[Old Man G Funk]

Ok, for the record here, Im not saying that handguns would be particularly effective in battle as compared to rifles. I think you're confusing 30.06 which is a hunting rifle (mine is not semi auto) with a handgun. I should have maybe been more clear with that.
Im saying that handguns and rifles, which is in reply to your post about "what's billy bob gunna do" or whatever, would be necessary in putting up a resistance to the govt. much like the Iraqis have done. That's all. Im not debating the merits of one vs. another. Im just saying that what Americans have vs. what iraqis have is also not that dissimilar.
Also, I wouldnt agree that their populace is necessarily better with weaponry in general. At least where i live, most people know how to shoot.......and then there's the urban poor and all their guns as well.
As for landscape....meh, we have cities, mountains, etc, etc too..much more land as well. However, you are right about the language, culture and all that...
Do you understand what Im saying?

I understand you, I just don't agree. We have hunting rifles, they have machine guns, etc. But, I believe we were talking about handguns mostly. Isn't that what is generally what we talk about banning, besides assault rifles?

The argument is that we need our handguns to overthrow the govt if it steps out of line. I think it's a weak argument because the govt has already stepped over the line and no one is using their guns to do anything about it and that handguns won't be effective for that usage anyway.

Oh, and BTW, the landscape thing was more about how it's their home turf while we are just visiting (or not really since we'll be there for a long time).

 

[BurlyShirley]

I understand you, I just don't agree. We have hunting rifles, they have machine guns, etc. But, I believe we were talking about handguns mostly. Isn't that what is generally what we talk about banning, besides assault rifles?

The argument is that we need our handguns to overthrow the govt if it steps out of line. I think it's a weak argument because the govt has already stepped over the line and no one is using their guns to do anything about it and that handguns won't be effective for that usage anyway.

Oh, and BTW, the landscape thing was more about how it's their home turf while we are just visiting (or not really since we'll be there for a long time).

Ok, here's the deal. An m-16 is just a .243. that's it. It has a 3 round burst, but that is NEVER used. I repeat NEVER. So in essence its the same gun. Most hunting rifles today are larger and more powerful than a .243, and most are semi automatic. So what Im saying is that if what the iraqis have is similar to what US troops have in AKs and SKSs, then its also similar to what US hunters, farmers etc, have in their semi auto hunting rifles. I know they look scarier, but its the same crap. Sure, some of their guns are full auto, but thats not necessarily an asset.
Now, as for handguns, those are also an asset in such a scenario, though not as useful in alot of cases, they're pretty handy in close quarters. They're also good for home defense and stuff in basic, daily life...so Im for keeping those around too.
Assault rifles..I have only a slippery slope argument for that.

 

[llkoolkeg]

As OMGF's gf, I take offense at the fact that you somehow think I am a little sissy baby who needs to be protected from the big bad guys. I'm always hidin' under my covers fearin' the black guy on crack is going to come through the window, rape me, kick the dogs, and steal our cookies.

You have already dispelled one of my impressions of him with your first three words, which his limp retorts above had previously only reiterated. If anything, though, I'd view you as the more formidable of the pair given how confidently you stepped over his crumpled form to confront me. As I had no idea you even existed previous to this, I can assure you, I had no preconceived notions regarding your ability to defend yourself...but what exactly does sharing your fear of black guys on crack lend to the discussion? If you are somehow trying to imply I am a racist for promoting 2nd amendment rights, you'd be flabbergasted to know my best man was black and I happily work(and have lived) with mostly Latinos. I evaluate people on their integrity of character rather than physical characteristics and I'm happy to report the jury's still out on you.

Also....with your logic (boy scout...be prepared!)

This went right over my head, I'm afraid.

Do you open carry (I know you can in VA).
Will you be able to defend you poor helpless family at the mall?
What do you do when your children go on field trips? Give them a 9 and tell them that hijackers might take over the bus?

I am no longer a citizen of the Commonwealth, so no- I do not carry openly or concealed as a rule. MD is not quite as "gun-friendly" as VA and I get pulled over too often for speeding or "driving after 11:00pm" to risk additional legal sanctions.

Regarding my ability to protect my family when I am off at work and not around, I did so only preemptively by marrying a girl smarter than myself who avoids high-risk behaviors. I have been lobbying resolutely for them to take regular martial arts training instead of just 1-day seminars, but have been unsuccessful to this point. I'm a stubborn SOB, though, so that issue has not been buried by a long shot. I have shown my wife how to load, unload, cock, decock, aim and fire several of my firearms and had her demonstrate proficiency but have been similarly unable to drag her to the range with anything that approaches regularity.

You're living in a fearful state. Have fun with that gun under your pillow.

The only thing I ever really fear is for my family's safety, though not obsessively so and frankly, a little fear is a good thing, which helps to keep one vigilant and less complacent than some. I just get tired of people characterizing 2nd amendment proponents as paranoid, racist rednecks and take any opportunity I can to correct that stereotype. As far as a gun under my pillow, I have more sense than that with kids in the house. I can get to one, though, and bring it to bear within about 3 seconds from most anywhere in the house.

 

[manimal]

Actually, it's more IEDs and homemade bombs in trucks. Plus, they have quite a few machine-gun type weapons. Plus, there's our own weapons or Russian weapons that are a lot closer to on par with what our soldiers have than what the average citizen of this country has. So, no, it's not just their hunting rifles and handguns, it's all those other things. So again, whatever.

regardless of the weapons, guerrilla warfare is guerrilla warfare and if you think that the only thing "bubba" has in his arsenal is a hunting rifle and a pistol then you may want to check out a gun show the next time one is in your area (if you have them). you'll have a completely different perception of the situation.

this is one of my "hunting rifles"....and i'm not even considered a "gun nut" by my peers.

edit: on a lighter note i just googled "gun show" and found this image to help illustrate my point

 

[Old Man G Funk]

Ok, here's the deal. An m-16 is just a .243. that's it. It has a 3 round burst, but that is NEVER used. I repeat NEVER. So in essence its the same gun. Most hunting rifles today are larger and more powerful than a .243, and most are semi automatic. So what Im saying is that if what the iraqis have is similar to what US troops have in AKs and SKSs, then its also similar to what US hunters, farmers etc, have in their semi auto hunting rifles. I know they look scarier, but its the same crap. Sure, some of their guns are full auto, but thats not necessarily an asset.
Now, as for handguns, those are also an asset in such a scenario, though not as useful in alot of cases, they're pretty handy in close quarters. They're also good for home defense and stuff in basic, daily life...so Im for keeping those around too.
Assault rifles..I have only a slippery slope argument for that.

And neither of them will be useful against tanks, etc. IEDs would be the most effective weapon in our arsenal if it came to that. I don't think it ever would though. Even if you institute a gun registry, people are not going to rise up and attack the gov. for overstepping its bounds.

 

[Old Man G Funk]

regardless of the weapons, guerrilla warfare is guerrilla warfare and if you think that the only thing "bubba" has in his arsenal is a hunting rifle and a pistol then you may want to check out a gun show the next time one is in your area (if you have them). you'll have a completely different perception of the situation.

this is one of my "hunting rifles"....and i'm not even considered a "gun nut" by my peers.

edit: on a lighter note i just googled "gun show" and found this image to help illustrate my point

You and Burly are probably right that the populace is more armed than I thought, but on the other hand I think that is confined to certain areas and people. The govt would probably be able to figure out where those areas are, or at least guess, and those would be the first to go, with heavy armor or nukes. I still think it won't happen and would be futile if people tried.

As I've explained above, yes the US populace could construct IEDs, but that's not at issue here.

 

[Old Man G Funk]

You have already dispelled one of my impressions of him with your first three words, which his limp retorts above had previously only reiterated.

Limp retorts that you haven't addressed. What makes you legally able to disregard the wording of the second amendment just so you can make it say what you want it to say?

If anything, though, I'd view you as the more formidable of the pair given how confidently you stepped over his crumpled form to confront me. As I had no idea you even existed previous to this, I can assure you, I had no preconceived notions regarding your ability to defend yourself...

Man, look at you backpedalling. From this exchange, she's obviously more formidable than you.

...but what exactly does sharing your fear of black guys on crack lend to the discussion?

Ever heard of sarcasm?

I evaluate people on their integrity of character rather than physical characteristics and I'm happy to report the jury's still out on you.

Good for you, but I have to wonder why the jury is still out for her?

This went right over my head, I'm afraid.

Not surprising.

I just get tired of people characterizing 2nd amendment proponents as paranoid, racist rednecks and take any opportunity I can to correct that stereotype.

And, I did not do that. I simply quoted the text of the second amendment, which sent you into an incoherent tizzy (which presumably was manly since you own a gun and all). You might want to get that looked at.

 

[BurlyShirley]

And neither of them will be useful against tanks, etc. IEDs would be the most effective weapon in our arsenal if it came to that. I don't think it ever would though. Even if you institute a gun registry, people are not going to rise up and attack the gov. for overstepping its bounds.

Where did I say any particular gun would be useful specifically against tanks? Oh thats right. Nowhere. Try READING.

 

[Old Man G Funk]

Where did I say any particular gun would be useful specifically against tanks? Oh thats right. Nowhere. Try READING.

And, for the last time, if you are going to rise up against the US gov. then you will be fighting against tanks. If you want to argue that guns are necessary for keeping the gov. in check, then you have to show how they will be useful against the implements that the military has. That was the point that you originally set out to speak to and you have yet to do it. That you think you can change the original point now is not my concern. So, stop projecting your comprehension problems onto others.

