The Second Amendment is not being properly used

page: 3
24
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 13 2012 @ 04:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by THE_PROFESSIONAL


This is how much of a Pro I was in BF2, I played as good as this:


You must use skills like almost as good as mine to defend your neighborhoods
edit on 013131p://8America/ChicagoSun, 12 Aug 2012 01:00:58 -0500 by THE_PROFESSIONAL because: (no reason given)


You really did say that didn't you? Do you know how much of an indictment on your own argument that is? You are comparing killing people in a video game to you (and everyone on your street) having access to any weapon? You think I would be comfortable with you having a nuclear bomb?

My word, you are a strange person.




posted on Aug, 13 2012 @ 04:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by SLAYER69

Originally posted by THE_PROFESSIONAL
This is how much of a Pro I was in BF2, I played as good as this:
You must use skills like almost as good as mine to defend your neighborhoods


I personally appreciate the sentiment....

No offense PROFESSIONAL, but in real war there are no do-overs, no re-spawning and no instant health packs to take you back to 100%

edit on 12-8-2012 by SLAYER69 because: (no reason given)


Really "Professional":

Please tell me you DID NOT(!) just proudly post videos of videogameplay as evidence of paramilitary skills...(?)

"You're killin' me"...I gotta' quit coming back here.
edit on 13-8-2012 by 46ACE because: (no reason given)
edit on 13-8-2012 by 46ACE because: (no reason given)
edit on 13-8-2012 by 46ACE because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 13 2012 @ 05:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by THE_PROFESSIONAL

Do not let the stooges in the congress think that it is just guns your are allowed. You are allowed any weapon that the US government has, any tanks, attack helicopters, hellfire missiles. You are all allowed to have these arms without a doubt 100%. They are limiting assault rifles etc, go get your guided missiles and attack helos and armored vehicles and defend your neighborhoods.

edit on 013131p://8America/ChicagoSun, 12 Aug 2012 01:00:58 -0500 by THE_PROFESSIONAL because: (no reason given)


While I agree with you, this isn't very practical. Even if we were permitted to buy these, have you seen the price tag on the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter? I don't see that many people being able to afford a lot of the cool Government owned vehicles.
"Hey Joe, Governments' gone too far this time, time to launch your air craft carrier" is not a realistic scenario.

I do agree with you though, and RPGs, MK-19s, 249s, and everything else we have. should be legal to purchase.
edit on 13-8-2012 by CalebRight14 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 13 2012 @ 06:15 PM
link   
Good point & kudos to fuel for thought!



posted on Aug, 13 2012 @ 06:17 PM
link   
reply to post by SLAYER69
 


Who said anything about me re-spawning, I was just that good

Anyway yes real life is not a video game, but you see the same tactics in game theory being played out in real life.

Don't tell me you joined because you thought the military was just like COD but better graphics right..?
edit on 063131p://8America/ChicagoMon, 13 Aug 2012 18:25:08 -0500 by THE_PROFESSIONAL because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 13 2012 @ 06:29 PM
link   
Really you need to ask what are you protecting yourself from?
From your own government!
The American government is the most secretive in the world.
You have a lot to fear from them.

And I totally agree that a “Militia”
Should have all the weapons they can get.
But a well trained militia. In Guerrilla warfare!
And spy on the government.

America should Never have had so many states as one country.
They should have been independent from the start.
Yes they would at time be wars with them.
But they(us) would have never had the chance to take over the world.
As they are doing now.


edit on 13-8-2012 by buddha because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 13 2012 @ 06:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by THE_PROFESSIONAL
reply to post by SLAYER69
 


Who said anything about me re-spawning, I was just that good

Anyway yes real life is not a video game, but you see the same tactics in game theory being played out in real life.

Don't tell me you joined because you thought the military was just like COD but better graphics right..?
edit on 063131p://8America/ChicagoMon, 13 Aug 2012 18:25:08 -0500 by THE_PROFESSIONAL because: (no reason given)


In real life you have the consequences of shooting the wrong person/s

In real life you have the consequences of killing someone brandishing what could be either a toy gun or one filled with blanks

In real life someone else with a gun may believe you are the hostile and kill you

In real life there is a reason the kind of weapons you list are left to people who are paid and trained every day to use based on rules of engagement.

edit on 13-8-2012 by something wicked because: typo



posted on Aug, 13 2012 @ 06:37 PM
link   
You people


This thread is not about an "interesting point of view"

It's data-mining.

