PRO

Where Your Ideas can change Minds

Please visit our new forum at

http://www.4forums.com

CON


YouDebate.com Forum
» back to YouDebate.com
Register | Profile | Log In | Lost Password | Active Users | Help | Board Rules | Search | FAQ |
Custom Search
» You are not logged in.   log in | register

  YouDebate.com Forum
   Gun Control Debates
     The Real purpose of guns
       A Bush hater's view of gun control

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
[ Single page for this topic ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

    
gigaplex

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

If there's one thing we've learned throughout history it is that governments hardly ever get corrupt. When they do get corrupt it is never to the point where people would actually have to use guns to get their freedom back. You can always just politely ask for your freedom back and it is as simple as that.

Okay, so that argument won't work against you people that have heard of ahhh... what's that thing? Oh yeah "history." Okay then, what about this:

Sure, every other country in all of history has become corrupt and taken away the freedoms of its people but in America things are different. Right now, George W. Bush is leading our country and is doing a fine job. We definately do not need to worry about our freedoms being taken away. Corrupt government in America!? Yeah right, that would never happen. I mean look at they way things have been going. If anything, Bush is giving us more freedoms and rights.

Oh but wait, you gun-control people probably hate Bush with a passion, as does anyone with half a brain (sorry loyal republicans). Okay, okay, how about this one:

If every american owned a gun, the government would be afraid to make decisions that the public disagreed with. If a politician went on some type of legislative rampage against the people's wishes, he is much more likely to be killed. Let's say a guy is surrounded by 30 civilians and 3 cops and he shoots this politician. What happens now? The 3 cops could try to take him down but there are 30 civilians that would probably have this guy's back. 30 vs 3 is not good odds for the cop. Now what if someone pulled a gun on a politician that the people liked and no cops were around? The guy that pulled the gun on the politician would probably have a hole through his head in short order. The truth is whoever has the guns in a country controls the country and if all the people are disarmed and the government is heavily armed, guess who has control? A government like that can do whatever it wants whether the people like it or not because what are the people going to do? And this is the situation we see in a lot of other countries today.

I'm going to have to go with this last one. I hate that guns are necessary. I hate that we all have to have one. It makes me feel like the human race is immature and underdeveloped. I'm sorry that it is this way but let's not pretend that the human race is mature enough to get by without guns. We do need guns and we will probably need them for a long time even if only for this one reason.

Will it make the theif afraid to steal or increase the number of theifs? You could argue either way and that is an endless debate that no one will win. Let's just say for the sake of argument that there are more thieves because even though they are more likely to be killed for such an act they are less afraid now that everyone has guns. Come up with a number. How many more people die from increased violence? Now, if the government got really corrupt and you had to have a civil war, guess how many people woud die if you have people with no guns vs government with guns? That number could be extremely high! Probably higher than the number of people that would die from increased violence. But let's say that it's not. Let's say you have to choose between a world in which you are a little more likely to die but also have your freedom and a world where you are "safer" but don't have freedom. How important is freedom to you?

"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." - Benjamin Franklin

It's funny, usually I am throwing that quote in when telling republicans that it is not okay to give up freedoms to fight the terrorists. Today I am using it when telling gun-control people that are probably mostly democrat that it is not okay to throw away your means of defense for safety. Strange how both sides fall into the same trap...

 


Posts: 4 | Posted: 1:49 PM on January 19, 2007 | IP
EMyers

|     |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I'd choose to live in a world where I don't have to worry about my daughter having her head blown off because some idiot has a gun that his child thought was cool and decided to show everyone one at school.  Oh wait, that never happens.


-------
"Thou believest that God is one; thou does well: the demons also believe, and shudder." James 2:19 - Belief is never enough.
 


Posts: 1287 | Posted: 4:08 PM on January 19, 2007 | IP
gigaplex

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Actually that does happen. I have no need to hide from facts. Nice try though, I surely would have looked retarded if I said that type of thing didn't happen.
 


Posts: 4 | Posted: 4:56 PM on January 19, 2007 | IP
gigaplex

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

This does serve as an excellent example of what I was trying to explain, EMyers. It's sort of an emotional-based thinking. It is exactly the same as the "give up freedoms to fight terrorism" thing.

People see all this terrorism all over the TV and build up all this fear. Pretty soon, they can't really see past this so when something like the patriot act is presented they don't take a step back, look at the whole picture and say, "hey wait a minute, this will destroy the freedoms that americans have fought so hard to keep." Instead, the fear takes over and they can only see the immediate situation.

Now, same thing with gun control. People like you, EMyers, look at one situation, like the possibility that your daughter may be killed by some kid that managed to get a gun because his parents are extremely irresponsible (which does happen) and you get this fear built up. Pretty soon, you can't see the whole picture. You don't stop and think, "hey wait a minute, what chance will we have of turning the government around if it gets corrupt and turns into a complete dictatorship (like what has happened to nearly every other government of all time)? How will my daughter's life be living in a country like that?" Instead, the fear takes over and you base your logic on this one (or possibly several) highly emotional situations that fail to cover the whole scope of the issue. Then you go find some facts that are true that will incite this emotion in others and you end up on this forum. Thanks for making my point even more clear
 


Posts: 4 | Posted: 5:33 PM on January 19, 2007 | IP
EMyers

|     |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

No, if I was afraid, I'm sure I'd keep a gun in the house "for my protection"...


-------
"Thou believest that God is one; thou does well: the demons also believe, and shudder." James 2:19 - Belief is never enough.
 


Posts: 1287 | Posted: 5:42 PM on January 19, 2007 | IP
gigaplex

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

lol, good thinking. Just don't give it to your daughter for show and tell at school.
 


Posts: 4 | Posted: 5:46 PM on January 19, 2007 | IP
TRIGGER

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from EMyers at 5:42 PM on January 19, 2007 :
No, if I was afraid, I'm sure I'd keep a gun in the house "for my protection"...


Do you give up that right until you are afraid? When it gets to that point it's to late , the burocrats have removed your rights and you are now a victim to criminals and tyrants with no  recourse but to submit.





-------
MACHINE GUNS? go to WWW.hansonshoot.com
 


Posts: 127 | Posted: 5:23 PM on January 31, 2007 | IP
EMyers

|     |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

So you're saying that you submit to everyone and everything when you don't have a gun to back up what you're saying?  That's a pitiful way to live.  


-------
"Thou believest that God is one; thou does well: the demons also believe, and shudder." James 2:19 - Belief is never enough.
 


Posts: 1287 | Posted: 7:08 PM on January 31, 2007 | IP
TRIGGER

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I don't know were you get that from. I was refuring to the fact that once you allow the government to disarm the public that right is gone and will not be returned. And as you said you would get a gun only if you were afraid. At that time it will be to late. It is better to have and not need than to need and not have. I am sure you as the great majority does when possesing a gun you would go through safety training and would store the gun safely.  

(Edited by TRIGGER 1/31/2007 at 8:02 PM).

(Edited by TRIGGER 2/8/2007 at 8:02 PM).


-------
MACHINE GUNS? go to WWW.hansonshoot.com
 


Posts: 127 | Posted: 7:51 PM on January 31, 2007 | IP
SilverStar

|        |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Just because people have guns does not mean that they are crimminals or will become crimminals. There are two reasons to have a gun legaly, one for self defense, and two for recreation.


-------
Darkside Enterprises were the impossible meets possible.

Tread softy and carry a big stick, preferably an AT4
 


Posts: 681 | Posted: 08:28 AM on February 7, 2007 | IP
horsewhspers

|      |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

intentional misinterpretation of the 2nd amendment has been taking place since “gun control laws” were incorporated... the people who have the most to gain by this misinterpretation keep pounding at it (say it enough times and it becomes the truth) calling on the ghosts of the “Founding Fathers” to support the lie...

The SPIRIT in which 2nd amendment was written cannot be any plainer, stated in black and white in plain English...July 4th 1776...


Quote:

“..When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.



We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, —

That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new Guards for their future security — Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government...”



The Second Amendment was drawn up during (or shortly after) the Revolutionary War... a war that our “Founding Fathers” could not have fought without the intervention of the French, who sold (on credit) the colonies arms to fight the war... and as a fact, the
Amendment was passed by the very first congress so it can be reasoned that it was a pretty important pillar to the document...


Quote:
“..On September 25, 1789, the First Congress of the United States therefore proposed to the state legislatures 12 amendments to the Constitution that met arguments most frequently advanced against it...”

after taking into consideration the “state of mind” that the authors possessed (that being of war) and the time frame itself (so close after the war 1775–1783)... i doubt that the statements found
here...


Quote:

“..Vermont Gov. Howard Dean explained his support for extending the assault weapons ban next year because “deer hunters don't need to have assault weapons.” Gen. Wesley Clark says: “I like to hunt. I have grown up with guns all my life, but people who like assault weapons should join the United States Army, we have them.” Sen. John Kerry offered, “I never contemplated hunting deer or anything else with an AK-47.”

hold validity...

Quote:

“..Clearly what worries these senators is that people and not deer will be “hunted” with these guns. As Sen. Carl Levin noted early this year, allowing the ban to expire will “inevitably lead to a rise in gun crimes.” Ratcheting up the fear factor to an entirely new level, Sen. Chuck Schumer claims the ban is one of "the most effective measures against terrorism that we have."

Schumers assertion of “terror” is probably viable....nothing would “terrorize” tyrants more than a motivated, justified and well armed population who recognize “..a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security..”


I don't think the creation and ratification of the 2nd amendment had anything to do with hunting...nor protection from criminals....but to balance the power of the people with the power of the government to protect against tyranny...

http://kooktalk.com/index.php?q=node/42kooktalk

(Edited by horsewhspers 3/18/2007 at 11:55 AM).
 


Posts: 1 | Posted: 11:42 AM on March 18, 2007 | IP
EMyers

|     |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

So you are stating that any and all ammendments to the Constitution should be permanent and no future generation has any reason, or permission to make changes to them?  


-------
"Thou believest that God is one; thou does well: the demons also believe, and shudder." James 2:19 - Belief is never enough.
 


Posts: 1287 | Posted: 4:52 PM on March 18, 2007 | IP
thewolf

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Accidents happen but in the end i would still keep my guns if for no other reason than self defense of my family and my home and from a potential tyranical govt...

besides the 2nd is non negotiable to me.


-------
my guns have killed no one...so they must be broken...

Never surrender your right to own to a moron in DC
 


Posts: 58 | Posted: 11:38 AM on March 21, 2007 | IP
quatin

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Accidents happen but in the end i would still keep my guns if for no other reason than self defense of my family and my home and from a potential tyranical govt...

besides the 2nd is non negotiable to me.


You better have some artillery pieces, anti-aircraft missiles, anti-tank guns and patriot missile launchers. Either that, or a large sense of denial that the tyranical gov't is only going to send in troops with small arms.
 


Posts: 86 | Posted: 7:10 PM on March 28, 2007 | IP
dmxx99

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from quatin at 2:10 PM on March 28, 2007 :
Accidents happen but in the end i would still keep my guns if for no other reason than self defense of my family and my home and from a potential tyranical govt...

besides the 2nd is non negotiable to me.


You better have some artillery pieces, anti-aircraft missiles, anti-tank guns and patriot missile launchers. Either that, or a large sense of denial that the tyranical gov't is only going to send in troops with small arms.

This type of nothing will happen to me attitude will be your down fall
If it really happens you will be one of the victims.


 


Posts: 65 | Posted: 8:22 PM on March 28, 2007 | IP
EMyers

|     |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

He's not saying that.  He's saying that IF the goverment were to go "tyranical" on us that guns and rifles aren't going to do us a whole lot of good so that line of argument is moot.


-------
"Thou believest that God is one; thou does well: the demons also believe, and shudder." James 2:19 - Belief is never enough.
 


Posts: 1287 | Posted: 11:05 PM on March 28, 2007 | IP
dmxx99

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Not true you could still put up a good fight with rifles and you just take the tyrannical goverments weapons and tanks after you kill some of them and use it against them.
 


Posts: 65 | Posted: 09:27 AM on March 29, 2007 | IP
quatin

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Not true you could still put up a good fight with rifles and you just take the tyrannical goverments weapons and tanks after you kill some of them and use it against them.


Sounds like you've been watching too much McGuiver and Rambo. Stop dreaming, look at what's happening in Iraq. What's the casualty ratio between the locals and the US Army? The Iraqi locals are better armed than the American populace. Most of their damage is inflicted by explosives (rpgs,grenades,road bombs) too.
 


Posts: 86 | Posted: 11:44 AM on March 29, 2007 | IP
dmxx99

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Its not like we are fighting our own army it would only be the police,abc organizations,and maybe national guard thats it.Does not mean we will lose we need good tactics and good shots.
 


Posts: 65 | Posted: 09:00 AM on March 30, 2007 | IP
EMyers

|     |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I see someone has watched Red Dawn one too many times.


-------
"Thou believest that God is one; thou does well: the demons also believe, and shudder." James 2:19 - Belief is never enough.
 


Posts: 1287 | Posted: 11:35 AM on March 31, 2007 | IP
dmxx99

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

And death is not that bad when you do it for a good cause.
 


Posts: 65 | Posted: 5:19 PM on March 31, 2007 | IP
TRIGGER

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Unfortunately you all have no concept as to what would transpire in such an event. There are many underlying factors that would come to bare if this were to come to pass.

Here are a few things you need to ponder. First if the government was to become corrupt or tyrannical and an armed insurrection were to start the government would be at large tactical disadvantage. Besides the gross numerical disadvantage of around 100 to one the insurrection would be entwined in every neighbor hood nation wide this would make any large scale exercise a liability bringing in high civilian casualties. You also need to realize that there are millions of exgovernment and military personnel in the public who know the inner workings of our government and military and would be able to disrupt their infrastructure. Also you realize that a large number of government and military personnel would resign if they were told to turn on the American public and would join the resistance. Although not all would resign there would be some who would stay behind being as mole's feeding vital Intel to the rebellion.

Every military base, police station, government installation and seat of government would become islands in this nation cut off from each other and any supplies.

The exmilitary would start underground training camps and train and command small tactical groups of 6 to 8 men that would harass any military forays into the public and then disappear back in to the masses. Anyone not part of these tactical groups would be sniping at any government personnel that would blunder in to the range of their firearm.

Anyone who would stay with the government would be under constant threat of assignation. The police and military would be occupied just trying to keep the burocracy and themselves from being killed.

As far as ordinance cruse missiles and the like would be liabilities to the government that is trying to pacify the public, any use of these types weapons would fuel the insurrection  causing the public to turn on the government. These weapons would also be a source of high explosives that the resistance would use against the military as in IED's. Any companies that manufacture these weapons would also become targets supplying the rebellion with needed munitions.

There are many more layers to this scenario. In the end the government would fall and the people would once again be free...  


(Edited by TRIGGER 3/31/2007 at 8:18 PM).

(Edited by TRIGGER 3/31/2007 at 8:19 PM).


-------
MACHINE GUNS? go to WWW.hansonshoot.com
 


Posts: 127 | Posted: 8:14 PM on March 31, 2007 | IP
EMyers

|     |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

You dropped your roach.

Historically (and currently) there are many places with armed insurrections and tyrannical goverments.  How many of those have overthrown their government to live in peace?


-------
"Thou believest that God is one; thou does well: the demons also believe, and shudder." James 2:19 - Belief is never enough.
 


Posts: 1287 | Posted: 2:42 PM on April 1, 2007 | IP
TRIGGER

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from EMyers at 2:42 PM on April 1, 2007 :
You dropped your roach.

Historically (and currently) there are many places with armed insurrections and tyrannical goverments.  How many of those have overthrown their government to live in peace?


If you look at those governments you will find that the public is banned from owning firearms preventing rebellion. The US is diffrent from these other countrys where the public have lived their whole lives oppressed and unarmed, it is diffrent here where we have freedom and are armed. This makes a diffrence since we know what we will lose were our governmet to become tyranical, in those other countrys they don't know the diffrence. Freedom is a concept that they have never tasted and the tool of tyrants is fear keeping the masses in line.

Actualy I know of none, though in the past century a few deposed one tyrant or corrupt government for another China, Russia, Cuba, and Venezuela
come to mind. As far as Russia, and China the public are not allowed arms and I assume that Cuba and  Venezuela are the same. The communist  governments of China and Russia murdered 100,000,000 plus innocent civilians in that century.

(Edited by TRIGGER 4/2/2007 at 8:39 PM).


-------
MACHINE GUNS? go to WWW.hansonshoot.com
 


Posts: 127 | Posted: 3:50 PM on April 1, 2007 | IP
EMyers

|     |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Preventing rebellion?  I thought I was talking about countries where rebellion is actively taking place?

And the answer you gave in the second part underlines my point.


-------
"Thou believest that God is one; thou does well: the demons also believe, and shudder." James 2:19 - Belief is never enough.
 


Posts: 1287 | Posted: 07:04 AM on April 3, 2007 | IP
quatin

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:


As far as Russia, and China the public are not allowed arms and I assume that Cuba and  Venezuela are the same. The communist  governments of China and Russia murdered 100,000,000 plus innocent civilians in that century.


WRONG. You can own guns in China. Again with the propaganda, China suffered a famine in the 50's not a mass murder wave. You can pull all the numbers you want, but that's what happened. The communist party can't control weather no matter how much they want. Their bad handling of the famine is another thing, hind sight is 20/20. That's the same as saying Republicans murdered hundreds of Americans during Katrina, because they messed up so badly before and after the storm.


Unfortunately you all have no concept as to what would transpire in such an event. There are many underlying factors that would come to bare if this were to come to pass.


You are also guilty of this. That just one far fetched scenario where the government suddenly hates ALL Americans. However what about a REAL event? In WWII Hitler turned the country against a PORTION of it's populace, the Jews. They had small arms and scattered militia, but were overwhelmed by an ORGANIZED ARMY. It is naive to think the US army will simply degenerate, because soldiers will desert.
 


Posts: 86 | Posted: 7:56 PM on April 4, 2007 | IP
TRIGGER

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from quatin at 7:56 PM on April 4, 2007 :


WRONG. You can own guns in China. Again with the propaganda, China suffered a famine in the 50's not a mass murder wave. You can pull all the numbers you want, but that's what happened. The communist party can't control weather no matter how much they want. Their bad handling of the famine is another thing, hind sight is 20/20. That's the same as saying Republicans murdered hundreds of Americans during Katrina, because they messed up so badly before and after the storm.


I don't think there was a famine in The USSR that killed 40 million. And did this famine take 80 million in china I doubt it? You sir are kidding your self. As far as china and guns I highly doubt it but in 3 mos I'll find out since I have a friend that teaches in China and I will see him and find out.



You are also guilty of this. That just one far fetched scenario where the government suddenly hates ALL Americans. However what about a REAL event? In WWII Hitler turned the country against a PORTION of it's populace, the Jews. They had small arms and scattered militia, but were overwhelmed by an ORGANIZED ARMY. It is naive to think the US army will simply degenerate, because soldiers will desert.


Not realy you have no concept of reality. You don't need the government to hate all americans all to need is for the goverment to try to enslave us by trying to disarm us and after that all you need is for one soldier to take one innocent american life while under orders by the US government and you have a martyr and battle cry.

When were you going to mention the gun confiscation by the Nazis. I can't remember which jewish getto it was but the German army was kept out of it by one hand gun and two rifles for about 2 mo's just because they had no idea to how many guns were there. Besides the jews had no one who would stand with them they were hoplessly out numbered as our military would be. Remember that in Germany that the population of the jews was small it was probably was around 1 to1 with the military. In the US it would be coservativly  100 to 1 that is 100 gun owners to 1 soldier.

You sir don't have a clue as to what would happen. Did you know that there was a study done where our military were asked if they were ordered to turn their guns on the american public that 75% said they would resign. And I can guarantee you that those who would resign won't be sitting on the sidelines. Did you also know that 70% of police beleave that the people have the right to keep and bear arms. And that at least in my state the police union told my legislature that if they wanted to cofiscate private firearms that they were on their own and they wouldn't comply.I am sure that in the government the number who would resign would would be in the same percentage. I never said our military would  degenerate the ones who were left would die.



(Edited by TRIGGER 4/4/2007 at 10:01 PM).

(Edited by TRIGGER 4/4/2007 at 10:06 PM).


-------
MACHINE GUNS? go to WWW.hansonshoot.com
 


Posts: 127 | Posted: 10:00 PM on April 4, 2007 | IP
EMyers

|     |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

While that is certainly a nice thought (what would happen) it has proven to be historically inaccurate.  Politics has taught me to pay more attention to what is historically true and less on what people say they would do in a certain situation.


-------
"Thou believest that God is one; thou does well: the demons also believe, and shudder." James 2:19 - Belief is never enough.
 


Posts: 1287 | Posted: 07:42 AM on April 5, 2007 | IP
quatin

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I don't think there was a famine in The USSR that killed 40 million. And did this famine take 80 million in china I doubt it? You sir are kidding your self. As far as china and guns I highly doubt it but in 3 mos I'll find out since I have a friend that teaches in China and I will see him and find out.


I don't know what propagandist site you pulled out 100 million in the first place, but that probably included every single death since the civil war in China and tried to blame it all on "communism". The famine in China killed an upwards of 40million. The famines in USSR? Pobably another 10-20 million each, there were several.
Secondly, where did you pull that "there's no guns in china"? Suddenly you just "highly doubt" that you can own them? I know for a fact you can own guns in China not 10 years ago since I went back and my uncle OWNS shotguns. China has a LEGAL hunting season where people can even IMPORT their firearms to hunt.


Not realy you have no concept of reality. You don't need the government to hate all americans all to need is for the goverment to try to enslave us by trying to disarm us and after that all you need is for one soldier to take one innocent american life while under orders by the US government and you have a martyr and battle cry.

When were you going to mention the gun confiscation by the Nazis. I can't remember which jewish getto it was but the German army was kept out of it by one hand gun and two rifles for about 2 mo's just because they had no idea to how many guns were there. Besides the jews had no one who would stand with them they were hoplessly out numbered as our military would be. Remember that in Germany that the population of the jews was small it was probably was around 1 to1 with the military. In the US it would be coservativly  100 to 1 that is 100 gun owners to 1 soldier.

You sir don't have a clue as to what would happen. Did you know that there was a study done where our military were asked if they were ordered to turn their guns on the american public that 75% said they would resign. And I can guarantee you that those who would resign won't be sitting on the sidelines. Did you also know that 70% of police beleave that the people have the right to keep and bear arms. And that at least in my state the police union told my legislature that if they wanted to cofiscate private firearms that they were on their own and they wouldn't comply.I am sure that in the government the number who would resign would would be in the same percentage. I never said our military would  degenerate the ones who were left would die.

No, that was reality. The 3rd Reich confiscated guns then prosecuted a part of the population. Of course the Jews were in the minority, "DIVIDE AND CONQUER" that was Hitler's method. That is a more realistic scenario that your "US government wants to kill ALL Americans". If the Jews had a sufficient armory they could have stood up to the gun confiscations. A small well armed well trained militia can stand up to a larger force. The US Forces in the middle east have proven that over and over. You can make up numbers and theorize the perfect scenario, but a gun confiscation will have support in the US. Look at what happened in New Orleans (ANOTHER REAL EVENT). The police/national guard went door to door and CONFISCATED guns. This was just a hurricane, not a civil war either.

If a confiscation occurs and you fight it with your rifles they can return with tanks.
 


Posts: 86 | Posted: 10:33 AM on April 5, 2007 | IP
dmxx99

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I rather be the smart rebel than the law abiding citizen who gives up his gun just because the government bans them.

 


Posts: 65 | Posted: 4:09 PM on April 5, 2007 | IP
TRIGGER

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from quatin at 10:33 AM on April 5, 2007 :


I don't know what propagandist site you pulled out 100 million in the first place, but that probably included every single death since the civil war in China and tried to blame it all on "communism". The famine in China killed an upwards of 40million. The famines in USSR? Pobably another 10-20 million each, there were several.
Secondly, where did you pull that "there's no guns in china"? Suddenly you just "highly doubt" that you can own them? I know for a fact you can own guns in China not 10 years ago since I went back and my uncle OWNS shotguns. China has a LEGAL hunting season where people can even IMPORT their firearms to hunt.

Didn't say I knew anything about guns in China just said I would chk in to it. As far as the rest chk here http://www.jpfo.org/

By the way were did you get your propaganda from?


No, that was reality. The 3rd Reich confiscated guns then prosecuted a part of the population. Of course the Jews were in the minority, "DIVIDE AND CONQUER" that was Hitler's method.


Exactly and why do you think they confiscated the jews guns first? They separated the jews from their guns, in this way there would be no armed resistance. In this way the Nazis didn't pay any price for the murder of the jews and raise any suspicion with the rest of the world.  

That is a more realistic scenario that your "US government wants to kill ALL Americans". If the Jews had a sufficient armory they could have stood up to the gun confiscations. A small well armed well trained militia can stand up to a larger force. The US Forces in the middle east have proven that over and over.


Thanks you just made my argument for me. I never said that the US government wanted to kill all americans, only to control (enslave) and pacifi them. To kill the American public would be counter productive don't you think? Since it would leave no one to be ruled and enslaved. Here is how you made my argument. You said "A small well armed well trained militia can stand up to a larger force. The US Forces in the middle east have proven that over and over." Correct and those small well armed and well trained militia would be the american public. But you forgot that in the US the circumstances would be diffrent. In the middle east the number of insergents and milita is small less than 300,000 (this # is a very liberal #) and have been reciving help from Iran, Syria and a small number of their own government. They are also operating in only one small area. And they may be holding off our military but they are not wining.

In the US that number would be 80,000,000+. Around 40 times as large as our entire military and this is not with the # of personal that would resign. Traning would be done by exmilitary who understand our military tactics. Also the revolt would be nation wide not in a cotroled area. As far as the public going along with a confiscation. Think again there was a pole done a few years ago that splits the country down the middle half the country agrees with the NRA position on guns. And even if the government were to call for a consfication who's going to do it? The police, military and the guard won't.  


You can make up numbers and theorize the perfect scenario, but a gun confiscation will have support in the US. Look at what happened in New Orleans (ANOTHER REAL EVENT). The police/national guard went door to door and CONFISCATED guns. This was just a hurricane, not a civil war either.

If a confiscation occurs and you fight it with your rifles they can return with tanks.


As far as the public going along with a confiscation. Think again there was a pole done a few years ago that splits the country down the middle half the country agrees with the NRA position on guns. And even if the government were to call for a consfication who's going to do it? The police, military and the guard won't. The only reason that they were able to get away with it in New Orleans is that one it was a natural disaster and the chaos is what allowed them to do it since the owners were suprised by it. Two they were told that the guns were to be returned after order was restored. The only reason it happened is because they did it behind the peoples back. Also remember the up roar after? I can guarantee you that it was succesful once but it will never happen again. As far as them returning with tanks our military is constutional for bidden from police action on American citizens. Besides to bring tanks it would look more like Nazi panzers to get one person. How do you think that would look to the American public?


(Edited by TRIGGER 4/7/2007 at 05:38 AM).


-------
MACHINE GUNS? go to WWW.hansonshoot.com
 


Posts: 127 | Posted: 6:56 PM on April 5, 2007 | IP
EMyers

|     |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Obviously there is no reasoning with a conspiracy theorist.  Let it go quatin, he can't see reality through his imagination.


-------
"Thou believest that God is one; thou does well: the demons also believe, and shudder." James 2:19 - Belief is never enough.
 


Posts: 1287 | Posted: 07:38 AM on April 6, 2007 | IP
quatin

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:



Didn't say I knew anything about guns in China just said I would chk in to it. As far as the rest chk here http://www.jpfo.org/

By the way were did you get your propaganda from?


You specifically said:
As far as Russia, and China the public are not allowed arms and I assume that Cuba and  Venezuela are the same.

That is not "I will look into it" that is, an attempt to state a fact.

http://www.jpfo.org/ is the Jews for Preservation of Firearms. They think themselves as a gang as listed on their front page poster. This is propoganda taken by itself, in no way can you possibly substantiate anything from websites trying to push a goal without REFERENCES.


Exactly and why do you think they confiscated the jews guns first? They separated the jews from their guns, in this way there would be no armed resistance. In this way the Nazis didn't pay any price for the murder of the jews and raise any suspicion with the rest of the world.  

The war really started at the point where they confiscated weapons. Had the Jews been better armed they could've fought back AT THE POINT when weapons confiscations began.  



Thanks you just made my argument for me. I never said that the US government wanted to kill all americans, only to control (enslave) and pacifi them. To kill the American public would be counter productive don't you think? Since it would leave no one to be ruled and enslaved. Here is how you made my argument. You said "A small well armed well trained militia can stand up to a larger force. The US Forces in the middle east have proven that over and over." Correct and those small well armed and well trained militia would be the american public. But you forgot that in the US the circumstances would be diffrent. In the middle east the number of insergents and milita is small less than 300,000 (this # is a very liberal #) and have been reciving help from Iran, Syria and a small number of their own government. They are also operating in only one small area. And they may be holding off our military but they are not wining.

You again repeat my point. A small well armed force can repel a larger force. The insurgents are not well armed by any means. The US Army is better armed than the insurgents. The insurgents are making headway with just rifles, crude explosives and some shoulder fired weapons. Had these insurgents been armed with tanks, ICBMs, stationary missile launchers, jets and a blue water navy they would be doing much better.


In the US that number would be 80,000,000+. Around 40 times as large as our entire military and this is not with the # of personal that would resign. Traning would be done by exmilitary who understand our military tactics. Also the revolt would be nation wide not in a cotroled area. As far as the public going along with a confiscation. Think again there was a pole done a few years ago that splits the country down the middle half the country agrees with the NRA position on guns. And even if the government were to call for a consfication who's going to do it? The police, military and the guard won't.  

Open polls mean nothing. I don't know what poll you are refering too, but I bet it was an open poll from some media company. An open poll cannot hold a random selection factor and are often bombarded by interest groups.
Again a small well armed group can fend off a larger force. The US military will be far better armed than civilians. The Afghani and Iraqi insurgents are better armed than US civilians.
It's naieve to think the military will dissintegrate by dissent. How often has that EVER happened in a civil war? The police/national guard/military will do as they were told even if it's by force. How many Germans in WWII already realized what they did to the Jews were wrong, but had no choice but to fight anyways?


As far as the public going along with a confiscation. Think again there was a pole done a few years ago that splits the country down the middle half the country agrees with the NRA position on guns. And even if the government were to call for a consfication who's going to do it? The police, military and the guard won't. The only reason that they were able to get away with it in New Orleans is that one it was a natural disaster and the chaos is what allowed them to do it since the owners were suprised by it. Two they were told that the guns were to be returned after order was restored. The only reason it happened is because they did it behind the peoples back. Also remember the up roar after? I can guarantee you that it was succesful once but it will never happen again. As far as them returning with tanks our military is constutional for bidden from police action on American citizens. Besides to bring tanks it would look more like Nazi panzers to get one person. How do you think that would look to the American public?


Again with polls with no references. It happened in New Orleans and it will happen again. Even if they had a disguise to go under, they can use the same guise to confiscate more guns. "We'll give the guns back after the revolution." If they were gullible enough now they will be gullible then.  What about New Jersey where firearms were confiscated for breaking the slightest rule from a mass of firearm laws intended to remove guns from the populace? The police are actively supporting that. Whatever the consequences afterwards, it occured. You can whine about it all you want afterwards, but it happened and you have no guns. It will appear the police/military is subduing crazy nut jobs or "terrorists" and confiscating their weapons.
 


Posts: 86 | Posted: 12:28 PM on April 6, 2007 | IP
SilverStar

|        |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from EMyers at 4:52 PM on March 18, 2007 :
So you are stating that any and all ammendments to the Constitution should be permanent and no future generation has any reason, or permission to make changes to them?  


If not, then why have one. the constitution's only purpose for existance is to restrict the power of the government and to protect freedom.





-------
Darkside Enterprises were the impossible meets possible.

Tread softy and carry a big stick, preferably an AT4
 


Posts: 681 | Posted: 12:40 PM on April 6, 2007 | IP
EMyers

|     |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Do you ever foresee the possibility that a law could ever be made that is wrong?  If you can, do you ever foresee the possibility that a Consititutional amendment could be wrong?  If you don't do you support temperance?


-------
"Thou believest that God is one; thou does well: the demons also believe, and shudder." James 2:19 - Belief is never enough.
 


Posts: 1287 | Posted: 1:34 PM on April 6, 2007 | IP
quatin

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:


If not, then why have one. the constitution's only purpose for existance is to restrict the power of the government and to protect freedom.

May I remind you of Amendment 18 prohibition.
 


Posts: 86 | Posted: 3:22 PM on April 6, 2007 | IP
SilverStar

|        |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

True. However if all one has to do is chainge their mind, why have laws at all?


-------
Darkside Enterprises were the impossible meets possible.

Tread softy and carry a big stick, preferably an AT4
 


Posts: 681 | Posted: 8:56 PM on April 6, 2007 | IP
quatin

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

You don't just change your mind. You have to go through a process of repealing the law. Laws in this country, unlike the 10 commandments are not meant to be written in stone.
 


Posts: 86 | Posted: 12:18 PM on April 9, 2007 | IP
TRIGGER

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from quatin at 12:28 PM on April 6, 2007 :



You specifically said:
"As far as Russia, and China the public are not allowed arms and I assume that Cuba and  Venezuela are the same."
That is not "I will look into it" that is, an attempt to state a fact.


In my first post I stated as above I changed it to I’ll look in to it. I have now chked in to it you are wrong the only people in china who are allowed to posse’s firearms are police and military and they require a permit. This is what I have been able to find, the information is scarce, vague  and not really definitive but more than you have proven. Don’t worry I’ll give a link. And I’m sure that this doesn’t apply to the rulers. Guns for the masters not the masses. As you would have it here in the US. Though if you are a tourist you are welcomed by the government to come and hunt Chinas animals including one’s that are endangered.

http://www.gunowners.org/opagn0301.htm

http://www.fourstaradventures.com/international_hunts/china/china_hunting.htm

http://news.netscape.com/story/2006/08/09/-china-oks-hunting-of-endangered-species/

http://www.jpfo.org/ is the Jews for Preservation of Firearms. They think themselves as a gang as listed on their front-page poster. This is propaganda taken by itself, in no way can you possibly substantiate anything from websites trying to push a goal without REFERENCES.


Well I did find out about the famines in  Russia and China. From the information that I’ve found communist political policy is what caused them. If you add these numbers up with the political dissidents that were rounded up and dealt with and the victims of the famines the numbers are close. Oh yes there were no records kept on the deaths from famine, the 40,000,000 deaths is a best guess but it could be much higher. So JPFO is most likely correct on this issue.

http://www.overpopulation.com/faq/health/hunger/famine/chinese_famine.html  


The war really started at the point where they confiscated weapons. Had the Jews been better armed they could've fought back AT THE POINT when weapons confiscations began.


Wrong the war started with their push in to Poland. Their confiscation was an internal political maneuver to disarm their victims. Had the Jew’s known that they were in for  Genocide they would have fought back whether they had better weapons or not. You don’t need superior weapons to fight back all you need is an advantage which the Jew’s didn’t have.    


You again repeat my point. A small well-armed force can repel a larger force. The insurgents are not well armed by any means. The US Army is better armed than the insurgents. The insurgents are making headway with just rifles, crude explosives and some shoulder-fired weapons. Had these insurgents been armed with  they would be doing much better.


The strength if the insurgents is that they are small groups that blend in to the neighbor hoods, with the ability to move quickly, to be able to hit, run and disappear is their strongest advantage. The US and Iraqi forces problem is identification since there is no way to positively  identify the enemy at a glance if the enemy were using heavy arms they would take a beating just as Sadams forces did in both gulf wars. Since heavy arms won’t blend in to the towns countryside and the arms of the US are stand off weapons which can destroy those heavy arms while being out of reach. Just these facts that you seem to ignore or are ignorant of makes your arguments poor at best.

Since a revolt against the US government if it were to become corrupt or tyrannical are the operable words, since this is what it would take to start a revolt. The revolt would be similar to the insurgency though there are large differences.
Like size of the revolt which I alluded to in earlier posts. Even though explosives and heavy weapons are not in the inventory they are manufactured in this country and would be stolen from manufacturers and distributors. Remember what Timothy McViey accomplished. Imagine what A few million  McVieys could do. As I have said before there is no way the military, police or government could separate at a glance that was involved in the revolt an who isn’t. Making military engagement of these forces next to imposable and since those forces wouldn’t go toe to toe with the military they would wait for the right opportunities strike and retreat via predetermined routes of escape and blend back in to the populace. Any resupply of the military would be subject to hijackings and sabotage . All forms of commerce would be disrupted. saboteurs would be lurking everywhere looking for any opportunity to disrupt any and all  police, military, and Government operations. There is no need for superior weapons the semi auto rifles would be more than adequate since they will conserve ammo and would be better adapted for the type of fighting the members of the revolt would be doing. Heavy arms only have an advantage with large forces in close proximity with the forces that would be in the revolt they would be scattered it is better to engage a superior force with fire from many directions than concentrated fire from one location leaving you open to heavy arms. Another thing that you seem to ignore is that the large exmilitary that is in the public, which knows the US military weaknesses and how to subvert the military. It’s like going in to a football game with the other guy’s playbook. The same would apply to the government’s bureaucracy.  
           
Open polls mean nothing. I don't know what poll you are referring too, but I bet it was an open poll from some media company. An open poll cannot hold a random selection factor and are often bombarded by interest groups.


This is true and if you read my post the question of the military was, ”if ordered to turn your gun on the American public would you?” Since our military are a force steeped in honor and tradition for you to believe that these men would follow an order like that is nothing less than an insult to the integrity of the men who serve in our military.

Again a small well-armed group can fend off a larger force. The US military will be far better armed than civilians. The Afghani and Iraqi insurgents are better armed than US civilians.


LOL How well armed a force is makes little difference when you enemy knows you inside and out. When your enemy is on their home turf. When your enemy is fighting a gorilla war and is motivated by fighting for his homeland and family. Not fighting for a government trying to oppress his countrymen by trying to enslave them.    

It's naive to think the military will disintegrate by dissent. How often has that EVER happened in a civil war? The police/national guard/military will do as they were told even if it's by force. How many Germans in WWII already realized what they did to the Jews were wrong, but had no choice but to fight anyways?


Wow you are cynical aren’t you? I think you are under estimating the quality of the man that wears our uniform. You may follow orders like that but I won’t and I can tell you that the great majority of men and women wearing our uniform wouldn’t either. They and I would die rather than turn our backs on our countrymen and fight to enslave them. You may be that quality of a person but I am not.  

Again with polls with no references. It happened in New Orleans and it will happen again. Even if they had a disguise to go under, they can use the same guise to confiscate more guns. "We'll give the guns back after the revolution." If they were gullible enough now they will be gullible then.  What about New Jersey where firearms were confiscated for breaking the slightest rule from a mass of firearm laws intended to remove guns from the populace? The police are actively supporting that. Whatever the consequences afterwards, it occurred. You can whine about it all you want afterwards, but it happened and you have no guns. It will appear the police/military is subduing crazy nut jobs or "terrorists" and confiscating their weapons.


Well in New Orleans the guns were returned it took a court order but they were returned. Well now that it has happened and the country knows about it there will be less people that will fall for it, though there will still be some who will. Well lets see your proof I haven’t seen or heard anything about NJ. I do know that in recent years that the laws have changed that narrow who can own guns before if you were convicted of a felony prevented it but if it were a misdemeanor you were ok. But technically if your sentence could be a year or more even if you weren’t sentenced for it that you are a felon and this is one of the things that they didn’t enforce before and now if you were convicted of a domestic violence or any violent act. Another thing was a lot of states went to doing a nation wide back ground chk through the FBI, which was state wide background chks before. This brought to light felonies that were not previously know. But those guns were not confiscated the person who previously owned the gun still owned those guns and could gift or sell them I know a few guys who just gave them to the wife, relative or buddy. You may be able to trick the police in to it in small areas but to do it through legislation is what I ment.  In my state the legislature proposed a gun ban and confiscation the were sent a letter from the police union telling them that their members would not participate in it and that if they wanted to legislate it they would have to enforce it them selves.  


(Edited by TRIGGER 4/11/2007 at 9:41 PM).

(Edited by TRIGGER 4/11/2007 at 9:42 PM).

(Edited by TRIGGER 4/11/2007 at 9:46 PM).

(Edited by TRIGGER 4/11/2007 at 9:47 PM).

