CDZ Should Americans be allowed to own military weapons used for mass murder and genocide?

[2aguy]

The left wing here in America uses the term genocide in regard to the treatment of the early Americans........not true, but that isn't the point of this discussion. The discussion centers around this question...the weapons below were used by the military to commit genocide against the native Americans...as the left wing would say.....so should Americans be allowed to own these murder instruments....take a look at these killing devices...

View attachment 127872

View attachment 127873

According to the 4th Circuit Court of appeals....these weapons....military weapons.....are not protected by the 2nd Amendment...even though the U.S. Supreme Court in the Heller decision says they are wrong.....

So...should Americans be allowed to own these military weapons of mass murder and genocide?

Yup. I want the same level of weaponry as those who will be trying to kill me. Only seems fair to me. The lefty's are always complaining about things not being fair, so this is one they'll have to give to us.

That makes no sense.

Who is trying to kill you?

No one yet. And, so long as we the people are armed.....no one will be trying. And that is the whole point of the 2nd Amendment.

So you admit you are deep into tinfoil conspiracies. OK.

The small pox blanket story is a myth......there was a letter, between two officers, but no actually attempt at doing it...[/QUOTE]







No, it's not. It actually happened under the British. The American Army's supposed use of the tactic is what was shown to be false.

"During Pontiac's uprising in 1763, the Indians besieged Fort Pitt. They burned nearby houses, forcing the inhabitants to take refuge in the well-protected fort. The British officer in charge, Captain Simeon Ecuyer, reported to Colonel Henry Bouquet in Philadelphia that he feared the crowded conditions would result in disease. Smallpox had already broken out. On June 24, 1763, William Trent, a local trader, recorded in his journal that two Indian chiefs had visited the fort, urging the British to abandon the fight, but the British refused. Instead, when the Indians were ready to leave, Trent wrote: "Out of our regard for them, we gave them two Blankets and an Handkerchief out of the Small Pox Hospital. I hope it will have the desired effect."




English translation of Grotius on peace and war.

It is not known who conceived the plan, but there's no doubt it met with the approval of the British military in America and may have been common practice. Sir Jeffery Amherst, commander of British forces in North America, wrote July 7, 1763, probably unaware of the events at Fort Pitt: "Could it not be contrived to Send the Small Pox among those Disaffected Tribes of Indians? We must, on this occasion, Use Every Stratagem in our power to Reduce them." He ordered the extirpation of the Indians and said no prisoners should be taken. About a week later, he wrote to Bouquet: "You will Do well to try to Innoculate the Indians by means of Blanketts as well as to try Every other method that can serve to Extirpate this Execrable Race."


Though a connection cannot be proven, a smallpox epidemic erupted in the Ohio Valley that may have been the result of the distribution of the infected articles at Fort Pitt. Whatever its origins, the outbreak devastated the Indians. Such tactics appear atrocious and barbaric to modern readers, but at the time anything was alright to use against "savages." Nor was all-out war foreign to the Indians. During Pontiac's Rebellion the Indian warriors killed about 2,000 civilian settlers and about 400 soldiers. They, too, tried to "extirpate" the enemy."

Colonial Germ Warfare[/QUOTE]


Noitice the important point....Small Pox had already broken out...before they gave them blankets.....you should look at the story closer...when I did you find out those were actually friendly indians warning the fort.....there are a lot of myths about that story...there is no reason to believe they would have given friendlies anything dangerous....

 

[2aguy]

The left wing here in America uses the term genocide in regard to the treatment of the early Americans........not true, but that isn't the point of this discussion. The discussion centers around this question...the weapons below were used by the military to commit genocide against the native Americans...as the left wing would say.....so should Americans be allowed to own these murder instruments....take a look at these killing devices...

View attachment 127872

View attachment 127873

According to the 4th Circuit Court of appeals....these weapons....military weapons.....are not protected by the 2nd Amendment...even though the U.S. Supreme Court in the Heller decision says they are wrong.....

So...should Americans be allowed to own these military weapons of mass murder and genocide?

