12-20-2013, 11:33 AM
Your premise falls short on one simple basic fact. People are going to have guns whether you want them to or not. It will happen. Making all guns illegal actually means that all guns are going to be illegal and those are most definitely more dangerous people.
Originally Posted by DDF420
You don't understand a quote that you made and now you want me to try and explain it to you? Sorry I don't understand it either. Your quoted information simply doesnt have enough data to be useful for anyone. How do you expect that I can justify it when it isn't useful information at all?
I heavily suspect that if the same number of people that were lisenced to drive a car were also licensed to carry a legal gun, then gun violence would just about disappear.
Last edited by duby229; 12-20-2013 at 11:37 AM.
12-20-2013, 03:35 PM
First off a tank in urban combat is a death trap. You disable the tracks and it plus, its passengers are sniper bait. In regards to a F22 if we are in a situation that F22's are bombing your local supermarket, we are going to be at full on war and everyone is going to have F22's. You thing there are no civilians in the US that can or will figure-out how to fly a F22?
Originally Posted by smitty3268
12-20-2013, 09:30 PM
Bomb their OWN cities to rubble?
Where I live that would mean bombing Washington DC to rubble, which would be 9-11 on steroids. They could not do this without killing their own paymasters. The Vietnamese talked of "grabbing Uncle Sam by the belt" meanign get close to neutralize air and artillery weapons. This still works today: they could bomb outlying neighborhoods but occupying rich neighborhoods by force would then provide automatic bomb shelters.
Originally Posted by smitty3268
They could try to engage insurgents house by house with guided munitions, but in the US a mosquite swarm of cheap improvised drones, some with jet engines (>$3000 at one place I know!) would contest control of the skies at low altitude and stop attack helicopters entirely. Hackers and GPS spoofing would redirect some of the PGM's from their intended targets to other targets preferred by the insurgents. Hell, even in Iraq and Afghanistan US air power was not able to stop insurgents armed with small arms, IED, and suicide bombers seemingly able to reach and take out targets at will. Air power is nothing but another kind of artillery, just as suicide bombers are. Hell, it can be argued that in Iraq, with warhead yields limted by proximity to pro-US forces, both sides had near artillery parity when all weapon systems are considered together.
I've actually considered the siege issue of cutting off food and how to counter it. In progressive communities here in DC there is already emphasis on urban gardening. If war was looming surely activists in many communities would warn of food security hazards not only from a siege but also from economic collapse. The latter commonly occurs in civil wars-and in the US could cause catastrophic food shortages affecting all sides. In fact, a city under siege with urban gardens might even have the edge over troops awaiting shipments of crops that might not be harvested or might not make it over roads swarming with their enemies. This is not new, in the old days some sieges were defeated by food shortages among the beseigers and who started out with the most food stored away would likely come out on top.
Lastly, don't forget that any civil war in the US would divide the US military, guaranteeing some access to the latest high-tech war toys to both sides. If this ever happens in the US, combinging this with ugly racial and religious hate could turn it into the bloodiest civil war outside the Congo (Congo has suffered 6 MILLION dead in fighting spurred by outsiders lusting for Coltan ore). The last civil war here was bad enough, losses were comparable to 1.2 million in today's population. Please do not hope that class struggle in the US devolves into a civil war on racial, religious, and regional lines-ask anyone in Iraq what THAT can lead to!
12-20-2013, 10:02 PM
If the military ever was ordered to go after large masses of civilians, i have no doubt there would be rebellion in it. However, then you are talking about the military fighting the military, and arming civilians with military weaponry. That's a completely different argument than the military just going after armed civilians and arguing that those civilians need their rifles or the military would beat them. In reality, the military would crush them regardless - but the military would splinter into factions, making the entire thought exercise of civilians vs the military incorrect from the start.
Originally Posted by Luke
I just find it hilarious the way some people actually think civilians could beat the military. Guys, we spend trillions of dollars making sure they are unbeatable. When they get beat, it's generally because they aren't willing to cross certain lines, which happens when you are prosecuting a war of choice overseas. When it is in your backyard and you are fighting for your life, things get a whole lot dirtier. A civil war would guarantee a whole lot of chaos, death, and suffering on all sides.
Last edited by smitty3268; 12-20-2013 at 10:07 PM.
12-20-2013, 10:09 PM
You seem to be missing the point. Do you think there wasn't anyone in Iraq or Afghanistan who could figure how to fly a F22?
Originally Posted by zester
12-22-2013, 09:45 PM
I seriously doubt that this gun was legally purchased. I'm convinced it was black market. Of course I didnt ask the guy where he got his gun, but from the looks of him I doubt very much that he got it through legal means.