tyrannical laws.
You clearly fucking don't.-Sh1fty- wrote:
So the American revolution should have never happened? Do you even know why there was a revolution?Cybargs wrote:
You mean like the tyrannical laws that were stopping american colonists from moving into indian territory when a the british were upholding their alliance with the iroquois? or the tyrannical "taxes" imposed by the crown (which were FAR lower than any part of the british crown at the time).-Sh1fty- wrote:
Tyranny is a threat that always looms silently. The colonists didn't expect the British to impose tyrannical laws anymore than we expect Obama to do so today. .
shifty just please please please shut up.
how are you going to revolt? are you thinking this through? your government has nukes, subs, space satellites, a navy, and high-tech air. your government has one of the largest and most well-equipped armies in the world. your government has one of the most advanced (and insidious) intelligent services in the world. a semi-automatic rifle is going to help you revolt... how... exactly? are you going to shoot down the nuclear bombers with your AR-15?-Sh1fty- wrote:
So that we're all on the same page here, you're saying we should get rid of semi-automatic assault rifles because we won't need them for a revolution?Pochsy wrote:
When did that become my argument? I think my conclusion was actually that semi-automatic rifles are not warranted, but we'll roll with it.
Who is the US fighting? You're in an arms race with the government with that mentality...which apparently culminates in semi-auto rifles for the farmers, and "uber cool high tech shit" for the government.
So let's take the advantage of the semi-auto, or why any of the examples given have worked out for the farmers. I'd say, in honesty, it was gorilla warfare, and not the guns type that worked out for them. You know, not looking like the enemy, the element of surprise, using unconventional weapons. Now, a pistol, that's a small weapon. You can carry one of those and not look like the enemy if you choose. Sounds like a step in the right direction.
There's no conclusion to this; you'll make one up for me.
I recall something about a tea party. I blame Fox News!-Sh1fty- wrote:
So the American revolution should have never happened? Do you even know why there was a revolution?
The tea tax was too high, so we revolted.
If the women don't find ya handsome. They should at least find ya handy.
We were already revolting.
Yes. You won't need them for a revolution you want to win. If you want to lose, stand in a line with large rifles. It'll totally be like the good-old-days. It has to work again.-Sh1fty- wrote:
So that we're all on the same page here, you're saying we should get rid of semi-automatic assault rifles because we won't need them for a revolution?Pochsy wrote:
When did that become my argument? I think my conclusion was actually that semi-automatic rifles are not warranted, but we'll roll with it.
Who is the US fighting? You're in an arms race with the government with that mentality...which apparently culminates in semi-auto rifles for the farmers, and "uber cool high tech shit" for the government.
So let's take the advantage of the semi-auto, or why any of the examples given have worked out for the farmers. I'd say, in honesty, it was gorilla warfare, and not the guns type that worked out for them. You know, not looking like the enemy, the element of surprise, using unconventional weapons. Now, a pistol, that's a small weapon. You can carry one of those and not look like the enemy if you choose. Sounds like a step in the right direction.
There's no conclusion to this; you'll make one up for me.
The shape of an eye in front of the ocean, digging for stones and throwing them against its window pane. Take it down dreamer, take it down deep. - Other Families
You know that 30% of americans joined the revolution, 20% were loyalists and the rest of the 50% didn't really care right?-Sh1fty- wrote:
So the American revolution should have never happened? Do you even know why there was a revolution?Cybargs wrote:
You mean like the tyrannical laws that were stopping american colonists from moving into indian territory when a the british were upholding their alliance with the iroquois? or the tyrannical "taxes" imposed by the crown (which were FAR lower than any part of the british crown at the time).-Sh1fty- wrote:
Tyranny is a threat that always looms silently. The colonists didn't expect the British to impose tyrannical laws anymore than we expect Obama to do so today. .
shifty just please please please shut up.
Fun fact: You know why the east india company needed the british government's help on tea supply in the colonies? Because the american colonists were smuggling spanish and french teas. Not to mention the fact that the colonists were kinda a bunch of dicks especially in the religion department and in fucking up all the treaties with indians by just moving west when told not to.
