most epic face palm.......

[mrray13]

We have some members here from up that way, I know. I would hope they would get out before that would happen, lol.


bigearl, I like your post. It's pretty dead on. If gun supporters would concentrate strictly on facts, like Australia, I think our argument would go further. We know what all people should know, gun control only affects those that obey the law anyway. They are called criminals for a reason.

[prostock69]

Originally Posted by bigearl

I am very against-gun control. I have weapons and I agree with the courts decision the other day. However interesting this list is, it's not accurate and it's largely propaganda. I didn't touch the sections I didn't know much about, but I'd be surprised if the Mayan Indians had 1000 guns between all of them prior to 1964. The portion regarding Australia is your real meat here. It's got good statistics in a modern relatively free society with infrastructure, etc. I'll probably get flamed for saying it, but I see these kinds of lists from time to time and I think they hurt the cause more than they help it. The people who already agree with the 2nd amendment shout rock on, but the people you may be able to convert to agreeing with you realize it's propaganda and it hurts credibility. The worst examples have far more to do with the control of communication than they do with gun control and bills that give the President the right to shut down the internet at a command are far scarier to me than anything else we can talk about with gun control.

[Havok]

Originally Posted by Brokinarrow

Well, either way I'm saying that the fact that tons of American citizens owned rifles was and still is a huge deterrent to any country wishing to invade. They'd nearly have to fight a war of extermination, as I feel a LOT of American citizens would fight to the death rather than have their freedom taken. :flag2:

That thing is also pretty biased. Canada, England, and Switzerland all have gun control laws in place (I believe I could be wrong I usually am) and I don't see their government going out an exterminating it's citizens.

BTW please don't take this that I'm for gun control.

[lil_chef]

Originally Posted by Camaro_Corvette

WTF? You can have a gun, but you can't take it to a gun range and practice with it. I bet that puts a damper on the gun range business in the local area.

the bigger contradiction is, you can own a gun and keep it within your house....but he is also aiming to make taking the necessary information course impossible within chicago....

the biggest thing about gun control that confuses me is,

Whose vote are the politicians trying to gain by pushing it? and how is that vote more valuable than regular america who supports owning guns.

[bigearl]

Originally Posted by Brokinarrow

Well, either way I'm saying that the fact that tons of American citizens owned rifles was and still is a huge deterrent to any country wishing to invade. They'd nearly have to fight a war of extermination, as I feel a LOT of American citizens would fight to the death rather than have their freedom taken. :flag2:

Well the proof is in the pudding on this one. 3 modern examples: Vietnam, Somalia, and Afghanistan. It's relatively easy to invade but it's hard to do anything once you're there unless you're willing to kill everyone you see.

It would be difficult to invade America because we're a superpower. We have excellent infrastructure that allows our best-in-class military to be anywhere they need to be in hours. Take the Japan example from WW2 though, even though only the military was allowed guns, Japan had a first class infrastructure for it's time and could defend on any front. To a modern military, a guy on his porch shooting a 30-06 isn't much more than a nuissance IF you are willing to take out his whole housing development because he inconvenienced you.

[Brokinarrow]

Originally Posted by Havok

That thing is also pretty biased. Canada, England, and Switzerland all have gun control laws in place (I believe I could be wrong I usually am) and I don't see their government going out an exterminating it's citizens.

BTW please don't take this that I'm for gun control.

Oh, I'm not saying that our government would start killing us off or anything, but I am saying that it leaves ALL the power with the government, which seeing the state of politicians these days (ALL of them from any/all parties) I feel is a very dangerous thing for my freedoms. Once you take away a populations ability to armed resistance, you can control them much more effectively. Not saying that would necessarily happen here, but I don't even want the possibility to pop up.

Originally Posted by bigearl

Well the proof is in the pudding on this one. 3 modern examples: Vietnam, Somalia, and Afghanistan. It's relatively easy to invade but it's hard to do anything once you're there unless you're willing to kill everyone you see.

It would be difficult to invade America because we're a superpower. We have excellent infrastructure that allows our best-in-class military to be anywhere they need to be in hours. Take the Japan example from WW2 though, even though only the military was allowed guns, Japan had a first class infrastructure for it's time and could defend on any front. To a modern military, a guy on his porch shooting a 30-06 isn't much more than a nuissance IF you are willing to take out his whole housing development because he inconvenienced you.

I think there would be some fairly well organized militia groups that would band together in the event of a foreign invasion, and these could definitely do some damage. Not nearly as much as the rest of our well-equipped armed forces, but it'd definitely be a bit more than a thorn in the side of the invaders

[PQ]

Originally Posted by bigearl

a guy on his porch shooting a 30-06 isn't much more than a nuissance IF you are willing to take out his whole housing development because he inconvenienced you.

The countries or entities that we would most likely be protecting ourselves from, would probably be willing.

[Brokinarrow]

Originally Posted by PQ

The countries or entities that we would most likely be protecting ourselves from, would probably be willing.

I definitely wouldn't doubt it.

[Steve Dallas]

Epic facepalm:

[bigearl]

Originally Posted by PQ

The countries or entities that we would most likely be protecting ourselves from, would probably be willing.

Yup, we wouldn't be facing some European Old World country where we all the Generals survive and sit down for tea and cakes to discuss the terms of surrender.

[04Ram2500Hemi]

My brother (who is way more redneck than myself) has always said you can have his guns, bullets first. Where I live, hunting is a way of life, and we were raised to respect the gun. The problem with some of this gun control is you are talking about taking guns away from the honest people who respect guns, and use them for hunting, target practice, or safety. The ones who we don't want to have the guns (people with bad intentions) are going to get them however they want. Everybody that pushes for gun control needs to take step back and look at it from a different angle. The Second Amendment is there for a reason, and I will defend it until my last day.

[Brokinarrow]

Originally Posted by 04Ram2500Hemi

My brother (who is way more redneck than myself) has always said you can have his guns, bullets first. Where I live, hunting is a way of life, and we were raised to respect the gun. The problem with some of this gun control is you are talking about taking guns away from the honest people who respect guns, and use them for hunting, target practice, or safety. The ones who we don't want to have the guns (people with bad intentions) are going to get them however they want. Everybody that pushes for gun control needs to take step back and look at it from a different angle. The Second Amendment is there for a reason, and I will defend it until my last day.

[v6sonoma]

I need to get off my @$$ and finally get my blue card. There's a G17 and a 1911 with my name on them!