It's the Guns

a reply to: Aryabhata
Spot on connection!!!! Make you wonder does it not?

a reply to: Tanga36

The founding fathers DID have the 1776 version aka the "Pennsylvania Rifles". They knew the difference a good weapon could make.

originally posted by: seagull
a reply to: poncho1982

That's the way it's supposed to work...

But the "gun-grabbers" know that that way is doomed to failure from before the get-go. So that way is to be avoided at all costs.

So the problem is that the 2nd amendment is vague thus the patchwork of laws we have here. I go back to what I said earlier there is an easy middle ground that why not making everybody 100% happy would go a long way to solve some of these issues

I do not think even California would vote to repeal the 2nd amendment

originally posted by: Krakatoa

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: projectvxn

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: projectvxn
a reply to: chr0naut

I see your instances and raise you Vietnam and Afghanistan.

Now back to your lane.

Just because, they don't win away games, doesn't negate my argument, because they have always won on home turf

Your argument is bull#.

You cannot control an armed population with jets and tanks. You need people for that. Unless the government is willing to completely flatten whole US cities, which they won't do because they need the infrastructure.

Operation Northwoods From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

... and, in the light of that, are you sure that Pearl Harbour, 911 and so forth aren't false flags? There's lots of weird stuff for the conspiracy theorists there.

Not to mention the 'limited' civilian damage of MKUltra and the Montauk Projects (among others).

The US is orders of magnitude larger than any country we have invaded. The military and police forces cannot hold all of that territory without significant losses to insurgent activities.

With our AR15s, millions of trained veterans, police and military that would refuse to side against the people, you would bear witness the deadliest and most complex insurgency in history.

Stay. In. Your. Lane.

Do you think they will come against you with hand guns and rifles? Get real.

They would shut down communications, power, water and food supply first.

Then, they have a vast array of non-lethal weapons to try. Water cannons, tear gas, diarrhea and pain inducing weapons.

If none of that worked, they have tanks, bombs, drones, aircraft, bio-weapons and nerve agents.

Honestly, the public would, probably, never even see their opponents before they were taken down.

You obviously know zero about asymmetric warfare and the power of bad PR. Do you honestly believe that other countries will sit idly by as the US Govt fires on their own people in that manner?

Yes.

The US stood idly by while Europe was being decimated by the second world war, and through other conflicts afflicting its allies. Your politicians said it was the will of the people to not get involved in the issues of other nations.

I think if the nations of the world took votes to decide to intervene in the US, or not, everyone would prefer to 'let the them sort out their own troubles".

If you do, you truly do live in a delusional tyrannical system, that has you so indoctrinated as to think you have no chance challenging them.

Their work was well done upon your mind.

I can cite history.

I'm neither delusional nor indoctrinated.

originally posted by: Graysen

originally posted by: chr0naut

The US is orders of magnitude larger than any country we have invaded. The military and police forces cannot hold all of that territory without significant losses to insurgent activities.

With our AR15s, millions of trained veterans, police and military that would refuse to side against the people, you would bear witness the deadliest and most complex insurgency in history.

Stay. In. Your. Lane.

Do you think they will come against you with hand guns and rifles? Get real.

They would shut down communications, power, water and food supply first.

Then, they have a vast array of non-lethal weapons to try. Water cannons, tear gas, diarrhea and pain inducing weapons.

If none of that worked, they have tanks, bombs, drones, aircraft, bio-weapons and nerve agents.

Honestly, the public would, probably, never even see their opponents before they were taken down.

All the world powers' war machines are based on the US model of a "commuter conflict" against insurgents. Where troops are airlifted into a firefight, then airlifted or driven back to the rear afterwards.

This doctrine became standard after Vietnam. Up through the battle of Mogadishu.

It's based on the presumption that the soldier will fight, knowing that his family and civilian life are safe, "back home."

The US military is seriously handicapped in any attempt to hold the US against the will of the civilian populace.

-most police headquarters are downtown, in the canyons of the inner city.

-most military bases in the US only have a chain link perimeter, if that. Many of the most important ones are located on the edge of urban and industrial neighborhoods. With long highways for avenues of approach.

-US domestic military bases are totally dependent on the civilian supply chain of electricity and fuel. Utilities are uniquely vulnerable to insurgents, as shown in Iraq and Afghanistan. And with a foreign belligerent supplying aid to the insurgency, things like rocket launchers and ATWs find their way into civilian hands.

The US supplied the Mujahedin, just like the Iranian Republican guard supplied the insurgents in Iraq.

It has always been that way. In the US revolutionary war, the American forces initially had zero artillery. But the Spanish, and then the French stepped in to bankroll the patriot effort to subvert the forces of the occupying empire.

I'm sure in a modern US civilian uprising, the Mexican drug cartels would be battling each other to supply anti-tank and anti-air weapons to the insurgent American forces. SO would china, for that matter.

I think that the armed forces can set up generators, tents and have logistics that would tide them through a domestic action.

They would also take control of infrastructure vital to the rebels.

They could starve them out, besieged in their own communities.

originally posted by: mortex
What a silly post.
An armed populace in a militia is a deterrent to tyrants. It is also a deterent and another factor thst an invading force has to factor in. It will cost more lives dle an invader.

The fact you can not comprehend something so basic amd obvious as demonstrated by your post is amazing.

If you really think guns cant be used to protect ones freedom and liberties, you..well..lol.
Guns form part of a defence force or military. Are you going to say they don't play a role there? You going to ask who the enemy is?

Who is the enemy?
Is your enemy today necessarily your enemy tomorrow.
Did the USA once fight on the same side as Russia and China technically?
Would you call the relationship the USA has with both as friendly and on good terms?

You either unintentionally ignorant or you chooseto be.

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Generation9
a reply to: ErEhWoN

The American public has common sense. Guns protect our freedom.

Explain how guns protect your freedom?

If you think you can defend yourself against the military, you are deluded.

If you draw a gun on police (or if they think you are doing so), they have been trained to shoot for the center of your body mass in reaction. Things will most likely not end well.

Once upon a time, trained militias had the capability of defending the rights of citizen groups, but who is in a militia these days? The paramilitary groups are too small to oppose government agencies, the military or the police.

And, just for a minute, consider if the words "freedom" or "liberty" are even valid to use in the situation. At the time of the war of independence, the US had slavery and the British didn't. In fact that 'libertine' state of the US was one of the last countries in the world to abolish slavery. Such freedom under the Constitution!

And, look at the situation today, look at your prisons. There are more people in prison, and a higher percentage of citizens per capita, than any other country in the world. On those grounds, the US is the least free nation on Earth.

But wave that flag like crazy and keep chanting the slogans they taught you in your indoctrination civics classes. Then you can be excused for not reasoning out the obvious.

Your enemy wants you to lay down your gun and give up. Just roll over and die.

Who is this enemy that is seeking to kill or enslave you? Is slavery even legal or condoned by any nation? I'm fairly sure that murder is illegal across the planet, too.

Also, don't you know of the gun death statistics? Lots of people are dying of GSW. The vast majority of them are killed by their own gun! It's not some 'pew pew' game of goodies vs. baddies.

Seems like you lack common sense.

Really?

The US government would suggest that the rebels were traitors and terrorists. They would't go after them with the military in the first instance, but rather with the standard policing. When it failed to control the populace, then the military would be called in.

All through such conflict there would be many Americans who emphatically side with their government. Even if that government was randomly rounding up and killing people by the thousands. Those people would continue to echo the government's descriptions of its opponents as traitors and terrorists. As has always been.

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: chr0naut

Of course I give a crap. I'd be happy to hand it to you by the steaming load.

At least you own up to your posts.

Site the "statutory" law stating one can buy a car.
I will wait.....

If you mean that you want me to quote the details of a law to you, you should ask me to 'cite' the law.

Statutory laws usually stipulate what is not allowed rather than what is allowed. However, there are very many statutes covering the purchase of a car.

For instance, under consumer protection there is the Magnusson-Moss Warranty Act of 1975 (Public Law 93-675), which covers all sales of goods of value greater than $25.

There is also the Uniform Commercial Code (Tender, Acceptance, Rejection and Revocation, or TARR) which covers most sales requirements, in all states, for sales of goods.

