Defend your right to own a car.

[David88vert]

I have a question for you that is really a discussion that needs to be broken out from the rest of this, so I have created it's own post.

When you say that assault style weapons protect us from the government, what do you envision as their purpose in a conflict with the government?
Do you think that having a rifle that will fire more than 30 rounds without reloading suddenly empowers the people to fight against the US Army?

The Taliban fought the Soviet Army for 10 years, and collected a huge supply of weapons, including millions of AK's. They had 20 years to establish themselves with communications, infrastructure, planning, etc. None of that was a match for our Army. Repeatedly, their fully automatic AK's have been outclassed by our Army's armor and training. Our Army does not have to match them on a man-to-man basis. The battlefield is not level.
The people in the US do not have the leadership structure, communications, etc, to even match the Taliban's efforts. Do you think that Columbus metro area civilians, population approximately 180K, is a match for Ft Benning's armor and infantry (population approx 120K, with half of it Army)?

No one is going to stand up and play Rambo with an assault style rifle. IF there was a conflict, the only way that the US citizens could fight back against the Army is through guerilla warfare - against their own people (Army). If they succeeded, the US would be crippled politically and ecomically, and would be in danger of falling prey to other nations.

What holds back the government from being able to lock down the people is the leaders of our Armed Forces, as traditionally, they have not generally favored ordering troops to fire on US citizens. assault style rifles are no match for tanks and trained troops.

[Sinfix_15]

I have a question for you that is really a discussion that needs to be broken out from the rest of this, so I have created it's own post.

When you say that assault style weapons protect us from the government, what do you envision as their purpose in a conflict with the government?
Do you think that having a rifle that will fire more than 30 rounds without reloading suddenly empowers the people to fight against the US Army?

The Taliban fought the Soviet Army for 10 years, and collected a huge supply of weapons, including millions of AK's. They had 20 years to establish themselves with communications, infrastructure, planning, etc. None of that was a match for our Army. Repeatedly, their fully automatic AK's have been outclassed by our Army's armor and training. Our Army does not have to match them on a man-to-man basis. The battlefield is not level.
The people in the US do not have the leadership structure, communications, etc, to even match the Taliban's efforts. Do you think that Columbus metro area civilians, population approximately 180K, is a match for Ft Benning's armor and infantry (population approx 120K, with half of it Army)?

No one is going to stand up and play Rambo with an assault style rifle. IF there was a conflict, the only way that the US citizens could fight back against the Army is through guerilla warfare - against their own people (Army). If they succeeded, the US would be crippled politically and ecomically, and would be in danger of falling prey to other nations.

What holds back the government from being able to lock down the people is the leaders of our Armed Forces, as traditionally, they have not generally favored ordering troops to fire on US citizens. assault style rifles are no match for tanks and trained troops.

Why do people always interpret it as a US Army vs People pick up game..... like we're gonna break off and pick sides... and Neighborhood C is gonna square off against FT Bennings armory or something. People have the right to be prepared for anything. It's not as cut and dry as "if the gobberment steps out of line we round the troops and march on the white house".....

Just to entertain your curiosity of a scenario in which something more than a 12gauge would be needed.

If someone ever attacked us on our own soil. Things would probably be pretty grim prior to this ever happening to begin with and it would no doubt follow some type of economic collapse. Police/military would be overwhelmed and would probably not be able to adequately maintain their normal duties. Anytime in history that the police are "distracted" or incapacitated in any measure, criminals take advantage. In the event pillagers were roaming around taking advantage of it, i want more than a revolver and shotgun to defend my house.

California is supposedly one of our most prosperous states and it's on the verge of being bankrupt. We already heard about all government employees having their pay reduced to min wage. In this circumstance, those employees were good enough to continue doing their work while protesting it... but what if they went on strike? Same thing as i said before.... hell, our police cant control a city like Chicago when theyre actually trying to.... you think things would control themselves in the absence of police?

If the dollar collapsed or there was any shortage or rationing of supplies. Really, we're conditioned to believe this isnt possible and our world is perfectly unbreakable... the same way any other supreme power from the past felt about themselves, but the reality is... other countries control this fate. If China dumped it's US treasuries that would trigger economic chaos. Something as simple as gas prices could cripple the world as we know it. What if oil import stopped tomorrow. How many things would that effect? farmers, grocery stores, cars, police, fire trucks, hospitals.... ect ect... people arent going to sit around and go hungry, you house is going to turn into a grocery store. If you think in that scenario people are going to unite and help each other.... well, then jesus bless your little heart.



We live in a country that has already gone to war with itself. That once allowed us to own other people....... yet i keep hearing that things like this are impossible. If you want examples of why anyone would want arms, all you have to do is flip through a history book. People who defend the 2nd amendment arent just defending it for tomorrow's "fight", they preserving it for 50 years from now, 100 years from now... 200 years from now. You cant predict what the future brings and you have no right to restrict anyone's ability to adequately defend themselves.

Not to mention, this request comes with no merit. Rifles are the gun used the LEAST in crime and the MOST in sport. Taking them away serves no purpose other than to prove you can take them away. A government that deserved to be trusted would not seek to take them away. Keep saying it will never happen...... good, i hope youre right. But in the event of chaos im not going to sit in and my living room and wonder where David88vert or BlankCD is so that i can say "i told you so". That's the kicker of being prepared for the worst...... if you're right and it never happens.... we're both happy and i have a really expensive paper weight collection. What happens if you're wrong?


Irony.... a country that has constant reminders of why it needs to protect itself, seems so prepared to forfeit that ability.

[David88vert]

Why do people always interpret it as a US Army vs People pick up game..... like we're gonna break off and pick sides... and Neighborhood C is gonna square off against FT Bennings armory or something. People have the right to be prepared for anything. It's not as cut and dry as "if the gobberment steps out of line we round the troops and march on the white house".....

Just to entertain your curiosity of a scenario in which something more than a 12gauge would be needed.

If someone ever attacked us on our own soil. Things would probably be pretty grim prior to this ever happening to begin with and it would no doubt follow some type of economic collapse. Police/military would be overwhelmed and would probably not be able to adequately maintain their normal duties. Anytime in history that the police are "distracted" or incapacitated in any measure, criminals take advantage. In the event pillagers were roaming around taking advantage of it, i want more than a revolver and shotgun to defend my house.

California is supposedly one of our most prosperous states and it's on the verge of being bankrupt. We already heard about all government employees having their pay reduced to min wage. In this circumstance, those employees were good enough to continue doing their work while protesting it... but what if they went on strike? Same thing as i said before.... hell, our police cant control a city like Chicago when theyre actually trying to.... you think things would control themselves in the absence of police?

If the dollar collapsed or there was any shortage or rationing of supplies. Really, we're conditioned to believe this isnt possible and our world is perfectly unbreakable... the same way any other supreme power from the past felt about themselves, but the reality is... other countries control this fate. If China dumped it's US treasuries that would trigger economic chaos. Something as simple as gas prices could cripple the world as we know it. What if oil import stopped tomorrow. How many things would that effect? farmers, grocery stores, cars, police, fire trucks, hospitals.... ect ect... people arent going to sit around and go hungry, you house is going to turn into a grocery store. If you think in that scenario people are going to unite and help each other.... well, then jesus bless your little heart.



We live in a country that has already gone to war with itself. That once allowed us to own other people....... yet i keep hearing that things like this are impossible. If you want examples of why anyone would want arms, all you have to do is flip through a history book. People who defend the 2nd amendment arent just defending it for tomorrow's "fight", they preserving it for 50 years from now, 100 years from now... 200 years from now. You cant predict what the future brings and you have no right to restrict anyone's ability to adequately defend themselves.

Not to mention, this request comes with no merit. Rifles are the gun used the LEAST in crime and the MOST in sport. Taking them away serves no purpose other than to prove you can take them away. A government that deserved to be trusted would not seek to take them away. Keep saying it will never happen...... good, i hope youre right. But in the event of chaos im not going to sit in and my living room and wonder where David88vert or BlankCD is so that i can say "i told you so". That's the kicker of being prepared for the worst...... if you're right and it never happens.... we're both happy and i have a really expensive paper weight collection. What happens if you're wrong?

So first, you said that we need assault style rifles to defend us from our government. When I proceeded to dig into that, you now want to say its to defend ourselves from ourselves in the event of a social and economic collapse - perhaps brought on by a foreign government attack.

Currently, there is no nation even close to prepared to attempt to launch an invasion of the US.

As for China dumping debt, in reality it works the opposite. China has tied its economy to ours, just as many other countries have. IF the US economy failed, then China will face the same economic collapse. Their owning of our debt would be lost revenue to them, and their economic projections would tank.


As for civil unrest, we've seen that in New Orleans after Katrina and in LA during the riots. While assault style rifles make things easy, are you saying that you would be unable to defend yourself with non-assault style weapons in these situations? Are you even in an area like that? Here's some food for thought:
All of these riots and civil unrest where looting and muggins take place appear to be in the cities. Rural areas, such as the Columbus area, historically find people looking to work together to solve issues, such as food, water, etc. YOUR area is not in any danger in the unlikely event, so why do you need an assault rifle? The answer is: You don't need one. You simply want one. Should everyone just have whatever they want?

[Sinfix_15]

So first, you said that we need assault style rifles to defend us from our government. When I proceeded to dig into that, you now want to say its to defend ourselves from ourselves in the event of a social and economic collapse - perhaps brought on by a foreign government attack.

Currently, there is no nation even close to prepared to attempt to launch an invasion of the US.

As for China dumping debt, in reality it works the opposite. China has tied its economy to ours, just as many other countries have. IF the US economy failed, then China will face the same economic collapse. Their owning of our debt would be lost revenue to them, and their economic projections would tank.


As for civil unrest, we've seen that in New Orleans after Katrina and in LA during the riots. While assault style rifles make things easy, are you saying that you would be unable to defend yourself with non-assault style weapons in these situations? Are you even in an area like that? Here's some food for thought:
All of these riots and civil unrest where looting and muggins take place appear to be in the cities. Rural areas, such as the Columbus area, historically find people looking to work together to solve issues, such as food, water, etc. YOUR area is not in any danger in the unlikely event, so why do you need an assault rifle? The answer is: You don't need one. You simply want one. Should everyone just have whatever they want?

Yes. It's called freedom. You can not produce an argument that justifies the banning of assault rifles. They are the VERY LEAST gun used in criminal activity and the MOST used gun in sport.

What history are you basing your opinion of columbus on????????? Columbus is a crime infested shit hole. People carry weapons when they go walking..... You might want to go recheck your history on that one..... here's a hint for you... extend your radius about 20 miles and see if anything interesting pops up on your radar.

[David88vert]

Yes. It's called freedom. You can not produce an argument that justifies the banning of assault rifles. They are the VERY LEAST gun used in criminal activity and the MOST used gun in sport.

What history are you basing your opinion of columbus on????????? Columbus is a crime infested shit hole. People carry weapons when they go walking..... You might want to go recheck your history on that one..... here's a hint for you... extend your radius about 20 miles and see if anything interesting pops up on your radar.

Only that my family has been there since the land was settled, and I still have a farm there, and my cousin still lives there. I go down just past Columbus all the time to the farm. I've never needed an assault rifle to walk the streets anywhere.

[bu villain]

you keep saying "Obama publicly stated"...... what weight do you think this carries? Obama saying one thing should only lead you to expect the opposite.

So your evidence for his plan to ban all guns is that he says he doesn't want to ban all guns. C'mon you have to do a little better than that if you want people to take your argument seriously.

King Obama with his executive orders (decrees). You didn't get the memo?

Do Lincoln's or any other presidents executive orders make them kings or just Obama's? Again, which of those 23 executive orders he signed in response to the Newtown shooting do you disagree with?

Not going to wait until a gun ban goes through to believe a gun ban can go through.

You can believe whatever you want but until Diane Feinstein becomes supreme dictator of America, you need more evidence to convince others that an all out gun ban is even remotely possible any time soon.

[David88vert]

So your evidence for his plan to ban all guns is that he says he doesn't want to ban all guns. C'mon you have to do a little better than that if you want people to take your argument seriously.

That's what I have been trying to get across to him.

Do Lincoln's or any other presidents executive orders make them kings or just Obama's? Again, which of those 23 executive orders he signed in response to the Newtown shooting do you disagree with?

I was being sarcastic. The 23 executive orders are fine, only one questionable is "Issue a Presidential Memorandum directing the Centers for Disease Control to research the causes and prevention of gun violence." If you remember 1993-1994, you would remember their very public stance on gun control and the outcome of that.

You can believe whatever you want but until Diane Feinstein becomes supreme dictator of America, you need more evidence to convince others that an all out gun ban is even remotely possible any time soon.

Agreed.

[Sinfix_15]

Only that my family has been there since the land was settled, and I still have a farm there, and my cousin still lives there. I go down just past Columbus all the time to the farm. I've never needed an assault rifle to walk the streets anywhere.

Please tell me where farm land in columbus is. Columbus is a crime infest shit hole. I live here.... i know what i see when i walk outside.