They make *what* for kids!?

[Lunatic Goofballs]

I live in Tennessee and even I can say that I don't know of anyone who gives their 5 year old a gun, much less let him play with one. Are there some out there? Much more than likely, I just haven't met them.

I know a bunch of the A-holes around here will flame me but I plan on buying my daughter a cricket for her 6th birthday, I do however plan on leaving it locked in the gun safe with the bolt pulled and a cable lock ran through the action.

That poor insect.

[Cosara]

I don't want to get too bogged down in this, but if something like this actually happened in the US, it wouldn't be a conventional war, and you would probably have large parts of the military defecting to the rebel side. Small arms and determination can beat technology and conventional military strength, as we've seen again and again in the 20th and 21st centuries.

That being said, that sort of thing ever happening is quite unlikely. We could probably become a dictatorship before we'd have some kind of rebellion or civil war.

You understand that when the south seceded because they claimed the north to be violating their right to slavery, the south got their asses handed to them, right?

That's because 75% of the United States Military was not defecting to help them. In the event of a civil war resulting from a repeal of the second amendment, there would be massive amounts of the US Military defecting.

[Condunum]

You understand that when the south seceded because they claimed the north to be violating their right to slavery, the south got their asses handed to them, right?

You understand that the North Vietnamese and Viet Cong successfully resisted the French, and then the Americans for years and years, absorbed millions of casualties, largely with small arms?

As I've said, I don't want to get into some kind of tit for tat argument, so we'll agree to disagree.

How about we don't, because you're using a bad comparison. The Vietnamese had sufficient time to transform their country into a literal fortress. Also, foreign army vs domestic fighters. Big disadvantage goes to the foreign army, especially considering the shitty tactics we used.

[Gun Manufacturers]

Good luck with that. Between the repeal of the right to bear arms in enough state constitutions (44 out of 50 states have such a right protected in their state constitutions), the repeal of the Second Amendment (you'll need at least 38 states to ratify a new federal amendment), and warrants to search every American home for firearms, you've got a LOOOOOONG road ahead. Meanwhile, I'll continue to enjoy target shooting with my firearms until a ripe old age.

Man, whatever happened to the compromise I keep asking for?

Gun owners, you can keep your guns.

Gun control advocates, we'll have stiffer regulations on who can own and operate a firearm.

Does this not please everyone?

You can't just say "stiffer regulations" and have firearms owners agree to it. You need to lay out what those stiffer regulations are. I'm not keen on the whole, "But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it".

[Thoricia]

I'm pretty sure this is the boring shitty troll Goofballs but I could be wrong sorry for the trollnaming if it isn't

Could be. I don't have the tools at my disposal that a game moderator does, but from what I can see with the tools available, I'm not sure. There are some counter-indications.

I posted in the BST thread just to be sure, I've missed him three times already, maybe I'll get lucky this time.

[Condunum]

To be honest I don't see anything wrong with this. If there is proper supervision and the weapon is kept in a safe unless it's being used, then there shouldn't be an issue here. Parents should be able to instruct their children in how to use firearms, and any law that restricted this would restrict the freedom of the people.

I'm sure Australians all feel like they're repressed, right?

[Neo Arcad]

I don't want to get too bogged down in this, but if something like this actually happened in the US, it wouldn't be a conventional war, and you would probably have large parts of the military defecting to the rebel side.

Doubtful.

Small arms and determination can beat technology and conventional military strength, as we've seen again and again in the 20th and 21st centuries.

Entirely dependent on the environment.

Guaranteed, actually. I would be shocked if the military actually followed an order to suppress a popular uprising, especially if it was in defense of the second amendment. I've argued this point before: the military is an independent organization, and it stands in defense of the Constitution. Unless you actually repeal the 2nd Amendment, which is a political impossibility because it's stupid, you can practically count on the military overthrowing the government when they attempt to take away guns en masse.

[Agymnum]

You understand that when the south seceded because they claimed the north to be violating their right to slavery, the south got their asses handed to them, right?

That's because 75% of the United States Military was not defecting to help them. In the event of a civil war resulting from a repeal of the second amendment, there would be massive amounts of the US Military defecting.

One group is fighting for the federal government. The other is fighting against it.

Soldiers are paid by the federal government, and money rings louder than gun rights do.

[The Land Fomerly Known as Ligerplace]

You understand that the North Vietnamese and Viet Cong successfully resisted the French, and then the Americans for years and years, absorbed millions of casualties, largely with small arms?

As I've said, I don't want to get into some kind of tit for tat argument, so we'll agree to disagree.

How about we don't, because you're using a bad comparison. The Vietnamese had sufficient time to transform their country into a literal fortress. Also, foreign army vs domestic fighters. Big disadvantage goes to the foreign army, especially considering the shitty tactics we used.

Also, America fought like an idiot.

[Lemanrussland]

You understand that the North Vietnamese and Viet Cong successfully resisted the French, and then the Americans for years and years, absorbed millions of casualties, largely with small arms?

As I've said, I don't want to get into some kind of tit for tat argument, so we'll agree to disagree.

How about we don't, because you're using a bad comparison. The Vietnamese had sufficient time to transform their country into a literal fortress. Also, foreign army vs domestic fighters. Big disadvantage goes to the foreign army, especially considering the shitty tactics we used.

How about we do?

I'm not really up for debate on the viability of unconventional warfare, it kind of speaks for itself.

[Cosara]

That's because 75% of the United States Military was not defecting to help them. In the event of a civil war resulting from a repeal of the second amendment, there would be massive amounts of the US Military defecting.

One group is fighting for the federal government. The other is fighting against it.

Soldiers are paid by the federal government, and money rings louder than gun rights do.

Jesus Fucking Christ. It is impossible for you to grasp even the most simple of concepts.

[Agymnum]

How about we don't, because you're using a bad comparison. The Vietnamese had sufficient time to transform their country into a literal fortress. Also, foreign army vs domestic fighters. Big disadvantage goes to the foreign army, especially considering the shitty tactics we used.

How about we do?

I'm not really up for debate on the viability of unconventional warfare, it kind of speaks for itself.

How about we don't.

The US fought like shit, supported a shit dictator who killed a lot of people, and generally resorted to bombing rather than head-on combat.

Vietnam was lost the moment we supported Diem.

[Neo Arcad]

You understand that when the south seceded because they claimed the north to be violating their right to slavery, the south got their asses handed to them, right?

To be fair, that was a close call.

To be "unfair", nobody in their right mind would join this really stupid rebellion.

Are the "rebels" going to give the soldiers their paychecks?

Or will the Neo-Confederates use bullets as currency?

Besides, this is assuming it will be a large enough contingent to actually contest the U.S. Fucking Military.

You're right, the government can't fight the military. That's why you can't just start taking away guns left and right.

[The Broken Imperial Sector]

That's because 75% of the United States Military was not defecting to help them. In the event of a civil war resulting from a repeal of the second amendment, there would be massive amounts of the US Military defecting.

One group is fighting for the federal government. The other is fighting against it.

Soldiers are paid by the federal government, and money rings louder than gun rights do.

Sure they do "solider go kill your country men" That should work real well right?

[Gun Manufacturers]

This would entirely depend on what those stiffer regulations are and their effect.

Regulations meaning:

1. Must show license to purchase a gun (close the gun show loopholes)
2. Must have background checks to purchase a gun if license is not present
3. Must have background checks and psychological profiling every X amount of years to determine gun ownership eligibility.
4. Revoke right to own or operate a firearm if the offender has broken the law (depending on the law broken).

Something along those lines.

How is the government going to afford to pay for all those psychological profiles every x amount of years?

[The Marxist State]

If you want for some unfathomably stupid reason to teach your child to shoot a gun, you can get them something that CAN'T ACTUALLY KILL PEOPLE BECAUSE WHAT KIND OF MORON DOES THAT! An air rifle or a Red Ryder BB gun, I don't fucking know, but not something that shoots actually bullets that can kill people.

[Agymnum]

One group is fighting for the federal government. The other is fighting against it.

Soldiers are paid by the federal government, and money rings louder than gun rights do.

Sure they do "solider go kill your country men" That should work real well right?

Again, the north fought the south - brother against brother, father against son.

We beat their bloody asses to a pulp and burned our way through Georgia.

