Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Big_Dog

Tougher Gun Laws - Yea or Nea

2,320 posts in this topic

Just now, Rocko said:

Theres absolutely a need for militias. 

The state militias were federalized under the National Guard. The states have no organized militia unless you want to count stuff like the Georgia Defense Force. What we have are just random armed people who pose no real threat to anyone but other individuals. The government has zero reason to fear you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Rocko said:

The government has no reason to fear militias either.  The national guard isnt even independent of uncle Sam anymore so that's not a comparison and every military ever has had regulars and irregulars. But to say random armed and train people couldn't cause a headache for a tyranical government or invading government clearly hasn't paid attention to any wars in the last 50 years including Afghanistan in both the cold war and post 911 wars or Iraq for that matter. Wars arent fought in lines anymore and resistance is guerilla warfare now. Which is almost an impossibility to stop. 

Do you seriously think the problem is subduing Afghanistan over the centuries has been because of random armed people and not the terrain, organized tribal armed forces, and militia/militant groups? Do you think the Taliban is just random armed people? LOL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Rocko said:

You missed where I said trained and armed. Theres a whole lot of militias in America full of ex military training them and they are made up of random people who decided to join and train and learn.  Yes I think the any government would have trouble subduing an armed populace in America especially one that has trained irregulars. 

Not really. You'd need significant defections from the military to actually organize, lead them, take control of bases, etc., as happened in Syria and Yemen. If not then they'd just get snuffed out like the Libyan rebels were going to be until foreign powers intervened and caused the entire country to implode.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Rocko said:

A war in the Us wouldn't consist of holding bases.  But of guerilla warfare

They took the bases in Syria in order to deprive government forces of force projection points, airfields, and to destroy equipment and vehicles they couldn't use so the military couldn't in case they took the areas back. Keeping control of bases is how the SAA maintained a foothold in eastern regions and were the focal points of retaking those territories.

Like... C'mon. This is basic **** that you can see happening in the world right now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Rocko said:

Lol maybe you should leave the 2nd alone and not get people killed by calling police on them. I can tell you the majority of older individuals I know would have 100% resisted like this guy including my dad. Get him killed with this unconstitutional nonsense and you'll see why the founding fathers added the 2nd.

lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Rocko said:

That's great but that's not how it would work in America. 

Indeed. How it would work in America is that you'd be obliterated by drones and mopped up by soldiers with vastly better technology than you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Psychic Gibbon said:

Indeed. How it would work in America is that you'd be obliterated by drones and mopped up by soldiers with vastly better technology than you.

Not really.  Congressmen and Senators would be the neighbors of the 80 million gun owners that were fighting against the less than 2 million us military members.   Trying to attack an armed population in the US would be futile.  Also, you assume that the US military would be attack its own citizens.  I know quite a few veterans and active duty military who would not attack us citizens in this goofy scenario that your speaking.  You would need to create some kind of special police and then target a specific group of people first.  You can probably find a good model of this somewhere in history.  First you need to demonize the group well enough that the majority at least has a general distrust of the group.  Once you are able to use the force of the government on your chosen group, then you just gradually include others.  Like I said, yous can probably find a good guide in history on how this is done.  It would be alot easier, though, if you started by disarming the population.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Population of Afghanistan: ~35 million

Number of American Gun Owners: ~80 million

The idea that the US Military could just wage war against Americans on American soil and not completely destroy the country is absurd.

Edited by Flip Flop

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Rocko said:

Yeah that wouldn't be a humanitarian nightmare in the 1st world.  

You're talking about a guerrilla war in the United States. Pretending they wouldn't put you down with the tools they have available is just silly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Rocko said:

Geneva would have a field day hauling everyone in for war crimes if they started droning civilian neighborhoods in the us.  Not to mention as flip said the police and military are in large numbers going to defend their families and friends rather than join this war on the side of uncle sam

We do that every day in the Middle East, my dude. Name one of our leaders in the Hague.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, Rocko said:

Middle east vs 1st world 

The government took out a couple far right wingnuts/cults/militias in the 90s. Namely Waco and Ruby Ridge. It's not that crazy to think they could do it again. I've always thought the idea that people have guns so they can protect themselves against the government is ridiculous because the government has way more firepower in the event that you and a few comrades decide to go up against them.

I guess if you feel strongly enough you get to die for your principles but what's that matter when you're dead?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Rocko said:

Those are people in bases out away from.populations not urban warfare 

I think the people who are big on guns, to the point of daring the government to come and take them, are more likely to live in those rural areas than urban ones. On a whole, people in urban areas don't value guns that much.

But I do agree with you that the government will not wage warfare on a significant number of their populace

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/22/2018 at 2:28 PM, JayOzOne said:

 

 

It’s interesting to read that essay and see how she hits the nail on the head regarding the problem, and CNN ignores that to talk about guns. 

Typical. And precisely the reason we can’t have a reasonable conversation. 

WalkingTheDawg likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://www.postandcourier.com/news/sheriff-woman-kills-sc-jail-escapee-who-kicks-in-her/article_1c6ff286-db66-583f-8738-3b3f0b573f67.html

 

The woman was home alone and had gone through training to get a concealed weapons permit, Clark said.

Bruce McLaughlin Jr., 30, died from a gunshot to the head, Pickens County Coroner Kandy Kelley said.

 

[Insert Curly Bill gif here]

JDaveG and WalkingTheDawg like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/4/2018 at 4:43 PM, kicker said:

https://www.postandcourier.com/news/sheriff-woman-kills-sc-jail-escapee-who-kicks-in-her/article_1c6ff286-db66-583f-8738-3b3f0b573f67.html

 

The woman was home alone and had gone through training to get a concealed weapons permit, Clark said.

Bruce McLaughlin Jr., 30, died from a gunshot to the head, Pickens County Coroner Kandy Kelley said.

 

[Insert Curly Bill gif here]

Libral's mind set "How dare she use a gun to protect herself the criminals have rights"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@JDaveG

What will this accomplish in your opinion?

The Trump administration is banning bump stocks, the devices that allow semi-automatic guns to shoot hundreds of rounds of ammunition per minute, the Department of Justice said Tuesday.

The rule, which was first reported by CNN, comes almost a year after President Trump ordered the Justice Department to make the change in the wake of multiple mass shootings.

Gun owners with bump stocks will have 90 days to turn them in after the final rule is published in the Federal Register, according to CNN.

Trump's call for the ban rule came days after a gunman killed 17 people at a high school in Parkland, Fla. Though there are no reports that a bump stock was used in that attack, one was used by the gunman who killed almost 60 people and wounded more than 500 at a country music festival in Las Vegas in October 2017.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0