freedomdwarf1
Posts: 6845
Joined: 10/23/2012
Status: offline
|
Interesting take on the spin.
quote:
ORIGINAL: lovmuffin
quote:
ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1
Do you honestly think that a rag-tag bunch of gun owners would be any opposition to any remotely serious attack if it were to happen in the US??
From Losing The War by Lee Sandlin.
"Neither the Japanese nor the Germans would ever have been able to mount an invasion--and, in fact, neither ever seriously considered the possibility; Hitler at his most expansive still thought any transoceanic war was a century away."
Also this,
"When you think of a country like Russia or China contemplating invading the US, the consideration they must always consider is what happens if they successfully defeat our standing army, take out all of our military assets and installations. What next? If they intend to take our land, they must deal with the hundreds of millions of armed citizens who will spontaneously organize and resist invasion. That’s the bottom line. That’s why Japan didn’t use its naval superiority in the beginning of WWII to invade the mainland. That’s why Germany never said they wanted to invade the US. That’s why no country since Great Britain in the War of 1812 thought it wise to set foot in military conquest on our nation’s shores."
http://fwcon.wordpress.com/2013/01/10/
And this,
http://backwoodshome.com/blogs/MassadAyoob/2011/09/06/1446/
You would also have to wonder how a rag tag bunch of Viet Cong were such a pain in the ass against US forces who had way heavier armements, artillery, tanks and all the rest of it.
The VC were a trained army in guerilla warefare and very well practiced.
I wouldn't say your average Joe gun owner in the US was anywhere as well trained as the VC.
quote:
ORIGINAL: lovmuffin
quote:
ORIGINAL:
You'd still need your official forces.
And if that opposition was your own military, you wouldn't stand a chance. Seriously, you wouldn't.
To contemate that would mean you would have to believe our own troops would gun down its own citizens. I get it, follow orders and all that but I have my doubts. Not only that but I highly doubt the National Gaurd would be on the side of the Government and the same for many of the active military units if the government ever did turn on us. To say we wouldn't stand a chance is a bit pessimistic. Millions of guys with high powered rifles equipped with telescopic sights would present a major pain in the ass. We would certainly outnumber shit out of them. I think we would be enough of an opposition that it would never happen. The best reason to keep the 2nd amendment is so we'll never need it for its intended purpose.
But wasn't that the very reason you were granted that 2nd?
To uphold a militia to defend against such a usurp or overrun/coup from the government?
And that would mean the US military turning on its citizens - as ordered by those in power.
At the time the 2nd was written, the founding fathers had no notions of air power and long range missiles capable of completely wiping half the country from the face of the earth.
I don't know of many citizens with that sort of weaponry, even in the US.
Now you see how outdated that part of the constitution really is?
If it were 2 centuries ago where the best there was available to anyone was probably nothing much better than the gattling gun. Sure, your statement would be stand true.
These days, it's a pea-shooter against a tank. Not a sniff of a chance.
quote:
ORIGINAL: lovmuffin
quote:
ORIGINAL:
And the disarming of Joe Public had nothing whatsoever to do with WW2 and the lack of funds/guns/metal/ammo that we suffered................And before you bleat on about it, it was a loan and you've been repaid in full and with interest.
It absolutely did. The Brits didn't have enough firearms at the time they feared a Snotzi invasion. The call went out here in the US for firearms donations and we sent you bunch of em. I'm not aware that those who donated their personal arms were paid back with interest.
That's not what I said. Twisting of words again.
That's the second time you've said about personal arms being paid back with interest - I said no such thing nor implied it.
We, as a country were broke and out of resources.
We asked for help. We got it, as a loan. And repaid it.
quote:
ORIGINAL: lovmuffin
quote:
ORIGINAL:
And if there were another war that threatened to land on Brit soil, we'd probably still be in that same shit. No amount of home ownership of guns would save the country even if everyone owned several of them and bunkers full of ammo.
Yeah right, you guys would just roll over like little puppy dogs. I guess you'll say anything to make an argument. That certainly wasn't the case at the time of WWll.
And it won't be the case in any other war.
We won't roll over like the french did.
And that's why we stepped in - to help the french before hitler got a proper leg over the channel.
quote:
ORIGINAL: lovmuffin
quote:
ORIGINAL:
If you think that gun ownership will save the US from anything remotely serious, you (generic) are either very stupid or extremely naive; I'm not quite sure which.
If you think we're just going to roll over and turn in our guns then I'd have to say, the same back at ya.
Fair comment.
So when your guys get into some serious shit (Afghanistan come to mind), who helped you and watched your backs??
I didn't see all you lot back home jump into boats and planes to help your countrymen in your war on terror with the Taliban an Al-Queda.
No, we Brits were there (and still are) covering your back while you pull out of the region.
quote:
ORIGINAL: lovmuffin
quote:
ORIGINAL:
We can bear arms just as you can. Most of us choose not to. We like it that way.
It's my understanding that by law you can not bear arms just as we can. Aside from double barrel shotguns and certain types of hunting rifles most modern firearms and most hand guns are off limits. Though if you like it that way and it suits you then I'm tickled plum to death. 
We probably don't have such a wide range of weapons to choose from because our restrictions are such that you have to qualify with a specific reason for having a gun in the first place and there aren't many situations where an uzzi or anything like that are really necessary - even for sport.
I don't know of any hand gun, single shot, or semi-automatic weapon that is off limits - if you can justify the use of one, you can get a license for it.
|
RE: Anotther school shooting. - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread