Mega-Thread: Gun Control Thread

[Tinykong]

Yes, because finding a mass of rebel activity would be hard even for the likes of Google.

Jeremiah Weed will be fine fishing and hunting and living off the land like it's 1870.

...until he contracts encephalitis from an amoeba and dies.

[Jackmoves]

Yes, there would be a lot of casualties, but even if the death toll was 3 rebels per 1 soldier, they will still die long before we did.

If you take afghanistan as an example, you are looking at far higher kill ratios then 3 to 1. I don't think the average gun owning american is any better at warfighting then battle hardended islamists. One estimate speaks of 30:1 in favour of the western forces(obviously).

[Kellhound]

Yes, because finding a mass of rebel activity would be hard even for the likes of Google.

From sats, where I live? Very easy. And google images are low rez compared to what the US has. But photo interp is fun, I do it all the time on google.

- - - Updated - - -

Jeremiah Weed will be fine fishing and hunting and living off the land like it's 1870.

...until he contracts encephalitis from an amoeba and dies.

Eh, thats why you cook your food and boil your water....

[Tinykong]

Why do you think the military would back the government anyway? You are making more assumptions than you are saying I am.

They kinda swore an oath to do just that.

Unless you somehow manage to get all these people active at once, it's going to be viewed and portrayed as domestic terrorism. Nothing gets 'ol John Q. Taxpayer all patriotic like the word "terrorism." It's a rallying cry for nationalism.

[Roxinius]

well this has certainly gotten way off topic since last night

[Fugus]

They kinda swore an oath to do just that.

Unless you somehow manage to get all these people active at once, it's going to be viewed and portrayed as domestic terrorism. Nothing gets 'ol John Q. Taxpayer all patriotic like the word "terrorism." It's a rallying cry for nationalism.

You never heard the oath I take it. They swore to uphold the US constitution and defend us from all threats foreign and domestic. So attacking the US populace would actually be going against their oath as they are actually oath bound to defend us and the US constitution, even from our own government

[Tinykong]

You never heard the oath I take it. They swore to uphold the US constitution and defend us from all threats foreign and domestic. So attacking the US populace would actually be going against their oath as they are actually oath bound to defend us and the US constitution, even from our own government

A person who has gone against the US in an armed rebellion is the very definition of a domestic enemy.

[Kellhound]

If you take afghanistan as an example, you are looking at far higher kill ratios then 3 to 1. I don't think the average gun owning american is any better at warfighting then battle hardended islamists. One estimate speaks of 30:1 in favour of the western forces(obviously).

Actually, the islamists are easy to tell becasue they are the ones firing on full automatic and not hitting much while the US forces return fire with well aimed single shots. It was a transition that happened in the early stages of the Soviet-Afghan war, when the Afghans transitioned from using .303 Enfields to captured AKMs. As the number of good marksman decline, the need for the AKMs became greater, which didn't call for learning proper marksmanship. So, yes, a us hunter most likely IS more effective in a firefight than most Islamists, or so history shows.

[Fugus]

A person who has gone against the US in an armed rebellion is the very definition of a domestic enemy.

A government that attacks its own people and ignores the US constitution is the very definition of a domestic enemy, the rebel would just be a response to that enemy.

[Kellhound]

They kinda swore an oath to do just that.

Unless you somehow manage to get all these people active at once, it's going to be viewed and portrayed as domestic terrorism. Nothing gets 'ol John Q. Taxpayer all patriotic like the word "terrorism." It's a rallying cry for nationalism.

The US military isn't very inclined to shoot at Americans on American soil, studies have shown that.

[Grizzly Willy]

A person who has gone against the US in an armed rebellion is the very definition of a domestic enemy.

Who constitutes the US? The government or the people?

[Kellhound]

A person who has gone against the US in an armed rebellion is the very definition of a domestic enemy.

"a little rebellion now and then is a good thing" Jefferson

[Tinykong]

A government that attacks its own people and ignores the US constitution is the very definition of a domestic enemy, the rebel would just be a response to that enemy.

They aren't attacking "it's own people." You forfeited your citizenship when you joined a paramilitary group engaged in armed conflict against the United States.

[Fugus]

They aren't attacking "it's own people." You forfeited your citizenship when you joined a paramilitary group engaged in armed conflict against the United States.

They didn't join a conflict against the United States, they joined a conflict against the government who is attacking the United States from the inside, there is a HUGE world of difference between the 2.

[Tinykong]

Who constitutes the US? The government or the people?

I'm not a Constitutional scholar.

- - - Updated - - -

They didn't join a conflict against the United States, they joined a conflict against the government who is attacking the United States from the inside, there is a HUGE world of difference between the 2.

So, now in this hypothetical situation, the military is responsible for attacking first?

Keep moving the goal posts, maybe we'll wind up in another dimension.

[Kellhound]

I'm not a Constitutional scholar.

"of the people, by the people, for the people"

[Wells]

"a little rebellion now and then is a good thing" Jefferson

"Quotes are a shitty fucking argument"
-Wells.

[Tinykong]

"of the people, by the people, for the people"

That isn't a legal definition.

Also, the military oath doesn't say "defend the people."

[Fugus]

So, now in this hypothetical situation, the military is responsible for attacking first?

Keep moving the goal posts, maybe we'll wind up in another dimension.

Never moved the goal posts, you just refuse to accept they are there to begin with.

Never said who fired the first shot. Said that if the citizens of the US raise up against the government in force, the military are oath bound to defend them, not the government, which fired the first shot is moot.

Edit: We just got off topic from an already off topic post.... kinda funny when you think about it.

[Kellhound]

That isn't a legal definition.

Also, the military oath doesn't say "defend the people."

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.




- - - Updated - - -

"Quotes are a shitty fucking argument"
-Wells.

It wasn't an arguement. It was just a quote.