Enough of this shit - Page 9 - Snowboarding Forum - Snowboard Enthusiast Forums
 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 12-27-2012, 08:58 AM   #81 (permalink)
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 17
Default

I did not read a majority of the posts in this thread because I started seeing one general trend: Ban assault rifles.

Unfortunately, a ban would only take them out of the hands of those persons who are responsible (a majority).

Do you really think a ban will take away all unregistered/illegally obtained firearms? If you do, then you truly are naive. How many shootings are orchestrated with registered weapons? Slim to none.

A ban will solve nothing. The only thing it will do is make it so only those who have the means to obtain these weapons illegally have them, and guess what, there will still be robberies/shootings, etc. completed using assault rifles.
aftershock141 is offline  
Old 12-27-2012, 09:25 AM   #82 (permalink)
The Rooster King
 
ShredLife's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Oregon
Posts: 3,262
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Snowolf View Post
No matter how many AR-15`s people have, they are no match for drones, stealth fighter or chemical weapons, not to mention tactical nuclear wepons. Our guns don`t mean jack shit to the government if push came to shove. You bring up another point entirely and that is an entirely different argument.
to be fair this is not a valid point.

we do not know what would happen in a true civil war or a widespread rebellion intent on overthrowing the government.

- for one, very large percentages of our military would side with the people. the government is widely unliked.

- if the US government started to use overwhelming force against its civilians pretty much the entire world community would be jizzing all over itself to create a coalition to destroy the us government. most countries - even our political allies would jump at the chance to be on the right side of history of an american revolution.

- maybe no the best example but look at syria - yea they're using planes and helis to decimate the population, and they kill hundreds of people - but the rebels are winning the war. they're winning because foreign countries are getting arms to them, more and more military is defecting, and Assad knows that if he uses chemical weapons then that will be the day he feels the full might of western and israeli military power and game over.

now, i'm not sitting at home trying to plan some kind of uprising here but if i really stop and think about it this is what i think.
ShredLife is offline  
Old 12-27-2012, 09:32 AM   #83 (permalink)
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 1,031
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by aftershock141 View Post
Unfortunately, a ban would only take them out of the hands of those persons who are responsible (a majority).

Do you really think a ban will take away all unregistered/illegally obtained firearms?
Actually, a ban has worked to radically reduce the number of illegal weapons over time in other countries: Japan, for example.

It is estimated by the Department of Justice that 90% of the illegal guns in the US are produced in the US and are either stolen from their legal owners or are sold illegally by licensed gun shops. The attrition rate for existing weapons is generally agreed to be about 2%.

So yes, over time a ban will take away the majority of illegally obtained weapons if adequately enforced.

Whether or not Americans would agree to the enforcement is the fundamental question.
Bones is offline  
Old 12-27-2012, 10:03 AM   #84 (permalink)
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Front range, CO
Posts: 278
Default

News is reporting that the "assault weapon" at the school shooting was now found in his car. Supposedly there's video of that also, I haven't seen it yet though. Funny, how the Medical Examiner said all the wounds were inflicted with a long gun. Yet now they're reporting the 3 guns that were found inside were all handguns. Sounds like the liberal agenda at work...

Last edited by StreetDoc; 12-27-2012 at 10:10 AM.
StreetDoc is offline  
Old 12-27-2012, 10:06 AM   #85 (permalink)
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Front range, CO
Posts: 278
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bones View Post
Actually, a ban has worked to radically reduce the number of illegal weapons over time in other countries: Japan, for example.

It is estimated by the Department of Justice that 90% of the illegal guns in the US are produced in the US and are either stolen from their legal owners or are sold illegally by licensed gun shops. The attrition rate for existing weapons is generally agreed to be about 2%.

So yes, over time a ban will take away the majority of illegally obtained weapons if adequately enforced.

Whether or not Americans would agree to the enforcement is the fundamental question.

No one I know is going to turn there guns in, if they try to collect them there will be massive blood shed in the mountains. I actually lost all of my weapons just yesterday in a freak canoeing accident. (go figure!) No state trooper would go door to door requesting guns. Way to many mountain folk that don't like the government already. They would have to bring in the military. That would go over real well...

It amazes me all the attitudes of "it couldn't happen here" when you talk about a government take over. Apparently no one paid attention during history class.

I do feel like I need to stay out of the threads here as I have a fundamentally different opinion from 95% of you. I don't think I'm ever going to make new riding friends if I don't lol!!!
StreetDoc is offline  
Old 12-27-2012, 10:38 AM   #86 (permalink)
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 1,031
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by StreetDoc View Post
No one I know is going to turn there guns in,
Attrition will probably take your gun. Over time, there won't be that many working weapons and certainly not enough to fuel the black market in the current manner.

Again, not the point. The question is not whether a gun ban would be effective, the question is whether one is a realistic option.
Bones is offline  
Old 12-27-2012, 10:54 AM   #87 (permalink)
Veteran Member
 
ThunderChunky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Kissing Bridge
Posts: 1,813
Default

You'd be surprised how many military members would stay and kill their own civilians. I'd say right around 50%. Which is enough. A single marine division would be enough to defeat the entire U.S. A hillbilly with a 12 gauge isn't going to do shit against the most powerful military on the planet.

