Of course! Well, either way, a discussion is always improved when you join in.

People who talk about the 9/11 passengers like that are ignorant of historical context. There's a reason why the passengers on the first two planes didn't fight back and the third plane did. All through the history of aircraft and terrorism the plane was either bombed or, if hijacked, the terrorists would land the plane and make a bunch of demands. In the end the hostages were usually released to go about their lives. For the people on the first two planes the rational action was to cooperate until things came to their usual conclusion and they were released. Thus, they did the rational thing not knowing that these hijackers planned on crashing the planes into buildings and killing everyone anyway.

A passenger on the third plane was in contact with a family member who told them that another plane had also been hijacked and the terrorists had crashed the plane into the WTC. At this point the passengers became aware that there was going to be no negotiations and they were going to die anyway. This knowledge led them to overpower the hijackers and down the plane in order to save other innocent people.

I'm sure, had the passengers of the first two planes known this wasn't going to be your run of the mill hijacking, the outcomes would have been very different.

I agree that the folks on plane 3 only fought because they found out what happened to planes 1 and 2,and if the folks on planes 1 or 2 would have known that they were on a one way ride they would've fought just like those on plane 3 .

Back on topic.

Pro-gun/Anti-gun.

What's the point, really. Take away guns, and these paranoid people will move to using knives, take those away, they'll just start using Judo or whatever style of martial arts they've learned to protect themselves from the boogie man. You know, with the amount of weapons DMW has, you'd think he pissed off some Bloods or something.

Nope I just like owning firearms.

And each firearm has a different purpose.


I only own 8 firearms in total I fail to see that as an excessive number.

I believe that people can reasonably handle firearm ownership, and since I do not believe that governments should not interfere in areas where people can reasonably handle themselves, I do not think that governments should regulate firearm ownership.

However, that is the sole reason why I believe government should not regulate firearm ownership. I don't buy arguments like, "We need firearms to defend against tyranny/fascism/communism".

That is the best reason to own them though,and that is the main reason the Second Amendment was put into the Bill Of Rights.

Gotta kill them rapists***edit***

Post something useful for a change.

I don't live in the United States, so the Bill of Rights is meaningless to me.

Also, I don't agree with the "recognizing pre-existing rights" argument, so arguing that the Bill of Rights should apply to everyone irregardless of where they live is also meaningless to me.

Finally, small arms may have been useful for staging a successful military coup in the 1700's, and would have been pretty useful up until World War I. However, the invention of the tank and the invention of the bomber have rendered the idea that a militia can do much against a fully armed force to be null.

They can't be in tanks and planes all the time,besides the best way to combat a tank is to attack it's fuel supply,it runs out of gas,turns into a big (although extremely hardened) target,the crew has to get out eventually.

Attacking fuel depots will also prevent the bombers from being able to take off.

It comes down to supply lines and how well they are defended.

I still don't want to face any of it down if it can be avoided.

All I'm saying is that there are ways around modern battle tech.

None of the ways around modern battle tech are pheasable. The United States military (and most modern militaries, for that matter) have spent the last 90 years investigating how to protect their supply lines, cover their fuel depots, and keep their tanks running. Trust me when I say that the supply lines are well defended, and very likely have a lot of redundancy.

It is possible to do,not saying it would be a cake walk,but it could be pulled off with the right planning.

No, I agree with Terminus. As a heathen commie I still believe it's fucking stupid to base the right on owning guns in the possibility of going Rambo and shooting a fucking tank for freedom.

DMW, you're starting to sound a bit like Sarah Conner.

You're calling a battle proven counter measure to a Superior Armored force stupid?

What the fuck?

Dude, against the govt, a town militia wouldn't be able to do much damage, a town militia is all you'll be able to get together... with a lot of luck.

Well who would've thought a bunch of farmers with flintlocks would defeat the strongest military force of their day?

Who would have thought the Low Tech V.C. would defeat the high tech, highly mobile United States Military?

Why are you waiting for it to happen, then?

Because I don't start fights,I only finish them.

I believe i have come into this thread late ...

As a Brit the one thing i admire greatly about the United States is the fact their citizens have the right to protect themselves
Inside my country criminals have gotten more confident slowly getting themselevs even more armed and as a result has led to the police gaining more power to try and prevent this. All this occuring whilst the law abiding citizens have been disarmed and left defenceless made to rely on the State.

My view on this debate is very simple, if guns are outlawed then only the outlaws will have the weapons.
This is not a matter of 'Pro gun' but Pro Liberty.

I'm calling the fact that you have to stretch out THAT far to rationalize your gun fetishization, stupid.

Just keep throwing insults little man that's all you know how to do.

I also know how to make arguments, but that's a talent we all know is wasted when it's towards you.

Deadman, why in all the flavours of hell do you have *eight* guns? How could you possibly need eight kinds of gun?
Unless you are a gun salesman or a museum, you only need one- a basic handgun for self defence, if you're going to insist on having them. If you live in a rural area and actually hunt for food or need to keep animals off your crops, then a shotgun may also be understandable.

But, what the shit, how can you justify EIGHT?
I'm with GSJ on the theory that you have a fetishised them to an extent, possibly in the old meaning of 'religious fetish' rather than 'sexual fetish', but it's hard to tell.

I'm not going to even respond to that last one because it borders on hate speech.

That borders hate speech?
You have the decency of answering me, even if it's in idiotic quips, and look how I talk about you!
Obviously you're just resentful about Delk's perfectly cool post.

You're not going to answer the last because you can't, you've lost any ground you may have had when you had to resort to really low tactics.

Absolutely, it could theoretically be pulled off. That chance is

However, even assuming you managed to pull it off once, you'd have to work around the military then adapting to protect itself against further attacks, which is something most armies do extremely well.

No one would have thought the "Low Tech V.C." would have defeated the "high tech, highly mobile United States Military", because they didn't. North Vietnam won because the American public didn't want to continue the high civilian body count, and because North Vietnam was particularly good at propaganda. Militarily, the United States was handing North Vietnam's ass to them on a silver platter. For every American and South Vietnamese fatality, there were at least five North Vietnamese fatalities. It wasn't until after the Tet Offensive, when the United States started retreating, that North Vietnam started making major tactical victories.

As to your comment about the Revolutionary War, I just said that in the 1700's it would have made sense to keep a well armed militias, because rifles were virtually the most powerful weapons available, short of a cannon. However, you also have to realize two things:

1. If it wasn't for the highly organized, professional, well trained French navy, the Revolutionaries wouldn't have had a prayer at key towns like Chesapeake Bay.

2. If the British military had had bombers and tanks (my original thesis), the American military's rifles, be it their flintlocks or a modern M-16, wouldn't have had a prayer. An aircraft carrier would have just been icing on the cake.

Now, I'm glad they didn't, but the truth of the matter is that my original point still stands: A rifle today isn't going to do jack squat to help fight tyranny.

A rifle in every adult's hand would. However, Deadman's fucking crazy ideas are nowhere near helping the general population, therefore his having a gun is laughable as an example of fighting tyranny, and more akin to the social hazard that is a redneck that declares his RV an independent nation.

What trait do both of those examples have in common?

Their peoples will to fight what they saw as a tyrannical state.

Please explain how what I said borders on hate speech?
I have not maligned any particular race, religion, sexuality, disability, age group or other minority against which hate speech is an actual crime. I have compared your adoration and collection of guns to the manner in which certain ancient religions held holy particular fetishes or items sacred to their faith. I have suggested that, if it is not religious, perhaps there is something akin to the sexual fetish, in that you require guns to feel complete just as a sexual fetishist requires their personal fetish to get off.

That's not hate speech. That may be personally offensive to you, but it is based only what I've seen of your behaviour on these boards and your inability to justify things. It's not hate toward anyone, it does not promote hatred, encourage division or in any other way endanger any group... except for offending you.