The British had the best army in the world and that didn't help them. Granted we owe the French.aynrandroolz wrote:
how are you going to revolt? are you thinking this through? your government has nukes, subs, space satellites, a navy, and high-tech air. your government has one of the largest and most well-equipped armies in the world. your government has one of the most advanced (and insidious) intelligent services in the world. a semi-automatic rifle is going to help you revolt... how... exactly? are you going to shoot down the nuclear bombers with your AR-15?-Sh1fty- wrote:
So that we're all on the same page here, you're saying we should get rid of semi-automatic assault rifles because we won't need them for a revolution?Pochsy wrote:
When did that become my argument? I think my conclusion was actually that semi-automatic rifles are not warranted, but we'll roll with it.
Who is the US fighting? You're in an arms race with the government with that mentality...which apparently culminates in semi-auto rifles for the farmers, and "uber cool high tech shit" for the government.
So let's take the advantage of the semi-auto, or why any of the examples given have worked out for the farmers. I'd say, in honesty, it was gorilla warfare, and not the guns type that worked out for them. You know, not looking like the enemy, the element of surprise, using unconventional weapons. Now, a pistol, that's a small weapon. You can carry one of those and not look like the enemy if you choose. Sounds like a step in the right direction.
There's no conclusion to this; you'll make one up for me.
And above your tomb, the stars will belong to us.
If guns were banned and there was a revolution, I'm pretty sure American rebels would be able to outfit themselves with military-grade weapons and vehicles.
On a more somber note, I wonder how many bomber pilots would actually be willing to drop the thing on an American city when it came down to it.zeek wrote:
are you going to shoot down the nuclear bombers with your AR-15?
It is, in no way a comparable situation.-Sh1fty- wrote:
The British had the best army in the world and that didn't help them. Granted we owe the French.aynrandroolz wrote:
how are you going to revolt? are you thinking this through? your government has nukes, subs, space satellites, a navy, and high-tech air. your government has one of the largest and most well-equipped armies in the world. your government has one of the most advanced (and insidious) intelligent services in the world. a semi-automatic rifle is going to help you revolt... how... exactly? are you going to shoot down the nuclear bombers with your AR-15?-Sh1fty- wrote:
So that we're all on the same page here, you're saying we should get rid of semi-automatic assault rifles because we won't need them for a revolution?
You're both correct to an extent, most people have stupid reasons for wanting a weapon, either that or they can't articulate their argument coherently. Concealed carry makes me uncomfortable, walking around with a weapon on your hip all day reeks of paranoia, but I understand and recognize that people who go through the licensure procedures are statistically not people I need to actually worry about. That said, I don't think wanting to defend ones home is at all irrational and I really don't care what weapons people use to do so, as long as they understand they are liable for murder if their stray bullets kill a neighbor.aynrandroolz wrote:
exactly. so far all these "people coming into my house to rape my wife and children" / "people crazed on drugs and immune to bullets" are strictly non-rational, emotive, fear-driven arguments. hardly cold rationality. an emotional response to want to ban guns - because of the poor children! - is about as objective a formulation as "i want an m16 because people on meth won't die to a 9mm pistol".KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
Needing a weapon for self defense and/or to fight black helicopters is an emotive argument. So you should probably have a low tolerance for people who argue from that perspective too.Jay wrote:
No, gun control advocates in general tend to annoy me. I have a low tolerance for any argument built on emotion.
As for the tyranny arguments, most of them are stupid, yeah, but the same people complaining about guns and the right wing extremists now were endorsing Bushitler t-shirts 5 years ago
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
You realize lots of people in the military are gun-totting patriots who defend the constitution and shit right? ever heard of oathkeeper nutbags? Didn't work too well in the civil war when lots of generals deserted the union army and fought for their states.aynrandroolz wrote:
how are you going to revolt? are you thinking this through? your government has nukes, subs, space satellites, a navy, and high-tech air. your government has one of the largest and most well-equipped armies in the world. your government has one of the most advanced (and insidious) intelligent services in the world. a semi-automatic rifle is going to help you revolt... how... exactly? are you going to shoot down the nuclear bombers with your AR-15?-Sh1fty- wrote:
So that we're all on the same page here, you're saying we should get rid of semi-automatic assault rifles because we won't need them for a revolution?Pochsy wrote:
When did that become my argument? I think my conclusion was actually that semi-automatic rifles are not warranted, but we'll roll with it.