Yup. I want the same level of weaponry as those who will be trying to kill me. Only seems fair to me. The lefty's are always complaining about things not being fair, so this is one they'll have to give to us.

That makes no sense.

Who is trying to kill you?

No one yet. And, so long as we the people are armed.....no one will be trying. And that is the whole point of the 2nd Amendment.

So you admit you are deep into tinfoil conspiracies. OK.

The small pox blanket story is a myth......there was a letter, between two officers, but no actually attempt at doing it...[/QUOTE]







No, it's not. It actually happened under the British. The American Army's supposed use of the tactic is what was shown to be false.

"During Pontiac's uprising in 1763, the Indians besieged Fort Pitt. They burned nearby houses, forcing the inhabitants to take refuge in the well-protected fort. The British officer in charge, Captain Simeon Ecuyer, reported to Colonel Henry Bouquet in Philadelphia that he feared the crowded conditions would result in disease. Smallpox had already broken out. On June 24, 1763, William Trent, a local trader, recorded in his journal that two Indian chiefs had visited the fort, urging the British to abandon the fight, but the British refused. Instead, when the Indians were ready to leave, Trent wrote: "Out of our regard for them, we gave them two Blankets and an Handkerchief out of the Small Pox Hospital. I hope it will have the desired effect."




English translation of Grotius on peace and war.

It is not known who conceived the plan, but there's no doubt it met with the approval of the British military in America and may have been common practice. Sir Jeffery Amherst, commander of British forces in North America, wrote July 7, 1763, probably unaware of the events at Fort Pitt: "Could it not be contrived to Send the Small Pox among those Disaffected Tribes of Indians? We must, on this occasion, Use Every Stratagem in our power to Reduce them." He ordered the extirpation of the Indians and said no prisoners should be taken. About a week later, he wrote to Bouquet: "You will Do well to try to Innoculate the Indians by means of Blanketts as well as to try Every other method that can serve to Extirpate this Execrable Race."


Though a connection cannot be proven, a smallpox epidemic erupted in the Ohio Valley that may have been the result of the distribution of the infected articles at Fort Pitt. Whatever its origins, the outbreak devastated the Indians. Such tactics appear atrocious and barbaric to modern readers, but at the time anything was alright to use against "savages." Nor was all-out war foreign to the Indians. During Pontiac's Rebellion the Indian warriors killed about 2,000 civilian settlers and about 400 soldiers. They, too, tried to "extirpate" the enemy."

Colonial Germ Warfare[/QUOTE]


Small pocks blankets would not have worked...

The Smallpox-infected Blankets

Although we do not know how the plan worked out, modern medicine suggests that it could not possibly have succeeded. Smallpox dies in several minutes outside of the human body. So obviously if those blankets had smallpox germs in them, they were dead smallpox germs. Dead smallpox germs don’t transmit smallpox.

In addition to the apparent scientific impossibility of disease transmission, there is no evidence that any Indians got sick from the blankets, not that they could have anyway.

The two Delaware chiefs who personally received the blankets were in good health later.

The smallpox epidemic that was sweeping the attacking Indians during this war started before the incident.

The Indians themselves said that they were getting smallpox by attacking settler villages infected with smallpox and then bringing it back to their villages.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

The left wing here in America uses the term genocide in regard to the treatment of the early Americans........not true, but that isn't the point of this discussion. The discussion centers around this question...the weapons below were used by the military to commit genocide against the native Americans...as the left wing would say.....so should Americans be allowed to own these murder instruments....take a look at these killing devices...

View attachment 127872

View attachment 127873

According to the 4th Circuit Court of appeals....these weapons....military weapons.....are not protected by the 2nd Amendment...even though the U.S. Supreme Court in the Heller decision says they are wrong.....

So...should Americans be allowed to own these military weapons of mass murder and genocide?

Absolutely.

Otherwise, we can shoot at only RWNJ Pootarian traitor at a time.

Seriously dude eye, you ain't taking my country[emoji844]

[emoji33]


Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com

 

[Dan Stubbs]

The left wing here in America uses the term genocide in regard to the treatment of the early Americans........not true, but that isn't the point of this discussion. The discussion centers around this question...the weapons below were used by the military to commit genocide against the native Americans...as the left wing would say.....so should Americans be allowed to own these murder instruments....take a look at these killing devices...

View attachment 127872

View attachment 127873

According to the 4th Circuit Court of appeals....these weapons....military weapons.....are not protected by the 2nd Amendment...even though the U.S. Supreme Court in the Heller decision says they are wrong.....

So...should Americans be allowed to own these military weapons of mass murder and genocide?

Don't care what they own. If you can afford the ammo for it, pay for a 50 cal round and tell me that you own a 50 cal machine gun then you have to be a very rich guy just to pop off 500 rounds. Cost 5000 bucks.

 

[DarkFury]

The left wing here in America uses the term genocide in regard to the treatment of the early Americans........not true, but that isn't the point of this discussion. The discussion centers around this question...the weapons below were used by the military to commit genocide against the native Americans...as the left wing would say.....so should Americans be allowed to own these murder instruments....take a look at these killing devices...

View attachment 127872

View attachment 127873

According to the 4th Circuit Court of appeals....these weapons....military weapons.....are not protected by the 2nd Amendment...even though the U.S. Supreme Court in the Heller decision says they are wrong.....

So...should Americans be allowed to own these military weapons of mass murder and genocide?

Absolutely.

Otherwise, we can shoot at only RWNJ Pootarian traitor at a time.

Seriously dude eye, you ain't taking my country[emoji844]

[emoji33]


Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com

Not your country.

 

[westwall]

The left wing here in America uses the term genocide in regard to the treatment of the early Americans........not true, but that isn't the point of this discussion. The discussion centers around this question...the weapons below were used by the military to commit genocide against the native Americans...as the left wing would say.....so should Americans be allowed to own these murder instruments....take a look at these killing devices...

View attachment 127872

View attachment 127873

According to the 4th Circuit Court of appeals....these weapons....military weapons.....are not protected by the 2nd Amendment...even though the U.S. Supreme Court in the Heller decision says they are wrong.....

So...should Americans be allowed to own these military weapons of mass murder and genocide?

Don't care what they own. If you can afford the ammo for it, pay for a 50 cal round and tell me that you own a 50 cal machine gun then you have to be a very rich guy just to pop off 500 rounds. Cost 5000 bucks.

No, you can buy .50 cal cheap stuff for around 2.50 a round.

 

[Dan Stubbs]

Yes, the mainstream here in America condemn Native America genocide by the European interruption into the America.

There was no genocide....

Of course there was and of course you are wrong. You can offer nothing to support your cause.

There was? There are no Native Americans left? There was a ton of nastiness from both sides, and the British tried to eradicate a couple of tribes with small pox laden blankets, but I see no evidence of a genocide.

Depends on what Mass is. I might be able to answer if I could get the amount of death you are talking about. By mass do you mean more than 5 or 500. Heck I dont know anyone who would buy a RPG when the ammo cost $1,200.00 plus shipping and handling .

 

[Toronado3800]

Yes, the mainstream here in America condemn Native America genocide by the European interruption into the America.

There was no genocide....

I agree the guns shown above are the least of our problems but man, the natives lost a lot of people and land.

Yes, they did. The Trail of Tears is a particularly despicable act for which the US has never properly atoned. The Native Americans did everything that was asked of them. They developed a written language and laws and then the white man said, "Great! Your land is too good for you so we're taking it, and by the way there's this wonderful place we are sending you to. Enjoy!"

The first democrat President did that.......

Sir, we agree on some topics, this particular gun issue for one, but your signature and statements make me believe you are here more to be a cheerleader for a team than to debate a topic.

 

[2aguy]

Yes, the mainstream here in America condemn Native America genocide by the European interruption into the America.

There was no genocide....

I agree the guns shown above are the least of our problems but man, the natives lost a lot of people and land.

