|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Thu Aug 05, 2010 3:38 am
Do you people honestly think you have a chance against the government if they decide to attack you?
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Aug 05, 2010 5:23 am
The second amendment was originally made so the Americans could gather militias and fight the Brits. You couldn't just own a gun; you had to join the American militia and get trained.
Not to mention firepower has severely increased. I say we should be able to use any weapon that they had back when they wrote the constitution! Muskets and cannons!
If we can bear arms, can I bear nuclear hydrogen arms?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Aug 05, 2010 1:06 pm
Sciamancer can I bear nuclear hydrogen arms? ahh yes, wouldn't that be nice? The rose in spring Do you people honestly think you have a chance against the government if they decide to attack you? if the government attacks it wont be towards one specific person (unless you really f*cked up) if they launched a full scale attack we would have enough time to escape the slaughter and form some sort of a resistance, and if they do have 100+ people attack one person/ group of ppl, its better to go down guns blazing
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Aug 05, 2010 8:49 pm
The rose in spring Do you people honestly think you have a chance against the government if they decide to attack you? The Taliban seems to be doing a pretty good job. The Viet Cong didn't do too bad either. Larger and with more guns doesn't automatically make a winner. Sciamancer The second amendment was originally made so the Americans could gather militias and fight the Brits. You couldn't just own a gun; you had to join the American militia and get trained. Not to mention firepower has severely increased. I say we should be able to use any weapon that they had back when they wrote the constitution! Muskets and cannons! If we can bear arms, can I bear nuclear hydrogen arms? The closest thing we have to a militia now is the National Guard. We can use those weapons and many more. If you can make or buy nuclear hydrogen weapons then I'm sure you could. I don't suspect Uncle Sam would be very happy about it though.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Aug 06, 2010 2:43 am
bratkov1 if the government attacks it wont be towards one specific person (unless you really f*cked up) if they launched a full scale attack we would have enough time to escape the slaughter and form some sort of a resistance, and if they do have 100+ people attack one person/ group of ppl, its better to go down guns blazing American soldiers are some of the best soldiers in the world. Not to mention that guns are useless against defending against a country with more than enough nukes to end all life. Anyway to understand the second amendment, you have to understand American history. When the constitution was ratified, the United States was a very poor country with valueless currency. There was no way they could afford a military to defend against a country like England or France. Therefore a well-armed populace was a good way to draft a necesary defense. Many libertarians argue that the founding fathers have that amendment to remove a bad government, but that is the exact opposite. The last thing our founding fathers wanted was violence in politics.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Aug 06, 2010 2:46 am
Obscurus The rose in spring Do you people honestly think you have a chance against the government if they decide to attack you? The Taliban seems to be doing a pretty good job. The Viet Cong didn't do too bad either. Larger and with more guns doesn't automatically make a winner. They are successful at it because the way gurrella warfare works is by making the opposing country lost the will to hold on to the country. That tactic can only work if you have a home field advantage. In the case of the US attacking a group of people, the soldiers have the home field advantage.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Aug 06, 2010 8:32 am
fatalblues crimson fang actually its been proven that with skill (and an unearthly amount of timing) a traditional swords can cut through bullets and i am a mmo addict too i prefer swords as well and about the guns thing don't get modern and ancient guns confused old guns (one shot pistols and the like) were extremely hard and risky to use because of kickback and the one shot capabilities meant that guns had to be weighed with other options. (the main reason why ancient pirates used guns and swords) This is BS. The only blade I've seen cut through bullets is a katana and even if you did that you'd still have shards of metal flying at you at 700 mph.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Aug 06, 2010 10:53 pm
The rose in spring Obscurus The rose in spring Do you people honestly think you have a chance against the government if they decide to attack you? The Taliban seems to be doing a pretty good job. The Viet Cong didn't do too bad either. Larger and with more guns doesn't automatically make a winner. They are successful at it because the way gurrella warfare works is by making the opposing country lost the will to hold on to the country. That tactic can only work if you have a home field advantage. In the case of the US attacking a group of people, the soldiers have the home field advantage. Guerrilla warfare works in the larger force's homeland. The Cuban Revolution is an example.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Aug 07, 2010 6:32 am
Obscurus The rose in spring Obscurus The rose in spring Do you people honestly think you have a chance against the government if they decide to attack you? The Taliban seems to be doing a pretty good job. The Viet Cong didn't do too bad either. Larger and with more guns doesn't automatically make a winner. They are successful at it because the way gurrella warfare works is by making the opposing country lost the will to hold on to the country. That tactic can only work if you have a home field advantage. In the case of the US attacking a group of people, the soldiers have the home field advantage. Guerrilla warfare works in the larger force's homeland. The Cuban Revolution is an example. The Cubans also didn't have enough nukes to end all life. Nor did they have the bravest and best equipped soldiers in the world. Nor the best tactics.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Aug 07, 2010 11:22 pm
The rose in spring Obscurus The rose in spring Obscurus The rose in spring Do you people honestly think you have a chance against the government if they decide to attack you? The Taliban seems to be doing a pretty good job. The Viet Cong didn't do too bad either. Larger and with more guns doesn't automatically make a winner. They are successful at it because the way gurrella warfare works is by making the opposing country lost the will to hold on to the country. That tactic can only work if you have a home field advantage. In the case of the US attacking a group of people, the soldiers have the home field advantage. Guerrilla warfare works in the larger force's homeland. The Cuban Revolution is an example. The Cubans also didn't have enough nukes to end all life. Nor did they have the bravest and best equipped soldiers in the world. Nor the best tactics. Why would the US nuke itself? We won't nuke the Taliban; why would we nuke a local insurgency? It sounds similar to the MAD craziness of the Cold War. How can you comment on how brave the Cuban soldiers under Batista were? And while they weren't as well equipped as armies today, they were a lot better equipped than Castro's revolutionaries.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Aug 08, 2010 3:20 am
Obscurus The rose in spring Obscurus The rose in spring Obscurus The rose in spring Do you people honestly think you have a chance against the government if they decide to attack you? The Taliban seems to be doing a pretty good job. The Viet Cong didn't do too bad either. Larger and with more guns doesn't automatically make a winner. They are successful at it because the way gurrella warfare works is by making the opposing country lost the will to hold on to the country. That tactic can only work if you have a home field advantage. In the case of the US attacking a group of people, the soldiers have the home field advantage. Guerrilla warfare works in the larger force's homeland. The Cuban Revolution is an example. The Cubans also didn't have enough nukes to end all life. Nor did they have the bravest and best equipped soldiers in the world. Nor the best tactics. Why would the US nuke itself? We won't nuke the Taliban; why would we nuke a local insurgency? It sounds similar to the MAD craziness of the Cold War. How can you comment on how brave the Cuban soldiers under Batista were? And while they weren't as well equipped as armies today, they were a lot better equipped than Castro's revolutionaries. You're comparing an island military to the best army in thye world. And yes. If nthey are as evil as you think they are, they could be able to cut off a finger to save an arm.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Aug 08, 2010 1:24 pm
TrutherMei iQueenShippo They should get rid of guns. I believe if someone really wants to kill someone and want them dead,they will atleast come up to them with a knife and probably have a chance of getting beat up by that person. Because guns r for cowards. If there were absolutely no guns anywhere in the world and they were illegal to make, then yea.. that would be fantastic. But since the military will always have guns, civilians should NOT give up their guns. As long as the military's enemies have guns, they will never give up theirs. It's a continuous circle of conflict that can only be solved when an "almighty" power takes over and forces all to drop their weapons. This power must be neutral to all.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Aug 08, 2010 9:28 pm
The rose in spring Obscurus The rose in spring Obscurus The rose in spring They are successful at it because the way gurrella warfare works is by making the opposing country lost the will to hold on to the country. That tactic can only work if you have a home field advantage. In the case of the US attacking a group of people, the soldiers have the home field advantage. Guerrilla warfare works in the larger force's homeland. The Cuban Revolution is an example. The Cubans also didn't have enough nukes to end all life. Nor did they have the bravest and best equipped soldiers in the world. Nor the best tactics. Why would the US nuke itself? We won't nuke the Taliban; why would we nuke a local insurgency? It sounds similar to the MAD craziness of the Cold War. How can you comment on how brave the Cuban soldiers under Batista were? And while they weren't as well equipped as armies today, they were a lot better equipped than Castro's revolutionaries. You're comparing an island military to the best army in thye world. And yes. If nthey are as evil as you think they are, they could be able to cut off a finger to save an arm. That it was an island military is irrelevant. Batista's army was fighting a smaller guerrilla force on its home turf. If the best army in the world has been fighting a foreign insurgency for almost nine years with all of its might then what makes you think a domestic insurgency would be any easier won? Home turf means s**t when the enemy is not clearly identifiable. That's why we have the emerging problem of domestic terrorism. And I'm sure that the remaining public would be totally understanding if the government decided to nuke the homeland because of some tin foil hatters. That totally wouldn't cause a ********.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Aug 09, 2010 1:12 am
Obscurus The rose in spring Obscurus The rose in spring Obscurus The rose in spring They are successful at it because the way gurrella warfare works is by making the opposing country lost the will to hold on to the country. That tactic can only work if you have a home field advantage. In the case of the US attacking a group of people, the soldiers have the home field advantage. Guerrilla warfare works in the larger force's homeland. The Cuban Revolution is an example. The Cubans also didn't have enough nukes to end all life. Nor did they have the bravest and best equipped soldiers in the world. Nor the best tactics. Why would the US nuke itself? We won't nuke the Taliban; why would we nuke a local insurgency? It sounds similar to the MAD craziness of the Cold War. How can you comment on how brave the Cuban soldiers under Batista were? And while they weren't as well equipped as armies today, they were a lot better equipped than Castro's revolutionaries. You're comparing an island military to the best army in thye world. And yes. If nthey are as evil as you think they are, they could be able to cut off a finger to save an arm. That it was an island military is irrelevant. Batista's army was fighting a smaller guerrilla force on its home turf. If the best army in the world has been fighting a foreign insurgency for almost nine years with all of its might then what makes you think a domestic insurgency would be any easier won? Home turf means s**t when the enemy is not clearly identifiable. That's why we have the emerging problem of domestic terrorism. And I'm sure that the remaining public would be totally understanding if the government decided to nuke the homeland because of some tin foil hatters. That totally wouldn't cause a ******** class="clear"> 1. There aren't enough tin foil hatters for them to kill 2. TFH (Tin foilf hatters) are so rare that the government couldn't give a s**t about you guys 3. If their government is so at stake, then nuking a city is not out of their moral capability 4. The US army is failing because they are forgetting the facts about War. If they started to massacre the people of Afghanistan, then terrorists would think twice before defying us, but the US has an obscure view on war. They think they can win by being the good guys. Too little do they know that is their weakness. Don't even thing for a second that the US won't be Mr. Nice guy if they are facing an impending rebellion. 5. The US spends more money on the military than the top 16 countries combined. They have more power than an island nation. Over 1 million alone are in reserve to deal with any THF that poses a threat. I don't care if you have an AUG with an undercariiage grenade launcher and incindeary ammo.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Dec 24, 2010 9:15 pm
Sciamancer The second amendment was originally made so the Americans could gather militias and fight the Brits. You couldn't just own a gun; you had to join the American militia and get trained. Not to mention firepower has severely increased. I say we should be able to use any weapon that they had back when they wrote the constitution! Muskets and cannons! If we can bear arms, can I bear nuclear hydrogen arms? No, you didn't have to JOIN anything. The private militia was anyone 18 and over. That mean private citizens going about they're everyday lives were suppose to be armed so that when a time of emergency arose they could be called upon. That also made sure the militia was not a standing army, something the founding fathers were not fond of. Plus, the second amendment came from British law, not to gather militia's to fight the Brits. In fact the Constitution would not have been ratified if the PRIVATE ownership of guns, no joining anything, was not in it. Attitudes like the one you expressed are too easily exploited to take guns away. The excuse of: "well the militia is the National Guard" would be all that it would take to try to get rid of them. And what good is a nuclear device without the means of delivering it? You won't get a "hydrogen bomb" in the back of a pick up truck unnoticed. All you'd have are low yield fission weapons. Inefficient, and probably not put to good use.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
