Ted Nugent on gun control

[Vic]

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: Vic
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.

Uh... you either completely sidestepped my argument, or you completely misunderstood it. I'm guessing the latter. Tell us though, where will the armed forces get the food it needs for its soldiers while it's attacking its own people?

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

None of that matters, what are you going to do when tanks come rolling into your town (Wave "hi" to them ), 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.( No, but when they get out to eat or pee, look out. We'd prolly go after their fuel supplies too)

-snip-

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. (People here know how to make bombs: threaded steel pipe, gunpowder, fuse cord, and a handrill. All things you can buy in a rural area in under a hour. Basically, "home made" hand grenades.)

I don't understand this focus on handguns? Data from 1997 (10 years ago) indicates 70 million rifles (and IIRC 46 million more shotguns). Surley we have about 100 million now. I would reasonably guess that many of these are semi-auto assault type, and another huge group are scoped high- power long- range hunting rifles, and some of these are semi-auto too. Snipe and run, snipe and run. IMO, they better stay the h*ll out of the South.

I dopn't understand the focus on tanks and precision missles either. This type of conflict would be a "a gun behind every blade of grass - guerrilla warfare" thingy. How are tanks and missles of any use?

Why in the h*ll would the government wanna blow up any building? Ooops, there goes the revenue from real estate tax the government needs etc.

If it was a commercial building, oops there goes the economy. No revenue for the gov.

When I lived in Miami, we once had reports of gunshots sniping at traffic going through town on Interstate I-95. The whole place came to a standstill. Everyone was advised to leave work immediately etc. So, one sniper can single-handidly almost shutdown an entire city? Oops there goes the economy and also any gov revenue.

If something like this happened, I'd be scared sh*tless to drive a gov issued car down here. I don't care of it's IRS or what.

It's not just armed insurrection, but add a lack of compliance that could kill the fed gov. (Raise your habd if you'd still file and pay taxes)

I wouldn't be surprised if the Southern Governors would rebel and call out the National Guard to go against the feds.

Without guns, we'd be left with some kind of Ghandi-esque passive resistance/noncompliance. While I believe many down here may respect that, that just isn't our way. Even a very limited and judicious use of small arms fire can be very effective in the context we're talking about. That's why we need them.

On the History show "Hillbilly" show last, I heard one old lady express it really well. About the resistance to gov intrusion in the South she said "You've got to stand up to it, even if you're gonna loose". I think that sums it up pretty well.

Finally, if something like this broke out, I wouldn't be suprised if had another seccesion occur like in the civil war.

I think the Western states would have a big problem with this too.

Fern

 

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: 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!

<- former military thanks, just like so many other us citizens. We don't need help from anyone with as low an iq as you've demonstrated thanks.

And because you're so busy talking all this ignorant crap you've been too busy to actually respond to the core truths of all of our posts which point out why your whole 'missle' bs line is just that. How about you quit being a dipshit and actually try and respond to AN ARGUMENT.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
now commence the cricket symphony.

And now you resort to trolling. Way to go! :roll:

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: Vic
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.

Uh... you either completely sidestepped my argument, or you completely misunderstood it. I'm guessing the latter. Tell us though, where will the armed forces get the food it needs for its soldiers while it's attacking its own people?

Actually, i didn't sidestep your argument, maybe i misunderstood it, my point is that either way handguns among civilians isn't going to make a damned bit of difference.

Food for soldiers? Heh, it's not really a problem in the UK, i can't tell you how it works in the US but i'd guess it's similar, Palehorse knows more about that than i do though.

 

[yllus]

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
now commence the cricket symphony.

I think the issue is that you don't seem to be getting a very basic point.

- A government is made out of that nation's citizens.
- An army is made out of that nation's citizens.
- People (citizens) don't easily take to killing themselves.

An order to do so would quickly be met with incredulity, following by outrage, followed by the military refusing to carry out the order, followed by the exit of the politicians who issued and backed the order. You simply will not convince a good Virginia boy to drive a tank down his home city's streets and let loose a few rounds on his neighbours.

 

[Genx87]

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.

All of the above were recent actions as a knee jerk response to 9-11. The courts will sort those out in time. They already have on the holding US citizens without trial.

