Total Posts:154|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Why I own/want a military style rifle.

Maccabee
Posts: 1,234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/9/2016 2:57:15 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
As an deterrent to tyranny.

The same reason why people want a sports car.

The same reason police have them for the most part.
Scripture, facts, stats, and logic is how I argue

Evolutionism is a religion, not science

When seconds count, the police are just minutes away.

"If guns are the cause of crimes then aren't matches the cause of arson?" D. Boys

"If the death penalty is government sanctioned killing then isn't inprisonment is government sanction kidnapping?" D. B

"Why do you trust the government with machine guns but not honest citizens?" D. B

All those who are pro-death (abortion) is already born
Emilrose
Posts: 2,479
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/9/2016 3:16:50 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/9/2016 2:57:15 AM, Maccabee wrote:
As an deterrent to tyranny.

What tyranny exactly?

The same reason why people want a sports car.

The level of desire may be the same, but they are two completely different things.

On a technical level, it is not the 'same reason' for the basic fact that people want sports cars to *drive*~~whilst people overall want guns to possess as a potential tool for defending themselves, using for hunting, generally being a tool, etc.

Again; two very different commodities.


The same reason police have them for the most part.

No, police are in the police force and thus there to 'police' people. They are legally allowed to carry guns while on duty, as they are dealing with crime on a regular basis.

Besides, (on most occasions), they have hand guns~~not 'military style rifles'.

Moreover, once more, you cannot logically want or need one for the same reason that police have access to them because you are an average citizen and not someone supposedly enforcing the law.

Sounds like it's time to put the pipe down.
Commentator on a picture with David Cameron and a Cat: 'Amazing what you can achieve with photoshop these days. I'm sure that used to be a pig.'

Commentator on Hillary Clinton: 'If Clinton is now what passes for progressive, maybe this country deserves Trump.'

Commentator on British parliament: 'All that talent in one place, where is Ebola when you need it?'

John Kerry on words: 'These aren't just words, folks.'
Maccabee
Posts: 1,234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/9/2016 3:33:08 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/9/2016 3:16:50 AM, Emilrose wrote:
At 1/9/2016 2:57:15 AM, Maccabee wrote:
As an deterrent to tyranny.

What tyranny exactly?

Foreign or domestic. Russia or Hillary.

The same reason why people want a sports car.

The level of desire may be the same, but they are two completely different things.

On a technical level, it is not the 'same reason' for the basic fact that people want sports cars to *drive*~~whilst people overall want guns to possess as a potential tool for defending themselves, using for hunting, generally being a tool, etc.

Again; two very different commodities.

You found more reasons to own a military style rifle than a sports car.


The same reason police have them for the most part.

No, police are in the police force and thus there to 'police' people. They are legally allowed to carry guns while on duty, as they are dealing with crime on a regular basis.

Right, and they have the best tools to implement their duty and defense.

Besides, (on most occasions), they have hand guns~~not 'military style rifles'.

Check the inside of a police car sometime.

Moreover, once more, you cannot logically want or need one for the same reason that police have access to them because you are an average citizen and not someone supposedly enforcing the law.

No but the same threats exist between us and the police. Just not at the same level.

Sounds like it's time to put the pipe down.

Why?
Scripture, facts, stats, and logic is how I argue

Evolutionism is a religion, not science

When seconds count, the police are just minutes away.

"If guns are the cause of crimes then aren't matches the cause of arson?" D. Boys

"If the death penalty is government sanctioned killing then isn't inprisonment is government sanction kidnapping?" D. B

"Why do you trust the government with machine guns but not honest citizens?" D. B

All those who are pro-death (abortion) is already born
Emilrose
Posts: 2,479
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/9/2016 3:42:07 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/9/2016 3:33:08 AM, Maccabee wrote:
At 1/9/2016 3:16:50 AM, Emilrose wrote:
At 1/9/2016 2:57:15 AM, Maccabee wrote:
As an deterrent to tyranny.

What tyranny exactly?

Foreign or domestic. Russia or Hillary.

You're not living in Russia, domestic policy only applies.

Moreover, Hilary (whether she's an idiot or not), isn't what a logical person would call 'tyrannical'.

The same reason why people want a sports car.

The level of desire may be the same, but they are two completely different things.

On a technical level, it is not the 'same reason' for the basic fact that people want sports cars to *drive*~~whilst people overall want guns to possess as a potential tool for defending themselves, using for hunting, generally being a tool, etc.

Again; two very different commodities.

You found more reasons to own a military style rifle than a sports car.

No, to me these aren't really 'reasons' to own a military style rifle~~but they are to *some* people. In addition, my point was that there is a vast difference between it and a sports car.


The same reason police have them for the most part.

No, police are in the police force and thus there to 'police' people. They are legally allowed to carry guns while on duty, as they are dealing with crime on a regular basis.

Right, and they have the best tools to implement their duty and defense.

Besides, (on most occasions), they have hand guns~~not 'military style rifles'.

Check the inside of a police car sometime.

No, I don't go around randomly checking police cars. Perhaps you get arrested on a regular basis?

Moreover, once more, you cannot logically want or need one for the same reason that police have access to them because you are an average citizen and not someone supposedly enforcing the law.

No but the same threats exist between us and the police. Just not at the same level.

Thus, they are not the same threats.

Sounds like it's time to put the pipe down.

Why?

Because it's clearly hindering your ability to process rational thoughts. For one, you think you're being tyrannised.
Commentator on a picture with David Cameron and a Cat: 'Amazing what you can achieve with photoshop these days. I'm sure that used to be a pig.'

Commentator on Hillary Clinton: 'If Clinton is now what passes for progressive, maybe this country deserves Trump.'

Commentator on British parliament: 'All that talent in one place, where is Ebola when you need it?'

John Kerry on words: 'These aren't just words, folks.'
stealspell
Posts: 980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/9/2016 10:27:56 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/9/2016 2:57:15 AM, Maccabee wrote:
As an deterrent to tyranny.

The US has the strongest military in the world. Your rifle isn't going to stop a tank. The 2nd Amendment is useless in modern times.
beng100
Posts: 1,055
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/9/2016 12:23:43 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/9/2016 2:57:15 AM, Maccabee wrote:
As an deterrent to tyranny.

The same reason why people want a sports car.

The same reason police have them for the most part.

The reason you want a military subtle rifle like you say is because it's a item you see as a luxury, status symbol and hobby. Yes Ford fiestas get you from A to B but car lovers prefer a Ferrari. A handgun is adequate for shooting but gun lovers prefer more exciting higher performance weapons. There is no need to have one whatsoever but some people want to have them.
jnedwards11
Posts: 351
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/9/2016 1:06:35 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/9/2016 12:23:43 PM, beng100 wrote:
At 1/9/2016 2:57:15 AM, Maccabee wrote:
As an deterrent to tyranny.

The same reason why people want a sports car.

The same reason police have them for the most part.

The reason you want a military subtle rifle like you say is because it's a item you see as a luxury, status symbol and hobby. Yes Ford fiestas get you from A to B but car lovers prefer a Ferrari. A handgun is adequate for shooting but gun lovers prefer more exciting higher performance weapons. There is no need to have one whatsoever but some people want to have them.

Really you are not all wrong.....you just arnt all right either.

As someone who loves guns, I have spent a pretty penny on aquiring some mighty fine firearms. I love them. The way they look, the way they feel, operate, the rugged reliability....etc. I will not refute that having one of the finest made rifles in this country accoutered and finished with the finest of accessories gives me an enormous amount of pride. I show it off all the time.... just like a deush in a Ferrarri.

But that all being said. My reason for owning this rifle (which is what you call an assault rifle....it is even suppressed and shortened) is mostly utilitarian in nature. While the pleasure of owning and operating the weapon certainly played into my willingness to accept its price tag (as well as the federal barriers to owning it), my main reason for seeking and ultimately buying this weapon were as follows;

1) I beleive a rifle is a tool essential to adequately protecting my family from the potential violent tendacies of this nation and even potentially the possibility of a rogue government- though I admit this outcome is highly unlikely- granted I beleive this is so precisely because we have so many guns.

2) Rifles offer defensive tactical advantages over pistols, particularly when defending multiple people, or against multiple people. I would be happy to elaborate if you need.

3) This particular rifle is manufactured and built to such exacting measurements as to be flawlessly effective even under the worst of operating conditions. It doesn't fire bullets any harder- just more reliably than an entry level carbine.

4) My rifle is built on a platform that makes it EXTREMLY maunverable and makes considerably less noise than other firearms and is thus highly effective in stationary or mobile tactical situations whether they be inside or outdoors.

5) My rifle could provide me with a relatively easy source of food acquisition in the event of a shortage.

So whether you agree or not, I can easily justify a need for such an item. Mine and my families safety is paramount. Using my judgement, along with the advice of professionals in the field of self defense....I will seek the most effective means of keeping them safe that I can.
jnedwards11
Posts: 351
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/9/2016 1:28:37 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/9/2016 3:42:07 AM, Emilrose wrote:
At 1/9/2016 3:33:08 AM, Maccabee wrote:
At 1/9/2016 3:16:50 AM, Emilrose wrote:
At 1/9/2016 2:57:15 AM, Maccabee wrote:
As an deterrent to tyranny.

What tyranny exactly?

Foreign or domestic. Russia or Hillary.

You're not living in Russia, domestic policy only applies.

Unless Russia or ISIS or God knows who invaded us. Yes extremely unlikely, but not impossible

Moreover, Hilary (whether she's an idiot or not), isn't what a logical person would call 'tyrannical'.

I don't know. If you gave her the option with a guarantee - do you think she would turn it down? I don't, but regardless- I agree this falls into the realm of highly unlikely, but still not impossible.


The same reason why people want a sports car.

The level of desire may be the same, but they are two completely different things.

On a technical level, it is not the 'same reason' for the basic fact that people want sports cars to *drive*~~whilst people overall want guns to possess as a potential tool for defending themselves, using for hunting, generally being a tool, etc.

Again; two very different commodities.

You found more reasons to own a military style rifle than a sports car.

No, to me these aren't really 'reasons' to own a military style rifle~~but they are to *some* people. In addition, my point was that there is a vast difference between it and a sports car.

I don't think he meant to insinuate that owning gun gives you the same utility as owning cars. I think he meant to insinuate that owning a more specialized weapon is analogous to owning a more spealized type of automobile.....One way makes way more common sense than the other.


The same reason police have them for the most part.

No, police are in the police force and thus there to 'police' people. They are legally allowed to carry guns while on duty, as they are dealing with crime on a regular basis.

Right, and they have the best tools to implement their duty and defense.

Besides, (on most occasions), they have hand guns~~not 'military style rifles'.

Check the inside of a police car sometime.

No, I don't go around randomly checking police cars. Perhaps you get arrested on a regular basis?

Moreover, once more, you cannot logically want or need one for the same reason that police have access to them because you are an average citizen and not someone supposedly enforcing the law.

No but the same threats exist between us and the police. Just not at the same level.

Thus, they are not the same threats.

They are precisely the same threats. Thats why the police are there in the first place. You are referring to a lessened degree of threat, for civilians. I don't think anyone here refutes that, we just beleive that we should be atleast "as" prepared as a police officer to handle the identical threats each may potentially face.

Sounds like it's time to put the pipe down.

Why?

Because it's clearly hindering your ability to process rational thoughts. For one, you think you're being tyrannised.

He didn't say that. You are strawmanning to justify a snide remark.
slo1
Posts: 4,312
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/9/2016 1:36:32 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/9/2016 2:57:15 AM, Maccabee wrote:
As an deterrent to tyranny.

The same reason why people want a sports car.

The same reason police have them for the most part.

Good luck with that. You don't bring small arms to a drone fight. You would do better possessing wisdom to know when your liberty is threatened, such as not supporting political parties that recommend outlawing burning the flag or railing against the man because he makes you register your license when buying a nasal decongestant because it is commonly used to make an outlawed drug.

Wisdom will serve you much better stopping tyranny than your semi automatic pea shooter.
Emilrose
Posts: 2,479
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/9/2016 2:43:45 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/9/2016 1:28:37 PM, jnedwards11 wrote:
At 1/9/2016 3:42:07 AM, Emilrose wrote:
At 1/9/2016 3:33:08 AM, Maccabee wrote:
At 1/9/2016 3:16:50 AM, Emilrose wrote:
At 1/9/2016 2:57:15 AM, Maccabee wrote:
As an deterrent to tyranny.

What tyranny exactly?

Foreign or domestic. Russia or Hillary.

You're not living in Russia, domestic policy only applies.

Unless Russia or ISIS or God knows who invaded us. Yes extremely unlikely, but not impossible

Firstly, why would Russia invade the U.S? And how would ISIS have the capacity to invade the U.S? The fact it's 'extremely unlikely' would more or less dictate to it being an unreasonable presumption, thus it's not a valid contention to make.

Moreover, Hilary (whether she's an idiot or not), isn't what a logical person would call 'tyrannical'.

I don't know. If you gave her the option with a guarantee - do you think she would turn it down? I don't, but regardless- I agree this falls into the realm of highly unlikely, but still not impossible.

