And...... What have I done to violate that?
Outgunned? You must not know what the military is armed with. All the guns in the world are not going to help you against armored divisions and aircraft.
I am saying if we are at war, those who instigated the war would be legitimate targets
you cannot sit behind your computer demanding the government kill and jail people for owning guns and if that nightmare happens, then claim its unfair if some gun owner decides to splatter your head all over the computer that you have been using to demand a war on gun owners.
I spent 24 years as a Marine.... don't you worry yourself about my knowledge of our military capabilities.
our military is awesome.. a superior force in the world.... a force that can be easily rendered combat ineffectual by our own civilian population.
it's a stupid argument anyways, the US military won't turn against the civilian population to aid an oppressive government in a mass rights denial scheme you advocate for... not gonna happen.
I think you not knowing says it all
later
your silly hatred of gun owners will not work. more and more people are realizing that the only way to stop armed criminals who violate laws is to allow intended victims to be armed
Deterence.. hahaha.. Well, if we are one dimensional thinkers, maybe. However, some of us can think beyond and rationalize the situation. Yes, you are safer in an ARMED society by being armed. However, if guns were not so easily available, it begs to question weather many of these instances would have taken place to begin with. If there were no one there with a gun, you would not need to defend yourself against it. Simple logic... All guns start out being sold legally to someone or some organization. It is what happens after that, that causes the problems. So the only way to control that, is to very tightly control, or ban guns. Those who obtain guns illegally, obtain them from someone who got them legally at some point.
Id like to think that most military people would turn their backs on the politicians rather than the people. Sure there would be some who follow the wordsmiths. But not enough, me thinks.I spent 24 years as a Marine.... don't you worry yourself about my knowledge of our military capabilities.
our military is awesome.. a superior force in the world.... a force that can be easily rendered combat ineffectual by our own civilian population.
it's a stupid argument anyways, the US military won't turn against the civilian population to aid an oppressive government in a mass rights denial scheme you advocate for... not gonna happen.
Beginning on April 6, 1994, and for the next hundred days, up to 800,000 Tutsis were killed by Hutu militia using clubs and machetes, with as many as 10,000 killed each day.
The History Place - Genocide in the 20th Century: Rwanda 1994
People get slaughtered by other people with or without guns, as 1 of many examples is above. Americans do not bury people in mass graves and people who pretend that we are the most violent place on the planet because we have the right to guns are wearing blinders. It isn't simple logic--it is simple history of a much darker reality overseas than the "No Guns for Anyone Crowd" would have people believe.
There is no point in even debating with you... You use inductive logic in allll the wrong ways.So you believe if we banned guns, suddenly, there would be a flash mob carrying machettes that would slaughter entire towns?
There is no point in even debating with you... You use inductive logic in allll the wrong ways.
Well, it would be much harder for them to have these "turf wars" if obtaining weapons were much harder and as a result much more expensive along with the decline in profit from drug sales to purchase weapons.. This would make it much more difficult for these things to occur.
So you believe if we banned guns, suddenly, there would be a flash mob carrying machettes that would slaughter entire towns?
If wishes were fishes... First of all, if you buy your drug supply from a criminal network, they likely will gladly sell you guns too. They make their money selling these things. The "value" of a gun is not contested in a drug turf war, it is a basic requirement; if your "gang" uses baseball bats and knives, then they will likely lose to those "gangs" willing to carry longer range weapons.
Im scared. While the government can see you from thousands of miles away and can accurately take you out from even further if it had to. I don't think your mile away sharp shooters have anything that can combat that. Either way, the situation you suggest would never occur because the government would never declare war on the populace.
Do you believe that the 200+ year history of the US would be all flowers and sunshine if we had never had the right to guns?
we learned long ago that standing head to head in battle lines with redcoats wasn't a winning strategy...yet you assume that exactly what would happen.
So you have a leash on every other country in the world? I guess you can confirm that absolutely no entities will ever try to invade any U.S. cities. Say foreign paratroopers start landing. Do you want to let Average Joe die until our US military gets it under control? (if they ever do) or do you want the cat to be able to fight back when some asshole tries to shove a firecracker in its asshole? As we can see with this story the cat being clawed was enough to demotivate the bully.I believe there was a good reason for it initially, but we no longer are a nation fighting for its independence or locked in a potential civil war, or in danger of the government becoming a dictatorship.
So you have a leash on every other country in the world? I guess you can confirm that absolutely no entities will ever try to invade any U.S. cities. Say foreign paratroopers start landing. Do you want to let Average Joe die until our US military gets it under control? (if they ever do) or do you want the cat to be able to fight back when some asshole tries to shove a firecracker in its asshole? As we can see with this story the cat being clawed was enough to demotivate the bully.
I agree... not nearly enough would stay.Id like to think that most military people would turn their backs on the politicians rather than the people. Sure there would be some who follow the wordsmiths. But not enough, me thinks.
I agree... not nearly enough would stay.
the "war" would be over the minute it starts.
This is just asinine. How would they cross the entire atlantic or pacific oceans without us noticing with a force large enough to take out a state? The only treat would be an invasion thru Canada, or thru Mexico from South America. Again, we would quickly identify such a force massing long before they could attack. The only way this could possibly occur would be if a country on our continent decided to invade and we would still detect any mass of military force before it could invade.
Not to mention, civilians don't have the training or the weaponry to fight such a war to begin with. We would have to rely on our military to defend us either way.
good lord dude.... do you understand that the civilian population has in it's midst millions of veterans.. millions more of combat veterans... and 280 million guns?
put your thinking cap on man...
See... All you do is deflect and you give no concessions what so ever, at all. You rather shoot down the little things to avoid the big things. You are okay with civs being fish in a barrel. Most of us arent. Good thing majority rules. No matter how you hash it an invading force on a town would be met more resistance with armed civs than defenseless civs. The point isnt how. The point is IF. Just because you think America is invincible from attack doesnt make it so.This is just asinine. How would they cross the entire atlantic or pacific oceans without us noticing with a force large enough to take out a state? The only treat would be an invasion thru Canada, or thru Mexico from South America. Again, we would quickly identify such a force massing long before they could attack. The only way this could possibly occur would be if a country on our continent decided to invade and we would still detect any mass of military force before it could invade.
Not to mention, civilians don't have the training or the weaponry to fight such a war to begin with. We would have to rely on our military to defend us either way.
There would not be a war, I don't believe there are enough gun owners that would be willing to wage war against the government in order to keep their guns to begin with. Most people are fairly rational and I would think, believe that living is much more important than owning a gun.