lovmuffin
Posts: 3759
Joined: 9/28/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1
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.See posts 346 and 350
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?That pretty much covers it but I don't think you know who the militia is
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.No one is asking for any of that stuff so you're talking up a non issue
Now you see how outdated that part of the constitution really is?The constitution is a set of timeless principles for us to govern ourselves by. It won't go out of date until we're flying around in space with Captain Kirk.
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.So I guess you've never heard of the Kentucky Assault Rifle that was floating around more than 2 centuries ago. FYI the Gattling gun didn't exist 2 centuries ago
These days, it's a pea-shooter against a tank. Not a sniff of a chance.You keep babbling the same talking point over and over. Try googling gorilla warfare.
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.You posted (post 297) "That's what they said when rumours started flying about our gun controls after WW1.
They just enacted it into law with the flick of a pen."
I responded relating the FACT that since you guys gave up your personal arms you didn't have many to go around at the time you were in fear of a Snotzi invasion. The call went out to Americans to donate personal arms for British citizens. We donated them.
We, as a country were broke and out of resources.
We asked for help. We got it, as a loan. And repaid it.That is a seperate issue and has nothing to do with what I originally responded to you with.
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.Good for you guys
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??You guys did and its very much appreciated but we're not going to enact UK type gun control because you're helping. Keep in mind we helped you guys during WWl when we finally jumped into the war and we helped again in WWll. I'm sure if the shit goes down again we'll have your back.
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.I'm not sure I'm following you here. You mean should us 2nd amendment types be jumping on boats and planes with our guns ?
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.Is self defense for you, your home and family a good enough specific reason to get that license? I don't believe there are many if any legal semi automatic handguns floating around out there in civilian hands.
You don't have all that much of a clue about our society and culture. If you did then you wouldn't be bantering and ballyhooing UK gun control could work in the US. Give it a rest. There are some gun laws we could enact that would help with the gun violence mass murder situation but gun laws alone without a comprehensive strategy in other areas won't work. When people start talking about bans on this or that, *severe restrictions* and all the rest of the draconian shit, the whole issue degenerates to a bunch of people drawing a line in the sand and solves absolutely nothing.
_____________________________
"Give a man a gun and he can rob a bank. Give a man a bank and he can rob the world." Unknown
"Long hair, short hair—what's the difference once the head's blowed off." - Farmer Yassir
|
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