Topic Actions

Topic Search

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

Guns, Guns Guns

The Management is not responsible for the contents of this forum. Enter at your own risk.
Re: Guns, Guns Guns
Post by gcomeau   » Tue Jun 30, 2015 8:07 pm

gcomeau
Admiral

Posts: 2747
Joined: Tue Dec 02, 2014 5:24 pm

HB of CJ wrote:The infrastructure for voting was at the beginning well and good. Now a days, too many non deserving people vote here in the USA. Way too many. Citizenship must be earned, not freely given. Voting for the correct reasons is a thing of the past. Now people vote here in the USA because they like the color of the candidates hair or his smile. Or they vote because the guy running promised a chicken in every pot and that chicken is promised to be free. Well ... somebody pays for it.

Not every voter pays into the system. I bet less than half do today. Reverts back to the notion of only tax paying citizens who have served their nation should have the right to vote. Yep. That it the way it used to be. Be nice to return to it.

Responsibe citizens. This includes firearm ownership along with the right and duty to vote correctly. They go hand in hand. We have greatly strayed away from this original intent. These ideas are probably foreign to a lot of people.



Ok, let's say I agreed with every single thing you said about the modern electorate. (I don't, but for the sake of argument let's just say I did)

How exactly are guns the answer to that situation? The people you agree with find themselves in the minority and are losing elections while all these stupid people who won't vote the right way or for the right reasons are winning the elections.

So... time for the minority you agree with to all bring out their private arsenals, take up arms, and impose their will on the majority? Force everyone else to be governed as the guys holding the weapons see fit or eat a bullet?

(Because the name for that is not "opposing tyranny"... it's kind of the opposite)
Top
Re: Guns, Guns Guns
Post by Tenshinai   » Wed Jul 01, 2015 4:52 pm

Tenshinai
Admiral

Posts: 2893
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2010 8:34 pm
Location: Sweden

HB of CJ wrote:...

Your opinion regarding armed civil poulations today vs high teck military weapons has merit. The solution would be to arm the civil population equally to that of the military.

But ... history has shown that when it comes down to it, 3.5 million solders would not stand a chance against 80 million armed civil people. Civil meaning responsible law abiding citizens.

Law abiding because here in the USA the every US citizen has a moral ethical and social responsibility to rise up against a very bad goverment. This happened in 1775. The American Revolution.

Respectfully. HB of CJ (oldest coot)


3.5 million soldiers? :lol:
Divide by one hundred and you´re closer to the truth.

British soldier numbers in ALL of North America during the war varies between 22k and 42k, and that includes mercenaries, especially hired from German lords. Add a total of around 19k loyalists and 13k allied natives.

Total losses probably not over 10k for all.

Rebels, total militia numbers, around 250k, maybe as high as slightly above 300k. Of which around 25-45k constantly acting as part of armies.
12k French soldiers.
Probably at least around 30k natives.
Various volunteers, mostly unknown as few were registered in any way, except in cases like von Steuben, whose contribution probably more than halved rebel noncombat losses, not to mention providing actual soldier training.

Losses for rebels, somewhere in the 50-80k range, almost 23k war widows were recognised afterwards, setting a very firm absolut minimum ( as most militiamen were not married ).
French losses, 10k, natives probably at least above 10k.
Volunteer loss estimates varies wildly from dozens to several thousands, reality could be anywhere within that range, or even higher.
20k has been suggested as the absolute upper limit.


And this 10-1 losses disadvantage despite 7-1 numbers advantage, came about from a war the British didn´t actually care much about most of the time.


And this in a time when weapons were relatively equal between military and civillians.

If the British had reacted quickly, revolution dies before it can start.
If the British had taken the situation seriously, and truly fought for it, revolution gets squished underfoot.
von Steuben doesn´t arrive? Rebel troops remains mostly incompetent with camp discipline so astoundingly poor that even bands of robbers would be embarassed by it. This alone might double losses without anyone firing a single bullet extra.

http://history.amedd.army.mil/booksdocs ... nAppA.html

No French assistance? Rebel access to weapons, especially heavy weapons become laughable and means they keep fighting like rabble rather than anything armylike, revolution dies out once British army has trashed enough militia gatherings.

Without loans from France, Netherlands and Spain, the rebels would have bankrupted themselves before 2 years had passed.
Remove just the money gifts from private Frenchmen and the rebels have trouble paying for anything.

The rebel solution was to print money and say hello to hyperinflation which almost let the British win the war just by letting it continue.
Which led to various variations on the theme of something having a "worth like a continental(dollar)", ie worthless.

I might respectfully suggest that millions of people world wide over a great period of time are very dead because when all else fails, all power comes out of a muzzle of a gun.


Well since you want that to continue, that places you as an anarchist, not a democrat, republican or whatever.
Of course, as usual you do not think that thought to its conclusion.

There´s always someone ELSE who disagrees with you and ALSO has a gun.

It´s amazing how shortsighted and unthinking your kind of argumentation tend towards.


The day you and 10 neighbours try to rebel against the government for being so wicked, will you kill the 30 neighbours who just looks at you as if you´re madness incarnate?
Will you kill the other 60 neighbours who supports the government or supports rule of law and calls the police?

If you don´t, you have already lost the battle.
If you do, you´re just murderers, and there´s a fair risk that you have lost yourself any chance of public support, as you become just one more crazy idiot with a gun going on a shooting spree before getting killed by the police.


No wonder the US gunnuts can´t vote through a decent gun law to their liking when they can´t even step outside their dreamworld and look at the fact that Actions have Consequences.

Wishful thinking does NOT work if you want to face off against a government.

The infrastructure for voting was at the beginning well and good. Now a days, too many non deserving people vote here in the USA. Way too many.


:lol:

Stupid elitists. Always believe that THEY are more worthy.

Have you even considered the FACT, that if you managed to implement any kind of OBJECTIVE way to determine if people could vote, chances are fairly decent that you might be judged as "non deserving". Not because you are specifically bad or anything, but because almost any objective limits can apply to most people, some way. And then of course, with your rabid political arena, it would end up a pre-election battlefield of the most disgusting kind.

Voting for the correct reasons is a thing of the past.


Except for you and those who agree with you, obviously... :roll:

Way too many. Citizenship must be earned, not freely given.


Because we all know how well that has worked before.

Now people vote here in the USA because they like the color of the candidates hair or his smile.


Like you do then?

You seriously need to realise that most people actually have an opinion based on some sort of logic.

Devaluing your political oppositions ability of coherent thought only shows you as horribly narrowminded. And that´s the nice description.

Not every voter pays into the system. I bet less than half do today. Reverts back to the notion of only tax paying citizens who have served their nation should have the right to vote. Yep. That it the way it used to be. Be nice to return to it.


No, it´s actually quite disgusting and exceptionally stupid. But i guess you wont understand why.

In a way it´s really wonderfully fun to see a yankee proclaim that he wants to create a new system of nobility rule.

It´s also really sad that USA has far more stratification on a social standing basis, than most of Europe, when getting away from such was one of the reasons why many emigrated to USA.
Top
Re: Guns, Guns Guns
Post by Tenshinai   » Wed Jul 01, 2015 4:54 pm

Tenshinai
Admiral

Posts: 2893
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2010 8:34 pm
Location: Sweden

gcomeau wrote:

Ok, let's say I agreed with every single thing you said about the modern electorate. (I don't, but for the sake of argument let's just say I did)

How exactly are guns the answer to that situation? The people you agree with find themselves in the minority and are losing elections while all these stupid people who won't vote the right way or for the right reasons are winning the elections.

So... time for the minority you agree with to all bring out their private arsenals, take up arms, and impose their will on the majority? Force everyone else to be governed as the guys holding the weapons see fit or eat a bullet?

(Because the name for that is not "opposing tyranny"... it's kind of the opposite)



I always find it amazing how these folks can´t see that. They describe disgustingly obvious dictatures and tyrannies as their wonderful utopia and then rant endlessly about how opposed to such they are.
Top
Re: Guns, Guns Guns
Post by pushmar   » Wed Jul 01, 2015 5:52 pm

pushmar
Lieutenant Commander

Posts: 144
Joined: Sun Jul 15, 2012 4:42 pm
Location: <Moscow, Idaho> Nope, back in Michigan.

Tenshinai wrote:[

I always find it amazing how these folks can´t see that. They describe disgustingly obvious dictatures and tyrannies as their wonderful utopia and then rant endlessly about how opposed to such they are.


Politically, we're becoming the USSA. So sad.
Top
Re: Guns, Guns Guns
Post by gcomeau   » Wed Jul 01, 2015 6:52 pm

gcomeau
Admiral

Posts: 2747
Joined: Tue Dec 02, 2014 5:24 pm

Tenshinai wrote:
gcomeau wrote:(Because the name for that is not "opposing tyranny"... it's kind of the opposite)



I always find it amazing how these folks can´t see that. They describe disgustingly obvious dictatures and tyrannies as their wonderful utopia and then rant endlessly about how opposed to such they are.


From everything I've observed it's a carefully cultivated alternate reality in which the various facets of the gun lobby (like the NRA) spend inordinate amounts of time playing to the egos of gun owners by convincing them that that rifle in their closet makes them a heroic defender of liberty just like those virtuous souls who threw off the yoke of oppression and kicked the British out!


But they never, ever, ever deal with the fact that the "tyrannical government" they keep talking about today is not some overseas monarchy that has been imposed on them, it was voted into place by their neighbors within the last 2-4 years. They can't just fix anything it's doing that they don't agree with by pointing a gun at it unless their plan is to overthrow democratic rule by force of arms and become the tyranny they keep claiming they are the defense against.


(And then in the next breath, after essentially threatening to back an armed coup against the democratically elected government of the United States they will tell you how irrational you're being for thinking it might be a problem that they're all hoarding guns. )
Top
Re: Guns, Guns Guns
Post by HB of CJ   » Thu Jul 02, 2015 1:23 am

HB of CJ
Captain of the List

Posts: 707
Joined: Thu Jul 11, 2013 10:46 pm
Location: 43N, 123W Kinda

gcomeau; Respectfully, you last post has given me finally enough information and insight to perhaps understand where you are coming from. And I can polietly say that you have no apparent understanding what firearm ownership in the USA is all about.

I own machine guns and suppressors, short barreled rifles and shotguns. The vast collection is being downsized greatly. I do not need all those guns. I will keep just one pistol and probably the AK47 sawed off 12 gage shotgun. That is all. Defensive only.

In responsible hands, firearms do NOT make one feel powerful or in control. Just the opposite actually. With awesome (sp?) power comes awesome (sp?) responsibility. Owning all this stuff makes me responsible. Like my martial arts. I will take a physical beating before I lethally hurt my attackers. I have a responsibility not to do harm. Yep.

The NRA is a whimpy organization. Their intent is to slowly give away our gun rights. They have signed off on or agreed to every major USA Federal gun law since 1968. I cut up my life membership card way back then. The NRA is the problem, not the solution. You need to understand us much better before you make statements.

In fact, I have enough insight now to just ignore you. Respectfully. It is apparant you do not have any real wisdom. Perhaps just what you have learned or what you were told wrong by others. Respectfully. I do not have the time to try to educate you. Do not take this wrong. On some subjects, you know nothing.

Just me. HB of CJ (oldest coot) No speelll chzk. I can not speeel. Slight stroke. Yikes! Old age and stuff. :) All US Code Laws And NFA Rules Apply. Your national, state and local gun laws may differ greatly. Respectfully. Edited to fix stuff.
Top
Re: Guns, Guns Guns
Post by gcomeau   » Thu Jul 02, 2015 1:42 pm

gcomeau
Admiral

Posts: 2747
Joined: Tue Dec 02, 2014 5:24 pm

HB of CJ wrote:gcomeau; Respectfully, you last post has given me finally enough information and insight to perhaps understand where you are coming from. And I can polietly say that you have no apparent understanding what firearm ownership in the USA is all about.


I'm just taking many, many, many gun owners words for it. If I don't get it then blame them.

In fact, I have enough insight now to just ignore you. Respectfully. It is apparant you do not have any real wisdom.


Are you sure you're not ignoring me because you have no answer to this?

viewtopic.php?f=16&t=3694&start=966
Top
Re: Guns, Guns Guns
Post by MAD-4A   » Tue Jul 14, 2015 10:25 am

MAD-4A
Captain of the List

Posts: 719
Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2014 4:48 pm
Location: Texas

What very few people understand is that we aren't talking about "the right for an idiot to carry around a gun in a grocery store" or a few people pissed off about an election to grab their guns and storm Washington. That is not what it's about, not for the liberal socialists. That's what they want you to keep thinking.
Ask yourself, what is the 2nd amendment? A law? NO! It is part of the Bill-of-Rights - the law is the Bill-of-Rights! You can't repeal one part of it without opening up the rest of it to repeal! A law repealing the "right-to-bear-arms" also opens this up to repeal:

The Bill of Rights
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Amendment II
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Amendment III
No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Amendment VI
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

Amendment VII
In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

Amendment VIII
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

By my count that's not 1 controversial right being removed but 18 rights being given up by the people, plus all the rights not listed that are not the right of the US Government to take, as per the 10th amendment.

With the liberal socialist traitors stacking the supreme court with more anti-freedom traitors, all they need is one crack to justify repeal of the entire bill and then the constitution, which obama is on record as disparaging as old and obsolete.
THEN we have the USSA.

If Hugh Laurie (or his writers) don't like it, the US has an open border. They don't have to stay here. They can leave! I believe his home in England has no such rights, enjoy.
-
Almost only counts in Horseshoes and Nuclear Weapons. I almost got the Hand-Grenade out the window does not count.
Top
Re: Guns, Guns Guns
Post by biochem   » Tue Jul 14, 2015 10:35 am

biochem
Rear Admiral

Posts: 1372
Joined: Thu Aug 19, 2010 8:06 pm
Location: USA

If Hugh Laurie (or his writers) don't like it, the US has an open border. They don't have to stay here. They can leave! I believe his home in England has no such rights, enjoy.


That's always been something that has puzzled me. There are a tiny tiny percentage of Americans who HATE America. Not just dislike policy A or part X of the culture, but HATE and DESPISE virtually everything about America. They rant a lot. I've always wondered why they just don't leave and go somewhere else where they'd be happier. As MAD-4A said, we have open borders (at least for the exit part.
Top
Re: Guns, Guns Guns
Post by Daryl   » Tue Jul 14, 2015 11:51 am

Daryl
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 3610
Joined: Sat Apr 24, 2010 1:57 am
Location: Queensland Australia

One thing that puzzles me is the perception held by many Americans (particularly on the right), that other democratic developed countries don't have rights similar to theirs. There are differences between countries, but generally we have at least as strong rights and freedoms as the USA, except for carrying guns (by popular choice).
We have religious freedom, freedom of speech, jury trials, OH&S, and freedom of association. I could court controversy by suggesting that we also have freedom from - gun murder, lack of affordable medical care, unliveable wages, and unfair dismissal.
Generally our rights aren't held by historical documents like bills of rights or detailed constitutions in the USA sense, but more by living documents and conventions enforced by common law under the Westminster System. Certainly big business has less control, although still too much.
Top

Return to Politics