Ted Nugent on gun control

[IronWing]

Originally posted by: Vic
The "they got tanks and missiles!" is the most ignorant, cowardly argument of all against gun rights. First, it's irrelevant. The right to gun ownership doesn't have to have its existence defended anymore than the right to free speech. It is an inherent right Second, your position is essentially that we should kow-tow to all government power without a fight. And lastly, it's undemocratic. The odds are 300-to-1 in the people's favor, smart guy, and we're the ones who make their tanks and missiles, feed them, clothe them, and pay them. That's our government and our army. They don't even exist without the people.

I agree with this. It isn't the guns that make you free. It is the attitude expressed above that guards freedom.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: ironwing

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: bignateyk

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

....

People like Hillary wants to take away womens rights of their own bodies?

To believe the government couldn't take away your rights by using armed forces because you have handguns is ridiculous, get back to me when you have missiles, attack helicopters, tanks, land mines and bombers, then you'd have an argument about that it's for protection against the government, until then the idiocy about how handguns prevents the government from terrorizing the population is just a load of bollocks. When the second amendment was written those handguns were effective weapons, today they are not.

You can use other arguments and not be as daft as Ted and throw in the second amendment as justification for personal defense (which makes absolutely no sense at all) and i might even agree with it.

So what you are saying is that the government needs to allow commercial sales of tanks, land mines, and railguns. I like where your head's at :thumbsup:

If the second amendment is going to be worth the paper it was originally written on and carry on it's meaning then yes, that would be required.

The original intention was to preserve the peoples ability to beat down an oppressive government and the forces it commandeered, at the time, enough people with handguns would easily do that, today a civilian militia against US armed forces would mean a lot of dead civilians and all it would take would be bombing the crap out of the camp these civilians resided in.

I'm British though, so maybe it's because i'm an outsider i can see how ridiculous the notion of untrained people with handguns could stand up to a well trained military force (Air Force, Navy, Army).

Guns in the hands of people will force the govts hands everytime. The US military is certainly happy to try and bomb out its own civilian population. The result will still be the same. That military as the govt around it will crumble and the costs of the killing its own armed citizens will be too high.

Now in a country like Britain the military and govt will have no problem controlling its population through the use of force because the costs will be very very low.

Yeah, so you think that plinking your little itty bitty handgun against missiles, tanks and attack choppers would be productive?

You are free to live in your own delusions my friend, but the wake up call might be harsh if you should one day wipe the smudge from your eyes and realize that you owning a gun doesn't make you any more of a threat to your government than you owning a dog without teeth.

Elections and people following their own ideas of right and wrong instead of being sheep following the party lines IS a threat to the government, a bigger threat than any handgun will ever be, it's the ONLY threat that will keep the government serving you instead of the opposite.

This is also known as democracy.

You are failing to grasp the idea that the citizens of this country fighting its govt is not an impossibility. It isnt about winning each battle. It is about winning the war. When the govt's cost of killing its own people is too high, the govt can not oppress its people. In a country of 200 million gun owners. What happens when a military of 1.5 million tries to oppress them? They wont have enough bullets nor guns, nor manpower to do such a thing.

Democracy is maintained by an armed citizen. Without armed citizens, dictators rise and oppression occurs.

Of course the history of Iraq puts the lie to this claim. Iraq, under Saddam, had one of the most heavily armed civilian populations on earth. Yet they lived under a despot.

Ill have to see a link on this. Google turned up a bunch of opinion pieces with little or no evidence.

And owning guns doesnt mean you will use them. Although Iraqi having lots of guns might explain why our troops are failing to subdue the population.

 

[BoberFett]

Not to mention the aim of an oppressive government is to control it's citizens. As Iraq has clearly shown us, tanks and planes can blow things up, but they do nothing for control. It takes lots of manpower on the ground to exert control, and those troops are very vulnerable to small arms. Not to mention that small arms don't have to fight armor directly. You use them to break the supply chain and all that fancy equipment is useless without fuel and ammunition.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: Vic
The "they got tanks and missiles!" is the most ignorant, cowardly argument of all against gun rights. First, it's irrelevant. The right to gun ownership doesn't have to have its existence defended anymore than the right to free speech. It is an inherent right Second, your position is essentially that we should kow-tow to all government power without a fight. And lastly, it's undemocratic. The odds are 300-to-1 in the people's favor, smart guy, and we're the ones who make their tanks and missiles, feed them, clothe them, and pay them. That's our government and our army. They don't even exist without the people.

I'm disappointed in you Vic, you are rarely this hasty to build strawmen.

I never once argued against the right to own firearms, not ONCE, yet you say i do.

What i've been saying all along is that to say that you need it to fight off the government when the day comes is just ridiculous and i stand by that statement.

300-1 is ridiculous and you know it, first of all, there are not 300 million people in the US who could handle a firearm without shooting themselves or someone in their family, secondly, the ones who can actually load, aim and fire a firearm at a target are not nearly as well trained as the forces they are going up against and this is ONLY firearm to firearm, then you have missiles which have a 10 000:1 efficiency compared to firearms, armed transports and well, you already know this so why i'm educating you on what you already know i don't know.

What i'm saying isn't that you shouldn't have the right to own a handgun, just that owning a handgun doesn't make you part of a great force that could actually overthrow a government supported by the US armed forces and you KNOW i'm right about that.

 

[chucky2]

If the US government tried to take away the guns here, the short run would be a lot of people dead, civilians and whoever was trying to collect alike.

There'd be mass desertions and/or refusal to follow orders, by both the military and police to, so there really wouldn't be that many to fight.

The long run though would be pretty good I think...if the government actually tried to do something so moronic, we could finally have a good excuse to kick these worthless b@stards out and maybe get some non-corrupted people in to actually represent the everyday American.

Chuck

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: BoberFett
Not to mention the aim of an oppressive government is to control it's citizens. As Iraq has clearly shown us, tanks and planes can blow things up, but they do nothing for control. It takes lots of manpower on the ground to exert control, and those troops are very vulnerable to small arms. Not to mention that small arms don't have to fight armor directly. You use them to break the supply chain and all that fancy equipment is useless without fuel and ammunition.

*sigh* If the US governments arse was on the line they would have bombed the living daylights out of Iraq and anyone and everyone who opposed them would be dead before they could even plink a 7.62 round against the closest one of the tanks.

It's very different when you are about to get your arse shot than it is to send troops overseas to fight a war you don't ever hear anything about but reports that never include casualties.

If 150K soldiers died in Iraq tonight the US governments lives would still not be at stake, if they were threatened and about to be taken over, they would use what they have to take out that threat and it would be done within hours.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: BoberFett
Not to mention the aim of an oppressive government is to control it's citizens. As Iraq has clearly shown us, tanks and planes can blow things up, but they do nothing for control. It takes lots of manpower on the ground to exert control, and those troops are very vulnerable to small arms. Not to mention that small arms don't have to fight armor directly. You use them to break the supply chain and all that fancy equipment is useless without fuel and ammunition.

*sigh* If the US governments arse was on the line they would have bombed the living daylights out of Iraq and anyone and everyone who opposed them would be dead before they could even plink a 7.62 round against the closest one of the tanks.

It's very different when you are about to get your arse shot than it is to send troops overseas to fight a war you don't ever hear anything about but reports that never include casualties.

If 150K soldiers died in Iraq tonight the US governments lives would still not be at stake, if they were threatened and about to be taken over, they would use what they have to take out that threat and it would be done within hours.

Sure those are Iraqi cities. Try that at home and see how far it gets the govt. Vic is right, the idea a missle and tank means the govt wins is silly.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: chucky2
If the US government tried to take away the guns here, the short run would be a lot of people dead, civilians and whoever was trying to collect alike.

There'd be mass desertions and/or refusal to follow orders, by both the military and police to, so there really wouldn't be that many to fight.

The long run though would be pretty good I think...if the government actually tried to do something so moronic, we could finally have a good excuse to kick these worthless b@stards out and maybe get some non-corrupted people in to actually represent the everyday American.

Chuck

How many MOAB's or cluster bombs would it take to wipe out each and every one of you? Would your hand guns matter? Not really, what would matter would be if the military refused to follow orders but handguns owned by the civilian population wouldn't matter in that scenario.

Your last paragraph is democracy in action and doesn't have anything to do with handguns, if they had the military to commandeer your handguns wouldn't matter and if they don't then your handguns still won't matter, your votes do matter and that is how it works.

It would be the same thing in the UK, the military would side with the people and the government would be overthrown regardless of citizens with handguns or not, democracy works because people believe in it, including the armed forces who have sworn to protect the people of their country (i don't know what the exact words are in the US but in the UK those are the exact words).

 

[chucky2]

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

How many MOAB's or cluster bombs would it take to wipe out each and every one of you? Would your hand guns matter? Not really, what would matter would be if the military refused to follow orders but handguns owned by the civilian population wouldn't matter in that scenario.

Your last paragraph is democracy in action and doesn't have anything to do with handguns, if they had the military to commandeer your handguns wouldn't matter and if they don't then your handguns still won't matter, your votes do matter and that is how it works.

It would be the same thing in the UK, the military would side with the people and the government would be overthrown regardless of citizens with handguns or not, democracy works because people believe in it, including the armed forces who have sworn to protect the people of their country (i don't know what the exact words are in the US but in the UK those are the exact words).

You're entirely correct in that if the US military was hit by some alien virus that made it go bezerk against the US civ population until we'd turned in all our guns, we wouldn't stand a chance.

Since that'll never happen, the planes, tanks, bombs, etc. are a non-factor.

Which means you're talking about door to door visits, with house to house searches even possible (Billary would be all for that I'm sure, sounds Socialist to me...).

Now, who is going to conduct those door to door visits? Tanks? Planes? Bombs? No, people are. And when governement people start coming to our houses asking for our guns, it's going to get very ugly.

Especially if the government decides the voluntary system isn't working - which it wouldn't for the vast majority - and they decide to invade our houses.

Expect an all out rebellion then...

Chuck

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: BoberFett
Not to mention the aim of an oppressive government is to control it's citizens. As Iraq has clearly shown us, tanks and planes can blow things up, but they do nothing for control. It takes lots of manpower on the ground to exert control, and those troops are very vulnerable to small arms. Not to mention that small arms don't have to fight armor directly. You use them to break the supply chain and all that fancy equipment is useless without fuel and ammunition.

*sigh* If the US governments arse was on the line they would have bombed the living daylights out of Iraq and anyone and everyone who opposed them would be dead before they could even plink a 7.62 round against the closest one of the tanks.

It's very different when you are about to get your arse shot than it is to send troops overseas to fight a war you don't ever hear anything about but reports that never include casualties.

If 150K soldiers died in Iraq tonight the US governments lives would still not be at stake, if they were threatened and about to be taken over, they would use what they have to take out that threat and it would be done within hours.

Sure those are Iraqi cities. Try that at home and see how far it gets the govt. Vic is right, the idea a missle and tank means the govt wins is silly.

*shakes head*

You actually think that if the people of Baghdad presented a threat, a real arse kicking threat, to the US government they wouldn't have hade it bombed to shreds killing everyone in the city?

The forces and weapons available for use by the governments command are ridiculous and not all that great when compared to people with handguns?

A few months ago in a place a few miles north of Bagram we were stuck in a hole with nothing around us but open land, +50 people with fully automatic weapons, since missiles, choppers and tanks are no match for handguns i assume i must be fucking dead, right?

You don't know your head from your arse and you never will, you'll defend this now and later on in some thread you'll take the opposite position because that fits with your ideals there, i'm a realist and a it doesn't matter where a fucking tank, missile, attack chopper or bombs are used, they ALWAYS have the same result and so does a hand gun.

It's like bringing a crippled man with downs to a gun duel with Wyatt Earp.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: BoberFett
Not to mention the aim of an oppressive government is to control it's citizens. As Iraq has clearly shown us, tanks and planes can blow things up, but they do nothing for control. It takes lots of manpower on the ground to exert control, and those troops are very vulnerable to small arms. Not to mention that small arms don't have to fight armor directly. You use them to break the supply chain and all that fancy equipment is useless without fuel and ammunition.

*sigh* If the US governments arse was on the line they would have bombed the living daylights out of Iraq and anyone and everyone who opposed them would be dead before they could even plink a 7.62 round against the closest one of the tanks.

It's very different when you are about to get your arse shot than it is to send troops overseas to fight a war you don't ever hear anything about but reports that never include casualties.

If 150K soldiers died in Iraq tonight the US governments lives would still not be at stake, if they were threatened and about to be taken over, they would use what they have to take out that threat and it would be done within hours.

Sure those are Iraqi cities. Try that at home and see how far it gets the govt. Vic is right, the idea a missle and tank means the govt wins is silly.

*shakes head*

You actually think that if the people of Baghdad presented a threat, a real arse kicking threat, to the US government they wouldn't have hade it bombed to shreds killing everyone in the city?

The forces and weapons available for use by the governments command are ridiculous and not all that great when compared to people with handguns?

A few months ago in a place a few miles north of Bagram we were stuck in a hole with nothing around us but open land, +50 people with fully automatic weapons, since missiles, choppers and tanks are no match for handguns i assume i must be fucking dead, right?

You don't know your head from your arse and you never will, you'll defend this now and later on in some thread you'll take the opposite position because that fits with your ideals there, i'm a realist and a it doesn't matter where a fucking tank, missile, attack chopper or bombs are used, they ALWAYS have the same result and so does a hand gun.

It's like bringing a crippled man with downs to a gun duel with Wyatt Earp.

Since we like to insult lets see if you can get this through your thick head.

Your argument about planes, tanks, and MOABs is irrelevant when it comes to the US govt oppressing an armed civilian population. Why you cant understand that is a true testament to the monarchy in England.

 

[BoberFett]

No, JohnOfSheffield, you are NOT right about that. Small arms are perfectly viable. You Brits never learn.

 

[umbrella39]

:thumbsup: at those who would vote for this guy for POTUS.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: chucky2
If the US government tried to take away the guns here, the short run would be a lot of people dead, civilians and whoever was trying to collect alike.

There'd be mass desertions and/or refusal to follow orders, by both the military and police to, so there really wouldn't be that many to fight.

The long run though would be pretty good I think...if the government actually tried to do something so moronic, we could finally have a good excuse to kick these worthless b@stards out and maybe get some non-corrupted people in to actually represent the everyday American.

Chuck

How many MOAB's or cluster bombs would it take to wipe out each and every one of you? Would your hand guns matter? Not really, what would matter would be if the military refused to follow orders but handguns owned by the civilian population wouldn't matter in that scenario.

Your last paragraph is democracy in action and doesn't have anything to do with handguns, if they had the military to commandeer your handguns wouldn't matter and if they don't then your handguns still won't matter, your votes do matter and that is how it works.

It would be the same thing in the UK, the military would side with the people and the government would be overthrown regardless of citizens with handguns or not, democracy works because people believe in it, including the armed forces who have sworn to protect the people of their country (i don't know what the exact words are in the US but in the UK those are the exact words).

What would be the point of the US government destroying entire population centers? Politicians are after power. You don't have power when the only thing you rule over is craters that used to be cities.

 

[StageLeft]

It's funny that people think they need handguns to prevent government excess of power. The government already has an excess of power in this country and the citizens have willingly given it to Uncle Sam. From the drinking age to state-mandated educational guidelines to who you can or cannot marry to which pets are acceptable to own, etc. And no weapons needed; you just gave it peacefully away.

Americans have this silly notion that they're at the ready and on the trigger to go ape-sh*t against an oppressive government, like they did back in the 18th century and yet the hilarity is found in that most are far too apathetic and ignorant to be pushed so far these days. They cannot control themselves; they are in debt, fat, and altogether useless in so many ways it's nuts to think they'd ever get on board with anything that takes a great sacrifice. Even 50 years ago I think the general public wasn't such a pussed out mass of pitifulness that it is now.

 

[Lemon law]

Think of Iraq as an example of the NRA's version of the paradise that results from having armed citizens. The problem is that free and unrestricted guns works better for the thugs than it does for the law abiding citizen. As for a tyrannical government, in Iraq, one must say surely you don't call that figment of the imagination in the green zone a government. As for the police in Iraq, they are the very thugs with the guns engaged in ethnic cleansing. But its nice to know distinctions exist, if they shoot you in the back of the head, its ethnic cleansing, if they shoot you in the front of the head its just gun violence.

Four more years, far more guns, four more years.

 

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: JeffreyLebowski

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
not the most persuasive.
simply talk about freedom without the partisan hackery. mind your own business on guns, mind your own business on abortion. have reasonable limits on both.
or perhaps thats just too reasonable.

Reasonable limits?
That's the issue. People Like Hilary don't want limits, they want to take it all away. Once the people are defenseless, they/ the government has no reason to stop taking away our other rights.

People like Hillary wants to take away womens rights of their own bodies?

To believe the government couldn't take away your rights by using armed forces because you have handguns is ridiculous, get back to me when you have missiles, attack helicopters, tanks, land mines and bombers, then you'd have an argument about that it's for protection against the government, until then the idiocy about how handguns prevents the government from terrorizing the population is just a load of bollocks. When the second amendment was written those handguns were effective weapons, today they are not.

You can use other arguments and not be as daft as Ted and throw in the second amendment as justification for personal defense (which makes absolutely no sense at all) and i might even agree with it.

Many times I've laid out how revolution in America could progress, with citizens completely capable of standing against the military. So far I have yet to hear reasonable arguments against.

 

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: OneOfTheseDays
Not everyone can be trusted with a firearm. That's why we have gun control laws in the 1st place. I would rather be transitioning to a society where guns are no longer needed than to what Ted Nugent wants.

Fully agree...but until then I'll keep my guns.

 

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: bignateyk

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

....

People like Hillary wants to take away womens rights of their own bodies?

To believe the government couldn't take away your rights by using armed forces because you have handguns is ridiculous, get back to me when you have missiles, attack helicopters, tanks, land mines and bombers, then you'd have an argument about that it's for protection against the government, until then the idiocy about how handguns prevents the government from terrorizing the population is just a load of bollocks. When the second amendment was written those handguns were effective weapons, today they are not.

You can use other arguments and not be as daft as Ted and throw in the second amendment as justification for personal defense (which makes absolutely no sense at all) and i might even agree with it.

So what you are saying is that the government needs to allow commercial sales of tanks, land mines, and railguns. I like where your head's at :thumbsup:

If the second amendment is going to be worth the paper it was originally written on and carry on it's meaning then yes, that would be required.

The original intention was to preserve the peoples ability to beat down an oppressive government and the forces it commandeered, at the time, enough people with handguns would easily do that, today a civilian militia against US armed forces would mean a lot of dead civilians and all it would take would be bombing the crap out of the camp these civilians resided in.

I'm British though, so maybe it's because i'm an outsider i can see how ridiculous the notion of untrained people with handguns could stand up to a well trained military force (Air Force, Navy, Army).

You have yet to produce the results of an actual matchup, using tactics that would be employed.

 

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: Vic
The "they got tanks and missiles!" is the most ignorant, cowardly argument of all against gun rights. First, it's irrelevant. The right to gun ownership doesn't have to have its existence defended anymore than the right to free speech. It is an inherent right Second, your position is essentially that we should kow-tow to all government power without a fight. And lastly, it's undemocratic. The odds are 300-to-1 in the people's favor, smart guy, and we're the ones who make their tanks and missiles, feed them, clothe them, and pay them. That's our government and our army. They don't even exist without the people.

I'm disappointed in you Vic, you are rarely this hasty to build strawmen.

I never once argued against the right to own firearms, not ONCE, yet you say i do.

What i've been saying all along is that to say that you need it to fight off the government when the day comes is just ridiculous and i stand by that statement.

300-1 is ridiculous and you know it, first of all, there are not 300 million people in the US who could handle a firearm without shooting themselves or someone in their family, secondly, the ones who can actually load, aim and fire a firearm at a target are not nearly as well trained as the forces they are going up against and this is ONLY firearm to firearm, then you have missiles which have a 10 000:1 efficiency compared to firearms, armed transports and well, you already know this so why i'm educating you on what you already know i don't know.

What i'm saying isn't that you shouldn't have the right to own a handgun, just that owning a handgun doesn't make you part of a great force that could actually overthrow a government supported by the US armed forces and you KNOW i'm right about that.

Consider the number of former military, security, law enforcement, hunters, target shooters...and you've got a HUGE numbers advantage over the military...especially since many are trained just as well as the military (because they are/were military). Now throw in military deserters, of which even the military considers 15% conservative in a revolution scenerio. Now, the military is a military - in uniforms and under rules. The populace is just the populace. The military can't overly abuse the general populace in an attempt to get the insurgents, or the ENTIRE populace becomes insurgents. I'm fairly confident that if there were a good enough reason to actually take arms against the government, within a year it's be 50 to 1 at least.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: Skoorb
It's funny that people think they need handguns to prevent government excess of power. The government already has an excess of power in this country and the citizens have willingly given it to Uncle Sam. From the drinking age to state-mandated educational guidelines to who you can or cannot marry to which pets are acceptable to own, etc. And no weapons needed; you just gave it peacefully away.