 

[BurlyShirley]

And, for the last time, if you are going to rise up against the US gov. then you will be fighting against tanks. If you want to argue that guns are necessary for keeping the gov. in check, then you have to show how they will be useful against the implements that the military has. That was the point that you originally set out to speak to and you have yet to do it. That you think you can change the original point now is not my concern. So, stop projecting your comprehension problems onto others.

Yes, the US govt. would have tanks. They also have tanks in Iraq. But its not ONLY tanks that you have to fight against. You would still need firearms for many, many other things. So to clarify AGAIN for you, you'd still need guns to uprise against the govt. Yes, IEDs would be necessary for tanks, just like in Iraq, but youd still need guns. Youd still need guns. Youd still need guns. Youd still need guns. Should I type that out a few more times or has it sunken in yet?

 

[Old Man G Funk]

Yes, the US govt. would have tanks. They also have tanks in Iraq. But its not ONLY tanks that you have to fight against. You would still need firearms for many, many other things. So to clarify AGAIN for you, you'd still need guns to uprise against the govt. Yes, IEDs would be necessary for tanks, just like in Iraq, but youd still need guns. Youd still need guns. Youd still need guns. Youd still need guns. Should I type that out a few more times or has it sunken in yet?

Sigh. Whatever. I've already dealt with this. Feel free to read what I've already written and move on with your life.

 

[manimal]

And, for the last time, if you are going to rise up against the US gov. then you will be fighting against tanks. If you want to argue that guns are necessary for keeping the gov. in check, then you have to show how they will be useful against the implements that the military has. That was the point that you originally set out to speak to and you have yet to do it. That you think you can change the original point now is not my concern. So, stop projecting your comprehension problems onto others.

yeah..and? did you ever stop to think that maybe burley and i might have a little knowledge in this area, being that we're both former marines and my job as an intel analyst was to know the strenghts and weaknesses of ours and our enemies equipment? a tank is not the godzilla of warfare, especially in an urban environment where it is most vunerable to attack. did you also account for the mass exodus of soldiers that would leave the ranks of the military to join the "rebels" if something like this were to go down? armed citizens are an oppressive governments worst fear because, regardless of how many tanks and jets they have, they know that the "citizens" are far more entrenched and devoted than a paid military could ever be. i know it's a corny reference but do you remember the movie Red Dawn?
i think it's you OMGF that is not getting the point. but that's ok, in the remote chance that this type of incident ever occurred here i'm sure you'd just be cannon fodder in quick time.

 

[Old Man G Funk]

yeah..and? did you ever stop to think that maybe burley and i might have a little knowledge in this area, being that we're both former marines and my job as an intel analyst was to know the strenghts and weaknesses of ours and our enemies equipment? a tank is not the godzilla of warfare, especially in an urban environment where it is most vunerable to attack. did you also account for the mass exodus of soldiers that would leave the ranks of the military to join the "rebels" if something like this were to go down? armed citizens are an oppressive governments worst fear because, regardless of how many tanks and jets they have, they know that the "citizens" are far more entrenched and devoted than a paid military could ever be. i know it's a corny reference but do you remember the movie Red Dawn?
i think it's you OMGF that is not getting the point. but that's ok, in the remote chance that this type of incident ever occurred here i'm sure you'd just be cannon fodder in quick time.

There's one sentence in there that deals even remotely with the second Amendment. Whether soldiers would join the rebels or not has nothing at all to do with whether the second Amendment secures your right to a gun or not. We can talk about war games all day, but it doesn't address the original question. That's why I said Burly isn't getting it. Please don't also go down that road.

 

[Changleen]

Meanwhile, the government continues to abuse it's powers...

http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/03/11/news/fbi.php

ESTANCIA ANCHORENA, Uruguay: President George W. Bush has acknowledged "FBI shortfallings" connected to the disclosure that the bureau had improperly used the USA Patriot Act to obtain thousands of business, financial and other records in the United States...

I am SO shocked.

 

[llkoolkeg]

It is useless trying to persuade that deaf clown. He has limitless time to evade, never really answers anything directly and seems to think his high schoolish "turn-it-around" antics and laughable debate "style" are not seen for what they are- a distraction. If he decided one day the Earth was flat, no amount of evidence to the contrary would change his mind anyways. You'd be better off just ignoring the yippy anklebiter and trying to have a discussion instead with she who wears the pants.

 

[ohio]

As we now have a professional volunteer "militia" and citizen ones have been disbanded

So you're saying that, like the buggy whip, the right to bear arms is an anachronism?

 

[Old Man G Funk]

It is useless trying to persuade that deaf clown. He has limitless time to evade, never really answers anything directly and seems to think his high schoolish "turn-it-around" antics and laughable debate "style" are not seen for what they are- a distraction. If he decided one day the Earth was flat, no amount of evidence to the contrary would change his mind anyways. You'd be better off just ignoring the yippy anklebiter and trying to have a discussion instead with she who wears the pants.

More ad hominem and references to high schoolish-ness? A little projection perhaps? When you grow up, do feel free to come back.

 

[N8 v2.0]

Ok, here's the deal. An m-16 is just a .243. that's it. It has a 3 round burst, but that is NEVER used. I repeat NEVER. So in essence its the same gun. Most hunting rifles today are larger and more powerful than a .243, and most are semi automatic. So what Im saying is that if what the iraqis have is similar to what US troops have in AKs and SKSs, then its also similar to what US hunters, farmers etc, have in their semi auto hunting rifles. I know they look scarier, but its the same crap. Sure, some of their guns are full auto, but thats not necessarily an asset.
Now, as for handguns, those are also an asset in such a scenario, though not as useful in alot of cases, they're pretty handy in close quarters. They're also good for home defense and stuff in basic, daily life...so Im for keeping those around too.
Assault rifles..I have only a slippery slope argument for that.

M16's used to be .223 cal... did something change?

 

[N8 v2.0]

More ad hominem and references to high schoolish-ness? A little projection perhaps? When you grow up, do feel free to come back.

that's a red herring and you know it

 

[Old Man G Funk]

N8
This message is hidden because N8 is on your ignore list.

Why didn't I do this sooner?

 

[N8 v2.0]

Why didn't I do this sooner?

just guessing here, but perhaps you suck at ignore?

 

[BurlyShirley]

M16's used to be .223 cal... did something change?

I knew that after I posted it but then I also knew that OMGF wouldnt know the difference so I just left it. I could have really put any arbitrary number there and he'd have no idea.

 

[manimal]

I knew that after I posted it but then I also knew that OMGF wouldnt know the difference so I just left it. I could have really put any arbitrary number there and he'd have no idea.

yeah, all of those numbers start to run together. 223, 5.56, 7.62, .308........if i wasn't asked,on a weekly basis, about some stupid gun question i would get it screwed up myself.

 

[llkoolkeg]

So you're saying that, like the buggy whip, the right to bear arms is an anachronism?

One moment, ohio...

OMGF- I have no desire to insult you further(the thing I was doing that was admittedly immature) but you are undebatable...and that is not meant as an insult OR a compliment. I am also not going to plug my ears and scream "I can't hear you, I can't hear you" via the babybutton(ignore list), but will try to avoid wasting any more of my precious time circling the maypole after you because you refuse to ever(to my knowledge) concede a point even when you are beaten. From all I can see, the extent of your logic is recited vocabulary words learned from the very 1st week of Logic101. I hate to be a quitter but I'd rather debate people who truly debate.

Ohio, no, that is not what I am saying as you well know...if I must select an anachronism, though, it would be citizen militias as THE PRIMARY defenders of our nation. The right to keep and bear arms is immutable. As long as ANYONE has firearms or the capacity to construct them, free citizens have the right to them and I would not live anywhere in which those rights were repealed. As a practical matter, however, the United States is not capable of being defended solely by weekend-warrior militias. Even at its inception, had it not been for the assistance of (God I hate to say this) France and legitimate professional soldiers, England would've triumphed. The buggy whip still has its uses; they have just changed somewhat over the years.

 

[Old Man G Funk]

OMGF- I have no desire to insult you further(the thing I was doing that was admittedly immature) but you are undebatable...and that is not meant as an insult OR a compliment. I am also not going to plug my ears and scream "I can't hear you, I can't hear you" via the babybutton(ignore list), but will try to avoid wasting any more of my precious time circling the maypole after you because you refuse to ever(to my knowledge) concede a point even when you are beaten. From all I can see, the extent of your logic is recited vocabulary words learned from the very 1st week of Logic101. I hate to be a quitter but I'd rather debate people who truly debate.

Um, I conceded a point in this very thread.

Also, if you want me to concede something, you actually have to bring up a counter-point. All you did was insult, and now you complain that I don't concede to your insults? Look, we can debate what the words mean, but you can't just ignore that the militia clause is in the 2nd Amendment. You have to find some way of explaining it beyond hurling invective.

You might continue with your line of thinking, that the common people can form militias. Of course, they should be well-regulated, so perhaps we should require that gun owners get licenses that show that they have gone through the requisite training to be proficient. As it is right now, anyone can go and buy a gun, so long as their background check comes through clean. And, in VA, one can then carry that gun around in the open. That's just a disaster waiting to happen. I don't have anything to back this up, but I'd be willing to bet that most gun accidents are the result of the owners not having the proper training. They misfire, or allow their gun to be taken from them, they don't know how to use it, or they don't know how to store it properly and their kids get into it and you hear about some bloody mess on the news.