New Chicago Handgun Law was approved

[Zebo]

You'd have to be stupid to stand toe to toe with and try to fight the army. There would be other more effective subversive tactics that small, dedicated groups of armed people could pull off.

Not much of a revolution if you can't take and hold ground. JS point stands.

 

[nick1985]

Well Armed? lol.

Why are you laughing. Judging by your ignorance of assault rifles, its obvious you dont know the first thing about arms. I bet you have never even fired a BB gun

 

[nobodyknows]

Not much of a revolution if you can't take and hold ground. JS point stands.

Yeah, tell that to JFK.

Now take that one lone gunman times one million. An armed populace could easily cut the head off the beast if it commited to do so. The politicians know it and that's why they want our guns. They could give a shit about us, it's all about them and their power.

 

[nick1985]

Not much of a revolution if you can't take and hold ground. JS point stands.

Tell that to the Russians in Afghanistan during the 80's

 

[Amused]

It's astonishing how imbecilic your thinking is. Those so called honest lawful citizens you envision as being so abused are the ones voting this Chicago government in and with the purpose, in part, of maintaining and enforcing gun control. These folk are voting their own beliefs and wished, you dolt.

Who the f do you think you are to tell them what's best for them?

Moonie, what if a majority of these citizens decided the best course of action to stop crime was to end free speech, or freedom of movement, or freedom of assembly?

What if they decided the best course of action was to put the minorities in ghettos and wall them off, or limit their rights of movement?

Wait, is that wrong?

Of course it is.

Why?

Because the majority CANNOT vote away the RIGHTS of the minority. That is why our Constitution and Bill of Rights exists, Moonie. That is why we are a Constitutional republic and NOT a pure democracy.

The right to keep and bear arms is a RIGHT. It cannot be voted away by the majority. It can only be reversed by constitutional amendment and a national super-majority. Period.

In short, your argument is moot. It's bullshit. It only appeals to the ignorant folks who don't think twice about voting away the rights of the minority.

 

[JSt0rm]

Tell that to the Russians in Afghanistan during the 80's

do you have a stockpile of surface to air missiles? No. And no one will give them to you. Again I dont care that people have guns just don't say its so you can overthrow the gubment when the time comes as thats just stupid.

 

[spidey07]

do you have a stockpile of surface to air missiles? No. And no one will give them to you. Again I dont care that people have guns just don't say its so you can overthrow the gubment when the time comes as thats just stupid.

I think you should come to our machine gun shoot. You'd be very surprised at what civilians have. Some would be very good surface to air engagements.

 

[DucatiMonster696]

Not much of a revolution if you can't take and hold ground. JS point stands.

Obviously you fail at warfare 101.

Taking and holding ground is the most basic of warfare concepts. War can be fought on many levels in which conventional forces are inept and totally useless. City and guerrilla based warfare is a huge area of weakness for all conventional military forces.

How much is that ground that is being held worth when revolutionary elements are conducting daily hit and run raids, sabotage of services, industry, etc and seeking out and executing collaborators and other targets of opportunity?

Anyone dumb enough to engage a conventional army which is supreme in its ability to wage a conventional war against other standing armies is beyond stupid. Those wise enough to avoid such scenarios and encounters that would destroy a conventional army in one feel swoop will do so only by dedicating the rules of engagement to the enemy, thus fighting first and foremost on their own terms.

 

[JSt0rm]

How much is that ground that is being held worth when revolutionary elements are conducting daily hit and run raids, sabotage of services, industry, etc and seeking out and executing collaborators and other targets of opportunity?

Wouldnt anyone doing that be considered a terrorist?

 

[PrinceofWands]

Wouldnt anyone doing that be considered a terrorist?

I'd consider them effective and intelligent revolutionary leaders. Conventional warfare does NOT exist in an insurgency...at least not any more. You snipe leaders and important non-coms, raid or destroy supply lines, and force people to equate actively supporting the current regime to a potential death sentence.

 

[JSt0rm]

I'd consider them effective and intelligent revolutionary leaders. Conventional warfare does NOT exist in an insurgency...at least not any more. You snipe leaders and important non-coms, raid or destroy supply lines, and force people to equate actively supporting the current regime to a potential death sentence.

So then all the people we peg as terrorists arent? They are just fighting war in the way they can?

 

[spidey07]

So then all the people we peg as terrorists arent? They are just fighting war in the way they can?

Stop deflecting. This is our nation that we fought for. The founders understood that and it now a fundamental right according to th constitution.

The dumbass libtards don't understand the significance. Fundamental right it is now.

The Chicago law will be challenged and it will be ruled against

Shal not be infringed

 

[JSt0rm]

Stop deflecting. This is our nation that we fought for. The founders understood that and it now a fundamental right according to th constitution.

The dumbass libtards don't understand the significance. Fundamental right it is now.

The Chicago law will be challenged and it will be ruled against

Shal not be infringed

who's retarded? I already said I dont give a shit if you own guns. I have access to a minigun if I want (at $1500 per minute in ammo) to record audio not to shoot but still. I'm just saying using the excuse that you would some how win in a fight with superior firepower isnt realistic.

 

[PrinceofWands]

So then all the people we peg as terrorists arent? They are just fighting war in the way they can?

Sometimes, yes. Sometimes they're terrorists. For instance, while I think any American military in the middle east are valid targets for those that live there, blowing up random, unaffiliated citizens here in the States is terrorism, not war.

 

[JSt0rm]

blowing up random, unaffiliated citizens here in the States is terrorism, not war.

why? they attacked our financial center. Sounds like a calculated attack for gorilla warfare.

 

[spidey07]

who's retarded? I already said I dont give a shit if you own guns. I have access to a minigun if I want (at $1500 per minute in ammo) to record audio not to shoot but still. I'm just saying using the excuse that you would some how win in a fight with superior firepower isnt realistic.

I cannot reason with you because you will always believe government is right and therefore one should not even fight it.

You'd make a fine slave. And are totally deflecting this thread. You tread on me and I shoot you dead.

 

[Moonbeam]

Amused; Moonie, what if a majority of these citizens decided the best course of action to stop crime was to end free speech, or freedom of movement, or freedom of assembly?

M: Let's use our heads? How could you stop gun violence by trying to end free speech or freedom of movement or assembly? They didn't do that did they, so while your what ifs are nice, they are imaginary and are never going to happen. It you are surrounded by gun violence the natural target is the guns. Talking moving or holding hands doesn't kill people.

A: What if they decided the best course of action was to put the minorities in ghettos and wall them off, or limit their rights of movement?

M: Right, lock yourself in a prison full of guns. Like folk are that crazy. Please, use your head. Your hypothetical are ridiculous.

A: Wait, is that wrong?

Of course it is.

Why?

Because the majority CANNOT vote away the RIGHTS of the minority. That is why our Constitution and Bill of Rights exists, Moonie. That is why we are a Constitutional republic and NOT a pure democracy.

M: Oh God...........what's the fucking point. You are a person of theories, you live at the top of your head. You live in a delusion.

Of course the majority can take away your rights. They just took the right to marry away from gays in California. Get Fucking real. When the majority amends the Constitution to be a fascist state, fascism will be Constitutional.

The majority has taken the right of a minority to ban guns.

You have a right to life. You have a right to liberty. You have a right to the pursuit of happiness. You have a right to self defense. You have no right to own nuclear weapons, and only by convention do you have a right to a gun. There is nothing fundamental about it. It is a religion, a custom, a habit, but it has no intellectual force.

Folk can take your life if you kill, they can take your liberty if you steal. They can silence you in a court of law. They can fine you for what you say.

A: The right to keep and bear arms is a RIGHT. It cannot be voted away by the majority. It can only be reversed by constitutional amendment and a national super-majority. Period.

M: Exactly, it is a created unnatural right, a fiction, an imposition by a majority on a minority, a judgment by folk who needed guns to protect their liberty in the past and now enforced on folk who are being killed by what once was a protection. Law and the constitution are an approximation of justice and times and circumstances change. Unfortunately guns have become a fetish of a bunch of religious gun freaks whose self centered interests are killing folk in the cities. May I say fuck you and your rights. Your law is fascism, a monstrosity shoved down the throats of others. So very libertarian of you.

A: In short, your argument is moot. It's bullshit. It only appeals to the ignorant folks who don't think twice about voting away the rights of the minority.

M: Sadly, you don't think once.

 

[Zebo]

Obviously you fail at warfare 101.

Taking and holding ground is the most basic of warfare concepts. War can be fought on many levels in which conventional forces are inept and totally useless. City and guerrilla based warfare is a huge area of weakness for all conventional military forces.

How much is that ground that is being held worth when revolutionary elements are conducting daily hit and run raids, sabotage of services, industry, etc and seeking out and executing collaborators and other targets of opportunity?

Anyone dumb enough to engage a conventional army which is supreme in its ability to wage a conventional war against other standing armies is beyond stupid. Those wise enough to avoid such scenarios and encounters that would destroy a conventional army in one feel swoop will do so only by dedicating the rules of engagement to the enemy, thus fighting first and foremost on their own terms.

No you fail at history and warfare - probably read one of the endless line of losers 'counter terrorism' bibles written in the 20th century. You need to go back a little further in history and study winners to understand how insurgent were delt in the past with not these half wars we fight today, hoping and praying your government would be so kind to you. Try even as recent as civil war scorched earth where if it took one million to die to preserve union so be it.

