zanieladie
Diamond Member
- Jan 19, 2003
- 3,280
- 1
- 0
Originally posted by: GRIFFIN1
I think it's important for the average person to own guns. When only criminals and governments have guns, things tend to get nasty for the average person.
Originally posted by: kogase
Originally posted by: GRIFFIN1
I think it's important for the average person to own guns. When only criminals and governments have guns, things tend to get nasty for the average person.
For example...?
Originally posted by: kogase
Originally posted by: GRIFFIN1
I think it's important for the average person to own guns. When only criminals and governments have guns, things tend to get nasty for the average person.
For example...?
Originally posted by: GRIFFIN1
Originally posted by: kogase
Originally posted by: GRIFFIN1
I think it's important for the average person to own guns. When only criminals and governments have guns, things tend to get nasty for the average person.
For example...?
Gun control memorial (it's a bit extreme, but it makes a point.)
Washington DC doesn't seem all that safe even though they have a gun ban.
Would you have wanted to be in New Orleans after Katrina without a gun?
I know that I'll probably never have to use one of my guns in a defensive situation, but I would rather have a gun and not need it than need it and not have it.
Originally posted by: kogase
I'm all for letting people own guns if they want to, but the idea that owning a gun is a necessity because somehow people are going to "stand up" to the army of a tyranical government is laughable at best. This isn't 1776, the people don't stand a chance anymore.
Originally posted by: kogase
the idea that owning a gun is a necessity because somehow people are going to "stand up" to the army of a tyranical government is laughable at best. This isn't 1776, the people don't stand a chance anymore.
Originally posted by: Amused
Originally posted by: kogase
the idea that owning a gun is a necessity because somehow people are going to "stand up" to the army of a tyranical government is laughable at best. This isn't 1776, the people don't stand a chance anymore.
Really? Tell that to the former USSR, who got their asses kicked by the Taliban who used little more than small privately owned arms.
The Vietnam War demonstrated that a modern nuclear military power can be resisted by guerrilla fighters bearing only small arms.
In 1992, the United States declined to intervene in the conflict in Bosnia-Herzegovina after an aide to General Colin Powell, then Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, advised the Senate Armed Services Committee that the widespread ownership of arms in the former Yugoslav republic made even limited intervention "perilous and deadly."
Switzerland managed to stay safe through two world wars. It was not their neutrality that kept Hitler out, but the fact that the citizen militia of Switzerland has just about every home armed. No one has dared invade Switzerland since this militia was formed.
Even now, the Russians are having their asses handed to them by the Chechnyans... fighters who live at home, wear jeans and use castoff weapons.
That you think an armed populace is not a deterrent to invasion or oppression is what is laughable here.
Originally posted by: kogase
Something of a deterrent? Maybe. A big one, probably not. Our army grows larger and more powerful every day (not to mention technologically advanced), with the amount of spending and research that goes into it. Eventually it will be just be too powerful for a few citizens armed with AK47s to take on.
Originally posted by: Nebor
Originally posted by: kogase
Something of a deterrent? Maybe. A big one, probably not. Our army grows larger and more powerful every day (not to mention technologically advanced), with the amount of spending and research that goes into it. Eventually it will be just be too powerful for a few citizens armed with AK47s to take on.
No, it won't. The idea of guns in every home is that you'd have to kill absolutely everyone with air strikes before you move in. A large advanced military has no advantage fighting an armed citizenry. The only option is to kill everyone with WMD. Otherwise you go in with ground troops, fight on their turf, where they have all the advantages, and you get your ass handed to you, just like Amused said.
Originally posted by: kogase
Originally posted by: Nebor
Originally posted by: kogase
Something of a deterrent? Maybe. A big one, probably not. Our army grows larger and more powerful every day (not to mention technologically advanced), with the amount of spending and research that goes into it. Eventually it will be just be too powerful for a few citizens armed with AK47s to take on.
No, it won't. The idea of guns in every home is that you'd have to kill absolutely everyone with air strikes before you move in. A large advanced military has no advantage fighting an armed citizenry. The only option is to kill everyone with WMD. Otherwise you go in with ground troops, fight on their turf, where they have all the advantages, and you get your ass handed to you, just like Amused said.
You're assuming the process of waging war will remain exactly as it is now and has been for hundreds of years. I don't think it will.
