Thanks for your insightful comments that have greatly added to the value of this thread. It's good to have someone who's 'learned chemistry' and 'has the science' on the forums here to set us all straight, and for that I truly thank you for your indepth knowledge you have blessed us all with.
Just one or two comments to add to wrap this all up...again:
Originally posted by: alkemyst
Most aren't claiming their weapons are ONLY for self-defense...you are not getting any of the issues. Also I never said I'd have anti-armor rounds...they do exist. Also again you are simply bitter, or have an issue with the issue at hand.
Instead of claiming I simply don't 'get the issues', how about you actually verbalise your point of view? Your comments equate to you sticking your fingers in your ears and shouting "nah aah! you're wrong! you're silly! I'm not listening, la la la!" which as you may guess, does not convince me of your views (whatever they may be) in this debate.
Further, I did not claim you personally possessed anti-armour rounds, nor was I unaware of their existance.
I have very little idea what I would be bitter about.
Originally posted by: alkemyst
Wouldn't need anything armor piercing to bring down a tank...you seem to think though a 'tank' is an end all be all. I am not saying it would be a walk in the park, but I doubt you have the science behind you to understand.
This is now becoming somewhat funny. First off, tanks don't around solo when attacking. Second, what's your plan? I liked the fake street idea with sneaky pit the best. Would you have spikes at the bottom to pierce through the armour? Maybe you could open up the locked hatch and throw loads of paper in there to give the crew nasty paper cuts. Then you could throw vinegar at the tank so it would sting their wounds... Hyperbole aside, no amount of legally owned weaponry is going to really hamper the US army.
Also, could you give me brief battle plans for the takedown of a raptor or apache? Oh... and a nimitz cruiser... just out of interest, you know. I was thinking you could maybe get some of your explosives on a big slingshot, then as the raptor goes about at it's supercruise speed there you could sling your explosive package at it thus destroying it. Just an idea... I'm sure you have much better plans.
I'm not sure how well your sarcasm meter is working right now, but you may have figured that yes, I was indeed mocking you for the fact that you think the US citizens could take on the US military. The idea is really that absurd.
Fact is the population just wouldn't ever be able to get organised enough. The very worst you could do is get some guns and have a bit of a riot, trashing your own properties. Then the police or maybe the army would come in, shoot a few of you and bingo, no more upheaval. Game over.
Originally posted by: alkemyst
I also would not be able to solely take on the whole us...that is why more need to own guns.
See above. Further, guns are just good for killing infantry. You're not thinking of the military hardware that you somehow think you can take on. Bear in mind I'm looking from a law-abiding citizen's point of view, not some terrorist making explosives in his basement, since this topic is/was about --->gun<--- law.
Originally posted by: alkemyst
Hmm you are again either totally clueless/ignorant or trolling. How do any coups happen? They go out and order some mail-order soldiers? There is no point even arguing this with you as now not only have you denied science, but now you are ignoring history.
Well I do feel guilty for 'denying science' and 'ignoring history'. Do you think they will forgive me?
However, we live in democracies. You vote to express your opinion and you form demonstrations if you're desperately unhappy about the policy/action of your government. Grabbing a load of guns, organising yourself and somehow storming your government and taking over is a complete impossibility, not to mention barbaric.
Conclusions:
-You do not need guns to defend yourself against attacking forces
-You do not need guns to defend yourself against your own government
-Your government isn't going to turn around and start attacking you
-You will not be able to organise yourselves well enough such that you could form an effective attack against the US military if the need arose.
-Weapons that the public can legally own would be grossly ineffective against your own forces
-You DO need guns now because the country is saturated with firearms and it is like the M.A.D. scenario with nukes.
-You do need guns to make yourselves feel more powerful
-You do need guns to make you feel as though you have true freedom
Lets put this topic to bed now, shall we? It's getting rather boring.
but you gotta admit that the US number is drastic compared to any other number. even discarding Switzerland....
Facebook
Twitter