why the left hates guns

[slim 1,525]

Of course it's terrorism - if you advocate using "firepower" and violence to counter the authority of a democratically elected government because you don't like its policies - then you are advocating terrorism. QED.

I'd be advocating armed rebellion and insurgency... not necessarily terrorism.

Let's be specific here - you don't like healthcare reform. What are you going to do? Say "enough, by Jiminy!" and march down to DC? Try to take over your State government? Or are you just going to sit at home posturing about how having a sizeable gun collection makes you a patriot?

I'm all for democratic process. But what are you going to do when your government starts ignoring your requests? When they toss aside the constitution to pursue their own interests?

Are you going to peacably assemble and petition them?

Just what is it that you want to do with your "firepower"?

I want to remind the govenment that they can't overstep their obligations. That folks like me - patriots - will defy them by force if necessary. I' like to remind you - and folks like you - that you can be all the majority you want, make all the requests you want, but when it comes down to it, you're ineffective against the government's will.

Before you get your panties in a wad I'll add that we're still a long way off from that being necessary.

You're trying to play with numbers again. Otherwise only 5 times Australia's 260 should equal 1,300, instead of the actual 16 thousand.

You conveniently forget that per capita means 450% more for every 100,000 Americans. Now how many hundreds of thousands of people are there here? thus the 63 times overall homicide rate.

You switched 'em yet again. 63 times 260 gets us to 16,000. However 260/AUS population = 5X 16,000/US Pop. That means we only have 5 times the homicide rate. We have 63 times the number of homicides, nobody's disputed that. However, we have ONLY 5 times the homicide rate. Get it now?

It's terrorism and treason. Otherwise, Slim should have no problem with Al Qaeda, because they are simply a militia exercising the 2nd amendment.

It's treason... not necessarily terrorism.

Al-Qaeda isn't covered by the 2nd Amendment. For the record though, I have no problem with Al-Qaeda fighting our government's forces around the world. That's what they do. That's what our military does. They have no right to fight here in the US. We do.

[Heracles 417]

You switched 'em yet again. 63 times 260 gets us to 16,000. However 260/AUS population = 5X 16,000/US Pop. That means we only have 5 times the homicide rate. We have 63 times the number of homicides, nobody's disputed that. However, we have ONLY 5 times the homicide rate. Get it now?

What do you mean only? You also fail to grasp that the 4.5 times is per 100,000 people; which adds up to a lot of people. Furthermore, the highest rate out of any other civilized first world country. You might cheer this, but the rest of us that are civilized and educated, frown on this.

It's treason... not necessarily terrorism.

Al-Qaeda isn't covered by the 2nd Amendment. For the record though, I have no problem with Al-Qaeda fighting our government's forces around the world. That's what they do. That's what our military does. They have no right to fight here in the US. We do.

So what you are saying is that if Al Qaeda were American, or had American recruits, you would back them? Therefore, all Al Qaeda needs to do is find a few Americans, and then in your opinion, they are free to do as they please - because they are technically a Militia.

Edited August 5, 2010 by Heracles

[Ban Hammer 13,349]

The best gun in the world standads no chance against a F22 or a modern tank.

1 - the f-22 is primarily an air superiority fighter. while it has a ground attack capability, trying to hit even a small group of people at 500+ mph is dayum tough.

modern tanks still require a tc. you might check out what that is, and how vulnerable that tc is.

[Heracles 417]

Furthermore Slim, what happens when people disagree with one another? Should everyone take up arms then and shoot each other out, third world style? Since the rest might disagree with you.

[Ban Hammer 13,349]

Riight Riight, a single armed man can use their firearms to take down a tank or aircraft.

yes, it's possible. then again, a flock of sparrows can take down aircraft.

[Heracles 417]

1 - the f-22 is primarily an air superiority fighter. while it has a ground attack capability, trying to hit even a small group of people at 500+ mph is dayum tough.

modern tanks still require a tc. you might check out what that is, and how vulnerable that tc is.

Tanks can fire from ranges that are impossible to detect. Don't turn Slim and pretend a militia can take on a military, as it cannot. Not even one million Militias armed to the teeth can take on a ballistic missile.

You mentioned books a while back, in another thread. You guys clearly have books stuck in the civil war / revolution era.

yes, it's possible. then again, a flock of sparrows can take down aircraft.

So a machine gun or riffle can take down a f22 flying at 50,000 feet can it.

Edited August 5, 2010 by Heracles

[spookyturtle 9,466]

yes, it's possible. then again, a flock of sparrows can take down aircraft.

But the Australian air force couldn't.

[slim 1,525]

So why don't you get your like-minded buds and try take over.

Why would we? We're fat dumb and happy right now and can "take over" at the polls. Why would we fight with guns when we can simply cast votes?

So you run the world because middle Americans like yourself own guns. Why not disband the army then, since the Slims of America will protect it.

We pay the army to take care of us abroad. We support our own security at home.

Go, tell me how wars are won.

Completing the mission. If the mission is to disarm American citizens, F-22s and tanks would be ineffective, much like they are in Iraq and Afghanistan.

So armed Chinese citizens could taken on an army could they. What do you think this is... The revolutionary war. Is that where books end in the mid-west or something?

Do you not understand the difficulty of fighting men wih rifles?

At present, there are only a couple thousand mujahideen holding the American military at bay in Afghanistan. Are you insinuating 3 Billion armed Chinese would be "easy" to defeat? I know you're not good at understand what numbers really mean, but you can trust me on this one, it's hard to overcome 3 Billion people, even with modern technology.

Riight Riight, a single armed man can use their firearms to take down a tank or aircraft.

To be quite technical, an unarmed man could do it.

Technology is heavily reliant upon support. If you disconnect the support, the technology is largely useless.

I thought you said guns is all people need.

13-year-olds with AK-47s are all that's required to change governments.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I'd be advocating armed rebellion and insurgency... not necessarily terrorism.

I'm all for democratic process. But what are you going to do when your government starts ignoring your requests? When they toss aside the constitution to pursue their own interests?

Are you going to peacably assemble and petition them?

I want to remind the govenment that they can't overstep their obligations. That folks like me - patriots - will defy them by force if necessary. I' like to remind you - and folks like you - that you can be all the majority you want, make all the requests you want, but when it comes down to it, you're ineffective against the government's will.

The US is not a totalitarian state, nowhere near. Nothing that the current government has done justifies armed insurrection on the part of disaffected individuals.

So how how, exactly, are you going to "remind the government that they can't overstep their obligations"? You've indicated that you would follow the use of force (and that force would take the form of "firepower"). So who or what would you direct your firepower against?

[SupportGeek 21]

I'd be advocating armed rebellion and insurgency... not necessarily terrorism.

Too bad the label you get stuck with will only be determined by who controls the media, and who wins decides what you are known as in the history books.

In other words, get used to being labelled a terrorist.

I want to remind the govenment that they can't overstep their obligations. That folks like me - patriots - will defy them by force if necessary. I' like to remind you - and folks like you - that you can be all the majority you want, make all the requests you want, but when it comes down to it, you're ineffective against the government's will.

If the democratic process breaks down, (ie. current administration refuses to leave office if voted out) or other legal and provided for means also fail, like impeachment or what have you, I could see a very hypothetical scenario where more severe means may need called on someday. Even with the average citizen being armed, its an uphill battle. Average citizens have numbers, but law enforcement, will have training, equipment, and communication on their side.

Completely Ignoring the democratic process and inciting or participating in armed rebellion against a duly elected government because they make a decision while in office you dont agree with doesnt make you a patriot, and never will, it makes you a traitor happily committing treason against his own country. Gratz.

[Ban Hammer 13,349]

Tanks can fire from ranges that are impossible to detect. Don't turn Slim and pretend a militia can take on a military, as it cannot. Not even one million Militias armed to the teeth can take on a ballistic missile.

You mentioned books a while back, in another thread. You guys clearly have books stuck in the civil war / revolution era.

tanks also have to identify the target. urban warfare is hell on tanks.

So a machine gun or riffle can take down a f22 flying at 50,000 feet can it.

you'll also note that at 50,000 feet, that f-22 can't bomb accurately, so it's not a threat at that altitude.

[slim 1,525]

fail to grasp that the 4.5 times is per 100,000 people; which adds up to a lot of people. Furthermore, the highest rate out of any other civilized first world country. You might cheer this, but the rest of us that are civilized and educated, frown on this.

5 people out of every 100,000. So, that's less than 1% of 1%, right?

You're willing to waive your rights so less than 1% of 1% can "possibly" be saved from homicide?

Sorry dude, but that's not very smart.

So what you are saying is that if Al Qaeda were American, or had American recruits, you would back them? Therefore, all Al Qaeda needs to do is find a few Americans, and then in your opinion, they are free to do as they please - because they are technically a Militia.

I'm saying if Al-Qaeda wants to fight American military on their own soil, they have the right to do so. When they attacked us here, it was terrorism.

American citizens who attack American targets aren't necessarily militia or terrorists although they could be either.

Tanks can fire from ranges that are impossible to detect. Don't turn Slim and pretend a militia can take on a military, as it cannot. Not even one million Militias armed to the teeth can take on a ballistic missile.

You misunderstand the fight.

A group of men on foot armed with AK-47s and RPGs would stand little chance against tanks in the field. However, that same group can wreak havoc on a tank division that's bivouacked for the night. Check out Chechnya if you don't believe me.

So a machine gun or riffle can take down a f22 flying at 50,000 feet can it.

A machine gun or rifle can take out the guy who flies it, fuels it, guides it, guards it. Hard to fly f22s without POL.

But the Australian air force couldn't.

Oh snap!

[Heracles 417]

....

Ah as per usual, you pick a scenario or two and assume this is how it will all play out. You then ignore any scenarios that basically go against your fantasy of domination.

Poor people in Middle America don't pay squat to the army bud. In fact, they feed off the government you detest.

You summed your mentality up when you insinuated that had Al Qaeda been American, they basically have a right to kill. You clearly fail to grasp that your government is made up of Americans.

People with your attitude are a bigger threat to America than any terrorist abroad. Because at a drop of a hat, you can snap and inflict harm on Americans you deem, the enemy.

[Heracles 417]

tanks also have to identify the target. urban warfare is hell on tanks.

you'll also note that at 50,000 feet, that f-22 can't bomb accurately, so it's not a threat at that altitude.

You also assume that every war is an Iraq, where one is trying to minimize casualties. A group of people lined up cannot take on a battalion of tanks. Ballistic missiles with nuclear payloads can take out entire states. End of Story.

In other words, once again, the I need guns to protect against foreign enemies in 2010 is flawed. As is the guns make a community safer.

[Heracles 417]

5 people out of every 100,000. So, that's less than 1% of 1%, right?

You're willing to waive your rights so less than 1% of 1% can "possibly" be saved from homicide?

Sorry dude, but that's not very smart.

Great diversion strategy. You dodged the flawed, guns make you safer argument, in favor of the default stance.

I'm saying if Al-Qaeda wants to fight American military on their own soil, they have the right to do so. When they attacked us here, it was terrorism.

American citizens who attack American targets aren't necessarily militia or terrorists although they could be either.

An American al Qaeda would technically be a militia, therefore, you clearly would support such a group.

A group of men on foot armed with AK-47s and RPGs would stand little chance against tanks in the field. However, that same group can wreak havoc on a tank division that's bivouacked for the night. Check out Chechnya if you don't believe me.

If the Russians wanted, Chechnya could be totally wiped out of bacteria let alone people overnight. Same deal in Vietnam, Iraq and Afgan really.

A machine gun or rifle can take out the guy who flies it, fuels it, guides it, guards it. Hard to fly f22s without POL.

Likewise, marines are waiting for this machine gunner and kill them prior to them getting within 2 clicks of the base. My guess is that you will ignore this scenario. You clearly think the government and military you apparently support is stupid; while militia idiots are smart.

Edited August 5, 2010 by Heracles