Results 1 to 40 of 41

Thread: This Is Why Non-Americans Houldn't Get Involved In Their Gun Laws

Hybrid View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Middle East
    Posts
    3,511
    Quote Originally Posted by gearbox View Post
    Us americans always talk about the economy which will be death to america. I believe this issue could cause some serious civilian uprising. Not that anyone is a match for the military, but if you try to come between a man and his guns (to protect him and his family) you are going to have a disaster on your hands.
    Thats BS gearbox. The anti-gun side constantly harps on this issue when gun control advocates bring up the point that we need so called 'assault rifles' in order to protect our country from tyranny, and then some lefty liberal spouts off at the mouth something to the effect, "do you really think you and a bunch of guys with small arms are any match for the might and sophistication of the US military with their drones, F-22s, tanks, and smart bombs." Well, actually yes I do, a group of poorly trained Afghani's with weapons that are 30 years old, poorly maintained and with minimal resources, has been giving the most powerful and technologically advanced military in the history of the world, a run for its money since 2001. Men with small arms, occasionally some indirect fire devices such as mortars, and direct fire rocket propelled grenades, as well as home made explosive devices, have been able to keep their orgnaization in tact a formidable thorn in the side of the US military, existing as a de-stabilizing force within the country of Afghanistan. Fighting insurgency's are unwinnable when the populace resfuses to be subjugated or have a foreign force control them, history has shown this time and time again. So, do I think if the US government decided to implement tyrannical policies that caused citizens to take up arms against their own government (which I pray to God never comes to fruition), they have significantly better weapons then those fighters in Afghan, they have significantly more resources and supplies at their behest, and most importantly they have superior numbers. There are millions upon millions of gun owners who would take up arms during an insurrection, the total number of military personnel in the United States numbers around 3 million men&women, and a large number of those are ancillary and support personnell, not direct combat forces. There also is the factor of whether or not US soldiers would fire upon their American brethren if they were given such orders. A study conducted a few years back indicated that if given orders to fire on unnarmed American citizens about 1/3 of people in the Armed forces indicated they would follow such orders. So, you would run into a situation SIMILAR to Syria, but different in that the numbers and SCALE is on a much much bigger platform then that conflict.

    With regards to ANY comments about the "Wild West," made by Piers and his tabloid ilk, it simply has not happened. Piers is trying to deal in ABSOLUTES and EXTREMES. Meaning when a person with an opposing view point says something, he extrapolates that into either an absolute or an extreme. When we say that people should have the choice to carry a concealed weapon into schools, movie theaters, bars, and other places where they're prohibited, his response is "So you believe that way to solve gun violence is to ARM EVERY SINGLE PERSON IN THE MOVIE THEATER." Well clearly, that is not what the respondent said, he said people should be given the OPTION to do so. This notion that if it were permissible to conceal&carry into a movie theater or school, that EVERY SINGLE ELIGIBLE PERSON would therefore buy a gun and carry it concealed into the theater is ludicirous. In all of the states where "SHALL ISSUE" conceal&carry has been established as a matter of law, the statistics are pretty CONSISTENT across all of the states issuing conceal&carry permits, and that is, that only about 1%-1.5% of the entire population of that state chooses to get a conceal&carry permit, and from there, we have no evidence as to how many of those permit holders actually carry on a daily basis. This means that in a state with shall issue conceal&carry, with a population of 10 million people, about 100,000 people throughout that state have PERMITS to conceal&carry a firearm. Of those 100,000, its not clear how many actually exercise that right on a daily basis. The argument that myself and many others like me are advancing towards Piers, is to allow THOSE people who already posess the proper permits to carry their weapons with them into places like movie theaters, schools, banks, etc, to extend where they ALREADY carry their firearms, they are carrying their firearms with them all over town, running errands, going to the doctors office, going any number of places, we just want to expand the places those permit holders can carry their firearms, so we at least have a CHANCE at preventing unnecessary bloodshed. Unfortunately, Piers postulates that if we change a movie theater from a known "GUN FREE ZONE," into a place where licensed carry holders are able to carry their firearms, that EVERY SINGLE PATRON of the movie theater will then decide to become licensed, buy a firearm, and carry it into the theater.

    Piers postulates that with "EVERYONE" being armed, something which is not only highly unlikely, but is proven statistically throughout the 42 states with SHALL ISSUE conceal&carry permits, EVERYONE will choose to get a CCW and carry on a daily basis, and that because of this, people will start to have shoot outs over trivial arguments such as parking spaces, cutting in line, and other mundane interactions of humans on a daily basis. Unfortunately for Piers, his postulates have been proven wrong by history and statistics. Since implenting shall issue CCW permits in Texas and Florida in 1986, the same arguments were made, but the incidences of those permit holders misusing their firearms for unlawful purposes was less <1.0%. Meaning, of the entire number of people who posess CCW permits, of that group, less than 1.0% of those permit holders committed some sort of crime which involved thier lawfully owned firearm and their permit. That is less than 1.0% over the ENTIRE TIME SINCE SHALL ISSUES INCEPTION IN 1986! So Piers' straw man arguments, fear tactics, and outright lies are nothing more than progressive liberal bias, having his opinions based completely on emotions, with absolutely no facts to back up such outrageous statements.

    With regards to Piers himself, he came to America because he was embroiled in the phone hacking scandal of the tabloid news papers over in the UK. He is nothing more then a tabloid man who was for some reason unbeknownst to people with a functioning brain, given his own hour segment on CNN. He is not worthy of CNN, his credentials are seriously lacking with regards to being accepted as a serious newsman or political commentator. It is pathetic we have to listen to such people spout off their nonsense. No clearer example of the character of Piers (or lack there of), was his debate with Larry Pratt of Gun Owners of America, where Larry Pratt sternly expressed his disagreement with Piers, and Piers was unable to debate him civilly, and instead told Mr.Pratt, "You are an unbeievably stupid man aren't you?" Comments such as those are HARDLY the mark of a professional newsman or political commentator, but rather point to the true character of Piers, a glorified tabloid man.

    With regards to his interview with Alex Jones. I found that painful to watch, if for no other reason than Alex made any valid points he tried to make rather inconsequential because of his irrate behavior, and essentially handed the debate over to Piers. Its one thing to be passionate about a subject and express your viewpoints rationally, but Alex Jones did the opposite, however that is sort of his "trademark" if you will, getting irrate, yelling, making a huge scene, being seen to take on 'the man,' or in Alex's case, the cabbal of "New World Order Reptillians," which he believes wants to enslave the planet, reduce the global population to 500 million, and make slaves out of the remaining people on Earth, while implanting them with RFID chips, and the complete dissollution of borders around the world. His news source is interesting only to get a completely different viewpoint and interpretation of the news, but for the most part, his so called 'news' is little more then a PR tool to get people to pay for his books,videos,etc. He's a shameless self-promoter, and I refrain from calling his ideas 'whacky' or 'looney,' because thats often what people do when they just simply want to discredit a person. However, I just believe his ideas are not based in reality much like those on the far left, I believe is ideas have an air of paranoia and lack real substance. His view points on some issues are correct, but a broken watch is right twice a day. I feel as though Pier's choice to include Alex Jones on his show, was a way to further degrade the gun rights advocates and to make them look like raving lunatics, like I said, Alex Jones large theatrics on television&radio program is widely known, there is no way that his producers did not know thats the result they'd get by bringing him on the air.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Chaos
    Posts
    20,883
    Quote Originally Posted by thegodfather View Post
    Thats BS gearbox. The anti-gun side constantly harps on this issue when gun control advocates bring up the point that we need so called 'assault rifles' in order to protect our country from tyranny, and then some lefty liberal spouts off at the mouth something to the effect, "do you really think you and a bunch of guys with small arms are any match for the might and sophistication of the US military with their drones, F-22s, tanks, and smart bombs." Well, actually yes I do, a group of poorly trained Afghani's with weapons that are 30 years old, poorly maintained and with minimal resources, has been giving the most powerful and technologically advanced military in the history of the world, a run for its money since 2001. Men with small arms, occasionally some indirect fire devices such as mortars, and direct fire rocket propelled grenades, as well as home made explosive devices, have been able to keep their orgnaization in tact a formidable thorn in the side of the US military, existing as a de-stabilizing force within the country of Afghanistan. Fighting insurgency's are unwinnable when the populace resfuses to be subjugated or have a foreign force control them, history has shown this time and time again. So, do I think if the US government decided to implement tyrannical policies that caused citizens to take up arms against their own government (which I pray to God never comes to fruition), they have significantly better weapons then those fighters in Afghan, they have significantly more resources and supplies at their behest, and most importantly they have superior numbers. There are millions upon millions of gun owners who would take up arms during an insurrection, the total number of military personnel in the United States numbers around 3 million men&women, and a large number of those are ancillary and support personnell, not direct combat forces. There also is the factor of whether or not US soldiers would fire upon their American brethren if they were given such orders. A study conducted a few years back indicated that if given orders to fire on unnarmed American citizens about 1/3 of people in the Armed forces indicated they would follow such orders. So, you would run into a situation SIMILAR to Syria, but different in that the numbers and SCALE is on a much much bigger platform then that conflict.

    With regards to ANY comments about the "Wild West," made by Piers and his tabloid ilk, it simply has not happened. Piers is trying to deal in ABSOLUTES and EXTREMES. Meaning when a person with an opposing view point says something, he extrapolates that into either an absolute or an extreme. When we say that people should have the choice to carry a concealed weapon into schools, movie theaters, bars, and other places where they're prohibited, his response is "So you believe that way to solve gun violence is to ARM EVERY SINGLE PERSON IN THE MOVIE THEATER." Well clearly, that is not what the respondent said, he said people should be given the OPTION to do so. This notion that if it were permissible to conceal&carry into a movie theater or school, that EVERY SINGLE ELIGIBLE PERSON would therefore buy a gun and carry it concealed into the theater is ludicirous. In all of the states where "SHALL ISSUE" conceal&carry has been established as a matter of law, the statistics are pretty CONSISTENT across all of the states issuing conceal&carry permits, and that is, that only about 1%-1.5% of the entire population of that state chooses to get a conceal&carry permit, and from there, we have no evidence as to how many of those permit holders actually carry on a daily basis. This means that in a state with shall issue conceal&carry, with a population of 10 million people, about 100,000 people throughout that state have PERMITS to conceal&carry a firearm. Of those 100,000, its not clear how many actually exercise that right on a daily basis. The argument that myself and many others like me are advancing towards Piers, is to allow THOSE people who already posess the proper permits to carry their weapons with them into places like movie theaters, schools, banks, etc, to extend where they ALREADY carry their firearms, they are carrying their firearms with them all over town, running errands, going to the doctors office, going any number of places, we just want to expand the places those permit holders can carry their firearms, so we at least have a CHANCE at preventing unnecessary bloodshed. Unfortunately, Piers postulates that if we change a movie theater from a known "GUN FREE ZONE," into a place where licensed carry holders are able to carry their firearms, that EVERY SINGLE PATRON of the movie theater will then decide to become licensed, buy a firearm, and carry it into the theater.

    Piers postulates that with "EVERYONE" being armed, something which is not only highly unlikely, but is proven statistically throughout the 42 states with SHALL ISSUE conceal&carry permits, EVERYONE will choose to get a CCW and carry on a daily basis, and that because of this, people will start to have shoot outs over trivial arguments such as parking spaces, cutting in line, and other mundane interactions of humans on a daily basis. Unfortunately for Piers, his postulates have been proven wrong by history and statistics. Since implenting shall issue CCW permits in Texas and Florida in 1986, the same arguments were made, but the incidences of those permit holders misusing their firearms for unlawful purposes was less <1.0%. Meaning, of the entire number of people who posess CCW permits, of that group, less than 1.0% of those permit holders committed some sort of crime which involved thier lawfully owned firearm and their permit. That is less than 1.0% over the ENTIRE TIME SINCE SHALL ISSUES INCEPTION IN 1986! So Piers' straw man arguments, fear tactics, and outright lies are nothing more than progressive liberal bias, having his opinions based completely on emotions, with absolutely no facts to back up such outrageous statements.

    With regards to Piers himself, he came to America because he was embroiled in the phone hacking scandal of the tabloid news papers over in the UK. He is nothing more then a tabloid man who was for some reason unbeknownst to people with a functioning brain, given his own hour segment on CNN. He is not worthy of CNN, his credentials are seriously lacking with regards to being accepted as a serious newsman or political commentator. It is pathetic we have to listen to such people spout off their nonsense. No clearer example of the character of Piers (or lack there of), was his debate with Larry Pratt of Gun Owners of America, where Larry Pratt sternly expressed his disagreement with Piers, and Piers was unable to debate him civilly, and instead told Mr.Pratt, "You are an unbeievably stupid man aren't you?" Comments such as those are HARDLY the mark of a professional newsman or political commentator, but rather point to the true character of Piers, a glorified tabloid man.

    With regards to his interview with Alex Jones. I found that painful to watch, if for no other reason than Alex made any valid points he tried to make rather inconsequential because of his irrate behavior, and essentially handed the debate over to Piers. Its one thing to be passionate about a subject and express your viewpoints rationally, but Alex Jones did the opposite, however that is sort of his "trademark" if you will, getting irrate, yelling, making a huge scene, being seen to take on 'the man,' or in Alex's case, the cabbal of "New World Order Reptillians," which he believes wants to enslave the planet, reduce the global population to 500 million, and make slaves out of the remaining people on Earth, while implanting them with RFID chips, and the complete dissollution of borders around the world. His news source is interesting only to get a completely different viewpoint and interpretation of the news, but for the most part, his so called 'news' is little more then a PR tool to get people to pay for his books,videos,etc. He's a shameless self-promoter, and I refrain from calling his ideas 'whacky' or 'looney,' because thats often what people do when they just simply want to discredit a person. However, I just believe his ideas are not based in reality much like those on the far left, I believe is ideas have an air of paranoia and lack real substance. His view points on some issues are correct, but a broken watch is right twice a day. I feel as though Pier's choice to include Alex Jones on his show, was a way to further degrade the gun rights advocates and to make them look like raving lunatics, like I said, Alex Jones large theatrics on television&radio program is widely known, there is no way that his producers did not know thats the result they'd get by bringing him on the air.
    thank you.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    2,563
    Quote Originally Posted by thegodfather View Post
    Thats BS gearbox. The anti-gun side constantly harps on this issue when gun control advocates bring up the point that we need so called 'assault rifles' in order to protect our country from tyranny, and then some lefty liberal spouts off at the mouth something to the effect, "do you really think you and a bunch of guys with small arms are any match for the might and sophistication of the US military with their drones, F-22s, tanks, and smart bombs." Well, actually yes I do, a group of poorly trained Afghani's with weapons that are 30 years old, poorly maintained and with minimal resources, has been giving the most powerful and technologically advanced military in the history of the world, a run for its money since 2001. Men with small arms, occasionally some indirect fire devices such as mortars, and direct fire rocket propelled grenades, as well as home made explosive devices, have been able to keep their orgnaization in tact a formidable thorn in the side of the US military, existing as a de-stabilizing force within the country of Afghanistan. Fighting insurgency's are unwinnable when the populace resfuses to be subjugated or have a foreign force control them, history has shown this time and time again. So, do I think if the US government decided to implement tyrannical policies that caused citizens to take up arms against their own government (which I pray to God never comes to fruition), they have significantly better weapons then those fighters in Afghan, they have significantly more resources and supplies at their behest, and most importantly they have superior numbers. There are millions upon millions of gun owners who would take up arms during an insurrection, the total number of military personnel in the United States numbers around 3 million men&women, and a large number of those are ancillary and support personnell, not direct combat forces. There also is the factor of whether or not US soldiers would fire upon their American brethren if they were given such orders. A study conducted a few years back indicated that if given orders to fire on unnarmed American citizens about 1/3 of people in the Armed forces indicated they would follow such orders. So, you would run into a situation SIMILAR to Syria, but different in that the numbers and SCALE is on a much much bigger platform then that conflict.

    With regards to ANY comments about the "Wild West," made by Piers and his tabloid ilk, it simply has not happened. Piers is trying to deal in ABSOLUTES and EXTREMES. Meaning when a person with an opposing view point says something, he extrapolates that into either an absolute or an extreme. When we say that people should have the choice to carry a concealed weapon into schools, movie theaters, bars, and other places where they're prohibited, his response is "So you believe that way to solve gun violence is to ARM EVERY SINGLE PERSON IN THE MOVIE THEATER." Well clearly, that is not what the respondent said, he said people should be given the OPTION to do so. This notion that if it were permissible to conceal&carry into a movie theater or school, that EVERY SINGLE ELIGIBLE PERSON would therefore buy a gun and carry it concealed into the theater is ludicirous. In all of the states where "SHALL ISSUE" conceal&carry has been established as a matter of law, the statistics are pretty CONSISTENT across all of the states issuing conceal&carry permits, and that is, that only about 1%-1.5% of the entire population of that state chooses to get a conceal&carry permit, and from there, we have no evidence as to how many of those permit holders actually carry on a daily basis. This means that in a state with shall issue conceal&carry, with a population of 10 million people, about 100,000 people throughout that state have PERMITS to conceal&carry a firearm. Of those 100,000, its not clear how many actually exercise that right on a daily basis. The argument that myself and many others like me are advancing towards Piers, is to allow THOSE people who already posess the proper permits to carry their weapons with them into places like movie theaters, schools, banks, etc, to extend where they ALREADY carry their firearms, they are carrying their firearms with them all over town, running errands, going to the doctors office, going any number of places, we just want to expand the places those permit holders can carry their firearms, so we at least have a CHANCE at preventing unnecessary bloodshed. Unfortunately, Piers postulates that if we change a movie theater from a known "GUN FREE ZONE," into a place where licensed carry holders are able to carry their firearms, that EVERY SINGLE PATRON of the movie theater will then decide to become licensed, buy a firearm, and carry it into the theater.

    Piers postulates that with "EVERYONE" being armed, something which is not only highly unlikely, but is proven statistically throughout the 42 states with SHALL ISSUE conceal&carry permits, EVERYONE will choose to get a CCW and carry on a daily basis, and that because of this, people will start to have shoot outs over trivial arguments such as parking spaces, cutting in line, and other mundane interactions of humans on a daily basis. Unfortunately for Piers, his postulates have been proven wrong by history and statistics. Since implenting shall issue CCW permits in Texas and Florida in 1986, the same arguments were made, but the incidences of those permit holders misusing their firearms for unlawful purposes was less <1.0%. Meaning, of the entire number of people who posess CCW permits, of that group, less than 1.0% of those permit holders committed some sort of crime which involved thier lawfully owned firearm and their permit. That is less than 1.0% over the ENTIRE TIME SINCE SHALL ISSUES INCEPTION IN 1986! So Piers' straw man arguments, fear tactics, and outright lies are nothing more than progressive liberal bias, having his opinions based completely on emotions, with absolutely no facts to back up such outrageous statements.

    With regards to Piers himself, he came to America because he was embroiled in the phone hacking scandal of the tabloid news papers over in the UK. He is nothing more then a tabloid man who was for some reason unbeknownst to people with a functioning brain, given his own hour segment on CNN. He is not worthy of CNN, his credentials are seriously lacking with regards to being accepted as a serious newsman or political commentator. It is pathetic we have to listen to such people spout off their nonsense. No clearer example of the character of Piers (or lack there of), was his debate with Larry Pratt of Gun Owners of America, where Larry Pratt sternly expressed his disagreement with Piers, and Piers was unable to debate him civilly, and instead told Mr.Pratt, "You are an unbeievably stupid man aren't you?" Comments such as those are HARDLY the mark of a professional newsman or political commentator, but rather point to the true character of Piers, a glorified tabloid man.

    With regards to his interview with Alex Jones. I found that painful to watch, if for no other reason than Alex made any valid points he tried to make rather inconsequential because of his irrate behavior, and essentially handed the debate over to Piers. Its one thing to be passionate about a subject and express your viewpoints rationally, but Alex Jones did the opposite, however that is sort of his "trademark" if you will, getting irrate, yelling, making a huge scene, being seen to take on 'the man,' or in Alex's case, the cabbal of "New World Order Reptillians," which he believes wants to enslave the planet, reduce the global population to 500 million, and make slaves out of the remaining people on Earth, while implanting them with RFID chips, and the complete dissollution of borders around the world. His news source is interesting only to get a completely different viewpoint and interpretation of the news, but for the most part, his so called 'news' is little more then a PR tool to get people to pay for his books,videos,etc. He's a shameless self-promoter, and I refrain from calling his ideas 'whacky' or 'looney,' because thats often what people do when they just simply want to discredit a person. However, I just believe his ideas are not based in reality much like those on the far left, I believe is ideas have an air of paranoia and lack real substance. His view points on some issues are correct, but a broken watch is right twice a day. I feel as though Pier's choice to include Alex Jones on his show, was a way to further degrade the gun rights advocates and to make them look like raving lunatics, like I said, Alex Jones large theatrics on television&radio program is widely known, there is no way that his producers did not know thats the result they'd get by bringing him on the air.
    TGF, I totally agree; however, I have to say that a bunch of "poorly trained Afghani's with weapons that are 30 years old, poorly maintained and with minimal resources" giving us a run for our money as being a complete assessment of the true nature of the situation may not be accurate. There's the little issue of ROEs...Rules Of Engagement, along with a litany of other "legalities," that our all knowing all seeing political leaders have hamstrung our fighting forces with that plays heavily into their ability and capacity to effectively neutralize those "poorly trained" forces. Let those guys do the job the way they were taught and trained to do it, and then let's revisit this notion that a 3rd world force is holding it's own against our forces.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Middle East
    Posts
    3,511
    Quote Originally Posted by OdinsOtherSon View Post
    TGF, I totally agree; however, I have to say that a bunch of "poorly trained Afghani's with weapons that are 30 years old, poorly maintained and with minimal resources" giving us a run for our money as being a complete assessment of the true nature of the situation may not be accurate. There's the little issue of ROEs...Rules Of Engagement, along with a litany of other "legalities," that our all knowing all seeing political leaders have hamstrung our fighting forces with that plays heavily into their ability and capacity to effectively neutralize those "poorly trained" forces. Let those guys do the job the way they were taught and trained to do it, and then let's revisit this notion that a 3rd world force is holding it's own against our forces.
    Well, perhaps my statement was a little too broad, I don't want to get into the entire argument about asymmetrical warfare in and of itself. Perhaps I should focus on individual situations....For instance, US forces engaged in a small arms firefight with a group of AAF (Anti-Afghan Forces), needing to call in an A-10 Thunderbolt to make numerous strafing runs with 30MM DU rounds, and the drop 1 or 2 500lb bombs on them. It's the fact that our forces cannot neutralize them just with the use of their own small arms and some vehicle turret mounted .50cals and M240 Bravos... The point being, that the AAF forces, and yes there may be some highly trained and experienced Mujahadeen from the 80s, but I'd contend many of them are dead, and the younger generation fighting us are simply poorly trained sheep herders and what not. Just those facts alone, means that we have to use a disproportionate amount of force in order to kill 20-30 AAF militants, if we evaluated the dollar amount that it took to kill a single AAF fighter, like dropping a GBU-12 Paveway at a cost of $19,000 to kill 20 AAF fighters, because our conventional forces are unable to do it, at least without a high amount of casualties. My overall point though, is that AAF forces number in the thousands, as opposed to an American contingent which would number in the millions, are able to be a thorn in the side of an advanced force with superior firepower. And that liberal media sources believe that because we have such an advanced military, that if the US government declared itself a dictatorship tomorrow, and there was an armed revolt, the overwhelming firepower of the US military would make armed citizens numbering in the millions no match what so ever. I just reject this notion, as the government would need to destroy massive amounts of its OWN infrastructure in order to defeat the people, as well as the fact that the people could be taking shots at tyrannical forces one moment, and then put their arms down and blend in among the populace the next moment, especially in dense population centers. Look at what Bashar Al-Assad is doing currently, yes he might be killing some insurgents/terrorists/rebels, but he's also practically leveling the city of Aleppo, the countries financial district&hub. Would a tyrannical US government be willing to level NYC in order to kill people opposed to a tyrannical US government? I dont beleive they would, as identifying who is a fighter and who isn't, would be almost impossible. So, in conclusion, the extremely large ownership of capable firearms in the United States, is indeed a formidable check&balance against tyrannical government, if one stops to give it any thought and mull over the logistics of it.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •