In light of CA's new anti-gun law.... a question

[JTsyo]

Yes, and not come even remotely close to "winning" in any kind of traditional sense. Plus you could argue that their ability to inflict any kind of damage is at least as much due to their tactics and will to fight as it is to their actual gun ownership.

I wonder what the ratio in the ME is for US troops between bullets and other injuries. I wouldn't think the insurgents are winning many firefights.

 

[Lithium381]

I wonder what the ratio in the ME is for US troops between bullets and other injuries. I wouldn't think the insurgents are winning many firefights.

are you going to be including other insurgent actions? such as the IED's or mortars? there is a lot the peasantry can do to disrupt foreign military actions.....

 

[fskimospy]

are you going to be including other insurgent actions? such as the IED's or mortars? there is a lot the peasantry can do to disrupt foreign military actions.....

Right, but what do IEDs have to do with California's law?

 

[drebo]

What an ignorant, paranoid, useless topic. California faces zero threat of invasion. I'm glad our economy and the problem of money in politics are fixed, leaving this as the next issue.

California is BEING invaded right now, as we speak.

 

[xBiffx]

Right, but what do IEDs have to do with California's law?

California law is just another IED? :sneaky:

 

[Lithium381]

Right, but what do IEDs have to do with California's law?

I think IED's are banned, too.

 

[fskimospy]

I think IED's are banned, too.

But not by this law.

 

[Lithium381]

But not by this law.

Simply another example of the government not wanting an armed citizenry

 

[fskimospy]

Simply another example of the government not wanting an armed citizenry

So do you think citizens should be able to own nuclear weapons? I can't imagine the answer is yes, so you obviously endorse some level of government disarmament of citizens.

 

[xBiffx]

So do you think citizens should be able to own nuclear weapons? I can't imagine the answer is yes, so you obviously endorse some level of government disarmament of citizens.

Oh jeebus, did you really just compare a nuclear weapon to a high capacity magazine?

 

[fskimospy]

Oh jeebus, did you really just compare a nuclear weapon to a high capacity magazine?

Nope. How are you this bad at reading?

 

[xBiffx]

Nope. How are you this bad at reading?

Then why are you bringing up nuclear weapons in a gun control debate. Nuclear weapons are not guns.

 

[DesiPower]

I think its a conspiracy, the rest of US would probably want to see CA and its liberal dog sh1ts taken over by another country and thus all this headaches. :biggrin:

 

[fskimospy]

Then why are you bringing up nuclear weapons in a gun control debate. Nuclear weapons are not guns.

Neither are IED's. (not that I was comparing them to nuclear weapons either) I'm not sure why this is so difficult for you to follow.

 

[xBiffx]

Neither are IED's. (not that I was comparing them to nuclear weapons either) I'm not sure why this is so difficult for you to follow.

Its not. To make a point you have to go to extremes and scenarios outside the realm of possibility because you can't explain how banning guns and having an unarmed populace is a good thing. Not without defying logic, that is. The debate became about how having guns makes it easier to defend from invaders. If we were allowed to have nuclear weapons, I am not sure how this is going to help in the situations that were being previously discussed. Since it is nonsensical to even discuss it, why bring it up, other than to prove a ridiculous point?

 

[fskimospy]

Its not. To make a point you have to go to extremes and scenarios outside the realm of possibility because you can't explain how banning guns and having an unarmed populace is a good thing. Not without defying logic, that is. The debate became about how having guns makes it easier to defend from invaders. If we were allowed to have nuclear weapons, I am not sure how this is going to help in the situations that were being previously discussed. Since it is nonsensical to even discuss it, why bring it up, other than to prove a ridiculous point?

Except of course that I've never argued that banning guns and having an unarmed populace is a good thing.

Another oops for our good friend Biff!

 

[xBiffx]

Except of course that I've never argued that banning guns and having an unarmed populace is a good thing.

Another oops for our good friend Biff!

Then what exactly are you arguing for?

 

[fskimospy]

Then what exactly are you arguing for?

I wasn't even talking to you, so don't worry about it. Seriously, you make every thread you go in dumber.

 

[xBiffx]

I wasn't even talking to you, so don't worry about it. Seriously, you make every thread you go in dumber.

Right then, don't answer my question because your original point was in fact pointless. This was really where I was trying to get, but thanks for taking the long road.

Edit: Oh and pardon me for injecting myself into a debate on a public forum. How dare I.

 

[fskimospy]

Right then, don't answer my question because your original point was in fact pointless. This was really where I was trying to get, but thanks for taking the long road.

Edit: Oh and pardon me for injecting myself into a debate on a public forum. How dare I.

If it were someone other than you I wouldn't mind, but you've shit up enough threads already today.

 

[xBiffx]

If it were someone other than you I wouldn't mind, but you've shit up enough threads already today.

As opposed to all the ones you have left squeaky clean. Might as well start censoring/ignoring me then, since I don't tow same bullshit lines you do. Thanks for making it clear to all how you view those that disagree with you. Too bad you would just be having a circlejerk with all your buddies if it weren't for those like me who post disagreements.

 

[fskimospy]

As opposed to all the ones you have left squeaky clean. Might as well start censoring/ignoring me then, since I don't tow same bullshit lines you do. Thanks for making it clear to all how you view those that disagree with you. Too bad you would just be having a circlejerk with all your buddies if it weren't for those like me who post disagreements.

You seem to be confusing my contempt for you with some larger problem with people who disagree. You aren't horrible because you disagree with me, you're horrible because you are aggressively stupid.

 

[xBiffx]

You seem to be confusing my contempt for you with some larger problem with people who disagree. You aren't horrible because you disagree with me, you're horrible because you are aggressively stupid.

I'll remember that when you defend all the stupid people with your leftist ideals.

 

[momeNt]

get a room you two.

 

[Lithium381]

Eskimo - when you scale it up to nukes then yes that's not something I would really want everyone playing with, largely due to the large area that are affected, and the long term effects as well. Firearms and IED's have a much reduced impact outside of the intended target. I think everyone can agree a nuclear winter isn't a good endgame.


"An unarmed populace is a good thing"

Sure as long as EVERYONE is unarmed. But when LAWS go into effect, you are left with only criminals having the guns....a HUGE advantage. Same as a tyranny.... you can control people with no means of defending themselves by taking away their weapons.