Forum
  Classifieds
  News
  Localband
  Shows
  Show Pics
  Polls

  OT Threads
  Other News
  Movies
  VideoGames
  Videos
  TV
  Sports
  Gear
  /r/
  Food

  New Thread
  New Poll

E-mail

New site? Maybe some day.

Username:

SPAM Filter: re-type this

(values are 0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,A,B,C,D,E, or F)

Message:

UBB enabled. HTML disabled Spam Filtering enabledIcons: (click image to insert) Show All - pop

b i u add: url image video(?)

:	post by ShadowSD at 2012-12-17 23:26:26

Boozegood said

[orig][quote]

ShadowSD said	[orig][quote]
You don't believe the Founders had access to muskets and nothing much stronger, needing citation for that?

This would be mildly arguable (and still false) if it was true that the founding fathers had 'only muskets'. Which isn't true, so: next.

I never said "only muskets". I said "they had access to muskets and nothing much stronger." What's the point of blockquoting what I said and then ignoring the part you quoted?

Boozegood said

[orig][quote]

ShadowSD said	[orig][quote]
the individual right to have a gun in your home that the Supreme Court recently ruled was the intent of the Second Amendment, not just for militias to have guns. It was the right decision, as well as a decision all those in favor of guns agreed with - and you can google that.

Also not correct, though you are correct that home-defense was specifically mentioned in the final ruling:

"The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home."

Isn't that what I just said? What's not correct? You're saying gun owners opposed this right?

Boozegood said	[orig][quote]
Again; this isn't true. Counter Insurgency is the most difficult form of warfare to fight.

Yes, but only when 1. the terrain offers a lot of cover with mountains or jungles, 2. the counter insurgency is from foreigners unfamiliar with the terrain.

That's what makes it hard, and those don't both apply, particularly the second one. US Troops of some future tyrannical government wouldn't have much trouble in the rural plains no matter what magazines the rebels had. With the armaments and training and tanks and explosives and knowing their own country as well as any insurgents, it would be a very short uprising, unaffected in duration by the amount of bullets each gun could fire quickly or not. Whether we like it or not, our military transcended the level where we could defeat it with an insurrection decades ago, no manner how many bullets we had. This is not a comforting thing, I can agree with you there - but it has been true for some time. I think it's difficult to argue otherwise when you consider all our government's combined defense and intelligence capabilities; we only can lose wars to insurgents because we're the foreigners and they're hidden in the asscracks of terrain they know far better than us.

[default homepage]

[print][

2:02:07am Apr 25,2024
load time 0.00738 secs/10 queries]

[search]

[refresh page]