Advertisement
by Samozaryadnyastan » Sun Mar 03, 2013 12:12 pm
Malgrave wrote:You are secretly Vladimir Putin using this forum to promote Russian weapons and tracking down and killing those who oppose you.
by Republica Newland » Sun Mar 03, 2013 12:12 pm
by Mexicanada » Sun Mar 03, 2013 12:14 pm
Gun Manufacturers wrote:Ovisterra wrote:The term seems to be extremely loose and used selectively by both sides for their own benefit.
Just ban guns full stop.
That would be extremely difficult in the US, because 44 states have the right to bear arms in their state constitutions, and the US Constitution also protects that right. Since you would need at least 38 states to ratify a repeal of the Second Amendment, it isn't likely to happen.
by Republica Newland » Sun Mar 03, 2013 12:14 pm
Divair wrote:Republica Newland wrote:I'd say a Libyan TANK (whatever the fuck they are using,I'm presuming slightly (or more) outdated Soviet weaponry) is comparable to an American "fucking APC".
So.. where do you plan on getting a few dozen planes to take out the USAF and then the tanks on the ground?Republica Newland wrote:You've still failed to bring up a method of determining who is and who isn't rebelling,because target acquisition is fucking easy when dealing with your own fucking country full of civilians,amirite?
Tyrannical government, remember? Why would they care?
by Jormengand » Sun Mar 03, 2013 12:15 pm
Jormengand wrote:It would be really meta if I sigged this.
by Republica Newland » Sun Mar 03, 2013 12:15 pm
Ovisterra wrote:The term seems to be extremely loose and used selectively by both sides for their own benefit.
Just ban guns full stop.
by Grinning Dragon » Sun Mar 03, 2013 12:15 pm
Phocidaea wrote:It depends. What is an "assault weapon"?
Automatic weapons? Yes.
Legitimately "military-grade" weapons? Probably.
Standard civilian-grade rifles that happen to resemble military arms? No.
by Immoren » Sun Mar 03, 2013 12:16 pm
discoursedrome wrote:everyone knows that quote, "I know not what weapons World War Three will be fought, but World War Four will be fought with sticks and stones," but in a way it's optimistic and inspiring because it suggests that even after destroying civilization and returning to the stone age we'll still be sufficiently globalized and bellicose to have another world war right then and there
by The united imperial sector » Sun Mar 03, 2013 12:17 pm
Mexicanada wrote:The united imperial sector wrote:Banning assault wepons won't stop gun violence criminals can just buy them illegaly anyway the only thing it would do is make the law abiding citizens more vunarable to them.
Why would I bother saying something when someone's already said it. Thatnk you for bringing some sense to the argument.
by Republica Newland » Sun Mar 03, 2013 12:17 pm
by Divair » Sun Mar 03, 2013 12:18 pm
Republica Newland wrote:We're playing cat and mouse apparently. So in scenario A,why not have guns to (at least attempt to) take down the Govt?
Republica Newland wrote: In scenario B,why not have guns to ensure that happens as fast as possible?
by Maineiacs » Sun Mar 03, 2013 12:19 pm
by Divair » Sun Mar 03, 2013 12:19 pm
Maineiacs wrote:Divair wrote:What a horrible comparison. That's like comparing deaths in China to deaths in Vermont. Try finding a statistic that isn't a number based on size.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Per_capita
by Republica Newland » Sun Mar 03, 2013 12:21 pm
Divair wrote:Republica Newland wrote:We're playing cat and mouse apparently. So in scenario A,why not have guns to (at least attempt to) take down the Govt?
Because rifles alone do not stop a military.Republica Newland wrote: In scenario B,why not have guns to ensure that happens as fast as possible?
So instead of letting the military do its job properly to overthrow the tyrannical government, we get in the way, fuck up their organization, and put the lives of civilians at risk.
Brilliant idea.
by Grinning Dragon » Sun Mar 03, 2013 12:23 pm
Divair wrote:Republica Newland wrote:We're playing cat and mouse apparently. So in scenario A,why not have guns to (at least attempt to) take down the Govt?
Because rifles alone do not stop a military.Republica Newland wrote: In scenario B,why not have guns to ensure that happens as fast as possible?
So instead of letting the military do its job properly to overthrow the tyrannical government, we get in the way, fuck up their organization, and put the lives of civilians at risk.
Brilliant idea.
by Cosara » Sun Mar 03, 2013 12:23 pm
by Divair » Sun Mar 03, 2013 12:23 pm
Republica Newland wrote:That actually worked wonders for the Arabs, although they've got a bit to go in Syria.
by Divair » Sun Mar 03, 2013 12:23 pm
Cosara wrote:So you're saying that spending the rest of your life slaving away in a FEMA Death Camp is better than dying for Liberty.
by Divair » Sun Mar 03, 2013 12:24 pm
Grinning Dragon wrote:So far I am with you Divair, but what if a tyrannical govt brought in outside help? Surely (and no I am not calling you Shirley ) having the help of an armed populace would be beneficial.
by Divair » Sun Mar 03, 2013 12:26 pm
Alekera wrote:The concentration camp survivors beg to differ...
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Avzeria, Duvniask, GMS Greater Miami Shores 1, Google [Bot], Ifreann, Ineva, Kannap, Kaztropol, Kerwa, Lothria, Lower Nubia, Lycom, Nanatsu no Tsuki, Omphalos, The Jamesian Republic, Tungstan, Uiiop, Valrifall, Zurkerx
Advertisement