I like guns despite their obvious flaws

Post Reply New Topic

the average infantry grunt has a full auto/burst rifle so while we as civilians are limited to simiauto(more accurate then full auto) we could still compete. most the gear is available too.
when it comes to tanks and such ied's work. my friend knows how to build other stuff too. and if it was legal to buy a M1 people would. there are people who own cold war tanks. a tank is just a cannon on a moving platform, its not illegal to own currently. we don't sell modern stuff though, so tank owners are back in the 60's. though there are a few with 90's era Russian tanks/jets.

the revolution was armed by simi rich people its how the colonists got cannons and rifled guns. so the wealthier people who own F16's along with those military who leave base with what stuff they can leave with would make up the bigger stuff. anyways as Iraq proved we can resist cause casualties. the population will already be mad about such military action but when they start seeing loses in a internal war where parts of the military breaks off. support will pumment and to win such a action the government needs the support of the population.

not to mention . the government won't uses big stuff on American cities, it would be bad if they carpet bombed LA and other cities. this would make more people join the rebels . then Russia/china would offer aid to the rebels like we do in other nations. while no one would want them involved when they start offering tanks/jets/anti air/anti tank. ask the soviets how much a difference stingers made during Afghanistan. when one guy can take down a black hawk carrying 15, it becomes a problem.

I highly doubt such an event will come in the near future, but to say that a well dedicated resistance force could not fight back and modern military despite evidence from conflicts around the world is just silly.

I don't know how it is in Poland, but here in the us where we have a lot of ex military members with access to weapons such a thing is very doable.

If you're the type to kill someone just because you have deemed them irredeemable then a good ball peen hammer will get the job done for you if you are close enough and swift enough. It's quieter and therefore not as apt to draw immediate attention like gunshots.

There's never been a US president, including the current one, that was bad enough to consider assassinating. I seriously doubt we ever will.

And where is this happening on a weekly basis. Even if there were weekly school shootings it doesn't justify the stamping out of rights, not that it would actually stop any killings.

Maybe you should study up a little on guerrilla warfare before you say any more.

This is what we call a difference of opinion. I don't agree with the death penalty, either, but I have to wonder how many lives might have been saved had somebody the good sense to shoot him before the s**t hit the fan. George Bush is easily the most bloodthirsty Western leader in recent memory, that he should be allowed to live the rest of his life in comfort and luxury seems wrong.



How frequent do shootings need to be? Take away the guns, oh look! School stabbings go up. Still horrific, but with a fantastically lower death toll.

if bush is guilty then so is congress, and the other nation leaders that agreed to it too.

Clinton has a bunch of deaths on his hands too by that logic.

bush isn't a bad person. he did what americans wanted at the time. americans don't have the stomach for longer then a year wars.

True, Vietnam was won by a bunch of guys on bicycles with Mosin Nagant, SKS, and some AKM rifles, while we F-4's Helicopters and a whole array of gear.

America was founded by a bunch of guys with a few hunting rifles up against the English arly, which at the time was probably the best trained army in Europe.

Then there's Afghanistan who stood up to Alexander the Great, Chinggis Khaan, Timor Ulan, the english army, the Russian Army, and now the whole NATO array, which still remains essentially unchanged.

The decision to invade Afghanistan was in response to 9/11.
The decision to invade Iraq was based on available intelligence at that time. Read what sly279 said.

You said weekly.


Let's focus on the bolded part. How does that actually happen? Other than going thought the motions and capturing a large hill of guns what about the mountains of them that are unfound? What about the black market that immediately emerges? How effective has the war on drugs been?

But the greatest fear the government has is a situation of civil war. Howitzers against pea shooters you say?

Does anyone here not believe Russia or Iran or North Korea or etc.etc.etc. will
NOT offer any rebels:
Weapons
Fighter jets
Explosives
Mines
Grenades
REAL assault weapons
either free or at greatly reduced prices...
IF they aren't already.

Just as has been done by ourselves and others in the recent past.

It doesn't matter, look at Vietnam as mentioned or Afghanistan or Iraq or Palestine or Syria or Ukraine or where ever. There are governments being overthrown by folks in hoodies that chuck stones. Gun ownership is an integral part of a populace standing against tyranny. Cliven Bundy was able to stand up to the federal government with these small arms.

In a civil war or uprising or however you want to phrase it, everyone in the military isn't going to unquestioningly kill their own people as we've seen overseas. They're not robots or drones, at least not yet.

Not yet? We hope.

With the lower and lower standards in the armed services for intelligence and social conduct????? These people have no problem killing whoever they are told to kill. You may be underestimating the power of military indoctrination...ever been in the armed services? They are told to kill/neutralize these people (who they're "told" are our enemies) without question.

The enemy kills for social, moral, and religious reasons......our soldiers kill for financial gain for their corporate masters. The actual person they're killing doesn't enter into it.

do you know people in the military? that is not at all what most are like.

do you really think a soldier will shoot his family just cause the government labels them as the enemy.

Isn't it true that you're not even allowed to own a baseball bat in Poland, since they're seen as weapons and not as sports equipment?

So you would be in favor of making alcohol illegal again??? And start all that nasty business generated by Prohibition again??? Really??

Re-create all the illegal activity generated during the period? WHO would be so ignorant as do the same thing again? This is the same BS being pulled with marijuana and all it does is make the cartels stronger......you want them to start smuggling in guns for the average American to own? They'll do it you know.

Rather than get all Nazi Germany on gun owners, start showing compassion for the mentally ill whose sickness forces them to do these horrific things.

That some firearm regulation talk right there. You called me a gun grabber for thinking there should be firearm education requirements before owning a firearm, but you are willing to give everyone firearm education as part of an annual school curriculum?

Depending on how you define school shooting, it is as many as 1.3 school shootings/week in the US. But that is only if you include suicide by firearm on schoool property and accidental discharges, as well as including colleges in the numbers.

If you only count incidents where a student arrived at school with the intent to shoot more than one person, the it is around once every 6 weeks.

I second this. In fact, this is how it should be in every country where guns are relatively easy to obtain, like Canada or the US.