I'd get front row seats. Watch as they get eaten alive by tanks and airstrikes.You know it would be fun to see a bunch of white people in the suburbs trying to fight the army
:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:
BossPerson
Does the 2nd amendment really prevent tyranny?
This topic is locked from further discussion.
[QUOTE="Aljosa23"]Well I guess you do need one now. Maybe we should just rename the "Bill of Rights" to the "Bill of Privileges that You Must Renew Your Permit for Every 5 Years". Another case of people forcing a way of living down your throats. Sometimes I wonder if OT's the credibility is a strong as CNN's comment sections[QUOTE="Laihendi"] We have a right to bear arms. You shouldn't need a permit recertificiation to renew your constitutional rights.Laihendi
[QUOTE="Aljosa23"]Well I guess you do need one now. Maybe we should just rename the "Bill of Rights" to the "Bill of Privileges that You Must Renew Your Permit for Every 5 Years".Yeah[QUOTE="Laihendi"] We have a right to bear arms. You shouldn't need a permit recertificiation to renew your constitutional rights.Laihendi
[QUOTE="Laihendi"][QUOTE="Aljosa23"]Well I guess you do need one now.Kamekazi_69Maybe we should just rename the "Bill of Rights" to the "Bill of Privileges that You Must Renew Your Permit for Every 5 Years". Another case of people forcing a way of living down your throats. Sometimes I wonder if OT's the credibility is a strong as CNN's comment sections Your forced to live a certain way whether you believe it or not anyway :lol:
[QUOTE="Laihendi"][QUOTE="Aljosa23"]Well I guess you do need one now.-Sun_Tzu-Maybe we should just rename the "Bill of Rights" to the "Bill of Privileges that You Must Renew Your Permit for Every 5 Years". That's fine with me So you are against freedom of speech and habeas corpus, and believe that cruel and unusual punishment should be legalized? What is your motivation for living if that is the world that you want to live in?
[QUOTE="Laihendi"][QUOTE="Aljosa23"]Well I guess you do need one now.Maybe we should just rename the "Bill of Rights" to the "Bill of Privileges that You Must Renew Your Permit for Every 5 Years". Another case of people forcing a way of living down your throats. Sometimes I wonder if OT's the credibility is a strong as CNN's comment sections you should move to somalia. then youll truly be free of tyrannyKamekazi_69
[QUOTE="nocoolnamejim"] In which case it would be moral objections that prevent tyranny and not guns right? But in answer to your question, military is trained to obey. We've carpet bombed plenty of brown people in the past. But even if they were inclined do disobey... If there was ever ACTUALLY a serious second civil war, and if the federal government ever actually was tyrannical, then HELL YES that bombing would get carried out. Tyrants don't actually accept "Dude, I don't feel right about this" as an excuse for not doing something. That particular fighter pilot doesn't feel like bombing New York? Shoot him in the head after raping and killing his family in front of him. Have a few other fighter pilots watch. Want to make a bet on whether the next guy up says "no" to the order in question? True tyrants don't ask for permission and don't take no for an answer. Which means that, again, having any gun you damn well please wouldn't mean **** in the modern era.br0kenrabbit
After the difficulties we've had in 'backwater nations' the past decade, I don't see how anything short of a nuclear attack would pacify an uprisen American populace. You think a few insurgents with IEDs are difficult, just wait till every Bob, Tom and Joe are sniping from their front porches, or wherever you go to eat, or worship, or work, or whatever.
There's a difference between fighting an enemy a world away, and living among him.
Apples and oranges. In those sorts of situations, the following differences apply: 1. We're trying to project power a half a world away rather than our own backyard. (Think of how easy it is to book a direct flight to New York vs. Tehran.) 2. We were going out of our way to be as humanitarian as possible and minimize civilian casualties. Let's focus on the 2nd point, even though the 1st one is just as valid. We're hypothesizing a TYRANNICAL REGIME BENT ON MERCILESS OPPRESSION. In that hypothetical, it opens up a whole range of options that didn't exist before. If I was a tyrannical dictator in charge of the U.S. military, I could erase the entirety of the state of New York within about five minutes time. Remember, in this hypothetical, I'm under no moral restrictions to try and be a nice guy. I probably had Dave killed a few minutes ago because I didn't like his haircut. Again, if we're talking about a truly tyrannical U.S. government with the resources it has at it's disposal an infinite amount of assault rifles means precisely dick.
Another case of people forcing a way of living down your throats. Sometimes I wonder if OT's the credibility is a strong as CNN's comment sections you should move to somalia. then youll truly be free of tyrannyc'mon, dont do that[QUOTE="Kamekazi_69"][QUOTE="Laihendi"] Maybe we should just rename the "Bill of Rights" to the "Bill of Privileges that You Must Renew Your Permit for Every 5 Years".Aljosa23
Another case of people forcing a way of living down your throats. Sometimes I wonder if OT's the credibility is a strong as CNN's comment sections you should move to somalia. then youll truly be free of tyranny Or maybe you should stop pushing people to your customs and realize people can think for themselves.[QUOTE="Kamekazi_69"][QUOTE="Laihendi"] Maybe we should just rename the "Bill of Rights" to the "Bill of Privileges that You Must Renew Your Permit for Every 5 Years".Aljosa23
Apples and oranges. In those sorts of situations, the following differences apply: 1. We're trying to project power a half a world away rather than our own backyard. (Think of how easy it is to book a direct flight to New York vs. Tehran.) 2. We were going out of our way to be as humanitarian as possible and minimize civilian casualties. Let's focus on the 2nd point, even though the 1st one is just as valid. We're hypothesizing a TYRANNICAL REGIME BENT ON MERCILESS OPPRESSION. In that hypothetical, it opens up a whole range of options that didn't exist before. If I was a tyrannical dictator in charge of the U.S. military, I could erase the entirety of the state of New York within about five minutes time. Remember, in this hypothetical, I'm under no moral restrictions to try and be a nice guy. I probably had Dave killed a few minutes ago because I didn't like his haircut. Again, if we're talking about a truly tyrannical U.S. government with the resources it has at it's disposal an infinite amount of assault rifles means precisely dick.nocoolnamejim
I agree that nuclear annihilation would be impossible to prevent if the military and its constituent members went along with the whole plot (unlikely, even members of the military aren't going to sit buy and watch their families burn in nuclear fire), but aside from that 300 million pissed off people are going to be hard to take down.
Realistically speaking, if such an event did occur, you'd have to except whole divisions of the military defecting (it happens, look at recent history in the M.E. and North Africa), so it wouldn't be just citizens vs. the whole of the military.
It would be a bloody awful mess no matter what.
[QUOTE="Aljosa23"]you should move to somalia. then youll truly be free of tyranny Or maybe you should stop pushing people to your customs and realize people can think for themselves. ?[QUOTE="Kamekazi_69"] Another case of people forcing a way of living down your throats. Sometimes I wonder if OT's the credibility is a strong as CNN's comment sections Kamekazi_69
i think youve got the wrong site. allow me to link you to the proper placehttp://www.gop.com/
[QUOTE="nocoolnamejim"]Apples and oranges. In those sorts of situations, the following differences apply: 1. We're trying to project pkower a half a world away rather than our own backyard. (Think of how easy it is to book a direct flight to New York vs. Tehran.) 2. We were going out of our way to be as humanitarian as possible and minimize civilian casualties. Let's focus on the 2nd point, even though the 1st one is just as valid. We're hypothesizing a TYRANNICAL REGIME BENT ON MERCILESS OPPRESSION. In that hypothetical, it opens up a whole range of options that didn't exist before. If I was a tyrannical dictator in charge of the U.S. military, I could erase the entirety of the state of New York within about five minutes time. Remember, in this hypothetical, I'm under no moral restrictions to try and be a nice guy. I probably had Dave killed a few minutes ago because I didn't like his haircut. Again, if we're talking about a truly tyrannical U.S. government with the resources it has at it's disposal an infinite amount of assault rifles means precisely dick.br0kenrabbit
I agree that nuclear annihilation would be impossible to prevent if the military and its constituent members went along with the whole plot (unlikely, even members of the military aren't going to sit buy and watch their families burn in nuclear fire), but aside from that 300 million pissed off people are going to be hard to take down.
Realistically speaking, if such an event did occur, you'd have to except whole divisions of the military defecting (it happens, look at recent history in the M.E.), so it wouldn't be just citizens vs. the whole of the military.
It would be a bloody awful mess no matter what.
300 million people aren't pissed off at the Patriot act, drone killings, and third world tier income equality. Shouldn't expect anything different.[QUOTE="Aljosa23"]None of that sounds bad. We have a right to bear arms. You shouldn't need a permit recertificiation to renew your constitutional rights.[QUOTE="UnknownSniper65"]
I'd like to point out that the New York actually proves the "slippery slope" theory.
- ORIGINAL NY LAW: Assault Weapons Ban + 10rd Magazine Limit
- NEW NY LAW: Harsher Assault Weapons Ban, firearms permit recertification every five years, Ammunition sales monitored, Manditory registration of grandfathered weapons and a 7rd Magazine Limit.
For some reason I highly doubt the politicans in New York will sit back and consider it a job well done. Eventually there will be a complete semi-automatic ban in that state.
Laihendi
We have a right to bear arms....but, that doesn't mean ANY arms. Only need a handgun, and that will always be protected in the U.S. Guns for hunting are fine as well.
Obama is NOT against the 2nd Ammendment. There is no need for assault guns unless you join the military. I say, if you want to play with those guns, join the military!
or, perhaps we could use assault weapons at gun ranges for target practice....ONLY to be used at gun ranges, not to be taken home.
Hey lai
Please join me and petition the courts to allow me to shout fire in a movie theater
Thanks
[QUOTE="nocoolnamejim"]Apples and oranges. In those sorts of situations, the following differences apply: 1. We're trying to project power a half a world away rather than our own backyard. (Think of how easy it is to book a direct flight to New York vs. Tehran.) 2. We were going out of our way to be as humanitarian as possible and minimize civilian casualties. Let's focus on the 2nd point, even though the 1st one is just as valid. We're hypothesizing a TYRANNICAL REGIME BENT ON MERCILESS OPPRESSION. In that hypothetical, it opens up a whole range of options that didn't exist before. If I was a tyrannical dictator in charge of the U.S. military, I could erase the entirety of the state of New York within about five minutes time. Remember, in this hypothetical, I'm under no moral restrictions to try and be a nice guy. I probably had Dave killed a few minutes ago because I didn't like his haircut. Again, if we're talking about a truly tyrannical U.S. government with the resources it has at it's disposal an infinite amount of assault rifles means precisely dick.br0kenrabbit
I agree that nuclear annihilation would be impossible to prevent if the military and its constituent members went along with the whole plot (unlikely, even members of the military aren't going to sit buy and watch their families burn in nuclear fire), but aside from that 300 million pissed off people are going to be hard to take down.