So besides the knee jerk response from 9-11 what else?

I am pretty sure our taxation is much less than most western nations. Excessive taxation is just another form of oppression.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

None of that matters, what are you going to do when tanks come rolling into your town (Wave "hi" to them ), 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.( No, but when they get out to eat or pee, look out. We'd prolly go after their fuel supplies too)

-snip-

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. (People here know how to make bombs: threaded steel pipe, gunpowder, fuse cord, and a handrill. All things you can buy in a rural area in under a hour. Basically, "home made" hand grenades.)

I don't understand this focus on handguns? Data from 1997 (10 years ago) indicates 70 million rifles (and IIRC 46 million more shotguns). Surley we have about 100 million now. I would reasonably guess that many of these are semi-auto assault type, and another huge group are scoped high- power long- range hunting rifles, and some of these are semi-auto too. Snipe and run, snipe and run. IMO, they better stay the h*ll out of the South.

I dopn't understand the focus on tanks and precision missles either. This type of conflict would be a "a gun behind every blade of grass - guerrilla warfare" thingy. How are tanks and missles of any use?

Why in the h*ll would the government wanna blow up any building? Ooops, there goes the revenue from real estate tax the government needs etc.

If it was a commercial building, oops there goes the economy. No revenue for the gov.

When I lived in Miami, we once had reports of gunshots sniping at traffic going through town on Interstate I-95. The whole place came to a standstill. Everyone was advised to leave work immediately etc. So, one sniper can single-handidly almost shutdown an entire city? Oops there goes the economy and also any gov revenue.

If something like this happened, I'd be scared sh*tless to drive a gov issued car down here. I don't care of it's IRS or what.

It's not just armed insurrection, but add a lack of compliance that could kill the fed gov. (Raise your habd if you'd still file and pay taxes)

I wouldn't be surprised if the Southern Governors would rebel and call out the National Guard to go against the feds.

Without guns, we'd be left with some kind of Ghandi-esque passive resistance/noncompliance. While I believe many down here may respect that, that just isn't our way. Even a very limited and judicious use of small arms fire can be very effective in the context we're talking about. That's why we need them.

On the History show "Hillbilly" show last, I heard one old lady express it really well. About the resistance to gov intrusion in the South she said "You've got to stand up to it, even if you're gonna loose". I think that sums it up pretty well.

Finally, if something like this broke out, I wouldn't be suprised if had another seccesion occur like in the civil war.

I think the Western states would have a big problem with this too.

Fern

Urban warfare works great when there are costs and soldiers lives depending on it and you have to take care, if you can have the amount of air support that would be available if the US governments arse depended on it, no amount of guerilla tactics would help.

Using iodine and ammonia i can make a bomb that is 600x as powerful as the same amount of gunpowder and it takes me less time, i don't need a fuse, any pressure or shift in pressure will detonate it. Would that help against an attack chopper or a missile? Nope.

If you'd lose, chances are that i'd lose too and we can't have that.

Christ man, it's hard to be in this shit without discussing a hopeless situation, let's hope it'll never come to pass, but if it should, i'll expect you to get the iodine while i get the ammonia. 😉

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: Genx87

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.

All of the above were recent actions as a knee jerk response to 9-11. The courts will sort those out in time. They already have on the holding US citizens without trial.

So besides the knee jerk response from 9-11 what else?

I am pretty sure our taxation is much less than most western nations. Excessive taxation is just another form of oppression.

pound for pound you get a lot less for your taxes so...

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: yllus

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
now commence the cricket symphony.

I think the issue is that you don't seem to be getting a very basic point.

- A government is made out of that nation's citizens.
- An army is made out of that nation's citizens.
- People (citizens) don't easily take to killing themselves.

An order to do so would quickly be met with incredulity, following by outrage, followed by the military refusing to carry out the order, followed by the exit of the politicians who issued and backed the order. You simply will not convince a good Virginia boy to drive a tank down his home city's streets and let loose a few rounds on his neighbours.

IOW, why would the citizens need guns, it's not like they want to kill themselves.

The entire argument is about the second amendment and if citizens with guns really do affect the governments status as servants to the people, some imply that in a nation where the populous are unarmed the citizens are servants of their government and would have a harder time to overthrow an opressive government, i disagree, hence my saying so.

If the miliary doesn't obey the orders, will an armed populous make a difference? No.

If the military does obey the orders, will an armed populous make a difference? No.

That is the argument i'm presenting, i'm not even arguing about gun ownership, only about the relevance of the second amendment in todays world where handguns are as low tech as throwing itty bitty pieces of cloth at your opponents was back when it was written.

This discussion is about gun ownership, i'm not against it, i'm just saying that using the second amendment as an excuse for it is daft.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: Genx87

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.

All of the above were recent actions as a knee jerk response to 9-11. The courts will sort those out in time. They already have on the holding US citizens without trial.

So besides the knee jerk response from 9-11 what else?

I am pretty sure our taxation is much less than most western nations. Excessive taxation is just another form of oppression.

pound for pound you get a lot less for your taxes so...

and i mean £

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: Genx87

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.

All of the above were recent actions as a knee jerk response to 9-11. The courts will sort those out in time. They already have on the holding US citizens without trial.

So besides the knee jerk response from 9-11 what else?

I am pretty sure our taxation is much less than most western nations. Excessive taxation is just another form of oppression.

pound for pound you get a lot less for your taxes so...

That is an opinion. What is the avg total tax rate in the UK?

 

[Train]

The Brits' tanks, planes, and bombs did a good job of holding down that piddly little militia called the IRA huh?

lol, explan to me why the IRA, so outgunned and outnumbered, could take down armored troop carriers in thier neighborhoods? Even when the troop carriers had the benifit or lots of armor, bigger guns, better trained troops, even com linkups with surveilence planes/helicopters, with thermal imaging and the like... but for some reason they just couldnt root out the IRA after all hose years?

I'd say handguns and a little ingenuity go a long way against on of the worlds top 5 military's... as the IRA proved.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: Genx87

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.

All of the above were recent actions as a knee jerk response to 9-11. The courts will sort those out in time. They already have on the holding US citizens without trial.

So besides the knee jerk response from 9-11 what else?

I am pretty sure our taxation is much less than most western nations. Excessive taxation is just another form of oppression.

pound for pound you get a lot less for your taxes so...

That is an opinion. What is the avg total tax rate in the UK?

Too much, but then again, isn't it always? If it seems like i'm avoiding this issue it's because i am, i don't want to derail this thread further and i'm kinda bored and discussing tax politics is likely to send me off to sleep. 😉

If you request it i'll edit out my previous response too.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: Train
The Brits' tanks, planes, and bombs did a good job of holding down that piddly little militia called the IRA huh?

lol, explan to me why the IRA, so outgunned and outnumbered, could take down armored troop carriers in thier neighborhoods? Even when the troop carriers had the benifit or lots of armor, bigger guns, better trained troops, even com linkups with surveilence planes/helicopters, with thermal imaging and the like... but for some reason they just couldnt root out the IRA after all hose years?

I'd say handguns and a little ingenuity go a long way against on of the worlds top 5 military's... as the IRA proved.

Ok, this is the fourth time i explain this, IF the UK government were directly threatened by a takeover (this is the argument, the well armed militia with handguns overthrowing the government) do you think they would stop at small units awaiting attacks and interpreting info?

Do you honestly think that if the UK went all out there would even be anyone left alive in Northern Ireland? Remember, they don't have to answer to jack shit, these people started a war against the government and the government eliminated the threat using all and any means neccessary.

 

[Nebor]

Originally posted by: 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.

You consider a small caliber, select fire weapon just a rifle? So you draw no distinction between an Enfield L85 and a Remington 700?

And this discussion wasn't about handguns until you brought them up.

The point is that Americans have gas masks, anti-tank weaponry, assault rifles, etc. Recent restrictions on those kinds of things are unconstitutional, as that actually does limit our ability to combat a modern military.

A far more realistic situation would be a foreign military waging "total war" against the US population.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: Nebor

Originally posted by: 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.

You consider a small caliber, select fire weapon just a rifle? So you draw no distinction between an Enfield L85 and a Remington 700?

And this discussion wasn't about handguns until you brought them up.

