100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: FIREARMS | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
The weapons available to the every day American will be ineffective against the gov. today. Even with proper training and automatic weapons we would not stand long. The best weapon we have is our children. Encourage them to serve and engrain upon them from birth that the military can never use its weapons against the People. Never! In this way we can keep the gov use of our military against us, a Zero factor.. The Afghani Mujahideen veterans (to use just one example) of the Soviet incursion would likely disagree with you. History shows that Partisan forces are near unstoppable, especially after being armed with equipment stolen from the opposition. It's also truly amazing how effective improvised armaments can be. After all, necessity is the mother of invention. |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
rayne5
on
Tue 03/04/08 09:47 PM
|
|
As far as being able to have things such as machine guns and explosives, you can. It is just simply very very dificult to obtain the proper licences, ie FFL, FEL. Even millitary personell must be licensed for some of the explosives. Or at least they used to have to be.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Fanta46
on
Tue 03/04/08 10:06 PM
|
|
The weapons available to the every day American will be ineffective against the gov. today. Even with proper training and automatic weapons we would not stand long. The best weapon we have is our children. Encourage them to serve and engrain upon them from birth that the military can never use its weapons against the People. Never! In this way we can keep the gov use of our military against us, a Zero factor.. The Afghani Mujahideen veterans (to use just one example) of the Soviet incursion would likely disagree with you. History shows that Partisan forces are near unstoppable, especially after being armed with equipment stolen from the opposition. It's also truly amazing how effective improvised armaments can be. After all, necessity is the mother of invention. Its not that simple. Zahir Shah in 1973, after the Us had refused once again to aide the Afghan gov., and after they had turned to Russia for help. Foresaw what was to come and sent the mujahideen to spread across the country, prepare for what was to come, and secretly stash weapons. Also smart bombs, night vision equipt, etc. were yet to be as available as they are today. Even in the US military. Also, the Us smuggled advisors and weapons across the border with Pakistan. They also provided intelligence. The infrastructure in Afghanistan is not like ours and much of the country is remote! The Afghan people are patient and used to a hard life. Americans? well you know.... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As far as being able to have things such as machine guns and explosives, you can. It is just simply very very dificult to obtain the proper licences, ie FFL, FEL. Even millitary personell must be licensed for some of the explosives. Or at least they used to have to be. Logistics!!! How many different kinds of bullets will you need? Raid an Armory or two. Thats your best bet,, Then you need ammo! If the US military is willing to fight its own people. You really dont stand a chance.. Not today,,1780,,,yeah.. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The topic is firearms.
Im all about the 2nd amendment, but as it refered in 1776, it is no longer a valid arguement!! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The topic is firearms. Im all about the 2nd amendment, but as it refered in 1776, it is no longer a valid arguement!! You misread my post. Read it again. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addendum to Fire Arms Refresher Course Restrictive gun laws were first tried in the late 1800's, not in Europe, but in violence prone states here in America. The laws failed and violence rates continued to rise. Those laws were repealed after World War I. Stricter gun laws will not prevent senseless killings, or even sensible ones. All they will do is make it more difficult for law-abiding citizens to obtain firearms and infringe on their Second Amendment rights. There is a myth that most murders are committed by ordinary, law-abiding citizens who kill a relative or acquaintance in a moment of anger only because a gun is available. The real truth is that the overwhelming majority of murders are committed by career criminals, people with lifelong histories of violence. Even those people who accidently kill others with guns tend to have felony records and histories of substance abuse. Studies consistently show that on the average, gun owners are better educated and hold more prestigious jobs than non-owners. Of course, criminals are not included in the afore-mentioned statement. Early studies that labeled gun owners violence prone turned out to be based on questions that addressed only willingness to come to the aid of crime victims. In other words, good citizenship was confused with violence. There are only about 100,000 police officers on patrol at any one given time. That is 100,000 police officers patrolling our streets to protect approximately 300 million people. Unless you get attacked where a policeman is on patrol, the chances of a police officer being near enough to you to assist are practically nil. This is a violent country. Until something is done about the conditions that cause our country to be violent, it almost makes sense to own a gun for protection than not to. In any case, every American has the right, thanks to our Founding Fathers, to make that decision for themselves. This one? Good post.... 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Only small segments, if any of the u.s. military would fire on u.s. citizens. that is what the u.n. is for
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
leahmarie
on
Tue 03/04/08 10:38 PM
|
|
Addendum to Fire Arms Refresher Course Restrictive gun laws were first tried in the late 1800's, not in Europe, but in violence prone states here in America. The laws failed and violence rates continued to rise. Those laws were repealed after World War I. Stricter gun laws will not prevent senseless killings, or even sensible ones. All they will do is make it more difficult for law-abiding citizens to obtain firearms and infringe on their Second Amendment rights. There is a myth that most murders are committed by ordinary, law-abiding citizens who kill a relative or acquaintance in a moment of anger only because a gun is available. The real truth is that the overwhelming majority of murders are committed by career criminals, people with lifelong histories of violence. Even those people who accidently kill others with guns tend to have felony records and histories of substance abuse. Studies consistently show that on the average, gun owners are better educated and hold more prestigious jobs than non-owners. Of course, criminals are not included in the afore-mentioned statement. Early studies that labeled gun owners violence prone turned out to be based on questions that addressed only willingness to come to the aid of crime victims. In other words, good citizenship was confused with violence. There are only about 100,000 police officers on patrol at any one given time. That is 100,000 police officers patrolling our streets to protect approximately 300 million people. Unless you get attacked where a policeman is on patrol, the chances of a police officer being near enough to you to assist are practically nil. This is a violent country. Until something is done about the conditions that cause our country to be violent, it almost makes sense to own a gun for protection than not to. In any case, every American has the right, thanks to our Founding Fathers, to make that decision for themselves. This one? Good post....
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Fanta, thanks. Actually the post I was referring to is on the previous page. Here is what I was talking about, "Since this thread is about firearms, here is another interesting fact my son apprised me of ------ the Second Amendment was created so that guns could not be taken away from the militia." I wasn't out to discuss/argue the Second Amendment, just threw it in since this thread is about firearms. I thought it was interesting. I suppose I worded it rather badly. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I just hate to see the militia arguement thrown in for a reason to own firearms.
Those days are gone.. The arguement of self protection is a good and valid arguement. Im all for it and own several weapons myself. We should argue, (or debate) the right with a firm rational bases. Otherwise we sound foolish and will never be taken serious.. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
rayne5
on
Tue 03/04/08 11:12 PM
|
|
Logistics!!! How many different kinds of bullets will you need? If you plan it right three, a sniper round preferably a .308 or 30-06, a medium range asault round ie .223, and a sidearm ie 9mm/.40/.45 see planning can make all the difference. The military uses .223, 9mm, and .308. If you use the same rounds as your apponet then when you elimanate the emediate threat then you can use there ammo and weapons to resuply. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Now you have to get everyone to have the same weapon. Say 10-100 thousand....
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Im just saying that would be an ideal situation. And if you raid an armory that is the type of weapons you will find anyway.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I just hate to see the militia arguement thrown in for a reason to own firearms. Those days are gone.. The arguement of self protection is a good and valid arguement. Im all for it and own several weapons myself. We should argue, (or debate) the right with a firm rational bases. Otherwise we sound foolish and will never be taken serious.. fanta..... Did you just change your picture since you do not look like the fanta I was interacting with. Or, are there two fantas? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thats my alter-ego
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The topic is firearms. Im all about the 2nd amendment, but as it refered in 1776, it is no longer a valid arguement!! Fanta, You need to study your history. The 2nd amendment is still and always will be a valid argument. There are 2.5 million cases a year where a citizen uses a gun to protect themselves or their family. In more than 50% of those cases it's a woman using the gun. Now, in the majority of those cases no shots were fired. Also, during World War Two a Jap sub was just outside of the San Francisco Bay. The sub captain decided not to attack, not because of our army but because he was afraid of all the citizens that had guns. And something else you should know....most of these guys here in America that hunt with 30 cal. rifles are very good shots. They don't have to stand in front of an army. They would stay up in the hills and take their shots one at a time from 300, 400, 500 yards away. Every army I know is afraid of snipers. The only way any army is going to beat America on it's own turf is to drop a very big bomb. Guns are here to stay. Good honest citizens will keep it that way. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Only small segments, if any of the u.s. military would fire on u.s. citizens. that is what the u.n. is for
agreed, especially since they took a vow to defend the constitution of the u.s. against all enemies, foreign and domestic. I feel that people wouldn't take arms against the government unless their constitutional rights were being violated heavily. The troops would have to decide whether to follow orders or follow vows. I don't think soldiers would attack their own citizens. Especially if his or her family were involved. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The topic is firearms. Im all about the 2nd amendment, but as it refered in 1776, it is no longer a valid arguement!! explain this statement plz arms are arms infringement is infringement |
|
|
|
|
