Which is more scary? Criminals having guns or Only the government having guns?

[BUnit1701]

I'm saying the military could kill you in 10 minutes along with everyone within a mile of you. And if they really wanted, a hundred miles of you. Not sure what you think a gun is going to do.

Not sure who you think the military is made up of, but those soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marienes are Americans too. If you really think they are going to nuke their own countrymen then YOU are the one out of touch with reality.

 

[BudAshes]

Incorrect, see Afghanistan. An armed indigenous population is a nightmare to take over, that's why new autocratic governments start by taking citizens' guns away. I'd like to see a 250k person army try to "take" Appalachia, it would be Vietnam all over again.

Americans are weak and would fold in seconds for a hot pocket and some chicken mcnuggets if faced with the grueling rigors of running a gorilla campaign. Afghanistan is just war training for the military. There is no point in being there out side of creating more jihadists to kill. If they actually had a goal it was to get osama bin ladin, and as far as I know he's dead. Appalachia is full of methheads and other drug addicts, I doubt anyone would invade, they would just fence it off to keep you in.

 

[Gunslinger08]

False dichotomy and wishful thinking, all wrapped up in one!

If you disarm the law-abiding public, criminals will still have/purchase/make guns. Criminals can also use other weapons - http://www.cnn.com/2014/03/01/world/asia/china-railway-attack/. Guns are essential to level the playing field. They allow anyone to protect themselves, regardless of size or physical skill (beyond marksmanship).

Getting into the debate over whether or not privately held small arms would be useful in repelling a foreign invasion or domestic tyranny really has nothing to do with whether or not private ownership should be legal. There is no guarantee that freedom of speech will save us from any calamity, but it is still our right. We have a natural right to self defense, just as we have a natural right to liberty in our thoughts and words. Guns are by far the best general tools for self defense and their legality is affirmed by the Constitution and Supreme Court.

 

[BudAshes]

False dichotomy and wishful thinking, all wrapped up in one!

If you disarm the law-abiding public, criminals will still have/purchase/make guns. Criminals can also use other weapons - http://www.cnn.com/2014/03/01/world/asia/china-railway-attack/. Guns are essential to level the playing field. They allow anyone to protect themselves, regardless of size or physical skill (beyond marksmanship).

Getting into the debate over whether or not privately held small arms would be useful in repelling a foreign invasion or domestic tyranny really has nothing to do with whether or not private ownership should be legal. There is no guarantee that freedom of speech will save us from any calamity, but it is still our right. We have a natural right to self defense, just as we have a natural right to liberty in our thoughts and words. Guns are by far the best general tools for self defense and their legality is affirmed by the Constitution and Supreme Court.

Wow, a sensible person. What are you doing here?

 

[MagickMan]

Americans are weak and would fold in seconds for a hot pocket and some chicken mcnuggets if faced with the grueling rigors of running a gorilla campaign. Afghanistan is just war training for the military. There is no point in being there out side of creating more jihadists to kill. If they actually had a goal it was to get osama bin ladin, and as far as I know he's dead. Appalachia is full of methheads and other drug addicts, I doubt anyone would invade, they would just fence it off to keep you in.

Typical generalities with ignorant, bigoted comments thrown in for good measure. Not surprising. BTW, the link wasn't to the recent activity in Afghanistan, if you'd been smart enough to check it out, you would have possibly noticed. It was about Russia's invasion several decades ago. It turned out very badly for them, much like Vietnam did for the USA, and if you knew anything about history and modern guerilla warfare, you'd understand why. But thanks for playing, I guess. :\

 

[BudAshes]

Typical generalities with ignorant, bigoted comments thrown in for good measure. Not surprising. BTW, the link wasn't to the recent activity in Afghanistan, if you'd been smart enough to check it out, you would have possibly noticed. It was about Russia's invasion several decades ago. It turned out very badly for them, much like Vietnam did for the USA, and if you knew anything about history and modern guerilla warfare, you'd understand why. But thanks for playing, I guess. :\

Sorry, but you are barely interesting enough to reply to, let alone read your links.

 

[MtnMan]

Which is more scary? Criminals having guns or Only the government having guns?

Worked well for Hitler's pre-war Germany.

vvvvvv reference the signature below vvvvv

 

[ivwshane]

Which is more scary? Criminals having guns or Only the government having guns?

Worked well for Hitler's pre-war Germany.

vvvvvv reference the signature below vvvvv

Clueless gun nuts are my favorite!

http://propagandaprofessor.net/2011/09/26/the-myth-of-hitlers-gun-ban/

“This year will go down in history! For the first time, a civilized nation has full gun registration! Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient, and the world will follow our lead into the future!” –Adolf Hitler, 1935

Trouble is, Hitler never made such a speech in 1935. Nor is there any record that he ever spoke these particular words at all. This little “speech” was obviously written for him, many years after his death, by someone who wanted you to believe that gun registration is Hitler-evil.

What he did say, seven years later, was this: “The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to permit the conquered Eastern peoples to have arms. History teaches that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by doing so.” So it’s fair to conclude that he believed “gun control” had its uses. But that’s quite a different thing from claiming that “gun control” was instrumental in the Nazi rise to power.

 

[MagickMan]

Sorry, but you are barely interesting enough to reply to, let alone read your links.

An admittedly ignorant ass, such as yourself, should take any opportunity to educate yourself, at least so you don't look like a fool around here (as you did just then). :\

 

[ivwshane]

An admittedly ignorant ass, such as yourself, should take any opportunity to educate yourself, at least so you don't look like a fool around here (as you did just then). :\

Oh the irony!

 

[BudAshes]

An admittedly ignorant ass, such as yourself, should take any opportunity to educate yourself, at least so you don't look like a fool around here (as you did just then). :\

Fuuudge, ownage. You the man now dawg. High five your imaginary friends!

 

[MagickMan]

Oh the irony!

None found, but thanks for trolling. :thumbsup:

Fuuudge, ownage. You the man now dawg. High five your imaginary friends!

The truth hurts, but you can correct that by reading and making yourself informed.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

WMD right here

That's a Philly cheese steak right there or a good likeness thereof. 3 decades ago or thereabouts I bought many of those in the small hours of the morning from Pats. "Cheese with"

 

[fskimospy]

That's a Philly cheese steak right there or a good likeness thereof. 3 decades ago or thereabouts I bought many of those in the small hours of the morning from Pats. "Cheese with"

Looks like whiz on there allright, glad to see someone still eats them the right way.

(I grew up outside Philly)

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Looks like whiz on there allright, glad to see someone still eats them the right way.

(I grew up outside Philly)

Awesome! I was an inner city kid.