Trust me, I know about hate speech. I've spent quite enough time studying it.

I don't have a problem with someone owning eight firearms over owning one. There are other reasons for owning a firearm other than self defense. Back up for that weapon, a separate weapon for home defense that might not be carried in public, target shooting, historic pieces (though these could be deactivated), heirloom type things, hunting, or they could just be something that the person holds an interest in and likes to collect.

I don't agree with Deadman, but I do think he keeps his collection for the sort of reasons above in addition to the crazy government take over shit. He doesn't justify it that way, or at least not only that way.

This probably isn't going to make me look any better,but below is a link to the only center fire rifle I own it's in .223 Caliber,and one that I wouldn't hesitate to use if the time ever came to start fighting our own military.


Superlight Handi-Rifle™ Compact

http://www.hr1871.com/Firearms/Rifles/handiRifle.asp


Although to cut down on weight and bulk I did take the scope off,The open sights work very well within their range.

In deadmans defense...If he wants to own guns...let him own guns...everyone can start talking crap IF you see him on the news from killing some innocent person..which I'm pretty for sure isn't going to happen anytime soon. One of my close friends collects guns...he has like 20 of them and its mostly just a hobby thing for him...he likes to go shoot at ranges..and personally I think his passion for them is quite comparable to my passion for clothing....difference is he can use his for protection IF anything did ever happen. Gosh people...stop walking with ya'll panties in a wad.

Stop using ellipses.

The people here against firearms don't want them illegal because of Deadman.

But I'm not just talking about deadman, I'm speaking on behalf of everyone I know who owns guns. My grandpaw has carried around a fucking gun with him since he was 30...he's now 80 and he's never shot a human in his life...he has it because he feels protected. Whats wrong with that?

What other trait do they have in common? Both were very likely to fail it wasn't for the intervention of professional armies.

You're joking me, right?

I'm wearing an IOTV with SAPI plates and carrying an M-16, and you're coming at me with... a single shot .223.

...

Do I really need to say more?

Anecdotal evidence.

My own views on firearms and their legality change, but I wouldn't use people I know as reason to side one way or the other.

And Terminus is correct, you're not going to stop someone in SAPI plates with that.

Have you not read my first post here Raptor?





Okay....I'm big on this topic...Did anyone watch that 20/20 episode on guns... called "if only I had a gun" or something like that? Well upon watching it I could tell right away that it was going to be be completely based on an anti gun/left wing mentality...Now I'm going to make it quite clear that I do not agree with violence...and I'm not going to justify killing.... BUT... Seriously all this hype is merely the after effect of recent shooting incidents that has led people who wouldn't know an AK-47.... from a paintball gun to issue demands for more restrictions on guns....

Because obviously what "other" factors could you blame the incidents on besides the guns??? Hmm???? I wonder???

One of the recent shooters was...a former crack addict Jiverly Wong, who told co-workers "America sucks" yet somehow was not offered a job as a speechwriter for Barack Obama. Wong blockaded his victims in a civic center in Binghamton, N.Y., and shot as many people as he could, before killing himself. Then there's....Lovelle Mixon a paroled felon, struggling to get his life back on track by pimping, who shot four cops in Oakland, Cali....before eventually being shot himself. It might make more sense to outlaw men than guns... Or crack.... Or to prohibit felons from having guns. Except we already outlaw crack and felons owning guns and yet still, somehow, Wong got crack and Mixon got a gun....Of course the stupid government tolerates rallies on behalf of cop-killers, but they prohibit law-abiding citizens working at community centers.... from being armed to defend themselves from disturbed, crack-addicted haters like Wong......They think they can pass a law eliminating guns and nuclear weapons, but teenagers having sex is completely beyond our control????....Pshyah.....Obama explained that "the United States has a moral responsibility" to lead disarmament efforts because America is "the only nuclear power to have used a nuclear weapon."
Since when does America have the right to think that it's such a morally superior hoo-ha??? Cough*hiroshima*cough Cough*conspiricy*cough

If a single civilian in that fucking Binghamton community center had been armed, instead of 14 dead, there might have only been one or two, including the god damn shooter. In the end, the cops didn't stop Wong. His killing spree ended only when he decided to stop, and he killed himself...bless his poor corrupted soul.

"The shooter will eventually run out of ammo" ummmm..........................that strategy may not be the best one for stopping deranged psychotic murderers. (retards)

But it's highly unlikely that any community center in the entire state would be safe from a disturbed former crack-addict like Wong because New York's restrictive gun laws require a citizen to prove he has a NEED for a gun to obtain a concealed carry permit.

Seriously......does this truly make any fucking sense???

I hate the government-- but I really, really, really, really, hate pussy democrat left wingers.... who think's turning everyone into brain-washed sissy's is the "right" thing to do.

Okay.............I understand the concern of those who don't agree with having guns. They are very, very dangerous weapons... we all know this. It's dangerous when they are in the wrong hands, especially when children are concerned. But seriously...If one is responsible enough...accidents won't happen. I don't think you should own a gun if you are an irresponsible candy ass and I don't think you should own one if you have major anger issues and don't think that you could control yourself from killing someone innocent. But If you are wise and know what you are dealing with...I feel there is nothing wrong about owning a gun...and I believe that right should not be taken away. Obviously as I have already mentioned...We wouldn't need guns if there was no evil in this world...If we had no need to protect ourselves but...There IS evil in this world...Now obviously someone might say...But if no one was able to have a gun then obviously the crime would go down and violence wouldn't be as bad. This is very true... If none of us and I mean NONE of us Americans had access to any guns...that would be absolutely fine. I would accept that and not go against it whatsoever. But thinking that way is going against common sense.... because you want to know where 90% of gangbangers fire power comes from??? NOT the U.S!!! so that would be out of the question... All the artillery is supplied by the corrupt Mexican government, their own "law inforcement" gangs from places like China, Venezuela and an unstoppable amount of uncontrolled gunrunners from countries where (PLEASE NOTE THIS) Guns Are Virtually Banned From Private Citizens! Mexican residents are not allowed to keep and bear arms, so based on law, Mexico should be a gun-free zone.... Guess how that worked out for them??? About as well as it has in Afghanistan.... And..... more than 2000 Americans are incarcerated in Mexican prisons and jails without any formal charges brought. Including simple American tourists who committed the horrible "alleged" crime of being in possession of a used shell. No guns, no loaded ammo, just a tiny piece of used metal "allegedly" found in their vehicle..........
But like all other gun-free zones, this is the guaranteed recipe for the most innocent lives being gunned down.

.....Sorry I'm just really pro-gun...and when I'm hot about a topic...I'm HOT. <3

Unrelated, I addressed your recent posts that are purely anecdotal.

Yah because I've already gone over everything else.

At that I would like for to read the last part of my Signature.


With one well aimed shot a person armed with just a single shot rifle would soon have a Government issue M-16,Complete with "rock-n-roll" switch, a dozen or so 30 round magazines,hell maybe even an M-9 pistol depending on rank,not to mention Frag Grenades.


Where you see a walking death squad I see a walking arms cache.

What will you do when you can shoot the military and win over your civil war, Deadman?
Instate the richest man in the country as president just as our forefathers did?

At that I would like for you to read the last part of my Signature.


With one well aimed shot a person armed with just a single shot rifle would soon have a Government issue M-16,Complete with "rock-n-roll" switch, a dozen or so 30 round magazines,hell maybe even an M-9 pistol depending on rank,not to mention Frag Grenades.


Where you see a walking death squad I see a walking arms cache.


Needed to fix that....

Wow, I was taunting Deadman not to talk with me by pointing out his responses, but I didn't think it would be so easy to make him stop addressing me.

Nope,I would just vote for the best person to get the job.

Oh, now you listen. Simple enough.
Well, most people voted for Obama, so I really doubt you care about just "voting" when you're preparing for a civil war against a democratically voted administration.