Guns
Replies
-
I have to say... there's nothing wrong with using guns for hunting or sport, and while I'm not sure they're effective for protection, if owning a gun makes you feel safer then it's worth it.
However, do people really think that a bunch of dudes armed with hunting rifles or pistols and armored with beer bellies would be a deterrent against invasion or oppression?
Might have worked back in the 18th century (and not too often, even then), but military hardware has improved a bit...
Good thing I never said that...Are we making it (suicide) easy? Maybe. But that still doesn't justify, to me, why we should take guns away from people who need them for their livelihood or protection0 -
I have to say... there's nothing wrong with using guns for hunting or sport, and while I'm not sure they're effective for protection, if owning a gun makes you feel safer then it's worth it.
However, do people really think that a bunch of dudes armed with hunting rifles or pistols and armored with beer bellies would be a deterrent against invasion or oppression?
Might have worked back in the 18th century (and not too often, even then), but military hardware has improved a bit...
Good thing I never said that...Are we making it (suicide) easy? Maybe. But that still doesn't justify, to me, why we should take guns away from people who need them for their livelihood or protection
So now were all dudes with beer bellies armed with pistols or rifles? Got it.. Am I mad? Nope. Please go on about your vast knowledge in military hardware....0 -
Are we making it (suicide) easy? Maybe. But that still doesn't justify, to me, why we should take guns away from people who need them for their livelihood or protectionGood thing I never said that...
I know. It's one of the arguments brought up to support gun control. Wasn't specifically for you. :flowerforyou:
Eta quotes needed fixin0 -
So a bunch of guys with hunting rifles or pistols wouldn't be a deterrent to an invasion?I have to say... there's nothing wrong with using guns for hunting or sport, and while I'm not sure they're effective for protection, if owning a gun makes you feel safer then it's worth it.
However, do people really think that a bunch of dudes armed with hunting rifles or pistols and armored with beer bellies would be a deterrent against invasion or oppression?
Might have worked back in the 18th century (and not too often, even then), but military hardware has improved a bit...
Good thing I never said that...Are we making it (suicide) easy? Maybe. But that still doesn't justify, to me, why we should take guns away from people who need them for their livelihood or protection
People like what you describe are called "resistance fighters" and have quite often turned the tide of war.
Most of the casulties in the last two wars that the United States have been involved in were the result of ordinary men with guns.0 -
I have to say... there's nothing wrong with using guns for hunting or sport, and while I'm not sure they're effective for protection, if owning a gun makes you feel safer then it's worth it.
However, do people really think that a bunch of dudes armed with hunting rifles or pistols and armored with beer bellies would be a deterrent against invasion or oppression?
Might have worked back in the 18th century (and not too often, even then), but military hardware has improved a bit...
I disagree. 100 million gun owners and 300 million guns in the US. The largest armies in the world are only 1-1.5 million people (india, china, USA, the koreas, etc). Yes, not the same armaments but still any sort of invasion would add an extreme amount of difficulty here in the US just due to the sheer numbers.0 -
I have to say... there's nothing wrong with using guns for hunting or sport, and while I'm not sure they're effective for protection, if owning a gun makes you feel safer then it's worth it.
However, do people really think that a bunch of dudes armed with hunting rifles or pistols and armored with beer bellies would be a deterrent against invasion or oppression?
Might have worked back in the 18th century (and not too often, even then), but military hardware has improved a bit...
a) the Swiss do. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_of_Switzerland
b) you're just making the argument against the government restricting ownership of so-called "assault rifles".0 -
Before I got my first gun, my German Shepherd chased a man out of my window. I'm so grateful for my dog... I just have to wonder what would've happened had this burglar been carrying a gun and shot my dog?
Hans:
Beautiful dog! I hope he got a nice steak dinner that night! :laugh:0 -
Hi! It's kind of like driving a car--scary at first, but when you read about how many violent crimes have been prevented by guns in the hands of private individuals (in the USA, and according to our our Federal goverment's statistics--over 300,000 times in the last 10 years), it's like having a fire extinguisher in your home or in your car. You hope you never need it, but if you do, it's there.0
-
The greater question is what would have happened had this burglar been carrying a gun, shot your dog and then came came into your home, and you were armed with...a frying pan?0
-
I just flex my guns.Why do so many Americans have gun pictures on here? It is a bit scary.Thank god we can't in Australia just have them on us.....no not religious.. I couldn't handle the thought that anyone walking down the street has a gun on them. How do you handle it? Surely it is frightening. Turns me off going there for a holiday.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness industry for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition0 -
People ask why i own a gun........because i hunt and protect my family...
without the 2nd Amendment, we wouldn't have the 1st...
and because George Washington didn't debate the British, he shot them...
:laugh:
Fear of guns is programmed into one's head by anti-gun propaganda. It's an inanimate object, just like a baseball bat that can easily be used to kill a person too.
My son has a little cricket (.22 rifle for kids) and I told him that my dad and I can take him soon to shoot for the first time. He is 6 and was shooting bullseyes with a bb gun last weekend so I believe it's time. Plus, I think it's the perfect age for him to realize exactly what shooting a gun is like (not the same as a toy gun for sure).0 -
I'm more worried about the people UNlicensed to carry and have guns concealed. Not at all worried about the people I see that open carry. I know these people have gone through training and background checks and are licensed.0
-
People ask why i own a gun........because i hunt and protect my family...
without the 2nd Amendment, we wouldn't have the 1st...
and because George Washington didn't debate the British, he shot them...
:laugh:
Fear of guns is programmed into one's head by anti-gun propaganda. It's an inanimate object, just like a baseball bat that can easily be used to kill a person too.
My son has a little cricket (.22 rifle for kids) and I told him that my dad and I can take him soon to shoot for the first time. He is 6 and was shooting bullseyes with a bb gun last weekend so I believe it's time. Plus, I think it's the perfect age for him to realize exactly what shooting a gun is like (not the same as a toy gun for sure).
I have a .22 Cricket for my boys also....
I have taught them the 4 rules of Gun Safety ,and told them once they start using real guns, the toy guns get taken to the Goodwill.....0 -
I'm more worried about the people UNlicensed to carry and have guns concealed. Not at all worried about the people I see that open carry. I know these people have gone through training and background checks and are licensed.
Wanna blow ya mind?
No licenses of any sort in vermont. You know, hippy *kitten* vermont, home of Cabot, the Ivy league, the Sound of Music, and Ben and Jerrys? No licensing, every can carry whatever however they want, provided they aren't federally prohibited.
I'm glad to see this threrad is still going! If it's around after I've killed some ducks I'll post up some pics in here. Because food, and 'Murica!0 -
So a bunch of guys with hunting rifles or pistols wouldn't be a deterrent to an invasion?I have to say... there's nothing wrong with using guns for hunting or sport, and while I'm not sure they're effective for protection, if owning a gun makes you feel safer then it's worth it.
However, do people really think that a bunch of dudes armed with hunting rifles or pistols and armored with beer bellies would be a deterrent against invasion or oppression?
Might have worked back in the 18th century (and not too often, even then), but military hardware has improved a bit...
Good thing I never said that...Are we making it (suicide) easy? Maybe. But that still doesn't justify, to me, why we should take guns away from people who need them for their livelihood or protection
People like what you describe are called "resistance fighters" and have quite often turned the tide of war.
Most of the casulties in the last two wars that the United States have been involved in were the result of ordinary men with guns.
No, you wouldn't be. You're deluding yourself. Have all the guns that you want, and you won't be able to hold off your local sheriff's department for more than a few hours, much less a furlucking invading army. You aren't the Wolverines and they aren't coming at you with muskets. I always get a good chuckle when people say they want to keep their guns because it keeps Uncle Sam from infringing upon their rights. If the gov't decides to do something, there aren't enough handguns and rifles and whatever else you want to keep them from walking right up to your door and doing whatever the hell they want to do.
Check your recent U.S. history for examples of what happens when armed people try to hold off local LEO or federal agents and see how many times the 2nd amendment won the battle.0 -
On the topic of a bunch of dudes with guns vs an actual army:
You get 1000 dudes with handguns, rifles, shotguns, even machine guns if you want; I get some ground attack aircraft, a heavy bomber and a suspension of the Geneva convention. Loser buys the beer.
Thank you for illustrating my point. In both wars the insurgents lost way more men than the coalition forces, especially in Afghanistan, and in neither war were the insurgents able to accomplish any of their goals...So a bunch of guys with hunting rifles or pistols wouldn't be a deterrent to an invasion?
People like what you describe are called "resistance fighters" and have quite often turned the tide of war.
Most of the casualties in the last two wars that the United States have been involved in were the result of ordinary men with guns.
Off the top of my head, the last time that a poorly equipped militia force actually accomplished its goal was in the Algerian war... during which the FLN lost ten times more soldiers than the French army and which ended in a French victory. The only reason it (eventually) resulted in Algerian independence was because continued occupation was too expensive, economically and politically.
In fact, this is pretty much the most that an unprofessional army can do: make occupation too costly or cause an outcry... and non-violent resistance can do as well but with less loss of life.0 -
On the topic of a bunch of dudes with guns vs an actual army:
You get 1000 dudes with handguns, rifles, shotguns, even machine guns if you want; I get some ground attack aircraft, a heavy bomber and a suspension of the Geneva convention. Loser buys the beer.
Thank you for illustrating my point. In both wars the insurgents lost way more men than the coalition forces, especially in Afghanistan, and in neither war were the insurgents able to accomplish any of their goals...So a bunch of guys with hunting rifles or pistols wouldn't be a deterrent to an invasion?
People like what you describe are called "resistance fighters" and have quite often turned the tide of war.
Most of the casualties in the last two wars that the United States have been involved in were the result of ordinary men with guns.
Off the top of my head, the last time that a poorly equipped militia force actually accomplished its goal was in the Algerian war... during which the FLN lost ten times more soldiers than the French army and which ended in a French victory. The only reason it (eventually) resulted in Algerian independence was because continued occupation was too expensive, economically and politically.
In fact, this is pretty much the most that an unprofessional army can do: make occupation too costly or cause an outcry... and non-violent resistance can do as well but with less loss of life.
Wow if the occupation is too costly and the Invading Army leaves that makes them the Losers , Ask the French About Vietnam, maybe ask the Russians about Afganistan and how many years have a bunch of goat herders kept our forces busy ? (And any one who has been there will probley tell you they are not just a bunch of goat herders)The determination comes from what your Military Objectives are and if they are hampered by Political restraints. Hell you could even ask the drug lords in South America. And the goal---get the Invading Army to leave.0 -
Why? Because WE CAN!!!0
-
it clearly states in the Book of Genesis that Guns were provided in the Garden of Eden. thats all i need to know!0
-
So a bunch of guys with hunting rifles or pistols wouldn't be a deterrent to an invasion?I have to say... there's nothing wrong with using guns for hunting or sport, and while I'm not sure they're effective for protection, if owning a gun makes you feel safer then it's worth it.
However, do people really think that a bunch of dudes armed with hunting rifles or pistols and armored with beer bellies would be a deterrent against invasion or oppression?
Might have worked back in the 18th century (and not too often, even then), but military hardware has improved a bit...
Good thing I never said that...Are we making it (suicide) easy? Maybe. But that still doesn't justify, to me, why we should take guns away from people who need them for their livelihood or protection
People like what you describe are called "resistance fighters" and have quite often turned the tide of war.
Most of the casulties in the last two wars that the United States have been involved in were the result of ordinary men with guns.
No, you wouldn't be. You're deluding yourself. Have all the guns that you want, and you won't be able to hold off your local sheriff's department for more than a few hours, much less a furlucking invading army. You aren't the Wolverines and they aren't coming at you with muskets. I always get a good chuckle when people say they want to keep their guns because it keeps Uncle Sam from infringing upon their rights. If the gov't decides to do something, there aren't enough handguns and rifles and whatever else you want to keep them from walking right up to your door and doing whatever the hell they want to do.
Check your recent U.S. history for examples of what happens when armed people try to hold off local LEO or federal agents and see how many times the 2nd amendment won the battle.
This made me smile, cause it is exactly what I say when someone says their guns are to keep the government in check.
In reality the Wolverines are labeled terrorists, look at all the Iraqis who decided to rise against an invading army. They ended up dead or got dragged to Gitmo because they are terrorist and not guys defending their country using the weapons they have.0 -
0 -
I have to say... there's nothing wrong with using guns for hunting or sport, and while I'm not sure they're effective for protection, if owning a gun makes you feel safer then it's worth it.
what if your worry was about, idk, contracting MRSA, and what made you feel safer was consuming just a little bit of arsenic to kill it, at 3 o'clock every day, and then idk clapping your hands six times0 -
I have to say... there's nothing wrong with using guns for hunting or sport, and while I'm not sure they're effective for protection, if owning a gun makes you feel safer then it's worth it.
what if your worry was about, idk, contracting MRSA, and what made you feel safer was consuming just a little bit of arsenic to kill it, at 3 o'clock every day, and then idk clapping your hands six times
lol0 -
Think what you wish.
So a bunch of guys with hunting rifles or pistols wouldn't be a deterrent to an invasion?I have to say... there's nothing wrong with using guns for hunting or sport, and while I'm not sure they're effective for protection, if owning a gun makes you feel safer then it's worth it.
However, do people really think that a bunch of dudes armed with hunting rifles or pistols and armored with beer bellies would be a deterrent against invasion or oppression?
Might have worked back in the 18th century (and not too often, even then), but military hardware has improved a bit...
Good thing I never said that...Are we making it (suicide) easy? Maybe. But that still doesn't justify, to me, why we should take guns away from people who need them for their livelihood or protection
People like what you describe are called "resistance fighters" and have quite often turned the tide of war.
Most of the casulties in the last two wars that the United States have been involved in were the result of ordinary men with guns.
No, you wouldn't be. You're deluding yourself. Have all the guns that you want, and you won't be able to hold off your local sheriff's department for more than a few hours, much less a furlucking invading army. You aren't the Wolverines and they aren't coming at you with muskets. I always get a good chuckle when people say they want to keep their guns because it keeps Uncle Sam from infringing upon their rights. If the gov't decides to do something, there aren't enough handguns and rifles and whatever else you want to keep them from walking right up to your door and doing whatever the hell they want to do.
Check your recent U.S. history for examples of what happens when armed people try to hold off local LEO or federal agents and see how many times the 2nd amendment won the battle.
History proves you wrong over and over again.0 -
Examples?0
-
I pack every day....:smokin:0
-
you need a permit and license to open carry and some states dont even allow that.
its called gun control and i feel you are safer in a place where gun safety is taught and learned by the majority.
The right to keep and bear arms (often referred as the right to bear arms or to have arms) is the people's right to have their own arms for their defense as described in the philosophical and political writings of Aristotle, Cicero, John Locke, Machiavelli, the English Whigs and others
i learned to shoot a fire arm, before i could actually hold the weight of the gun on my own, i have been shooting for about 12 years, i own a number of guns. and will feel much safer when i can legally carry my 9mm in my purse instead of only hunters grade pepper spray.
this!0 -
SyriaExamples?
Somolia
Cuba
Afganistan
Iraq
Thats just off the top of my head0 -
SyriaExamples?
Somolia
Cuba
Afganistan
Iraq
Thats just off the top of my head
That's a big dose of the irish spring. Boom.0 -
On the topic of a bunch of dudes with guns vs an actual army:
You get 1000 dudes with handguns, rifles, shotguns, even machine guns if you want; I get some ground attack aircraft, a heavy bomber and a suspension of the Geneva convention. Loser buys the beer.
Thank you for illustrating my point. In both wars the insurgents lost way more men than the coalition forces, especially in Afghanistan, and in neither war were the insurgents able to accomplish any of their goals...So a bunch of guys with hunting rifles or pistols wouldn't be a deterrent to an invasion?
People like what you describe are called "resistance fighters" and have quite often turned the tide of war.
Most of the casualties in the last two wars that the United States have been involved in were the result of ordinary men with guns.
Off the top of my head, the last time that a poorly equipped militia force actually accomplished its goal was in the Algerian war... during which the FLN lost ten times more soldiers than the French army and which ended in a French victory. The only reason it (eventually) resulted in Algerian independence was because continued occupation was too expensive, economically and politically.
In fact, this is pretty much the most that an unprofessional army can do: make occupation too costly or cause an outcry... and non-violent resistance can do as well but with less loss of life.
You didn't really read what you quoted, did you?0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 176K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions