why the left hates guns

[slim 1,525]

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?

Deterence. Simple deterence is all it takes.

If we're represented, there's no need to use fire power.

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.

Rebels was the term used in our forefathers' day. Terrorists will be used now.

Heroes is the term used for the winners.

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.

Absolutely agreed and I hope we never have to do it. I hope our government listens.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

That's a cop out. You said you would use firepower. Specifically against who/what?

[Ban Hammer 13,342]

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.

i never stated any assumption like that. additionally, people lined up sounds so revolutionary war. tanks work great on flat open terrain. they suck in urban areas and mountains.

and i'll see your ballistic missile and raise you a klingon battlecruiser.

[slim 1,525]

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.

I pick a scenario or two where a rifleman would be effective. A rifleman would not fight against a tank in the field. That would be stupid.

I realize you have a lot of experience on HALO and Call of Duty, but in real wars - there are objectives that define how the battle is fought. You've brought up F-22s, tanks and ballistic missiles. Regardless of how much of an uprising there was, all three of those weapons systems would see limited action in America, if at all.

[Heracles 417]

Deterence. Simple deterence is all it takes.

If we're represented, there's no need to use fire power.

SO what if someone feels their personal opinion is not represented, should they have a right to kill you then? because you agree with what they disagree with.

Rebels was the term used in our forefathers' day. Terrorists will be used now.

Heroes is the term used for the winners.

Thanks for proving your literacy does not extend beyond the revolutionary war.

I just cannot believe you stance of if Al Qaeda was America and was called the Ohio-Hillbillies, they have a right to kill Americans.

Absolutely agreed and I hope we never have to do it. I hope our government listens.

Once again, what if you feel the government is not listening while the majority feels they are?

[slim 1,525]

That's a cop out. You said you would use firepower. Specifically against who/what?

You don't have to actually use firepower to have a deterent effect. That's the real power. If you have to shoot, you've already lost.

That being said, I'd shoot if it came to something like using the army to control elections or something like that. House to house confiscations, forced relocations, restriction of the press, regulation of religion, etc.

I'm not going to take up arms because I disagree with a new policy. Policies taken together though, over time, could lead to outright rebellion.

[Heracles 417]

i never stated any assumption like that. additionally, people lined up sounds so revolutionary war. tanks work great on flat open terrain. they suck in urban areas and mountains.

and i'll see your ballistic missile and raise you a klingon battlecruiser.

Where you live is flat, so it's no problem there. Maybe you truck can help then get over the hills.

Nice attempt to divert the attention from insisting that a country where it's civilians are armed, can battle modern armies or weaponry.

[Heracles 417]

I pick a scenario or two where a rifleman would be effective. A rifleman would not fight against a tank in the field. That would be stupid.

But ignore every scenario where a militia would be wiped out by any modern army.

I realize you have a lot of experience on HALO and Call of Duty, but in real wars - there are objectives that define how the battle is fought. You've brought up F-22s, tanks and ballistic missiles. Regardless of how much of an uprising there was, all three of those weapons systems would see limited action in America, if at all.

I'm not the genius who thinks that armed civilians can take on modern weapons.

Once your point has been legitimately discredited, you have an uncanny talent of diverting arguments. Like no evidence of guns making a country safer.

The reality is that militias cannot overthrow governments and armed civilians cannot ward off modern armies.

Edited August 6, 2010 by Heracles

[slim 1,525]

SO what if someone feels their personal opinion is not represented, should they have a right to kill you then? because you agree with what they disagree with.

When have I ever suggested that? Talk about reading way into it.

I just cannot believe you stance of if Al Qaeda was America and was called the Ohio-Hillbillies, they have a right to kill Americans.

That's you talking again, not me.

Let me try to clarify what I was saying. If Al-Qaeda occupied Ohio, we should fight them. Conversely, since Ohioans are occupying Al-Qaeda's homelands, I support their right to fight us. That being said, I also support our right to annihilate them.

Once again, what if you feel the government is not listening while the majority feels they are?

Are you familiar with how the government works here? If the majority thinks the government is listening than there's no need to overthrow the government as the democratic process would be working properly.

[slim 1,525]

Nice attempt to divert the attention from insisting that a country where it's civilians are armed, can battle modern armies or weaponry.

Nobody's made that assertion except for you (and Rob.)

I believe those of us on here advocating ownership from a 2A standpoint understand that the army protects us abroad... we do it from within. Funny how that's coming from military veterans.

But ignore every scenario where a militia would be wiped out by any modern army.

You're talking tactical scenarios on a per battle basis. Of course an F-22 could bomb a group of men on the ground. Now... flip that around.... couldn't those armed men stop the F-22 from taking off in the first place?

I'm not the genius who thinks that armed civilians can take on modern weapons.

I know. You're a civilian puke who forms military opinions based on video games, tv shows and most likely, Hollywood movies.

There are a couple of us actually basing our "genius" (thanks, by the way) opinions on actual first-hand knowledge and military training.

Once your point has been legitimately discredited, you have an uncanny talent of diverting arguments. Like no evidence of guns making a country safer.

So the US isn't the safest place in the world to live?

The reality is that militias cannot overthrow governments and armed civilians cannot ward off modern armies.

You can pick any number of countries in the world where just that has happened in recent times.

Oh, wait. Those weren't "first world" countries so those probably don't count. Do they?

[Heracles 417]

When have I ever suggested that? Talk about reading way into it.

Throughout this thread actually.

Let me try to clarify what I was saying. If Al-Qaeda occupied Ohio, we should fight them. Conversely, since Ohioans are occupying Al-Qaeda's homelands, I support their right to fight us. That being said, I also support our right to annihilate them.

Once again, Al-Qaeda is technically a militia that basically disagree with the government. Therefore, had they been American citizens, evidently, you would then agree with them killing people because they - the militia - disagrees with the government.

Are you familiar with how the government works here? If the majority thinks the government is listening than there's no need to overthrow the government as the democratic process would be working properly.

Ahh so you are planning for the case where a coup decides to take over right. Contrary to popular belief in your circle of friends, no one in the educated world is planning any takeover. In fact, the only people who are likely to try something like that, is folks like you. It's logistically impossible for any sort of coup in a country the size of the US. Furthermore, educated people are too busy trying to advance the country and themselves, than to plan idiocy like that.

Do you actually think people would be with you in taking the government? Just because someone has a gun, doesn't mean they agree with you. You'd probably be the first I have come across that has such a fanatical extreme belief.

Edited August 6, 2010 by Heracles

[Ban Hammer 13,342]

Where you live is flat, so it's no problem there. Maybe you truck can help then get over the hills.

Nice attempt to divert the attention from insisting that a country where it's civilians are armed, can battle modern armies or weaponry.

still insisting it's flat here, in a place you've never been?

you're missing one of the biggest maxims of warfare - you don't own land until you have troops on it. you can fly over it, throw missiles at it, but until you have boots on the ground - it's not yours.

[mawilson 2,133]

It's logistically impossible for any sort of coup in a country the size of the US.

Happened in the Soviet Union, a country the size of the US.

[Heracles 417]

still insisting it's flat here, in a place you've never been?

you're missing one of the biggest maxims of warfare - you don't own land until you have troops on it. you can fly over it, throw missiles at it, but until you have boots on the ground - it's not yours.

The last full scale war occurred in WWII, and we saw the aftermath of Hiroshima. You're as silly as Slim if you actually think the citizens of a country can take on a modern army using their personal weapon stash. The afghans only defeated the Russians because of the high-tech anti-aircraft weapons they acquired. Prior to that, they were getting their #### handed to them. Had Russia wanted to, they could have nuked the mountains and that would be the end of anyone hiding in them for the next five years.

If you want to keep guns, then keep then. What civilians owning guns does not do is:

1. Make a country safer
   
2. Protect against foreign armies
   
3. Ensure a free and democrat government
   

[Ban Hammer 13,342]

The last full scale war occurred in WWII, and we saw the aftermath of Hiroshima. You're as silly as Slim if you actually think the citizens of a country can take on a modern army using their personal weapon stash. The afghans only defeated the Russians because of the high-tech anti-aircraft weapons they acquired. Prior to that, they were getting their #### handed to them. Had Russia wanted to, they could have nuked the mountains and that would be the end of anyone hiding in them for the next five years.

If you want to keep guns, then keep then. What civilians owning guns does not do is:

1. Make a country safer
   
2. Protect against foreign armies
   
3. Ensure a free and democrat government
   

oh right, nuke it and drive on. such a strategist you'd make!

be sure to explain vietnam while you're at it. somalia too.