The point is that Americans have gas masks, anti-tank weaponry, assault rifles, etc. Recent restrictions on those kinds of things are unconstitutional, as that actually does limit our ability to combat a modern military.

A far more realistic situation would be a foreign military waging "total war" against the US population.

Actually, what i am trying to tell you is that "wow, got a LAW" doesn't mean anything, the US armed forces could end a revolt in a matter of hours if commandeered by the government, there just is no denying that.

But of course i do draw distinctions between those two guns, it was a daft question too and you know it.

If a foreign military would wage total war against the US there would be resistance from pretty much every western nation, you'd see your new allies crumble while old allies like France would step up to the plate, the UK and myself among the men would be among the first, if need be there would be a draft and you can count on one thing, you'd be following orders and doing your part with the gun provided for you, hickabilly jones civilians running around would be annoying and most probably shot before they cold actually manage to shoot themselves and take up valuable resources.

If you want to fight for your country, don't buy a gun, join the forces.

 

[Wheezer]

This is not about a typical US citizen against the government. It is about a US citizen having the ability and the right to defend his or her life from ANOTHER citizen (or illegal if need be).

Certain members of the Government want to severely cripple that right. It is not about the weapon in particular. If Ginsu knives killed as many people as guns do, you can bet this nanny state would impose laws that limited to only those with permits to purchase Ginsu knives.

Guns are a means to an end, and people should have the right to carry them if they choose.

Crime has been around since the dawn of time, and it will continue to be so long as one man wants something the other man has.

Law abiding citizens should have the right to protect themselves from anyone who is a threat.

 

[Nebor]

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: Nebor

Originally posted by: 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.

You consider a small caliber, select fire weapon just a rifle? So you draw no distinction between an Enfield L85 and a Remington 700?

And this discussion wasn't about handguns until you brought them up.

The point is that Americans have gas masks, anti-tank weaponry, assault rifles, etc. Recent restrictions on those kinds of things are unconstitutional, as that actually does limit our ability to combat a modern military.

A far more realistic situation would be a foreign military waging "total war" against the US population.

Actually, what i am trying to tell you is that "wow, got a LAW" doesn't mean anything, the US armed forces could end a revolt in a matter of hours if commandeered by the government, there just is no denying that.

But of course i do draw distinctions between those two guns, it was a daft question too and you know it.

If a foreign military would wage total war against the US there would be resistance from pretty much every western nation, you'd see your new allies crumble while old allies like France would step up to the plate, the UK and myself among the men would be among the first, if need be there would be a draft and you can count on one thing, you'd be following orders and doing your part with the gun provided for you, hickabilly jones civilians running around would be annoying and most probably shot before they cold actually manage to shoot themselves and take up valuable resources.

If you want to fight for your country, don't buy a gun, join the forces.

I don't really fault you for your arguments, because you're British. THe british have always had a reverence for authority, and order. We simply don't We don't trust the government, even if they are elected by us. We know that if things get out of hand, we can change things the old fashioned way.

I don't think it's something that you'll ever understand, but speaking as an American, there is no way the American armed forces could defeat the American public.

You want my guns? You have a tank? Well I reckon you'll have to get out of your tank if you want me to give you my gun. 😀

I think the whole "tree of liberty" concept is foreign to the British.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: Nebor

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: Nebor

Originally posted by: 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.

You consider a small caliber, select fire weapon just a rifle? So you draw no distinction between an Enfield L85 and a Remington 700?

And this discussion wasn't about handguns until you brought them up.

The point is that Americans have gas masks, anti-tank weaponry, assault rifles, etc. Recent restrictions on those kinds of things are unconstitutional, as that actually does limit our ability to combat a modern military.

A far more realistic situation would be a foreign military waging "total war" against the US population.

Actually, what i am trying to tell you is that "wow, got a LAW" doesn't mean anything, the US armed forces could end a revolt in a matter of hours if commandeered by the government, there just is no denying that.

But of course i do draw distinctions between those two guns, it was a daft question too and you know it.

If a foreign military would wage total war against the US there would be resistance from pretty much every western nation, you'd see your new allies crumble while old allies like France would step up to the plate, the UK and myself among the men would be among the first, if need be there would be a draft and you can count on one thing, you'd be following orders and doing your part with the gun provided for you, hickabilly jones civilians running around would be annoying and most probably shot before they cold actually manage to shoot themselves and take up valuable resources.

If you want to fight for your country, don't buy a gun, join the forces.

I don't really fault you for your arguments, because you're British. THe british have always had a reverence for authority, and order. We simply don't We don't trust the government, even if they are elected by us. We know that if things get out of hand, we can change things the old fashioned way.

I don't think it's something that you'll ever understand, but speaking as an American, there is no way the American armed forces could defeat the American public.

You want my guns? You have a tank? Well I reckon you'll have to get out of your tank if you want me to give you my gun. 😀

I think the whole "tree of liberty" concept is foreign to the British.

I wouldn't trust your government either, your system is all about who makes the most bucks at the end of the day and screw the citizens.

I don't respect authority because i'm British, i respect authority because that is the way the military works, if that fails it won't work, you can ask your American friends like TallBill about that if you don't buy what i'm telling you.

This is me telling you how it is according to me, if you want to continue this discussion while taunting me i will not partake in that.

Fair enough?

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: Wheezer
This is not about a typical US citizen against the government. It is about a US citizen having the ability and the right to defend his or her life from ANOTHER citizen (or illegal if need be).

As i previously stated, i might even agree with this (somewhat but i'm a sucker for regulations, i'm both Army and British), the second amendment has nothing to do with that though.

Ted Nugent is a lousy musician and even worse as a politician, he likes to "say it how it is" the problem with that is that he doesn't have a fucking clue "how it is" he doesn't know shit about it.

That is why he states what you are stating, self defence but this arse mixes the second amendment in there as if he never even read it, dagnabit!

 

[Nebor]

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: Nebor

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: Nebor

Originally posted by: 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.

You consider a small caliber, select fire weapon just a rifle? So you draw no distinction between an Enfield L85 and a Remington 700?

And this discussion wasn't about handguns until you brought them up.

The point is that Americans have gas masks, anti-tank weaponry, assault rifles, etc. Recent restrictions on those kinds of things are unconstitutional, as that actually does limit our ability to combat a modern military.

A far more realistic situation would be a foreign military waging "total war" against the US population.

Actually, what i am trying to tell you is that "wow, got a LAW" doesn't mean anything, the US armed forces could end a revolt in a matter of hours if commandeered by the government, there just is no denying that.

But of course i do draw distinctions between those two guns, it was a daft question too and you know it.

If a foreign military would wage total war against the US there would be resistance from pretty much every western nation, you'd see your new allies crumble while old allies like France would step up to the plate, the UK and myself among the men would be among the first, if need be there would be a draft and you can count on one thing, you'd be following orders and doing your part with the gun provided for you, hickabilly jones civilians running around would be annoying and most probably shot before they cold actually manage to shoot themselves and take up valuable resources.

If you want to fight for your country, don't buy a gun, join the forces.

I don't really fault you for your arguments, because you're British. THe british have always had a reverence for authority, and order. We simply don't We don't trust the government, even if they are elected by us. We know that if things get out of hand, we can change things the old fashioned way.

I don't think it's something that you'll ever understand, but speaking as an American, there is no way the American armed forces could defeat the American public.

You want my guns? You have a tank? Well I reckon you'll have to get out of your tank if you want me to give you my gun. 😀

I think the whole "tree of liberty" concept is foreign to the British.

I wouldn't trust your government either, your system is all about who makes the most bucks at the end of the day and screw the citizens.

I don't respect authority because i'm British, i respect authority because that is the way the military works, if that fails it won't work, you can ask your American friends like TallBill about that if you don't buy what i'm telling you.

This is me telling you how it is according to me, if you want to continue this discussion while taunting me i will not partake in that.

Fair enough?

I just don't understand why you love to get involved in discussions on American guns when you know nothing about either.

 

[Nebor]

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: Wheezer
This is not about a typical US citizen against the government. It is about a US citizen having the ability and the right to defend his or her life from ANOTHER citizen (or illegal if need be).

As i previously stated, i might even agree with this (somewhat but i'm a sucker for regulations, i'm both Army and British), the second amendment has nothing to do with that though.

Ted Nugent is a lousy musician and even worse as a politician, he likes to "say it how it is" the problem with that is that he doesn't have a fucking clue "how it is" he doesn't know shit about it.

That is why he states what you are stating, self defence but this arse mixes the second amendment in there as if he never even read it, dagnabit!

I personally never argue for or against the second amendment or what it means. The way I see it is, I have guns. Lots of them. If you don't think people should have guns, how do you intend to take them away? Send men with guns to do it?

Guns give men freedom, from other nations, from oppression, from crime, from tyranny, from nature and a whole host of other things. And men who feel that they will always be able to keep their guns (ie: police, military & politicians) have no problem taking them away from everyone else.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: Nebor

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: Wheezer
This is not about a typical US citizen against the government. It is about a US citizen having the ability and the right to defend his or her life from ANOTHER citizen (or illegal if need be).

As i previously stated, i might even agree with this (somewhat but i'm a sucker for regulations, i'm both Army and British), the second amendment has nothing to do with that though.

Ted Nugent is a lousy musician and even worse as a politician, he likes to "say it how it is" the problem with that is that he doesn't have a fucking clue "how it is" he doesn't know shit about it.

That is why he states what you are stating, self defence but this arse mixes the second amendment in there as if he never even read it, dagnabit!

I personally never argue for or against the second amendment or what it means. The way I see it is, I have guns. Lots of them. If you don't think people should have guns, how do you intend to take them away? Send men with guns to do it?

Guns give men freedom, from other nations, from oppression, from crime, from tyranny, from nature and a whole host of other things. And men who feel that they will always be able to keep their guns (ie: police, military & politicians) have no problem taking them away from everyone else.

My only point was that the second amendment allows for the populace to defend itself against the government and it's control of the armed forces and since weapons have come a long way since the amendment it's basically irrelevant in any discussion of today, it should be rewritten or just scrapped.

Guns doesn't give you crap Nebor, they can help you accomplish good things or bad things but they won't give you freedom, maybe safety though, but so does a teddybear for the child.

I don't mind you digging up old posts of mine, i'll read it because i can hardly remember what i wrote.

Guns are loads of fun though, it all changes when you get to live with people and see them get in the way, but that's another story, i hope it'll never come to that for you.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Nebor

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: Wheezer
This is not about a typical US citizen against the government. It is about a US citizen having the ability and the right to defend his or her life from ANOTHER citizen (or illegal if need be).

As i previously stated, i might even agree with this (somewhat but i'm a sucker for regulations, i'm both Army and British), the second amendment has nothing to do with that though.

Ted Nugent is a lousy musician and even worse as a politician, he likes to "say it how it is" the problem with that is that he doesn't have a fucking clue "how it is" he doesn't know shit about it.

That is why he states what you are stating, self defence but this arse mixes the second amendment in there as if he never even read it, dagnabit!

I personally never argue for or against the second amendment or what it means. The way I see it is, I have guns. Lots of them. If you don't think people should have guns, how do you intend to take them away? Send men with guns to do it?

Guns give men freedom, from other nations, from oppression, from crime, from tyranny, from nature and a whole host of other things. And men who feel that they will always be able to keep their guns (ie: police, military & politicians) have no problem taking them away from everyone else.

It's interesting how guns are simply inanimate objects when we're discussing gun crime, but suddenly they become some sort of magic freedom wand when you're talking about why you like guns. Guns are pieces of machinery, they don't do any of those things...it's all about the person who's wielding it. And that's the problem with this debate, it's all about the guns themselves...for both sides. But if you are a useless knob without a gun, you're probably going to be an equally useless knob even if you have a gun. That doesn't mean they aren't good weapons for self-defense, but "gun culture" is ridiculous, and every time someone like Ted Nugent opens his mouth, I feel like banning him from owning anything more dangerous than a paper clip.

Edit: And before the NRA life member crowd jumps down my throat, I think gun ownership (and self-defense) are absolutely two things the government should keep its nose out of. I just happen to find the Ted Nugent types to be worthless twats who need to spend more time actually defending freedom and less time pontificating about the beautiful majesty and problem solving abilities of a cheap piece of stamped metal. It's a weapon, not a magic wand.