Well there you have it: Assault weapons ban

Page 17 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
50,422
14,337
136
Originally posted by: Atheus
Question: why do you people think an aggressive attitude is going to make others think you should be allowed to carry/use weapons? In a sense you're right - some people arguing against you really don't know what they're talking about (though many clearly do) - but how is insulting and threatening them going to help? They're already clearly scared of you. It's like arguing for drug legalization while charging around on cocaine and randomly headbutting people.

@nobodyknows: JohnOfSheffield knows more about weapons than pretty much anyone here so I wouldn't 'dismiss' him if you want to learn something.

Would you not take an aggressive attitude if some people wanted to take away your freedom of speech/expression? How about if these people conveyed this stripping of a basic right as that you should not be allowed to use it? For fear that it might be used for something dangerous? Would you not then get aggressive?

This is no different.
 
May 16, 2000
13,522
0
0
Originally posted by: Modelworks
They have already been making it hard with the ammo registration requirements, a covert form of gun control.
This is the next step.
Next under attack will be concealed carry permits.

At that point I begin the systematic execution of every government employee...and so will many thousands of others. I hope they're very certain about how far they want to push their luck. Such an action WOULD queue the next full out revolution in this country, and rightly so.
 
Jun 26, 2007
11,925
2
0
Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
Originally posted by: Modelworks
They have already been making it hard with the ammo registration requirements, a covert form of gun control.
This is the next step.
Next under attack will be concealed carry permits.

At that point I begin the systematic execution of every government employee...and so will many thousands of others. I hope they're very certain about how far they want to push their luck.

No, at that point you will whine even harder at the internet and that is all you'll ever be doing.


The fourth amendment was dead and buried the day the government controlled forces with better weapons than the citizens had. Any reasonably intelligent person gets that.

You could do what with your weapons? The government has tanks and planes and they would label you a terrorist if you tried (and yeah, according to law, you would be one).

Face it, your will and execution of something that would look like a revolution would be deemed terrorist activity and each and every one of you would be in jail.
 
May 16, 2000
13,522
0
0
Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
Originally posted by: Modelworks
They have already been making it hard with the ammo registration requirements, a covert form of gun control.
This is the next step.
Next under attack will be concealed carry permits.

At that point I begin the systematic execution of every government employee...and so will many thousands of others. I hope they're very certain about how far they want to push their luck.

No, at that point you will whine even harder at the internet and that is all you'll ever be doing.


The fourth amendment was dead and buried the day the government controlled forces with better weapons than the citizens had. Any reasonably intelligent person gets that.

You could do what with your weapons? The government has tanks and planes and they would label you a terrorist if you tried (and yeah, according to law, you would be one).

Face it, your will and execution of something that would look like a revolution would be deemed terrorist activity and each and every one of you would be in jail.

Incorrect. The government will not deploy heavy weapons domestically as doing so would cause immediate galvanization against them permanently. Instead, they would respond to civil insurrection using the small unit tactics they currently favor. This would result in the random pickoff of soldiers from the millions of long rifles in the hands of expert marksman in the US.

The weapons currently in the hands of citizens are sufficient, when proper tactics are employed, to obtain more and better weapons through raids against caches, transport, or manufacturing centers for military weapons and equipment. Moreover, they are perfectly suited to assassination of government officials which would lead to a destabilization of power, and cause national instability (not to mention economic collapse) which would force a reconciliation or open warfare. Either way, problem solved.

Make no mistake...if pushed far enough the people of US are completely capable of bringing the country to its knees. Try to actually take our weapons, and see if you can prove me wrong.
 
Jun 26, 2007
11,925
2
0
Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
Originally posted by: Modelworks
They have already been making it hard with the ammo registration requirements, a covert form of gun control.
This is the next step.
Next under attack will be concealed carry permits.

At that point I begin the systematic execution of every government employee...and so will many thousands of others. I hope they're very certain about how far they want to push their luck.

No, at that point you will whine even harder at the internet and that is all you'll ever be doing.


The fourth amendment was dead and buried the day the government controlled forces with better weapons than the citizens had. Any reasonably intelligent person gets that.

You could do what with your weapons? The government has tanks and planes and they would label you a terrorist if you tried (and yeah, according to law, you would be one).

Face it, your will and execution of something that would look like a revolution would be deemed terrorist activity and each and every one of you would be in jail.

Incorrect. The government will not deploy heavy weapons domestically as doing so would cause immediate galvanization against them permanently. Instead, they would respond to civil insurrection using the small unit tactics they currently favor. This would result in the random pickoff of soldiers from the millions of long rifles in the hands of expert marksman in the US.

The weapons currently in the hands of citizens are sufficient, when proper tactics are employed, to obtain more and better weapons through raids against caches, transport, or manufacturing centers for military weapons and equipment. Moreover, they are perfectly suited to assassination of government officials which would lead to a destabilization of power, and cause national instability (not to mention economic collapse) which would force a reconciliation or open warfare. Either way, problem solved.

Make no mistake...if pushed far enough the people of US are completely capable of bringing the country to its knees. Try to actually take our weapons, and see if you can prove me wrong.

I'm sorry but i'm getting tired of all this talking "if they do this we will go start a revolution" and they do it and not a bloody thing happens.

Even planning something to go against the government in the US would mean you were engaging in terrorist activity... what? You think the government wouldn't deploy troops to stifle terrorism?

It wouldn't matter either way, either the army is controlled by the government and you'll be blown to kingdom come or it will be controlled by the people which means you don't need your pea shooters anyway.

That said, i do keep my G3, my 870 and my Sig. 226 at home, with the active parts locked up in a gun safe and the non active parts in showcase which is good enough for keeping the weapons in even if they had their active parts in them.

You and specop007 would whine endlessly about it if they did, but that is all that would happen.
 

Atheus

Diamond Member
Jun 7, 2005
7,313
2
0
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: Atheus
Question: why do you people think an aggressive attitude is going to make others think you should be allowed to carry/use weapons? In a sense you're right - some people arguing against you really don't know what they're talking about (though many clearly do) - but how is insulting and threatening them going to help? They're already clearly scared of you. It's like arguing for drug legalization while charging around on cocaine and randomly headbutting people.

@nobodyknows: JohnOfSheffield knows more about weapons than pretty much anyone here so I wouldn't 'dismiss' him if you want to learn something.

Would you not take an aggressive attitude if some people wanted to take away your freedom of speech/expression? How about if these people conveyed this stripping of a basic right as that you should not be allowed to use it? For fear that it might be used for something dangerous? Would you not then get aggressive?

This is no different.

There's a section of people here, and I can only assume throughout America, who on being told they are too aggressive to own guns, react by being aggressive about guns. Not only is it totally counterproductive in any political/philosophical arguement to get aggressive, but in this particular case, the act in itelf reinforces the arguement of the radical opposition - that gun owners are mostly deranged and dangerous.

Here's a perfect example:

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
At that point I begin the systematic execution of every government employee...and so will many thousands of others. I hope they're very certain about how far they want to push their luck. Such an action WOULD queue the next full out revolution in this country, and rightly so.

Pretend you're a quiet liberal city dweller who enjoys reading and classical music. This man now appears to be insane. Would you want him heavily armed and roaming the streets?
 

SigArms08

Member
Apr 16, 2008
181
0
0
Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
Originally posted by: Modelworks
They have already been making it hard with the ammo registration requirements, a covert form of gun control.
This is the next step.
Next under attack will be concealed carry permits.

At that point I begin the systematic execution of every government employee...and so will many thousands of others. I hope they're very certain about how far they want to push their luck.

No, at that point you will whine even harder at the internet and that is all you'll ever be doing.


The fourth amendment was dead and buried the day the government controlled forces with better weapons than the citizens had. Any reasonably intelligent person gets that.

You could do what with your weapons? The government has tanks and planes and they would label you a terrorist if you tried (and yeah, according to law, you would be one).

Face it, your will and execution of something that would look like a revolution would be deemed terrorist activity and each and every one of you would be in jail.

Even on that tiny island, the IRA was a son of a bitch for the British government. We're they all stopped and thrown in jail in 1969? I forget.
 
Jun 26, 2007
11,925
2
0
Originally posted by: SigArms08
Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
Originally posted by: Modelworks
They have already been making it hard with the ammo registration requirements, a covert form of gun control.
This is the next step.
Next under attack will be concealed carry permits.

At that point I begin the systematic execution of every government employee...and so will many thousands of others. I hope they're very certain about how far they want to push their luck.

No, at that point you will whine even harder at the internet and that is all you'll ever be doing.


The fourth amendment was dead and buried the day the government controlled forces with better weapons than the citizens had. Any reasonably intelligent person gets that.

You could do what with your weapons? The government has tanks and planes and they would label you a terrorist if you tried (and yeah, according to law, you would be one).

Face it, your will and execution of something that would look like a revolution would be deemed terrorist activity and each and every one of you would be in jail.

Even on that tiny island, the IRA was a son of a bitch for the British government. We're they all stopped and thrown in jail in 1969? I forget.

