Poll: Lets pretend the government passes a law stating that you can't have a gun anymore...
- Thread starter mattttherman3
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I will take the IRA, give them effing tanks and all the explosives they want, and STILL prefer them over the Cartels. The Cartels are nasty pieces of works. About the only good thing I can say about them is that they are businessmen, but if you get in their way they will kill you and your entire family just to make a point. Cartels are actually more dangerous than the terrorists who want to murder us, our only saving grace is that it doesnt make much sense to kill off your best customer (ie the US). But considering they have hundreds of officials bribed, blackmailed, or intimidated across both borders, their influence is immense.Thyunda said:
Your IRA is closer to our Al Queda, and I still prefer the IRA to them. Bombings and mass murder is merely a tool for the IRA (at least that is how it seems to me, but im not in the UK so i may very well be wrong), it is not their endgoal. Mass murder and the destruction of the west is Al Qeuda's endgoal.
The 2nd Amendment was written based on the possibility that if only the military have guns, they citizenry is at their mercy if a dictatorship emerges. And guess what, in other parts of the world where the vast majority of citizens are unarmed, it has happened, it continues to happen, it will happen again and it could just as easily happen in any 1st world country as country run by African war-lords.Jedi-Hunter4 said:
Yeah, the police is there for emergencies. But when someone has you cornered in an alley or breaks in to your home, you can scream "police" till you're blue in the face, but they aren't gonna show up in time to stop what's about to happen. But they will be there in time to collect your corpse.
Thats not really true, how many country's in Africa are there and the middle east living under tyrant rule with no gun control what so ever.Nieroshai said:
When people say things like this I don't think people understand the start, huge difference between trained professional battle hardened soldiers and armed civilians many of who may of received 0 weapons training let alone being physically fit, organised or having any understanding of battle tactics or combat training. I'd rather have 50 well trained and armed professional soldiers with a good supply of ammo than a 1000 civies with civilian grade weaponry.
Its been proven time and time again throughout history that a professional force can decimate much much larger numbers of even semi-professional troops. You only have to look at why the Spartans are so well known today. Because they were the only entirely professional force in their known world. And it repeats itself, although responsible for numerous crimes the SS army units highly disciplined and trained professional force (during the actual war not the start or before) and some of their engagements with reserve forces an regiments that were raised for the conflict. Some engagements resulted in total butcher.
You can't underestimate how big a factor morale, training, combat efficiency, organisation and access to the best equipment would have. If someone has the military on board in any reasonable size military you'd be a fool to thing the populace have some small arms will make a difference. This isn't even taking into account heavy weaponry like tanks, jets etc. Guns on an individual basis are incredibly dangerous, in the face of a professional army, you go up against it, you and everyone you know will eventually die. Theres also the factor that we as westerners live pretty cushy lives, do you think the majority of people have the metal to engage in a war of attrition like that were most will die, especially in a situation where your not resisting a foreign oppressor.
I can't ever see that happening in any major western country in our lifetime anyway.
I see there being a lot of riots, and a lot of deaths, unfortunately. Peronally, I would try to hide my guns, but if they got taken anyway I wouldn't resist in any illegal manner. Instead I'd either: A) Wait for the Supreme Court to strike down the law (because it's blatantly unconstitutional) or B) Sue the government myself and take it all the way to the Supreme Court if I had to. And demand compensation either way, of course.
[cough]I'm Australian you bloody Galah[/cough]Sylveria said:
[cough]didn't answer my implied question[/cough]
[cough]confused as to why any nation would be annoyed over something that happened two centuries ago, I mean, my family was driven out of Ireland just after the Easter Rising, but I don't hold that against the Poms [/cough]
[cough]genuinely just coughing now, I need water [gurgle] [hack] [choke] [/dead]
you mean those african country's where there is 0 gun control? or the numerous middle east country's where they are controlled by dictatorships? yes the people there have done a remarkable job of resisting professional armys...Sylveria said:
See my post to Nieroshai. Against the military it would not make a blind bit of difference if the citizens have guns or not.
Why would this happen in a modern western nation anyway? Armys today are made up of everyday people, why are they just going to turn on everybody?
I mean not that its not a lovely thought that young men an women die year in year out to protect everyone's safety, but you know " everybody better stay armed encase these bastards turn on us!"
So your stance is essentially "You couldn't win so just bend over." Familiar with the phrase "Give me liberty or give me death,"? It is in reference to the Revolutionary War where an army of civilians using mostly home-made rifles defeated a much more skilled, organized, and equipped military force.Jedi-Hunter4 said:
If you want something more modern, look at the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan where relatively unorganized groups have been able to engage in guerrilla warfare against a far superior force for over a decade.
...that is over HALF of our country you are basically telling "sorry, we dont care one lick about you or your safety and if you are in trouble tough beans"Jedi-Hunter4 said:
It would be nice if our population was more evenly distributed like many European countries, unfortunately most of major cities are bigger than other countries major cities, and then the rest of the population is spread throughout the vast countryside. The reason police response times are such an issue is because people are either too far away or there are so many people that traffic gets congested and its hard to move around. And no, condemning a large portion of our population to death by removing all government protection and their right to defend themselves is not an option. Nor is forcibly removing people and entire towns.
out of curiousity, do you know what an assault weapon is? For a point of reference, assualt rifles (and any automatic weapon I beleive) are illegal and have been illegal for 30 years.
EDIT: compare
http://www.bestcountryreports.com/Population_Map_United%20Kingdom.php
to
http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://maps.unomaha.edu/Peterson/geog1000/MapLinks/NAmerica/USpop1990.gif&imgrefurl=http://maps.unomaha.edu/Peterson/geog1000/MapLinks/NAmerica/gallery.html&h=441&w=646&sz=35&tbnid=7g0glZCW9riptM:&tbnh=82&tbnw=120&prev=/search%3Fq%3Dpopulation%2Bdensity%2Bof%2Bus%26tbm%3Disch%26tbo%3Du&zoom=1&q=population+density+of+us&usg=__j1wvRjiB31_H1ldqKAwtVHUixG8=&docid=1a2D6wwFvn7lPM&hl=en&sa=X&ei=IjL2UI2UDpC00AH33oCoBA&ved=0CEwQ9QEwBg&dur=55
You know other countries than the United States exist right? The U.S doesn't have a monopoly on "freedom".Sylveria said:
There's seriously a gun fetishism. You know that guns were originally supposed to protect freedom right? If it was Athens, it would be the right to carry a lance. I'm afraid the focus on guns has made people lose sight over what it was originally about.
I'm sick and tired of people bleating that they're being good citizens by threatening to start a shootout. No, to keep democracy alive, your duty is most of all to be well informed and to elect proper officials. To lobby and to either unionize or elect representatives that represent your interests. To try to spread a message. To protest if it's even allowed in the United States.
P.S: If people on this thread really think they are capable of fighting a war they are deluded.
EDIT: Yes, I know guns have uses. It's just that they probably won't be enough to topple a government, so start using more credible arguments like you need them for self-defense, hunting or it's just difficult to enforce. Anything other than this idiotic misremembered view of the American Revolution and Civil War.
Well though I'm against guns, I do in fact have a gun in the house. A old bolt action rifle passed down from my gandpa, Is not what I would give willy nilly to the government.
At least ask to keep it without ammo or for some protection in case the zombie apocalypse comes.
At least ask to keep it without ammo or for some protection in case the zombie apocalypse comes.
It wouldn't be like, "okay guys from thruday privately owned pistols, shot guns (without an agricultural or hunting need) semi automatic and automatic weapons are illegal".tangoprime said:
In the UK it was a gradual shift over about 80 years, from essentially having what you want, to very controlled.
Your logic is, allowing everyone to have guns has created a gun culture where people need them, lets do nothing and allow this cycle of death to continue where by my own admission some areas are literally hell.
You would start by ceasing the introduction of more firearms to the system and very very heavily restricting and regulating the flow of ammunition. Ceasing all together the sale to private citizens rounds for assault rifles. Perhaps even changing the law so that the now "legal" weapons only take a specialist shape of ammunition and so on. There by making so weapons out there are eventually useless. Then when things are not at the same level, gun amnesty where the government pays the metal value of the weapons. Introduction of new laws that make it clear if you are found in possession of an illegal firearm your life will be over. when your talking in the scope of 50 years to secure a safer future slowly, it could very easily be done. That it can't is just propaganda spread by people who don't want to listen.
You mean those countries where all fire-arms production and distribution is in the hands of said dictatorships or black-market trading?Jedi-Hunter4 said:
Those dictator armies are made up of every-day people to.. people who were conscripted in to service because refusal meant death of you and your entire family and that's if they were feeling merciful.
Yes, our army can turn on us. Our army HAS turned on us. Take a look at the events that happened during Katrina where the army busted in to people's homes and forcibly removed their fire-arms. Take a look at the Occupy movements where the police launched unprovoked attacks on protesters. Any one who resisted was beaten down and/or arrested. Soldiers are trained to follow orders as an absolute. If you think that enough of them are going to have a crisis of conscience to stop a move toward a dictatorship you are wrong and painfully naive.
Frankly, your ignorance of the reality we face astounds me, and I will no longer engage you in this dialogue. Enjoy the fairy world you choose to live in. I hope to whatever deity you place your faith in you don't see it crash down around you.
I'm pretty sure the "taking away guns thing" would not work, the people who try to take the guns are likely to get shot or shot at, which I think ultimately defeats the purpose.
People always think its so easy to be part of the "resistance". When it comes down to, if I do this, if I'm caught they will kill me, they will kill my family, I will no doubt bring my friends into this, they will be killed and their familys will too. An more than likely you will loose the battle.Sylveria said:
I'd put my life on the line for a number of different reasons, would I put my family's lives at risks if they were going to be harmed because of MY actions if they were otherwise going to be left alone, I don't think I would an theres very few people that would do that.
"Revolutionary War where an army of civilians using mostly home-made rifles defeated a much more skilled, organized, and equipped military force." I know Americans LOVE to glamorize the Revolutionary war as their stand by themselves against the oppressive empire. Hell most even try and pretend the core reasons for it weren't money. But what about the French? and the Spanish? working against the British, yer everybody likes to forget about them... or how about the fact that Britain was 1000's of miles away on a journey that would take months to deliver fresh supplies or troops.
"If you want something more modern, look at the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan where relatively unorganized groups have been able to engage in guerrilla warfare against a far superior force for over a decade." and what have they achieved other than grieving family's? In terms of "winning" nothing at all, as human beings the loss of 100's of men a year is a terrible terrible cost, from the viewpoint of operational effectiveness its not really making an impact, that's probably the most callous thing I've ever written, but veiw it the way u would a RTS game its true.
As I've said any force that is prepared to instill a dictatorship is not going to play by the rules, they would use chemical weapons, public executions and massacres if need be
