Quote:
|
Originally Posted by dksuddeth
you should be able to, you can't because a bunch of whiney pacifists were alarmed that people could walk down the street with a gun/sword/axe as a weapon out in public. We need to take that right back.
|
So you're in favor of anyone having any kind of weapon they want? Don't you think that would get a little insane?
Quote:
|
they do more than you think, granted not all of them, maybe not even half of them, but they do.
|
Ok so if not even half of them do, then at least 51% of gun owners are running around with a weapon they don't know how to use, that they aren't safe with, and that's therefore likely to get them or others hurt. Why is this a good idea again?
Quote:
|
They can't mow everyone down. Hell, they can't even stop a small guerilla force in iraq.
|
Well. . they COULD if they'd been allowed to do what they do rather than being sent over in numbers too small and with plans to hastilly thrown together.
Quote:
|
Having been a marine for 6 years, I can tell you that if given the order to kill their fellow citizens, almost half would rebel.
|
Good to hear! Then we shouldn't need as many guns should we? After the rebel half and the order following half eliminate much of each other, there won't be much of a military left over to oppress us. Now, let's take a crazy scenario and say that the rebel half is totally wiped out by the other half - the half that would go after us. We're now facing only half the armed forces. But they still have bombs, missiles, tanks, B52's, howitzers. . You name it. I say again there's no way that a lightly armed populace (after allw e don't all have those missile batteries in our driveways) is going to beat a heavilly armed elite fighting force. No way.
Quote:
|
They said the same thing about vietnam.
|
So you're relying on the military commanders being total dumbasses? That doesn't sound like a safe survival strategy to me.