Guns don't kill people, People kill people. For those people who think that all guns should be outlawed because they kill people then consider this. If you outlaw guns because they kill people then next your going to have to outlaw cars because cars kill people. You think it's funny, well it's not. It's the same thing. If you blame the gun and not the person who shot the gun then using the same principle you would have to blame the car and not the driver of the car. There would be no more Mothers Against Drunk Drivers. It would have to be Mothers Against Cars. Blaming the gun and not the shooter is kind of stupid to me. About the only thing that is keeping other Countries from attacking us on our own soil (except for terrorists) is that they know that with all of the armed people in this Country equals to the second largest armed force in the world. Second to only the United States. Now take away those guns and Countries like Iran, North Korea, Pakistan Libya etc would be attacking us in an instant. If Obama and his Cronies are allowed to disarm America then our Government could do the same thing that Hitler did in 1933. Run AMOK. Not that he isn't already running amok, he just can't run over all of the armed citizens of the United States. Let's not let the Government take away any more of our rights. The second amendment secures all citizens right to keep and bear arms with or without a permit. If the Government does away with the second amendment which one will they do away with next????? This is a repost of a a reply
While I agree that most gun control advocates are a bit stupid when it comes to guns, I will say that guns do make it easier to kill people. for that reason they ought to be restricted. lol ... and how will those countries attack the US? lol A massive navy? LOL Civilian gun ownership does not prevent foreign invasion. A bunch of people with sporting rifles are no match for a tank. Nazi gun control is largely a myth.
True enough,... But,... An Armed populace is much more capable of attacking, 'n stealing larger weapons from the invaders.. Many battles are Not fought on battle lines.... but from behind those lines... insurgents...
That is what we have a military for. The whole idea of a civilian population preventing either domestic or foreign government take over is out dated.
When has the administration proposed stricter gun laws? to date I can not think of a single one. Are there any? have they ever stated that is their plan?
Right, tens of thousands dead fighting against a government with 1960's technology. A very smart revolution and is comparable to the United states and its military.
Your point? People shouldn't go to war over issues that can be settled over a cup of tea. People go to war over diametric ideological differences that are life and death. What's the value of 10,000 lives in comparison to the enslavement of the entire populace? They'd tell you it was worth it, I'd bet. Technology isn't the issue. The issue is will. That's all war has ever been about. He who has the will to continue the fight will continue the fight until his enemy no longer has the will to fight. No government can control our hearts and minds with advanced weaponry. If it could, the Vietnam war would have been a snap, the Soviets would have taken Afghanistan, the 1rst gulf war would have settled the middle east issue... and on and on...
If it was possible I would agree. But it's not, and we should quit wasting our money and time trying to do so. The problem is with criminals and criminals don't obey laws. It's like trying to regulate crime. Makes no sense. The ONLY way we will reduce gun crimes is to give the criminal a reason to not commit the crime in the first place. If politicians think there will be a day when criminals will have a hard time finding a gun because of the great bills they passed, they are delusional.
Hmmmm.... I agree. It is far more important to figure out why someone commits a crime instead of how. How is largely irrelevant. My stance on gun control is not so much that the laws would actually prevent someone from acquiring a firearm, but that they will be prevented from acquiring a firearm legally. It is far more difficult to pass more gun control if it is already difficult for a undesirable person from obtaining a firearm. They may choose an illicit avenue, however that avenue is far removed from the means that your "American gun owner" chooses. The law abiding go to the gun shop, the criminals go to the alley. The restrictions protect the gun shop and our rights in the process.
They may say it was worth it, then again maybe not. However there is no need for chest beating. No one has rebelled in the US, no one rebelled when guns were confiscated door to door in New Orlands. Its silly.
No one? That's not true. What's true is that not enough people have joined together to rebel. Mainly because they haven't been given reason to. That doesn't mean they should ever let go of the idea that they might need to. After all, isn't that the point of our grand experiment?
We already dismissed that. Those were a group of people that went up against a laughable military. Apples and oranges.
We did? I don't remember dismissing that. I remember supporting the claim with the action in Vietnam, the action in Afghanistan, the action in the gulf, (or how about Somalia) in which a less advanced force was able to stand up to and break the will of far more heavily equipped forces.
Backed by the Soviet Union. Backed by the United States. Black hawk down? lol Yeah, that's a great example. A botched rescue mission.
This Administration has banned about one million used M-1s that we gave to the Korean Army back in the 1950s from being returned to the U.S. for sale to civilians. The BATFE tried to ban certain shotguns from being imported to the U.S. claiming they had no sporting purpose. Obama has stated that he will find ways around 12 NRA backed riders that were in the recent approprations bill that he signed.
US forces did not pull out of Vietnam because the Vietnamese had access to superior technology. Most of the Vietcong forces didn't have access to mediocre technology. They barely had food to eat. Our forces were far more highly trained, possessed far superior weapons systems, and possessed far more resources to continue the fight. US forces pulled out of Vietnam because we lost the will to be there. Our "backing" of the mujahideen was not quite as extensive as those who exclaim "we trained bin laden!" would have you believe. Charlie Wilson's war cost a small fraction of the cost of the arms and ammunition that already exist in the hands of U.S. citizens. That's a great example, because that's all it was. Had we been determined, we could have turned everyone involved into dust. We were not determined. The action against us was enough of a deterrent to keep us out of their affairs, and that's despite our superior technology and strength of forces.
The sale was not banned. The imports were blocked. I can still buy an M1 rifle from the CMP. Link please. Link please.
We lost because we were physically there, fighting a proxy of the Soviet Union. Our rules of engagement limited the effectiveness of the US military. We armed them with more than just sporting rifles. Stringers are quite difficult to acquire. The goal was to get the down air men, then the rescue crews, out alive. Turning the entire area to dust would have been counter productive.
There is one case I personally know of. One buddy went the get his mother out of a flooded house. The cops pulled up to their boat and said no one is going in and they are going to take the guns from him and his 12 year old son. He racked his slide and told his son "shoot this guy when you hear the first shot, and I will take they guy in the back". The cops left.
No. That was not the goal. The mission was Operation Gothic Serpent. It took place from August to October in 1993, and was directed at the capture of Mohamed Farrah Aidid. That was the goal. It was a goal that we failed to achieve. Aidid's forces were far more inferior to our own, but he had support of the locals. The attack you're talking about was a turning point in that war, and lead to the withdrawal of American forces from the area because we lacked the will, not the strength to prosecute that war against a far less technologically advanced foe.
The US is not going to vaporize an entire area, killing civilians, and loose popularity in the public field. You make an moot point.
