You know what I mean and your just being an ass about it. Give me a break, I wrote that just before going to bed, you expect my posts to be perfect when I'm on the verge of sleep? I try to do my damndest to be civil about this and you start up with assinine statements like that.Bubbalo wrote:
Iraqi vets.........so, people who went in after Saddam was deposed?
Ok here we go again, this has been discussed and rediscussed many times. There is nothing that any of you anti gun supporters will ever say quote or bring up that will change the mind of any of us gun owners. What your trying to do is like convincing a church that there religion is wrong and they should give it up. There is nothing Wong or over kill about owning an "assault rifle" of any kind weather it be a .223 or .50bmg. Comparing the USA to any other country and its laws is like comparing apples to oranges, you just can't do it. My passion for guns is something that I was brought up on I have been shooting since I was 6 years old, it is part of my life and a Hobie to me. Just like collecting baseball cards or building computers, it is something I enjoy doing.
So they aren't Iraqi veterans?ts-pulsar wrote:
You know what I mean and your just being an ass about it. Give me a break, I wrote that just before going to bed, you expect my posts to be perfect when I'm on the verge of sleep? I try to do my damndest to be civil about this and you start up with assinine statements like that.
oh god, here we go again ...
I refer you to the statement above. And they are US troops who are veterans from Iraq.Bubbalo wrote:
So they aren't Iraqi veterans?ts-pulsar wrote:
You know what I mean and your just being an ass about it. Give me a break, I wrote that just before going to bed, you expect my posts to be perfect when I'm on the verge of sleep? I try to do my damndest to be civil about this and you start up with assinine statements like that.
So then they were there after the invasion, correct?
run run he's spooling up, run!
You know, Horseman, just because you can't think of anything wrong with my argument is no reason to be your bitchy little self. If it's that big a problem, why don't you go play with a gun or something, I hear lots of little kiddies die that way.
One of em was part of the invasion, the other three were part of the occupation, and one of em was a private contractor. And before you go yelling MERCENARY, he was a security guard for a construction company.
THe one I talked to the most though is a serious gun nut, and he talked with Iraqi's all the time about guns. He said they all pretty much said only baath party members could really have guns, it was kind of an unspoken knowledge.
THe one I talked to the most though is a serious gun nut, and he talked with Iraqi's all the time about guns. He said they all pretty much said only baath party members could really have guns, it was kind of an unspoken knowledge.
In warzone. Therefore, mercenary.ts-pulsar wrote:
security guard for a construction company.
So, basically:ts-pulsar wrote:
THe one I talked to the most though is a serious gun nut, and he talked with Iraqi's all the time about guns. He said they all pretty much said only baath party members could really have guns, it was kind of an unspoken knowledge.
We have to trust a guy you claim to know who claims to know what it was like, who would likely want to believe that that was the truth, because it wasn't actually a law, making it conveniently non-verifiable.
You have an interesting definition of mercenary.
But yes, that's essentially what it is. But here's my question, why would you assume that sadam would allow any of his enemies to be armed? This was a man that if you pissed him off, he would kill you, your family, and often times your whole tribe. Sadam wasn't dumb. And to assume that he would let just anyone carry gun's is a leap in logic I can't understand.
But yes, that's essentially what it is. But here's my question, why would you assume that sadam would allow any of his enemies to be armed? This was a man that if you pissed him off, he would kill you, your family, and often times your whole tribe. Sadam wasn't dumb. And to assume that he would let just anyone carry gun's is a leap in logic I can't understand.
Say "asshole" and watch who answers every tme.
asshole
Never mind, I stand corrected, finally got off my duff and did some research, seems Saddam was quite permisive of guns.
From wikipedia
Registration aside, personal gun rights advocates claim that an armed citizenry is a strong deterrent against a foreign invasion. They frequently cite tyrants who claimed to fear invading countries where the citizenry was heavily armed, or that they needed to disarm their own populace to be effective. Those contrary dispute these ideas, arguing that the US's two neighbors, Mexico and Canada, are unlikely ever to invade, although recent incursions across the border by Mexican troops protecting drug traffickers weaken this argument[31]. However, it has not been determined that purpose of the incursions were to protect drug traffickers. During the Pacific War, Japan rejected the idea of invading the West Coast of the United States, and one reason was the presence of millions of armed civilians who regularly competed in state marksmanship matches. As noted after the war by one Japanese Admiral, "We knew that your country actually had state championships for private citizens shooting military rifles. We were not fools to set foot in such quicksand." [32] In the 2003 documentary Innocents Betrayed, Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership advanced the claim that gun control laws have been a critical part of all genocides in the twentieth century. The documentary referred to laws restricting gun ownership to government officials passed in Nazi Germany, the USSR, and elsewhere. It is observed that in many cases, a leader with plans of dictatorship will often ban guns from the area he wishes to control, thus preventing any uprising that could ever threaten his reign (examples include Hitler and Stalin). The evidence for this claim has also been challenged by scholars who have pointed out that Nazi gun laws were less restrictive than those of the democratic Weimar government (albeit not for Jews), and that the gun laws in Iraq under Saddam Hussein were extremely permissive. However this argument is weakened by the fact that it does not take into account the cultural-conditioning of both of these societies, neither which had lengthy traditions of freedom or self-determination. By contrast, guns in the hands of groups that fit a militia model have been quite effective against much larger and better organized forces.
Basically the concept of civil revolt was a foreign idea to Iraqi's, which is why it never happen in any serious matter. The kurd's tried a couple times, but never had the numbers to back it up.
From wikipedia
Registration aside, personal gun rights advocates claim that an armed citizenry is a strong deterrent against a foreign invasion. They frequently cite tyrants who claimed to fear invading countries where the citizenry was heavily armed, or that they needed to disarm their own populace to be effective. Those contrary dispute these ideas, arguing that the US's two neighbors, Mexico and Canada, are unlikely ever to invade, although recent incursions across the border by Mexican troops protecting drug traffickers weaken this argument[31]. However, it has not been determined that purpose of the incursions were to protect drug traffickers. During the Pacific War, Japan rejected the idea of invading the West Coast of the United States, and one reason was the presence of millions of armed civilians who regularly competed in state marksmanship matches. As noted after the war by one Japanese Admiral, "We knew that your country actually had state championships for private citizens shooting military rifles. We were not fools to set foot in such quicksand." [32] In the 2003 documentary Innocents Betrayed, Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership advanced the claim that gun control laws have been a critical part of all genocides in the twentieth century. The documentary referred to laws restricting gun ownership to government officials passed in Nazi Germany, the USSR, and elsewhere. It is observed that in many cases, a leader with plans of dictatorship will often ban guns from the area he wishes to control, thus preventing any uprising that could ever threaten his reign (examples include Hitler and Stalin). The evidence for this claim has also been challenged by scholars who have pointed out that Nazi gun laws were less restrictive than those of the democratic Weimar government (albeit not for Jews), and that the gun laws in Iraq under Saddam Hussein were extremely permissive. However this argument is weakened by the fact that it does not take into account the cultural-conditioning of both of these societies, neither which had lengthy traditions of freedom or self-determination. By contrast, guns in the hands of groups that fit a militia model have been quite effective against much larger and better organized forces.
Basically the concept of civil revolt was a foreign idea to Iraqi's, which is why it never happen in any serious matter. The kurd's tried a couple times, but never had the numbers to back it up.
So then, we can safely say that an armed populace does not equal good governance?
So American society is violent?AlbertWesker[RE] wrote:
Its a different culture and society, you have different history, and much different growth than what the U.S. went through from 1960-1990. You can't compare Sweden and the U.S. like that.Nehil wrote:
People in Sweden don't have guns... we have VERY few murders each year, even when concidering our population... Did I mention that nobody's got guns in Sweden? See a connection? Less guns <-> Less murders
And yes I'm a non-pro-gun-freak-fucking-no-good-lazy-crazy-socialist. But still seems like have it better over here with socialists running our country...
No, but we do have a sub culture of people who have lived in government housing for 12 generations,
while on welfare, breeding like rats, abandoning their young at birth, committing unspeakable crimes.
9 percent of our society commit 94% of our crimes.
Another failed experiment of the Liberal elite.
This is their resume, their track record, their legacy that has come home to roost.
Now they have " New Ideas " Yet they are dumbfounded that we show little interest in letting them run things.
while on welfare, breeding like rats, abandoning their young at birth, committing unspeakable crimes.
9 percent of our society commit 94% of our crimes.
Another failed experiment of the Liberal elite.
This is their resume, their track record, their legacy that has come home to roost.
Now they have " New Ideas " Yet they are dumbfounded that we show little interest in letting them run things.
12 generations? Thats more than 120 years. How could a policy formed 120 years ago reflect on any politician today?Horseman 77 wrote:
No, but we do have a sub culture of people who have lived in government housing for 12 generations,
while on welfare, breeding like rats, abandoning their young at birth, committing unspeakable crimes.
9 percent of our society commit 94% of our crimes.
Another failed experiment of the Liberal elite.
This is their resume, their track record, their legacy that has come home to roost.
Now they have " New Ideas " Yet they are dumbfounded that we show little interest in letting them run things.
I can't believe I have to field such a remark, Small wonder we go round and round here. Ask a Native American that qeustion.jonsimon wrote:
12 generations? Thats more than 120 years. How could a policy formed 120 years ago reflect on any politician today?Horseman 77 wrote:
No, but we do have a sub culture of people who have lived in government housing for 12 generations,
while on welfare, breeding like rats, abandoning their young at birth, committing unspeakable crimes.
9 percent of our society commit 94% of our crimes.
Another failed experiment of the Liberal elite.
This is their resume, their track record, their legacy that has come home to roost.
Now they have " New Ideas " Yet they are dumbfounded that we show little interest in letting them run things.
Sorry, You have absolutely no real perspective on our problems here.
For one, the sad part is 12 generations isnt a long time for these people, give it a bit, You will get it.
Last edited by Horseman 77 (2006-09-05 16:45:29)
You're saying someone can have children BEFORE they hit puberty? For a line of 12 generations to pass, it would take approximately 180 years. Assumming each parent has a child at age 15. It's physically impossible for 12 generations to pass in less than 120 years. The passage of 12 generations is ALWAYS variable for EVERYONE depending on the age at which each generation has children.Horseman 77 wrote:
I can't believe I have to field such a remark, Small wonder we go round and round here. Ask a Native American that qeustion.jonsimon wrote:
12 generations? Thats more than 120 years. How could a policy formed 120 years ago reflect on any politician today?Horseman 77 wrote:
No, but we do have a sub culture of people who have lived in government housing for 12 generations,
while on welfare, breeding like rats, abandoning their young at birth, committing unspeakable crimes.
9 percent of our society commit 94% of our crimes.
Another failed experiment of the Liberal elite.
This is their resume, their track record, their legacy that has come home to roost.
Now they have " New Ideas " Yet they are dumbfounded that we show little interest in letting them run things.
Sorry, You have absolutely no real perspective on our problems here.
For one, the sad part is 12 generations doesn't take any set amount of time for these people, give it a bit, You will get it.
Obviously I'm the one without perspective.
Last edited by jonsimon (2006-09-05 16:48:06)
I never claimed any of these things, address what I said only. I said 12 generations. You said 120 years I did not, I said " doesn't take a Set amount of time ". 15 is prime breeding age, most have a child by then.
It is common to see a toddler in the street at 2am with no adult nearby. This is part of the problem unique to the USA
It is common to see a toddler in the street at 2am with no adult nearby. This is part of the problem unique to the USA
Yes, and 120 years is the bare minimum assuming every generation hits puberty before 10 and has a child at the age of 10. So, your allegation of 12 generations is equal to a minimum of 120 years.Horseman 77 wrote:
I never claimed any of these things, address what I said only. I said 12 generations. You said 120 years I did not, I said " doesn't take a Set amount of time ". 15 is prime breeding age, most have a child by then.
It is common to see a toddler in the street at 2am with no adult nearby. This is part of the problem unique to the USA
And for the record, I've never heard of or seen a toddler in any street anywhere at anytime.
Sorry, it's far from common.Horseman 77 wrote:
It is common to see a toddler in the street at 2am with no adult nearby. This is part of the problem unique to the USA
You're either delusional or you see hallucinations.....
Agreed, but there are many other factors. Like I said in my post, a lot of it comes down to culture. I think you and I both know that a Saddam style government wouldn't work in the states, there are too many people who would go into open rebellion over it. If even only 1% actually rebelled, that's still 3 million people, and I htink it would be closer to 10%, I don't care if a Saddam like leader had the entire US military (not likely, they'd most likely be in revolt as well) at his disposal, they can't take on 30 million.Bubbalo wrote:
So then, we can safely say that an armed populace does not equal good governance?
I direct you to Spearhead's sig.................