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.