There are also 'lemon' protection laws that vary from state to state. As are there safety and fitness for purpose laws.

Ps
What you think, as a non citizen, means nothing here.
There is not support here to change the 2nd amendment.

I know, but I don't think being a citizen here gives any more credence to the debate, either.

Law makers probably never visit the site (note the spelling) as a point of reference, or as an measure of public opinion.

Pps
When siting

citing

government over reach you left one instance out....i wonder why...

www.vox.com...

But hundreds of protesters — some of whom were armed militia members — assembled in support of Bundy. The situation threatened to get violent, and so the government backed down and returned the cattle to Bundy.

We WILL STAND UP
The govt WILL back down.

THAT is why WE have the RIGHT.

It clearly is the exception and does not support my argument. That is why I didn't use it.

I also left out other examples, such as the Branch Davidians at Waco, Texas, and Ruby Ridge, and the use of the National Guard to prevent coloured students from attending school at Little Rock. These were all conflicts where there was government overreach but in these cases, some parts of the government opposed others. Such cases do not clearly support either side of the debate and so were better omitted.

NRA or Americans, which one is more important to our President? does anybody know?

originally posted by: ErEhWoN
gizmodo.com...

Senator Tammy Duckworth

Living in Illinois like I do, I've come up against Duckworth. I've even corresponded with her a couple times. From the very first words out of her mouth, I could tell she was a Looney Lefty, intent on taking people's guns being her agenda. She is yet more bad news for Illinois. (Which is the worst state in the Union for a lot of things.)

a reply to: chr0naut
And your posts are still self admittedly crap.

Statutory laws usually stipulate what is not allowed rather than what is allowed.

So then you knowingly lie?
Tlb

It clearly is the exception and does not support my argument.

The other incidents you referenced were not ongoing and caused protests and investigations when completed.
We will not let our government disarm us.
Period.
As you are not from here you simply cannot understand.

Flap your gums all you like you simply dont get it.

a reply to: TrulyColorBlind

What's the average yearly murder rate in Chicago? like 5,000+ a year or more out of the ~8,000-10,000 murder with guns in the whole U.S.? And we are talking about the city with the most stringent gun control laws in the whole U.S... Then there is New Murder York, Calihellfornia, New Orleans, etc...

originally posted by: MichaelAdams
NRA or Americans, which one is more important to our President? does anybody know?

How about both, since there is a RIGTH written in the U.S. Constitution, and within the Bill of Rights, about people having a right to own and bear arms?...

a reply to: ErEhWoN

It's a false comparison. Let's be honest, no one here cares about "gun deaths." Gun death is no worse than any other type of death. DO you care if joe blow down the street offs himself via gun vs drug overdose or hanging? That's what most gun deaths are, suicide. When you get into murder and even mass shootings you find out that most of it is actually gang related. Guess what, gang members are almost all illegally carrying a gun. So your fancy pants laws won't help. They'll just disarm the innocent.

What people here want to stop is mass shootings in public places (schools, malls, etc). Notice how tammy the duck changes her wording from mass shootings to gun deaths when she starts talking stats. Well that's because those other countries actually have more mass shootings per capita than the US. We're not even top 10.

But see, to admit that we aren't top 10 would be to admit that it absolutely could be those other things she lists that she claims are not the problem. That doesn't go along with the agenda to disarm the american population.

a reply to: MichaelAdams

The NRA is a group of 5.5+ million americans. It's not one or the other. They're the same. How many NRA members have been involved in a mass shooting? 0. So why the hate for the NRA?

originally posted by: Tanga36

originally posted by: Tortuga
blow things up with canons

"blow things up with canons"

And they like to blow things up with their Nikons, too.

edit on 22-9-2019 by TrulyColorBlind because: Something wrong happened with the coding. Trying To fix it.

originally posted by: ErEhWoN
gizmodo.com...

"But they don’t have mass shootings like we do".

"318 mass shootings in 260 days".

"They", Don't have a population like "you do", which translates to more shootings per capita than most other nations. But as a percentage while taking into account the populations of other nations, the number ends up being about the same.

Of those 318 Mass shootings, less than one percent (I'm being generous here), were commited by politically or religiously motivated nutjobs with assault weapons or other legally owned guns. The vast majority were eiher gang related, crimes of passion, robberies, domestic disputes or drug related, mostly comitted with illegally owned firearms.

