2nd Amendment

Would you be happier if those victims were all stabbed to death? Or fire bombed to death? Or beaten with baseball bat, 2x4, pipe, hockey stick, brick or rock? I want my gun to protect myself and my family from nut jobs like that. Anyone who supports the "catch and release" that the Dems have started xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx. Repeat offenders are just being released onto unsuspecting public. They SHOULD be in jail (as well as the polititions who support it).

I'm sure you're capable of making your point without resorting to that - keep it civil. PC

 

SCARY!!!!!

 

You mean the MISINFORMATION/INDOCTRINATION they are exposed to?

 

People can and DO own TANKS as they are antique and have the main gun and the the other guns present, but are non-functioning. Used in parades and displays. People also can buy and own FIGHTER JETS and NON-JET FIGHTER aircraft as they have no weapons/armaments. They are flown in air races, air shows and on display as well as for the joy of flying on a nice day. As for the NUKE's, you must have a very vivid imagination as I doubt that will happen unless it is done by well funded terrorist organization. With that said I foresee affordable miniture nuclear power plants for every home in the very distant future. You never know.

 

I think the Heller decision make clear in the record that it is the 2nd protects the "individual arm of the day, be that bows and arrow, knives, and what ever weapon in commonly given to infantry soldiers. So, rifles (maybe ray guns in the future) and such are protected, but crew served weapons (which are the other items you list) can be regulated.

Even with all of those in the governments hands, they can't be everywhere as the recent results in Afghanistan show clearly.

 

And how many innocent people can be killed by panicking citizens with guns? Also, if no one had guns, so one could do a mass shooting. But yeah, Americans just love guns. That's why its safer to live where I am than in the USA, which has more kills in a week than my country in a few years

 

Sorry, that's a fantasy reality.

What makes you think the criminals/insurgents/terrorist etc. would not find a way to get firearms?

Even if you were to destroy all the guns on earth, they would make their own. Just what kind of country do you
think you would have then?

Here in the USA, I feel much safer than you because I am able to use a firearm quite expertly and I would
have the chance to defend myself.

The un-armed are at the mercy of those who have firepower.

The larger nations in the world know the major populace of the USA have firearms.
That is a great deterrent against invading us.

If a country were able to dis-arm our military, they would still have a civilian army of 150 million,
armed with well over 300 million firearms.

 

Just yesterday, 10/14/2021, a radicalized convert t to Islam killed at least 5 people with a bow and arrow. I feel safer surrounded by armed neighbors than disarmed neighbors.

Don't forget the first thing Hitler and Stalin did was take all the peoples guns away. That worked out well for the Jewish people and the rest of the citizens. How much safer they became.

 

The first part of your post about people being killed by "panicking citizens" has never happened - pure fantasy. As for your second part about mass shootings - would you feel better if they were killed with a machete? Or fire bombs or the like?

"Gun violence" doesn't really exist. It is just a made up talking point by the liberal left (Democrats: the new Nazis). Violence is violence no matter what is used. Use a knife, a hammer, a pipe, crowbar, fire bombs (Antifa/BLM favorite), screwdriver or a baseball bat etc. It is violence pure and simple, nothing else.

A disarmed society is not a polite society, it is a society of sheep and the ones in power are the wolves.

 

My apologies, I meant no disrespect or offense to anyone.

 

If a country were able to disarm the US military, civilians would be the least of their problems. Since I also have some military training, I can assure you that combat against any determined modern army is utterly hopeless with light infantry weapons. Tanks are pretty much invincible against light infantry lacking AT support. And then there is heavy artillery, bombers, drones, etc. Don't even think of it.

Some may think that the US defeats in Afghanistan or Vietnam show that motivated rag tag armies could hold their own against a modern army. I don't think this is true. They all received significant external support. The US had political goals that were incompatible with what a military can do. As a consequence, the rules of engagement for the US army were tame (humane) compared to what a brutal dictator might do. A guy like Saddam Hussein would just carpet bomb or gas your town if you stand up against him. Everyone and everything you love would be gone. Tens of thousands of Kurds and Shiites, though lightly armed and highly motivated, were easily slaughtered by Saddam's armored units when they tried to rise up. That sends a strong signal to everyone else to stand down and shut up.

I always chuckle when hearing about American males' fantasies concerning their guns and warfare. Even US soldiers tend to be fairly clueless about such scenarios because they are so used to having highly effective supply lines, massive air support, etc. You want to stay safe in your country? Then make sure not to elect a maniac who might use the US military against you. That scenario strikes me as much more likely and won't end well for the average obese American wannabe freedom fighter with a puny AR-15.

 

So really, I posted that in an un-realistic scenario, just like your post of no guns anywhere in the world.

Do you really think the US military could be reduced to nothing?

And why do you think that all non-military Americans couldn't incorporate the usage of heavy military equipment?
WTF! There are millions of us who know how to use Advanced Logistics and the ability to find those who have
abilities in order to designate an MOS?

Why do you compare us to Iran? We are not "tens of thousands with AR-15s" as you stated.
We are over a hundred and fifty million.

You'd be surprised how many regular people know and understand that an FOB needs to be established.

You are mistaken in thinking that the USA regular population is like these pansy liberals who'll just lay back
and let an invading force take over.

This is definitely a fantasy forum, because all of your posts are a fantasy.

 

No, I don't, the scenario was given by you: "If a country were able to dis-arm our military...".

There is no chance in hell, save maybe for the discovery of a fantastic super weapon, that anyone, not even any realistic combination of enemies, could invade the US. The US military is simply way too strong.

They could, but if even the mighty US military could not stop an enemy, it seems more than unlikely that a much less organized and well-equipped group of much more poorly trained civilians could. Note that the enemy would necessarily have air superiority. They would just bomb any militia formation to smithereens. Only asymmetric warfare could be sustained for a while and would almost certainly fail in the long term if the enemy has no ethical limitations.

Again, by your scenario the enemy would have air superiority at this point. Any large scale logistics will be swiftly destroyed.

The numbers are irrelevant. Once organized tanks and heavy artillery shoot at you, you will surrender or die. Resistance is futile.

Your FOB will be gone after the first bombing run.

Unlike the overly confident conservatives, the pansy liberals will still be alive. And maybe find more effective political ways to subvert the enemy. There is a good chance they will succeed if the enemy uses Facebook.

I've participated in real life military exercises with civilian militia forces who were at least at some point trained soldiers. They all (including me) suck big time compared to continuously trained, professional soldiers. Your 2nd amendment weapons will be useless. It's not the 1780s anymore where any Joe Sixpack with a musket could still contribute anything of value on the battlefield.

 

HAHAHA! I definitely believe that one could happen!

 

You cannot control an entire country and it's people with tanks, jets, battleships and drones or any of these things ************** trumps citizen ownership of firearms.

A fighter jet, tank, drone, battleship or whatever cannot stand on street corners and enforce "no assembly" edicts. A fighter jet cannot kick down your door at 3AM and search your house for contraband.

None of these things can maintain the needed police state to completely subjugate and enslave the people of a nation. Those weapons are for decimating, flattening and glassing large areas and many people at once and fighting other state militaries. The government does not want to kill all of its people and blow up its own infrastructure. These things are the very things they need to be tyrannical assholes in the first place. If they decided to turn everything outside of Washington D.C. into glowing green glass they would be the absolute rulers of a big, worthless, radioactive pile of shit.

Police are needed to maintain a police state, boots on the ground. And no matter how many police you have on the ground they will always be vastly outnumbered by civilians which is why in a police state it is vital that your police have automatic weapons while the people have nothing but their limp dicks.

BUT when every random pedestrian could have a Glock in their waistband and every random homeowner an AR-15 all of that goes out the fucking window because now the police are out numbered and face the reality of bullets coming back at them.

If you want living examples of this look at every insurgency that the U.S. military has tried to destroy. They're all still kicking with nothing but AK-47's, pick up trucks and improvised explosives because these big scary military monsters you keep alluding to are all but fucking useless for dealing with them.

Keep it civil. Any more flaming will be dealt with. PC.

 

Deadrock, I like your logical countering of Incs' problematic thinking that there would be no serious counter attacks.

BUT, Pussycat is not only 100% right in her corrections, when you stoop to the name calling, ( as those who always put a derogative
adjective when using the words conservative/liberal or Republican/Democrat), it does lessen the strength of your very
intelligent and persuasive argument.