Ted Nugent on gun control

[Vic]

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.

LOL! Except that banning guns does absolutely nothing to protect law abiding citizens from the power of thugs.

But hey, why don't you spout a few more rhetorical talking points so that you can keep pretending to yourself that the rest of us somehow didn't notice that you actually provided no logical argument whatsoever.

 

[Vic]

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.

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.

Two wrongs don't make a right, Skoorb, they just send you sliding faster down the slippery slope. In other words, if you think it's bad now, why argue to make it worse?

 

[daveymark]

Originally posted by: 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.

if they are breaking the law commiting violence, what makes you think they'll draw the line at breaking the law to possess a gun?

 

[Vic]

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.

Which is why our government makes sure that it panders to the armed forces as much as possible. Wherein lies the argument? Your assumption seems to rest on the premise that the armed forces would continue to steadfastly support the government even if the government turned against its people (and therein acted contrary to the interests of the armed forces who require the people to support it). Sorry, but history proves you wrong in this regard over and over again. Like I said, they don't even exist without us and our support, and they know it all too well.
Keep in mind that the unofficial motto of the US Armed Forces is "overwhelming firepower supported by overwhelming logistics." It takes the people to provide both of those. Because of this, they couldn't possible defeat us unless we went peaceably.

 

[cwjerome]

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.

This has got to be one of the straight up dumbest things I've heard in P&N in a long while. Wow... such a statement really tells a great deal about what a person does not understand.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: 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.

None of that matters, what are you going to do when tanks come rolling into your town, come on man, we're talking Tianaman Square opression here, an opressive government, you think that your itty bitty gun is even going to make a dent in the first of the armada of tanks.

Why can't you people think? Why are you so stuck in your false hope for safety that your gun seems to provide for you? It's pathetic, like a kid hugging his/her teddybear you hug your guns and they will defend you from opression by the government just as much as a teddybear will

The government has the US armed forces, you have handguns, a few would fight, most just want to be safe, they are really the smart ones you know, going out into battle with a handgun against the US armed forces isn't a smart thing to do, pretty soon you'll learn that and then you'll realize that since you are already going to get yourself killed you might as well go out with a bang so strap some explosives to your chest and you might actually have a means to injure at least one of the people you are fighting.

None of this is going to get through to any of you anyway so i don't know why i bother it's all "we have handguns, powerful weapons, we can take down the US armed forces with these here handguns" bullshit all the way.

Note that i am not saying that if push comes to shove i would not be in the US fighting alongside with you, but not with a fucking handgun against the US armed forces, that would be daft and i am many things but daft i am not.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

You know what, i give up, this argument is like arguing with a five year old that KNOWS that the toothfairy exists.

Yeah, you can use your handguns against a 1+ million heavily armed and well trained soldiers carrying weapons far more powerful than yours, against missiles, bombers, tanks, sure you could, you'd win easily.....

I don't think any one of you believe your own bullshit but you are so caught up in it that you need to defend it will all your might.

I even said that i might support owning your firearms but to use the reason about how this stops the government from interfering with your freedoms is just daft.

No western democracy but the US has such lax gun laws, at the same time, no western democracy has such heavy restrictions on your freedoms as the US.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

When the second amendment was written those handguns were effective weapons, today they are not.

Muskets, my friend, muskets. And at that time here in the USA we had muskets with rifling, too (highly accurate for the time).

These were in some cases better than what the military had. Watched History Channel here last night about a famous battle for independance. The British troops used smooth bore rifles which are only accurate at short distances (but that's how they fought) whereas the Appalacian Moutian men used rifled muskets that were superior, particularly at long distances (how they fought, basically sniping).

At one time, the citizens were as well, or better, armed than the miltary. They did lack field artillary, but that was useless given the fighting style of the Southern people anyway. When spread out in the woods hiding behind trees those slow aiming cannons were not much good.
--------------------------------------------------

Most debate about the 2nd Amendment centers around a "collective" right (meaning militia) or individual rights (self defense whatever), or both. The SCOTUS has not ruled for either, but has implied a collective in their last case (guy was denied Constitutional right to an otherwise illegal sawed-off shotgun because it wasn't suitable for militia use).

IMO, SCOTUS is in a pickle. To recognize a collective right means people should have access to machine guns and mortors etc, like the military uses. They're loathe to readdress the issue, and will have to overturn themselves (which they hate to do) or create some contortion whereby the collective right is recognized yet people still don't get access to those type of arms. The other option is basically unrestricted rights to all kinds of arms, I can't see that either.

Fern

 

[brownzilla786]

Nice, I mostly agree, although he seems the kinda guy that shoots before he thinks

 

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: 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.

None of that matters, what are you going to do when tanks come rolling into your town, come on man, we're talking Tianaman Square opression here, an opressive government, you think that your itty bitty gun is even going to make a dent in the first of the armada of tanks.

Why can't you people think? Why are you so stuck in your false hope for safety that your gun seems to provide for you? It's pathetic, like a kid hugging his/her teddybear you hug your guns and they will defend you from opression by the government just as much as a teddybear will

The government has the US armed forces, you have handguns, a few would fight, most just want to be safe, they are really the smart ones you know, going out into battle with a handgun against the US armed forces isn't a smart thing to do, pretty soon you'll learn that and then you'll realize that since you are already going to get yourself killed you might as well go out with a bang so strap some explosives to your chest and you might actually have a means to injure at least one of the people you are fighting.

None of this is going to get through to any of you anyway so i don't know why i bother it's all "we have handguns, powerful weapons, we can take down the US armed forces with these here handguns" bullshit all the way.

Note that i am not saying that if push comes to shove i would not be in the US fighting alongside with you, but not with a fucking handgun against the US armed forces, that would be daft and i am many things but daft i am not.

As I've said time and time again, tanks aren't going to come rolling into town, at least not many, not often, not most places. See the reasons already listed for why. Add to that list that armored vehicles aren't particularly useful in tight urban environments, nor against hit & run precision strikes.

Why does the military drill into soldiers the idea that they 'never surrender their weapon', that 'their weapon is their life', etc? Because when a weapon is needed, it's the most important thing in the world. The military knows this, why shouldn't civilians.

You're such a freaking idiot. Seriously, how do you maintain basic bodily functions with a negative IQ?

I'm just a normal citizen, no reason for the soldiers to bother with me...until I pass by two of them on the corner, draw my concealed pistol from my waistband and put one through each of their heads. Now I take their M4's, armor, radios, etc. My handgun just defeated the us military.

Formation is called at the national guard armory. The lieutenant begins calling out duty assignments when a single shot peals out and the officers head erupts a geyser of grey and red. Chain of command is disrupted, time and resources wasted. My hunting rifle just defeated the us military.

The next shipment of replacement bushings is stopped at the light. With the exacting requirements for military vehicles it's vital these parts reach the base. Unfortunately I just tossed a keg into the back of the truck that was filled with a home made explosive. Now the parts aren't going to arrive, the military lost a truck and some men, and the war effort is turning against them. My household chemicals just defeated the us military.

No my friend, power in an insurrection rests with the people, not the military. It's a losing battle.

 

[Genx87]

No western democracy but the US has such lax gun laws, at the same time, no western democracy has such heavy restrictions on your freedoms as the US.

Maybe you can list us restrictions on freedom?

There are a few countries in the EU that outlaw political parties, words, books ect ect. Try getting a WWII game into Germany with any kind authentic look, IE Nazi swastika's.

No doubt our freedoms have been curtailed in the past 150 years. However I'd be surprised if they were severaly outmatched by any of these countries you claim.

 

[daveymark]

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
I'm just a normal citizen, no reason for the soldiers to bother with me...until I pass by two of them on the corner, draw my concealed pistol from my waistband and put one through each of their heads. Now I take their M4's, armor, radios, etc. My handgun just defeated the us military.

Formation is called at the national guard armory. The lieutenant begins calling out duty assignments when a single shot peals out and the officers head erupts a geyser of grey and red. Chain of command is disrupted, time and resources wasted. My hunting rifle just defeated the us military.

The next shipment of replacement bushings is stopped at the light. With the exacting requirements for military vehicles it's vital these parts reach the base. Unfortunately I just tossed a keg into the back of the truck that was filled with a home made explosive. Now the parts aren't going to arrive, the military lost a truck and some men, and the war effort is turning against them. My household chemicals just defeated the us military.

No my friend, power in an insurrection rests with the people, not the military. It's a losing battle.

sounds a lot like a certain country in the middle east dealing with an oppressive military

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: Vic

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.

Which is why our government makes sure that it panders to the armed forces as much as possible. Wherein lies the argument? Your assumption seems to rest on the premise that the armed forces would continue to steadfastly support the government even if the government turned against its people (and therein acted contrary to the interests of the armed forces who require the people to support it). Sorry, but history proves you wrong in this regard over and over again. Like I said, they don't even exist without us and our support, and they know it all too well.
Keep in mind that the unofficial motto of the US Armed Forces is "overwhelming firepower supported by overwhelming logistics." It takes the people to provide both of those. Because of this, they couldn't possible defeat us unless we went peaceably.

I've covered this three times now, once in a direct reply to you, are you drunk, high or just tired?

Not even the trained elite forces would go up against tanks with hand guns, hand guns are irrelevant in this scenario, if you needed to overthrow your government and they had access to the armed forces for protection you wouldn't stand a chance and YOU KNOW THAT, if they didn't then the armed forces would be against them and it still wouldn't make a difference whether the population had hand guns or not.

In the first scenario, other countries would help, the UK would most definently help, as someone who would probably be in charge of a unit i would request that all firearms from civilians would be collected and that they took care of their families and the wounded and not get in the middle of it.

This is my experience though, it's not going to happen and if you feel safer, good on you, i have the license to sleep with a fully loaded automatic weapon beside me if i should so please, i'll disassemble it and put the different parts in one lock and one safe before i go to bed.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

When the second amendment was written those handguns were effective weapons, today they are not.

Muskets, my friend, muskets. And at that time here in the USA we had muskets with rifling, too (highly accurate for the time).

These were in some cases better than what the military had. Watched History Channel here last night about a famous battle for independance. The British troops used smooth bore rifles which are only accurate at short distances (but that's how they fought) whereas the Appalacian Moutian men used rifled muskets that were superior, particularly at long distances (how they fought, basically sniping).

At one time, the citizens were as well, or better, armed than the miltary. They did lack field artillary, but that was useless given the fighting style of the Southern people anyway. When spread out in the woods hiding behind trees those slow aiming cannons were not much good.
--------------------------------------------------

Most debate about the 2nd Amendment centers around a "collective" right (meaning militia) or individual rights (self defense whatever), or both. The SCOTUS has not ruled for either, but has implied a collective in their last case (guy was denied Constitutional right to an otherwise illegal sawed-off shotgun because it wasn't suitable for militia use).

IMO, SCOTUS is in a pickle. To recognize a collective right means people should have access to machine guns and mortors etc, like the military uses. They're loathe to readdress the issue, and will have to overturn themselves (which they hate to do) or create some contortion whereby the collective right is recognized yet people still don't get access to those type of arms. The other option is basically unrestricted rights to all kinds of arms, I can't see that either.

Fern

Ahhh, see the legalities of these things is a different issue, there is right, wrong and then there is the law that can be either or both at the same time.

I do appreciate you taking the time to answer that part of my post, and it's not as clear cut as "second amendment states" since that would most certainly require much heavier firepower from the "militia of the people" (i'm not sure how this works in the US but shouldn't the states militia of the people be the national guard?) than the simple handguns.

I'll never argue against Americans rights to own and carry arms though, i'll never know why and most people come up with BS answers, the real reason is the same as for the duct tape, fear.

 

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: Vic

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.

Which is why our government makes sure that it panders to the armed forces as much as possible. Wherein lies the argument? Your assumption seems to rest on the premise that the armed forces would continue to steadfastly support the government even if the government turned against its people (and therein acted contrary to the interests of the armed forces who require the people to support it). Sorry, but history proves you wrong in this regard over and over again. Like I said, they don't even exist without us and our support, and they know it all too well.
Keep in mind that the unofficial motto of the US Armed Forces is "overwhelming firepower supported by overwhelming logistics." It takes the people to provide both of those. Because of this, they couldn't possible defeat us unless we went peaceably.

I've covered this three times now, once in a direct reply to you, are you drunk, high or just tired?

Not even the trained elite forces would go up against tanks with hand guns, hand guns are irrelevant in this scenario, if you needed to overthrow your government and they had access to the armed forces for protection you wouldn't stand a chance and YOU KNOW THAT, if they didn't then the armed forces would be against them and it still wouldn't make a difference whether the population had hand guns or not.

In the first scenario, other countries would help, the UK would most definently help, as someone who would probably be in charge of a unit i would request that all firearms from civilians would be collected and that they took care of their families and the wounded and not get in the middle of it.

This is my experience though, it's not going to happen and if you feel safer, good on you, i have the license to sleep with a fully loaded automatic weapon beside me if i should so please, i'll disassemble it and put the different parts in one lock and one safe before i go to bed.