Who is the US fighting? You're in an arms race with the government with that mentality...which apparently culminates in semi-auto rifles for the farmers, and "uber cool high tech shit" for the government.
So let's take the advantage of the semi-auto, or why any of the examples given have worked out for the farmers. I'd say, in honesty, it was gorilla warfare, and not the guns type that worked out for them. You know, not looking like the enemy, the element of surprise, using unconventional weapons. Now, a pistol, that's a small weapon. You can carry one of those and not look like the enemy if you choose. Sounds like a step in the right direction.
There's no conclusion to this; you'll make one up for me.
In Egypt the military didn't even help the government.
And above your tomb, the stars will belong to us.
same in pretty much all revolutions, but just having a ton of guns in civilian hands do help.-Sh1fty- wrote:
In Egypt the military didn't even help the government.
Egypt was actually being lead by a despot.
If the women don't find ya handsome. They should at least find ya handy.
ARE YOU SAYING OBAMA ISNT A DESPOT? ITS 1776 ALL OVER AND SANDY HOOK WAS A HOAXUnkleRukus wrote:
Egypt was actually being lead by a despot.
all past shootings in the US, almost all occur in 'gun free zones'? Tha fuck?Cybargs wrote:
MOAB, if you look at all the past shootings in the US, almost all of them occur in a "gun free zone."
If you mean mass shootings, yes. They also...take place where there are a lot of people. Yes, areas with a lot of people are usually gun-free zones - for good reason. Your comment adds nothing of value...what a suprise.
"For good reason" What reason is that Ken? If I buy a handgun and go to a school do you think I'm going to use it to kill children? No I'll just shoot my kid's teacher because I don't like the grade she gave him. That is why we need schools to be a gun free zone. All those damn gun-totting Americans are so trigger happy that if they see a bunch of people together they'll immediately unload.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
all past shootings in the US, almost all occur in 'gun free zones'? Tha fuck?Cybargs wrote:
MOAB, if you look at all the past shootings in the US, almost all of them occur in a "gun free zone."
If you mean mass shootings, yes. They also...take place where there are a lot of people. Yes, areas with a lot of people are usually gun-free zones - for good reason. Your comment adds nothing of value...what a suprise.
Gun-free zone is a law made by people detached from reality. The only person who would shoot up a bunch of people is crazy and won't give a fuck about gun free zones.
I'm pretty sure Adam Lanza went on Google before the Sandy Hook shooting to check and see if the school was a gun free zone. It's a shame he couldn't find anything saying it was gun free because if he did I'm sure he wouldn't have gone through with his plan.
And above your tomb, the stars will belong to us.
What kind of stupid argument is that? What use is a navy or nuclear bombs against an insurrection? The Afghanis, Iraqis and Vietnamese didn't need tanks or aircraft, just the will to fight and die for an idea.aynrandroolz wrote:
how are you going to revolt? are you thinking this through? your government has nukes, subs, space satellites, a navy, and high-tech air. your government has one of the largest and most well-equipped armies in the world. your government has one of the most advanced (and insidious) intelligent services in the world. a semi-automatic rifle is going to help you revolt... how... exactly? are you going to shoot down the nuclear bombers with your AR-15?-Sh1fty- wrote:
So that we're all on the same page here, you're saying we should get rid of semi-automatic assault rifles because we won't need them for a revolution?Pochsy wrote:
When did that become my argument? I think my conclusion was actually that semi-automatic rifles are not warranted, but we'll roll with it.
Who is the US fighting? You're in an arms race with the government with that mentality...which apparently culminates in semi-auto rifles for the farmers, and "uber cool high tech shit" for the government.
So let's take the advantage of the semi-auto, or why any of the examples given have worked out for the farmers. I'd say, in honesty, it was gorilla warfare, and not the guns type that worked out for them. You know, not looking like the enemy, the element of surprise, using unconventional weapons. Now, a pistol, that's a small weapon. You can carry one of those and not look like the enemy if you choose. Sounds like a step in the right direction.
There's no conclusion to this; you'll make one up for me.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
"the will to fight and die for an idea" is laughable rhetoric. it's funny that you're super cynical about most things but then will consider the iraq-afghan war and the vietnamese communist conflict (?!?!) in such absurdly idealist terms. none of those three conflicts were won by 'ordinary' people with ordinary ordnance fighting for an idea. they were all unanimously won by superior technology and massive geopolitical pressure. similarly, none of those states had anywhere near the military-industrial or intelligence complex of a modern superstate. there is simply no comparison.Jay wrote:
What kind of stupid argument is that? What use is a navy or nuclear bombs against an insurrection? The Afghanis, Iraqis and Vietnamese didn't need tanks or aircraft, just the will to fight and die for an idea.aynrandroolz wrote:
how are you going to revolt? are you thinking this through? your government has nukes, subs, space satellites, a navy, and high-tech air. your government has one of the largest and most well-equipped armies in the world. your government has one of the most advanced (and insidious) intelligent services in the world. a semi-automatic rifle is going to help you revolt... how... exactly? are you going to shoot down the nuclear bombers with your AR-15?-Sh1fty- wrote:
So that we're all on the same page here, you're saying we should get rid of semi-automatic assault rifles because we won't need them for a revolution?
syria is a good example of a 'modern' state with fairly modern weaponry against a so-called 'popular' revolt. it's a massacre. and assad isn't even using the full tools at his disposal. as for whether or not the military would side with the state in a modern american revolution... who knows. for every committed patriot there's a neocon imbued with the conservative politics of fear, ceding control merrily to the state apparatus in return for supposed safety and stability. i just don't see why people hang onto semi-auto weapons as seemingly 'vital' tools for rebellion.
Last edited by aynrandroolz (2013-01-23 11:29:02)
Yeah war is completely a matter of mathematics and nothing to do with hearts and minds, that's why america did so well in vietnam and even better in afghanistan! look at their K/D ratio!aynrandroolz wrote:
"the will to fight and die for an idea" is laughable rhetoric. it's funny that you're super cynical about most things but then will consider the iraq-afghan war and the vietnamese communist conflict (?!?!) in such absurdly idealist terms. none of those three conflicts were won by 'ordinary' people with ordinary ordnance fighting for an idea. they were all unanimously won by superior technology and massive geopolitical pressure. similarly, none of those states had anywhere near the military-industrial or intelligence complex of a modern superstate. there is simply no comparison.Jay wrote:
What kind of stupid argument is that? What use is a navy or nuclear bombs against an insurrection? The Afghanis, Iraqis and Vietnamese didn't need tanks or aircraft, just the will to fight and die for an idea.aynrandroolz wrote:
how are you going to revolt? are you thinking this through? your government has nukes, subs, space satellites, a navy, and high-tech air. your government has one of the largest and most well-equipped armies in the world. your government has one of the most advanced (and insidious) intelligent services in the world. a semi-automatic rifle is going to help you revolt... how... exactly? are you going to shoot down the nuclear bombers with your AR-15?
syria is a good example of a 'modern' state with fairly modern weaponry against a so-called 'popular' revolt. it's a massacre. and assad isn't even using the full tools at his disposal. as for whether or not the military would side with the state in a modern american revolution... who knows. for every committed patriot there's a neocon imbued with the conservative politics of fear, ceding control merrily to the state apparatus in return for supposed safety and stability. i just don't see why people hang onto semi-auto weapons as seemingly 'vital' tools for rebellion.
The French and American Revolutions were very bloody and thousands died. Freedom isn't free is a phrase that holds true.aynrandroolz wrote:
syria is a good example of a 'modern' state with fairly modern weaponry against a so-called 'popular' revolt. it's a massacre. and assad isn't even using the full tools at his disposal. as for whether or not the military would side with the state in a modern american revolution... who knows. for every committed patriot there's a neocon imbued with the conservative politics of fear, ceding control merrily to the state apparatus in return for supposed safety and stability. i just don't see why people hang onto semi-auto weapons as seemingly 'vital' tools for rebellion.
And above your tomb, the stars will belong to us.
wow
is that on the immigration test?
is that on the immigration test?