No one can give me a rational reason why

[hadit]

Uhh...we sold them like a zillion stinger anti-aircraft guns.

And they were able to drive the Russian military out of their country with hand-held arms. That's the point, they didn't have to have superior weaponry, they just had to make the cost of occupation too high.

 

[there4eyeM]

No one rational thinks overkill is necessary for self defense, either. Unfortunately, "rational thought" has left the building, and on more subjects than firearms..

 

[candycorn]

And they were able to drive the Russian military out of their country with hand-held arms. That's the point, they didn't have to have superior weaponry, they just had to make the cost of occupation too high.

They had a massive advantage in tactical arms. Helicopters became coffins. Small arms isn’t going to do that...no matter how many Rambo movies you’ve seen.

 

[there4eyeM]

And they were able to drive the Russian military out of their country with hand-held arms. That's the point, they didn't have to have superior weaponry, they just had to make the cost of occupation too high.

They were aided mostly by the terrain (which no one other than the Afghans really wants, either).

 

[Flash]

If you have no concerning issues on your police record, and on your driving record, and in your medical records, and you just have a reasonable reason to own/use one, then you're welcome to own and use one in the UK.

What you claim to be law abiding in the US, would likely fail in the UK. To be law abiding, your reason wouldn't be for the defense fallacy, willing to shoot others. You would fail if you do not secure your firearm in a secure cabinet. You would fail if someone else (even your spouse) gets access to the cabinet key and know it's whereabouts.

So you mean "law abiding" in the UK means to abide by oppressive gun laws? LOL!

 

[there4eyeM]

They had a massive advantage in tactical arms. Helicopters became coffins. Small arms isn’t going to do that...no matter how many Rambo movies you’ve seen.

The funniest thing is that they infer they could do the same as the Afghans if their nightmare government oppression came to be.

 

[Dadoalex]

No one can give me a rational reason why the average law abiding citizen should not be allowed to own firearms.

Saying that some people might commit crimes with guns is not a rational reason.

Saying that some people may kill themselves with a gun is not a rational reason

Why is speeding illegal?
Why is dumping toxic chemicals illegal?

Because doing those things presents a very real danger to innocents.

So does a firearm.
The bullet doesn't care who it injures or kills.

Very few people believe no one should be allowed to own a firearm.
But the rationale for the belief is sound.

I believe private ownership of semi-automatic weapons and their accessories should be banned. The risk from these weapons far exceeds any potential social value.

I believe all firearms and firearms transfers should be registered and reported. This reduces the probability that a gun owner will knowingly transfer a firearm to a criminal.

I believe firearm purchases should be limited to 1 per month per adult. This will reduce the probability of illegal straw buyer purchases.

 

[there4eyeM]

Why is speeding illegal?
Why is dumping toxic chemicals illegal?

Because doing those things presents a very real danger to innocents.

So does a firearm.
The bullet doesn't care who it injures or kills.

Very few people believe no one should be allowed to own a firearm.
But the rationale for the belief is sound.

I believe private ownership of semi-automatic weapons and their accessories should be banned. The risk from these weapons far exceeds any potential social value.

I believe all firearms and firearms transfers should be registered and reported. This reduces the probability that a gun owner will knowingly transfer a firearm to a criminal.

I believe firearm purchases should be limited to 1 per month per adult. This will reduce the probability of illegal straw buyer purchases.

Not especially unreasonable.

 

[hadit]

They had a massive advantage in tactical arms. Helicopters became coffins. Small arms isn’t going to do that...no matter how many Rambo movies you’ve seen.

The point remains, they took advantage of what they had and made the cost of occupation too high. In our country, should a democrat attempt to become a dictator and use the military to crack down on the people, there would not only be millions of small arms in the hands of millions of rednecks willing to hide in and strike from swamps and mountains, but there would also be mass defections from the military, including advanced weapons falling into the hands of said rednecks and highly trained soldiers who have trained on the very terrain they would now inhabit. It would not be a simple task and, should the will to remain free be strong enough, the cost of suppressing the people would be very high. I can see states seceding, asserting their autonomy, and military bases in their territory would fall into their control. Think of Texas and Florida seceding and all of the military hardware they have being used against the new dictator.

No, the best way to suppress the American people is to gradually acclimate them to dependency on the government for safety and basic necessities, then to find a scapegoat (usually the "rich") that can be blamed for problems to deflect attention from the government that is taking control over more and more parts of everyday life. At the same time, we need to put that same government deeper and deeper into debt, so the push becomes to continually raise taxes, to convince people that no one "needs" all that money they've worked a lifetime to accumulate, it's not fair that they can pass on wealth to their children, etc. Just make sure that no one seriously entertains the idea that government should actually spend LESS, not more.

And along with all of that, you need to keep pushing the narrative that no one should have guns, because reasons. They don't need one, big black scary looking guns are too dangerous, they're stupid for wanting guns, etc. At each step, you tighten the restrictions until the Constitution becomes meaningless and guns are rarely, if ever seen.

The ultimate goal is to transform the population into dependent, unarmed sheep, willing to accept whatever scraps their overlords give them and willing to fight to maintain the very oppression they're suffering. That's how you subjugate the American people.

 

[hadit]

They were aided mostly by the terrain (which no one other than the Afghans really wants, either).

They used what advantages they had. That's the point, and a powerful military isn't always going to win a long-term conflict against a very determined, albeit not as powerfully armed, populace. The British found that out in the 1770's, the Russians found that out in Afghanistan, America found that out in Vietnam, etc. Let's put it this way, it would be a LOT easier to dominate the American people if they did not have small arms readily available to them.

 

[candycorn]

The funniest thing is that they infer they could do the same as the Afghans if their nightmare government oppression came to be.

I don’t recall the mujaheen or the northern alliance posting on message boards

 

[candycorn]

They used what advantages they had. That's the point, and a powerful military isn't always going to win a long-term conflict against a very determined, albeit not as powerfully armed, populace. The British found that out in the 1770's, the Russians found that out in Afghanistan, America found that out in Vietnam, etc. Let's put it this way, it would be a LOT easier to dominate the American people if they did not have small arms readily available to them.

And all it took was Chinese and Russian made SAMs to level the playing field in Viet Nam. All it took was French help to defeat England. All it took....hell what’s the point. You’re too far gone to admit you’re wrong.

But lets look at your hilarious In every case that you mentioned...they were fighting for their independence.

Are you and your fellow gun nuts going to saddle up and fight to save California or are you guys going to cheer if they were invaded? Lie to us all and say that you’re going to fight. If you guys did saddle up, it would most likely be on the side of the invaders.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Because doing those things presents a very real danger to innocents.
So does a firearm.

Interesting.
Hoe does my simple ownership of firearms harm anyone?
How does it place anyone in a state of clear, present and immediate danger?

Very few people believe no one should be allowed to own a firearm.
But the rationale for the belief is sound.

Demonstrate this to be true.

I believe private ownership of semi-automatic weapons and their accessories should be banned. The risk from these weapons far exceeds any potential social value.

You can believe this all you want - the Constitution protects our right to own these weapons, and our right to same is not subject to means-end tests.

I believe all firearms and firearms transfers should be registered and reported. This reduces the probability that a gun owner will knowingly transfer a firearm to a criminal.

You can believe this all you want - the Constitution protects our right to own and use firearms from such restrictions, , and our right to same is not subject to means-end tests.

I believe firearm purchases should be limited to 1 per month per adult. This will reduce the probability of illegal straw buyer purchases.

You can believe this all you want - the Constitution protects our right to own and use firearms from such restrictions, , and our right to same is not subject to means-end tests.

 

[hadit]

And all it took was Chinese and Russian made SAMs to level the playing field in Viet Nam. All it took was French help to defeat England. All it took....hell what’s the point. You’re too far gone to admit you’re wrong.

And should America fall apart, other nations would be also entering the fray because they have a vested interest in one side of the equation or the other. The point remains, which no one has successfully countered, that a determined populace that has access to firearms and other weaponry, can successfully defeat even a more powerful military in the long run by making the cost of occupation greater than the benefits.

But lets look at your hilarious In every case that you mentioned...they were fighting for their independence.

As would be the rednecks determined to remain free.

Are you and your fellow gun nuts going to saddle up and fight to save California or are you guys going to cheer if they were invaded? Lie to us all and say that you’re going to fight. If you guys did saddle up, it would most likely be on the side of the invaders.

Total nonsense. You know nothing about me at all, yet you are childishly attempting to turn the discussion from arms to me. How dumb is that? You do realize, don't you, that you are undermining any credibility you may have had by doing that?

 

[Dadoalex]

Interesting.
Hoe does my simple ownership of firearms harm anyone?
How does it place anyone in a state of clear, present and immediate danger?

Demonstrate this to be true.

You can believe this all you want - the Constitution protects our right to own these weapons, and our right to same is not subject to means-end tests.

You can believe this all you want - the Constitution protects our right to own and use firearms from such restrictions, , and our right to same is not subject to means-end tests.

You can believe this all you want - the Constitution protects our right to own and use firearms from such restrictions, , and our right to same is not subject to means-end tests.

Explained in the part of the response you chose to edit out.
Demonstrate what to be true.

Repeating the same phrase over and over is a clear sign on senility or cultism.

In line quotes make the user appear even stupider than normal.


Try again.

 

[candycorn]

And should America fall apart, other nations would be also entering the fray because they have a vested interest in one side of the equation or the other. The point remains, which no one has successfully countered, that a determined populace that has access to firearms and other weaponry, can successfully defeat even a more powerful military in the long run by making the cost of occupation greater than the benefits.

Do you live in a state or on an Indian reservation? Give it some thought if you’re still capable.

Total nonsense. You know nothing about me at all, yet you are childishly attempting to turn the discussion from arms to me. How dumb is that? You do realize, don't you, that you are undermining any credibility you may have had by doing that?

You’re the guy who likes his chances with his side arm against a pave low warship...and you’re talking to me about my credibility?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Explained in the part of the response you chose to edit out.

The part I edited out does not address the questions I asked.

Repeating the same phrase over and over is a clear sign on senility or cultism.

All I see here is your inability to provide a meaningful response.

Try again.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Demonstrate what to be true.

You claimed:
Very few people believe no one should be allowed to own a firearm.
But the rationale for the belief is sound.

Demonstrate this to be true.

 

[Dadoalex]

The part I edited out does not address the questions I asked.

All I see here is your inability to provide a meaningful response.

Try again.

Exactly my point.
Try again.

 

[Dadoalex]

You claimed:
Very few people believe no one should be allowed to own a firearm.
But the rationale for the belief is sound.

Demonstrate this to be true.

Done. Your reading skills or lack thereof is not an issue I can address.

Why is speeding illegal?
Why is dumping toxic chemicals illegal?

Because doing those things presents a very real danger to innocents.

So does a firearm.
The bullet doesn't care who it injures or kills.