Well considering how our military and police force is structured, the chances of them actually launching any sort of attack on civilians is pretty much non existent. If they did, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan should show you how futile conventional military weapons are against a small, loosely organized militia.WasdieTrue, but in both those cases they were actively trying not to harm civilians. It's a fair assumption that if our own government turns against us, civilians would be the main targets, in fact, the only targets. There would be no reason whatsoever not to carpet bomb major population centers, and before you know it, we're once again back to the fact that owning an assault rifle did absolutely nothing for the people living in the big city that was targeted by a massive air strike. If anything, the fact that most of them owned one might have been a factor in the decision to target them early on. The US defense budget is larger than all most first-world countries combined, and the notion that "an organized militia" could somehow successfully stand against it if worst comes to worst, strikes me as somewhat delusional. The US Army has a very large nuclear arsenal that is just waiting for a target... and frankly, the mental image of a local militia trying to take on an army or air force or navy base, just makes me cringe. Strapping yourself to some explosives and making a statement on your way out would be a more effective way of committing suicide.
ChiliDragon's forum posts
I'm sure Elmer Fudd would be a much happier man if he was armed with an AK-Sun_Tzu-Very true, but Elmer Fudd might have been the worst shot in the history of mankind. Surely someone who actually knows how to handle a gun doesn't really need a couple of hundred rounds a minute to be able to hit their intended target?
I thought one of the reasons we studied history is so that we can avoid making the same mistakes as in the past. Starting an equivalent war on guns while the war on drugs continues to gloriously fail seems counter productive.WasdieFair enough. Now, please address the points in my earlier post about why you actually seem to believe that having lots of guns will protect you against the government? After all, the reason the smell of napalm in the morning smells like victory is because an assault rifle doesn't make its owner fireproof. ;)
[QUOTE="ChiliDragon"][QUOTE="Wasdie"]We're already doing that with drugs. Why not with weapons? Tbh, many drugs (if not all) really should not be banned. Strictly regulated and whatnot, sure, but not banned. Fair point, and one I partially agree with. However, a very large number of people are in favor of banning meth because it kills children. I'm wondering why that's okay, while banning guns that also kill children, is apparently unforgivable.I'm not going to bother arguing with you because you're really pushing to ban weapons that you feel are too deadly.
Rich3232
[QUOTE="nocoolnamejim"]lots of stuffWasdie
I'm not going to bother arguing with you because you're really pushing to ban weapons that you feel are too deadly.
We're already doing that with drugs. Why not with weapons?I understand that completely, but I also don't think the government are the only ones who should be able to own and operate them. Heck, public opinion polls put the approval of our government at almost record lows. Why would I possibly trust these same people who we don't approve to be the only ones with all of the guns?WasdieBecause they will always outnumber you amd have bigger guns, no matter what you do? They do have more money, you know. See, here is the problem with what you just said: By stating that citizens need the right to carry military-type weapons in order to protect themselves from government abuse, you've outright admitted that having these guns and using them is the only thing that can save us from turning into a fascist police state. Not voting for a candidate less likely to take your civil rights away, not volunteering or donating to political campaigns you believe in. By your logic, or at the very least from the way you present your argument, you actually genuinely believe that an armed uprising is the only solution to society's problems. And you wonder why some of us find that kind of reasoning a little hard to stomache?
That's not addressing the heart of the issue, however, which is that an 8" chef knife could be used to stab dozens of people in a single incident, regardless of other perceived uses. musicalmacAnd I could use my car to kill a large number of people. That doesn't mean cars should be banned, since their main function, the reason for their existence is a non-lethal one. To put it slightly differently, the primary purpose of a car is to transport things and people, just as the primary purpose of a chef knife is to aid in the preparation of food. By contrast, the primary purpose of an assault rifle is to kill people. When looked at from that point of view, it makes a certain amount of sense that the ownership of assault rifles should be more heavily regulated than the ownership of cars and chef knifes. Guns actually do kill people, a lot more often and a lot more effectively than either cars or kitchen knives. That's the whole point of certain types of guns, actually. To have both sides of the debate actually acknowledge that would be a good first step towards being able to actually have a debate.
And you dismissed all of that as false why? Because most people say it's crazy out of hand. Not because you can prove otherwise.hartsickdisciplBecause homosexuality is as old as human civilization, while modern chemical warfare is not, probably. At least that's why I dismissed it.
The point you're completely missing is that none of that matters. What matters is that to someone who has never been exposed to Alex Jones before, the man came across as paranoid and unstable, which means that to that person, nothing he said was worth listening to. Anyone who knows anything about how PR and marketing works would understand that, but obviously Alex Jones doesn't, and needs to either get himself a new image/PR consultant, or better yet, he needs to shut up. I watched the entire interview and I have no idea why he thinks he's right and Pier Morgan is wrong. Why does he believe the government was behind 9/11? Why would other governments of the world conspire to help the "police state" take away the rights of US citizens? How would less gun regulation prevent school shootings in the future? There was a complete lack of facts and logic in what he said and a complete lack of restraint and composure in how he said it, which means that the only ones who will agree with his message are those who already do. Or to summarize, someone who disagrees with Alex Jones' viewpoint was not given any reason at all to take him seriously and to listen to him, and that's how he failed, which means he completely wasted his CNN air time. In order to convince your opponent, you have to talk to them on their wavelength. Alex Jones didn't., and based on his behavior towards Morgan, I find myself wondering if he's able to.You think he's paranoid, but many don't agree with that. Easily-angered? Yeah, when it comes to infringing on the rights of Americans and the expansion of the police state, of course. You should be too. Easy access to firearms? Yep. He's had them for many years and hasn't shot anyone yet. He doesn't fit the bill of a shooter, sorry.
hartsickdiscipl
Laugh at me all you want, insult me all you want, I don't care. To me you are the one's who are not too bright and have your heads stuck up your asses. Too liberal for your own good and far too hateful of religious people.ShadowMoses900I think it's a bit of a stretch to assume that just because someone disagrees with you, they hate all religious people...
Log in to comment