also, my personal take on it is that we need to be armed. Not to protect us from foreign invasion, but from our own government.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-30-2019, 08:23 AM
 
22,923 posts, read 15,484,713 times
Reputation: 16962
Quote:
Originally Posted by hawkeye2009 View Post
See the Viet Cong.


Who won that one?
Communist China and Russia who supplied them with AK47's, RPG's, mobile artillery, SAM missiles..etc., etc., .....next question?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-30-2019, 08:25 AM
 
2,898 posts, read 1,867,350 times
Reputation: 6174
The anti gun lefties are also conveniently ignoring the fact that there are over 7million current veterans living in America. Many are from the recent global war on terrorism. Those 7 million veterans took an oath that means something, and most have guns. That's in addition to all the Patriots, gun enthusiasts, hunters and fudds.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-30-2019, 08:26 AM
 
Location: OH->FL->NJ
17,003 posts, read 12,588,356 times
Reputation: 8921
Quote:
Originally Posted by Freak80 View Post
hunting rifles < saturation bombing
One group of hunters < 1 army attack helicopter.

They would never even know they were a target as they died.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-30-2019, 08:27 AM
 
34,300 posts, read 15,646,770 times
Reputation: 13053
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leo58 View Post
It is very difficult to invade a sovereign nation, and hold significant amounts of territory against the will of the inhabitants. Napoleon and Hitler found that out in Russia. Persians, Greeks, Russians and Americans all found that out in Afghanistan. Regardless of gun laws. So I have no fear of a foreign power invading and conquering the US.

I also want to point out that a shotgun used for duck hunting or a .22 rifle for shooting squirrels is not much of a match against a fully automatic machine gun. Even deer rifles have very small magazines, holding only 3 to 5 rounds.

Besides, what if we were told there were atomic bombs planted in NYC, LA and Washington, which would be detonated unless we surrender? How would hunters save us?
By preventing the planting in the first place.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-30-2019, 08:30 AM
 
14,780 posts, read 43,682,136 times
Reputation: 14622
Quote:
Originally Posted by Raddo View Post
I didn't write this, but after reading it I realized this forum is where it belongs. The following scares the crap out of government, including our own:

True story and most people will never know it.

After the Japanese decimated our fleet in Pearl Harbor Dec 7, 1941, they could have sent their troop ships and carriers directly to California to finish what they started. The prediction from our Chief of Staff was we would not be able to stop a massive invasion until they reached the Mississippi River . Remember, we had a 2 million man army and war ships in other localities, so why did they not invade?
After the war, the remaining Japanese generals and admirals were asked that question. Their answer....they know that almost every home had guns and the Americans knew how to use them
Not a true story. The first part is a complete and utter fabrication. The Japanese did not have the logistical capacity to send even just their carriers to the US let alone an invasion fleet. The raid on Pearl Harbor represented the extant of their operating capabilities. They were incapable of launching an actual invasion of Hawaii, how would they invade the west coast of the US?

The second part is a mangling of a quote generally attributed to a letter written by Yamamoto to another senior officer. The existence of the letter cannot be proven and all of the sources generally attributed to the quote have said they know of no such letter or quote.

This entire scenario is nothing but a fantasy. Japan didn't invade the US because it was simply impossible for them to do so (the best they could do was take some of the western Aleutian islands with less than 10,000 troops and even that was a massive stretch for them logistically).

Quote:
Originally Posted by Raddo View Post
It worked in 1941. But you overlooked the most important part of your picture: The US Military.

I know you are smart enough to know, just like Hitler did, that the first step in taking dictatorship control of a country is the disarming of its citizens.
Hitler did no such thing. Private gun ownership was never restricted for German citizens. There were laws passed by the Weimar Republic intended to disarm the radical Nazi and Socialist forces (which had repeatedly fought in the streets) but under Hitler and the Nazi's regular German citizens were allowed and even encouraged to own firearms. What did change under German law was the definition of who was a German citizen. Jews were among the groups to be stripped of their citizenship. It is a horrible distortion of history to believe that Hitler in anyway "seized power" or "took control" of Germany. The reality is that it was given to him with thunderous applause.

Not arguing for or against gun rights in my post, just pointing out the horrible historical inaccuracies you are spreading. If the best you can come up with are these inaccurate tropes, I suggest you find new material to support your position.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-30-2019, 08:31 AM
 
3,129 posts, read 1,331,722 times
Reputation: 2493
Quote:
Originally Posted by ottomobeale View Post
One group of hunters < 1 army attack helicopter.

They would never even know they were a target as they died.
One group of hunters is less than .000001% of the army the OP refers to.

The strength isn't in individual groups of hunters. It is in all of the millions of armed citizens rising up together to defeat a common foe, whatever or whoever that foe may be (even our own government if necessary).
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-30-2019, 08:37 AM
 
7,934 posts, read 8,590,031 times
Reputation: 5889
Well people with hunting rifles do not equal trained and organized armed forces "regulars", but if the SHTF the armed forces are nothing but citizens themselves, not mindless killer robots. There would be an armed revolution tomorrow if the Marines decided they didn't like who they worked for any longer. He who has the guns makes the rules. The politicians and bankers don't have any.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-30-2019, 08:42 AM
 
Location: USA
18,491 posts, read 9,157,203 times
Reputation: 8524
Quote:
Originally Posted by Raddo View Post
That must be why we got off-track. My original premise says nothing about not needing a military. You must have read that into it somehow.

Also, my personal take on it is that we need to be armed. Not to protect us from foreign invasion, but from our own government.
Did you know that the military is run by the government?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 08:50 PM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top