Again, 'if' doesn't mean anything. Moreover it would entirely depend on what your perception of 'tyrannical' is.


The same reason why people want a sports car.

The level of desire may be the same, but they are two completely different things.

On a technical level, it is not the 'same reason' for the basic fact that people want sports cars to *drive*~~whilst people overall want guns to possess as a potential tool for defending themselves, using for hunting, generally being a tool, etc.

Again; two very different commodities.

You found more reasons to own a military style rifle than a sports car.

No, to me these aren't really 'reasons' to own a military style rifle~~but they are to *some* people. In addition, my point was that there is a vast difference between it and a sports car.

I don't think he meant to insinuate that owning gun gives you the same utility as owning cars. I think he meant to insinuate that owning a more specialized weapon is analogous to owning a more spealized type of automobile.....One way makes way more common sense than the other.

Indeed.


The same reason police have them for the most part.

No, police are in the police force and thus there to 'police' people. They are legally allowed to carry guns while on duty, as they are dealing with crime on a regular basis.

Right, and they have the best tools to implement their duty and defense.

Besides, (on most occasions), they have hand guns~~not 'military style rifles'.

Check the inside of a police car sometime.

No, I don't go around randomly checking police cars. Perhaps you get arrested on a regular basis?

Moreover, once more, you cannot logically want or need one for the same reason that police have access to them because you are an average citizen and not someone supposedly enforcing the law.

No but the same threats exist between us and the police. Just not at the same level.

Thus, they are not the same threats.

They are precisely the same threats. Thats why the police are there in the first place. You are referring to a lessened degree of threat, for civilians. I don't think anyone here refutes that, we just beleive that we should be atleast "as" prepared as a police officer to handle the identical threats each may potentially face.

If the police are there protect the general population, there is no reason to 'believe' that we should be as 'prepared' as the police to protect ourselves. We're also wrongly going on the presumed idea that we face 'threats' on an almost regular basis~~which depending on where you live, etc.~~is not the case for the majority of people.

Sounds like it's time to put the pipe down.

Why?

Because it's clearly hindering your ability to process rational thoughts. For one, you think you're being tyrannised.

He didn't say that. You are strawmanning to justify a snide remark.

I'm not straw-manning anything, he's using 'tyranny' as a reason to own military rifles~~and I'm asking what *and* where this tyranny is.
Commentator on a picture with David Cameron and a Cat: 'Amazing what you can achieve with photoshop these days. I'm sure that used to be a pig.'

Commentator on Hillary Clinton: 'If Clinton is now what passes for progressive, maybe this country deserves Trump.'

Commentator on British parliament: 'All that talent in one place, where is Ebola when you need it?'

John Kerry on words: 'These aren't just words, folks.'
EndarkenedRationalist
Posts: 14,201
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/9/2016 3:03:01 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/9/2016 10:27:56 AM, stealspell wrote:
At 1/9/2016 2:57:15 AM, Maccabee wrote:
As an deterrent to tyranny.

The US has the strongest military in the world. Your rifle isn't going to stop a tank. The 2nd Amendment is useless in modern times.

No, please, let him try. It certainly couldn't hurt society to have everyone who dreams of taking on the government single-handed actually try to realize that dream.
jnedwards11
Posts: 351
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/9/2016 3:24:14 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/9/2016 2:43:45 PM, Emilrose wrote:
At 1/9/2016 1:28:37 PM, jnedwards11 wrote:
At 1/9/2016 3:42:07 AM, Emilrose wrote:
At 1/9/2016 3:33:08 AM, Maccabee wrote:
At 1/9/2016 3:16:50 AM, Emilrose wrote:
At 1/9/2016 2:57:15 AM, Maccabee wrote:
As an deterrent to tyranny.

What tyranny exactly?

Foreign or domestic. Russia or Hillary.

You're not living in Russia, domestic policy only applies.

Unless Russia or ISIS or God knows who invaded us. Yes extremely unlikely, but not impossible

Firstly, why would Russia invade the U.S? And how would ISIS have the capacity to invade the U.S? The fact it's 'extremely unlikely' would more or less dictate to it being an unreasonable presumption, thus it's not a valid contention to make.

Why would Germany try to take over the world? It's unlikely, but it can and has happened so I'll continue to believe things like that are atleast remotely possibly, even if they are unlikely.

Moreover, Hilary (whether she's an idiot or not), isn't what a logical person would call 'tyrannical'.

I don't know. If you gave her the option with a guarantee - do you think she would turn it down? I don't, but regardless- I agree this falls into the realm of highly unlikely, but still not impossible.

Again, 'if' doesn't mean anything. Moreover it would entirely depend on what your perception of 'tyrannical' is.

well it would depend on how much the people as a whole are willing to suffer really. But here again, history has shown countless examples of this, even here in our own country...twice. So I'm not so sure why it's so utterly inconceivable to you.


The same reason why people want a sports car.

The level of desire may be the same, but they are two completely different things.

On a technical level, it is not the 'same reason' for the basic fact that people want sports cars to *drive*~~whilst people overall want guns to possess as a potential tool for defending themselves, using for hunting, generally being a tool, etc.

Again; two very different commodities.

You found more reasons to own a military style rifle than a sports car.

No, to me these aren't really 'reasons' to own a military style rifle~~but they are to *some* people. In addition, my point was that there is a vast difference between it and a sports car.

I don't think he meant to insinuate that owning gun gives you the same utility as owning cars. I think he meant to insinuate that owning a more specialized weapon is analogous to owning a more spealized type of automobile.....One way makes way more common sense than the other.

Indeed.


The same reason police have them for the most part.

No, police are in the police force and thus there to 'police' people. They are legally allowed to carry guns while on duty, as they are dealing with crime on a regular basis.

Right, and they have the best tools to implement their duty and defense.

Besides, (on most occasions), they have hand guns~~not 'military style rifles'.

Check the inside of a police car sometime.

No, I don't go around randomly checking police cars. Perhaps you get arrested on a regular basis?

Moreover, once more, you cannot logically want or need one for the same reason that police have access to them because you are an average citizen and not someone supposedly enforcing the law.

No but the same threats exist between us and the police. Just not at the same level.

Thus, they are not the same threats.

They are precisely the same threats. Thats why the police are there in the first place. You are referring to a lessened degree of threat, for civilians. I don't think anyone here refutes that, we just beleive that we should be atleast "as" prepared as a police officer to handle the identical threats each may potentially face.

If the police are there protect the general population, there is no reason to 'believe' that we should be as 'prepared' as the police to protect ourselves.

And you would tell this to victims of violent crimes as well?

We're also wrongly going on the presumed idea that we face 'threats' on an almost regular basis~~which depending on where you live, etc.~~is not the case for the majority of people.

I didn't say we face them on an almost regular basis. I so as they exist on a regular basis and that the diminished possibility of it happening because you are not a police officer is no less reason for me to be prepared. My and my family's safety is paramount, why not be as prepared as possible to defend it?

Sounds like it's time to put the pipe down.

Why?

Because it's clearly hindering your ability to process rational thoughts. For one, you think you're being tyrannised.

He didn't say that. You are strawmanning to justify a snide remark.

I'm not straw-manning anything, he's using 'tyranny' as a reason to own military rifles~~and I'm asking what *and* where this tyranny is.

He said as a "deterrent" to tyranny. As in, to keep it from happening. He, like me, believes private gun ownership presents a significant barrier to tyrannical rule in this country. You don't have to believe tyranny exists, or is even eminent to subscribe to this view.
stargate
Posts: 506
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/9/2016 3:32:53 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/9/2016 10:27:56 AM, stealspell wrote:
At 1/9/2016 2:57:15 AM, Maccabee wrote:
As an deterrent to tyranny.

The US has the strongest military in the world. Your rifle isn't going to stop a tank. The 2nd Amendment is useless in modern times.

A grenade launcher can, xd.
Emilrose
Posts: 2,479
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/9/2016 3:41:03 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/9/2016 3:24:14 PM, jnedwards11 wrote:
At 1/9/2016 2:43:45 PM, Emilrose wrote:
At 1/9/2016 1:28:37 PM, jnedwards11 wrote:
At 1/9/2016 3:42:07 AM, Emilrose wrote:
At 1/9/2016 3:33:08 AM, Maccabee wrote:
At 1/9/2016 3:16:50 AM, Emilrose wrote:
At 1/9/2016 2:57:15 AM, Maccabee wrote:
As an deterrent to tyranny.

What tyranny exactly?

Foreign or domestic. Russia or Hillary.

You're not living in Russia, domestic policy only applies.

Unless Russia or ISIS or God knows who invaded us. Yes extremely unlikely, but not impossible

Firstly, why would Russia invade the U.S? And how would ISIS have the capacity to invade the U.S? The fact it's 'extremely unlikely' would more or less dictate to it being an unreasonable presumption, thus it's not a valid contention to make.

Why would Germany try to take over the world? It's unlikely, but it can and has happened so I'll continue to believe things like that are atleast remotely possibly, even if they are unlikely.

That happened over 70 years ago, the context is completely different.

Moreover, Hilary (whether she's an idiot or not), isn't what a logical person would call 'tyrannical'.

I don't know. If you gave her the option with a guarantee - do you think she would turn it down? I don't, but regardless- I agree this falls into the realm of highly unlikely, but still not impossible.

Again, 'if' doesn't mean anything. Moreover it would entirely depend on what your perception of 'tyrannical' is.

well it would depend on how much the people as a whole are willing to suffer really. But here again, history has shown countless examples of this, even here in our own country...twice. So I'm not so sure why it's so utterly inconceivable to you.


The same reason why people want a sports car.

The level of desire may be the same, but they are two completely different things.

On a technical level, it is not the 'same reason' for the basic fact that people want sports cars to *drive*~~whilst people overall want guns to possess as a potential tool for defending themselves, using for hunting, generally being a tool, etc.

Again; two very different commodities.

You found more reasons to own a military style rifle than a sports car.

No, to me these aren't really 'reasons' to own a military style rifle~~but they are to *some* people. In addition, my point was that there is a vast difference between it and a sports car.

I don't think he meant to insinuate that owning gun gives you the same utility as owning cars. I think he meant to insinuate that owning a more specialized weapon is analogous to owning a more spealized type of automobile.....One way makes way more common sense than the other.

Indeed.


The same reason police have them for the most part.

No, police are in the police force and thus there to 'police' people. They are legally allowed to carry guns while on duty, as they are dealing with crime on a regular basis.

Right, and they have the best tools to implement their duty and defense.

Besides, (on most occasions), they have hand guns~~not 'military style rifles'.

Check the inside of a police car sometime.

No, I don't go around randomly checking police cars. Perhaps you get arrested on a regular basis?

Moreover, once more, you cannot logically want or need one for the same reason that police have access to them because you are an average citizen and not someone supposedly enforcing the law.

No but the same threats exist between us and the police. Just not at the same level.

Thus, they are not the same threats.

They are precisely the same threats. Thats why the police are there in the first place. You are referring to a lessened degree of threat, for civilians. I don't think anyone here refutes that, we just beleive that we should be atleast "as" prepared as a police officer to handle the identical threats each may potentially face.

If the police are there protect the general population, there is no reason to 'believe' that we should be as 'prepared' as the police to protect ourselves.

And you would tell this to victims of violent crimes as well?

If I had to, yes. Whether the 'victims of violent crimes' or not, the point is that they are in the minority and not majority~~and there are police forces in place to assist them before/after they are confronted with violent crime.


We're also wrongly going on the presumed idea that we face 'threats' on an almost regular basis~~which depending on where you live, etc.~~is not the case for the majority of people.

I didn't say we face them on an almost regular basis. I so as they exist on a regular basis and that the diminished possibility of it happening because you are not a police officer is no less reason for me to be prepared. My and my family's safety is paramount, why not be as prepared as possible to defend it?

Sounds like it's time to put the pipe down.

Why?

Because it's clearly hindering your ability to process rational thoughts. For one, you think you're being tyrannised.

He didn't say that. You are strawmanning to justify a snide remark.

I'm not straw-manning anything, he's using 'tyranny' as a reason to own military rifles~~and I'm asking what *and* where this tyranny is.

He said as a "deterrent" to tyranny. As in, to keep it from happening. He, like me, believes private gun ownership presents a significant barrier to tyrannical rule in this country. You don't have to believe tyranny exists, or is even eminent to subscribe to this view.

However, I am still inquiring as to what this (potential) tyranny is, what the likelihood is it of occurring, and why/how him owning a military style rifle will make any difference if/when it does happen.

For example, say if a group of higher ranking people attack him during this non-existent tyrannical rule, and kill him before the chance he gets his military style rifle~~what option is left then? The military style rifle did not help protect him.

I cannot taking something as presumptive as a 'tyrannical rule' seriously, especially if we are talking about conventional tyranny, where people's lives are *so* at risk, that the logical step is to own rifles preserved for the military. Such a notion is beyond absurd.
Commentator on a picture with David Cameron and a Cat: 'Amazing what you can achieve with photoshop these days. I'm sure that used to be a pig.'

Commentator on Hillary Clinton: 'If Clinton is now what passes for progressive, maybe this country deserves Trump.'

Commentator on British parliament: 'All that talent in one place, where is Ebola when you need it?'

John Kerry on words: 'These aren't just words, folks.'
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,222
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/9/2016 3:41:27 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
You can't win wars and quash rebellions with only tanks and drones. If the Middle East has not demonstrated that by now, when will it?

It's not about matching firepower, it's about denying total control and domination.
kevin24018
Posts: 1,804
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/9/2016 4:02:11 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/9/2016 3:41:27 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
You can't win wars and quash rebellions with only tanks and drones. If the Middle East has not demonstrated that by now, when will it?

It's not about matching firepower, it's about denying total control and domination.

basic logic 101 ya'll have been schooled

so I guess by military you mean the .223/5.56 round?
the scar is a .308
lost of people hunt with a 30-06 pull up some images and compare those

.223 is popular because it's cheaper than the .308 and 30-06, has less recoil, isn't as loud, you can shoot targets at long distances, it's accurate.
pistol grips make any rifle easier to control so that's a safety feature, no logical reason to ban them like NY has
flash suppressors help keep the barrel from jumping up, again safety item, again NY ugh
I would bet women's cosmetics kill more than gun cosmetics.
there are .223 pistols but they are not practical and too difficult to shoot.
ak's are cheap to shoot but more difficult to do so accurately compared to .223 imo, they are just not as refined imo.
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/9/2016 4:32:11 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/9/2016 3:33:08 AM, Maccabee wrote:
At 1/9/2016 3:16:50 AM, Emilrose wrote:
At 1/9/2016 2:57:15 AM, Maccabee wrote:
As an deterrent to tyranny.

What tyranny exactly?

Foreign or domestic. Russia or Hillary.

This is why its such a bad idea. You are saying you want a gun because of the possibility that more of your fellow Americans vote for someone you don't like. That is not tyrannical government, that is you being a trader to the country. Get the difference?
stealspell
Posts: 980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/9/2016 5:10:25 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/9/2016 3:32:53 PM, stargate wrote:
At 1/9/2016 10:27:56 AM, stealspell wrote:
At 1/9/2016 2:57:15 AM, Maccabee wrote:
As an deterrent to tyranny.

The US has the strongest military in the world. Your rifle isn't going to stop a tank. The 2nd Amendment is useless in modern times.

A grenade launcher can, xd.

It won't stop a drone strike ;)
bballcrook21
Posts: 4,468
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/9/2016 5:17:10 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/9/2016 10:27:56 AM, stealspell wrote:
At 1/9/2016 2:57:15 AM, Maccabee wrote:
As an deterrent to tyranny.

The US has the strongest military in the world. Your rifle isn't going to stop a tank. The 2nd Amendment is useless in modern times.

I really dislike when people make stupid arguments like this.

First of all, the United States Military is not for domestic action. It is for international action. This means that the Nation Guard, which is controlled by each state, will be on the side of the people.

Second, if the President/leader is so terrible that people actually rebel against him/her, then there will be just cause for the armed forces to do the same. I am more than sure and would bet a great amount of money that a tremendous part of the military would face a court marshall before they started opening fire on American civilians.

Third, the military does not have to obey unconstitutional orders. That means, if the President orders them to kill a bunch of civilians who are distasteful of government, they will not comply. The military is not made of up braindead morons who follow every order. They fight to protect the American people, not the government or the President.

Fourth, the United States was in a war in the Middle East for almost a decade against a couple dozen thousand radicals. In the United States, we have 90 million gun owners. If even half rebelled, what makes you think that a nation which cannot beat 30,000 Taliban soldiers can beat 45 million gun owners? This is an absurd statement in itself.

Government become tyrannical. America became tyrannical during the Japanese internment, Germany became tyrannical, England has become tyrannical a number of times, France became tyrannical, Spain, Russia, China, Italy, Japan, Korea, Thailand, Vietnam, India, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, etc. - have all become tyrannical.

If you would like to die by the hands of government, that is fine by me. One less moron on the streets. But do not subjugate others to your idiotic dogma.
If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in 5 years there'd be a shortage of sand. - Friedman

Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. -Friedman

Nothing is so permanent as a temporary government program. - Friedman

Society will never be free until the last Democrat is strangled with the entrails of the last Communist.
stealspell
Posts: 980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/9/2016 5:18:39 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/9/2016 3:41:27 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
You can't win wars and quash rebellions with only tanks and drones. If the Middle East has not demonstrated that by now, when will it?

You are aware that the military have specific targets when performing drone strikes, right? If a Republican had his way, he'd just nuke them. Truth.

It's not about matching firepower, it's about denying total control and domination.
bballcrook21
Posts: 4,468
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/9/2016 5:19:28 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/9/2016 4:32:11 PM, TBR wrote:
At 1/9/2016 3:33:08 AM, Maccabee wrote:
At 1/9/2016 3:16:50 AM, Emilrose wrote:
At 1/9/2016 2:57:15 AM, Maccabee wrote:
As an deterrent to tyranny.

What tyranny exactly?

Foreign or domestic. Russia or Hillary.

This is why its such a bad idea. You are saying you want a gun because of the possibility that more of your fellow Americans vote for someone you don't like. That is not tyrannical government, that is you being a trader to the country. Get the difference?

There are quite a lot of Liberals who agree that Hillary is not a worthy leader.

Being a traitor to the country means giving away secrets, not rebelling against leaders that you do not like.

That statement is a contradiction in itself. If you do not like the laws that are imposed upon you as well as the leader itself, you do not have to follow these stupid laws - (Granted they are unconstitutional or extreme).

You can't just say "suck it up" for the next 4-8 years. Democracy is great, but having a government that cannot do much regardless of the person who was voted into office is 1000x better.
If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in 5 years there'd be a shortage of sand. - Friedman

Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. -Friedman

Nothing is so permanent as a temporary government program. - Friedman

Society will never be free until the last Democrat is strangled with the entrails of the last Communist.
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/9/2016 5:24:17 PM
Posted: 10 months ago

There are quite a lot of Liberals who agree that Hillary is not a worthy leader.
That is not in doubt, but the same liberals (and conservatives) would not suggest it is a good reason to buy a gun.