OP soft-suggests disarming our own army through revolution, then waits to see who shows up to the party...


The added video game crap is for you to be at ease.


edit on 13-8-2012 by Signals because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 13 2012 @ 06:40 PM
link   
reply to post by something wicked
 





In real life you have the consequences of shooting the wrong person/s


Weapons are not always meant to kill people but can be used to strategic and tactical advantage, for instance destroying a bridge or vehicle depot




In real life you have the consequences of killing someone brandishing what could be either a toy gun or one filled with blanks


I am well aware of consequences, im not some redneck inbred hillbilly




In real life someone else with a gun may believe you are the hostile and kill you


Its about tactics and stealth. Don;t let anyone ever know you have a weapon. I am not speaking about guns here, I am speaking about more powerful weapons being used tactfully as I demonstrated.




In real life there is a reason the kind of weapons you list are left to people who are paid and trained dayly to use based on rules of engagement.


I defend my neighborhood for free. Military training is not a prerequisite for being good in certain skills.
edit on 063131p://8America/ChicagoMon, 13 Aug 2012 18:41:27 -0500 by THE_PROFESSIONAL because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 13 2012 @ 06:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by CalebRight14
While I agree with you, this isn't very practical. Even if we were permitted to buy these, have you seen the price tag on the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter? I don't see that many people being able to afford a lot of the cool Government owned vehicles.
"Hey Joe, Governments' gone too far this time, time to launch your air craft carrier" is not a realistic scenario.


What you have to take into account also, is that if people were allowed to posses the same weaponry platforms that the military has, there would be lower cost versions and competition. When the military has a monopoly on defense related items, their contracts are bloated. Other nations produce fighters, ships, tanks etc far cheaper than the US does. There can be debate on the quality, superiority etc.

Many times in history, forces have clashed where one side was outclassed by gear, but ingenuity and tactics won the day. Unfortunately now, we don't even have the option.



posted on Aug, 13 2012 @ 07:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by THE_PROFESSIONAL
reply to post by something wicked
 







I defend my neighborhood for free. Military training is not a prerequisite for being good in certain skills.
edit on 063131p://8America/ChicagoMon, 13 Aug 2012 18:41:27 -0500 by THE_PROFESSIONAL because: (no reason given)


(breathes sigh of relief you aren't my neighbour)
edit on 13-8-2012 by something wicked because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 13 2012 @ 07:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by THE_PROFESSIONAL
reply to post by something wicked
 





In real life you have the consequences of shooting the wrong person/s


Weapons are not always meant to kill people but can be used to strategic and tactical advantage, for instance destroying a bridge or vehicle depot




In real life you have the consequences of killing someone brandishing what could be either a toy gun or one filled with blanks


I am well aware of consequences, im not some redneck inbred hillbilly




In real life someone else with a gun may believe you are the hostile and kill you


Its about tactics and stealth. Don;t let anyone ever know you have a weapon. I am not speaking about guns here, I am speaking about more powerful weapons being used tactfully as I demonstrated.




In real life there is a reason the kind of weapons you list are left to people who are paid and trained dayly to use based on rules of engagement.


I defend my neighborhood for free. Military training is not a prerequisite for being good in certain skills.
edit on 063131p://8America/ChicagoMon, 13 Aug 2012 18:41:27 -0500 by THE_PROFESSIONAL because: (no reason given)


A one man army and law enforcement agency..... I hate to say this but maybe your video gaming skills (which may be impressive, I don't really care) don't actually give you any more rights than anyone else to decide who to kill. Sheesh, I really wonder sometimes about the state of humanity.



posted on Aug, 13 2012 @ 08:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wolf321

Originally posted by CalebRight14
While I agree with you, this isn't very practical. Even if we were permitted to buy these, have you seen the price tag on the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter? I don't see that many people being able to afford a lot of the cool Government owned vehicles.
"Hey Joe, Governments' gone too far this time, time to launch your air craft carrier" is not a realistic scenario.


What you have to take into account also, is that if people were allowed to posses the same weaponry platforms that the military has, there would be lower cost versions and competition. When the military has a monopoly on defense related items, their contracts are bloated. Other nations produce fighters, ships, tanks etc far cheaper than the US does. There can be debate on the quality, superiority etc.

Many times in history, forces have clashed where one side was outclassed by gear, but ingenuity and tactics won the day. Unfortunately now, we don't even have the option.


You are correct, However it will not be low enough. The OP specifically mentions Helicopters, so I'll use those as an example.

Comanche Helicopter, $32.2 million a piece, if you buy in bulk


Even the more Modest Super Cobra costs 10 million a piece. Compare this to a private helicopter, that for multi-seat craft start at around the $150,000 range, and quickly scale up from there. How many people do you know that can actually afford that? Keep in mind, more advanced military helicopters will always cost more(millions), and then there is the cost of fuel, ammo, rockets, maintenance ect. Add that up and it is very few people in the country that can actually afford one.

Drones would have more buyers, but even the predator drone costs over 4 million. We might have a few drones, but we wouldn't have many civilian owned Tanks, Helios or Jets.



posted on Aug, 13 2012 @ 08:31 PM
link   
If there wasn't so much tyranny in the world we wouldn't need aircraft carriers, tanks and nukes but since tyranny has gotten so out of control,this is where we are now.



posted on Aug, 13 2012 @ 09:46 PM
link   
reply to post by CalebRight14
 


Of course it could cost you millions if you try to buy the same exact thing the government is using. Think of it like this, when KIA entered the market in the US, you could get above the lowest end model for less than half of its nearest competitor. The same would happen with militarized planes, vehicles etc.

When dealing with military grade vehicles and aircraft, some of the heaviest costs go into specialty material and software. If the civilian market were open to such things, you would have open source software. You also pointed out that civilian aircraft can start at $150k. Consider used aircraft and people making home mods or retrofitting etc. Not to mention the numerous sport and ultralight aircraft that can be modified to serve in surveillance and attack roles. Here are a few examples that, while not for use against military aircraft, can be used as an air asset to take on ground forces and they don't necessarily require a pilots license.







By the nature of the items, tanks, helicopters, aircraft etc, they wouldn't be the kind of things everyone would acquire. Again, it isn't a game of numbers, or superiority.

Consider the recent arab uprisings. Not accounting for foreign interventions, local rebel groups were able to cobble together armored , fast attack and even anti-aircraft vehicles. They were not multimillion dollar versions like their counterparts, but they were able to use them in ways to disrupt supplies, harass, and take over superior technology for their use.

In an true revolution in the US, you can expect Americans to be just as clever in making tools as needed. However, that is not the point. The point is that the founders wanted us to have the ability at all times to keep the government from feeling froggy enough to even try to take our rights away.

I agree that drones are the way to go. RC planes and cars can be retrofitted for surveillance, armed with guns or 'kamikaze' attacks at low cost.

I still think that there would be enough people with the money or resources to modify aircraft, tanks etc. If you had the money and a place to park it, wouldn't you want a tank or a helicopter? I would


I do think that even if everything were legal, the US military would always have the better gear when if comes to big assets like jets, tanks etc. However, I would not expect many direct engagements of civilian vs military platforms. I would expect civilians to use their resources to make attacks of buildings, infrastructure, supply lines and to slow down attacks by military forces. As such, there isn't much of a need to win a direct battle by those platforms. Instead, the goal is to diminish the military's capability to sustain their forces, or pursue an attack.



posted on Aug, 13 2012 @ 10:09 PM
link   
Well nobody cares, so enjoy having what you have now as long as it lasts.


That is what it comes down to....what will people fight for. What will they raise their voices over.

For most people, it's a sports game.

"Fight tyranny? What's that?"

This country is toast...the minds of the masses have been captured.



posted on Aug, 13 2012 @ 10:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by THE_PROFESSIONAL
Don't tell me you joined because you thought the military was just like COD but better graphics right..?


Family tradition.

NVM...

edit on 13-8-2012 by SLAYER69 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 13 2012 @ 10:20 PM
link   
reply to post by Wolf321
 


Wolf, we both agree in that people would be inventive, but lets look at the result of the recent Arab "conflicts". Yes, they can do some damage, but they have no hope of actually beating us. It's a joke, they are way outmatched, and we could easily level the entire population.

The craft you posted would only have a shot if our Military pilots were completely caught off guard, and one of them had a home made rocket launcher that was a lucky shot. I mean come on, you have to see that anything the civilian force could bring to bare, this day and age, would be vastly inferior to what we have as a military.
Would the rest of the world come in and assault our military to overthrow our government like what is being talked about for Syria? Possibly, though I doubt it. I would bet though, that US citizens would not be benefited by this.

Hitting supply lines would be the best way to go, but I am less than sure it could be done with enough coordination to win.

If it came down to it, we would need to rely on the Honor of our current military members, in that they will support the constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. Any other alternative is a bloodbath.

The correction of our Government needs to be done at local, elected official levels, and up to the Federal level. I am a strong believer in the 2nd amendment, But I don't think we could match our government if it declared war on it's own citizens.

edit on 13-8-2012 by CalebRight14 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 13 2012 @ 10:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by CalebRight14
Wolf, we both agree in that people would be inventive, but lets look at the result of the recent Arab "conflicts". Yes, they can do some damage, but they have no hope of actually beating us. It's a joke, they are way outmatched, and we could easily level the entire population.

The craft you posted would only have a shot if our Military pilots were completely caught off guard, and one of them had a home made rocket launcher that was a lucky shot. I mean come on, you have to see that anything the civilian force could bring to bare, this day and age, would be vastly inferior to what we have as a military.
Would the rest of the world come in and assault our military to overthrow our government like what is being talked about for Syria? Possibly, though I doubt it. I would bet though, that US citizens would not be benefited by this.


I don't think we are on the same page here. My posts to the thread and your posts were to point out that the US civilian population should not be limited or prohibited from acquiring any of the same technologies that the US military could use as tools of oppression. That the 2nd Amendment exist so the people can resist and depose tyrannical governments.

You said that civilians simply couldn't afford the same military platforms. I agreed that the majority couldn't, but that their would be cheaper competitors that would serve in the same roles as well as other craft that if militarized could be used against oppressive US military forces.

I tried to be clear that such resource would not be intended to directly counter the advanced platforms currently employed by the US military. Likewise, I did not say anything about those resource being the sole defenders against any such foreign military forces. When discussing the arab conflicts, I was referring to Egypt, Libya, Syria etc. In those cases, internal civilian populations didn't need superior or equal technology to dispose of their governments. The same could be said for the US if such a case were to rise, although we should not have the need to craft the tools to counter, as the 2nd Amendment should have ensured our equal access to types of arms to counter the government.

If everything were allowable, unlike at present, civilians would have tanks, jet fighters, attack helicopters etc. While they likely couldn't win in a direct engagement, as I have pointed out, as a tool of rebellion or defense, the people would be victorious.



posted on Aug, 13 2012 @ 10:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by CalebRight14
If it came down to it, we would need to rely on the Honor of our current military members, in that they will support the constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. Any other alternative is a bloodbath.

The correction of our Government needs to be done at local, elected official levels, and up to the Federal level. I am a strong believer in the 2nd amendment, But I don't think we could match our government if it declared war on it's own citizens.


I just caught this edit and wanted to respond.

I agree that as things stand, the use of the military against american citizens would be short lived because the forces would be going against their own families and friends. I would expect that an attack on the people would be by contracted forces along the lines of Blackwater.

I am not advocating attacking the government in order to overthrown them. However, I do not think that the problems that we have accrued are beyond repair by elections at any level.

As we are seeing, as government become more and more oppressive, bordering on sheer tyranny, they abuse power and take away the rights of people. In doing so they always come to get the people. It is in those instances that the people should stand their ground, and their brothers and neighbors should be standing with them. Defense. Resist. Make them not want to risk their lives to enact their oppression. Sadly, in that aspect we are outgunned, contrary to the 2nd Amendment.
edit on 13-8-2012 by Wolf321 because: (no reason given)





top topics
 
24
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join