Another Gun Control Thread

Post Reply New Topic

I'm not sure I follow you here, I happen to build things too, guns in fact. I can tell you right now that if you try to do that without thinking, time and understanding, nothing good comes of it. I doubt that I get any less satisfaction from building a gun well than any other craftsmen gets from a job well done, and whatever use my handiwork is put to if it does what it's supposed to I am happy. After all, it's just a machine like any other, with no intent built into it, only that of it's user.

I find it fascinating that one can construct a machine whose whole purpose is to threaten destruction or to enable destruction and then conclude there is no inherent intent involved.

Dox47 hits the proverbial nail on the head. I never mentioned occupying nations. Someone else did that. I was wholly talking about this legendary ability to defeat INVADING armies.. the fight them on the beaches BS people keep spouting.

Ahh, two nations divided by a common language eh?

Though I am amused by people who think that "tanks are easy", and are so dismissive of the rigours and dangers of armed combat.

"Its simple, just put some c-4 in a sock and coat it with axle grease, andyougot yourself a sticky bomb".. Then you just have the difficulty of wading through infantry support and approachiing tons of angry gunned up armour without getting very dead, then getting away from the damn thing without getting killed, then surviving the inevitable reprisals in your town/village etc.

Piece of Piss.

Its purpose is to propel a piece of lead at high velocity. It is an inanimate object, it has no inherent intent.

No one ever mentioned "Fighting them on the beaches" YOU are the one who kept bringing up that particular strawman. Did you have fun knocking it down again?


Quite

I never said that combat was easy. I meant that the theory and construction of the tools to destroy an tank were easy, and you never mentioned infantry before, I did.

Since guns do not spontaneously fire at random you somehow imply that a gun is never involved with a human being activating the trigger. Goodness! What am I to say to that?

Among the antis there seems to be a pervasive belief that defending your life and property is less ethical than being victimized. Strangely, though, they have no problem passing the responsibility on to someone else (the cops). They don't want to get their own hands dirty, perhaps?

No, that is the exact opposite of what I said. Until a person picks up a firearm and does something with it, it is nothing. the intent is in YOU, not in it.

Sand wrote;

I bet the army is happy to be rid of you.

"Fight Them On The Beaches" is a quote from Churchill. It signifies a mentaliity, not a direct quote from any participant in this thread. By claiming that the good folks of Kentucky or wherever could fight off an invading army, and with all the extra patriotic "we can never be beaten" rhetoric, people give the impression of a "Fight Them On The Beaches" mentality. Is that any clearer?

In the same way I mentioned walmart bullets. I am signifying a grouping of people who purchase rounds commercially, rather than have them supplied by a military logistics net.

If I have to explain every term and reference in such fine detail, is it any wonder this thread devolved into argument so easily?


Maybe because I'm fully aware of the "All-Arms" nature of conflict I didn't feel the need to mention (more fool me) that a tank is going to have infantry support etc.. Especially after the number of times everyone saw fit to remind me that no arm of service works alone, despite this already being self-evident. Lets just clarify this. Is it sensible or fair to pan examples with the repeated argument IT WONT WIN ON ITS OWN, then pan another argument BECAUSE IT CONTAINS MORE THAN ONE UNIT????? Play fair people.

And yes, all of the "geurilla" posters have implied that taking on a trained military force would be "easy".

Or do I have to list every part of every level of military involved in a conflict every time I make an example? Do I have to add the helicopter gunships flying escort on the tank in question, or the rest of the squadron/battallion etc? Or the AWACS (or equivalent) or the artillery supporting it, or the fast movers also supporting it, oreven the office clerks in its country of origin doing the paperwork that let it be there in the first place... ad infinitum from the bottom of the pile to the top? I certainly shouldnt have to.

And as an added thought: I actually quite like, perhaps even support the concept of armed citizenry. Never said I didnt.

Macbeth: I'm guessing by this points most of the disagreement is due to mutual misunderstandings. A guerrilla war would not be easy, guerrilla war has never been easy. But invading armies historically have terrible track records in actually defeating guerrilla forces, so given the geography (think in terms of sheer size), population, availability of guns and some other weapons (or things that could be used as weapons), as well as the patriotic fervor that all people, and Americans moreso, develop when their country is directly threatened, it is unrealistic that any army would actually be able to conquer and subjugate the US. Eventually they would be driven out.

As far as anything winning "on its own" I don't think we've really made that argument so much. You've pointed out things that guerrillas couldn't deal with and we've stated that those things really wouldn't matter so much if guerrillas are able to deal with everything else. Example: Air superiority. Yes, it's hard to combat air superiority. But, if guerrilla forces are successful at causing enough problems for the invaders on the ground, the air superiority is no longer such a big deal. And I think Dox, T-Rav and I have all maintained that we'd be able to do enough damage to the enemy's ground forces for that to be the case.

I know where the quote comes from, and introducing more jargon doesn't make anything clearer. so lets drop it.

It would have helped, not everyone understands how the military works. Saying something like "I understand how combined arms works" would have saved us both much annoyance.

Lovely, now lets move on to a happier, brighter, more understanding thread, shall we?

More jargon? Where?

"The beaches", "wall-mart ammo" All of it.

Ok, I must remember to post for the lowest common denominator in future, so as to be as clear and easy to understand for all my colonial cousins....

Note to self: Think "Bush".

No, but it would help to remember what forum you are posting on (Hint: it's written at the top of the page), and that what makes sense to you doesn't necessarily make sense to every one else.