“We need automatic guns so to defend against the military. ” - What???

a reply to: swanne

And here it is a right.
A right that you seem to think you get to decide on, insult about and really ignorantly comment on.

Good thing that ONLY police have firearms. I mean, I am glad that the law makes it so criminals don't have them as well.

originally posted by: macman
a reply to: swanne

You really have no clue as to warfare, tactics or history.

Au contraire, my dear. I read everything there is to know about history, its failures, its success.

If you think that a bunch of rednecks will win a modern war against a world-class military superpower, then I think it is you who should read back your history.

a reply to: swanne

Say, tell me about some of the conflicts going on now.......

Would love to hear about how asymmetrical warfare is failing, because one group has nukes and the other doesn't.

How did the Vietnam war go again?????

How about the Russian vs Afgan war, where the Russians had nukes....How did that go again????

Care to restate anything???

originally posted by: swanne


If you think that a bunch of rednecks will win a modern war against a world-class military superpower, then I think it is you who should read back your history.

Except most of those "rednecks" are/were military members.


How did that war go again with Colonialists and the "world class army/navy" of England???

originally posted by: macman
a reply to: swanne

You really have no clue as to warfare, tactics or history.

Basically, since the Govt has Nukes, and the people don't, then the people automaggically looses.

I guess someone forgot to mention that to the Vietnamese who managed to hand both France and America their collective asses over a period of 20 years

a reply to: swanne

Automatic machine guns, and tanks are very, very expensive. The average citizen has the right to own them, but not the financial resources. I cannot help but wonder if you are really talking about the scary looking AR-15. If so, it's just a semi automatic weapon that can have a large capacity magazine. I know of some .22lr weapons with much larger capacities, yet they are ignored.

But either way, a rifle is just a tool, like a hammer. How it's used will determine it's usefulness and ability to be a killing machine. (some folks have even been killed with hammers)

Let the record show that swanne asked Augustus:

This is but a vague statement, but we're getting somewhere. Please define which "weapons the average soldier has access to".

to which Augustus replied:

Firearms, ammunition, and hand held anti-personnel devices.

Then, in relation to a different post, I made the following statement:

originally posted by: EvillerBob

I understand where you're coming from with it, but you have to remember that you're not dealing with rational people.
...

Never seek to include a common sense balance, because common sense will never be applied to it.
...

This is why you can't start qualifying things, or you at least need to pick your words with the utmost care. Remember, you're dealing with the sort of people who willingly vote for the Democrat party.

...and sure enough, a few posts later, swanne comes out with the following reply to Augustus...

So, your argument is that it is utterly impossible for citizens to possess such dangerous weapons.
...
And your second argument is that every citizens should have firearms, ammunition, and hand held anti-personnel devices. Nothing more, nothing less.

Then, my friend, you just proved my OP right. After several days of debates, you actually strengthened my original post.

Well, you can't say I didn't warn you. I think this might qualify for the "accurate prophesies" forum, if ATS has such a thing

a reply to: swanne

Is there a reason why you chose to remove the statement of "you only know of police that have firearms"?

a reply to: swanne

As a currently serving member of a world class military I can assure you that the military is only as effective as its willingness to fight, and the amount of funding and uninterrupted logistical support it receives.

An American insurgency would be the mostly sophisticated, deadly, and organized in the history of such type of warfare.

We've all seen how long we've been chasing the Taliban, how much money we've spent, and how much time we've invested without much progress in the long term. How do you think it will play out in the states? No army in the world could hold the continental US. No even our own.

a reply to: swanne

Wow! For someone so versed in history, it's amazing then that you choose to ignore it, apparently.

Our own revolution was against what was, at that time, a world-class military.

What about Vietnam? Were we not a world-class military?

What about Afghanistan? Are we not a world-class military?

There are huge challenges in dealing with a guerrilla style war. Add to those challenges what our govt would experience here the in US. Add mass desertions or refusals to conduct war against fellow citizens. The only way the US could come out on top would be to exercise such a bloody and heartless campaign against it's own citizens that would rival the campaigns of the worst of the worst of dictators. We would have to have a Stalin in charge....And if the military leadership decided not to back the President, then all his little plans would come to a crashing halt with a military coup.

Versed in history, eh? Really?

a reply to: swanne

Oh...wow.

So I should take a link to the Onion seriously? Really? Really?

Perhaps you should break it down and explain, exactly, how an Onion article is pertinent. Hey! I will see your Onion article and raise you a:

Words of Wisdom


OH, and I am not the one who is claiming to be versed in history...who cannot seem to remember such small details as the American Revolution, or Vietnam for examples. So who is it that "fails to see a lot of things?"

a reply to: swanne

S. W. Anne.

Dear Anne, You live in Canada.
Closely aligned with the French and France.
The French gave us the Statute of Liberty.

The French now are currently a socialist country.

There are a lot of people who carry firearms in Canada.
In defiance of the law there.

a reply to: spirited75

The French also sold us millions of guns at the end of WWII. Hardly used and dropped only once.




Sorry...couldn't resist that one!!

Machine guns are big and heavy and easy to see (when not in an immobile camouflaged fighting position). MG ammunition is heavy (because there is a lot of it).

Machine guns are not a criminal's weapon of choice, and due to their weight are mostly defensive.

Why are they illegal?

Who would get shot by most, if not all, of them?

a reply to: Semicollegiate

They aren't really illegal... just highly regulated. I have seen a 50 caliber from the Vietnam era on sale at a gun show before. Also the 30 caliber variety (WWII?)

Maybe I should clarify: They are illegal if you possess one and do not have the appropriate licensing.

originally posted by: bbracken677
Our own revolution was against what was, at that time, a world-class military.

I wasn't aware that England had aircraft carriers, supersonic jets, tanks and nuclear bombs at that period of time.

a reply to: macman

Redundancy. Everyone knows police officers have guns. Unless some of you didn't, of course.

Why do you want to know? Seems to you are grasping for straws...

a reply to: bbracken677

They sold it to you, and you bought it.

I think they made alot of money...

a reply to: swanne

Yeah, thinking more along the lines of misstatement, or knowing that there are indeed firearms in Canada not held just by police.