Try leveling or laying siege to whole cities of resistance, gas rural areas that showed resistance, leave scorched earth behind them like Sherman did, put families of resistive areas where husband/boys are hiding in concentration camps and torture and kill them until insurgents surrender, if insurgent doesn't care about his own life he will about his wife and children and come running out of hiding... USA wins quickly. Just like the English in the 2nd Boer war, Pershing in Philippine war, or Khan in establishing the largest empire the world has ever seen. Insurgents are nothing new but irrelevant if you have the will and drain the swamp which is why in the past they were barley mentioned but a speed bump. Only question is would our govt go that far.

 

[Zebo]

Yeah, tell that to JFK.

Now take that one lone gunman times one million. An armed populace could easily cut the head off the beast if it commited to do so. The politicians know it and that's why they want our guns. They could give a shit about us, it's all about them and their power.

Dream on - same answer as above.

The libs have taken real tools away to defeat the war machine we have built. Can't shoot down their planes which they will drop MOABs from and maintain sieges you got big problems real quick like starvation or blown to pieces.

Stop watching Red Dawn - it's just a movie.

 

[Zebo]

dp

 

[Zebo]

Tell that to the Russians in Afghanistan during the 80's

Another fool. Russians hands were tied by US response (not to mention they had some bad as weapons like missiles and comm devices shipped in from CIA) like our hands are tied by Geneva and PC which does not apply in insurrection. We could end Afghanistan in a week if we wanted. Might have to kill 80% but they'd finally get the idea, "wait, they're actually serious and may exterminate us."

 

[BoberFett]

Sorry Zebo, but you're dead wrong on this one. You really think in a revolution situation that the government will simply eliminate 80% of Americans just to show us they're serious? What point is there being the ruling elite class of a smoldering pile of rubble? A government who uses mass destructive devices on their enemies in a revolution is destroying their own infrastructure and ability to fight. 100M people with small arms is a scary proposition for anybody who starts a war, I don't care what technology you have.

 

[shira]

"Ald. Mary Ann Smith (48th) said that law was written for militias and, “they guaranteed the right to carry around muskets not Uzis."

That makes me sick to my stomach. These alderman are fucking retarded. Does she even know a full-auto Uzi requires a class III FFL? I bet not, because she is a fucking moron of the 3rd degree. I'd bet all the money I have that dumb wise and beautiful woman couldn't pick an Uzi out of a lineup of firearms.

You seem to be saying that a local law that requires licensing and training to purchase a handgun a month is outrageous - even though no one except convicted handgun felons can be turned away - but a federal law that requires a Class III FFL (available only to qualifying firearm manufacturers and dealers, at a cost of $3000 every three years) to own an automatic Uzi is no problem at all.

So, explain to us where the 2nd Amendment says "arms" means only handguns and non-automatic rifles. If the 2nd Amendment is an absolute right - as you highly-principled gun-toters allege - then surely you claim that that includes the right of citizens to bear shoulder-launched missiles, grenade launchers, and rail guns.

 

[nobodyknows]

Dream on - same answer as above.

The libs have taken real tools away to defeat the war machine we have built. Can't shoot down their planes which they will drop MOABs from and maintain sieges you got big problems real quick like starvation or blown to pieces.

Stop watching Red Dawn - it's just a movie.

The resistance would be mixed in with everyone else so I guess they would have to bomb everyone. I wonder how that will go over?

I swear, some of you people have shit for imagination. I don't think we could defeat "their" army, but I don't think we would have to. We could change who was in charge and what their attitudes were. If a well lead and orgainized resistance started shooting select judges, congressmen, etc some signifacant changes could be effected IMO.

 

[Nebor]

You seem to be saying that a local law that requires licensing and training to purchase a handgun a month is outrageous - even though no one except convicted handgun felons can be turned away - but a federal law that requires a Class III FFL (available only to qualifying firearm manufacturers and dealers, at a cost of $3000 every three years) to own an automatic Uzi is no problem at all.

So, explain to us where the 2nd Amendment says "arms" means only handguns and non-automatic rifles. If the 2nd Amendment is an absolute right - as you highly-principled gun-toters allege - then surely you claim that that includes the right of citizens to bear shoulder-launched missiles, grenade launchers, and rail guns.

Neither of you know wtf you're talking about. You don't need an FFL to own a fully automatic weapon. You need an FFL and to pay the SOT 3 fee in order to transfer fully automatic weapons between people. A $200 tax stamp can be obtained by filling out a simple form and mailing it into the NFA Branch of the ATF, allowing you to legally own fully automatic weapons, suppressors, short barrel rifles, short barrel shotguns, rockets, missiles, artillery pieces, tanks, land mines, hand grenades, etc.

Personally I believe in the above mentioned absolute right. At the same time I think it's reasonable for the government to tax those luxury goods. The problem, in my mind, occurs when the tax system is used as a defacto ban, as has occurred with fully automatic weapons manufactured after 1986.