Obama has largely steered clear of gun debate; For Democrats, gun politics are bad politics - Polidicks

[QUOTE=galenmarek;36873958]Here's my contribution to this arguement. As I have stated in another thread, not all Americans have the comfort of living next to a store. Some Americans live so far away from a store their car would run out of gas before they would even reach one. What do these Americans do? They hunt. They hunt every day of their lives to live and some don't even use money, they just live off the land. What happens when guns are taken away? They can't hunt, they can't move away and then they could most likely die.[/QUOTE] That's a tad bit extreme, but they'd probably get waylaid every mile to the city in that scenario. :v:

[QUOTE=galenmarek;36873958]Here's my contribution to this arguement. As I have stated in another thread, not all Americans have the comfort of living next to a store. Some Americans live so far away from a store their car would run out of gas before they would even reach one. What do these Americans do? They hunt. They hunt every day of their lives to live and some don't even use money, they just live off the land. What happens when guns are taken away? They can't hunt, they can't move away and then they could most likely die.[/QUOTE] You can still hunt with gun control. You can acquire a shotgun or firearms licence in the UK for the purpose of hunting (primarily the former though) - you just have to pass the conditions for the licence check, and have a secure place to store the guns.

[QUOTE=Camundongo;36874000]You can still hunt with gun control. You can acquire a shotgun or firearms licence in the UK for the purpose of hunting (primarily the former though) - you just have to pass the conditions for the licence check, and have a secure place to store the guns.[/QUOTE] That's one of the larger problems why you can't restrict gun ownership in America. Many people hunt. People even in the city of LA hunt for food during the right seasons.

[QUOTE=Megafan;36873742]Except that in practicality there's no way that would actually work, considering that the military has all manner of weapons civilians do not, and that your AR-15 or whatever else you may have will not be able to fight.[/QUOTE] I'd just like to point out that the US left Vietnam, then recently Iraq, and soon Afghanistan with no overpowering 'win', despite all our military's fancy schmancy high tech weapons. A bunch of guys with rifles and some homemade explosives can still gum up the works enough to drag wars on for years, until the superpower gives up and leaves. So I wouldn't be so quick to mock the people's ability to defend themselves as long as they have their right to bear arms.

[QUOTE=Dori;36873845]the 2nd amendment stopped being practical 200 years ago[/QUOTE] you're terrible

[QUOTE=cecilbdemodded;36874176]I'd just like to point out that the US left Vietnam, then recently Iraq, and soon Afghanistan with no overpowering 'win', despite all our military's fancy schmancy high tech weapons. A bunch of guys with rifles and some homemade explosives can still gum up the works enough to drag wars on for years, until the superpower gives up and leaves. So I wouldn't be so quick to mock the people's ability to defend themselves as long as they have their right to bear arms.[/QUOTE] High tech? Our bloody military had M16s as standard weapons, and those peices of rubbish caused countless fuck-ups and death of our men because they jammed all the time. They were frail and chronically ineffective.

[QUOTE=galenmarek;36874091]That's one of the larger problems why you can't restrict gun ownership in America. Many people hunt. People even in the city of LA hunt for food during the right seasons.[/QUOTE] But you can still hunt in the UK. Getting a shotgun licence isn't hard, and apart from the shotgun all I'd have to buy is a secure gun cabinet (owning one should be a part of being a responsible gun owner, no?) and the licence is £50, which lasts for five years and costs £40 to renew, and you can acquire as many shotguns as you like.

[QUOTE=Bob_Namg;36874236]High tech? Our bloody military had M16s as standard weapons, and those peices of rubbish caused countless fuck-ups and death of our men because they jammed all the time. They were frail and chronically ineffective.[/QUOTE] that was just the pre-A1s. All the issues had been resolved within a couple of months

[QUOTE=Bob_Namg;36874236]High tech? Our bloody military had M16s as standard weapons, and those peices of rubbish caused countless fuck-ups and death of our men because they jammed all the time. They were frail and chronically ineffective.[/QUOTE] lol [quote] [img]http://www.suasnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Predator-Drone.jpg[/img] [img]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b9/Abrams-transparent.png[/img] [img]http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-Zlmx2SH5Ehs/T_vv9Vli8cI/AAAAAAAACrQ/tYFCeXgJ1eo/s1600/indian-army-artillery-guns.jpg[/img] [img]http://static.ddmcdn.com/gif/stealth-bomber-25.jpg[/img] [/quote] i think we're fairly high tech

[QUOTE=Kopimi;36873972]ummm no, "slapping terrorist on them" won't do anything. being presented with a group of american citizens waving their rifles around and shooting police officers and, you know, causing a violent revolution, should be motivation enough for the military to say "yeah these guys gotta go". and once a-fucking-gain, even if you assume 90% of the military says "fuck that im not killing americans", there'll still be more than enough people willing to follow orders and take out your revolution. you don't stand a chance against the military and if you try saying otherwise you're lying to yourself.[/QUOTE] You're making a lot of assumptions, I hope you know. Your first assumption is that every group of revolutionaries are just morons "waving their rifles around and shooting police officers". In case you didn't know, they're not. There is such a thing as organization and discipline. And if a good number of the US military DOES defect because they don't want to shoot innocent countrymen, you can bet that they'll share some of their knowledge with the revolutionaries. Your second assumption is that the military bombing their own people won't bring any negative response from the rest of the UN. All it takes is a few unarmed civilians getting caught in the blast for the UN to denounce the US, enact sanctions, or if worst comes to worse they might even try to intervene on their own. A revolution backed up by the military of another nation is an entirely different story from the one you're trying to write. Also, Terrorist isn't exactly the best definition. A terrorist commits acts of violence against civilians to spread terror, hence the name. A group of revolutionaries would be an organized resistance against military and government institutions for the sake of gaining or regaining control of their country and/or freedoms. There's overlap since they can have similar goals but they aren't the same thing. Not by a long shot.

[QUOTE=Camundongo;36874247]But you can still hunt in the UK. Getting a shotgun licence isn't hard, and apart from the shotgun all I'd have to buy is a secure gun cabinet (owning one should be a part of being a responsible gun owner, no?) and the licence is £50, which lasts for five years and costs £40 to renew, and you can acquire as many shotguns as you like.[/QUOTE] a gun isn't going to protect you if it's in a safe. All of my weapons are loaded (full mag, empty chamber) and in my closet.

[QUOTE=ButtsexV3;36874256]that was just the pre-A1s. All the issues had been resolved within a couple of months[/QUOTE] It didn't help Colt lied about them, saying they were self-cleaning when they obviously weren't, and therefore weren't issued with cleaning kits. [editline]21st July 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=ButtsexV3;36874267]a gun isn't going to protect you if it's in a safe. All of my weapons are loaded (full mag, empty chamber) and in my closet.[/QUOTE] You can't buy a gun for self-defence in the UK. You can use them for self-defence when they are used as reasonable force, but you can't buy them for sole intent of doing that.

[QUOTE=Kopimi;36873972]ummm no, "slapping terrorist on them" won't do anything. being presented with a group of american citizens waving their rifles around and shooting police officers and, you know, causing a violent revolution, should be motivation enough for the military to say "yeah these guys gotta go". and once a-fucking-gain, even if you assume 90% of the military says "fuck that im not killing americans", there'll still be more than enough people willing to follow orders and take out your revolution. you don't stand a chance against the military and if you try saying otherwise you're lying to yourself.[/QUOTE] So let me get this straight, you think that if 90% of the US Military defects(assuming they are taking their equipment with them), the 10% will still win. Do you have any idea how dumb that sounds

[QUOTE=Xenomoose;36874262]You're making a lot of assumptions, I hope you know. Your first assumption is that every group of revolutionaries are just morons "waving their rifles around and shooting police officers". In case you didn't know, they're not. There is such a thing as organization and discipline. And if a good number of the US military DOES defect because they don't want to shoot innocent countrymen, you can bet that they'll share some of their knowledge with the revolutionaries.[/QUOTE] uhh but they aren't "innocent countrymen", they're armed americans looking to overthrow the government through a violent revolution. and i'm the one making assumptions here? the militias can be as organized as they like, they can't come close to matching the gunpower and technical superiority the military will have. [QUOTE=Xenomoose;36874262]Your second assumption is that the military bombing their own people won't bring any negative response from the rest of the UN. All it takes is a few unarmed civilians getting caught in the blast for the UN to denounce the US, enact sanctions, or if worst comes to worse they might even try to intervene on their own. A revolution backed up by the military of another nation is an entirely different story from the one you're trying to write.[/QUOTE] so reacting to a violent revolution in america will bring international hatred but all of the other terrible things our country has done, including killing hundreds of thousands of civilians in other countries, doesn't evoke any response? at least attacking violent revolutionaries would be justified compared to everything else we do. [QUOTE=Xenomoose;36874262]Also, Terrorist isn't exactly the best definition. A terrorist commits acts of violence against civilians to spread terror, hence the name. A group of revolutionaries would be an organized resistance against military and government institutions for the sake of gaining or regaining control of their country and/or freedoms. There's overlap since they can have similar goals but they aren't the same thing. Not by a long shot.[/QUOTE] don't see how it makes a difference in the slightest but w/e

[QUOTE=Camundongo;36874276]It didn't help Colt lied about them, saying they were self-cleaning when they obviously weren't, and therefore weren't issued with cleaning kits.[/QUOTE] they said you wouldn't need to clean them, which is true if you're not using cheap powder and primers. for the first couple of months they were just doing what was cheapest instead of what was most effective. They were issued with cleaning kits too, just a lot of soldiers took "don't need to clean them" as "go ahead and throw out your cleaning rods"

[QUOTE=Carnage2323;36874307]So let me get this straight, you think that if 90% of the US Military defects(assuming they are taking their equipment with them), the 10% will still win. Do you have any idea how dumb that sounds[/QUOTE] Well, obviously no, but why the fuck would the government issue an order or pass a law that would have that result, unless they're completely insane?

[QUOTE=Carnage2323;36874307]So let me get this straight, you think that if 90% of the US Military defects(assuming they are taking their equipment with them), the 10% will still win. Do you have any idea how dumb that sounds[/QUOTE] ugh

[QUOTE=Camundongo;36874276]You can't buy a gun for self-defence in the UK. You can use them for self-defence when they are used as reasonable force, but you can't buy them for sole intent of doing that.[/QUOTE] All I learned from this is that the UK has some really dumb gun laws.

[QUOTE=Kopimi;36874337]ugh[/QUOTE] I'll just take your title as an answer

[QUOTE=Kopimi;36874260]lol i think we're fairly high tech[/QUOTE]He was referring to the Vietnam War, there was far less of a gap in technology then between the US and North Vietnam.

[QUOTE=Carnage2323;36874350]I'll just take your title as an answer[/QUOTE] epic zing u really got me dude the fact that you're incapable of recognizing i only gave you the "90% of military defects" thing to appease how stupid you were being about the military's power should be more than enough indication for any sane person reading this thread that you're not to be taken seriously. the idea that 90% of the military would actually defect and join a violent revolution against their own government is bordering on insanity in a literal sense, and once again with the push of a button from a lone drone operator your entire fighting force will be wiped out without you even having time to think "hm do you guys hear that whistling sound?"

[QUOTE=ButtsexV3;36874329]they said you wouldn't need to clean them, which is true if you're not using cheap powder and primers. for the first couple of months they were just doing what was cheapest instead of what was most effective. They were issued with cleaning kits too, just a lot of soldiers took "don't need to clean them" as "go ahead and throw out your cleaning rods"[/QUOTE] They weren't initally issued with enough to maintain them all. I guess the whole thing is somewhat common to the new weapons issued that era - the British Army had similar problems with the SA-80, until a new version was issued (My old man was in when they were issued, and hated the things).

[QUOTE=Kopimi;36874377]epic zing u really got me dude the fact that you're incapable of recognizing i only gave you the "90% of military defects" thing to appease how stupid you were being about the military's power should be more than enough indication for any sane person reading this thread that you're not to be taken seriously. the idea that 90% of the military would actually defect and join a violent revolution against their own government is bordering on insanity in a literal sense, and once again with the push of a button from a lone drone operator your entire fighting force will be wiped out without you even having time to think "hm do you guys hear that whistling sound?"[/QUOTE] So you're saying if the government was willing to blow up the majority of their population the military that is made up of the population would just go with it. ok.

[QUOTE=Carnage2323;36874419]So you're saying if the government was willing to blow up the majority of their population the military that is made up of the population would just go with it. ok.[/QUOTE] yeah try not to let that idea shock you too much but if the US military is told "hey theres some dudes forming their own army in Colorado, they're threatening to take over city hall in an armed revolt", chances are they'll be ok with taking them down for the greater good.

[QUOTE=Kopimi;36874324]uhh but they aren't "innocent countrymen", they're armed americans looking to overthrow the government through a violent revolution. and i'm the one making assumptions here? the militias can be as organized as they like, they can't come close to matching the gunpower and technical superiority the military will have.[/QUOTE] As stupid as it sounds, just because a group is looking to overthrow the government doesn't mean they're evil people. We're talking about a hypothetical situation about people who are starting a revolution due to an oppressive government, not some evil asshole trying to start a coup in order to take power for himself and START an oppressive government. [quote]so reacting to a violent revolution in america will bring international hatred but all of the other terrible things our country has done, including killing hundreds of thousands of civilians in other countries, doesn't evoke any response? at least attacking violent revolutionaries would be justified compared to everything else we do.[/quote] This is a different scenario. The "killing of hundreds of thousands of civilians in other countries" (and I think you're exxageratting that number) are not the result of officially sanctioned military action, but are from the actions of bloodthirsty grunts who are usually punished when news of their actions become public knowledge. Attacking "violent revolutionaries" WOULD be the result of officially sanctioned military action, and whether or not it's "justified" is debatable. Remember, we're talking about a revolution started to topple an OPPRESSIVE government, not a bunch of dickweeds who want all the power to themselves. Most UN-aligned countries seem to agree that oppressive governments kinda need to go, what with the toppling of one in Libya and their apparent desire to topple another in Syria. You know, Syria, the country that's massacring it's own civilians because they want a government that ISN'T oppressive?

[QUOTE=Kopimi;36874453]yeah try not to let that idea shock you too much but if the US military is told "hey theres some dudes forming their own army in Colorado, they're threatening to take over city hall in an armed revolt", chances are they'll be ok with taking them down for the greater good.[/QUOTE] Oh so they'd pilot a predator drone and carpet bomb Colorado to take them out. good plan.

Ah, I still remember the reason they introduced the Short Barreled Rifle tax. Was because of John Dillinger's sawed-off BAR.

[QUOTE=SwayzeTrain;36873989]I don't have any faith in the willingness of the american military to act on moral grounds rather than financial self interest. lockheed-martin and the rest of the military industrial complex are not idealistic organizations and, unfortunately, I don't have any faith in the ability of enlisted men to act against military command[/QUOTE] You're comparing corporations to individuals that come from every walk of life in the US.

[QUOTE=Carnage2323;36874307]So let me get this straight, you think that if 90% of the US Military defects(assuming they are taking their equipment with them), the 10% will still win.[/QUOTE] under what circumstances would 90% of them defect? the military is over 3/4ths republican, they're not going to support a populist uprising

Guys, this is way off topic. Lets try to steer it back to OP, shall we?