|
Post by Warmonger on Jun 14, 2016 9:26:08 GMT -5
Sure I'll go there The US and it's allies comprise the greatest military force on Earth. That's not opinion, it's just straight up fact. I for one, kinda like that. I take comfort in being well protected. But let's say hypothetically, Russia and China decide to join forces down the road and plan a takeover (not exactly completely out of the realm of possibility). Now, through sheer numbers alone, those forces combined would be able to breach America's shores and start a full-on invasion. And in that scenario, do I want to simply rely on the military to protect me and my family? Do I want to try and subdue potential attackers by throwing dishes at them or using coarse language? Again, I'm all for more thorough background checks for firearms. If you're a violent criminal or mentally disabled, you shouldn't own a tool that can easily take a life. That's just common sense, but that's also where it gets tricky. Knives and other bladed weapons have killed millions upon millions throughout history...so do you ban the use of steel or iron? There's always going to be batshit crazy or simply evil people in the world. They can kill in numerous ways. Getting rid of guns isn't going to stop that. It'll barely put a dent in it and only serve to essentially punish the law abiding, responsible gun owner who 9 times out of 10 owns maybe 1-2 pistols for the sole sake of protecting his/her family. Let's go with your scenario, China and Russia for some reason team up. Never happen, but it's your party. What makes you think that this hypothetical war will have anything to do with hordes of people invading the US? China and Russia would lob their nuclear missiles at us, we'll lob ours at them, and the only thing your AR-15 is going to be good for is, if you survive the nuclear holocaust, you'll be able to defend your last can of Chicken of the Sea tuna. At that point, I'd rather have gone on to the great beyond anyways. Also, your point of knives and banning steel and iron is off point (so to speak). Yes, you can kill someone with a knife. No, you can not kill dozens of people within the span of a few minutes. Can't kill numerous people with a knife in a few minutes? You sure about that, bud? In a crowded nightclub where you're shoulder to shoulder with people who are utterly shocked and traumatized? I'd say you most certainly could.
|
|
|
Post by Prince Hal on Jun 14, 2016 9:29:28 GMT -5
Sure I'll go there The US and it's allies comprise the greatest military force on Earth. That's not opinion, it's just straight up fact. I for one, kinda like that. I take comfort in being well protected. But let's say hypothetically, Russia and China decide to join forces down the road and plan a takeover (not exactly completely out of the realm of possibility). Now, through sheer numbers alone, those forces combined would be able to breach America's shores and start a full-on invasion. And in that scenario, do I want to simply rely on the military to protect me and my family? Do I want to try and subdue potential attackers by throwing dishes at them or using coarse language? Again, I'm all for more thorough background checks for firearms. If you're a violent criminal or mentally disabled, you shouldn't own a tool that can easily take a life. That's just common sense, but that's also where it gets tricky. Knives and other bladed weapons have killed millions upon millions throughout history...so do you ban the use of steel or iron? There's always going to be batshit crazy or simply evil people in the world. They can kill in numerous ways. Getting rid of guns isn't going to stop that. It'll barely put a dent in it and only serve to essentially punish the law abiding, responsible gun owner who 9 times out of 10 owns maybe 1-2 pistols for the sole sake of protecting his/her family. Two things and then I have to leave for a while to get to work. 1) "Militarism" is not having "the greatest military force on earth." But why would I expect you to know that? (Sorry, that was snarky.) 2) Where is this world you're living in, where Russia and China combine forces to invade the United States in a co-ordinated land war? I used to stage simialr scenarios when I'd empty my box of army men onto the floor, but even when I was 9, I think I got that playing with army men and waging war were two different kinds of things. Again, I beg you, remove Red Dawn and Invasion, USA from your DVR. They are not instructional videos.
|
|
|
Post by The Captain on Jun 14, 2016 9:32:07 GMT -5
Sure I'll go there The US and it's allies comprise the greatest military force on Earth. That's not opinion, it's just straight up fact. I for one, kinda like that. I take comfort in being well protected. But let's say hypothetically, Russia and China decide to join forces down the road and plan a takeover (not exactly completely out of the realm of possibility). Now, through sheer numbers alone, those forces combined would be able to breach America's shores and start a full-on invasion. And in that scenario, do I want to simply rely on the military to protect me and my family? Do I want to try and subdue potential attackers by throwing dishes at them or using coarse language? Again, I'm all for more thorough background checks for firearms. If you're a violent criminal or mentally disabled, you shouldn't own a tool that can easily take a life. That's just common sense, but that's also where it gets tricky. Knives and other bladed weapons have killed millions upon millions throughout history...so do you ban the use of steel or iron? There's always going to be batshit crazy or simply evil people in the world. They can kill in numerous ways. Getting rid of guns isn't going to stop that. It'll barely put a dent in it and only serve to essentially punish the law abiding, responsible gun owner who 9 times out of 10 owns maybe 1-2 pistols for the sole sake of protecting his/her family. Let's go with your scenario, China and Russia for some reason team up. Never happen, but it's your party. What makes you think that this hypothetical war will have anything to do with hordes of people invading the US? China and Russia would lob their nuclear missiles at us, we'll lob ours at them, and the only thing your AR-15 is going to be good for is, if you survive the nuclear holocaust, you'll be able to defend your last can of Chicken of the Sea tuna. At that point, I'd rather have gone on to the great beyond anyways. Also, your point of knives and banning steel and iron is off point (so to speak). Yes, you can kill someone with a knife. No, you can not kill dozens of people within the span of a few minutes. That's just ridiculous. No one should ever fight over a can of Chicken of the Sea tuna. StarKist, on the other hand, is definitely worth shooting a few radiation-spawned mutants to defend, but without any celery or mayonnaise to mix with it, I'm not sure I would want to.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 14, 2016 9:34:31 GMT -5
Let's go with your scenario, China and Russia for some reason team up. Never happen, but it's your party. What makes you think that this hypothetical war will have anything to do with hordes of people invading the US? China and Russia would lob their nuclear missiles at us, we'll lob ours at them, and the only thing your AR-15 is going to be good for is, if you survive the nuclear holocaust, you'll be able to defend your last can of Chicken of the Sea tuna. At that point, I'd rather have gone on to the great beyond anyways. Also, your point of knives and banning steel and iron is off point (so to speak). Yes, you can kill someone with a knife. No, you can not kill dozens of people within the span of a few minutes. Can't kill numerous people with a knife in a few minutes? You sure about that, bud? In a crowded nightclub where you're shoulder to shoulder with people who are utterly shocked and traumatized? I'd say you most certainly could. I assume that if you're "shoulder-to-shoulder with people," your arms & thus actions are going to be pretty constricted. Or are you positing Mr. Fantastic or the Elongated Man as knife-wielding maniacs?
|
|
|
Post by DE Sinclair on Jun 14, 2016 9:37:57 GMT -5
Let's go with your scenario, China and Russia for some reason team up. Never happen, but it's your party. What makes you think that this hypothetical war will have anything to do with hordes of people invading the US? China and Russia would lob their nuclear missiles at us, we'll lob ours at them, and the only thing your AR-15 is going to be good for is, if you survive the nuclear holocaust, you'll be able to defend your last can of Chicken of the Sea tuna. At that point, I'd rather have gone on to the great beyond anyways. Also, your point of knives and banning steel and iron is off point (so to speak). Yes, you can kill someone with a knife. No, you can not kill dozens of people within the span of a few minutes. Can't kill numerous people with a knife in a few minutes? You sure about that, bud? In a crowded nightclub where you're shoulder to shoulder with people who are utterly shocked and traumatized? I'd say you most certainly could. I'd say if you're equating being able to kill dozens of people within a few minutes at long range, with one person being able to do the same amount of damage with one knife (or even charitably two knives), then we don't have a similar frame of reference for discussion. Here's how the knife scenario would go: maniac stabs one person, maybe gets to a second, rest of people scream and run while he tries to chase them. Police arrive, maniac dies. Not the same thing.
|
|
|
Post by Warmonger on Jun 14, 2016 9:38:42 GMT -5
Sure I'll go there The US and it's allies comprise the greatest military force on Earth. That's not opinion, it's just straight up fact. I for one, kinda like that. I take comfort in being well protected. But let's say hypothetically, Russia and China decide to join forces down the road and plan a takeover (not exactly completely out of the realm of possibility). Now, through sheer numbers alone, those forces combined would be able to breach America's shores and start a full-on invasion. And in that scenario, do I want to simply rely on the military to protect me and my family? Do I want to try and subdue potential attackers by throwing dishes at them or using coarse language? Again, I'm all for more thorough background checks for firearms. If you're a violent criminal or mentally disabled, you shouldn't own a tool that can easily take a life. That's just common sense, but that's also where it gets tricky. Knives and other bladed weapons have killed millions upon millions throughout history...so do you ban the use of steel or iron? There's always going to be batshit crazy or simply evil people in the world. They can kill in numerous ways. Getting rid of guns isn't going to stop that. It'll barely put a dent in it and only serve to essentially punish the law abiding, responsible gun owner who 9 times out of 10 owns maybe 1-2 pistols for the sole sake of protecting his/her family. Two things and then I have to leave for a while to get to work. 1) "Militarism" is not having "the greatest military force on earth." But why would I expect you to know that? (Sorry, that was snarky.) 2) Where is this world you're living in, where Russia and China combine forces to invade the United States in a co-ordinated land war? I used to stage simialr scenarios when I'd empty my box of army men onto the floor, but even when I was 9, I think I got that playing with army men and waging war were two different kinds of things. Again, I beg you, remove Red Dawn and Invasion, USA from your DVR. They are not instructional videos. Again, it's simply a hypothetical scenario. If you want to do more extensive background checks when dealing with the sale of firearms...I'm all for that. It should've already been done by now anyway. If you want to make automatic assault rifles illegal for the common citizen...that's fine by me. But when you want to take away ALL firearms from the public...then that's where I have an issue.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 14, 2016 9:39:06 GMT -5
Guns, schmuns. Gentlemen prefer bombs. Just ask the Galleanisti. I still hold a grudge against A. Mitchell Palmer (who among other things helped set J. Edgar Hoover on his path to prominence).
|
|
|
Post by DE Sinclair on Jun 14, 2016 9:39:14 GMT -5
Let's go with your scenario, China and Russia for some reason team up. Never happen, but it's your party. What makes you think that this hypothetical war will have anything to do with hordes of people invading the US? China and Russia would lob their nuclear missiles at us, we'll lob ours at them, and the only thing your AR-15 is going to be good for is, if you survive the nuclear holocaust, you'll be able to defend your last can of Chicken of the Sea tuna. At that point, I'd rather have gone on to the great beyond anyways. Also, your point of knives and banning steel and iron is off point (so to speak). Yes, you can kill someone with a knife. No, you can not kill dozens of people within the span of a few minutes. That's just ridiculous. No one should ever fight over a can of Chicken of the Sea tuna. StarKist, on the other hand, is definitely worth shooting a few radiation-spawned mutants to defend, but without any celery or mayonnaise to mix with it, I'm not sure I would want to. Good point. If it were StarKist white albacore, it might be worth defending. But I like mine with Miracle Whip and pickle relish.
|
|
|
Post by Prince Hal on Jun 14, 2016 9:45:39 GMT -5
Just ask the Galleanisti. I still hold a grudge against A. Mitchell Palmer (who among other things helped set J. Edgar Hoover on his path to prominence). I'm editing/organizing a manuscript (against a deadline) I know you'd find interesting, Dan, about the actual criminals who were behind the crimes S and V were executed for. I will PM you about it later. Palmer was Trumpian in his scapegoating, as you know."Alien filth" sticks out in my memory just now. An interesting sidelight to some of the research I've been doing. When the bomb exploded at Palmer's house, it also blew out windows at the house across the street. The neighbor who lived there ran out to see what had happened and he told Palmer that not 15 minutes before, he and his wife had been walking in front of Palmer's house. Hint: his wife's name was Eleanor.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 14, 2016 9:46:43 GMT -5
Cool! Yes, please do PM me when you have a chance.
|
|
|
Post by Arthur Gordon Scratch on Jun 14, 2016 9:51:13 GMT -5
Again, I beg you, remove Red Dawn and Invasion, USA from your DVR. They are not instructional videos. And there you go dissing two of my favorite 80ies movies... (the french overdub version of Invasion USA is the funniest thing ever!). About the "hypotethical scenarios", history has showed that the USA are more prone o wage war then the opposite. If one was to invade the other, due to its economic situation, the USA would be far more likely to invade China then the other way around (China owns most of the US economy already, why would they want to be in charge of its gun nutjob citizens amongst other things?!)
|
|
|
Post by Prince Hal on Jun 14, 2016 9:52:52 GMT -5
Two things and then I have to leave for a while to get to work. 1) "Militarism" is not having "the greatest military force on earth." But why would I expect you to know that? (Sorry, that was snarky.) 2) Where is this world you're living in, where Russia and China combine forces to invade the United States in a co-ordinated land war? I used to stage simialr scenarios when I'd empty my box of army men onto the floor, but even when I was 9, I think I got that playing with army men and waging war were two different kinds of things. Again, I beg you, remove Red Dawn and Invasion, USA from your DVR. They are not instructional videos. Again, it's simply a hypothetical scenario. If you want to do more extensive background checks when dealing with the sale of firearms...I'm all for that. It should've already been done by now anyway. If you want to make automatic assault rifles illegal for the common citizen...that's fine by me. But when you want to take away ALL firearms from the public...then that's where I have an issue. As dan said, who exactly is saying that? And how deep is your lack of understanding of basic constitutional law? Do you really think that three-quarters of the state legislatures are going to ratify an amendment abolishing the Second Amendment? For those who like a good read: "Article V of the Constitution prescribes how an amendment can become a part of the Constitution. While there are two ways, only one has ever been used. All 27 Amendments have been ratified after two-thirds of the House and Senate approve of the proposal and send it to the states for a vote. Then, three-fourths of the states must affirm the proposed Amendment. The other method of passing an amendment requires a Constitutional Convention to be called by two-thirds of the legislatures of the States. That Convention can propose as many amendments as it deems necessary. Those amendments must be approved by three-fourths of the states.The actual wording of Article V is: “The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.” Yeah, this'll happen. Unclutch your pearls. PS: Glad you're on board with the restrictions you mention. Not being picky here, but kepeing in mind the seamntic contortions of crazy old hermit: How about "semi-automatics," which apparently only make one "semi-dead" or "semi-wounded"? Are any of those death-dealers worhty of inclusion on a restricted list, at least?
|
|
|
Post by Prince Hal on Jun 14, 2016 9:53:21 GMT -5
Cool! Yes, please do PM me when you have a chance. Will do! Give me a few hours.
|
|
|
Post by Prince Hal on Jun 14, 2016 11:39:44 GMT -5
President administers spanking to the short-fingered vulgarian who is the undisguised avatar of the Republican party.
|
|
|
Post by Rob Allen on Jun 14, 2016 11:57:58 GMT -5
If you want to do more extensive background checks when dealing with the sale of firearms...I'm all for that. It should've already been done by now anyway. If you want to make automatic assault rifles illegal for the common citizen...that's fine by me. But when you want to take away ALL firearms from the public...then that's where I have an issue. Background checks and limits on assault weapons - that IS the "gun control" that the mainstream left is fighting for. Why do you seem to think that you're on the other side? Only a tiny lunatic fringe is talking about confiscating firearms, and we don't like them much either. Or are you mistaking a blue-sky wish that guns were less popular for a wish to take them away?
|
|