It has to blind worship it couldnt be facts. lol No facts only come from the pundits.

I won't argue with that. There's a large number of reasons we have this issue. You can blame it on the pills we take, our diet, our "I am better than everyone else" attitude, our gun culture, the violent movies, and the violent video games.

No, they would be going home empty handed. Do you honestly think they'll just sneak out driving an AMTRAC?

This is exactly what happened in Syria. People who were in the military suddenly got up in the middle of the night and left, or while no one was looking. You don't "break out" of a military base with a tank when there is one hundred tanks behind you AND an air wing.

I have no idea who you are - I've never heard of you or your program. I'm not going to argue with you all night because I have better things to do. But I will comment on what you said about Saddam.

The second invasion of Iraq was a two month affair that removed Saddam from power and destroyed one of the largest armies in the world in less than two months. It took us three weeks to get to Baghdad, at which point both the military and the Iraqi government went into hiding and was never seen or heard from.

Anyone who understands military tactics knows you need a ratio of 3-1 or 4-1 to destroy an attacking force. The Iraqi military had 600k men under arms, another 1.2 million in reserves, and they were attacked by 250k and destroyed in three weeks....

That was, by far, the biggest embarrassment in military history.

Look man, if the end all be all event were to occur, sides will have been chosen long before the shooting starts. And I'm pretty sure the military personnel would go anywhere. National Guard units would mobilize for one side or the other, as would pretty much every other military installation.

I can't imagine why, but you seem to be as pro government as it gets. You sound like the kind of person who stands for nothing, other than the "beliefs" they formed by watching too much Fox news.

Typo correction from above... And I'm pretty sure the military personnel wouldn't go anywhere

Who I am is irrelevant to this discussion, as is the program I run. I'm not sure why you would even bring up either in a debate about gun control. I don't know you from a hole in the wall either, but it hasn't stopped me from engaging you in the debate because quite frankly, I don't need to know who you are.

Oh, right... it's the age old "who are you?" line when one side of a debate has all but lost and is trying to diminish the other side in one last hopeful attempt to come out of said debate on top.

As far as Saddam goes, he wasn't simply dealt with in a matter of months. The end result of what finally happened is irrelevant because it still doesn't change the fact that Dubya Sr. spent the better part of 2 terms going after Saddam.

Not to mention, I don't know where you get your info, but we first invaded Iraq - for the second time - in 2003. And regardless of whether or not in only took 2 months to get Saddam this time... we spent the better part of a decade fighting a senseless war there, all in the name of finding those pesky WMD's; which to this day, not a single one was ever found. So your example of the 2nd Iraq war as a backing point for your claim that America is the biggest super power in the world, is extremely flawed.

As far as what the biggest embarrassment in Military history was, I'm pretty sure I can go through and find far more embarrassing moments than a country "losing" a war to a far better armed and trained military. It's akin to sending an entire SEAL team after a national guard brigade; and once again your attempt to use this as an example of the "power" of America is.... extremely laughable.

Two words: Psychotropic Drugs

Zoloft, Prozac, Paxil, and so on.

You are probably correct about that, and most don't know how good they have it.... today. That's why I say fast forward 50 or 100 years, we don't know how good or bad it will be then. However, in terms of fighting someone, it may not be the federal government that is the issue. Could be a local government, or even a state after it succeeded from the union. Could be invading troops from Mexico. We really have no idea what possibility could play out in the future. Could be those pesky Koreans like in Red Dawn. :1orglaugh :upsidedow


Yes, but again, your statement holds true today.

I don't think (or want) anything will happen in our lifetime. It's the future I'm thinking of. The USA is a new country, just over 200 years old. That's nothing. 50 - 100 more years could bring another civil war or complete poverty. No country stays the same forever. The USA will change for the better or for the worse, flip a coin. And then it will happen again and again.



Hope we never live to see that day to find out. American forces may not be so trigger happy, but UN forces or private contractors... that is another story. No way to know how something like that would be play out and who would be involved.

That's just my point. Even though the leaders were quickly removed from power in the case of Taliban and Saddam, we can not secure either nation. Both of those places are still a mess. Then add the Vietnam conflict to it, and my point is you can not beat people who are fighting for their own freedom on their own land. They can prolong the event and wear you out for decades, killing you off 1 at a time if they have to. Home court advantage.




Exactly. The entire "Arab Spring" was an incredible thing to watch, and I doubt it's close to over. If you would have asked any of them 5 years ago if they thought that was going to happen, I'd guess the answer would be no. Whatever the true reason is for their uprising, it has been impressive to watch. If they can handle the transition is another story. Egypt looks like it is being held together by a thread.

According to the presidents speech and interview today:
1. Yes, some sort of executive order is coming on gun control.
2. Hunters and sportsmen etc do not have to worry that the federal government will take your guns away, we all believe in the 2nd amendment.

If you think the 2nd Amendment is only about "Hunters & Sportsman", than no you do not.

Great example. And in those "Arab Spring" uprisings, which were backed by the Obama admin, the civilian forces rising up against their oppressive governments held exactly the same type of "assault weapons" Obama is so hell-bent on taking from the hands of law-biding Americans.

Ironic, isn't it?

They're not for mere hunting and sporting; they never were. Neither is the 2nd amendment. If you didn't hunt back then in the 1700's, you didn't EAT. Our forefathers were very very specific and intelligent about their reasoning behind the 2nd amendment.

how many bullets per second could a gun shoot when the second amendment was written?

Nearly as many as, and nearly as fast as the bullets in the guns held by the tyrannical oppressive government we rose up against at the time.

They certainly didn't only have sling-shots going up against British muskets. Just like you wouldn't want a mere musket going against M-16's.

The 2nd Amendment is based upon a very clear principle, not based on technological specifications or limitations of the time.

uh huh. from what i've looked up there is nothing that shoots anything near as quickly or as accurately as what we have today. and sure, its a principal but i doubt that when it was written they were thinking about what guns would be like 200 years later. meanwhile more and more people will die to protect your unlikely scenario.

I'm not going all Tipper Gore here, but you know you can flip on a TV in the afternoon and see TV stars whipping out guns and inspecting dead bodies on the commercials for the for-some-reason popular prime time drama shows that seem to all revolve around death and violence with plenty of guns in each episode.
I'm not personally interested in the shoot em up tv or movies, but some people are. Why don't people consider the possibility of desensitization from all of this exposure?

Isn't it funny how in countries where cops don't carry guns there is less need for them to carry a gun, and where cops carry heavy weapons the criminals do too? I'm not suggesting any course of action at all, I'm saying it's VERY interesting to look at cause and effect and escalation. In other words, what did anyone expect to happen? Has seeing more weapons toting security and police made gun violence less? No. Figure it out from there.

Unlikely scenario? First of all, it's unlikely BECAUSE of the 2nd amendment. THAT is why our forefathers put it in. To make sure that it remains an unlikely scenario. Read up on history throughout the world. The first thing all of the oppressive and tyrannical governments did was disarm the general population. That's a fact.

Also, just because Americans has lived in a relatively peaceful, stable society, without major civil unrest towards our Gov't does not mean it can never happen. Look around the World man, it's constantly "on fire". It happens a lot.

We're just so conditioned and desensitive to it because we see it all as "3rd world problems", that could never possibly occur here in our safe, democratic, US of A, from our freedom-loving and citizen-loving elected Government.

Americans are fairly ignorant in this regard; we don't realize just how fragile freedom and "civilization" really are. It doesn't take much to throw everything off it's axis.

We've seen it play out on smaller scales (LA Riots, Katrina in New Orleans, etc). Just imagine it on a massive scale, for whatever reason. Do you want the only ones with guns to be criminals and the government? Sorry, I do not. The common, law-abiding man has an inalienable right to protect himself, his family and his country.

About "more and more" people dying. Do your homework and stop believing everything you hear on so-called news agencies like MSNBC. Tougher guns laws have NEVER equaled less violence or death. NEVER. People are always going to kill other people. No matter what. It's in our nature unfortunately. Cars, drugs and hammers all each kill more people a year than guns in this country. It's a fact.

The entire argument for taking away law-abiding citizens' guns is based on EMOTIONAL reactions to specific tragic instances (where the "gun" was not the reason for the deaths), whereas upholding the 2nd Amendment is based on rock-solid principles and facts.

I have a brand new AR sitting downstairs underneath my bed. It's been there about 3 weeks now and hasn't killed anyone. Maybe it's dysfunctional and I should take it back for a refund, no?

Well Tom, in a perfect world, there'd be zero guns and than I'm sure no human being would ever think to kill another human being for any reason.

Mcviegh killed hundreds in 2 seconds with a Ryder Truck full of shit in OKC.

Sand-bunnies with box-cutters killed 1000's in minutes on 9/11 inside 747s.

Humans gonna' kill.

But the FACT is, in places with so-called stricter gun-control "laws", where it's more difficult and restrictive for NORMAL, law-abiding citizens to have guns, the violent crime and murder rates are HIGHER. (i.e. - chicago, NYC and others)

But in the places where it's easier for law-abiding citizens to obtain and maintain guns, those rates are lower. FACT.

And all of these mass-shootings, etw, these people are NOT law-abiding people; they are people who had CLEAR mental problems in their histories, made prior threats and 95% of the time obtained their weapons ILLEGALLY!

So how does making it harder or impossible for normal citizens to have firearms help stop the "bad guys" from having them? It doesn't. Bad guys don't follow the law, now do they?

I don't want to live in a country where only bad guys have guns, or only bad guys and the government have them. The result would mean the common man is at the mercy of criminals and government, with no checks in place. Sorry, I just refuse to be a sheep in the pasture just waiting to be fleeced. And many other law-biding Americans feel the exact same way.

i only think there needs to be more restrictions and more education required to own a gun. i don't want to 'ban' guns. although i do think it should not be legal to just leave a gun sitting 'under a bed'. laws should be in place so that firearms are locked up unless on your person. its just an accident waiting to happen or a perfect opportunity for the gun to be stolen or used by someone other than yourself.

i am also tired of the stupid argument that people kill people, not guns. duh, obviously. people are responsible for everything. inanimate objects can't do anything on their own. this is nothing more than a deflection, and a very uneducated one at that but it doesn't mean that there shouldn't be laws in place to keep certain people away from these inanimate objects.

as for the government becoming 'tyrannical', it would happen so slowly that you wouldn't even notice until its too late. its not like one day you're going to wake up and have to take up arms. this is real life, not the movies. the la riots and katrina have nothing to do with standing up to a tyrannical government. these are just criminals taking advantage of a situation.

also, as i have mentioned before every 'law abiding' citizen is capable of using their legal weapon for criminal acts. the entire argument for keeping things status quo with the gun laws is emotional as well. people think something is being taken from them, this causes fear, which is an emotion. please tell me how the second admendment was built on 'rock solid' principals and facts? that just seems like you put 'rock solid' in there for no reason other than in hopes of no one questioning it. i'd also like to know if you would say this to someone who lost a loved one to a mass shooting incident, sorry but we need are semi autos to keep us safe from possible future government tyranny.

FACT state laws are useless when you can get a gun in another state so easily. its not like they are frisking people at state boarders.

FACT most guns used in mass shootings were legal guns that were used illegally. lanza's mother legally owned the gun. holmes legally purchased the guns. the columbine kids had others legally purchase their guns.. and it goes on.

humans are going to kill but that doesn't mean we shouldn't be trying to make it harder for them to do so. why not just wipe all laws off the books because they obviously aren't stopping crimes. now doesn't that sound silly? its the same logic.

I don't know. What would you say to someone who just lost their loved one due to a car accident? Or homicide with a hammer or blunt object? Or a knife? Or drug overdose? What do you tell them?

What did they say to the loved ones of 9/11 victims who were lost due to box-cutters and 747s? And to the OKC Bombing victims' loved ones who were lost due to a Ryder truck full of manure?

Did they say we'll bring back your loved ones by placing stricter laws on box-cutters and manure?

No, they didn't. Because people are the problem, not the inanimate objects.

Explain how making it more difficult for law-abiding citizens to obtain and maintain guns makes us all safer? I really want to hear this train of thought effectively explained.

How will it keeps guns from the hands of criminals who break the law anyway? Will it make it harder for them? Maybe, but so do locks on doors and security cameras, yet they still rob, mug and murder, now don't they?

There's zero logic to it. Zero.

You take guns from the good guys and leave them only in the hands of criminals and government, and you have a society full of ready-made victims.

those were the words of the president, not mine; though he did also mention "those who want a gun for personal protection" as part of the group, that might fall more in line with the 2nd amendment.

Wow. Lanza's MOTHER owned the gun. He did not. He illegally took it and used it. THAT'S ILLEGAL. He was a disturbed individual who threw out warning signs for YEARS. The problem is with a society and/or system that allows such a person to go untreated and be roaming free. What if he used a bomb instead? Or a knife? The issue isn't about the weapon of choice, it's about the individual and what led him to do it; what conditions existed that allowed it?

But one thing is very clear; Lanza was NOT a legal gun-owner. No way, no how.

Holmes was a head-case too. Plenty of documentation on it. So is there some systemic change that should have been in place to disallow such a person from owning a gun? Yes, I can agree with that. (still wish there was at least one CCW-holder in that theater)

Columbine? "kids had others purchase the guns" - ILLEGAL. You said it, not me. End of story on that one.

Criminals break the law. Criminals will not give a rats ass if obtaining a gun through someone else is illegal. Criminals will not give a rats ass if stealing their mother's gun is illegal. And Criminals will not give a rats ass if someone mentally unstable having a gun is illegal. Criminals will get their gun---or any other weapon they can---to do their crimes. That's why they are criminals. They don't follow laws like the rest of us.

That is precisely it, and THAT is a big part of why our forefathers wrote the 2nd Amendment. With the wise foresight that someday we could be confronted with such a government or leader who wished to challenge it.

Things like cars and hammers have every day practical uses, I don't think they can be compared.

As for 911, I blame the fact that these terrorists were allowed in the US in the first place. Tim McVeigh, how many times has that happened? However now, its not that easy to buy that much manure without being investigated and. Laws were changed after these events, so that kind of proves my point, doesn't it?

A drug overdose is self inflicted, so that has nothing to do with people dying who's only crime was being in the wrong place.

you're already living in a fantasy world thinking its made up of 'good guys and 'bad guys'. sorry to tell you but good guys become bad guys and vise-versa all the time and most people are many shades in-between.


the more legal guns in a society, the more illegal guns there are in a society. it may be too late for america, maybe not.. but the fact is every illegal gun starts out as a legal gun. its not like there are criminals making guns in run down motels or old warehouses. they all come from manufacturers. as i've said to others before, america is the arms dealer to the world. there are more guns smuggled out of the states to various countries around the world while the opposite rarely happens. the idea that everyone needs a gun to protect from everyone else who has a gun is ironic in a way and only creates a fear based society.

i know lanza's mother owned the gun and he used it illegally but until he did, that was a legal gun. had there been laws that forced her to lock up this gun with her access being the only access or if there were laws against having guns in a home where there are people with mental disorders, it may not of happened. like i said, i am not for 'banning' guns, just tighter access to them. you want to throw everything i said out because they were used illegally yet they were still purchased legally. it shouldn't of been that easy. and what made these guys 'criminals'? use of the gun? these people had no rap sheet, nothing. fact is every person in society is one step away from legal or illegal activity. people aren't born criminals and people who become criminals don't have to die criminals. the world is not as black and white as you would like it to be.

Well my friend, it's obvious and not unusual for different people to see things differently and not ever agree on such matters, so I'll leave this thread with one last statement....

I know one thing for certain, as a law-abiding, tax-paying citizen with a family and home not far from a large urban area, and one who believes freedom & liberty aren't free and tyranny is not just a "3rd world" or "ancient 1776" potential problem, I would very much rather have one and not ever need it, than need one and not have it.

So it's a personal life-long question of: Do you feel lucky? Well....Do ya?:winkwink:

I only ask one thing, if you have a family. please do not leave a gun under a bed. its an accident waiting to happen. i can understand your views even if i disagree with them. i think if i lived in the states i'd want a gun too simply because there are so many. i am glad its not like that here. i couldn't imagine living in a society where i need a gun to protect myself from all the other guns which in turn only means even more guns..seems like a vicious cycle. i guess you can only hope you never are in a situation where you have to use it.

WOW one of the first posts I agree with you on!

That's what he said "lanza's mother legally owned the gun.".