Originally posted by Bardock42
Really, if the military would turn on the population...how would the Constitution protect you?Who would enforce it?
the marines, pretty sure our commandant would back the ppl regardless of his orders from some insane president a little thing called honor ingrained in him would make him make right choice.
besides most marines would obey our commandant over the president even though we swore to obey the president, the loophole states "to obey only all lawful and legal orders."
besides most military ppl would have a hard time enforcing their power to relatives and towns, cities from where they originated especially if friends and relatives were injured. the army would be split in the middle.
besides i doubt you can get all branches to obey some insane president or military general commander. you got the air force, navy, army and marines.
you also have cops, fbi cia the whole scenario is very unlikely.
You realize that certain military higher ups have used their popularity to secure the military's allegiance and then use it to dispose of the current elected government and install their own regime, and so it isn't beyond the realm of possibility.
Fear not though, if we listen to Repcon/Conserv talking heads, Obama is going to make himself King (or is it Sultan?) of America, just a matter of time.
Originally posted by Robtard
You realize that certain military higher ups have used their popularity to secure the military's allegiance and then use it to dispose of the current elected government and install their own regime, and so it isn't beyond the realm of possibility.Fear not though, if we listen to Repcon/Conserv talking heads, Obama is going to make himself King (or is it Sultan?) of America, just a matter of time.
i was stating that it is very unlikely that military would follow some insane american president against his own ppl or let him put himself in power for life or something stupid like that.
now if it were a military commandant then yes they have a better chance to secure their mens loyalty, i know i would follow my commandant for the right reasons to overthrow our government most likely i side with him out of a sense of loyalty and superiority from the common man.
And so? Big deal!
I've got like 1 back in Chicago and 5 in the Philippines, all legal.
Heck, it's even easier to buy guns in the Phils.
No need for training. If you're past the legal age of 18, you can get a license lol. And guns there are a lot cheaper than in the US.
Guns are strictly prohibited here in Dubai, though.
Originally posted by jinXed by JaNx
You need to stop telling people to stop being stupid...unless, of course, you know how to handle and dismantle a firearm. Properly trained gun owners never...,NEVER draw their weapon unless they intend to use it and if they intend to use it, well, just like the military, they will rarely miss. It is the illegally owned guns that you need to worry about. I guarantee you that if you were stuck in a room with five strangers and a lunatic with a big ass weapon, you would feel a whole lot better once that person hit the floor from a fellow citizen carrying a concealed handgun.
Originally posted by Bardock42If not fired, the gun would threaten the lunatic and cause him to panic and go more crazy. If fired, you have the potential to kill a human being.
That, is ridiculous. If there is a real crazy person determined to kill as many people as they can in the room, a gun on the people in the room, won't make the situation worse.I would agree that in a standard armed robbery odds are it might, but that doesn't really matter...
Though it is hardly the point regardless, the actually innocent people should have the right to protect themselves as good as they can, if they so choose. Police officers are also just people, and people that can't always be where you are at to protect you.
And your implications are silly, if you can't argue with facts, maybe you shouldn't argue at all.
Much more reasonable approach is to **** firearms. Whenever someone is armed, disarm him. *You know, sneaking up behind, pulling his arm back and letting him drop the heavy mother ****er on his foot.* Infact, don't they have classes to teach you this stuff? If not, they should.
And what if the lunatic doesn't have a gun, which you seem to both assume he does. Striking fear into a crazy person is a pretty inane idea.
*Due to your past redardations, Bardock, I feel it mandatory to point this out.
That was a hyperthetical example, not a suggestion.
Guns are ****ing stupid anyway. To willingly carry something as dangerous as that means one thing. You're willing to risk harming and killing another person.
Originally posted by lord xyz
Much more reasonable approach is to **** firearms. Whenever someone is armed, disarm him. *You know, sneaking up behind, pulling his arm back and letting him drop the heavy mother ****er on his foot.* Infact, don't they have classes to teach you this stuff? If not, they should.
How do sneak up behind someone who pointing a weapon at you?
Originally posted by lord xyz
Distraction? Gas? Fear? When he's looking away?Not really the point or to be taken seriously. It was merely an idea of stopping guns without guns.
Originally posted by leonheartmm
civlians shudnt be able to own firearms PERIOD. they dont protect against government opressions, they are not effective as self defence weapons, they are not necessary. they only bring death/greif/escalation in violence for the greater part. this is proven by statistics.mini guns are ugly.
People should definitely be allowed to own guns. Requirements that you have some training in how to use them properly would be nice.
Originally posted by leonheartmm
civlians shudnt be able to own firearms PERIOD. they dont protect against government opressions, they are not effective as self defence weapons, they are not necessary. they only bring death/greif/escalation in violence for the greater part. this is proven by statistics.mini guns are ugly.
The only truthful "statistic" is that criminals will have guns whether there are laws against guns or not.
Citizens should have weapons if they so desire.
American's do have guns and will fight to keep that right.
Originally posted by leonheartmm
^not with effective government. and its a moot point since non criminals having guns does not makes them safer from the criminals with guns. citizens shud never have weapons. and stupid people have always fought for stupid things, like protecting the sanctity of marriage.
Back up your facts.
Show statistics where, when guns were "effecitvely" removed from a country/city/state/province, and violent crimes went down. If you can demostrate this, then I'll "switch" sides.
I am not swayed by words.
As "evidence" used, you must cite your sources.
Originally posted by dadudemon
Back up your facts.Show statistics where, when guns were "effecitvely" removed from a country/city/state/province, and violent crimes went down. If you can demostrate this, then I'll "switch" sides.
I am not swayed by words.
As "evidence" used, you must cite your sources.
with you challenging my point, the burden of proof is on you to prove that HAVING guns lowers the effectiveness of armed crime and saves lives and does not contribute to armed crime rates.
Originally posted by leonheartmm
with you challenging my point, the burden of proof is on you to prove that HAVING guns lowers the effectiveness of armed crime and saves lives and does not contribute to armed crime rates.
No, sorry, proof is on you.
You are challenging the point, not I. The point being the already legal gun rights.
In other words, you don't have proof and it's empty rhetoric. More to the point, you are just another ignorant fool who believes something out of ignorance.
Prove that removing guns from America would make it safer. If you prove that, I will back you up. I will switch sides. How hard is that? Is it REALLY that difficult to do? If you believe so strongly in something, don't you think you'd know more about it?
Prove it, prove it, prove it.