Realistically speaking, if such an event did occur, you'd have to except whole divisions of the military defecting (it happens, look at recent history in the M.E. and North Africa), so it wouldn't be just citizens vs. the whole of the military.
It would be a bloody awful mess no matter what.
It wouldn't even take nuclear weapons. Conventional weaponry could send New York back to the stone age very quickly. But, again, you're assuming that tyrants take "no" for an answer. Imagine for a moment that I'm a tyrannical dictator (shouldn't be too hard) and I just told you to do something and you said no. Want to know what happens? I just ordered the ten men closest to you to rape you in the ass to within an inch of your life. I made everyone who might be even slightly sympathetic to you watch. After they were done tearing up your VIP entrance so much that you lost about a quart of blood, I ordered you nursed back to health. While that was happening, I had you strapped down to your bed and I ordered THE EXACT SAME PEOPLE to rape your 9 year old girl in the VIP entrance while you watched. I had this videotaped. Later on I plan on sending that video tape out as an instructional educational video to anyone who thinks it might be a good idea to say the word "no" within a hundred miles of my presence while I'm talking. So, after you recover, I take your young girl child (who is still alive because it is more effective that way) away and inform you that I have another hundred of my randiest men standing by. Now go do what I fvcking tell you to do. Do you say no? Keep in mind, you say no and I'll pretty much kill you and everyone you love in ways way more creative than the GS ToU allows me to convey here and then I'll ask the next person in line whether they have a similar moral objection. One way or another, someone's bombing that sh1t. The issue with folks who think that the 2nd amendment can deter a true tyrant is they have a limited imagination of what tyranny really means. Give an actual tyrant control of the U.S. military and guns are utterly irrelevant.We have a right to bear arms. You shouldn't need a permit recertificiation to renew your constitutional rights.[QUOTE="Laihendi"][QUOTE="Aljosa23"]None of that sounds bad.
AFBrat77
We have a right to bear arms....but, that doesn't mean ANY arms. Only need a handgun, and that will always be protected in the U.S. Guns for hunting are fine as well.
Obama is NOT against the 2nd Ammendment. There is no need for assault guns unless you join the military. I say, if you want to play with those guns, join the military!
or, perhaps we could use assault weapons at gun ranges for target practice....ONLY to be used at gun ranges, not to be taken home.
If you want to drive cars that go over 200mph join NASCAR. There is a reason that police officers have AR-15s and/or shotguns in there cars.Handguns are underpowered for home protection especially against multiple people.
Or maybe you should stop pushing people to your customs and realize people can think for themselves. ?[QUOTE="Kamekazi_69"][QUOTE="Aljosa23"]you should move to somalia. then youll truly be free of tyranny
Aljosa23
i think youve got the wrong site. allow me to link you to the proper placehttp://www.gop.com/
Someone seems impaired today, I didn't post any website. Here let me make you right and post one for you.
Why not get a dog? Or a decent security system? Hell, if you have a proper lock on your door and sturdy windows chances are those will defend you better than a gun anyway. There's a lot of ways to properly defend your home without needing an assault rifle.If you want to drive cars that go over 200mph join NASCAR. There is a reason that police officers have AR-15s and/or shotguns in there cars.Handguns are underpowered for home protection especially against multiple people.
UnknownSniper65
Why not get a dog? Or a decent security system? Hell, if you have a proper lock on your door and sturdy windows chances are those will defend you better than a gun anyway. There's a lot of ways to properly defend your home without needing an assault rifle.[QUOTE="UnknownSniper65"]
If you want to drive cars that go over 200mph join NASCAR. There is a reason that police officers have AR-15s and/or shotguns in there cars.Handguns are underpowered for home protection especially against multiple people.
Aljosa23
Locks can be picked,windows can be broken, doors can be kicked, dogs need to be trained and security systems have expensive monthly fees.
edit: Not to mention the average response time for police departments is around 10 minutes. That is including departments with very professional police officers. Its not uncommon for law enforcement to take 30 minutes to arrive on seen at a rural community.
[QUOTE="br0kenrabbit"][QUOTE="nocoolnamejim"] In which case it would be moral objections that prevent tyranny and not guns right? But in answer to your question, military is trained to obey. We've carpet bombed plenty of brown people in the past. But even if they were inclined do disobey... If there was ever ACTUALLY a serious second civil war, and if the federal government ever actually was tyrannical, then HELL YES that bombing would get carried out. Tyrants don't actually accept "Dude, I don't feel right about this" as an excuse for not doing something. That particular fighter pilot doesn't feel like bombing New York? Shoot him in the head after raping and killing his family in front of him. Have a few other fighter pilots watch. Want to make a bet on whether the next guy up says "no" to the order in question? True tyrants don't ask for permission and don't take no for an answer. Which means that, again, having any gun you damn well please wouldn't mean **** in the modern era.nocoolnamejim
After the difficulties we've had in 'backwater nations' the past decade, I don't see how anything short of a nuclear attack would pacify an uprisen American populace. You think a few insurgents with IEDs are difficult, just wait till every Bob, Tom and Joe are sniping from their front porches, or wherever you go to eat, or worship, or work, or whatever.
There's a difference between fighting an enemy a world away, and living among him.
Apples and oranges. In those sorts of situations, the following differences apply: 1. We're trying to project power a half a world away rather than our own backyard. (Think of how easy it is to book a direct flight to New York vs. Tehran.) 2. We were going out of our way to be as humanitarian as possible and minimize civilian casualties. Let's focus on the 2nd point, even though the 1st one is just as valid. We're hypothesizing a TYRANNICAL REGIME BENT ON MERCILESS OPPRESSION. In that hypothetical, it opens up a whole range of options that didn't exist before. If I was a tyrannical dictator in charge of the U.S. military, I could erase the entirety of the state of New York within about five minutes time. Remember, in this hypothetical, I'm under no moral restrictions to try and be a nice guy. I probably had Dave killed a few minutes ago because I didn't like his haircut. Again, if we're talking about a truly tyrannical U.S. government with the resources it has at it's disposal an infinite amount of assault rifles means precisely dick.I am not going to disagree that a truly tyranical government would do whatever it takes to crush an uprising but I find it highly unlikely a tyranical government would be willing to completely destroy its own city, especially a major city. Like I said earlier most of the fighitng would be urban/guerrilla warfare. In urban settings like in a city tanks are not an effective weapon. The limited space completely removes the range advantage a tank has, the tight roads severly limit mobility, and there would be abundant places to hide IED that could disable or destroy an armored vechile not to mention that it would also be somewhat easy to ambush a tank in a city and either capture or destroy it.
That just leaves air power as the governments last great advantage against an uprising. I am not saying that no air power would be used, there is no doubt it would be used but it would be extremely limited. More then likely attack helicopters and precision air strikes would be used. While difficult helicopters can be shot down without missiles and precision airstrikes by their nature would not cause massive amounts of casualties. I just can not see a tyranical government using massive bombing runs against an uprising because of the damage that it would end up doing to it self. What it seems people are overlooking is that unlike a foreign enemy where destroying there cities and infrastructure does nothing to truly hurt us, a tyranicall government destroying its own cities would cause massive damage to itself that it would have to repair after it crushed the uprising. Generally when a government tries to crush an uprising it tries to do it with as little damage done to itself as possiable and carpet bombing ones own cities doesn't match that.
We have a right to bear arms. You shouldn't need a permit recertificiation to renew your constitutional rights.[QUOTE="Laihendi"][QUOTE="Aljosa23"]None of that sounds bad.
AFBrat77
We have a right to bear arms....but, that doesn't mean ANY arms. Only need a handgun, and that will always be protected in the U.S. Guns for hunting are fine as well.
Obama is NOT against the 2nd Ammendment. There is no need for assault guns unless you join the military. I say, if you want to play with those guns, join the military!
or, perhaps we could use assault weapons at gun ranges for target practice....ONLY to be used at gun ranges, not to be taken home.
You seem to not understand. You are implying what the 2nd Amendment means under YOUR terms, which is the problem here.Why not get a dog? Or a decent security system? Or just a sign that you have a security system. When I bought my house, the owner had a security system from one of the top name guys. I discontinued the service and just kept the sign. Now all my neighbors think I have the heavy duty system.[QUOTE="UnknownSniper65"]
If you want to drive cars that go over 200mph join NASCAR. There is a reason that police officers have AR-15s and/or shotguns in there cars.Handguns are underpowered for home protection especially against multiple people.
Aljosa23
Why not get a dog? Or a decent security system? Hell, if you have a proper lock on your door and sturdy windows chances are those will defend you better than a gun anyway. There's a lot of ways to properly defend your home without needing an assault rifle.[QUOTE="Aljosa23"]
[QUOTE="UnknownSniper65"]
If you want to drive cars that go over 200mph join NASCAR. There is a reason that police officers have AR-15s and/or shotguns in there cars.Handguns are underpowered for home protection especially against multiple people.
UnknownSniper65
Locks can be picked,windows can be broken, doors can be kicked, dogs need to be trained and security systems have expensive monthly fees.
And you're assuming when a burglar breaks in you're right near your gun. You're assuming it won't jam. You're assuming it's even loaded. This is fun.
[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"][QUOTE="Laihendi"] Maybe we should just rename the "Bill of Rights" to the "Bill of Privileges that You Must Renew Your Permit for Every 5 Years".LaihendiThat's fine with me So you are against freedom of speech and habeas corpus, and believe that cruel and unusual punishment should be legalized? What is your motivation for living if that is the world that you want to live in? I am a strong supporter of freedom of speech. I believe in habeas corpus and I don't support cruel and unusual punishment. The thing is I don't seek the approval of the state to speak freely. Likewise, if I felt I required a firearm yet it was somehow illegal for me to obtain one I would still find a way to get my hands on one. I'm not a law-abiding citizen - I live my life on my own terms, not on the terms defined by the government. The bill of rights is nothing but a piece of paper that's over 200 years old. At least calling these "rights" privileges is a bit more hoenst.
Which is why I really can't take the position that the second amendment is integral to keeping tyranny at bay seriously. It will always be illegal to lead or join a rebellion against the government - given that fact why does it matter whether or not some (or even all) guns were illegal?
Apples and oranges. In those sorts of situations, the following differences apply: 1. We're trying to project power a half a world away rather than our own backyard. (Think of how easy it is to book a direct flight to New York vs. Tehran.) 2. We were going out of our way to be as humanitarian as possible and minimize civilian casualties. Let's focus on the 2nd point, even though the 1st one is just as valid. We're hypothesizing a TYRANNICAL REGIME BENT ON MERCILESS OPPRESSION. In that hypothetical, it opens up a whole range of options that didn't exist before. If I was a tyrannical dictator in charge of the U.S. military, I could erase the entirety of the state of New York within about five minutes time. Remember, in this hypothetical, I'm under no moral restrictions to try and be a nice guy. I probably had Dave killed a few minutes ago because I didn't like his haircut. Again, if we're talking about a truly tyrannical U.S. government with the resources it has at it's disposal an infinite amount of assault rifles means precisely dick.[QUOTE="nocoolnamejim"][QUOTE="br0kenrabbit"]
After the difficulties we've had in 'backwater nations' the past decade, I don't see how anything short of a nuclear attack would pacify an uprisen American populace. You think a few insurgents with IEDs are difficult, just wait till every Bob, Tom and Joe are sniping from their front porches, or wherever you go to eat, or worship, or work, or whatever.
There's a difference between fighting an enemy a world away, and living among him.
Shadow_Fighter
I am not going to disagree that a truly tyranical government would do whatever it takes to crush an uprising but I find it highly unlikely a tyranical government would be willing to completely destroy its own city, especially a major city. Like I said earlier most of the fighitng would be urban/guerrilla warfare. In urban settings like in a city tanks are not an effective weapon. The limited space completely removes the range advantage a tank has, the tight roads severly limit mobility, and there would be abundant places to hide IED that could disable or destroy an armored vechile not to mention that it would also be somewhat easy to ambush a tank in a city and either capture or destroy it.
That just leaves air power as the governments last great advantage against an uprising. I am not saying that no air power would be used, there is no doubt it would be used but it would be extremely limited. More then likely attack helicopters and precision air strikes would be used. While difficult helicopters can be shot down without missiles and precision airstrikes by their nature would not cause massive amounts of casualties. I just can not see a tyranical government using massive bombing runs against an uprising because of the damage that it would end up doing to it self. What it seems people are overlooking is that unlike a foreign enemy where destroying there cities and infrastructure does nothing to truly hurt us, a tyranicall government destroying its own cities would cause massive damage to itself that it would have to repair after it crushed the uprising. Generally when a government tries to crush an uprising it tries to do it with as little damage done to itself as possiable and carpet bombing ones own cities doesn't match that.
You're ignoring the lessons of history. True tyrants have no moral compunction. Saddam gassed the kurds. Hitler and Stalin killed MILLIONS of their own citizens. Flattening New York may not be the FIRST idea, but a tyrant choosing between flattening New York and risking being overthrown? Any tyrant worthy of the name flattens New York. I acknowledge the general point that at some point in the past, an armed citizenry WAS a deterrent against tyranny. But technological advances have changed that.Well damn, if we're talking worst-case scenario then your gun might jam, you might not be near it, you might miss all your shots, you might not have enough ammo, etc.Locks can be picked,windows can be broken, doors can be kicked, dogs need to be trained and security systems have expensive monthly fees.
edit: Not to mention the average response time for police departments is around 10 minutes. That is including departments with very professional police officers. Its not uncommon for law enforcement to take 30 minutes to arrive on seen at a rural community.
UnknownSniper65
Well damn, if we're talking worst-case scenario then your gun might jam, you might not be near it, you might miss all your shots, you might not have enough ammo, etc.[QUOTE="UnknownSniper65"]
Locks can be picked,windows can be broken, doors can be kicked, dogs need to be trained and security systems have expensive monthly fees.
edit: Not to mention the average response time for police departments is around 10 minutes. That is including departments with very professional police officers. Its not uncommon for law enforcement to take 30 minutes to arrive on seen at a rural community.
Aljosa23
The worse case scenario with a firearm is much better than without
[QUOTE="Aljosa23"]Why not get a dog? Or a decent security system? Or just a sign that you have a security system. When I bought my house, the owner had a security system from one of the top name guys. I discontinued the service and just kept the sign. Now all my neighbors think I have the heavy duty system.That's some grade-A real life trolling right there Jim lol.[QUOTE="UnknownSniper65"]
If you want to drive cars that go over 200mph join NASCAR. There is a reason that police officers have AR-15s and/or shotguns in there cars.Handguns are underpowered for home protection especially against multiple people.
nocoolnamejim
Yeah and then they fvck you up even more for trying to play the badass hero.The worse case scenario with a firearm is much better than without
UnknownSniper65
unlike a foreign enemy where destroying there cities and infrastructure does nothing to truly hurt us, a tyranicall government destroying its own cities would cause massive damage to itself that it would have to repair after it crushed the uprising. Generally when a government tries to crush an uprising it tries to do it with as little damage done to itself as possiable and carpet bombing ones own cities doesn't match that.See: Sherman's march to the seaShadow_Fighter
[QUOTE="UnknownSniper65"]
[QUOTE="Aljosa23"]Why not get a dog? Or a decent security system? Hell, if you have a proper lock on your door and sturdy windows chances are those will defend you better than a gun anyway. There's a lot of ways to properly defend your home without needing an assault rifle.
DroidPhysX
Locks can be picked,windows can be broken, doors can be kicked, dogs need to be trained and security systems have expensive monthly fees.
And you're assuming when a burglar breaks in you're right near your gun. You're assuming it won't jam. You're assuming it's even loaded. This is fun. You're assuming that it will jam, you're assuming that a gun owner wont have a gun within an accessible radius, you're a assuming that it's not common sense to have a gun loaded with the safety on. This is very fun[This message was deleted at the request of the original poster]Kamekazi_69lol good job
Anyways to address the point at hand. You're assuming someone will pick the lock. You're assuming someone will circumvent the alarm system.
This is really fun
Yeah and then they fvck you up even more for trying to play the badass hero. Standing your ground and protecting your life, and property is not playing "badass hero"[QUOTE="UnknownSniper65"]
The worse case scenario with a firearm is much better than without
Aljosa23
[QUOTE="br0kenrabbit"][QUOTE="nocoolnamejim"]Apples and oranges. In those sorts of situations, the following differences apply: 1. We're trying to project power a half a world away rather than our own backyard. (Think of how easy it is to book a direct flight to New York vs. Tehran.) 2. We were going out of our way to be as humanitarian as possible and minimize civilian casualties. Let's focus on the 2nd point, even though the 1st one is just as valid. We're hypothesizing a TYRANNICAL REGIME BENT ON MERCILESS OPPRESSION. In that hypothetical, it opens up a whole range of options that didn't exist before. If I was a tyrannical dictator in charge of the U.S. military, I could erase the entirety of the state of New York within about five minutes time. Remember, in this hypothetical, I'm under no moral restrictions to try and be a nice guy. I probably had Dave killed a few minutes ago because I didn't like his haircut. Again, if we're talking about a truly tyrannical U.S. government with the resources it has at it's disposal an infinite amount of assault rifles means precisely dick.nocoolnamejim
I agree that nuclear annihilation would be impossible to prevent if the military and its constituent members went along with the whole plot (unlikely, even members of the military aren't going to sit buy and watch their families burn in nuclear fire), but aside from that 300 million pissed off people are going to be hard to take down.
Realistically speaking, if such an event did occur, you'd have to except whole divisions of the military defecting (it happens, look at recent history in the M.E. and North Africa), so it wouldn't be just citizens vs. the whole of the military.
It would be a bloody awful mess no matter what.
*graphic story about rape and blah blah blahI think you are underestimating how easy it would be to disrupt this current military using just any small and dedicated force. Hell it would only take one rouge nuclear sub crew to eliminate nukes from the question. Once MAD is ensured, it all comes down to counter-insurgency tactics that this current military hasn't even come close to mastering.
Carpet bombing whole neighborhoods is the anti-thesis to a counter-insurgency strategy. If the person is just committed to killing as many people as possible in you're example than how would to ever expect to win by using those brute force tactics. Look at Assad right now is Syria, he's killed a bunch of people but the writing is on the wall, he will not win that conflict.
The second innocent people are getting droned and bombed that will only embolden and strengthen any resistence efforts. Very much in the same way that for every one "terrorist" we kill we create 10 more in Pakistan, it would be similar here if not more so.
Would it be absolute hell on Earth for everyone in this country? Sure. Would there be countless casualities? Undoubtedly. But to be so naive to think that this military or government is unstoppable ignores history and is shortsighted.
That being said, there are enough safeguards before the second amendment that none of this would ever come to bear, but in the unlikely event that it did. I sure as shÃt would rather have a gun than no gun.
*graphic story about rape and blah blah blah[QUOTE="nocoolnamejim"][QUOTE="br0kenrabbit"]
I agree that nuclear annihilation would be impossible to prevent if the military and its constituent members went along with the whole plot (unlikely, even members of the military aren't going to sit buy and watch their families burn in nuclear fire), but aside from that 300 million pissed off people are going to be hard to take down.
Realistically speaking, if such an event did occur, you'd have to except whole divisions of the military defecting (it happens, look at recent history in the M.E. and North Africa), so it wouldn't be just citizens vs. the whole of the military.
It would be a bloody awful mess no matter what.
XturnalS
I think you are underestimating how easy it would be to disrupt this current military using just any small and dedicated force. Hell it would only take one rouge nuclear sub crew to eliminate nukes from the question. Once MAD is ensured, it all comes down to counter-insurgency tactics that this current military hasn't even come close to mastering.
Carpet bombing whole neighborhoods is the anti-thesis to a counter-insurgency strategy. If the person is just committed to killing as many people as possible in you're example than how would to ever expect to win by using those brute force tactics. Look at Assad right now is Syria, he's killed a bunch of people but the writing is on the wall, he will not win that conflict.
The second innocent people are getting droned and bombed that will only embolden and strengthen any resistence efforts. Very much in the same way that for every one "terrorist" we kill we create 10 more in Pakistan, it would be similar here if not more so.
Would it be absolute hell on Earth for everyone in this country? Sure. Would there be countless casualities? Undouvtedly. But to be so naive to think that this military or government is unstoppable ignores history and is shortsighted.
That being said, there are enough safeguards before the second amendment that none of this would ever come to bear, but in the unlikely event that it did. I sure as shÃt would rather have a gun than no gun.
The real question lies, how many men and women would abandon their post in the sake of not killing their own brothers and sisters just because they were given "order". This whole ideology that Superior weaponry would destroy a resistance of opposition in mere days is beyond ridiculous and your examples prove that.*graphic story about rape and blah blah blah[QUOTE="nocoolnamejim"][QUOTE="br0kenrabbit"]
I agree that nuclear annihilation would be impossible to prevent if the military and its constituent members went along with the whole plot (unlikely, even members of the military aren't going to sit buy and watch their families burn in nuclear fire), but aside from that 300 million pissed off people are going to be hard to take down.
Realistically speaking, if such an event did occur, you'd have to except whole divisions of the military defecting (it happens, look at recent history in the M.E. and North Africa), so it wouldn't be just citizens vs. the whole of the military.
It would be a bloody awful mess no matter what.
XturnalS
I think you are underestimating how easy it would be to disrupt this current military using just any small and dedicated force. Hell it would only take one rouge nuclear sub crew to eliminate nukes from the question. Once MAD is ensured, it all comes down to counter-insurgency tactics that this current military hasn't even come close to mastering.
Carpet bombing whole neighborhoods is the anti-thesis to a counter-insurgency strategy. If the person is just committed to killing as many people as possible in you're example than how would to ever expect to win by using those brute force tactics. Look at Assad right now is Syria, he's killed a bunch of people but the writing is on the wall, he will not win that conflict.
The second innocent people are getting droned and bombed that will only embolden and strengthen any resistence efforts. Very much in the same way that for every one "terrorist" we kill we create 10 more in Pakistan, it would be similar here if not more so.
Would it be absolute hell on Earth for everyone in this country? Sure. Would there be countless casualities? Undouvtedly. But to be so naive to think that this military or government is unstoppable ignores history and is shortsighted.
That being said, there are enough safeguards before the second amendment that none of this would ever come to bear, but in the unlikely event that it did. I sure as shÃt would rather have a gun than no gun.
This isn't a movie or a game of Starcraft. By all means, take control over a single nuclear submarine. How exactly do you eliminate U.S. capacity to use nukes? By nuking all the other nuke silos? (Might be some collateral damage there...) Key point: Nuclear weapons aren't invisible. You launch your nukes from your submarine they WILL be detected. Your best case scenario is that a tyrant decides to be humanitarian and not launch his own nukes before your team of dedicated heroes unloads their own nuke assault. Your analogy with Pakistan is, again, suffering from the exact same flaw. Pakistan EXISTS because we LET IT EXIST. Because the government in control of the U.S. military is NOT currently a tyrannical dictatorship it chooses not to erase Pakistan the same way I could use my "delete" key to erase a mistake on what I'm typing right now. The thing that I think folks fail to grasp is that if you're hypothesizing guns as a defense against tyranny then you need to imagine A TYRANNY. And tyrannies don't have the moral compunctions that normal folks have. Want to know how a tyrant would deal with Pakistan? Whoops...there's a massive damned crater where Pakistan used to be. Sure, there were about a billion civilians but they were irrelevant. Tyrants are sociopaths. Ten casualties or ten billion casualties...who gives a sh1t? They're numbers.lol good job[QUOTE="Kamekazi_69"][This message was deleted at the request of the original poster]DroidPhysX
Anyways to address the point at hand. You're assuming someone will pick the lock. You're assuming someone will circumvent the alarm system.
This is really fun
I have a better a idea! don't buy a gun, problem solved[QUOTE="Aljosa23"]Yeah and then they fvck you up even more for trying to play the badass hero. Standing your ground and protecting your life, and property is not playing "badass hero"No but it's pretty stupid. If it were me I'd hide in a closet instead of pretending to be James Bond and thinking I can fend off intruders. My life being important to me is exactly why I don't care about material things enough to put my life at risk.[QUOTE="UnknownSniper65"]
The worse case scenario with a firearm is much better than without
Kamekazi_69
*graphic story about rape and blah blah blah[QUOTE="nocoolnamejim"][QUOTE="br0kenrabbit"]
I agree that nuclear annihilation would be impossible to prevent if the military and its constituent members went along with the whole plot (unlikely, even members of the military aren't going to sit buy and watch their families burn in nuclear fire), but aside from that 300 million pissed off people are going to be hard to take down.
Realistically speaking, if such an event did occur, you'd have to except whole divisions of the military defecting (it happens, look at recent history in the M.E. and North Africa), so it wouldn't be just citizens vs. the whole of the military.
It would be a bloody awful mess no matter what.
XturnalS
I think you are underestimating how easy it would be to disrupt this current military using just any small and dedicated force. Hell it would only take one rouge nuclear sub crew to eliminate nukes from the question. Once MAD is ensured, it all comes down to counter-insurgency tactics that this current military hasn't even come close to mastering.
Carpet bombing whole neighborhoods is the anti-thesis to a counter-insurgency strategy. If the person is just committed to killing as many people as possible in you're example than how would to ever expect to win by using those brute force tactics. Look at Assad right now is Syria, he's killed a bunch of people but the writing is on the wall, he will not win that conflict.
The second innocent people are getting droned and bombed that will only embolden and strengthen any resistence efforts. Very much in the same way that for every one "terrorist" we kill we create 10 more in Pakistan, it would be similar here if not more so.
Would it be absolute hell on Earth for everyone in this country? Sure. Would there be countless casualities? Undouvtedly. But to be so naive to think that this military or government is unstoppable ignores history and is shortsighted.
That being said, there are enough safeguards before the second amendment that none of this would ever come to bear, but in the unlikely event that it did. I sure as shÃt would rather have a gun than no gun.
How would it only take one rouge nuclear sub crew to eliminate nukes from the question? MAD doesn't apply in that scenario - that one rogue nuclear sub crew doesn't have second-strike capability, there's no mutually assured destruction given those circumstances.And I don't see how current events in Syria help the point you're making - if things continue as they have been going over, there's no reason why Assad won't be able to stay in power. Yes, he's killed a bunch of people but he still has substantial support from the Syrian population despite all of that.
[QUOTE="XturnalS"][QUOTE="nocoolnamejim"] *graphic story about rape and blah blah blah Kamekazi_69
I think you are underestimating how easy it would be to disrupt this current military using just any small and dedicated force. Hell it would only take one rouge nuclear sub crew to eliminate nukes from the question. Once MAD is ensured, it all comes down to counter-insurgency tactics that this current military hasn't even come close to mastering.
Carpet bombing whole neighborhoods is the anti-thesis to a counter-insurgency strategy. If the person is just committed to killing as many people as possible in you're example than how would to ever expect to win by using those brute force tactics. Look at Assad right now is Syria, he's killed a bunch of people but the writing is on the wall, he will not win that conflict.
The second innocent people are getting droned and bombed that will only embolden and strengthen any resistence efforts. Very much in the same way that for every one "terrorist" we kill we create 10 more in Pakistan, it would be similar here if not more so.
Would it be absolute hell on Earth for everyone in this country? Sure. Would there be countless casualities? Undouvtedly. But to be so naive to think that this military or government is unstoppable ignores history and is shortsighted.
That being said, there are enough safeguards before the second amendment that none of this would ever come to bear, but in the unlikely event that it did. I sure as shÃt would rather have a gun than no gun.
The real question lies, how many men and women would abandon their post in the sake of not killing their own brothers and sisters just because they were given "order". This whole ideology that Superior weaponry would destroy a resistance of opposition in mere days is beyond ridiculous and your examples prove that. You're hypothesizing a really WEAK tyranny where "abandoning their post" is an actual option. In other words, a tyranny that is already on the verge of collapse.[QUOTE="AFBrat77"]
[QUOTE="Laihendi"] We have a right to bear arms. You shouldn't need a permit recertificiation to renew your constitutional rights.UnknownSniper65
We have a right to bear arms....but, that doesn't mean ANY arms. Only need a handgun, and that will always be protected in the U.S. Guns for hunting are fine as well.
Obama is NOT against the 2nd Ammendment. There is no need for assault guns unless you join the military. I say, if you want to play with those guns, join the military!
or, perhaps we could use assault weapons at gun ranges for target practice....ONLY to be used at gun ranges, not to be taken home.
If you want to drive cars that go over 200mph join NASCAR. There is a reason that police officers have AR-15s and/or shotguns in there cars.Handguns are underpowered for home protection especially against multiple people.
fine, I'll ammend it to include the police force, problem solved
[QUOTE="XturnalS"][QUOTE="nocoolnamejim"] *graphic story about rape and blah blah blah Kamekazi_69
I think you are underestimating how easy it would be to disrupt this current military using just any small and dedicated force. Hell it would only take one rouge nuclear sub crew to eliminate nukes from the question. Once MAD is ensured, it all comes down to counter-insurgency tactics that this current military hasn't even come close to mastering.
Carpet bombing whole neighborhoods is the anti-thesis to a counter-insurgency strategy. If the person is just committed to killing as many people as possible in you're example than how would to ever expect to win by using those brute force tactics. Look at Assad right now is Syria, he's killed a bunch of people but the writing is on the wall, he will not win that conflict.
The second innocent people are getting droned and bombed that will only embolden and strengthen any resistence efforts. Very much in the same way that for every one "terrorist" we kill we create 10 more in Pakistan, it would be similar here if not more so.
Would it be absolute hell on Earth for everyone in this country? Sure. Would there be countless casualities? Undouvtedly. But to be so naive to think that this military or government is unstoppable ignores history and is shortsighted.
That being said, there are enough safeguards before the second amendment that none of this would ever come to bear, but in the unlikely event that it did. I sure as shÃt would rather have a gun than no gun.
The real question lies, how many men and women would abandon their post in the sake of not killing their own brothers and sisters just because they were given "order". This whole ideology that Superior weaponry would destroy a resistance of opposition in mere days is beyond ridiculous and your examples prove that. Humans are nothing if not obedient to people in fancy suits. This is a fact that has been borne out in psychological research ever since the Milgram experiments.[QUOTE="AFBrat77"][QUOTE="Laihendi"] We have a right to bear arms. You shouldn't need a permit recertificiation to renew your constitutional rights.Kamekazi_69
We have a right to bear arms....but, that doesn't mean ANY arms. Only need a handgun, and that will always be protected in the U.S. Guns for hunting are fine as well.
Obama is NOT against the 2nd Ammendment. There is no need for assault guns unless you join the military. I say, if you want to play with those guns, join the military!
or, perhaps we could use assault weapons at gun ranges for target practice....ONLY to be used at gun ranges, not to be taken home.
You seem to not understand. You are implying what the 2nd Amendment means under YOUR terms, which is the problem here.Under the presidents terms.....and the majority of the American people
You seem to not understand. You are implying what the 2nd Amendment means under YOUR terms, which is the problem here.[QUOTE="Kamekazi_69"][QUOTE="AFBrat77"]
We have a right to bear arms....but, that doesn't mean ANY arms. Only need a handgun, and that will always be protected in the U.S. Guns for hunting are fine as well.
Obama is NOT against the 2nd Ammendment. There is no need for assault guns unless you join the military. I say, if you want to play with those guns, join the military!
or, perhaps we could use assault weapons at gun ranges for target practice....ONLY to be used at gun ranges, not to be taken home.
AFBrat77
Under the presidents terms.....and the majority of the American people
That's completely false.Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment