why the left hates guns

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

I never said someone cannot attempt a coup. Slim and his buds could get together and try to overthrow the government. That said, it would about as successful as it was in the Soviet Union.

So in other words...a complete success. Right? The Soviet Union is gone, it was overthrown.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

Different era, different ball game. In 2010, it's just not possible that a coup can takeover the entire United States. Looking at it from another angle, the chance of a coup increases greatly with the more guns that are around. Pretty hard to try to overthrow a government using rocks.

I am not talking about strategy, rather, how effective personal weapons stashes are against modern armies; which your reply is Klingons.

Can an armed Sudan or Somalia take on the US?

Armed populations kept the Nazis out of Sweden and Switzerland...and Great Britian. Please don't be silly and suggest otherwise. Hitler rolled over Europe and when he got to Great Britain, they begged the US for guns. We turned our factories to making their rifles and adapting our rifles to their cartridges. The NRA collected and delivered over 400,000 donated firearms to the Home Guard. Hitler did not invade. Blather on about the "battle of Britain" all you want, air defenses and ad infinitum...the fact is they begged for and we provided MILLIONS of firearms to Britian to keep their country from being tossed over by the Nazis and it worked. Dictators absolutely fear armed populations (with good reason) and universally ban the private ownership of firearms. 'Nuf said.

I would ask you to name ONE, just ONE dictatorship that has allowed the free ownership of firearms by the general population. ONE.

[Heracles 417]

It is not necessary tp take over in an armed coup. It is necessary to prevent the government from taking over us. THAT it could do.

Silly argument anyway. 2nd amendment is settled law. You don't have to like it, that is the best part.

There has been a lot of silly talk by anti-gun types, there always is, they can;t defend their ideas so they veer off into nuclear weapons and government takeovers. We do not need to take over the government, we already ARE the government. We need guns to make sure it stays that way.

Incidentally for the uniformed that babble unintelligibly about "hollow points"...some facts

we can hardly function in a modern society without hollow points. Stop being ridiculous.

Which points have not been defended? Even a glance at the thread illustrates that as per usual, the pro-gun sit there and use it's safe - just because - style arguments.

Actually didn't veer of at all. One of the reasons a person is supposed to be able to bear arms is to fend off foreign invaders. No one is arguing the law, rather, the applicability of it in 2010. Therefore, a legitimate question is, how effective is any civilian or their firearm at defending against a WMD attack.

The whole keep the guvmint in check is probbaly the dumbest ####### I have ever heard from anyone in a civilized country.

[Heracles 417]

Armed populations kept the Nazis out of Sweden and Switzerland...and Great Britian. Please don't be silly and suggest otherwise. Hitler rolled over Europe and when he got to Great Britain, they begged the US for guns. We turned our factories to making their rifles and adapting our rifles to their cartridges. The NRA collected and delivered over 400,000 donated firearms to the Home Guard. Hitler did not invade. Blather on about the "battle of Britain" all you want, air defenses and ad infinitum...the fact is they begged for and we provided MILLIONS of firearms to Britian to keep their country from being tossed over by the Nazis and it worked. Dictators absolutely fear armed populations (with good reason) and universally ban the private ownership of firearms. 'Nuf said.

I would ask you to name ONE, just ONE dictatorship that has allowed the free ownership of firearms by the general population. ONE.

Do you think, oh wise libertarian living in a liberal state, that it has to do with them being poor and corrupt?

How about you explain why pretty-much every other first world country with strict gun laws have no issues with coups or needing to overthrow the guvmint?

Once again, take the military out of it, what chance do Garys with their guns have against modern armies? None period. Therefore, security comes down to the armed forces.

[elmcitymaven 9,712]

Armed populations kept the Nazis out of Sweden and Switzerland...and Great Britian. Please don't be silly and suggest otherwise. Hitler rolled over Europe and when he got to Great Britain, they begged the US for guns. We turned our factories to making their rifles and adapting our rifles to their cartridges. The NRA collected and delivered over 400,000 donated firearms to the Home Guard. Hitler did not invade. Blather on about the "battle of Britain" all you want, air defenses and ad infinitum...the fact is they begged for and we provided MILLIONS of firearms to Britian to keep their country from being tossed over by the Nazis and it worked. Dictators absolutely fear armed populations (with good reason) and universally ban the private ownership of firearms. 'Nuf said.

Hmmmm. This sounds a little off to me with the bits I do know about armament manufacture in Britain during the Second World War (depressingly I know more about this than I ever wanted to). Just consulting with my quasi-ex on this -- his PhD was on the topic of automobile manufacturers during the war and their activities involving production of, amongst other things, armaments. If anyone knows about this, he will.

[Heracles 417]

This is what it comes down to, pro-gun restriction comments are based on logic and deductive reasoning. Wild Wild West opinions are based on ####### you have heard or think to be true.

It's why when country after country with tough restrictions are illustrated to have 5 times lower homicides, as my man Slim pointed out, you still deny it - play it down.

You then go on about protecting the country. This is also discredited, as in 2010 single weapons can wipe out entire states. Yes, this includes the idiot standing [or hiding] with his stash of guns. Therefore, the reason behind right to bear arms is null and void against modern armies. WMD didn't exist in 1787, basic rifles were the main weapon available and the military was barely established; thus the rule back then. End of story.

It then goes back to protection against the government. Once again, you ignore that countries with strict gun laws, have some of the most stable governments around in the world; with many actually ranked more stable than the United States of America. End of story.

Of course the irrelevant twisting of the data and the extremes is eventually introduced. Followed by the stock-standard the anti-gun folks are this and that. This is clearly an ideological stance rather than a logical stance. It's no different to those who claim illegal aliens are good for the country and anyone against it is racist; in other words bullcrap.

Edited August 6, 2010 by Heracles

[spookyturtle 9,465]

Australians hate guns because they can't have them. Even toy ones.

[Ban Hammer 13,342]

Australians hate guns because they can't have them. Even toy ones.

what do the kids play army with?

[Trompe le Monde 1,107]

Hmmmm. This sounds a little off to me with the bits I do know about armament manufacture in Britain during the Second World War (depressingly I know more about this than I ever wanted to). Just consulting with my quasi-ex on this -- his PhD was on the topic of automobile manufacturers during the war and their activities involving production of, amongst other things, armaments. If anyone knows about this, he will.

like I said, lend lease didn't start until March 1941, 18 months after the start of WW2, months after the battle of Britain and in the dying days of the Blitz. The Nazis didn't invade because they were afraid of guns, they could not invade because the luftwaffe was weakened and Hitler was focused on the Eastern front. Yes, by May 1941 Britain was receiving war materials through the lend lease act, but the threat of a nazi invasion was over by then.

[Ban Hammer 13,342]

like I said, lend lease didn't start until March 1941, 18 months after the start of WW2, months after the battle of Britain and in the dying days of the Blitz. The Nazis didn't invade because they were afraid of guns, they could not invade because the luftwaffe was weakened and Hitler was focused on the Eastern front. Yes, by May 1941 Britain was receiving war materials through the lend lease act, but the threat of a nazi invasion was over by then.

pretty much my understanding on it, along with crossing the english channel with an amphibious assault wouldn't have been an easy task.

[mawilson 2,133]

what do the kids play army with?

They play "surrender".

[spookyturtle 9,465]

what do the kids play army with?

Knives?

[Trompe le Monde 1,107]

pretty much my understanding on it, along with crossing the english channel with an amphibious assault wouldn't have been an easy task.

britain wasn't under threat of invasion in 1944

[Ban Hammer 13,342]

britain wasn't under threat of invasion in 1944

you was talking about 1941.

[Trompe le Monde 1,107]

you was talking about 1941.

wasn't aware the d day invasion took place that year? I assume that is what you were referring to with amphibious vessels and crossing the channe.