(Edited by TRIGGER 4/11/2007 at 9:49 PM).

(Edited by TRIGGER 4/11/2007 at 9:51 PM).


-------
MACHINE GUNS? go to WWW.hansonshoot.com
 


Posts: 127 | Posted: 9:39 PM on April 11, 2007 | IP
quatin

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:


In my first post I stated as above I changed it to I’ll look in to it. I have now chked in to it you are wrong the only people in china who are allowed to posse’s firearms are police and military and they require a permit. This is what I have been able to find, the information is scarce, vague  and not really definitive but more than you have proven. Don’t worry I’ll give a link. And I’m sure that this doesn’t apply to the rulers. Guns for the masters not the masses. As you would have it here in the US. Though if you are a tourist you are welcomed by the government to come and hunt Chinas animals including one’s that are endangered.

http://www.gunowners.org/opagn0301.htm

http://www.fourstaradventures.com/international_hunts/china/china_hunting.htm

http://news.netscape.com/story/2006/08/09/-china-oks-hunting-of-endangered-species/


That's wrong. You don't even read your own sources.



   Q: Is it illegal in your country for private citizens to keep and bear arms?

   A: It is not -- one has to get a permit to carry weapons. Of course some people carry weapons because of their official duties such as policemen or soldiers.


It CLEARLY says it is NOT illegal for PRIVATE citizens to keep and bear arms. You need a permit to carry weapons, just like you need them here. People who are exempt are police and military. He does not also explain that you do not need a permit to POSSESS weapons. Just like here in the US you do not need a permit to own guns, just to carry them.


Well I did find out about the famines in  Russia and China. From the information that I’ve found communist political policy is what caused them. If you add these numbers up with the political dissidents that were rounded up and dealt with and the victims of the famines the numbers are close. Oh yes there were no records kept on the deaths from famine, the 40,000,000 deaths is a best guess but it could be much higher. So JPFO is most likely correct on this issue.

http://www.overpopulation.com/faq/health/hunger/famine/chinese_famine.html  


Drought and flooding of the Yangtze river (main river in China that supplies water to millions) caused the droughts. No matter how much the communist party wants to, they can't control the weather. That coupled with the irresponsible handling by the Communist party amplified the disaster of the famine. You're trying to rewrite history to make it seem like the Communisty party purposefully started the famine just to kill people, becuase they're evil. This is the same context as Republicans purposefully killing Americans, because they couldn't handle the Hurrican Katrina.



Wrong the war started with their push in to Poland. Their confiscation was an internal political maneuver to disarm their victims. Had the Jew’s known that they were in for  Genocide they would have fought back whether they had better weapons or not. You don’t need superior weapons to fight back all you need is an advantage which the Jew’s didn’t have.    


BS, the legal declaration of war may have started in Poland, but war starts way before open declarations. The war in Iraq started 2 months before it was declared since Bush had already ordered troops inside Iraq. It was blatantly obvious to the rest of the world that Germany was about to invade. The war started for the Jews the minute private property was conficsated.


The strength if the insurgents is that they are small groups that blend in to the neighbor hoods, with the ability to move quickly, to be able to hit, run and disappear is their strongest advantage. The US and Iraqi forces problem is identification since there is no way to positively  identify the enemy at a glance if the enemy were using heavy arms they would take a beating just as Sadams forces did in both gulf wars. Since heavy arms won’t blend in to the towns countryside and the arms of the US are stand off weapons which can destroy those heavy arms while being out of reach. Just these facts that you seem to ignore or are ignorant of makes your arguments poor at best.


This is the most ignorant statement I've seen yet. Why does the Iraqi rebels hit and run? Did you think that was by choice? If it's so effective, why don't we make our troops run around in small groups. They do this, because THEY LACK EQUIPMENT.

Saddams army was a 3rd world army, he lacked any kind of an air force, blue water navy and only relied on out dated tanks. Saddams military was NOT well armed.

It is completely moronic to say that a military is worse off with MORE EQUIPMENT.



Since a revolt against the US government if it were to become corrupt or tyrannical are the operable words, since this is what it would take to start a revolt. The revolt would be similar to the insurgency though there are large differences.
Like size of the revolt which I alluded to in earlier posts. Even though explosives and heavy weapons are not in the inventory they are manufactured in this country and would be stolen from manufacturers and distributors. Remember what Timothy McViey accomplished. Imagine what A few million  McVieys could do. As I have said before there is no way the military, police or government could separate at a glance that was involved in the revolt an who isn’t. Making military engagement of these forces next to imposable and since those forces wouldn’t go toe to toe with the military they would wait for the right opportunities strike and retreat via predetermined routes of escape and blend back in to the populace. Any resupply of the military would be subject to hijackings and sabotage . All forms of commerce would be disrupted. saboteurs would be lurking everywhere looking for any opportunity to disrupt any and all  police, military, and Government operations. There is no need for superior weapons the semi auto rifles would be more than adequate since they will conserve ammo and would be better adapted for the type of fighting the members of the revolt would be doing. Heavy arms only have an advantage with large forces in close proximity with the forces that would be in the revolt they would be scattered it is better to engage a superior force with fire from many directions than concentrated fire from one location leaving you open to heavy arms. Another thing that you seem to ignore is that the large exmilitary that is in the public, which knows the US military weaknesses and how to subvert the military. It’s like going in to a football game with the other guy’s playbook. The same would apply to the government’s bureaucracy.  


You are living in an imagninary world. THAT SIMPLY DOES NOT HAPPEN. When has a modern civil war been won with one side armed with rifles and the other side with a fully equiped army?  
You keep making up that scenario where it's the civlian population vs government. That is just an impossibly hard scenario to imagine. REAL SCENARIOS that have happened are like the 3rd Reich and China's Civil War. NONE of those wars were won by "internal sabotage, ex-military training and desertion by morals" that you keep believing is key. Civil wars/internal conflicts were won by ARMIES.
         

This is true and if you read my post the question of the military was, ”if ordered to turn your gun on the American public would you?” Since our military are a force steeped in honor and tradition for you to believe that these men would follow an order like that is nothing less than an insult to the integrity of the men who serve in our military.

You place the sake of this country protected by the 2nd A SOLELY on FAITH that the military simply won't fight you.


LOL How well armed a force is makes little difference when you enemy knows you inside and out. When your enemy is on their home turf. When your enemy is fighting a gorilla war and is motivated by fighting for his homeland and family. Not fighting for a government trying to oppress his countrymen by trying to enslave them.    

Homeland advantage DOES NOT EXIST. This is a civil war we're talking about here. THEY LIVE IN THIS COUNTRY TOO and are fighting to preserve THEIR LAND AND FAMILY. They would know where civilians would go since THEY USED TO BE/ARE CIVILIANS.


Wow you are cynical aren’t you? I think you are under estimating the quality of the man that wears our uniform. You may follow orders like that but I won’t and I can tell you that the great majority of men and women wearing our uniform wouldn’t either. They and I would die rather than turn our backs on our countrymen and fight to enslave them. You may be that quality of a person but I am not.  


Again you throw the fate of this country simply on FAITH. Never have I seen a military simply dissolve in a manner that you say. What about the army of the 3rd reich? You think there were 100 million Germans who suddenly "lacked quality"?


Well in New Orleans the guns were returned it took a court order but they were returned. Well now that it has happened and the country knows about it there will be less people that will fall for it, though there will still be some who will. Well lets see your proof I haven’t seen or heard anything about NJ. I do know that in recent years that the laws have changed that narrow who can own guns before if you were convicted of a felony prevented it but if it were a misdemeanor you were ok. But technically if your sentence could be a year or more even if you weren’t sentenced for it that you are a felon and this is one of the things that they didn’t enforce before and now if you were convicted of a domestic violence or any violent act. Another thing was a lot of states went to doing a nation wide back ground chk through the FBI, which was state wide background chks before. This brought to light felonies that were not previously know. But those guns were not confiscated the person who previously owned the gun still owned those guns and could gift or sell them I know a few guys who just gave them to the wife, relative or buddy. You may be able to trick the police in to it in small areas but to do it through legislation is what I ment.  In my state the legislature proposed a gun ban and confiscation the were sent a letter from the police union telling them that their members would not participate in it and that if they wanted to legislate it they would have to enforce it them selves.  


FROM YOUR OWN SOURCE:
http://www.gunowners.org/op9901.htm

Republicans helped pass both the state and federal versions of the now infamous Lautenberg domestic violence gun ban-- legislation which mandates the confiscation of all one's firearms for the slightest marital argument, and which has actually brought dozens of machine-gun carrying police SWAT teams to the doors of N.J. gun owners who allowed a verbal family dispute to go beyond household walls.


Not outright gun confiscation, I did not say that. This is just one representative law in NJ, where you "techincally" break the law and thereby have your guns confiscated. I don't know how you keep placing blind faith in the government ( police, military) that they won't turn on you. I have never heard of this happening in a mass scale, but yet you blindly refuse to believe it won't happen despite history dictating that it happens over and over.
 


Posts: 86 | Posted: 11:07 AM on April 13, 2007 | IP
WBPV253

|     |       Report Post



Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Great to see both sides of the argument, makes for a healthy outlook when you look at both sides of the coin.  Gun ownership and Gun control really isn't the main concern for people.  No amount of gun ownership or gun control will protect you from everything, it would be naive to assume perfect world conditions.  The argument for and against becomes very scary when your mind is made up for you, that is when your government decides for you.  Thats when the population really loose their inherent power.  A knee jerk reaction to ban guns after a mass shooting is always the norm but hardly seems the appropriate action to protect against insanity.  Hundreds and even maybe thousands of people die everyday due to poor health conditions, poor living conditions and poor medical treatment fascilities but nobody is up in arms about that, least of all the media.  Here in Australia our government spent nearly $700 million dollars to buy back guns after our last mass shooting incident and its been nearly 12 years since that happened.  So it would seem that we are now safter but God forbid if you have to rely on the virtually non existent public health system here which we pay for through our taxes.  As sad as a mass shooting is, it is wrong to rely on a sensational, emotional incident to make a decision as to what is best for you and your family.
 


Posts: 16 | Posted: 11:33 PM on April 17, 2007 | IP
nurseguy

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

What happened to little me..?

Shoot to keep predators off a herd, gophers out of my yard, birds off the corn (and they're tasty too...)

Sure i own for self defense.  Practice a bit, but it's the one that's least fun to use.  Hope to never see it used.  My least favorite gun.

Rather use them for their Best use.  Putting food on the table and managing my land.

Too much fear, misunderstanding about guns.
Fact is any gun of any size can kill a person.  Even a gun too small to kill a rabid racoon can kill a person (like a 22lr)  We're one of the most fragile creatures in the wild.  We survived to evolve because of tools like these.  

Those in the city might not understand.  Meat comes from a factory, and there's no more threats from the tamed outdoors.  No lions or tigers or bears.  
 Fact is, i shoot a rattlesnake or two a year on a few acres, seen bobcat near a girlfriends trash in Colorado (near Denver.) 150 pound Bobcat vs. her 9 year old daughter?  If you've got livestock you've got food for something.  If you've got farmland there's something living in it.  Just our few acres have more ground squirrels and moles than just i can handle.  I either poison my land, use traps (both the dog gets into) or let them take the garden i use to feed my family.  Best way is a 22lr or a 223 SA for distance.  

Heck my girlfrind is a California raised, happy karma'd vegetarian.  We go shooting all the time.  She won't shoot the critters lest they're a threat to land or animals.  Guess would go the same with home defense and the kids.  And she's the most peaceful woman you'll meet.

Oh, and all my guns are behind at least one lock at all times, most behind 2-3.  In a case with 2 types of locks and a trigger lock on the gun and my ammo in locked cases.

 


Posts: 9 | Posted: 02:53 AM on July 17, 2007 | IP
Azar002

|     |       Report Post




Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, about
20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
---
In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
---
Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, a total of
13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.
---
China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated
---
Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
---
Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
---
Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million educated' people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
---
Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century because of gun control: 56 million.
---
It has now been 12 months since gun owners in Australia were forced by new law to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed by their own government, a program costing Australia taxpayers more than $500 million dollars. The first year results are now in:

List of 7 items:
Australia-wide, homicides are up 3.2 percent
Australia-wide, assaults are up 8.6 percent
Australia-wide, armed robberies are up 44 percent (yes, 44 percent)!

In the state of Victoria alone, homicides with firearms are now up 300 percent. Note that while the law-abiding citizens turned them in, the criminals did not, and criminals still possess their guns!

While figures over the previous 25 years showed a steady decrease in armed robbery with firearms, this has changed drastically upward in the past 12 months, since criminals now are guaranteed that their prey is unarmed.

There has also been a dramatic increase in break-ins and assaults of the ELDERLY. Australian politicians are at a loss to explain how public safety has decreased, after such monumental effort and expense was expended in successfully ridding Australian society of guns. The Australian experience and the other historical facts above prove it.

You won't see this data on the US evening news, or hear politicians disseminating this information.

Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives and property and, yes, gun-control laws adversely affect only the law-abiding citizens.

Take note my fellow Americans, before it's too late!

The next time someone talks in favor of gun control, please remind them of this history lesson.

With guns, we are 'citizens'.

Without them, we are 'subjects'.

During WWII the Japanese decided not to invade America because they knew most Americans were ARMED!
 


Posts: 1 | Posted: 10:24 AM on November 29, 2007 | IP
    
[ Single page for this topic ]

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
[ Single page for this topic ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

Topic options: Lock topic | Unlock topic | Make Topic Sticky | Remove Sticky | Delete thread | Move thread | Merge thread

 

© YouDebate.com
Powered by: ScareCrow version 2.12
© 2001 Jonathan Bravata. All rights reserved.