And at that point your men would find themselves on the receiving end of snipers on every roof in America. NO ONE takes our guns while breath remains in our lungs.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: Genx87

No western democracy but the US has such lax gun laws, at the same time, no western democracy has such heavy restrictions on your freedoms as the US.

Maybe you can list us restrictions on freedom?

There are a few countries in the EU that outlaw political parties, words, books ect ect. Try getting a WWII game into Germany with any kind authentic look, IE Nazi swastika's.

No doubt our freedoms have been curtailed in the past 150 years. However I'd be surprised if they were severaly outmatched by any of these countries you claim.

Patriot act, searches without warrants, wiretaps without warrants, held indefinently without trial or charges, you know this drill, you've heard it a million times before and ignored it the same amount of times because it's not happened to you... yet.

UK is where i reside when i'm at home, Sheffield to be specific, we don't have those kind of restrictions on basic human rights in the UK, in fact, ten years ago when the US helped set up the lists of the opressive regimes, if they had known about 07 USA, they would have put it on the list.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: Vic

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.

Which is why our government makes sure that it panders to the armed forces as much as possible. Wherein lies the argument? Your assumption seems to rest on the premise that the armed forces would continue to steadfastly support the government even if the government turned against its people (and therein acted contrary to the interests of the armed forces who require the people to support it). Sorry, but history proves you wrong in this regard over and over again. Like I said, they don't even exist without us and our support, and they know it all too well.
Keep in mind that the unofficial motto of the US Armed Forces is "overwhelming firepower supported by overwhelming logistics." It takes the people to provide both of those. Because of this, they couldn't possible defeat us unless we went peaceably.

I've covered this three times now, once in a direct reply to you, are you drunk, high or just tired?

Not even the trained elite forces would go up against tanks with hand guns, hand guns are irrelevant in this scenario, if you needed to overthrow your government and they had access to the armed forces for protection you wouldn't stand a chance and YOU KNOW THAT, if they didn't then the armed forces would be against them and it still wouldn't make a difference whether the population had hand guns or not.

In the first scenario, other countries would help, the UK would most definently help, as someone who would probably be in charge of a unit i would request that all firearms from civilians would be collected and that they took care of their families and the wounded and not get in the middle of it.

This is my experience though, it's not going to happen and if you feel safer, good on you, i have the license to sleep with a fully loaded automatic weapon beside me if i should so please, i'll disassemble it and put the different parts in one lock and one safe before i go to bed.

And at that point your men would find themselves on the receiving end of snipers on every roof in America. NO ONE takes our guns while breath remains in our lungs.

That's cool too, no one would feel the NEED to help you if you are going to be idiots about it, it would be all up to you, why on earth would we want to help a populous that wants to shoot us or risk getting shot by a bunch of untrained civilians who'll fire on anything that moves including themselves when they are under pressure?

You can keep your guns, it was foolish of me to suggest that we's help you if your government turned on you, obviously you'd just grab yer colt and shoot dem dere missiiiiles down before they even turned into a threat, YEEEHAW!

 

[Nebor]

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
You know what, i give up, this argument is like arguing with a five year old that KNOWS that the toothfairy exists.

Yeah, you can use your handguns against a 1+ million heavily armed and well trained soldiers carrying weapons far more powerful than yours, against missiles, bombers, tanks, sure you could, you'd win easily.....

I don't think any one of you believe your own bullshit but you are so caught up in it that you need to defend it will all your might.

I even said that i might support owning your firearms but to use the reason about how this stops the government from interfering with your freedoms is just daft.

No western democracy but the US has such lax gun laws, at the same time, no western democracy has such heavy restrictions on your freedoms as the US.

I don't know why you only reference handguns. Myself, like many other members here, own assault rifles, interdiction rifles, suppressors, etc. Things are have definite military applications. The law doesn't prohibit us from buying anti-tank munitions. At most NFA shoots, you'll find people with RPGs, LAW rockets, anti-tank rifles, and grenade launchers. It's possible to own all of those things legally. I think the legal restrictions are FAR too great when it comes to obtaining those items.

I support John when he says we should have unrestricted access to all arms.

However there is no way the US military could defeat the US population. They count on the population to support and supply them. They would be destroying their own supply chains and support structure. And that's IF they wanted "total war" ie, killing all civilians. Not to mention the end result is pointless for politicians: if they kill everyone, they have nothing left to rule over.

I carry a handgun to deal with petty thugs on the street. I keep a rifle loaded with AP ammunition next to my bed because I'm prepared for the men breaking down my front door to be heavily armed, armored, and acting under the color of "law."

 

[Nebor]

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: Genx87

No western democracy but the US has such lax gun laws, at the same time, no western democracy has such heavy restrictions on your freedoms as the US.

Maybe you can list us restrictions on freedom?

There are a few countries in the EU that outlaw political parties, words, books ect ect. Try getting a WWII game into Germany with any kind authentic look, IE Nazi swastika's.

No doubt our freedoms have been curtailed in the past 150 years. However I'd be surprised if they were severaly outmatched by any of these countries you claim.

Patriot act, searches without warrants, wiretaps without warrants, held indefinently without trial or charges, you know this drill, you've heard it a million times before and ignored it the same amount of times because it's not happened to you... yet.

UK is where i reside when i'm at home, Sheffield to be specific, we don't have those kind of restrictions on basic human rights in the UK, in fact, ten years ago when the US helped set up the lists of the opressive regimes, if they had known about 07 USA, they would have put it on the list.

And the UK has millions of CCTV cameras monitoring you, warning you of "anti-social behaviors" and recording your every move. The police search your home without consent, require you to have licenses to even own a TV, and worst of all, forbay you from defending yourself!

Don't get confused John, we're the land of the free, and the reason is evident in this thread: we're willing to put our lives on the line against overwhelming force in order to preserve freedom, which, as it happens, sprouts from the barrel of a gun.

 

[Nebor]

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
You can keep your guns, it was foolish of me to suggest that we's help you if your government turned on you, obviously you'd just grab yer colt and shoot dem dere missiiiiles down before they even turned into a threat, YEEEHAW!

According to Hillary Clinton and Diane Feinstein, my .50 BMG rifle can shoot down a commercial airliner, so it shouldn't have any problem taking down a tiny little missile.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: Nebor

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
You know what, i give up, this argument is like arguing with a five year old that KNOWS that the toothfairy exists.

Yeah, you can use your handguns against a 1+ million heavily armed and well trained soldiers carrying weapons far more powerful than yours, against missiles, bombers, tanks, sure you could, you'd win easily.....

I don't think any one of you believe your own bullshit but you are so caught up in it that you need to defend it will all your might.

I even said that i might support owning your firearms but to use the reason about how this stops the government from interfering with your freedoms is just daft.

No western democracy but the US has such lax gun laws, at the same time, no western democracy has such heavy restrictions on your freedoms as the US.

I don't know why you only reference handguns. Myself, like many other members here, own assault rifles, interdiction rifles, suppressors, etc. Things are have definite military applications. The law doesn't prohibit us from buying anti-tank munitions. At most NFA shoots, you'll find people with RPGs, LAW rockets, anti-tank rifles, and grenade launchers. It's possible to own all of those things legally. I think the legal restrictions are FAR too great when it comes to obtaining those items.

I support John when he says we should have unrestricted access to all arms.

However there is no way the US military could defeat the US population. They count on the population to support and supply them. They would be destroying their own supply chains and support structure. And that's IF they wanted "total war" ie, killing all civilians. Not to mention the end result is pointless for politicians: if they kill everyone, they have nothing left to rule over.

I carry a handgun to deal with petty thugs on the street. I keep a rifle loaded with AP ammunition next to my bed because I'm prepared for the men breaking down my front door to be heavily armed, armored, and acting under the color of "law."

Well, see, what you would call an "assault rifle" is what i call rifle, handguns was what was being originally discussed so that is why i went with that.

How do opressive regimes make their population support their opression? They import less weapons material than you do and still, their population make the tools that enables their opression, the US has enough weaponary and ammunition to enforce a change that would lead to just that, but that isn't even important, what is important is that handguns to keep the government in check is something that worked well a very long time ago but is now mostly there because it's a historical document.

I don't need any guns when i'm at home, not even when going into Brixton which is downtown Detroit but ten times worse.

They don't have guns, i don't have a gun, i'll give them a tap on the cap and be on my merry way, they'll return the favor.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: Nebor

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: Genx87

No western democracy but the US has such lax gun laws, at the same time, no western democracy has such heavy restrictions on your freedoms as the US.

Maybe you can list us restrictions on freedom?

There are a few countries in the EU that outlaw political parties, words, books ect ect. Try getting a WWII game into Germany with any kind authentic look, IE Nazi swastika's.

No doubt our freedoms have been curtailed in the past 150 years. However I'd be surprised if they were severaly outmatched by any of these countries you claim.

Patriot act, searches without warrants, wiretaps without warrants, held indefinently without trial or charges, you know this drill, you've heard it a million times before and ignored it the same amount of times because it's not happened to you... yet.