Also, the U.N. would do a whole lot of talking and a whole not of walking. Russia kills their own citizens every day. The U.N. scolds them and doesn't give a shit. The reason the U.N. intervenes in countries in the Arab spring is because they are little ass powerless countries. No one is going to do anything should America turn on it's people. No one is going to risk war with the U.S. besides China or Korea and they sure as hell aren't going to support a revolution. The U.N. would slap us on the nose and scold us and go about their day. Happened when we went into Afghanistan and would happen again. The U.S. is the action hand of the U.N. without us they won't do anything but talk.

With weapons like an AC-130, A-10, Reapers, F-35 and Ospreys an AR isn't going to do shit. A single drone could destroy this entire nation if all we have are ARs. They can stay in flight for days and fly ten miles in the air. From that distance they can recognize a face in a crowd with very good certainty and then shoot them in the head with a single round. No one would hvae any clue it happened or even how it happened. And this only requires a dozen or less people to operate and maintain these things. And don't forget these things can carry a payload around 1,000 Ilbs too.


Defense against the government is not why you need firearms. Now let's get back to arguing about guns.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2hipp4u View Post
Im all for having fun, showing your tits and getting fucked up on a river float but it can be done without being a pig.
ThunderChunky is offline  
Old 12-27-2012, 10:57 AM   #88 (permalink)
The Rooster King
 
ShredLife's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Oregon
Posts: 3,262
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ThunderChunky View Post
You'd be surprised how many military members would stay and kill their own civilians. I'd say right around 50%. Which is enough. A single marine division would be enough to defeat the entire U.S. A hillbilly with a 12 gauge isn't going to do shit against the most powerful military on the planet.

Also, the U.N. would do a whole lot of talking and a whole not of walking. Russia kills their own citizens every day. The U.N. scolds them and doesn't give a shit. The reason the U.N. intervenes in countries in the Arab spring is because they are little ass powerless countries. No one is going to do anything should America turn on it's people. No one is going to risk war with the U.S. besides China or Korea and they sure as hell aren't going to support a revolution. The U.N. would slap us on the nose and scold us and go about their day. Happened when we went into Afghanistan and would happen again. The U.S. is the action hand of the U.N. without us they won't do anything but talk.

With weapons like an AC-130, A-10, Reapers, F-35 and Ospreys an AR isn't going to do shit. A single drone could destroy this entire nation if all we have are ARs. They can stay in flight for days and fly ten miles in the air. From that distance they can recognize a face in a crowd with very good certainty and then shoot them in the head with a single round. No one would hvae any clue it happened or even how it happened. And this only requires a dozen or less people to operate and maintain these things. And don't forget these things can carry a payload around 1,000 Ilbs too.


Defense against the government is not why you need firearms. Now let's get back to arguing about guns.
if the US government did this it would start WWIII. plain and simple.
ShredLife is offline  
Old 12-27-2012, 11:26 AM   #89 (permalink)
-LIFETIME MEMBER-
 
backstop13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: East Tennessee
Posts: 691
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ThunderChunky View Post
You'd be surprised how many military members would stay and kill their own civilians. I'd say right around 50%. Which is enough. A single marine division would be enough to defeat the entire U.S. A hillbilly with a 12 gauge isn't going to do shit against the most powerful military on the planet.

Also, the U.N. would do a whole lot of talking and a whole not of walking. Russia kills their own citizens every day. The U.N. scolds them and doesn't give a shit. The reason the U.N. intervenes in countries in the Arab spring is because they are little ass powerless countries. No one is going to do anything should America turn on it's people. No one is going to risk war with the U.S. besides China or Korea and they sure as hell aren't going to support a revolution. The U.N. would slap us on the nose and scold us and go about their day. Happened when we went into Afghanistan and would happen again. The U.S. is the action hand of the U.N. without us they won't do anything but talk.

With weapons like an AC-130, A-10, Reapers, F-35 and Ospreys an AR isn't going to do shit. A single drone could destroy this entire nation if all we have are ARs. They can stay in flight for days and fly ten miles in the air. From that distance they can recognize a face in a crowd with very good certainty and then shoot them in the head with a single round. No one would hvae any clue it happened or even how it happened. And this only requires a dozen or less people to operate and maintain these things. And don't forget these things can carry a payload around 1,000 Ilbs too.


Defense against the government is not why you need firearms. Now let's get back to arguing about guns.
if that's the case, then the afghanis and other "freedom" fighters have been shitting all over our "war on terror" for years now. If the drones are as bad ass as you claim they are, we shouldn't have been at war for over 10 years now...
backstop13 is offline  
Old 12-27-2012, 11:29 AM   #90 (permalink)
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Front range, CO
Posts: 278
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bones View Post
Attrition will probably take your gun. Over time, there won't be that many working weapons and certainly not enough to fuel the black market in the current manner.

Again, not the point. The question is not whether a gun ban would be effective, the question is whether one is a realistic option.
I have a friend with a springfield 1898 that probably served in the spanish american war. It's no show piece and it fires fine... I think he hunts elk with it.
StreetDoc is offline  
 

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:11 PM.



Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2
VerticalSports
Baseball Forum Golf Forum Boxing Forum Snowmobile Forum
Basketball Forum Soccer Forum MMA Forum PWC Forum
Football Forum Cricket Forum Wrestling Forum ATV Forum
Hockey Forum Volleyball Forum Paintball Forum Snowboarding Forum
Tennis Forum Rugby Forums Lacrosse Forum Skiing Forums