Fighting for MY Freedoms?

[sambino510]

Auteur:

The question always comes up for me when I read gun advocates: have they ever done military service? Because if they had, they would recognize what an absurd position it is to think that handguns, rifles, shotguns, ect, are a guarantee against some paranoid fear of "government". If your strange sort of night mare actually came true, and the evil liberals came for you in the night, your civilian guns would count for nothing. They are of almost no value against a modern, organized, equipped military force, such as the US and all other modern industrial nations have. You are living out an NRA fantasy, in which the recollections of old cowboy movies come to mind, and the idea of the rugged frontiersman looms large, which is just what is hoped for.

Of course the supreme irony here is that "government", or more accurately the lobbyists and financially elite that control it, have already come for you in the night, so to speak, and seized power, which is used for their own benefit. And far from your guns heading this off, you haven't even realized it has happened! Your still grousing over a black man suggesting social programs that you don't like, while your country has slipped away.

In point of fact, yes, I am a combat veteran and I think your opinion is wrong to the point of being laughable. What in the world makes you think that the military would not oppose a tyranny as readily as the rest of the people?

Then you have negated your own arguement. If the military is going to do it, then the contribution of a bunch of unorganized, gun waving extremists is only going to complicate matters for them. They don't need you, to put it bluntly. If you were planning a crucial military operation, would you want a bunch of untrained, untested, unorganized, ill-equipped, uncertain mobs off on your left flank somewhere, intending to do something, perhaps in coordination with you, perhaps not? Of course not.

In fact the only contribution of wide spread gun ownership is what is produced currently: mass shootings, one of the highest rates in the world, and the untold human misery that comes from this. While you are living out your John Wayne fantasy, others are paying the price.

Though I agree with most of what you said, I think the gun control people are living just as much of a fantasy. I see no reason why they would advocate the removal of assault weapons from the market when handguns are the leading killer, especially with gang wars in places like Chicago or Oakland. They're far more practical and easy to conceal. We are far too fixated on mass shootings for the "shock" effect and not concerned enough with the average murder. That doesn't mean I don't think anything should be done, but Sandy Hook seems to have focused the debates on more unorthodox weaponry and not on conventional ones.

 

[9thIDdoc]

Auteur:

The question always comes up for me when I read gun advocates: have they ever done military service? Because if they had, they would recognize what an absurd position it is to think that handguns, rifles, shotguns, ect, are a guarantee against some paranoid fear of "government". If your strange sort of night mare actually came true, and the evil liberals came for you in the night, your civilian guns would count for nothing. They are of almost no value against a modern, organized, equipped military force, such as the US and all other modern industrial nations have. You are living out an NRA fantasy, in which the recollections of old cowboy movies come to mind, and the idea of the rugged frontiersman looms large, which is just what is hoped for.

Of course the supreme irony here is that "government", or more accurately the lobbyists and financially elite that control it, have already come for you in the night, so to speak, and seized power, which is used for their own benefit. And far from your guns heading this off, you haven't even realized it has happened! Your still grousing over a black man suggesting social programs that you don't like, while your country has slipped away.

In point of fact, yes, I am a combat veteran and I think your opinion is wrong to the point of being laughable. What in the world makes you think that the military would not oppose a tyranny as readily as the rest of the people?

Then you have negated your own arguement. If the military is going to do it, then the contribution of a bunch of unorganized, gun waving extremists is only going to complicate matters for them. They don't need you, to put it bluntly. If you were planning a crucial military operation, would you want a bunch of untrained, untested, unorganized, ill-equipped, uncertain mobs off on your left flank somewhere, intending to do something, perhaps in coordination with you, perhaps not? Of course not.

In fact the only contribution of wide spread gun ownership is what is produced currently: mass shootings, one of the highest rates in the world, and the untold human misery that comes from this. While you are living out your John Wayne fantasy, others are paying the price.

The fact is that strict control does not reduce the murder rate and that is especially true of tyrannies under which governments tend to conduct their own mass murders and untold misery for fun and profit.

 

[sambino510]

The question always comes up for me when I read gun advocates: have they ever done military service? Because if they had, they would recognize what an absurd position it is to think that handguns, rifles, shotguns, ect, are a guarantee against some paranoid fear of "government".

Actually, the majority of those in my family that own guns have done military service. Not only that, but my 4 maile cousins and myself, we have all served. 1 4 years in the Navy, 1 6 years in the Marines, 2 20+ years in the Marines, and myself 10 years Marines and 6+ in the Army (still serving).

And trust me, what you mention is anything but ludicrous. You apparently have absolutely no concept of how a domestic insurgency can start and spread. You only need a small core of individuals with some training or skills (hunting skills are almost as valuable in this circumstance). Then you start with a bunch of old junk, and improve from those you kill.

Just look at the original Red Dawn, or our own Revolutionary War. Both are good examples of exactly how this works. Also in Libya last year, and in Syria this year. Do you think the rebels started with military rifles, grenade launchers and RPGs? No, they took them from their dead enemies as the movement grew.

And do not forget, most of us who served have experience in training and leading others. Give me 30 individuals and I can train them in a lot of sophisticated Infantry tactics (that was my career for 10 years). I can make somebody a fighter, but I can't make a weapon.

I agree with this. An insurgency can make a huge impact on a superior force with the right strategies and understanding of warfare. That doesn't even necessarily mean picking up superior weaponry over time, though that surely occurs. I would take the recent terrorist organizations as an example. 9/11 has had a profound control on foreign policy and on our mindset as a society in general, and they did it with a couple of box cutters and some flight school training. So I think despite the fact I do believe the U.S. military would squash most potential uprisings, I think a revolution is definitely not an impossibility (for whatever reason that may happen. After all, this is not Egypt.)

 

[9thIDdoc]

The question always comes up for me when I read gun advocates: have they ever done military service? Because if they had, they would recognize what an absurd position it is to think that handguns, rifles, shotguns, ect, are a guarantee against some paranoid fear of "government". If your strange sort of night mare actually came true, and the evil liberals came for you in the night, your civilian guns would count for nothing. They are of almost no value against a modern, organized, equipped military force, such as the US and all other modern industrial nations have. You are living out an NRA fantasy, in which the recollections of old cowboy movies come to mind, and the idea of the rugged frontiersman looms large, which is just what is hoped for.

Of course the supreme irony here is that "government", or more accurately the lobbyists and financially elite that control it, have already come for you in the night, so to speak, and seized power, which is used for their own benefit. And far from your guns heading this off, you haven't even realized it has happened! Your still grousing over a black man suggesting social programs that you don't like, while your country has slipped away.

Wow, anti gun and race card at the same time.....

And If i was in command of a 30 man infantry Platoon i certainly would worry about a village of 1100 people knowing that probably 700 or better were armed. Even with handguns, rifles, and shotguns.....

Baloney. You would call in an airstrike or an artillery strike, and that would be the end of that. Such things would not be an alternative for a civil population armed with rifles and shotguns.

You are unreasonably impressed by high tech. equipment. Put an arrow through a pilot and his days of making airstrikes are over.

 

[Mushroom]

My good man, you must be joking. At least I hope you are. Have you not read your own countries history? The Revolutionary War was won due to the decisive intervention of France and Spain at critical points, and to a lessor degree because the war was not supported in Britain generally, as it was thought to be a war on brothers (which it was essentially). If not for that, it might of stretched on for decades, or forever.

Libya was only won due to massive intervention by NATO forces, which had overwhelming superiority over local forces. Even then it was a close call at some points. Without that, the rebels would have lost.

Syria today is a standoff, even though some very sophisticated weapons have made their way to the rebels. And they are fighting a relatively small, modest, ill motivated military force.

Yes, actually I know my history quite well. And notice, I did not say "win", but "began". Great big difference between the two.

The Revolution started in 1775, the French did not get seriously involved until 1778, 3 years later. Libya's Civil War started in January, NATO did not get involved until March (and aircraft do not win wars, only boots on the ground do). The Syrian Civil War has been going for over 2 years now.

Oh, and do not think that the Libyan Civil War would have been lost without NATO. More and more of Qadaffy Duck's own forces were turning against him, and it would likely still be going on today without NATO. They just ended it sooner, they did not in and of themselves end the war.

So yes, I know exactly what I am talking about. And what I said matches that. It is obvious that you have absolutely no understanding of what an insurgency actually is, how it starts and how it works.

Myself, I have decades devoted to military history, plus over 15 years in uniform. What exactly is your expertise may I ask? Because you have apparently shot down 2 experienced veterans, with no apparent reason as to what your credibility is.

 

[9thIDdoc]

I think that it should obvious to anyone who cares to actually look at the data that in America the civilians, not the military, hold the most small arms and that those small arms are on average more lethal than their military counterparts. I would also suggest that there are far more skilled and experienced marksmen in the civilian sector. Yearly harvest numbers for deer sized and larger game animals are a matter of record.

 

[Auteur]

Auteur:

The question always comes up for me when I read gun advocates: have they ever done military service? Because if they had, they would recognize what an absurd position it is to think that handguns, rifles, shotguns, ect, are a guarantee against some paranoid fear of "government". If your strange sort of night mare actually came true, and the evil liberals came for you in the night, your civilian guns would count for nothing. They are of almost no value against a modern, organized, equipped military force, such as the US and all other modern industrial nations have. You are living out an NRA fantasy, in which the recollections of old cowboy movies come to mind, and the idea of the rugged frontiersman looms large, which is just what is hoped for.

Of course the supreme irony here is that "government", or more accurately the lobbyists and financially elite that control it, have already come for you in the night, so to speak, and seized power, which is used for their own benefit. And far from your guns heading this off, you haven't even realized it has happened! Your still grousing over a black man suggesting social programs that you don't like, while your country has slipped away.

In point of fact, yes, I am a combat veteran and I think your opinion is wrong to the point of being laughable. What in the world makes you think that the military would not oppose a tyranny as readily as the rest of the people?

Then you have negated your own arguement. If the military is going to do it, then the contribution of a bunch of unorganized, gun waving extremists is only going to complicate matters for them. They don't need you, to put it bluntly. If you were planning a crucial military operation, would you want a bunch of untrained, untested, unorganized, ill-equipped, uncertain mobs off on your left flank somewhere, intending to do something, perhaps in coordination with you, perhaps not? Of course not.

In fact the only contribution of wide spread gun ownership is what is produced currently: mass shootings, one of the highest rates in the world, and the untold human misery that comes from this. While you are living out your John Wayne fantasy, others are paying the price.

Though I agree with most of what you said, I think the gun control people are living just as much of a fantasy. I see no reason why they would advocate the removal of assault weapons from the market when handguns are the leading killer, especially with gang wars in places like Chicago or Oakland. They're far more practical and easy to conceal. We are far too fixated on mass shootings for the "shock" effect and not concerned enough with the average murder. That doesn't mean I don't think anything should be done, but Sandy Hook seems to have focused the debates on more unorthodox weaponry and not on conventional ones.

I agree. Any gun control program should include all weapons, especially handguns.

 

[Auteur]

Auteur:

The question always comes up for me when I read gun advocates: have they ever done military service? Because if they had, they would recognize what an absurd position it is to think that handguns, rifles, shotguns, ect, are a guarantee against some paranoid fear of "government". If your strange sort of night mare actually came true, and the evil liberals came for you in the night, your civilian guns would count for nothing. They are of almost no value against a modern, organized, equipped military force, such as the US and all other modern industrial nations have. You are living out an NRA fantasy, in which the recollections of old cowboy movies come to mind, and the idea of the rugged frontiersman looms large, which is just what is hoped for.

Of course the supreme irony here is that "government", or more accurately the lobbyists and financially elite that control it, have already come for you in the night, so to speak, and seized power, which is used for their own benefit. And far from your guns heading this off, you haven't even realized it has happened! Your still grousing over a black man suggesting social programs that you don't like, while your country has slipped away.

In point of fact, yes, I am a combat veteran and I think your opinion is wrong to the point of being laughable. What in the world makes you think that the military would not oppose a tyranny as readily as the rest of the people?

Then you have negated your own arguement. If the military is going to do it, then the contribution of a bunch of unorganized, gun waving extremists is only going to complicate matters for them. They don't need you, to put it bluntly. If you were planning a crucial military operation, would you want a bunch of untrained, untested, unorganized, ill-equipped, uncertain mobs off on your left flank somewhere, intending to do something, perhaps in coordination with you, perhaps not? Of course not.

In fact the only contribution of wide spread gun ownership is what is produced currently: mass shootings, one of the highest rates in the world, and the untold human misery that comes from this. While you are living out your John Wayne fantasy, others are paying the price.

The fact is that strict control does not reduce the murder rate and that is especially true of tyrannies under which governments tend to conduct their own mass murders and untold misery for fun and profit.

1) Strict gun control does reduce the murder rate. What are the death rates from guns in places like Britain, Canada, or other very similar countries that differ in that they control guns? And please don't tell me that gun violence is still high in places like Chicago. How much trouble is it to drive to Chicago from Texas with some guns for sale?

2) Yes, some extreme dictatorships do awful things. And they tend to get away with them until a superior force of arms comes along. With today's technology, that's not going to happen with a rag-tag mob of militas with squirrel guns.

 

[Auteur]

Wow, anti gun and race card at the same time.....

And If i was in command of a 30 man infantry Platoon i certainly would worry about a village of 1100 people knowing that probably 700 or better were armed. Even with handguns, rifles, and shotguns.....

Baloney. You would call in an airstrike or an artillery strike, and that would be the end of that. Such things would not be an alternative for a civil population armed with rifles and shotguns.

You are unreasonably impressed by high tech. equipment. Put an arrow through a pilot and his days of making airstrikes are over.

That's quite an archer- placing an arrow 20,000 feet in the air, and through titanium metal.

 

[Auteur]

My good man, you must be joking. At least I hope you are. Have you not read your own countries history? The Revolutionary War was won due to the decisive intervention of France and Spain at critical points, and to a lessor degree because the war was not supported in Britain generally, as it was thought to be a war on brothers (which it was essentially). If not for that, it might of stretched on for decades, or forever.

Libya was only won due to massive intervention by NATO forces, which had overwhelming superiority over local forces. Even then it was a close call at some points. Without that, the rebels would have lost.

Syria today is a standoff, even though some very sophisticated weapons have made their way to the rebels. And they are fighting a relatively small, modest, ill motivated military force.

Yes, actually I know my history quite well. And notice, I did not say "win", but "began". Great big difference between the two.

The Revolution started in 1775, the French did not get seriously involved until 1778, 3 years later. Libya's Civil War started in January, NATO did not get involved until March (and aircraft do not win wars, only boots on the ground do). The Syrian Civil War has been going for over 2 years now.

That's right, the intervention of European powers came later, and that's what ended it. Britain was then facing a world war, with two powerful adversaries, and a populace at home that didn't support the war in the colonies. These were critical issues in the Revolutionary War, although ones not always popular with Americans.

Oh, and do not think that the Libyan Civil War would have been lost without NATO. More and more of Qadaffy Duck's own forces were turning against him, and it would likely still be going on today without NATO. They just ended it sooner, they did not in and of themselves end the war.

NATO intervened because it seemed the fall of Bengazi was near, and with it a bloodbath that would have been unsavory for the world community to watch. The only chance the rebels had would have been massive defections of the military, along with their arms, to the other side. This would have been highly unlikely due to the tribal nature of Libya, and also the then vested interests of those in positions of power within the military, and not least the fear of retribution for those that defected too late, or to the wrong people. Without this they probably would have lost.

[
So yes, I know exactly what I am talking about. And what I said matches that. It is obvious that you have absolutely no understanding of what an insurgency actually is, how it starts and how it works.

Myself, I have decades devoted to military history, plus over 15 years in uniform. What exactly is your expertise may I ask? Because you have apparently shot down 2 experienced veterans, with no apparent reason as to what your credibility is.

Being a veteran helps, but it does not necessarily coincide with a study of history or geopolitics. And American history does not necessarily coincide with that of the rest of the world, as we have seen by reading these pages.

 

[Auteur]

I think that it should obvious to anyone who cares to actually look at the data that in America the civilians, not the military, hold the most small arms and that those small arms are on average more lethal than their military counterparts. I would also suggest that there are far more skilled and experienced marksmen in the civilian sector. Yearly harvest numbers for deer sized and larger game animals are a matter of record.

And so killing unsuspecting animals is a qualifyer for taking on tanks, helicopter gunships, precision guided weapons, satellite surveillence, cruise missiles, not to mention all the intelligence and police functions of a modern state? Deer could only wish they had such backing. You are talking rubbish.

 

[9thIDdoc]

I think that it should obvious to anyone who cares to actually look at the data that in America the civilians, not the military, hold the most small arms and that those small arms are on average more lethal than their military counterparts. I would also suggest that there are far more skilled and experienced marksmen in the civilian sector. Yearly harvest numbers for deer sized and larger game animals are a matter of record.

And so killing unsuspecting animals is a qualifyer for taking on tanks, helicopter gunships, precision guided weapons, satellite surveillence, cruise missiles, not to mention all the intelligence and police functions of a modern state? Deer could only wish they had such backing. You are talking rubbish.

Who's to say what side would have what weapons? And all you listed require living people to function.
Deer don't need such backing to be hard to kill.
You are the one dishing out the rubbish.

 

[sambino510]

A side note to everyone posting replies; try and avoid any personal attacks. This is a place for intellectual debate, not blatant statements like "you're wrong" or "you're full of shit". This is a sensitive, important topic and we all have very differing views about it, none of them necessarily "wrong". Just something to keep in mind. Thanks to everyone for all the responses, over 1,200 views and about 150 replies in just a few days is pretty incredible.

 

[SFC Ollie]

The question always comes up for me when I read gun advocates: have they ever done military service? Because if they had, they would recognize what an absurd position it is to think that handguns, rifles, shotguns, ect, are a guarantee against some paranoid fear of "government". If your strange sort of night mare actually came true, and the evil liberals came for you in the night, your civilian guns would count for nothing. They are of almost no value against a modern, organized, equipped military force, such as the US and all other modern industrial nations have. You are living out an NRA fantasy, in which the recollections of old cowboy movies come to mind, and the idea of the rugged frontiersman looms large, which is just what is hoped for.

Of course the supreme irony here is that "government", or more accurately the lobbyists and financially elite that control it, have already come for you in the night, so to speak, and seized power, which is used for their own benefit. And far from your guns heading this off, you haven't even realized it has happened! Your still grousing over a black man suggesting social programs that you don't like, while your country has slipped away.

Wow, anti gun and race card at the same time.....

And If i was in command of a 30 man infantry Platoon i certainly would worry about a village of 1100 people knowing that probably 700 or better were armed. Even with handguns, rifles, and shotguns.....

Baloney. You would call in an airstrike or an artillery strike, and that would be the end of that. Such things would not be an alternative for a civil population armed with rifles and shotguns.

How many thousands of little villages are there that would fit that description? You going to blow all of them up? Our military is vastly outnumbered by private citizens who own guns. Not to mention the military members who would join with the civilians... Of course this all depends upon the reason for the actions to begin with.........
My gun will be on the side of the constitution.......

 

[Survivalist]

I suppose you could classify it as a normal human response, but I suppose I'm a bit of an extreme idealist in the way that I think those "normal human responses" create a "norm" of violence. That is, war and violence are simply accepted as natural human behaviors, as necessities. I hold the life of some gangbanger raiding my house as equal to my life or the life of my loved ones. (Once again, very easy to say without being married or having children yet.) I can almost guarantee you I'd fight, but I'd struggle with it mentally both at the time and down the line.

I don't see any evidence that the government is trying to COMPLETELY ban guns. Personally, I think the larger weapons are a bit unnecessary when defending one's home, unless you're trying to say that the government will one day attack us and we have to defend against them. For the average criminal raiding your home, I think a handgun or shotgun would do just fine. But I suppose the problem lies in the simple idea of gun CONTROL, and that's why everyone is frustrated. I agree with you in some ways, in that getting a few guns off the street isn't going to solve any problems. In principle though, I think both sides are getting too worked up. I doubt the legislation will even pass though.

Your ideals on equality are of little use in the real world unless you want to be stepped on.

If all people deserve equal treatment, then there should also be no limits on what they can do. Really there would be no right and no wrong. There should also be no consequences for anyones actions.

Expecting the police or the government to step in and take care of all conflict is not workable anywhere on the planet.

As far as gun control in the US, there are legions of liberals who like Piers Morgan on CNN believe the no guns should be in the hands of private citizens. Less radical ones would at least like to have gun laws as they do in the UK. Know that liberals like Obama and Schumer don't hate guns, they just don't want them in the hands of the common people they want full control of.

The question always comes up for me when I read gun advocates: have they ever done military service? Because if they had, they would recognize what an absurd position it is to think that handguns, rifles, shotguns, ect, are a guarantee against some paranoid fear of "government". If your strange sort of night mare actually came true, and the evil liberals came for you in the night, your civilian guns would count for nothing. They are of almost no value against a modern, organized, equipped military force, such as the US and all other modern industrial nations have. You are living out an NRA fantasy, in which the recollections of old cowboy movies come to mind, and the idea of the rugged frontiersman looms large, which is just what is hoped for.

Of course the supreme irony here is that "government", or more accurately the lobbyists and financially elite that control it, have already come for you in the night, so to speak, and seized power, which is used for their own benefit. And far from your guns heading this off, you haven't even realized it has happened! Your still grousing over a black man suggesting social programs that you don't like, while your country has slipped away.

To satisfy your predjudices, yes I did do several years in the US Army---if that has any real impact on the gun issue. You do a good bit of assuming about my views or "fantasies" on political issues.

Am I hoping for some sort of government collapase or civil war? No. But hoping is one thing and preparing for various eventualites is another. From your little soap box tirade above, it is easy to tell you have a poor concept of how well a modern military force would function in the vast area of the United States without full support and supply. Small arms in the hands of citizens are no match for Abrams tank or F-15. Those machines suck down gallons of fuel every few miles and need extensive maintenance. They would not be going very far for very long without them.

As I spend 5 days a week working to live in the real world, I don't sit around with a tinfoil hat and worry about the government kicking in my door. My guns are used for target practice or hunting. They can double for protection given the circumstances, but at least I have the wisdom to aviod dangerous places.

And speaking of dangerous places, all the 10 most dangerous cities in the US have, and have always had for decades, liberal Democrats as mayors, high numbers of Blacks and/or Hispanics---commonly found in gangs----and a morally debased people that refuse to hold criminals accountable.
The 10 most dangerous cities in America - Slide Show - MarketWatch

I have the wisdom to avoid these places, but do have pity on those honest citizens who fear for their lives there. In the worst areas, the chances of a person being a victim of a violent crime can be as high as one in four each year. If anyone needs a gun for protection it is those people.

If you want to debate me on crime or gun control I will be happy to pound you flat.

 

[sambino510]

Your ideals on equality are of little use in the real world unless you want to be stepped on.

If all people deserve equal treatment, then there should also be no limits on what they can do. Really there would be no right and no wrong. There should also be no consequences for anyones actions.

Expecting the police or the government to step in and take care of all conflict is not workable anywhere on the planet.

As far as gun control in the US, there are legions of liberals who like Piers Morgan on CNN believe the no guns should be in the hands of private citizens. Less radical ones would at least like to have gun laws as they do in the UK. Know that liberals like Obama and Schumer don't hate guns, they just don't want them in the hands of the common people they want full control of.

The question always comes up for me when I read gun advocates: have they ever done military service? Because if they had, they would recognize what an absurd position it is to think that handguns, rifles, shotguns, ect, are a guarantee against some paranoid fear of "government". If your strange sort of night mare actually came true, and the evil liberals came for you in the night, your civilian guns would count for nothing. They are of almost no value against a modern, organized, equipped military force, such as the US and all other modern industrial nations have. You are living out an NRA fantasy, in which the recollections of old cowboy movies come to mind, and the idea of the rugged frontiersman looms large, which is just what is hoped for.

Of course the supreme irony here is that "government", or more accurately the lobbyists and financially elite that control it, have already come for you in the night, so to speak, and seized power, which is used for their own benefit. And far from your guns heading this off, you haven't even realized it has happened! Your still grousing over a black man suggesting social programs that you don't like, while your country has slipped away.

To satisfy your predjudices, yes I did do several years in the US Army---if that has any real impact on the gun issue. You do a good bit of assuming about my views or "fantasies" on political issues.

Am I hoping for some sort of government collapase or civil war? No. But hoping is one thing and preparing for various eventualites is another. From your little soap box tirade above, it is easy to tell you have a poor concept of how well a modern military force would function in the vast area of the United States without full support and supply. Small arms in the hands of citizens are no match for Abrams tank or F-15. Those machines suck down gallons of fuel every few miles and need extensive maintenance. They would not be going very far for very long without them.

As I spend 5 days a week working to live in the real world, I don't sit around with a tinfoil hat and worry about the government kicking in my door. My guns are used for target practice or hunting. They can double for protection given the circumstances, but at least I have the wisdom to aviod dangerous places.

And speaking of dangerous places, all the 10 most dangerous cities in the US have, and have always had for decades, liberal Democrats as mayors, high numbers of Blacks and/or Hispanics---commonly found in gangs----and a morally debased people that refuse to hold criminals accountable.
The 10 most dangerous cities in America - Slide Show - MarketWatch

I have the wisdom to avoid these places, but do have pity on those honest citizens who fear for their lives there. In the worst areas, the chances of a person being a victim of a violent crime can be as high as one in four each year. If anyone needs a gun for protection it is those people.

If you want to debate me on crime or gun control I will be happy to pound you flat.

I guess people seemed to ignore that "personal attack" post I made. If you disagree with someone just state in plainly. There's no need for bragging that you'll stomp somebody in a debate; you're far intelligent enough to prove that with actual facts.

The fact that the most dangerous cities in America have Democrats as mayors seems irrelevant. A mayor can only do so much in the realm of gang violence or other crimes. Guns are perfectly legal and in cities with high populations it's much more difficult to prevent crime. What else can he or she do if the police are doing their best to curb the violence? I'm not trying to defend Democrats, but I'd say the same if it was all Republicans. Democratic leadership is not some automatic path to anarchy and murder. I don't know what a Republican would do if he was mayor of Baltimore. Also, just because violent cities have a lot of African American or Mexican people doesn't mean these races are some inherent savages or something; we have to look deeper than that rather than just avoiding them like the plague. I once again do not want to make excuses for criminals, but there are real economic and social issues that can lead ethnic youth down the wrong path, and that's just as much true for white people as well. I grew up in Oakland in California, one of the highest murder rates in the country, and though there's certainly dangerous areas, these cities still have much to offer and can't be forgotten.

 

[Survivalist]

The question always comes up for me when I read gun advocates: have they ever done military service? Because if they had, they would recognize what an absurd position it is to think that handguns, rifles, shotguns, ect, are a guarantee against some paranoid fear of "government". If your strange sort of night mare actually came true, and the evil liberals came for you in the night, your civilian guns would count for nothing. They are of almost no value against a modern, organized, equipped military force, such as the US and all other modern industrial nations have. You are living out an NRA fantasy, in which the recollections of old cowboy movies come to mind, and the idea of the rugged frontiersman looms large, which is just what is hoped for.

Of course the supreme irony here is that "government", or more accurately the lobbyists and financially elite that control it, have already come for you in the night, so to speak, and seized power, which is used for their own benefit. And far from your guns heading this off, you haven't even realized it has happened! Your still grousing over a black man suggesting social programs that you don't like, while your country has slipped away.

To satisfy your predjudices, yes I did do several years in the US Army---if that has any real impact on the gun issue. You do a good bit of assuming about my views or "fantasies" on political issues.

Am I hoping for some sort of government collapase or civil war? No. But hoping is one thing and preparing for various eventualites is another. From your little soap box tirade above, it is easy to tell you have a poor concept of how well a modern military force would function in the vast area of the United States without full support and supply. Small arms in the hands of citizens are no match for Abrams tank or F-15. Those machines suck down gallons of fuel every few miles and need extensive maintenance. They would not be going very far for very long without them.

As I spend 5 days a week working to live in the real world, I don't sit around with a tinfoil hat and worry about the government kicking in my door. My guns are used for target practice or hunting. They can double for protection given the circumstances, but at least I have the wisdom to aviod dangerous places.

And speaking of dangerous places, all the 10 most dangerous cities in the US have, and have always had for decades, liberal Democrats as mayors, high numbers of Blacks and/or Hispanics---commonly found in gangs----and a morally debased people that refuse to hold criminals accountable.
The 10 most dangerous cities in America - Slide Show - MarketWatch

I have the wisdom to avoid these places, but do have pity on those honest citizens who fear for their lives there. In the worst areas, the chances of a person being a victim of a violent crime can be as high as one in four each year. If anyone needs a gun for protection it is those people.

If you want to debate me on crime or gun control I will be happy to pound you flat.

I guess people seemed to ignore that "personal attack" post I made. If you disagree with someone just state in plainly. There's no need for bragging that you'll stomp somebody in a debate; you're far intelligent enough to prove that with actual facts.

The fact that the most dangerous cities in America have Democrats as mayors seems irrelevant. A mayor can only do so much in the realm of gang violence or other crimes. Guns are perfectly legal and in cities with high populations it's much more difficult to prevent crime. What else can he or she do if the police are doing their best to curb the violence? I'm not trying to defend Democrats, but I'd say the same if it was all Republicans. Democratic leadership is not some automatic path to anarchy and murder. I don't know what a Republican would do if he was mayor of Baltimore. Also, just because violent cities have a lot of African American or Mexican people doesn't mean these races are some inherent savages or something; we have to look deeper than that rather than just avoiding them like the plague. I once again do not want to make excuses for criminals, but there are real economic and social issues that can lead ethnic youth down the wrong path, and that's just as much true for white people as well. I grew up in Oakland in California, one of the highest murder rates in the country, and though there's certainly dangerous areas, these cities still have much to offer and can't be forgotten.

I only stomp on those who have it coming to them. The clean debate zone is a great place for those who like to play nice.

The facts are the facts. Just because they don't make everyone feel warm and fuzzy inside is no reason not to discuss them---as long as there is some measure of respect.

The better one understands the world around him, the better one can cope. You can't judge a person on their outside appearance. I work with all types of people about every day and don't have a problem with it. That is unless they smell really bad---like this one kid (White) this morning who about knocked me over once I opened the door. But you can look at groups of people in certain areas, see what they have been doing, and use common sense. All of Oaklnad isn't as bad as the areas where all the murders have been going on. I would hope you know walking around them isn't wise.

Looking at all the factors that influence crime over the years I have been able to put 2 and 2 together and see what all high crime areas have in common---as I already stated. Even if all that I said was bull, ask yourself why did crime go up about 350% in the mid-1960's?


(click to enlarge)

Did the gun ownership rates go up 350%?
Did the guns suddenly become 350% more effective in just a few years?
Did Blacks and Hispanics themselves suddenly increase 350% in numbers?
Did poverty increase that much or did the economy shrink that much then?

What happened then?

The criminal justice system and laws became liberalized. Criminals were able to run amok in areas with weak Leftist leadership----as they do to this day in places like Oakland, Detroit, Atlanta and so on.

 

[Auteur]

The question always comes up for me when I read gun advocates: have they ever done military service? Because if they had, they would recognize what an absurd position it is to think that handguns, rifles, shotguns, ect, are a guarantee against some paranoid fear of "government". If your strange sort of night mare actually came true, and the evil liberals came for you in the night, your civilian guns would count for nothing. They are of almost no value against a modern, organized, equipped military force, such as the US and all other modern industrial nations have. You are living out an NRA fantasy, in which the recollections of old cowboy movies come to mind, and the idea of the rugged frontiersman looms large, which is just what is hoped for.

Of course the supreme irony here is that "government", or more accurately the lobbyists and financially elite that control it, have already come for you in the night, so to speak, and seized power, which is used for their own benefit. And far from your guns heading this off, you haven't even realized it has happened! Your still grousing over a black man suggesting social programs that you don't like, while your country has slipped away.

To satisfy your predjudices, yes I did do several years in the US Army---if that has any real impact on the gun issue. You do a good bit of assuming about my views or "fantasies" on political issues.

Am I hoping for some sort of government collapase or civil war? No. But hoping is one thing and preparing for various eventualites is another. From your little soap box tirade above, it is easy to tell you have a poor concept of how well a modern military force would function in the vast area of the United States without full support and supply. Small arms in the hands of citizens are no match for Abrams tank or F-15. Those machines suck down gallons of fuel every few miles and need extensive maintenance. They would not be going very far for very long without them.

As I spend 5 days a week working to live in the real world, I don't sit around with a tinfoil hat and worry about the government kicking in my door. My guns are used for target practice or hunting. They can double for protection given the circumstances, but at least I have the wisdom to aviod dangerous places.

And speaking of dangerous places, all the 10 most dangerous cities in the US have, and have always had for decades, liberal Democrats as mayors, high numbers of Blacks and/or Hispanics---commonly found in gangs----and a morally debased people that refuse to hold criminals accountable.
The 10 most dangerous cities in America - Slide Show - MarketWatch

I have the wisdom to avoid these places, but do have pity on those honest citizens who fear for their lives there. In the worst areas, the chances of a person being a victim of a violent crime can be as high as one in four each year. If anyone needs a gun for protection it is those people.

If you want to debate me on crime or gun control I will be happy to pound you flat.

I guess people seemed to ignore that "personal attack" post I made. If you disagree with someone just state in plainly. There's no need for bragging that you'll stomp somebody in a debate; you're far intelligent enough to prove that with actual facts.

The fact that the most dangerous cities in America have Democrats as mayors seems irrelevant. A mayor can only do so much in the realm of gang violence or other crimes. Guns are perfectly legal and in cities with high populations it's much more difficult to prevent crime. What else can he or she do if the police are doing their best to curb the violence? I'm not trying to defend Democrats, but I'd say the same if it was all Republicans. Democratic leadership is not some automatic path to anarchy and murder. I don't know what a Republican would do if he was mayor of Baltimore. Also, just because violent cities have a lot of African American or Mexican people doesn't mean these races are some inherent savages or something; we have to look deeper than that rather than just avoiding them like the plague. I once again do not want to make excuses for criminals, but there are real economic and social issues that can lead ethnic youth down the wrong path, and that's just as much true for white people as well. I grew up in Oakland in California, one of the highest murder rates in the country, and though there's certainly dangerous areas, these cities still have much to offer and can't be forgotten.

Not to worry sambino, I suspect I will remain three dimensional throughout the next few pages.

There is no serious gun debate in the civilized world, outside of the US, and there only among a segment of the population. This isn't a flippant statement, but a question that begs deeper analysis.

You seem to place great weight on the violence of racial minorities, and lax laws. Yet take a look at big cities in similar societies, such as London, Toronto, or Vancouver. London is certainly one of the most cosmopolitan cities on the globe, with minorities abundant, including blacks from former colonies. Toronto and Vancouver now have nearly half their populations represented in identifiable minorities. They also have criminal gangs. And I think you could not dispute that these cities (and their senior governments) have laws that generally go much easier on criminals than is so in the US, which still has the death penalty, and where nearly one percent of its total population is incarcerated at any one time.

Is there crime there? You bet. But the rate of death by gun is much, much less so than in the US. There are much less guns out in society in these places, and much less gun death. Hmmm. This is pretty simple so far.

Statistically, more guns equals more mayhem. It means it is more likely that there will be accidents, that guns will be stolen by criminals, that arguements may escalate to deadly force. It means there will be shoot outs on the street, with greater possibities of bystanders being hit. It means that all, from police to shop keepers to criminals will be much more likely to pull a gun, whereas in other countries they would not.

It is an illusion that one is safer packing a gun down the street, and that they will be able, James Bond style, to detect danger from all points of the compass, and outdraw the bad guys. If you have done military service, then you know how obscenely easy it is to shoot someone, if one's motivation is strong enough. More guns simply means a quicker resort to deadly force, and all loose.

As for taking on the military, it may be instructive to consider that most Americans, at least in recent years, have tended to either opt out of political matters altogether, or else tend to back authorities in power, with few questions asked. Only about 50% of the populaton even bothers to vote, and those that do are content with a very limited choice. They can vote for the right-wing, business oriented party, or, they can vote for the extremist, right-wing, business oriented party. There is no voice from the left, and scarcely any criticism of the increasing construction of a corporate dominated society.

Some rather extreme events have already taken place, such as the invasion of another country for naked geopolical gain, and the revelation of extensive monitoring and spying on citizens, and a vast redistribution of national wealth (upwards). This has not stired the populace to even get out and vote, or read up on political events. How many do you really think would pick up a gun, and face down a tank?

This military/civil conflict debate is absurd anyway, as those that aspire for power have much more subtle tools to get what they want, and in fact are using them. Lobbyists and the financially elite hold ridiculus amounts of power in Washington today, and far from inciting militias to mobilize, apathy reigns across the land.

 

[sambino510]

To satisfy your predjudices, yes I did do several years in the US Army---if that has any real impact on the gun issue. You do a good bit of assuming about my views or "fantasies" on political issues.

Am I hoping for some sort of government collapase or civil war? No. But hoping is one thing and preparing for various eventualites is another. From your little soap box tirade above, it is easy to tell you have a poor concept of how well a modern military force would function in the vast area of the United States without full support and supply. Small arms in the hands of citizens are no match for Abrams tank or F-15. Those machines suck down gallons of fuel every few miles and need extensive maintenance. They would not be going very far for very long without them.

As I spend 5 days a week working to live in the real world, I don't sit around with a tinfoil hat and worry about the government kicking in my door. My guns are used for target practice or hunting. They can double for protection given the circumstances, but at least I have the wisdom to aviod dangerous places.

And speaking of dangerous places, all the 10 most dangerous cities in the US have, and have always had for decades, liberal Democrats as mayors, high numbers of Blacks and/or Hispanics---commonly found in gangs----and a morally debased people that refuse to hold criminals accountable.
The 10 most dangerous cities in America - Slide Show - MarketWatch

I have the wisdom to avoid these places, but do have pity on those honest citizens who fear for their lives there. In the worst areas, the chances of a person being a victim of a violent crime can be as high as one in four each year. If anyone needs a gun for protection it is those people.

If you want to debate me on crime or gun control I will be happy to pound you flat.

I guess people seemed to ignore that "personal attack" post I made. If you disagree with someone just state in plainly. There's no need for bragging that you'll stomp somebody in a debate; you're far intelligent enough to prove that with actual facts.

The fact that the most dangerous cities in America have Democrats as mayors seems irrelevant. A mayor can only do so much in the realm of gang violence or other crimes. Guns are perfectly legal and in cities with high populations it's much more difficult to prevent crime. What else can he or she do if the police are doing their best to curb the violence? I'm not trying to defend Democrats, but I'd say the same if it was all Republicans. Democratic leadership is not some automatic path to anarchy and murder. I don't know what a Republican would do if he was mayor of Baltimore. Also, just because violent cities have a lot of African American or Mexican people doesn't mean these races are some inherent savages or something; we have to look deeper than that rather than just avoiding them like the plague. I once again do not want to make excuses for criminals, but there are real economic and social issues that can lead ethnic youth down the wrong path, and that's just as much true for white people as well. I grew up in Oakland in California, one of the highest murder rates in the country, and though there's certainly dangerous areas, these cities still have much to offer and can't be forgotten.

I only stomp on those who have it coming to them. The clean debate zone is a great place for those who like to play nice.

The facts are the facts. Just because they don't make everyone feel warm and fuzzy inside is no reason not to discuss them---as long as there is some measure of respect.

The better one understands the world around him, the better one can cope. You can't judge a person on their outside appearance. I work with all types of people about every day and don't have a problem with it. That is unless they smell really bad---like this one kid (White) this morning who about knocked me over once I opened the door. But you can look at groups of people in certain areas, see what they have been doing, and use common sense. All of Oaklnad isn't as bad as the areas where all the murders have been going on. I would hope you know walking around them isn't wise.

Looking at all the factors that influence crime over the years I have been able to put 2 and 2 together and see what all high crime areas have in common---as I already stated. Even if all that I said was bull, ask yourself why did crime go up about 350% in the mid-1960's?

View attachment 26757
(click to enlarge)

Did the gun ownership rates go up 350%?
Did the guns suddenly become 350% more effective in just a few years?
Did Blacks and Hispanics themselves suddenly increase 350% in numbers?
Did poverty increase that much or did the economy shrink that much then?

What happened then?

The criminal justice system and laws became liberalized. Criminals were able to run amok in areas with weak Leftist leadership----as they do to this day in places like Oakland, Detroit, Atlanta and so on.

Well what do Republican mayors or leaders do that is different from Democrat ones? Specifically? I'm not saying you're wrong, I'd just be curious to know. Once again, I'm personally Independent so I have no strong feelings either way. Also, what are your personal solutions to these problems of rampant crime in these cities?

I'm also aware of the very, very important time period of the 1960s but not so very sure what gun violence has to do with things like the Civil Rights Act, nor do I know why there would be a huge boom in ethnic groups, though that's certainly possible I suppose. Was there another moment or piece of legislation that was more decisive during that time period?

In terms of your statistics, why would gun ownership go up and why would guns become more effective? Once again, just looking for a little insight.

 

[Survivalist]

I guess people seemed to ignore that "personal attack" post I made. If you disagree with someone just state in plainly. There's no need for bragging that you'll stomp somebody in a debate; you're far intelligent enough to prove that with actual facts.

The fact that the most dangerous cities in America have Democrats as mayors seems irrelevant. A mayor can only do so much in the realm of gang violence or other crimes. Guns are perfectly legal and in cities with high populations it's much more difficult to prevent crime. What else can he or she do if the police are doing their best to curb the violence? I'm not trying to defend Democrats, but I'd say the same if it was all Republicans. Democratic leadership is not some automatic path to anarchy and murder. I don't know what a Republican would do if he was mayor of Baltimore. Also, just because violent cities have a lot of African American or Mexican people doesn't mean these races are some inherent savages or something; we have to look deeper than that rather than just avoiding them like the plague. I once again do not want to make excuses for criminals, but there are real economic and social issues that can lead ethnic youth down the wrong path, and that's just as much true for white people as well. I grew up in Oakland in California, one of the highest murder rates in the country, and though there's certainly dangerous areas, these cities still have much to offer and can't be forgotten.

I only stomp on those who have it coming to them. The clean debate zone is a great place for those who like to play nice.

The facts are the facts. Just because they don't make everyone feel warm and fuzzy inside is no reason not to discuss them---as long as there is some measure of respect.

The better one understands the world around him, the better one can cope. You can't judge a person on their outside appearance. I work with all types of people about every day and don't have a problem with it. That is unless they smell really bad---like this one kid (White) this morning who about knocked me over once I opened the door. But you can look at groups of people in certain areas, see what they have been doing, and use common sense. All of Oaklnad isn't as bad as the areas where all the murders have been going on. I would hope you know walking around them isn't wise.

Looking at all the factors that influence crime over the years I have been able to put 2 and 2 together and see what all high crime areas have in common---as I already stated. Even if all that I said was bull, ask yourself why did crime go up about 350% in the mid-1960's?

View attachment 26757
(click to enlarge)

Did the gun ownership rates go up 350%?
Did the guns suddenly become 350% more effective in just a few years?
Did Blacks and Hispanics themselves suddenly increase 350% in numbers?
Did poverty increase that much or did the economy shrink that much then?

What happened then?

The criminal justice system and laws became liberalized. Criminals were able to run amok in areas with weak Leftist leadership----as they do to this day in places like Oakland, Detroit, Atlanta and so on.

Well what do Republican mayors or leaders do that is different from Democrat ones? Specifically? I'm not saying you're wrong, I'd just be curious to know. Once again, I'm personally Independent so I have no strong feelings either way. Also, what are your personal solutions to these problems of rampant crime in these cities?

I'm also aware of the very, very important time period of the 1960s but not so very sure what gun violence has to do with things like the Civil Rights Act, nor do I know why there would be a huge boom in ethnic groups, though that's certainly possible I suppose. Was there another moment or piece of legislation that was more decisive during that time period?

In terms of your statistics, why would gun ownership go up and why would guns become more effective? Once again, just looking for a little insight.

To have high crime here in the US there are the the various factors that come together to create "the perfect storm."

First, as bad as it sounds, certain ethnics groups are statistically more violent. It isn't about profiling or racism, it just the way it is. I doubt if you can stomach much of it, but here is a basic overview of Dept of Justice stats:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w5JbAO5_NMw]F.B.I and U.S. Justice department Black vs White Crime statistics. - YouTube[/ame]

Second, were the laws and legislation of the time. Yes the Civil Rights laws were a big factor, but more so were rulings from Leftist judges, starting mainly with the Warren Court in the late 1950's with their disasterous Miranda laws. Police forces had their hands tied more and more. The liberal courts use of unlimited appeals, making prisons more comfortable and anit-death penalty laws all gave great aid and comfort to the criminal community.

Back before these laws took effect, an abusive loudmouth gangster in the hood would have been beaten or sometimes killed once he got back to the police station if he fought the cops. Police brutality did help create order in many areas that later exploded with violence after the mid-1960's.

Third, the culture of welfare dependancy, gangs and believing that "It's not my fault" all combine in these high crime areas to allow criminals to escape justice. Conviction rates are horribly low in all the high crime areas. DA's in these cities do their best to suppress this information. Criminals will do more crime and more violence when there is a good chance they will not have to do time for it.

The ignorant and dishonest people in this thread (who shall remain nameless) will give their great thesis that more guns = more crime. Notice how they cherry pick murder rates for Western countries like the UK with few guns, then surmise that gun control laws keep the planet safe for everyone. They fail to bring up gun statistics from the many other countries in Europe that have more guns and less crime---like Switzerland. About one home in four there have a fully automatic assault rifle in them. Crime is much lower there than the UK. Go figure. They will also mix in gun suicides in with homicides and call them "gun deaths" to support their work. In the US, the areas with the most guns per household like Wyoming and the Dakotas also have about the lowest violent crime and murder rates.