UK is where i reside when i'm at home, Sheffield to be specific, we don't have those kind of restrictions on basic human rights in the UK, in fact, ten years ago when the US helped set up the lists of the opressive regimes, if they had known about 07 USA, they would have put it on the list.

And the UK has millions of CCTV cameras monitoring you, warning you of "anti-social behaviors" and recording your every move. The police search your home without consent, require you to have licenses to even own a TV, and worst of all, forbay you from defending yourself!

Don't get confused John, we're the land of the free, and the reason is evident in this thread: we're willing to put our lives on the line against overwhelming force in order to preserve freedom, which, as it happens, sprouts from the barrel of a gun.

I don't agree with Nebor often (whether he's serious or just trolling for amusement) but I admit it's pretty funny to have Brit talk about all the freedoms the US has lost.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: Nebor

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: Genx87

No western democracy but the US has such lax gun laws, at the same time, no western democracy has such heavy restrictions on your freedoms as the US.

Maybe you can list us restrictions on freedom?

There are a few countries in the EU that outlaw political parties, words, books ect ect. Try getting a WWII game into Germany with any kind authentic look, IE Nazi swastika's.

No doubt our freedoms have been curtailed in the past 150 years. However I'd be surprised if they were severaly outmatched by any of these countries you claim.

Patriot act, searches without warrants, wiretaps without warrants, held indefinently without trial or charges, you know this drill, you've heard it a million times before and ignored it the same amount of times because it's not happened to you... yet.

UK is where i reside when i'm at home, Sheffield to be specific, we don't have those kind of restrictions on basic human rights in the UK, in fact, ten years ago when the US helped set up the lists of the opressive regimes, if they had known about 07 USA, they would have put it on the list.

And the UK has millions of CCTV cameras monitoring you, warning you of "anti-social behaviors" and recording your every move. The police search your home without consent, require you to have licenses to even own a TV, and worst of all, forbay you from defending yourself!

Don't get confused John, we're the land of the free, and the reason is evident in this thread: we're willing to put our lives on the line against overwhelming force in order to preserve freedom, which, as it happens, sprouts from the barrel of a gun.

anti-social behaviours? Name one case...

I wish they would record my every move but Afghanistan isn't "hot" anymore so...

Freedom as you know it comes from democracy, democracy from the barrel of a gun is not democracy, true democracy takes brave men without guns, look at the monks in Burma, when you get that eager for true freedom you can tell me how you have suffered.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: Nebor

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: Genx87

No western democracy but the US has such lax gun laws, at the same time, no western democracy has such heavy restrictions on your freedoms as the US.

Maybe you can list us restrictions on freedom?

There are a few countries in the EU that outlaw political parties, words, books ect ect. Try getting a WWII game into Germany with any kind authentic look, IE Nazi swastika's.

No doubt our freedoms have been curtailed in the past 150 years. However I'd be surprised if they were severaly outmatched by any of these countries you claim.

Patriot act, searches without warrants, wiretaps without warrants, held indefinently without trial or charges, you know this drill, you've heard it a million times before and ignored it the same amount of times because it's not happened to you... yet.

UK is where i reside when i'm at home, Sheffield to be specific, we don't have those kind of restrictions on basic human rights in the UK, in fact, ten years ago when the US helped set up the lists of the opressive regimes, if they had known about 07 USA, they would have put it on the list.

And the UK has millions of CCTV cameras monitoring you, warning you of "anti-social behaviors" and recording your every move. The police search your home without consent, require you to have licenses to even own a TV, and worst of all, forbay you from defending yourself!

Don't get confused John, we're the land of the free, and the reason is evident in this thread: we're willing to put our lives on the line against overwhelming force in order to preserve freedom, which, as it happens, sprouts from the barrel of a gun.

I don't agree with Nebor often (whether he's serious or just trolling for amusement) but I admit it's pretty funny to have Brit talk about all the freedoms the US has lost.

Britain isn't perfect and if you can tell me WHERE i ever stated that Britain was perfect when it comes to all freedoms i'll give you £1k on the spot.

Naturally you can't but anything that shifts focus from the lack of freedom and injustices in the USA that you desperatly want to ignore is all good for you.

Moonbeam could explain why you are running and accusing.

If i had to choose one country that has kept it's act together, been totally cool and made the best for their own populous it would be Norway, they stand beside the EU, don't get much involved, pump their oil and live happily.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

now commence the cricket symphony.