There is a tipping point though, and you can't deny that the Bush administration has pushed things far closer than they've been in a while.

Americans have this silly notion that they're at the ready and on the trigger to go ape-sh*t against an oppressive government, like they did back in the 18th century and yet the hilarity is found in that most are far too apathetic and ignorant to be pushed so far these days. They cannot control themselves; they are in debt, fat, and altogether useless in so many ways it's nuts to think they'd ever get on board with anything that takes a great sacrifice. Even 50 years ago I think the general public wasn't such a pussed out mass of pitifulness that it is now.

Most people don't realize it (and it's not taught in schools, at least to my knowledge) but most colonists at the time of the revolution were just as apathetic as people today. The US revolution took place between the British and a small percentage of the colonists.

 

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: chucky2
If the US government tried to take away the guns here, the short run would be a lot of people dead, civilians and whoever was trying to collect alike.

There'd be mass desertions and/or refusal to follow orders, by both the military and police to, so there really wouldn't be that many to fight.

The long run though would be pretty good I think...if the government actually tried to do something so moronic, we could finally have a good excuse to kick these worthless b@stards out and maybe get some non-corrupted people in to actually represent the everyday American.

Chuck

How many MOAB's or cluster bombs would it take to wipe out each and every one of you? Would your hand guns matter? Not really, what would matter would be if the military refused to follow orders but handguns owned by the civilian population wouldn't matter in that scenario.

Your last paragraph is democracy in action and doesn't have anything to do with handguns, if they had the military to commandeer your handguns wouldn't matter and if they don't then your handguns still won't matter, your votes do matter and that is how it works.

It would be the same thing in the UK, the military would side with the people and the government would be overthrown regardless of citizens with handguns or not, democracy works because people believe in it, including the armed forces who have sworn to protect the people of their country (i don't know what the exact words are in the US but in the UK those are the exact words).

*buzz* wrong answer. Not only would it solidify the entire world against the us government, but it would be moot anyway as that kind of destruction would utterly topple the economy which is just about the only reason our politicians are in politics anyway. The government simply cannot use full military might domestically.

Sure, votes are better, but they're wasted in a corrupt system (which ours is well on its way to becoming). The gun isn't the first choice, but it IS the final line in the sand.

 

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: Skoorb
It's funny that people think they need handguns to prevent government excess of power. The government already has an excess of power in this country and the citizens have willingly given it to Uncle Sam. From the drinking age to state-mandated educational guidelines to who you can or cannot marry to which pets are acceptable to own, etc. And no weapons needed; you just gave it peacefully away.

There is a tipping point though, and you can't deny that the Bush administration has pushed things far closer than they've been in a while.

Americans have this silly notion that they're at the ready and on the trigger to go ape-sh*t against an oppressive government, like they did back in the 18th century and yet the hilarity is found in that most are far too apathetic and ignorant to be pushed so far these days. They cannot control themselves; they are in debt, fat, and altogether useless in so many ways it's nuts to think they'd ever get on board with anything that takes a great sacrifice. Even 50 years ago I think the general public wasn't such a pussed out mass of pitifulness that it is now.

Most people don't realize it (and it's not taught in schools, at least to my knowledge) but most colonists at the time of the revolution were just as apathetic as people today. The US revolution took place between the British and a small percentage of the colonists.

Correct...with the majority of colonists continuing to side with England.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
Think of Iraq as an example of the NRA's version of the paradise that results from having armed citizens. The problem is that free and unrestricted guns works better for the thugs than it does for the law abiding citizen. As for a tyrannical government, in Iraq, one must say surely you don't call that figment of the imagination in the green zone a government. As for the police in Iraq, they are the very thugs with the guns engaged in ethnic cleansing. But its nice to know distinctions exist, if they shoot you in the back of the head, its ethnic cleansing, if they shoot you in the front of the head its just gun violence.

Four more years, far more guns, four more years.

What's your point? You say in Iraq it's the police who are committing the violence, so that somehow translate to citizens shouldn't have guns?

404 Logic not found

 

[Lemon law]

Boberfett misses the point when he asks---------What's your point? You say in Iraq it's the police who are committing the violence, so that somehow translate to citizens shouldn't have guns?

404 Logic not found

No, I am say everyone including the police are committing the violence. Why leave any thugs behind? No rules just right to paraphrase an outback steakhouse ad.