News Is America Stocking Up on Guns Due to Fear of Obama?

[drankin]

This is pretty simple, guys.

The second amendment is to keep you well armed in the event of an uprising against the government. To say you 'don't need an assult' rifle in an uprising is hilarious.

Yes, the government has things like submarines and tanks. They also keep them in military bases inside the united states, making them vulnerable to destruction by an armed populace. You think a military base is going to be able to stop an entire city that comes to rebel against it? Have you ever been to a military base? It's like a gated community. There is few gaurds with M-16s to stop cars and check Ids. There are no tanks on stand buy waiting to go on a rampage.

I guess your TVs must not work. Or you'd have known from Iraq what an Armed populace does every day against our tanks and vehicles. Hell, they shoot down our apache helicopters with their basic guns.

Hey! I totally agree with you. People say that we would be able to do anything if our gov't went rogue (definitely an alternative universe scenario). But, we certainly could if we are armed. Better yet, it would never happen BECAUSE we, civilians, are armed.

 

[turbo]

Ouch, this is so misapplied it actually hurts my brain.

For starters, we're not trying to kill Iraqis. They are trying to kill us. That already makes it harder for us to stay alive.

Secondly, they use bombs to kill us. Something like 40% of military deaths are due to bombs over there.

Third, you think your pea shooter is any good against armored troops, trained armored troops at that, and tanks?

Your brain hurts? Iraqis were not and are not tying to kill us. Get over the neo-con Kool aid. Even FOX news would not push this crap these days. It is an important part of our country's foundation for average people to be armed and to be ready for mobilization against threats.

 

[Cyrus]

Ouch, this is so misapplied it actually hurts my brain.

For starters, we're not trying to kill Iraqis. They are trying to kill us. That already makes it harder for us to stay alive.

Secondly, they use bombs to kill us. Something like 40% of military deaths are due to bombs over there.

Third, you think your pea shooter is any good against armored troops, trained armored troops at that, and tanks?

Lastly and most importantly, these people that run their mouths about the government being bad and stockpiling weapons? They will run with their tails between their legs the second something happens. When's the last time you saw them use these weapons? How far do our freedoms have to be infringed for them to do anything? They are happy as long as they have weapons. Let them have them and take all their other freedoms and they won't even notice. Ironically enough it's people like the hippies at Berkeley who would be first to fight an oppressive government.

For someone who complains about people not reading what you say, you sure don't read what I say.


You really are setting up those strawmen in a nice line and knocking them down. Kudos.


Hint: When you have the same type of guns the soilders do, there isn't better than yours. The US army buys guns by the bulk that are cheap and 'good enough'. They are by no means 'great'.


http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,249798,00.html

Might want to rethink your position War.

Witnesses and local police said two helicopters were flying together when gunmen opened fire at 7:30 a.m. local time, sending one of the aircraft plunging to the ground with a trail of smoke behind it.

 

[turbo]

Hint: When you have the same type of guns the soilders do, there isn't better than yours. The US army buys guns by the bulk that are cheap and 'good enough'. They are by no means 'great'.


Might want to rethink your position War.

It won't surprise you, Cy, or others with a brain, that when state police sniper teams or special forces units want to get REALLY accurate and powerful weapons, they do not call on their military links. They team up with civilian contractors, and buy (typically) long-barreled bolt-action rifles chambered for loads that are far more powerful than those that can be handled by machine-guns.

 

[WarPhalange]

For someone who complains about people not reading what you say, you sure don't read what I say.


You really are setting up those strawmen in a nice line and knocking them down. Kudos.


Hint: When you have the same type of guns the soilders do, there isn't better than yours. The US army buys guns by the bulk that are cheap and 'good enough'. They are by no means 'great'.


http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,249798,00.html

Might want to rethink your position War.

LOL

When did I mention the quality of the weapon? I merely said Tank > Machine gun.

Nice try, though.

What was that about strawmen?

 

[Cyrus]

LOL

When did I mention the quality of the weapon? I merely said Tank > Machine gun.

Nice try, though.

What was that about strawmen?

...let's try to be serious here. Please?

Third, you think your pea shooter is any good against armored troops, trained armored troops at that, and tanks?

you said and tanks. That implies guns AND tanks. If you meant to say tanks, then just write tanks. Otherwise, don't weasel your way out of what you said. The context of what you wrote implied Joe the plumbers pea shooter is no match for the guns of 'armored troop's' AND 'tanks'.


https://hobbyworld.aoshima-bk.co.jp/g_library2/TAM/TAM35117.jpg

 

[WarPhalange]

What are you whining about this time?

 

[Evo]

Hey! I totally agree with you. People say that we would be able to do anything if our gov't went rogue (definitely an alternative universe scenario). But, we certainly could if we are armed. Better yet, it would never happen BECAUSE we, civilians, are armed.

Do you think that the US Military, if they all went crazy, wouldn't just do an airstrike and blow you off of the face of the Earth before you could go get your hand gun?

Two hundred years ago, it's was one on one with nothing better than a horse and wagon and everyone was armed equally. That's no longer the case. And I seriously doubt that we have to fear the military turning on us. I think that excuse has to be the lamest. Our military is comprised of our friends and family. Do you really see them all going mental and destroying everything that means anything to them?

 

[WarPhalange]

you said and tanks. That implies guns AND tanks. If you meant to say tanks, then just write tanks. Otherwise, don't weasel your way out of what you said. The context of what you wrote implied Joe the plumbers pea shooter is no match for the guns of 'armored troop's' AND 'tanks'.

No, that implies "armored" troops, as in bullet proof armor.

Not to mention, they have guns on tanks these days. And helicopters. Slightly bigger caliber than your standard issue pea shooter, too.

 

[Cyrus]

No, that implies "armored" troops, as in bullet proof armor.

Not to mention, they have guns on tanks these days. And helicopters. Slightly bigger caliber than your standard issue pea shooter, too.

I thought I already gave you a link showing an apache helicopter being shot down by 'pea shooters'.

Just type in IED and tank. You'll get lots of hits. The point is, with some Gasoline, guns, and willpower. You CAN defeat an army.

Ask turbo what 'bulletproof' means. It's not synonymous with fool proof. There are weapons out there that will go right through it and leave you for dead. And there not even assault weapons.

 

[WarPhalange]

You don't seem to understand that we aren't in Iraq to kill the population.

All this stuff you just said assumes that the enemy will just stand there trying to protect you while you kill them instead of shooting you on sight before you can draw any weapon.

The fact is kevlar armor > no armor.

The fact is helicopter machine gun > regular machine gun.

The fact is some Gasoline, guns, and willpower are no match for missiles fired from 5 miles away.

 

[Cyrus]

You don't seem to understand that we aren't in Iraq to kill the population.

Man you're dense. I never said that.

For crying out loud, stop putting words in my mouth.

Shoot me on sight? Kevlar > no armor? What is all this hypothetical mumbo jumbo?

 

[WarPhalange]

Man you're dense. I never said that.

You're assuming it.

Shoot me on sight? Kevlar > no armor? What is all this hypothetical mumbo jumbo?

Man you're dense.

This whole mess started because you thought when I said "armored troops" I meant their guns and not the fact that they have armor.

Secondly you are assuming that any sort of oppressing regime will treat us like we treat the Iraqis.

PROTIP: we aren't in Iraq to oppress the population. We're there to help them. That's why the insurgents get away with so many military casualties. If we were there to oppress them they wouldn't be able to do as much damage as our troops would shoot first and ask questions later.

Thirdly, you want to talk about fighting an actual resistance to the oppressors?
http://www.iraqbodycount.org/

That's about 90,000 people dead. So where's your resistance? Where are your IEDs and your gasoline and willpower? They're dead, Cyrus. They're dead, and we didn't even want them dead. So what do you think would happen to us if an oppressive regime were to take charge?

Please, for your own sake, just take a minute to think before your next post.

 

[Cyrus]

Sighhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh......

This whole mess started because you thought when I said "armored troops" I meant their guns and not the fact that they have armor.

Ok, then let's agree on the definition you are using. Armored troops: armored protection.

Secondly you are assuming that any sort of oppressing regime will treat us like we treat the Iraqis.

No, I am not playing hypothetical games. I never said anything of the sort.

PROTIP: we aren't in Iraq to oppress the population. We're there to help them. That's why the insurgents get away with so many military casualties. If we were there to oppress them they wouldn't be able to do as much damage as our troops would shoot first and ask questions later.

Were we there to help the Japs or Germans? Did we go around blowing everyones heads off. Please educate yourself before making such nonsensical statements.

Thirdly, you want to talk about fighting an actual resistance to the oppressors?
http://www.iraqbodycount.org/

That's about 90,000 people dead. So where's your resistance? Where are your IEDs and your gasoline and willpower? They're dead, Cyrus. They're dead, and we didn't even want them dead. So what do you think would happen to us if an oppressive regime were to take charge?

They're dead cyrus, they're dead! Dead dead dead! The blood is gone. Their body lies cold. DEAD DEAD. The horror the horror! (runs around room in circles with hands in the air)

Got it out of your system?

 

[WarPhalange]

No, I am not playing hypothetical games. I never said anything of the sort.

Yeah I guess you're right. You don't actually know what it is you mean. What is going on that you'd need to fight an army? Invasion? We get blown up. Tyrannic government? We get attacked a lot harder than the Iraqis are.

Anything I missed?

Were we there to help the Japs or Germans? Did we go around blowing everyones heads off. Please educate yourself before making such nonsensical statements.

Wait, did you just equation a militia to the German or Japanese army? Seriously?

They're dead cyrus, they're dead! Dead dead dead! The blood is gone. Their body lies cold. DEAD DEAD. The horror the horror! (runs around room in circles with hands in the air)

Got it out of your system?

You know, if you're going to act so childish, then I won't bother with this.

 

[drankin]

Do you think that the US Military, if they all went crazy, wouldn't just do an airstrike and blow you off of the face of the Earth before you could go get your hand gun?

Two hundred years ago, it's was one on one with nothing better than a horse and wagon and everyone was armed equally. That's no longer the case. And I seriously doubt that we have to fear the military turning on us. I think that excuse has to be the lamest. Our military is comprised of our friends and family. Do you really see them all going mental and destroying everything that means anything to them?

No, I don't see this ever happening. The military is made of folks just like you and me. At least half would defect it things went wacky. But hey, Hitler happened.

 

[Cyrus]

Let me make this clear for you to understand. Even in a civil war, when you fight the other side you take over their territory and advance forward. You don't indescriminatly kill everyone and everything that moves.

Your shoot first ask questions later statement is total and complete garbage.

My example of the Germans/Japs was not to equate them to a militia. It was to show that even when fighting an enemy they don't shoot first and ask questions later. Hence, your argument is garbage.


When you have a sane post against assault weapons, feel free to post. If your going to run around crying, throwing random facts and figures 90k iraqis dead! They're DEAD CYRUS!

DEAD AS A DOOR NAIL DEAD!

No one takes you seriously.

 

[Cyrus]

No, I don't see this ever happening. The military is made of folks just like you and me. At least half would defect it things went wacky. But hey, Hitler happened.

The point is, none of us know the future. If you had said we would attack countries without being attacked first (bush doctrine) and we would attack Iraq for supposed WMDs anyone would say your crazy. No way. We'd never do anything like that.

We did. What people don't realize is that when these kinds of things happen in other countries, the people it happens to never thought that would happen to them either.

If you asked the Jews in the 1920s if they would be rounded up and slaughtered, they would say no way. You worry too much. Were not terribly liked, but no ones going to do that.

You can't plan on these kinds of things happening. Thats EXACTLY the point of why you have to be well armed. So the government doesn't even THINK about trying it.

 

[drankin]

The point is, none of us know the future. If you had said we would attack countries without being attacked first (bush doctrine) and we would attack Iraq for supposed WMDs anyone would say your crazy. No way. We'd never do anything like that.

We did. What people don't realize is that when these kinds of things happen in other countries, the people it happens to never thought that would happen to them either.

If you asked the Jews in the 1920s if they would be rounded up and slaughtered, they would say no way. You worry too much. Were not terribly liked, but no ones going to do that.

You can't plan on these kinds of things happening. Thats EXACTLY the point of why you have to be well armed. So the government doesn't even THINK about trying it.

Preach it! We need them so we never have to use them.

 

[Cyrus]

Preach it! We need them so we never have to use them.

Where you and I disagree is usage. I don't think this extends to personal protection. (I.e. conceal carry etc). Though I honestly don't have any problems with it because I'm willing to bet that the crime from people who conceal carry is very low compared to some joe blow that buys a hand gun from the corner store and shoots up some people for quick cash.

They should make it mandatory to take intensive training and safety courses for anyone that buys a gun and regular screenings every year to make sure you're not some nut. (Though this can be abused to disarm people so its iffy).

If we are to have a *rational* argument about guns (Please listen to this CAREFULLY war), then we should see how much crime happens from illegal gun possesion and how to stem THAT problem.

If you want to argue some hypothetical they shoot missles at us from five miles away and roll us down flat like pancakes with tanks I'm going to raise my eyebrow at you and stare.

All this talk is cheap. We need real facts and figures if we are to make claims.

 

[drankin]

Where you and I disagree is usage. I don't think this extends to personal protection. (I.e. conceal carry etc). Though I honestly don't have any problems with it because I'm willing to bet that the crime from people who conceal carry is very low compared to some joe blow that buys a hand gun from the corner store and shoots up some people for quick cash.

They should make it mandatory to take intensive training and safety courses for anyone that buys a gun and regular screenings every year to make sure you're not some nut. (Though this can be abused to disarm people so its iffy).

If we are to have a *rational* argument about guns (Please listen to this CAREFULLY war), then we should see how much crime happens from illegal gun possesion and how to stem THAT problem.

If you want to argue some hypothetical they shoot missles at us from five miles away and roll us down flat like pancakes with tanks I'm going to raise my eyebrow at you and stare.

As far as people carrying concealed by permit, the stats are excellent showing that they are not abusing the responsibility. You will always have an idiot to screw this up (though I've never heard of an account) but it far outweighed by the responsible.

If more stringent regulation and training is required then it should also be made (by the state) very easy to access and not be an impediment to average citizen. In that case I personally would feel that is reasonable.

 

[Cyrus]

As far as people carrying concealed by permit, the stats are excellent showing that they are not abusing the responsibility. You will always have an idiot to screw this up (though I've never heard of an account) but it far outweighed by the responsible.

If more stringent regulation and training is required then it should also be made (by the state) very easy to access and not be an impediment to average citizen. In that case I personally would feel that is reasonable.

In most other countries every citizen is given basic weapons training. Countries that come to mind are Iran and Israel. (Men and women).

Its ironic that we have a 2nd amendment yet we don't make weapons training mandatory. Every person should be taught how to use a weapon. Then they wouldn't be so damn ignorant about them.

Same goes for Nuclear power. Everyone should get educated on Nuclear power so they can become 'unbrainwashed' from this hippie crap that nuclear power is going to kill us all.

It results in stupid policy that screws us all over.

My friends and I were out having dinner a month ago or so. One of my friends brought up an excellent point. Were there any sort of major disaster and there were a shortage of resources, you NEED to have weapons to protect yourself and your family. If people perceived that you had food or supplies they would try to take it from you and harm you if you didn't give it up. Without any form of a weapon they would go so far as to kill you get what they need to survive. In a massive catastrophic situation he is exactly right and it resonated with all of us.

You can say its a parnoid viewpoint - fair enough. But its a VALID viewpoint. And if that day comes, it's VERY likely you will need a way to protect yourself. A global depression could very well be that 'disaster'.

There is a very good reason why we NEED to protect ourselves.

 

[WarPhalange]

Oh no, the sky is falling!

 

[Cyrus]

Oh no, the sky is falling!

Done yet?

 

[Integral]

In most other countries every citizen is given basic weapons training. Countries that come to mind are Iran and Israel. (Men and women).

Its ironic that we have a 2nd amendment yet we don't make weapons training mandatory. Every person should be taught how to use a weapon. Then they wouldn't be so damn ignorant about them.

Same goes for Nuclear power. Everyone should get educated on Nuclear power so they can become 'unbrainwashed' from this hippie crap that nuclear power is going to kill us all.

It results in stupid policy that screws us all over.

My friends and I were out having dinner a month ago or so. One of my friends brought up an excellent point. Were there any sort of major disaster and there were a shortage of resources, you NEED to have weapons to protect yourself and your family. If people perceived that you had food or supplies they would try to take it from you and harm you if you didn't give it up. Without any form of a weapon they would go so far as to kill you get what they need to survive. In a massive catastrophic situation he is exactly right and it resonated with all of us.

You can say its a parnoid viewpoint - fair enough. But its a VALID viewpoint. And if that day comes, it's VERY likely you will need a way to protect yourself. A global depression could very well be that 'disaster'.

There is a very good reason why we NEED to protect ourselves.

Cyrus,
This is indeed a very real concern. Of course if NOBODY had firearms then it would not be an issue. Unfortunately there are a large number of people out there with what amounts to a small arsenal. These are the ones that I actively fear. When the crash comes (note I did not say IF) these armed ignorant rednecks (hope I don't insult anyone on the board with that, I am speaking "figuratively" ) will form packs of rabid dogs taking what they please from anyone who stands in their way. It is not clear to me that even having a firearm will stop them. Even if you are willing and able to shoot to kill there will be 10 weapons to your 1. They will just add your weapon to their arsenal.


IF you didn't notice I don't have many warm fuzzies about the future.

 

[Evo]

I think this is a good place to end. Too many posts talking about guns and not the craziness due to fear of Obama that this thread is about.