doggie said...

lachlan3556 said...

doggie said...

lachlan3556 said...

Pretty racist comment there

Obama was voted into power so they aren't all the racist rednecks our media make them out to be. Just because many people don't support the Democrats doesn't mean they're ready to go into revolution against them.

I believe it would depend on what the government does, not who they are

That was a dumb comment on your dumb comment that I quoted.

Forgive me but may I ask what was my dumb comment?

This one -

This said, the 2nd ammendment gives the right to the American people to stand up the the government if ever needed, therefore they need their 'assault weapons' if this ever occured. A right we were never acknowleged as having in Aus. USA vs. Aus totally different situations. (if you argue that to put up a decent fight against a modern army, you don't need high cap semi autos then unfortunately you've lost me).

^^ This is out dated, how could anybody put up a fight against a modern army. It wouldnt matter how many guns Joe public has they are never going to win.

I disagree with that too, during my time in the army we were told that we had the biggest advantage over the enemy............... local knowledge........... and that guerilla could win the war! Nuking the whole area will not be an option as the enemy would have to go away as well!

doggie said...

lachlan3556 said...

Not the case in Vietnam, Afganistan (2001+), Iraq (this decade sometime), Libya (2010-11), Syria (current), Congo (current), Mali (current). I think the yank people would win, just seeing the image you posted earlier would indicate they have a fighting chance. Plus defections from the military, in this scenario, are almost guaranteed.

I thought we were talking about the american people against their own government.

Im sorry I started this now, you are throwing up stuff that has nothing to do with this thread!

Stay with me here, we are talking about the USA gun laws!

I was talking about the USA, and using other countries that have done what you suggest can't be done, to argue that the people of the USA could do the same.


EDIT: Their law says the peoples right to defend themselves from their government shall not be infringed, therefore they need the armement to ensure this, and therefore they need firearm laws that acknowledge this.

Wrongo again Doggie, we have seen how a small number of insurgents can tie up a much superior force.
Sure in an all out war an army can defeat a populace but that doesn't even happen in a war between two countries nowadays, the bloodshed would be politically incorrect. How many hours would it take for us to kill everyone in Afghanistan and Iraq?
The previous chart shows how there are more weapons in the hands of citizens than in the military in the USA.
The point is they won't even go there if it's going to be that tough a slog, the fallout would be too great.
The Davidians at Waco took down a helicopter with their .50, you think they will try that again?
It's a deterrent.

Beaglebuddy said...

Wrongo again Doggie, we have seen how a small number of insurgents can tie up a much superior force.
Sure in an all out war an army can defeat a populace but that doesn't even happen in a war between two countries nowadays, the bloodshed would be politically incorrect. How many hours would it take for us to kill everyone in Afghanistan and Iraq?
The previous chart shows how there are more weapons in the hands of citizens than in the military in the USA.
The point is they won't even go there if it's going to be that tough a slog, the fallout would be too great.
The Davidians at Waco took down a helicopter with their .50, you think they will try that again?
It's a deterrent.

Im done you people are idiots with guns Im scared

Sad really how the far left always has to resort to name calling and cries of racism when losing an argument.

Beaglebuddy said...

Clearly he has no idea how a counter-insurgency works.

To be honest I've forgotten that counter-insurgency stuff as well. My school teachers always said "Listen Scotty". Now, what was that under again ? Surds and indices ? Sin cos tan opposite over adjacent or was it adjacent over hypotonese ?
We have a saying over here "Only in America".

this has indeed gone way off topic...
doggie, not that i think the populace should be heavily armed but- as an example, the viet cong managed to defeat everything a modern us army could throw at them, and they were by no means well armed, they were just determined and had more at stake.

Gun laws--> what the public in the USA need guns for --> 2nd ammendment gives them the right (and many feel its required) --> high cap firearms used --> gun laws reflect this = high capacity centrefire rifles available

USA public hunting/target --> gun laws reflect this -->other dedicated hunting/target firearms allowed (though they also have military rifle comps with semi-autos, as we did years ago)

^^^current state of things.

There have also been a few ideas thrown out there as to how they could increase public safety further (ie: extra licencing, registration/number limiting, firearm sales, public carry permits, firearm bans, increased policing and penalties, improving healthcare, combating the drug trade more, more firearm education, better education system, decreasing the unemployment rate, etc).

Im left wondering what were you wanting to get out of the discussion?

My god, to think that some of the people here have got guns is just scary.

adolf said...

Open your mind peeps.

That shooting in Colarado was a conspiracy. It's well known that Li'l Wayne, Kanye West, Jay Z and Lady Gaga are illuminate whores. It's pretty clear that Michael Jackson and 2Pac were victims of illuminate assassinations.

kissfm969.com/was-lil-waynes-new-song-homies-still-a-illuminati-conspiracy-or-just-a-coincidence-towards-the-movie-shooting/

Plus they're all part of the <ethnic group> that an earlier gun advocate was referring to in this thread.

doggie said...Stay with me here, we are talking about the USA gun laws!

OK, I will take a big step back, stop thinking about our laws etc, this is how I see the laws in the USA from what I have picked up over the years,

The individual states that comprise the USA did not want to have a full time "standing" army- it costs an awful lot for a nation to equip and train a military force.
Each state had its own militia- private citizens with thier own weapons- who were able to be called upon at short notice.
This a very cost effective system- and still is in use in a few countries today.
A primarily self funded militia, and its members need weaponry.
The constitution of the USA was ammended so that authorities could not prevent access to firearms by the civilian militia.
Do not forget- the opening moves of the Revolutionary war was when the British tried to take control of existing militia weapons and supplies, as the Americans were getting stroppy over how the Brits were running the country.
Yonks later the Federal govt took control of the state militias- by supplying and standardizing equipment and training- forming the National Guard Units which are technically controlled by the individual states- and I understand they were only supposed to be used within thier own states for defensive and emergency purposes.
This would have been the time to repeal "2a"- but the second ammendment was written in such a way that it was never intended to be tampered with- it was written to prevent any totalitarian federal control over the individual states.
The Federal govt, each state, each county and municipality have firearms laws- but unfortunately- many do not recognise each other- some localities outright refuse to submit to the federal laws as they believe any laws regarding "2a" are unconstitutional and illegal. Technically- they are correct.
I would love to see the USA at least have a nationwide uniform approach to firearms.
What many people forget is that the United States of America is comprised of a whole bunch of individual countries (states) with a contractual agreement (constitution) to control how much the new federal govt. could and could not do.
Over the years, this federal govt. has nibbled away at the edges of this contract and gained more and more power over the states- which many of the citizens resent.
The USA has something like 50k firearms laws- hitting them with more will never solve thier problems.

As Mark said earlier- until the faults in society are fixed (mental health, employment etc) nothing will change regarding crime and killings.

Stephen.

All guns in US are not aimed at government agencies or bandits - to protect citizens from dictatorships or crime -but against each other.
Just wait for next social disturbances and see what happen when thousands of angry people turns against each other.
If could be natural disaster to provoke riots (ie virus Ebola epidemic in NY), or social friction based on religion, social and economic status, or most likely on race.
All this revolution never happens without weapons: Bolshevik revolution, now Arab revolution.
Very sad that people in US put all the trust only on their own guns, but don't believe their own police and their own government is there to do the job.

Beaglebuddy said...

SP said...

Beaglebuddy said...

Sad really how the far left always has to resort to name calling and cries of racism when losing an argument.

Far left? Who?
Name calling, Racist where? Get out of dreamland buddy, you are just making **** up. Sad you can't manage to hold a decent debate with people with fairly moderate views, I'd hardly call doggie and extremist. Your views are much further from the centre than Doggies or mine.

And are you a counter insurgency expert? Or do you just watch chuck norris movies while polishing your cap gun till you go pop?

Are you able to see Doggie calling people idiots?
That is an unwarranted personal attack.
And earlier he tries to bait an argument claiming American hate Obama because he is black.

You are much dumber than I thought.

Mark _australia said...

^^^ I dunno - but Doggie will regret inviting me lol

No, never. In fact your opinions were well noted and I respect your opinion on the subject rather than rambling diatribe that the some others have pumped out.
I understand that people who live off the land and pro hunters or hunters in general need guns. I for one think that arming yourself for personal protection is rubbish. But that is my opinion and I wont budge from it.

Fully automatic guns are not for the general public, full stop!

Mark _australia said...


...and a nutter would still take a pump action to the school / shops etc and go for it. That is because the person is the problem, not the tool.

It sounds like it would be a good idea to both

A) Attend to/fix the nutter
B) Restrict access to pump action shotguns because we can't completely do A)

This is reasonable.

They are the types who say taking drugs responsibly is OK, "just a little bit but be safe and careful". But they don't believe responsible people can have a gun. Seriously, WTF?

If a dealer sells a nutter an E that someone cannot go and kill dozens of people with it. If a dealer sells a nutter a shotgun they can go and kill dozens of people with it. The drug dealer can be charged, the gun dealer can't. WTF?

I feel like I'm taking crazy pills here.

(btw mark I've noticed I'm almost always on the other side of a debate with you, but I totally respect your opinion and style: you explain yourself clearly and are open to debate)