Being a traitor to the country means giving away secrets, not rebelling against leaders that you do not like.
And being treasonous (talking of shooting our president [if she should become our president])

That statement is a contradiction in itself. If you do not like the laws that are imposed upon you as well as the leader itself, you do not have to follow these stupid laws - (Granted they are unconstitutional or extreme).
Fine, but that is treason (or criminality)

You can't just say "suck it up" for the next 4-8 years. Democracy is great, but having a government that cannot do much regardless of the person who was voted into office is 1000x better.
Yea you can. If the majority of Americans prefer someone else from you, you do not get to overthrow the government just because you don't like it. Yup, suck it the he11 up.
stealspell
Posts: 980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/9/2016 5:24:18 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/9/2016 5:17:10 PM, bballcrook21 wrote:
At 1/9/2016 10:27:56 AM, stealspell wrote:
At 1/9/2016 2:57:15 AM, Maccabee wrote:
As an deterrent to tyranny.

The US has the strongest military in the world. Your rifle isn't going to stop a tank. The 2nd Amendment is useless in modern times.

I really dislike when people make stupid arguments like this.

My argument is pretty brilliant, don't know what you're talking about.

First of all, the United States Military is not for domestic action. It is for international action. This means that the Nation Guard, which is controlled by each state, will be on the side of the people.

Does the National Guard have access to drones?

Second, if the President/leader is so terrible that people actually rebel against him/her, then there will be just cause for the armed forces to do the same.

Further proving the uselessness of the 2nd Amendment. Thanks pal :)

I am more than sure and would bet a great amount of money that a tremendous part of the military would face a court marshall before they started opening fire on American civilians.

Third, the military does not have to obey unconstitutional orders. That means, if the President orders them to kill a bunch of civilians who are distasteful of government, they will not comply.

Hitler didn't just tell the Gestapo to kill a bunch of civilians and he still had a totalitarian form of government. So your point is not well taken.

The military is not made of up braindead morons who follow every order. They fight to protect the American people, not the government or the President.

Fourth, the United States was in a war in the Middle East for almost a decade against a couple dozen thousand radicals. In the United States, we have 90 million gun owners. If even half rebelled, what makes you think that a nation which cannot beat 30,000 Taliban soldiers can beat 45 million gun owners? This is an absurd statement in itself.

What's more absurd is neglecting the fact that the government doesn't just bomb unilaterally. For someone who claims to know a lot, you sure say little on this.

Government become tyrannical. America became tyrannical during the Japanese internment, Germany became tyrannical, England has become tyrannical a number of times, France became tyrannical, Spain, Russia, China, Italy, Japan, Korea, Thailand, Vietnam, India, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, etc. - have all become tyrannical.

If you would like to die by the hands of government, that is fine by me. One less moron on the streets. But do not subjugate others to your idiotic dogma.

Well since I defeated every single one of your "points" this is just funny XD
bballcrook21
Posts: 4,468
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/9/2016 5:27:54 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/9/2016 5:24:17 PM, TBR wrote:

There are quite a lot of Liberals who agree that Hillary is not a worthy leader.
That is not in doubt, but the same liberals (and conservatives) would not suggest it is a good reason to buy a gun.


Being a traitor to the country means giving away secrets, not rebelling against leaders that you do not like.
And being treasonous (talking of shooting our president [if she should become our president])

No one is talking about shooting the President. He was implying that, hypothetically, if the president or the government in its whole becomes tyrannical, it is just cause to overthrow it.



That statement is a contradiction in itself. If you do not like the laws that are imposed upon you as well as the leader itself, you do not have to follow these stupid laws - (Granted they are unconstitutional or extreme).
Fine, but that is treason (or criminality)


You can't just say "suck it up" for the next 4-8 years. Democracy is great, but having a government that cannot do much regardless of the person who was voted into office is 1000x better.
Yea you can. If the majority of Americans prefer someone else from you, you do not get to overthrow the government just because you don't like it. Yup, suck it the he11 up.

That's quite a ludicrous statement. If the majority of the nation were to be racist individuals, they voted to bring back slavery (Democratically) then would you ask the blacks to suck it up?

Hitler got into power democratically. The vast majority of human beings have a mob mentality, and what appeals to their emotions is what they always support. They vote based on personality, not intelligence and knowledge of how to run a nation as well as how various sectors work.

Basically, if they say "free this" and "free that" they will get many votes, as generally people love the guy that will give out free stuff.

Regardless, if you do not agree with what is imposed upon you, then do not follow it. It's called freedom, rather than collectivism.
If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in 5 years there'd be a shortage of sand. - Friedman

Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. -Friedman

Nothing is so permanent as a temporary government program. - Friedman

Society will never be free until the last Democrat is strangled with the entrails of the last Communist.
stealspell
Posts: 980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/9/2016 5:28:06 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/9/2016 5:17:10 PM, bballcrook21 wrote:

Correction: not unilaterally, I meant, without a specific target in mind and without regard for civilian life.
bballcrook21
Posts: 4,468
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/9/2016 5:33:29 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/9/2016 5:24:18 PM, stealspell wrote:
At 1/9/2016 5:17:10 PM, bballcrook21 wrote:
At 1/9/2016 10:27:56 AM, stealspell wrote:
At 1/9/2016 2:57:15 AM, Maccabee wrote:
As an deterrent to tyranny.

The US has the strongest military in the world. Your rifle isn't going to stop a tank. The 2nd Amendment is useless in modern times.

I really dislike when people make stupid arguments like this.

My argument is pretty brilliant, don't know what you're talking about.

Your argument was inane and falsely presented.


First of all, the United States Military is not for domestic action. It is for international action. This means that the Nation Guard, which is controlled by each state, will be on the side of the people.

Does the National Guard have access to drones?

The National Guard does have drones. The only thing that the national guard does not have that the military does have are nuclear bombs, Carriers, and some more expensive and military-grade battleships.

http://dronecenter.bard.edu...

Second, if the President/leader is so terrible that people actually rebel against him/her, then there will be just cause for the armed forces to do the same.

Further proving the uselessness of the 2nd Amendment. Thanks pal :)

This statement makes absolutely no sense. If the people are already disarmed, that means that the government has already gone tyrannical. The military is only going to break away when the government starts to kill their own people.

I fell like I am talking to some brain-dead liberal that smiles and waves as they argue.


I am more than sure and would bet a great amount of money that a tremendous part of the military would face a court marshall before they started opening fire on American civilians.

Third, the military does not have to obey unconstitutional orders. That means, if the President orders them to kill a bunch of civilians who are distasteful of government, they will not comply.

Hitler didn't just tell the Gestapo to kill a bunch of civilians and he still had a totalitarian form of government. So your point is not well taken.

Hitler killed political opponents, not necessarily civilians. The Gestapo, or the SA, was disbanded once Hitler came into power, and he ordered for all of the high ranking officers in the Gestapo to be executed.

The military is not made of up braindead morons who follow every order. They fight to protect the American people, not the government or the President.

Fourth, the United States was in a war in the Middle East for almost a decade against a couple dozen thousand radicals. In the United States, we have 90 million gun owners. If even half rebelled, what makes you think that a nation which cannot beat 30,000 Taliban soldiers can beat 45 million gun owners? This is an absurd statement in itself.

What's more absurd is neglecting the fact that the government doesn't just bomb unilaterally. For someone who claims to know a lot, you sure say little on this.

Government become tyrannical. America became tyrannical during the Japanese internment, Germany became tyrannical, England has become tyrannical a number of times, France became tyrannical, Spain, Russia, China, Italy, Japan, Korea, Thailand, Vietnam, India, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, etc. - have all become tyrannical.

If you would like to die by the hands of government, that is fine by me. One less moron on the streets. But do not subjugate others to your idiotic dogma.

Well since I defeated every single one of your "points" this is just funny XD

You didn't even defeat a fly. This was weak.
If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in 5 years there'd be a shortage of sand. - Friedman

Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. -Friedman

Nothing is so permanent as a temporary government program. - Friedman

Society will never be free until the last Democrat is strangled with the entrails of the last Communist.
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/9/2016 5:36:02 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/9/2016 5:27:54 PM, bballcrook21 wrote:
At 1/9/2016 5:24:17 PM, TBR wrote:

There are quite a lot of Liberals who agree that Hillary is not a worthy leader.
That is not in doubt, but the same liberals (and conservatives) would not suggest it is a good reason to buy a gun.


Being a traitor to the country means giving away secrets, not rebelling against leaders that you do not like.
And being treasonous (talking of shooting our president [if she should become our president])

No one is talking about shooting the President. He was implying that, hypothetically, if the president or the government in its whole becomes tyrannical, it is just cause to overthrow it.



That statement is a contradiction in itself. If you do not like the laws that are imposed upon you as well as the leader itself, you do not have to follow these stupid laws - (Granted they are unconstitutional or extreme).
Fine, but that is treason (or criminality)


You can't just say "suck it up" for the next 4-8 years. Democracy is great, but having a government that cannot do much regardless of the person who was voted into office is 1000x better.
Yea you can. If the majority of Americans prefer someone else from you, you do not get to overthrow the government just because you don't like it. Yup, suck it the he11 up.

That's quite a ludicrous statement. If the majority of the nation were to be racist individuals, they voted to bring back slavery (Democratically) then would you ask the blacks to suck it up?

Hitler got into power democratically. The vast majority of human beings have a mob mentality, and what appeals to their emotions is what they always support. They vote based on personality, not intelligence and knowledge of how to run a nation as well as how various sectors work.

Basically, if they say "free this" and "free that" they will get many votes, as generally people love the guy that will give out free stuff.

Regardless, if you do not agree with what is imposed upon you, then do not follow it. It's called freedom, rather than collectivism.

In a democracy that is exactly what it means. If you want to overthrow, that is your choice, but it is treason. In this case it is also worthless hyperbole and machismo.

Let me ask all the gun guys. If "assault styled rifles" are no more capable than some rifle that is not deemed as such, why would it be better for fighting back the government?
bballcrook21
Posts: 4,468
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/9/2016 5:41:23 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/9/2016 5:36:02 PM, TBR wrote:
At 1/9/2016 5:27:54 PM, bballcrook21 wrote:
At 1/9/2016 5:24:17 PM, TBR wrote:

There are quite a lot of Liberals who agree that Hillary is not a worthy leader.
That is not in doubt, but the same liberals (and conservatives) would not suggest it is a good reason to buy a gun.


Being a traitor to the country means giving away secrets, not rebelling against leaders that you do not like.
And being treasonous (talking of shooting our president [if she should become our president])

No one is talking about shooting the President. He was implying that, hypothetically, if the president or the government in its whole becomes tyrannical, it is just cause to overthrow it.



That statement is a contradiction in itself. If you do not like the laws that are imposed upon you as well as the leader itself, you do not have to follow these stupid laws - (Granted they are unconstitutional or extreme).
Fine, but that is treason (or criminality)


You can't just say "suck it up" for the next 4-8 years. Democracy is great, but having a government that cannot do much regardless of the person who was voted into office is 1000x better.
Yea you can. If the majority of Americans prefer someone else from you, you do not get to overthrow the government just because you don't like it. Yup, suck it the he11 up.

That's quite a ludicrous statement. If the majority of the nation were to be racist individuals, they voted to bring back slavery (Democratically) then would you ask the blacks to suck it up?

Hitler got into power democratically. The vast majority of human beings have a mob mentality, and what appeals to their emotions is what they always support. They vote based on personality, not intelligence and knowledge of how to run a nation as well as how various sectors work.

Basically, if they say "free this" and "free that" they will get many votes, as generally people love the guy that will give out free stuff.

Regardless, if you do not agree with what is imposed upon you, then do not follow it. It's called freedom, rather than collectivism.

In a democracy that is exactly what it means. If you want to overthrow, that is your choice, but it is treason. In this case it is also worthless hyperbole and machismo.

Not necessarily overthrow, but to stop the government from imposing.


Let me ask all the gun guys. If "assault styled rifles" are no more capable than some rifle that is not deemed as such, why would it be better for fighting back the government?

Assault Rifles are already banned. They have been banned since 1934. No civilian can own assault rifles, and not even police departments have them.

Just because the gun shoots fast, doesn't mean it's an assault rifle. Also, Call of Duty and Battlefield are not good places to get information about what type of guns there are.
If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in 5 years there'd be a shortage of sand. - Friedman

Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. -Friedman

Nothing is so permanent as a temporary government program. - Friedman

Society will never be free until the last Democrat is strangled with the entrails of the last Communist.
stealspell
Posts: 980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/9/2016 5:43:17 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/9/2016 5:33:29 PM, bballcrook21 wrote:
At 1/9/2016 5:24:18 PM, stealspell wrote:
At 1/9/2016 5:17:10 PM, bballcrook21 wrote:
At 1/9/2016 10:27:56 AM, stealspell wrote:
At 1/9/2016 2:57:15 AM, Maccabee wrote:
As an deterrent to tyranny.

The US has the strongest military in the world. Your rifle isn't going to stop a tank. The 2nd Amendment is useless in modern times.

I really dislike when people make stupid arguments like this.

My argument is pretty brilliant, don't know what you're talking about.

Your argument was inane and falsely presented.

Watch me dismantle your points below then :)


First of all, the United States Military is not for domestic action. It is for international action. This means that the Nation Guard, which is controlled by each state, will be on the side of the people.

Does the National Guard have access to drones?

The National Guard does have drones. The only thing that the national guard does not have that the military does have are nuclear bombs, Carriers, and some more expensive and military-grade battleships.

Further proving my point that the 2nd Amendment is useless XD

http://dronecenter.bard.edu...

Second, if the President/leader is so terrible that people actually rebel against him/her, then there will be just cause for the armed forces to do the same.

Further proving the uselessness of the 2nd Amendment. Thanks pal :)

This statement makes absolutely no sense. If the people are already disarmed, that means that the government has already gone tyrannical. The military is only going to break away when the government starts to kill their own people.

Now you're equivocating. If the people are disarmed, that wouldn't mean the National Guard is disarmed. And here's where my statement makes perfect sense. You said that people will rebel if the leader is so terrible, proving without a doubt that the 2nd Amendment is useless. Thanks for making that point, by the way. Beautifully put :)

I fell like I am talking to some brain-dead liberal that smiles and waves as they argue.

Oh, trust me, your idiocy is so amusing to me, kid XD


I am more than sure and would bet a great amount of money that a tremendous part of the military would face a court marshall before they started opening fire on American civilians.

Third, the military does not have to obey unconstitutional orders. That means, if the President orders them to kill a bunch of civilians who are distasteful of government, they will not comply.

Hitler didn't just tell the Gestapo to kill a bunch of civilians and he still had a totalitarian form of government. So your point is not well taken.

Hitler killed political opponents, not necessarily civilians. The Gestapo, or the SA, was disbanded once Hitler came into power, and he ordered for all of the high ranking officers in the Gestapo to be executed.

You got your history all screwy too. Good lord, crack open a book, son.

The military is not made of up braindead morons who follow every order. They fight to protect the American people, not the government or the President.

Fourth, the United States was in a war in the Middle East for almost a decade against a couple dozen thousand radicals. In the United States, we have 90 million gun owners. If even half rebelled, what makes you think that a nation which cannot beat 30,000 Taliban soldiers can beat 45 million gun owners? This is an absurd statement in itself.

What's more absurd is neglecting the fact that the government doesn't just bomb unilaterally. For someone who claims to know a lot, you sure say little on this.

Government become tyrannical. America became tyrannical during the Japanese internment, Germany became tyrannical, England has become tyrannical a number of times, France became tyrannical, Spain, Russia, China, Italy, Japan, Korea, Thailand, Vietnam, India, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, etc. - have all become tyrannical.

If you would like to die by the hands of government, that is fine by me. One less moron on the streets. But do not subjugate others to your idiotic dogma.

Well since I defeated every single one of your "points" this is just funny XD

You didn't even defeat a fly. This was weak.

Your arguments have been destroyed :)
bballcrook21
Posts: 4,468
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/9/2016 5:45:31 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/9/2016 5:43:17 PM, stealspell wrote:
At 1/9/2016 5:33:29 PM, bballcrook21 wrote:
At 1/9/2016 5:24:18 PM, stealspell wrote:
At 1/9/2016 5:17:10 PM, bballcrook21 wrote:
At 1/9/2016 10:27:56 AM, stealspell wrote:
At 1/9/2016 2:57:15 AM, Maccabee wrote:
As an deterrent to tyranny.

The US has the strongest military in the world. Your rifle isn't going to stop a tank. The 2nd Amendment is useless in modern times.

I really dislike when people make stupid arguments like this.

My argument is pretty brilliant, don't know what you're talking about.

Your argument was inane and falsely presented.

Watch me dismantle your points below then :)


First of all, the United States Military is not for domestic action. It is for international action. This means that the Nation Guard, which is controlled by each state, will be on the side of the people.

Does the National Guard have access to drones?

The National Guard does have drones. The only thing that the national guard does not have that the military does have are nuclear bombs, Carriers, and some more expensive and military-grade battleships.

Further proving my point that the 2nd Amendment is useless XD

http://dronecenter.bard.edu...

Second, if the President/leader is so terrible that people actually rebel against him/her, then there will be just cause for the armed forces to do the same.

Further proving the uselessness of the 2nd Amendment. Thanks pal :)

This statement makes absolutely no sense. If the people are already disarmed, that means that the government has already gone tyrannical. The military is only going to break away when the government starts to kill their own people.

Now you're equivocating. If the people are disarmed, that wouldn't mean the National Guard is disarmed. And here's where my statement makes perfect sense. You said that people will rebel if the leader is so terrible, proving without a doubt that the 2nd Amendment is useless. Thanks for making that point, by the way. Beautifully put :)

I fell like I am talking to some brain-dead liberal that smiles and waves as they argue.

Oh, trust me, your idiocy is so amusing to me, kid XD


I am more than sure and would bet a great amount of money that a tremendous part of the military would face a court marshall before they started opening fire on American civilians.

Third, the military does not have to obey unconstitutional orders. That means, if the President orders them to kill a bunch of civilians who are distasteful of government, they will not comply.

Hitler didn't just tell the Gestapo to kill a bunch of civilians and he still had a totalitarian form of government. So your point is not well taken.

Hitler killed political opponents, not necessarily civilians. The Gestapo, or the SA, was disbanded once Hitler came into power, and he ordered for all of the high ranking officers in the Gestapo to be executed.

You got your history all screwy too. Good lord, crack open a book, son.

The military is not made of up braindead morons who follow every order. They fight to protect the American people, not the government or the President.

Fourth, the United States was in a war in the Middle East for almost a decade against a couple dozen thousand radicals. In the United States, we have 90 million gun owners. If even half rebelled, what makes you think that a nation which cannot beat 30,000 Taliban soldiers can beat 45 million gun owners? This is an absurd statement in itself.

What's more absurd is neglecting the fact that the government doesn't just bomb unilaterally. For someone who claims to know a lot, you sure say little on this.

Government become tyrannical. America became tyrannical during the Japanese internment, Germany became tyrannical, England has become tyrannical a number of times, France became tyrannical, Spain, Russia, China, Italy, Japan, Korea, Thailand, Vietnam, India, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, etc. - have all become tyrannical.

If you would like to die by the hands of government, that is fine by me. One less moron on the streets. But do not subjugate others to your idiotic dogma.

Well since I defeated every single one of your "points" this is just funny XD

You didn't even defeat a fly. This was weak.

Your arguments have been destroyed :)

No point in responding any longer. You are just missing a brain or something of that caliber.
If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in 5 years there'd be a shortage of sand. - Friedman

Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. -Friedman

Nothing is so permanent as a temporary government program. - Friedman

Society will never be free until the last Democrat is strangled with the entrails of the last Communist.