[Condunum]

How about we don't, because you're using a bad comparison. The Vietnamese had sufficient time to transform their country into a literal fortress. Also, foreign army vs domestic fighters. Big disadvantage goes to the foreign army, especially considering the shitty tactics we used.

How about we do?

I'm not really up for debate on the viability of unconventional warfare, it kind of speaks for itself.

Then why are you posting here? It's a debate forum. Bicker or GTFO.

Doubtful.


Entirely dependent on the environment.

Guaranteed, actually. I would be shocked if the military actually followed an order to suppress a popular uprising, especially if it was in defense of the second amendment.

I don't doubt defection, I doubt large-scale defection. Most of the logistical command wouldn't defect, the most we'd have are AWOL NCOs and enlisted men.

I've argued this point before: the military is an independent organization, and it stands in defense of the Constitution. Unless you actually repeal the 2nd Amendment, which is a political impossibility because it's stupid, you can practically count on the military overthrowing the government when they attempt to take away guns en masse.

But we aren't talking about that. What I'm saying is that a random rebellion fueled by paranoia isn't going to drag the military into a split.

[Agymnum]

Regulations meaning:

1. Must show license to purchase a gun (close the gun show loopholes)
2. Must have background checks to purchase a gun if license is not present
3. Must have background checks and psychological profiling every X amount of years to determine gun ownership eligibility.
4. Revoke right to own or operate a firearm if the offender has broken the law (depending on the law broken).

Something along those lines.

How is the government going to afford to pay for all those psychological profiles every x amount of years?

Pay to renew your license.

[Thoricia]

That last part was pointless why try to aggravate the situation more?

Aggravating what situation? It isn't pointless because it specifically addresses the poster I was speaking to with my credibility comment.
What was pointless was your "why u take peeple srsly" comment. In case you missed it, I was commenting based on the following exchange:

Oh ya I've never met the guy who takes me hunting and taught me how to shoot and clean guns right?

I wonder, is all. It seems very convenient that in the middle of a discussion on guns and their uses, you suddenly have a dirt-poor uncle who feeds his family exclusively on the meat he hunts.

Oh ya I make up characters to argue my points.

A former poster, The Mongol Ilkhanate, crashed and burned here because he constantly made shit up, was called out on making shit up and then admitted to making shit up. I was letting The Broken Imperial Sector know that it probably isn't a wise course of action to take. 

This part that I have bolded is a snarky little comment, again pretty pointless, I have a few family members as well that supplement their diet with wild game on a regular basis, in fact there's a town east of here that most of the population is dirt ass poor that supplement there diet with wild game, if you don't believe that it's more of an issue with you I believe because you most likely come from a city and can't understand the concept.

[Reichsland]

I know a bunch of the A-holes around here will flame me but I plan on buying my daughter a cricket for her 6th birthday, I do however plan on leaving it locked in the gun safe with the bolt pulled and a cable lock ran through the action.

That poor insect.

Indeed indeed.... Poor cricket tried to pull his bolt, but his cable was locked and thus spoiled his action.

[Condunum]

How is the government going to afford to pay for all those psychological profiles every x amount of years?

Pay to renew your license.

Entirely reasonable.

[Miss Defied]

To be honest I don't see anything wrong with this. If there is proper supervision and the weapon is kept in a safe unless it's being used, then there shouldn't be an issue here. Parents should be able to instruct their children in how to use firearms, and any law that restricted this would restrict the freedom of the people.

To be honest, there's something terribly wrong with this. The supervision you espouse was obviously lacking in this case. That's why it's, you know, an issue.
Do you think that the parents should be held accountable?

[Cosara]

I've argued this point before: the military is an independent organization, and it stands in defense of the Constitution. Unless you actually repeal the 2nd Amendment, which is a political impossibility because it's stupid, you can practically count on the military overthrowing the government when they attempt to take away guns en masse.

But we aren't talking about that. What I'm saying is that a random rebellion fueled by paranoia isn't going to drag the military into a split.

If you repeal the second amendment, the military is going to join the rebels. I guarantee you.

[Agymnum]

Pay to renew your license.

Entirely reasonable.

Are you being serious or not serious?

It's hard for me to tell right now cuz I'm so stressed out from work. <.<