I don't get where this is going, are you trying to tell me that a terrorist organisation can be a pain in the arse and will have more members killed than civilian victims they kill? And what the fuck does it have to do with this issue?

Or are you just trying to show off how fucking retarded you are?

I dunno, could be either or both, probably both.
 

Red Dawn

Elite Member
Jun 4, 2001
57,529
3
0
Originally posted by: Atheus
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: Atheus
Question: why do you people think an aggressive attitude is going to make others think you should be allowed to carry/use weapons? In a sense you're right - some people arguing against you really don't know what they're talking about (though many clearly do) - but how is insulting and threatening them going to help? They're already clearly scared of you. It's like arguing for drug legalization while charging around on cocaine and randomly headbutting people.

@nobodyknows: JohnOfSheffield knows more about weapons than pretty much anyone here so I wouldn't 'dismiss' him if you want to learn something.

Would you not take an aggressive attitude if some people wanted to take away your freedom of speech/expression? How about if these people conveyed this stripping of a basic right as that you should not be allowed to use it? For fear that it might be used for something dangerous? Would you not then get aggressive?

This is no different.

There's a section of people here, and I can only assume throughout America, who on being told they are too aggressive to own guns, react by being aggressive about guns. Not only is it totally counterproductive in any political/philosophical arguement to get aggressive, but in this particular case, the act in itelf reinforces the arguement of the radical opposition - that gun owners are mostly deranged and dangerous.

Here's a perfect example:

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
At that point I begin the systematic execution of every government employee...and so will many thousands of others. I hope they're very certain about how far they want to push their luck. Such an action WOULD queue the next full out revolution in this country, and rightly so.

Pretend you're a quiet liberal city dweller who enjoys reading and classical music. This man now appears to be insane. Would you want him heavily armed and roaming the streets?
Well if he means what he says (which I doubt) he won't be one the street long.
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
Originally posted by: SMOGZINN
Originally posted by: Sheik Yerbouti
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: Sheik Yerbouti
Originally posted by: shocksyde
What is it with people and guns in this country? Yes, I know, it's a right.

I'm with you. I don't get it. It's like you're defending a body part. I just don't get the fanatacism revolving around guns.

Change the assault to the 1st amendment and tell us your opinion on that. It is only speech right? Well guns are a primary defense against the tyranny of govt and defense against criminals. Without the gun you can toss out the rest of your rights.

Right, because we constantly take up arms against the government. That didn't work out so well in 1863...

But it worked great in 1774

In this day and age, handguns aren't state of the art weapons, they are pea shooter compared to the current state of the art weapons.

If the intention of the constitution was that everyone was going to have a chance against the government, you'll need jets and missiles to defend yourselves. I've made this argument before and someone said that then the armed forces would be with the people in which case the people really don't need shit to defend themselves with.

If it's for home defense it's ridiculous, if i lived in a place where i needed a gun to replace the cuddly bear i slept with as a child i would move right the fuck out of that place because it's obviously kinda like downtown Fallujah. Hell i've lived in Brixton and i didn't feel a need to have a gun.

Now, lets go over this "only guns will be illegal guns" idiocy... Take a wild guess where the overwhelming majority of "illegal guns" come from... If you steal a gun, file off the serial number you have an illegal gun. So your legally purchased firearm might be an illegal gun today if you, kinda lost track of it somewhere or didn't keep it disassembled with the active parts in a gun safe and YOU are responsible for that.

The TRUTH is that boys and their toys are being parted and everyone is going waaaaaahhh.

It's fucking pathetic.

lol, it's always fun to see foreigners try to argue the American Constitution... :laugh:

It's an argument, if you're not up for the challenge then ok, i kinda expect nothing more from the likes of you who supported a person who said "it's only a god damn piece of paper".

It may come as a surprise to you, but not all people are as ignorant as you are, some people actually know some things about the history, laws and constitutions of other countries.

First off, that quote isn't true, and second you aren't an American so I think it's hilarious when you and your types come into threads like this and spout off your nonsense about our Constitution. Commenting about the different types of guns and such to add clarity is fine but your opinion on Constitutional matters means jack friggin squat.
 
Jun 26, 2007
11,925
2
0
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
Originally posted by: SMOGZINN
Originally posted by: Sheik Yerbouti
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: Sheik Yerbouti
Originally posted by: shocksyde
What is it with people and guns in this country? Yes, I know, it's a right.

I'm with you. I don't get it. It's like you're defending a body part. I just don't get the fanatacism revolving around guns.

Change the assault to the 1st amendment and tell us your opinion on that. It is only speech right? Well guns are a primary defense against the tyranny of govt and defense against criminals. Without the gun you can toss out the rest of your rights.

Right, because we constantly take up arms against the government. That didn't work out so well in 1863...

But it worked great in 1774

In this day and age, handguns aren't state of the art weapons, they are pea shooter compared to the current state of the art weapons.

If the intention of the constitution was that everyone was going to have a chance against the government, you'll need jets and missiles to defend yourselves. I've made this argument before and someone said that then the armed forces would be with the people in which case the people really don't need shit to defend themselves with.

If it's for home defense it's ridiculous, if i lived in a place where i needed a gun to replace the cuddly bear i slept with as a child i would move right the fuck out of that place because it's obviously kinda like downtown Fallujah. Hell i've lived in Brixton and i didn't feel a need to have a gun.

Now, lets go over this "only guns will be illegal guns" idiocy... Take a wild guess where the overwhelming majority of "illegal guns" come from... If you steal a gun, file off the serial number you have an illegal gun. So your legally purchased firearm might be an illegal gun today if you, kinda lost track of it somewhere or didn't keep it disassembled with the active parts in a gun safe and YOU are responsible for that.

The TRUTH is that boys and their toys are being parted and everyone is going waaaaaahhh.

It's fucking pathetic.

lol, it's always fun to see foreigners try to argue the American Constitution... :laugh:

It's an argument, if you're not up for the challenge then ok, i kinda expect nothing more from the likes of you who supported a person who said "it's only a god damn piece of paper".

It may come as a surprise to you, but not all people are as ignorant as you are, some people actually know some things about the history, laws and constitutions of other countries.

First off, that quote isn't true, and second you aren't an American so I think it's hilarious when you and your types come into threads like this and spout off your nonsense about our Constitution. Commenting about the different types of guns and such to add clarity is fine but your opinion on Constitutional matters means jack friggin squat.

I ask for substance and i get this...

Are you retarded? Is there something so seriously wrong with you that you couldn't understand proper English?

of course, me being English means that i know more about the US and it's constitution than most Americans does, naturally, that doesn't matter to a twat like yourself because you're fucked up in the head with nationality and yeeehaw bomb bomb bom Iran and GWB to IRAQ bullshit.... Sad thing is that i have BEEN in Iraq and you, the cheerleader haven't, i really wish we could switch seats for a week or so, so you could understand what the bullshit you are supporting really means on the ground. Naturally, as a Bush lover you really don't give a fuck about the soldiers, he showed that he didn't with vets, didn't he?

Truth is, you don't give a shit about anyone or anything but yourself and what the GOP tells you to think.

Well i'm not surprised, your idiocy is well known and your lack of any argument is noted, yet again.

Cheerio.
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
Originally posted by: SMOGZINN
Originally posted by: Sheik Yerbouti
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: Sheik Yerbouti
Originally posted by: shocksyde
What is it with people and guns in this country? Yes, I know, it's a right.

I'm with you. I don't get it. It's like you're defending a body part. I just don't get the fanatacism revolving around guns.

Change the assault to the 1st amendment and tell us your opinion on that. It is only speech right? Well guns are a primary defense against the tyranny of govt and defense against criminals. Without the gun you can toss out the rest of your rights.

Right, because we constantly take up arms against the government. That didn't work out so well in 1863...

But it worked great in 1774

In this day and age, handguns aren't state of the art weapons, they are pea shooter compared to the current state of the art weapons.

If the intention of the constitution was that everyone was going to have a chance against the government, you'll need jets and missiles to defend yourselves. I've made this argument before and someone said that then the armed forces would be with the people in which case the people really don't need shit to defend themselves with.

If it's for home defense it's ridiculous, if i lived in a place where i needed a gun to replace the cuddly bear i slept with as a child i would move right the fuck out of that place because it's obviously kinda like downtown Fallujah. Hell i've lived in Brixton and i didn't feel a need to have a gun.

Now, lets go over this "only guns will be illegal guns" idiocy... Take a wild guess where the overwhelming majority of "illegal guns" come from... If you steal a gun, file off the serial number you have an illegal gun. So your legally purchased firearm might be an illegal gun today if you, kinda lost track of it somewhere or didn't keep it disassembled with the active parts in a gun safe and YOU are responsible for that.

The TRUTH is that boys and their toys are being parted and everyone is going waaaaaahhh.

It's fucking pathetic.

lol, it's always fun to see foreigners try to argue the American Constitution... :laugh:

It's an argument, if you're not up for the challenge then ok, i kinda expect nothing more from the likes of you who supported a person who said "it's only a god damn piece of paper".

It may come as a surprise to you, but not all people are as ignorant as you are, some people actually know some things about the history, laws and constitutions of other countries.

First off, that quote isn't true, and second you aren't an American so I think it's hilarious when you and your types come into threads like this and spout off your nonsense about our Constitution. Commenting about the different types of guns and such to add clarity is fine but your opinion on Constitutional matters means jack friggin squat.

I ask for substance and i get this...

Are you retarded? Is there something so seriously wrong with you that you couldn't understand proper English?

of course, me being English means that i know more about the US and it's constitution than most Americans does, naturally, that doesn't matter to a twat like yourself because you're fucked up in the head with nationality and yeeehaw bomb bomb bom Iran and GWB to IRAQ bullshit.... Sad thing is that i have BEEN in Iraq and you, the cheerleader haven't, i really wish we could switch seats for a week or so, so you could understand what the bullshit you are supporting really means on the ground. Naturally, as a Bush lover you really don't give a fuck about the soldiers, he showed that he didn't with vets, didn't he?

Truth is, you don't give a shit about anyone or anything but yourself and what the GOP tells you to think.

Well i'm not surprised, your idiocy is well known and your lack of any argument is noted, yet again.

Cheerio.

:laugh: clearly you are of your rocker....which means you fit right in with the other leftists here. :)
 

WelshBloke

Lifer
Jan 12, 2005
32,832
10,969
136
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
Originally posted by: SMOGZINN
Originally posted by: Sheik Yerbouti
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: Sheik Yerbouti
Originally posted by: shocksyde
What is it with people and guns in this country? Yes, I know, it's a right.

I'm with you. I don't get it. It's like you're defending a body part. I just don't get the fanatacism revolving around guns.

Change the assault to the 1st amendment and tell us your opinion on that. It is only speech right? Well guns are a primary defense against the tyranny of govt and defense against criminals. Without the gun you can toss out the rest of your rights.

Right, because we constantly take up arms against the government. That didn't work out so well in 1863...

But it worked great in 1774

In this day and age, handguns aren't state of the art weapons, they are pea shooter compared to the current state of the art weapons.

If the intention of the constitution was that everyone was going to have a chance against the government, you'll need jets and missiles to defend yourselves. I've made this argument before and someone said that then the armed forces would be with the people in which case the people really don't need shit to defend themselves with.

If it's for home defense it's ridiculous, if i lived in a place where i needed a gun to replace the cuddly bear i slept with as a child i would move right the fuck out of that place because it's obviously kinda like downtown Fallujah. Hell i've lived in Brixton and i didn't feel a need to have a gun.

Now, lets go over this "only guns will be illegal guns" idiocy... Take a wild guess where the overwhelming majority of "illegal guns" come from... If you steal a gun, file off the serial number you have an illegal gun. So your legally purchased firearm might be an illegal gun today if you, kinda lost track of it somewhere or didn't keep it disassembled with the active parts in a gun safe and YOU are responsible for that.

The TRUTH is that boys and their toys are being parted and everyone is going waaaaaahhh.

It's fucking pathetic.

lol, it's always fun to see foreigners try to argue the American Constitution... :laugh:

It's an argument, if you're not up for the challenge then ok, i kinda expect nothing more from the likes of you who supported a person who said "it's only a god damn piece of paper".

It may come as a surprise to you, but not all people are as ignorant as you are, some people actually know some things about the history, laws and constitutions of other countries.

First off, that quote isn't true, and second you aren't an American so I think it's hilarious when you and your types come into threads like this and spout off your nonsense about our Constitution. Commenting about the different types of guns and such to add clarity is fine but your opinion on Constitutional matters means jack friggin squat.

I ask for substance and i get this...

Are you retarded? Is there something so seriously wrong with you that you couldn't understand proper English?

of course, me being English means that i know more about the US and it's constitution than most Americans does, naturally, that doesn't matter to a twat like yourself because you're fucked up in the head with nationality and yeeehaw bomb bomb bom Iran and GWB to IRAQ bullshit.... Sad thing is that i have BEEN in Iraq and you, the cheerleader haven't, i really wish we could switch seats for a week or so, so you could understand what the bullshit you are supporting really means on the ground. Naturally, as a Bush lover you really don't give a fuck about the soldiers, he showed that he didn't with vets, didn't he?

Truth is, you don't give a shit about anyone or anything but yourself and what the GOP tells you to think.

Well i'm not surprised, your idiocy is well known and your lack of any argument is noted, yet again.

Cheerio.

:laugh: clearly you are of your rocker....which means you fit right in with the other leftists here. :)

Aaand Cad's head goes under water for the third time! :D
 

spidey07

No Lifer
Aug 4, 2000
65,469
5
76
Originally posted by: FuzzyBee
Wow. So many Internet tough guys in this thread.

Internet tough guys? Why do you think the sales of guns and ammo has gone through the freaking roof over the last 6 months? Don't know if you have been paying attention but registrations are up some 50% and ammo is getting scarce. The week after obama tried to say "i'm not here to take your guns, just common sense gun laws" the supply of ammo was drained. Walk into any place that sells ammo to see just how much we are stock piling to fight for freedom and protect our shit. Walk into walmart and see what they have for ammo - slim to none.

They're not "tough guys". They are preparing, aka "smart". If it's never needed, great. But I'd rather be prepared than not.
 

FuzzyBee

Diamond Member
Jan 22, 2000
5,172
1
81
Originally posted by: spidey07
Originally posted by: FuzzyBee
Wow. So many Internet tough guys in this thread.

Internet tough guys? Why do you think the sales of guns and ammo has gone through the freaking roof over the last 6 months? Don't know if you have been paying attention but registrations are up some 50% and ammo is getting scarce. The week after obama tried to say "i'm not here to take your guns, just common sense gun laws" the supply of ammo was drained. Walk into any place that sells ammo to see just how much we are stock piling to fight for freedom and protect our shit. Walk into walmart and see what they have for ammo - slim to none.

They're not "tough guys". They are preparing, aka "smart". If it's never needed, great. But I'd rather be prepared than not.

Uh - read my previous comments. I'm not for the assault weapon ban.
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
50,422
14,337
136
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Originally posted by: Atheus
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: Atheus
Question: why do you people think an aggressive attitude is going to make others think you should be allowed to carry/use weapons? In a sense you're right - some people arguing against you really don't know what they're talking about (though many clearly do) - but how is insulting and threatening them going to help? They're already clearly scared of you. It's like arguing for drug legalization while charging around on cocaine and randomly headbutting people.

@nobodyknows: JohnOfSheffield knows more about weapons than pretty much anyone here so I wouldn't 'dismiss' him if you want to learn something.

Would you not take an aggressive attitude if some people wanted to take away your freedom of speech/expression? How about if these people conveyed this stripping of a basic right as that you should not be allowed to use it? For fear that it might be used for something dangerous? Would you not then get aggressive?

This is no different.

There's a section of people here, and I can only assume throughout America, who on being told they are too aggressive to own guns, react by being aggressive about guns. Not only is it totally counterproductive in any political/philosophical arguement to get aggressive, but in this particular case, the act in itelf reinforces the arguement of the radical opposition - that gun owners are mostly deranged and dangerous.

Here's a perfect example:

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
At that point I begin the systematic execution of every government employee...and so will many thousands of others. I hope they're very certain about how far they want to push their luck. Such an action WOULD queue the next full out revolution in this country, and rightly so.

Pretend you're a quiet liberal city dweller who enjoys reading and classical music. This man now appears to be insane. Would you want him heavily armed and roaming the streets?
Well if he means what he says (which I doubt) he won't be one the street long.

Heh. Hard to disagree with that.

But back on topic, if some people wanted to take away my right to free speech for fear that I might use it to make 'harmful' and/or 'seditious' speech, then I might decide that it would be in my best interest to make as much 'harmful' and/or 'seditious' speech as possible. Once again, this is no different. If Atheus feels that PoW's means are counter-productive to his own stated ends, he might want to look in a mirror first. People usually don't act threatened unless they believe they have reason to feel threatened.
 
May 16, 2000
13,522
0
0
Originally posted by: Atheus
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: Atheus
Question: why do you people think an aggressive attitude is going to make others think you should be allowed to carry/use weapons? In a sense you're right - some people arguing against you really don't know what they're talking about (though many clearly do) - but how is insulting and threatening them going to help? They're already clearly scared of you. It's like arguing for drug legalization while charging around on cocaine and randomly headbutting people.

@nobodyknows: JohnOfSheffield knows more about weapons than pretty much anyone here so I wouldn't 'dismiss' him if you want to learn something.

Would you not take an aggressive attitude if some people wanted to take away your freedom of speech/expression? How about if these people conveyed this stripping of a basic right as that you should not be allowed to use it? For fear that it might be used for something dangerous? Would you not then get aggressive?

This is no different.

There's a section of people here, and I can only assume throughout America, who on being told they are too aggressive to own guns, react by being aggressive about guns. Not only is it totally counterproductive in any political/philosophical arguement to get aggressive, but in this particular case, the act in itelf reinforces the arguement of the radical opposition - that gun owners are mostly deranged and dangerous.

Here's a perfect example:

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
At that point I begin the systematic execution of every government employee...and so will many thousands of others. I hope they're very certain about how far they want to push their luck. Such an action WOULD queue the next full out revolution in this country, and rightly so.

Pretend you're a quiet liberal city dweller who enjoys reading and classical music. This man now appears to be insane. Would you want him heavily armed and roaming the streets?

Funny you should say that, since I'm a liberal academic who both listens to and plays classical music. I also defend my rights using any means necessary.
 

palehorse

Lifer
Dec 21, 2005
11,521
0
76
Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
Originally posted by: Atheus
Pretend you're a quiet liberal city dweller who enjoys reading and classical music. This man now appears to be insane. Would you want him heavily armed and roaming the streets?

Funny you should say that, since I'm a liberal academic who both listens to and plays classical music. I also defend my rights using any means necessary.
:thumbsup:
This issue has nothing to do with political affiliation, general ideological beliefs, or other political tendencies -- this is not a left or right issue.

Support for every amendment of the U.S. Constitution should be universal.

Even as a sworn member of the U.S. military, I'd be the first to resign and take up arms against the government if they ever truly threaten our citizens' inalienable rights. After all, I swore to defend the Constitution against all enemies, both foreign and domestic.

Come after my guns, and you'll have one helluva fight on your hands...
 

SigArms08

Member
Apr 16, 2008
181
0
0
Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
Originally posted by: SigArms08
Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
Originally posted by: Modelworks
They have already been making it hard with the ammo registration requirements, a covert form of gun control.
This is the next step.
Next under attack will be concealed carry permits.

At that point I begin the systematic execution of every government employee...and so will many thousands of others. I hope they're very certain about how far they want to push their luck.

No, at that point you will whine even harder at the internet and that is all you'll ever be doing.


The fourth amendment was dead and buried the day the government controlled forces with better weapons than the citizens had. Any reasonably intelligent person gets that.

You could do what with your weapons? The government has tanks and planes and they would label you a terrorist if you tried (and yeah, according to law, you would be one).

Face it, your will and execution of something that would look like a revolution would be deemed terrorist activity and each and every one of you would be in jail.

Even on that tiny island, the IRA was a son of a bitch for the British government. We're they all stopped and thrown in jail in 1969? I forget.

I don't get where this is going, are you trying to tell me that a terrorist organisation can be a pain in the arse and will have more members killed than civilian victims they kill? And what the fuck does it have to do with this issue?

Or are you just trying to show off how fucking retarded you are?

I dunno, could be either or both, probably both.

You dismiss our right to bear arms, I find that irritating, so the IRA thing was a bit of a jab. I should have given better examples regarding poorly armed civilians taking on a superior military force. Afghanistan, Vietnam, etc..


btw, I do think that your service to your country is very respectable, especially given the time frame, location, and role that you're in (I gather from limited readings here, ME, in the thick of things). A large percentage of my friends are ex-military (as am I).


 

spidey07

No Lifer
Aug 4, 2000
65,469
5
76
Originally posted by: palehorse

Even as a sworn member of the U.S. military, I'd be the first to resign and take up arms against the government if they ever truly threaten our citizens' inalienable rights. After all, I swore to defend the Constitution against all enemies, both foreign and domestic.

Come after my guns, and you'll have one helluva fight on your hands...

I'm so glad you take your oath seriously. Most soldiers I know do.

Thank you.
 

GeezerMan

Platinum Member
Jan 28, 2005
2,146
26
91
Originally posted by: palehorse
Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
Originally posted by: Atheus
Pretend you're a quiet liberal city dweller who enjoys reading and classical music. This man now appears to be insane. Would you want him heavily armed and roaming the streets?

Funny you should say that, since I'm a liberal academic who both listens to and plays classical music. I also defend my rights using any means necessary.
:thumbsup:
This issue has nothing to do with political affiliation, general ideological beliefs, or other political tendencies -- this is not a left or right issue.

Support for every amendment of the U.S. Constitution should be universal.

Even as a sworn member of the U.S. military, I'd be the first to resign and take up arms against the government if they ever truly threaten our citizens' inalienable rights. After all, I swore to defend the Constitution against all enemies, both foreign and domestic.

Come after my guns, and you'll have one helluva fight on your hands...

Good to hear. I wonder how most of the armed forces would feel about urban exercises in small towns?
According to their clueless mayor, it's not a confiscation of guns, just a practice drill of going in and out of private homes. Reminds me of my youth, right before I had sex. " Oh baby, it's not really doing it. I just want to put it in for a few seconds"

Link


February 24, 2009

Iowa Guard ends urban war exercise amid outcry

By WILLIAM PETROSKI
bpetroski@dmreg.com

The Iowa Army National Guard has dropped plans for urban warfare training in the western Iowa town of Arcadia after being deluged by nearly 100 e-mails and phone calls from gun-rights advocates nationwide.

The four-day event in April would have involved between 90 and 100 combat troops arriving in the Carroll County community in a convoy with a Blackhawk military helicopter flying overhead.

Troops would have gone door to door, asking the town's 443 residents about a suspected arms dealer and conducting searches of homes if property owners volunteered in advance to cooperate.

There was no opposition to the Guard's plans from city leaders. But gun-rights advocates were outraged, and news about the exercise became a hot topic nationally on radio talk shows and the Internet.

Arcadia Mayor Oran Kohorst said Monday he was disappointed the exercise had been canceled. He said he had not heard of a single objection from residents, and he said the City Council supported it. At least two guardsmen live in Arcadia, and many residents either have served in the military or have family members who have served in the armed forces, he said.

"This was completely blown out of proportion," Kohorst said. "They were going to come through and meet with the townspeople and just practice going in and out of their homes. They were never, ever going to confiscate guns or anything like that."

Talk show host Alex Jones of Austin, Texas, whose syndicated radio program is carried on about 60 stations, said he had received phone calls on and off the air from people in Arcadia and nearby towns who objected to the plans.

He said he believes oil companies, in concert with central banks, are creating a worldwide economic crisis to set up a world government.

"This is part of an acclimation for martial law," Jones said of the National Guard's plans.

Lt. Col. Gregory Hapgood Jr., the Iowa Guard's public affairs officer, said Monday that some urban warfare training will still be conducted, but it will be held at the armory in Carroll instead of in Arcadia.

Rather than holding a large company-sized exercise, the training will be in small groups at the platoon and squad level.

He said Guard officials changed their plans not because of the protests, but because the unit ? Company A, 1st Battalion, 168th Infantry ? has recently installed new leadership at the company and battalion level. Smaller unit training would be more beneficial, he said.

Company A is an infantry unit that served in Afghanistan for 13 months in 2004 and 2005, and it is expected to receive orders to return overseas within the next 24 months, Hapgood said.

One tactic used by infantry units is known as cordon and search. It involves creating layers of security in an area and then searching for weapons caches, explosive devices and bomb-making materials, and people of interest.

Hapgood said he considered the surge of e-mails and phone calls as a protest from outside of Iowa.

"We have been doing training in our communities for decades, so this is very routine business for us," Hapgood said. "We were quite surprised when we received e-mails from out of state criticizing the event. We have a responsibility to have our men and women ready to go into combat, and we are not going to change that."

Many of the e-mails were hostile, even threatening, Hapgood said.

One e-mail from a Texas resident said, "I am appalled the Iowa National Guard does not know what the Constitution of the United States says. ... How dare you?"

A man who described himself as a "Nevada citizen" wrote that it was good the exercise was called off: "It is possible that there would have been some dead Iowa Guardsmen."

Arcadia City Clerk Nancy Schmitz said she had 14 messages when she arrived at work Monday. All were apparently from listeners of Jones' show, she said.

"They all basically left the same message; they talked about it being like the Nazis and having the troops coming into our homes and confiscating weapons. It was very different from what was actually going to take place," Schmitz said.

She added she supported the training, calling it "a good opportunity to help out the troops."
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
87,699
54,683
136
I always find the noble proclamations of armed revolt, promises of a fight to the death against the government, etc in these threads interesting. I never see any other amendments get this kind of rabid defense.
 

spidey07

No Lifer
Aug 4, 2000
65,469
5
76
Originally posted by: eskimospy
I always find the noble proclamations of armed revolt, promises of a fight to the death against the government, etc in these threads interesting. I never see any other amendments get this kind of rabid defense.

Look at the vocal outrage of any touching of the first 10. You'll see the same kind of rabid defense. The 2nd is number two for a reason. It's the second most important right behind the 1st.
 

Red Dawn

Elite Member
Jun 4, 2001
57,529
3
0
Originally posted by: spidey07
Originally posted by: eskimospy
I always find the noble proclamations of armed revolt, promises of a fight to the death against the government, etc in these threads interesting. I never see any other amendments get this kind of rabid defense.

Look at the vocal outrage of any touching of the first 10. You'll see the same kind of rabid defense. The 2nd is number two for a reason. It's the second most important right behind the 1st.
No it isn't.