The left is really good at "not", breaking down the numbers to further their cause..lol

a reply to: chr0naut

The US government would suggest that the rebels were traitors and terrorists. They would't go after them with the military in the first instance, but rather with the standard policing. When it failed to control the populace, then the military would be called in.

9 million sq kilometers of land, 560k roughly active duty army, think its like 2.1 million total military in uniform... 40 million gun owning households, 22 million veterans.

If you look at the number alone there are no generals that would say yeah lets violate the law and get involved inside the continental US.
Add in these soldiers, sailors, Airmen, and Marines would be shooting friends, family members, or people that looked like them and lived in the same type of neighborhoods growing up as the military, how long till the military starts looking at the govt as the problem, or just goes F it if I dont fight they have nobody to make me fight.

a reply to: FredT

There's really nothing vague about it, save for some peoples understanding of the phrases, and their meaning, in the 18th century.

If people took the moments necessary to understand them, the meaning behind the 2nd amendment becomes clear as crystal.

The one sentence amendment is just about as unvague as it gets, to my mind...

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

But people have allowed that patchwork of laws to be promulgated through a lack of basic understanding of what the authors of the Constitution were after.

These men were very familiar with the threat that an overweening, tyrannical govt poses to the people, and the wording of the second amendment reflects that knowledge. Particularly this part: Shall not be infringed.

The battles at Lexington and Concord were fought when the British Army was order to...wait for it...

...wait...

Confiscate firearms. Ironic, no?

originally posted by: Irishhaf
a reply to: chr0naut

The US government would suggest that the rebels were traitors and terrorists. They would't go after them with the military in the first instance, but rather with the standard policing. When it failed to control the populace, then the military would be called in.

9 million sq kilometers of land, 560k roughly active duty army, think its like 2.1 million total military in uniform... 40 million gun owning households, 22 million veterans.

If you look at the number alone there are no generals that would say yeah lets violate the law and get involved inside the continental US.
Add in these soldiers, sailors, Airmen, and Marines would be shooting friends, family members, or people that looked like them and lived in the same type of neighborhoods growing up as the military, how long till the military starts looking at the govt as the problem, or just goes F it if I dont fight they have nobody to make me fight.

The government would be targeting terrorist, traitor, illegal, liberal, rebel, Democrats, probably in a large population center like New York. You just make sure that the troops attacking 'liberating' any city, weren't from there. It's a big country.

And, like I said, the troops are a last resort.

How do you think that the Nazi's did their thing? The real troops never took Berlin, yet they managed to shuffle out 200,000 citizens with Jewish heritage to ghettos and then to concentration camps. They were the Berliner's friends, family and neighbors.

How did the Serbs deal with those of Croatian heritage?

How did the Russians deal with the Chechen's?

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: chr0naut
And your posts are still self admittedly crap.

Statutory laws usually stipulate what is not allowed rather than what is allowed.

So then you knowingly lie?
Tlb

No, how could you construe me, answering your question honestly, with cited examples, as a lie?

You have repeatedly called me, and others whom you disagree with, liars. Instead, they were telling you a simple truth that you did not like. Do you think that any other readers who have been reading the posts are intellectually defunct enough to actually believe you?

Also, you repeatedly tell your opponents they are clueless. They are not. They are expressing valid opinions with reasoned argument and you respond with a baseless insult.

When a child throws a temper tantrum in a supermarket, because they can't get a sweet, do you think that is anything more than childish? Don't emulate it.

It clearly is the exception and does not support my argument.

The other incidents you referenced were not ongoing and caused protests and investigations when completed.
We will not let our government disarm us.
Period.
As you are not from here you simply cannot understand.

Flap your gums all you like you simply dont get it.

I never said they were ongoing nor that they went un-protested. All of the examples I gave were not ongoing and were protested so your counter argument is waaay beside the actual point, that the US government will turn on US citizens and that an armed citizenship will merely mean that the government will be more ready to act to overpower with deadly force.

They do periodic military exercises to prepare for urban conflict. They are prepared for it. US Army Training For Urban Warfare - Rense.com