Yes, they did. The Trail of Tears is a particularly despicable act for which the US has never properly atoned. The Native Americans did everything that was asked of them. They developed a written language and laws and then the white man said, "Great! Your land is too good for you so we're taking it, and by the way there's this wonderful place we are sending you to. Enjoy!"

The first democrat President did that.......

Sir, we agree on some topics, this particular gun issue for one, but your signature and statements make me believe you are here more to be a cheerleader for a team than to debate a topic.

I am a supporter of America...and a conservative......so? I debate topics coming from that end of the spectrum......you can debate them from whatever point you want...this isn't a debate class where you have to debate both sides...I know both sides, I know the other side is wrong...but I am still more than happy to have my beliefs tested in open debate...

 

[JoeMoma]

The left wing here in America uses the term genocide in regard to the treatment of the early Americans........not true, but that isn't the point of this discussion. The discussion centers around this question...the weapons below were used by the military to commit genocide against the native Americans...as the left wing would say.....so should Americans be allowed to own these murder instruments....take a look at these killing devices...

View attachment 127872

View attachment 127873

According to the 4th Circuit Court of appeals....these weapons....military weapons.....are not protected by the 2nd Amendment...even though the U.S. Supreme Court in the Heller decision says they are wrong.....

So...should Americans be allowed to own these military weapons of mass murder and genocide?

Yup. I want the same level of weaponry as those who will be trying to kill me. Only seems fair to me. The lefty's are always complaining about things not being fair, so this is one they'll have to give to us.

I would rather have better weaponry than those who will be trying to kill me. But I will settle for the same level if I must.

 

[Toronado3800]

There was no genocide....

I agree the guns shown above are the least of our problems but man, the natives lost a lot of people and land.

Yes, they did. The Trail of Tears is a particularly despicable act for which the US has never properly atoned. The Native Americans did everything that was asked of them. They developed a written language and laws and then the white man said, "Great! Your land is too good for you so we're taking it, and by the way there's this wonderful place we are sending you to. Enjoy!"

The first democrat President did that.......

Sir, we agree on some topics, this particular gun issue for one, but your signature and statements make me believe you are here more to be a cheerleader for a team than to debate a topic.

I am a supporter of America...and a conservative......so? I debate topics coming from that end of the spectrum......you can debate them from whatever point you want...this isn't a debate class where you have to debate both sides...I know both sides, I know the other side is wrong...but I am still more than happy to have my beliefs tested in open debate...

This is going to sound preachy, it is I suppose.

These issues are complex. My idea is the common theories on what is conservative and liberal are created by the two clubs who run the system. In Baseball the Yankees are not always evil and the Cardinals are not always good, these issues are more complicated. Our national enemies are often wrong and evil but all their points can not be ignored because of that. In country it gets even more muddled.

Also, learn from others not me or the radio talk show hosts. I am just not good with people. Radio talk show hosts are good at self promotion and selling commercials.

Use your words to build coalitions.

Use your words to build indecision in the other side, not motivate them. A "xyz" who only dislikes but does not hate your candidate is less likely to go stand in line and vote against you.

 

[DonaldReagan]

The left wing here in America uses the term genocide in regard to the treatment of the early Americans........not true, but that isn't the point of this discussion. The discussion centers around this question...the weapons below were used by the military to commit genocide against the native Americans...as the left wing would say.....so should Americans be allowed to own these murder instruments....take a look at these killing devices...

View attachment 127872

View attachment 127873

According to the 4th Circuit Court of appeals....these weapons....military weapons.....are not protected by the 2nd Amendment...even though the U.S. Supreme Court in the Heller decision says they are wrong.....

So...should Americans be allowed to own these military weapons of mass murder and genocide?

As in the general debate over gun control, guns don't kill people, people kill people

 

[JakeStarkey]

Yes, the mainstream here in America condemn Native America genocide by the European interruption into the America.

There was no genocide....

I agree the guns shown above are the least of our problems but man, the natives lost a lot of people and land.

Yes, they did. The Trail of Tears is a particularly despicable act for which the US has never properly atoned. The Native Americans did everything that was asked of them. They developed a written language and laws and then the white man said, "Great! Your land is too good for you so we're taking it, and by the way there's this wonderful place we are sending you to. Enjoy!"

The Georgians in particular wanted Cherokee land. Then when gold was discovered, it was time for a one-way trip across the Mississippi for the Cherokee and many other tribes.

 

[westwall]

Yes, the mainstream here in America condemn Native America genocide by the European interruption into the America.

There was no genocide....

I agree the guns shown above are the least of our problems but man, the natives lost a lot of people and land.

Yes, they did. The Trail of Tears is a particularly despicable act for which the US has never properly atoned. The Native Americans did everything that was asked of them. They developed a written language and laws and then the white man said, "Great! Your land is too good for you so we're taking it, and by the way there's this wonderful place we are sending you to. Enjoy!"

The Georgians in particular wanted Cherokee land. Then when gold was discovered, it was time for a one-way trip across the Mississippi for the Cherokee and many other tribes.

Yep. The 1829 gold rush was a killer for the native Americans. That's for certain.

 

[toobfreak]

If you qualify for a federal stamp and have the money, there isn't much you cannot own. Bottom line: Responsible people tend to act responsibly no matter what the laws, just as irresponsible people tend to still do irresponsible things no matter what the restrictions.





I should point out that people licensed to own such firepower are not out shooting up schools, nor are criminals out there committing crimes on the streets with these kinds of true military hardware, even though with a gun like these, you could probably kill a whole town and take anything you want.

 

[westwall]

If you qualify for a federal stamp and have the money, there isn't much you cannot own. Bottom line: Responsible people tend to act responsibly no matter what the laws, just as irresponsible people tend to still do irresponsible things no matter what the restrictions.





I should point out that people licensed to own such firepower are not out shooting up schools, nor are criminals out there committing crimes on the streets with these kinds of true military hardware, even though with a gun like these, you could probably kill a whole town and take anything you want.

Yep. Mike Dillon owns a P-51 Mustang with full complement of six live .50 cal machineguns that he uses to make strafing runs in the desert. He could do a number on any small town he wanted to.

 

[ScienceRocks]

I want to own a goddamn Machine gun and a tank!

That is how I protect my rights as a human being.

 

[westwall]

I want to own a goddamn Machine gun and a tank!

That is how I protect my rights as a human being.

Well matt I own machineguns and I owned a tank once upon a time. You're not stable enough to own either.

 

[Bleipriester]

I want to own a goddamn Machine gun and a tank!

That is how I protect my rights as a human being.

Well matt I own machineguns and I owned a tank once upon a time. You're not stable enough to own either.

Who stole your tank?

 

[toobfreak]

If you qualify for a federal stamp and have the money, there isn't much you cannot own. Bottom line: Responsible people tend to act responsibly no matter what the laws, just as irresponsible people tend to still do irresponsible things no matter what the restrictions.





I should point out that people licensed to own such firepower are not out shooting up schools, nor are criminals out there committing crimes on the streets with these kinds of true military hardware, even though with a gun like these, you could probably kill a whole town and take anything you want.

I meant to point out that after Pearl Harbor, what stopped the Japanese from invading our mainland was the generals telling the Emperor that if they invaded us, there would be a gun behind every rock and tree. It was a no-win scenario. Same thing holds true for any army invading us. Beyond the military, there is a standing militia of about 50 million private citizens armed with everything from an AR-15 up to the stuff in the video; they aren't out robbing convenience stores or blowing up kids at a concert, they are the unseen reserve ready to defend this country that the 2nd Amendment guarantees that keeps us free from all enemies foreign and domestic. Too bad the gun-control crowd never stops to consider the big picture; wherever you have liberty, you will always have some tiny number abuse it, but the answer is never to try to take that liberty away. If anything, the best solution is in much greater gun-awareness and training like we had 50 years ago!