Barack Obama vows to pursue gun measures in wake of latest massacre
1,472 replies, posted
[QUOTE=spekter;36952275]I think if they actually did improve background checks enough that would help big time and to be honest I'm surprised they haven't already done that.[/QUOTE]
What changes would you suggest to our background check system?
I don't believe that any amount of laws will make insane people any less insane. The dude could've just as easily made a makeshift bomb or even a sword or a knife or maybe even a heavy wrench or something and it probably would've been just as bad. Insane killers will use whatever they have to kill. Will stricter gun laws fix other problems? Maybe. Will it ever stop psychos like the one at the theater? Never.
[QUOTE=Camundongo;36952299][URL="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-18900384"]Crime is currently at a 23 year low in the UK, with firearm offences down 16% on the previous year.[/URL]
Also, gun control has been in effect in the UK since 1824, and we seem to being doing rather well with it, so I don't see the issue here. The US is different issue, both for legal and cultural reasons.[/QUOTE]
And yet the emotional reaction to call for a ban after a massacre (Dunblane) that lead to the confiscation of all handguns in Britain [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cumbria_shootings]failed to stop yet another massacre,[/url] showcasing that no amount of gun control can stop events like this, which are often the reasons more people ask for gun control, and they disguise it as "crime prevention." It's what they did here after [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%89cole_Polytechnique_massacre]École Polytechnique[/url] and yet it failed to stop [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dawson_College_shooting]Dawson College[/url] or the [url=http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/crime/article/1227453--scarborough-shootings-2-killed-19-hurt-in-gunfire-at-block-party]recent shootings in Scarborough, by illegal handguns,[/url] which has once again renewed a thankfully quiet call for their bans, once again punishing the law-abiding for the actions of criminals, and it failed to stop the [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toronto_Eaton_Centre#2012_shooting]Eaton Centre Shooting[/url] committed by someone who was under house arrest and prohibited from owning a gun, which caused one special idiot at city council to call for a ban on bullets, once again, despite the fact that he used an illegal gun.
[QUOTE=DaCommie1;36951990]How the fly fucking shit do you think that? If someone had the means to stop him, he was FUCKING SHOOTING PEOPLE ANYWAYS, he wouldn't have "missed and killed more people" HE WAS GOING TO KILL THEM ANYWAYS. If the ONE police officer on that island had been allowed by his superior to have his service weapon there that day I can say with a confidence that there would have been significantly less people killed that day.
A criminal is already breaking the law, he doesn't care about doing it farther. If you take away your means to defend yourself from a criminal and ADVOCATE IT then all you are doing is advocating your own victimization. You're advocating someone walking all over you, you're encouraging giving criminals more power. In states where concealed-carry is made more readily accessible, crime rates drop for a number of reasons, and one is effective deterrence. Criminals don't know who is carrying, therefore they're less likely to commit a crime if they feel their life will be taken from them doing so by that guy in the back of the convenience store, or if that old lady they're going to mug with a knife is going to pull out a snubnose .38 from her purse. You take away the means to defend oneself, and advocate such an action, and YOU are partially responsible for the rape of the young woman who couldn't stop the guy from attacking her in the park, YOU are partially responsible for the death of that teller at the bank who pushed the silent alarm in hopes that maybe they wouldn't be noticed, YOU are partially responsible for the deaths of the people from a mass shooting because you don't think they should be able to defend themselves from madmen, from criminals, from sociopaths. YOU make them into victims, and therefore YOU share responsibility for what happens to them when they can't defend themselves.
A properly qualified and trained citizen who carries a gun is responsible and safe, they're some of the country's most upstanding citizens, and are often former military and/or police, men who've stood up for your freedom and you insult them like this, by calling them dangerous. You're ignorant, and the things you are saying are deplorable, because responsible, law-abiding gun owners don't commit crimes, yet in your ignorance you disgrace them by associating them with criminals. Absolutely disgusting.[/QUOTE]
Criminals don't know who is carrying, therefore they're more likely to own a weapon themselves because they feel their life might be taken from them by that guy in the back of the convenience store thus the shoot him first, or if that old lady they're going to mug with a gun is going to pull out a snubnose .38 from her purse, she's already shot by the criminal who confronted her with his gun drawn because obviously he already knew he was going to rob her. You give the means to defend oneself, and advocate such an action, and YOU are partially responsible for the rape and murder of the young woman who couldn't stop the guy from attacking her in the park even though she had a gun, YOU are partially responsible for the death of that teller at the bank who pushed the silent alarm and went for a shotgun in hopes that maybe he could shoot the robbers, YOU are partially responsible for the deaths of the people from a mass shooting because you think they can defend themselves from madmen and believe that only the madmen would get shot in the process, from criminals, from sociopaths. YOU make them into victims, and therefore YOU share responsibility for what happens to them when they defend themselves and die as a result of it.
[QUOTE=Kopimi;36939816]p sure your little collectors item is a worthy sacrifice for less gun violence[/QUOTE]
Could you please, explain how banning them is going to stop a criminal? Cause it won't. It'll just make it a little bit harder to get one, and completely remove em from those who don't use them for bad.
[QUOTE=DaCommie1;36952483]And yet the emotional reaction to call for a ban after a massacre (Dunblane) that lead to the confiscation of all handguns in Britain [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cumbria_shootings"]failed to stop yet another massacre,[/URL] showcasing that no amount of gun control can stop events like this, which are often the reasons more people ask for gun control, and they disguise it as "crime prevention." It's what they did here after [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/École_Polytechnique_massacre"]École Polytechnique[/URL] and yet it failed to stop [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dawson_College_shooting"]Dawson College[/URL] or the [URL="http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/crime/article/1227453--scarborough-shootings-2-killed-19-hurt-in-gunfire-at-block-party"]recent shootings in Scarborough, by illegal handguns,[/URL] which has once again renewed a thankfully quiet call for their bans, once again punishing the law-abiding for the actions of criminals, and it failed to stop the [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toronto_Eaton_Centre#2012_shooting"]Eaton Centre Shooting[/URL] committed by someone who was under house arrest and prohibited from owning a gun, which caused one special idiot at city council to call for a ban on bullets, once again, despite the fact that he used an illegal gun.[/QUOTE]
I can see why banning handguns failed to stopped the Cumbria Shootings, seeing as the latter used a shotgun, which he legally attained, and as far I remember that particular shooting was partly due to him being sent down over tax related offences.
[QUOTE=mobrockers2;36952488]Criminals don't know who is carrying, therefore they're more likely to own a weapon themselves because they feel their life might be taken from them by that guy in the back of the convenience store thus the shoot him first, or if that old lady they're going to mug with a gun is going to pull out a snubnose .38 from her purse, she's already shot by the criminal who confronted her with his gun drawn because obviously he already knew he was going to rob her. You give the means to defend oneself, and advocate such an action, and YOU are partially responsible for the rape and murder of the young woman who couldn't stop the guy from attacking her in the park even though she had a gun, YOU are partially responsible for the death of that teller at the bank who pushed the silent alarm and went for a shotgun in hopes that maybe he could shoot the robbers, YOU are partially responsible for the deaths of the people from a mass shooting because you think they can defend themselves from madmen and believe that only the madmen would get shot in the process, from criminals, from sociopaths. YOU make them into victims, and therefore YOU share responsibility for what happens to them when they defend themselves and die as a result of it.[/QUOTE]
You're absolutely disgusting. It's a proven fact that concealed carry saves MILLIONS of lives each year in the United States, that sheriffs of police departments ENCOURAGE WOMEN to get permits to DETER AND PREVENT RAPE. The granny doesn't need to pull the gun out of her purse to kill the guy, he'd be dead without knowing she was even packing. All but one of the mass shootings in recent years have been in GUN FREE ZONES because the shooters KNOW THEY'LL BE KILLED OTHERWISE. A man in Florida recently stopped a shooting in an internet cafe by killing the 2 armed men who burst in, a principal at a high school used a gun he had in his car to stop a student who had begun shooting in the school and was going to move on to shoot up more schools to keep the police scrambled.
You think a woman should be raped, go though the worst trauma she could possibly experience, because she shouldn't be able to defend herself? You think it's better for her to have to live with abhorrent psychological trauma for the rest of her life than to be able to stand up for herself? You're fucking disgusting.
Your argument holds so little grounds all you did was take mine and turn it the other way, except it doesn't work like that. There's plenty of proof that concealed carry is overall beneficial to society, that it gives people the chance to protect themselves, that it puts people on equal grounds with each other. "God made them all, Colt made them equal." You're telling me that you think a woman half the size of her attacker is better off being raped and probably killing herself later than pulling a gun out and shooting her assailant's balls off?
There is literally no way you can logically turn the argument against victimization around, all you do is support it, and supporting someone undergoing severe physical and mental trauma due to any number of crimes is deplorable. Statistically, someone in that theatre would have had a gun if it was not a supposed "gun-free zone," and body armour doesn't mean you don't feel the bullet hit you in the chest and break your ribs. If a person has the means to fight back, they have a chance at stopping their victimization and the victimization of those around them, if they don't then they're guaranteed to become a victim. If there had been one person in that theatre with a concealed-carry gun, had it not been a gun-free zone, then this story could have, and likely would have, gone very differently.
Think about what you're saying, telling someone not to stand up for themselves, that they should just keel over and accept the physical and mental trauma of becoming a victim, is disgusting, and if all you're going to do is try to throw this back at me again, then it proves you're out of ideas and arguments. I honestly cannot believe you support making victims of people.
[editline]26th July 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=Camundongo;36952599]I can see why banning handguns failed to stopped the Cumbria Shootings, seeing as the latter used a shotgun, which he legally attained, and as far I remember that particular shooting was partly due to him being sent down over tax related offences.[/QUOTE]
Handguns were banned after Dunblane, and people figured it was "impossible" now for someone to kill a mass number of people, because all the most "destructive" firearms were banned already. Cumbria proved no amount of law or restriction will stop a shooting.
[QUOTE=Cloak Raider;36943905]You'd have to be insane not to think that it becomes easier for criminals to get a hold of them if they're legal[/QUOTE]
I know this is a late reply but I HAVE to interject.
It doesn't matter how hard or easy it is for a law abiding citizen to obtain a gun. If you're a convicted felon you can't go through the same channels. Criminals have an entirely different system. Despite people who like to claim that it doesn't exist there IS a very large and budding underground market where you can fucking buy anything from kidnapped children to fully automatic assault weapons.
Just because it's illegal/hard for a citizen to obtain does NOT mean it's hard for a criminal to obtain.
Restricting the use of firearms to law abiding citizens ONLY puts more power into the hands of those who can obtain the weapons though other means who don't care about the consequences of having those weapons. The argument "But they're illegal" is fucking stupid. They know it's illegal, and what they're going to use it for is even MORE illegal. They don't care!
[QUOTE=DaCommie1;36952661]You're absolutely disgusting. It's a proven fact that concealed carry saves MILLIONS of lives each year in the United States, that sheriffs of police departments ENCOURAGE WOMEN to get permits to DETER AND PREVENT RAPE. The granny doesn't need to pull the gun out of her purse to kill the guy, he'd be dead without knowing she was even packing. All but one of the mass shootings in recent years have been in GUN FREE ZONES because the shooters KNOW THEY'LL BE KILLED OTHERWISE. A man in Florida recently stopped a shooting in an internet cafe by killing the 2 armed men who burst in, a principal at a high school used a gun he had in his car to stop a student who had begun shooting in the school and was going to move on to shoot up more schools to keep the police scrambled.
You think a woman should be raped, go though the worst trauma she could possibly experience, because she shouldn't be able to defend herself? You think it's better for her to have to live with abhorrent psychological trauma for the rest of her life than to be able to stand up for herself? You're fucking disgusting.
Your argument holds so little grounds all you did was take mine and turn it the other way, except it doesn't work like that. There's plenty of proof that concealed carry is overall beneficial to society, that it gives people the chance to protect themselves, that it puts people on equal grounds with each other. "God made them all, Colt made them equal." You're telling me that you think a woman half the size of her attacker is better off being raped and probably killing herself later than pulling a gun out and shooting her assailant's balls off?
There is literally no way you can logically turn the argument against victimization around, all you do is support it, and supporting someone undergoing severe physical and mental trauma due to any number of crimes is deplorable. Statistically, someone in that theatre would have had a gun if it was not a supposed "gun-free zone," and body armour doesn't mean you don't feel the bullet hit you in the chest and break your ribs. If a person has the means to fight back, they have a chance at stopping their victimization and the victimization of those around them, if they don't then they're guaranteed to become a victim. If there had been one person in that theatre with a concealed-carry gun, had it not been a gun-free zone, then this story could have, and likely would have, gone very differently.
Think about what you're saying, telling someone not to stand up for themselves, that they should just keel over and accept the physical and mental trauma of becoming a victim, is disgusting, and if all you're going to do is try to throw this back at me again, then it proves you're out of ideas and arguments. I honestly cannot believe you support making victims of people.
[editline]26th July 2012[/editline]
Handguns were banned after Dunblane, and people figured it was "impossible" now for someone to kill a mass number of people, because all the most "destructive" firearms were banned already. Cumbria proved no amount of law or restriction will stop a shooting.[/QUOTE]
No, people figured it helped prevent handguns being used in mass shootings, and it did so. Cumbria proved that people with lethal weapons can hurt or kill other people. We, as a country, still have a low murder rate, partially thanks to our stringent weapons laws.
[QUOTE=mobrockers2;36949773]Criminals that have no problem hurting other people don't become lowly thieves, and it isn't based entirely on assumptions. Burglars in the UK and the Netherlands generally do not carry a firearm even though it is easy as shit to get one on the black market.[/QUOTE]
And in the United States, they mostly just stay home and don't rob people.
Again, in spite of every societal factor suggesting a greater amount of robbery, the United States ultimately sports fewer victims of robbery.
[url]http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_rob_vic-crime-robbery-victims[/url]
Or if we want to be much more general:
[url]http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_tot_cri_vic-crime-total-victims[/url]
Overall there are fewer victims in the United States. Again, despite sporting a thousand reasons for MORE VICTIMS, we have FEWER VICTIMS.
What is different? The population is armed.
This isn't to say that arming the population is some magic bullet, as solving your underlying issues tends to do the job far better, but it doesn't work like you think it does.
EDIT:
And just to backup dacommie:
[url]http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_rap_vic-crime-rape-victims[/url]
We also sport less rape victims by a significant margin. Again, we aren't doing well as a nation. We should statistically have more. AND YET WE HAVE LESS.
America isn't some massive crime riddled nation.
[QUOTE=GunFox;36952813]And in the United States, they mostly just stay home and don't rob people.
Again, in spite of every societal factor suggesting a greater amount of robbery, the United States ultimately sports fewer victims of robbery.
[URL]http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_rob_vic-crime-robbery-victims[/URL]
Or if we want to be much more general:
[URL]http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_tot_cri_vic-crime-total-victims[/URL]
Overall there are fewer victims in the United States. Again, despite sporting a thousand reasons for MORE VICTIMS, we have FEWER VICTIMS.
What is different? The population is armed.
This isn't to say that arming the population is some magic bullet, as solving your underlying issues tends to do the job far better, but it doesn't work like you think it does.[/QUOTE]
Yet, using the same source, the US has 40% of it's homicides committed with firearms, compared to Germany's 30% (the closest western nation). [URL="http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/publications/science-research-statistics/research-statistics/crime-research/hosb0212/hosb0212?view=Binary"]There were 58 murders using firearms in the UK in the year 2010/2011[/URL], according to the Home Office, compared a total number of 636 overall, a percentage of 9.1%.
But I'm sure gun control in the UK does nothing....
[URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate"]Looking at murder as a whole, the UK had 1.23 murders per 100,000 people in 2010, as opposed to the US's 4.8.[/URL]
[QUOTE=Carnage2323;36950488]I am amazed you can live in Arizona and have such a lack of knowledge about firearms, that just comes naturally with living here.
Also why do people even respond to Kopimi anyways?[/QUOTE]
who cares dude
"gun nerds" are equally annoying, especially when you make condescending comments about people's knowledge of firearms
Huh, apparently you can get fighter jets and tanks.
We'll win that rebellion yet
[url]http://www.aso.com/listings/spec/ViewAd.aspx?id=141764[/url]
[url]http://www.armyjeeps.net/armor1.htm[/url]
[QUOTE=Camundongo;36952999]Yet, using the same source, the US has 40% of it's homicides committed with firearms, compared to Germany's 30% (the closest western nation). [URL="http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/publications/science-research-statistics/research-statistics/crime-research/hosb0212/hosb0212?view=Binary"]There were 58 murders using firearms in the UK in the year 2010/2011[/URL], according to the Home Office, compared a total number of 636 overall, a percentage of 9.1%.
But I'm sure gun control in the UK does nothing....[/QUOTE]
thats not even CLOSE to relevant to what gunfox posted
[QUOTE=Timebomb575;36953167]thats not even CLOSE to relevant to what gunfox posted[/QUOTE]
The US has more murders per capita, a higher percentage of which are committed with firearms.
You may be less likely to be robbed in the US as opposed to the UK, but you are more likely to be killed.
[QUOTE=Camundongo;36953237]The US has more murders per capita, a higher percentage of which are committed with firearms.
You may be less likely to be robbed in the US as opposed to the UK, but you are more likely to be killed.[/QUOTE]
Which was exactly my point as well.
[QUOTE=Camundongo;36953237]The US has more murders per capita, a higher percentage of which are committed with firearms.
You may be less likely to be robbed in the US as opposed to the UK, but you are more likely to be killed.[/QUOTE]
And yet when you look at Russia, South Africa, Jamaica, Venezuela, Brazil, Mexico, all of which have very strict gun control, often to the point of outright prohibition, they all have much higher rates and therefore you are more likely to be killed in a place with strict gun control, and if you look at Italy, Norway, Germany, Switzerland or Ireland, all of those places have looser gun laws than the UK. meaning in a place where firearms are more easily acquired there are less deaths than the UK.
Hell, if you look at the Czech Republic, another nation that allows Concealed carry of firearms, they have less deaths than Canada each year.
See, I can misconstrue data to fit my point too.
[QUOTE=Carnage2323;36953127]Huh, apparently you can get fighter jets and tanks.
We'll win that rebellion yet
[url]http://www.aso.com/listings/spec/ViewAd.aspx?id=141764[/url]
[url]http://www.armyjeeps.net/armor1.htm[/url][/QUOTE]
yep and none of them are armed
at least you'll enjoy your last minutes sitting in your inert antiques as the bombs whistle overhead
[editline]27th July 2012[/editline]
referring to the tanks/jets before you cry "but there's a 50cal on the humvee!!"
[QUOTE=Kopimi;36953445]yep and none of them are armed
at least you'll enjoy your last minutes sitting in your inert antiques as the bombs whistle overhead
[editline]27th July 2012[/editline]
referring to the tanks/jets before you cry "but there's a 50cal on the humvee!!"[/QUOTE]
They don't come with weapons but you can also purchase said weapons
[sp] That's legal[/sp]
[sp]The following are legal.
Any solid shot non rifled weapon up too 140mm, any muzzle loading cannon or mortar, any flamethrower, any incendiary that is not high explosive(thermite), any low explosive, any rifle up to 20mm, any semiautomatic weapon, any crank action weapon(gatling gun or volley gun), any tank with a gun that fits the above description. You can also launch an ICBM capable platform if you inform SACOM about it a two weeks before hand, this is why we send more tonnage to LEO using or private industry than NASA and all foreign public and private space industries combined.
With a high explosives permit, which is a five week wait with a shall issue status. You could build a diesel fuel/fertilizer truck bomb, have any rpg, mortar, or artillery piece. Or if you mined, refined, or bred the fissile material privately you could build a thermonuclear bomb. It is only illegal to buy or sell fissionables to anyone except the federal government, private citizens can own their own stock for personal use.[/sp]
[QUOTE=DaCommie1;36953395]And yet when you look at Russia, South Africa, Jamaica, Venezuela, Brazil, Mexico, all of which have very strict gun control, often to the point of outright prohibition, they all have much higher rates and therefore you are more likely to be killed in a place with strict gun control, and if you look at Italy, Norway, Germany, Switzerland or Ireland, all of those places have looser gun laws than the UK. meaning in a place where firearms are more easily acquired there are less deaths than the UK.
Hell, if you look at the Czech Republic, another nation that allows Concealed carry of firearms, they have less deaths than Canada each year.
See, I can misconstrue data to fit my point too.[/QUOTE]
Irish laws are very similiar to the UK's (in fact, since you have to posses a licence per gun as opposed per owner, they could be considered stricter), Norway is still reeling from a massive firearm massacre (70 people dead!), to own a gun a Switzerland means you've already passed and received military training. German laws offer similiar strict requirements, but are somewhat more lenient in same areas (for instance, you can apply for concealed/unconcealed carry, but you have to prove you need to do so). Italy has somewhat laxer gun laws, but still requires a reason for open/concealed carry, and you still need a licence to own any firearm.
[QUOTE=Carnage2323;36953530]They don't come with weapons but you can also purchase said weapons
[sp] That's legal[/sp]
[sp]The following are legal.
Any solid shot non rifled weapon up too 140mm, any muzzle loading cannon or mortar, any flamethrower, any incendiary that is not high explosive(thermite), any low explosive, any rifle up to 20mm, any semiautomatic weapon, any crank action weapon(gatling gun or volley gun), any tank with a gun that fits the above description. You can also launch an ICBM capable platform if you inform SACOM about it a two weeks before hand, this is why we send more tonnage to LEO using or private industry than NASA and all foreign public and private space industries combined.
With a high explosives permit, which is a five week wait with a shall issue status. You could build a diesel fuel/fertilizer truck bomb, have any rpg, mortar, or artillery piece. Or if you mined, refined, or bred the fissile material privately you could build a thermonuclear bomb. It is only illegal to buy or sell fissionables to anyone except the federal government, private citizens can own their own stock for personal use.[/sp][/QUOTE]
why did you spoiler this
also yeah that's all legit terrifying and stupid and shouldn't be remotely legal so this post is just a testament to how ridiculous american arms laws are, but it doesn't really matter because in the end your whole point with this "we can have tanks" thing is that it means your revolution would be feasible. it isn't. your antique self-repaired tanks don't come close to being capable of matching the govts military power so once again you're literally an insane person if you think there's any legitimacy in the idea of a violent revolution in america lmao
[QUOTE=Carnage2323;36953530]They don't come with weapons but you can also purchase said weapons
[sp] That's legal[/sp]
[sp]The following are legal.
Any solid shot non rifled weapon up too 140mm, any muzzle loading cannon or mortar, any flamethrower, any incendiary that is not high explosive(thermite), any low explosive, any rifle up to 20mm, any semiautomatic weapon, any crank action weapon(gatling gun or volley gun), any tank with a gun that fits the above description. You can also launch an ICBM capable platform if you inform SACOM about it a two weeks before hand, this is why we send more tonnage to LEO using or private industry than NASA and all foreign public and private space industries combined.
With a high explosives permit, which is a five week wait with a shall issue status. You could build a diesel fuel/fertilizer truck bomb, have any rpg, mortar, or artillery piece. Or if you mined, refined, or bred the fissile material privately you could build a thermonuclear bomb. It is only illegal to buy or sell fissionables to anyone except the federal government, private citizens can own their own stock for personal use.[/sp][/QUOTE]
plus you can own rifled guns past 20mm (IE: tank guns) if you register them as a destructive device
[editline]27th July 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=Kopimi;36953573]
also yeah that's all legit terrifying and stupid and shouldn't be remotely legal [/QUOTE]
I dont know about you but I am terrified of a private citizen trying to assault my house with a muzzle loading cannon!
and look at all the lives that could be saved if we made tank cannons illegal, my grandma was killed by some hooligan driving his M48 patton around while firing in the air
[QUOTE=Kopimi;36953573]why did you spoiler this
also yeah that's all legit terrifying and stupid and shouldn't be remotely legal so this post is just a testament to how ridiculous american arms laws are, but it doesn't really matter because in the end your whole point with this "we can have tanks" thing is that it means your revolution would be feasible. it isn't. your antique self-repaired tanks don't come close to being capable of matching the govts military power so once again you're literally an insane person if you think there's any legitimacy in the idea of a violent revolution in america lmao[/QUOTE]
The thing is, citizens can buy those modern tanks you seem to love so much. They work fully operationally, except for their weapons which is illegal. I'm sure in such an event there would be people capable of getting them into fully working order.
[QUOTE=Carnage2323;36953628]The thing is, citizens can buy those modern tanks you seem to love so much. They work fully operationally, except for their weapons which is illegal. I'm sure in such an event there would be capable of getting them into fully working order.[/QUOTE]
uh huh yeah dude go ahead and write this up as a win for your side of the argument because i'm willing to argue with idiots but not with people who are seriously mental
[QUOTE=Kopimi;36953644]uh huh yeah dude go ahead and write this up as a win for your side of the argument because i'm willing to argue with idiots but not with people who are seriously mental[/QUOTE]
What argument? I'm merely telling you what's legal here in the US. Guess that's insane
[QUOTE=Carnage2323;36953628]The thing is, citizens can buy those modern tanks you seem to love so much. They work fully operationally, except for their weapons which is illegal. I'm sure in such an event there would be capable of getting them into fully working order.[/QUOTE]
You can own tank cannons if you have a class III licence and register the ammo/gun as destructive devices with the ATF
[QUOTE=Carnage2323;36953655]What argument? I'm merely telling you what's legal here in the US. Guess that's insane[/QUOTE]
"my ron paul poster keeps telling me to kill the governor.."
[QUOTE=Kopimi;36953690]"my ron paul poster keeps telling me to kill the governor.."[/QUOTE]
You still haven't addressed the question
[QUOTE=Carnage2323;36953628]The thing is, citizens can buy those modern tanks you seem to love so much. They work fully operationally, except for their weapons which is illegal. I'm sure in such an event there would be people capable of getting them into fully working order.[/QUOTE]
I always thought it was illegal to purchase vehicles and aircraft currently in service to the U.S. military?
I know people buy fighter jets and tanks, but I've never heard of anyone purchasing any modern tanks and fighters.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
