Well said.

http://bobbiblogger.files.wordpress....ng?w=300&h=255

oh never mind
:disgust

:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

Exactly! That's why I think we should all have attack helicopters, otherwise we're at a clear disadvantage when going toe-to-toe against the current US army. It only makes sense!

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_Bq5v8T4edi...1600/AH_1Z.jpg

54 dictators that are no more dictators than the last half dozen presidents

so at least 10% of you is a total idiot. that's ok, about the same as any other human, myself included

Jesus. The NRA are a pack of swine. :disgust

Explain why thinking that a son of muslim father and atheist mother named Hussein could be muslim or atheist is totally idiotic?
Especially adding the fact that you must claim to be Christian in order to run for president.

:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

dude, stop already

obama's nothing more than a corrupt politician, just like 99% of dem and rep politicians.

he just follows orders like the 99% i mentioned

Hmm, did I even argue that? :1orglaugh

Next it will be our farmers who defend their right to fertilizer in mass quantities as we all talk about how some nut blew up a school.

Best post by far.

To anyone who disagree's, you're a troll or moron. Period.

I don't care to respond to any of the posts directed to me, because, well.. Stupidity doesn't require a response.

Ok Mr. "CLAIMEDpresidents" :1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

You must really live in a shit country if you can't afford attack helicopters. How the hell are you even online, the former USSR has had these bad boys on ebay for a while now.

They also launched a version for kids too I read.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-...ages-4-and-up/.

WTF is going on here? The NRA used to be about gun safety and now it's promoting gun games to four year olds? No wonder why they don't give a shit about six and seven year olds getting shot.

Fuck that shill, does anyone actually believe that he was looking out for the people's best interests? He was a puppet just like the rest...

So if the day ever comes that Americans are being brutally oppressed and need to defend their freedoms you would rather they be armed with muskets instead of assault rifles? Why would you want to put yourself at a disadvantage? People want to ban assault rifles? That is the dumbest thing ever... they are the most efficient weapon...

It would already be a tough enough fight with assault rifles, but people want to be even more limited than that?

If Americans somehow had assault rifles in the 1700's there would have been a lot less dead patriots and a lot more dead tyrants.

These weapons are meant to be tucked away, never to be used (except maybe training and practice) until the day that tyranny tries to take over this free nation.

This is why Thomas Jefferson said the beauty of the 2nd Amendment is that it doesn't need to be used until someone tries to take it away.

Just because one psychotic individual happened to get his hands on one of these weapons and use it for the wrong purpose does not change the bigger picture.

If that day ever comes he success or failure of any defense against the government will hinge on one thing: whether or not the people in the military side with the government or the people. If they side with the government you can have a room full of AR-15's and all the bullets you can carry and it will do you zero good.

If they side with the people it is a different story and there will be plenty of guns for those who wish to use them.

I totally agree. Those magic meds are overprescribed like they're candy. And to children!
However, this is where we talk about gun control. Prescription drugs are a separate problem. You can't say "yes, but we have this other problem, so it's ok to not think about this problem." I mean, you can, but it's not going to go anywhere.

I'll keep sayin' it...

You're wrong when you say it would do "zero" good.

"Zero good" would happen if the public was completely disarmed.

Guns are not even a problem to begin with, they are inanimate objects.

The crazy psychotropic drugs are a problem because they literally alter the chemistry of a person's brain, including young children as you said, and this can result in them doing something bad with an inanimate object.

It's obviously not the only reason that bad things happen, but it is definitely one of the main culprits and it always seems to be ignored, especially by the media.

So your AR-15 is going to shoot down a jet fighter or take out a tank? Your AR-15 is going to do you exactly how much good against a battleship that is sitting miles off the coast and shelling you or a drone that zero's in on you and takes you out from thousands of feet in the air?

I'm not advocating for disarming the public. That will do no good and just cause unrest, anger and violence. The problem is the gun nut conspiracy theorists like to sit in a dark room jerking off to reruns of "Red Dawn" screaming "WOLVERINES!" as they cum while envisioning themselves taking their rifle into the woods and leading a resistance against the military occupation.

The reality, as I said, is if there came a day that one of the US leaders tried to overtake the country via military force how it turns out will depends on how men and women that run our military react. We hope they will tell those leaders to pack sand refuse to do as they order, but if they don't things are not going to turn out well because even if every citizen in the nation had a gun it is still nothing compared the firepower the US military can wield.

The resistance would most likely hideout in civilian areas, so the scenario you're describing would be more like all-out genocide. If that's the case then of course the public will be outmatched, they would get slaughtered.

But in a more realistic scenario 300 million armed Americans really isn't something to take lightly.

Look at the fight those gangs in the middle east have put up for all these years with not much more than rifles.

A more realistic scenario is that half the country would just go along with whatever new government there was so long as they were safe, able to feed themselves, had a job and a place to live.

The resistance could be small pockets of people who would strike military targets and the new government would brand as terrorists then one fine afternoon as they stepped out of cover a sniper would take them out from half a mile away.

If half the country is still able to go along as if everything is just fine then it probably wouldn't be a dire enough situation to call for armed resistance anyways.

So is he a dictator or a puppet just following orders? Make up your mind.

Which ultimately leads me to my core belief which is that our government is set up in a way that a military coup and martial law style takeover of the government would be nearly impossible thus making the argument that a person needs an AR-15 to protect themselves from the government null and void. Again, I'm not saying take them away from people I'm just calling on those who buy them and like them to be honest and admit that shooting it gives you a hardon and it makes you feel good and important and perhaps fills void in your life so you own one.

I have a friend that has a couple of semi-auto assault rifles. He shoots them in competitions and enjoys shooting them them as a hobby. Cool. Fine by me. If he also told me he takes it out in the woods, burns through three clips as fast as he can then jerks off all over the still hot shell casings I wouldn't care. At least he is honest. But to say that he owns them because he may be called upon to defend himself against the government is pretty indigenous to me.

It is kinda silly, BUT
it doesn't change why it was put there. Also in Urban combat LOTS of troops are killed.
IRAQ - Afghan -
They do not have any Jets, Tanks, Drones and so on, yet hundreds of Americans have died.
Can be said for several third world countries, many groups start out with smaller weapons and overtake bigger ones Also if any military change sides, they have ONE weapon issued to them not an extra for you and me!

Ask the Russians how Rocks and Chains defeated helicopters..

Personally if anything even close to LA Riots, or a natural disaster and people come to loot my shit, love to have what it takes....

Maybe I might want to drop about 10-15 rounds in the ground by someones feet to try to stop them.

Or I guess I could just go for 3 of the 6 center mass, from a revolver.

It isn't the Weapons, it isn't the amount of rounds, it is the nuts getting them and slow ass Police response time.

Why do the police have AR-15's? With 30 round magazines?
It has been ruled they are not there to Protect you, so we face the SAME threats they do!

You seem to talk a lot about people jerking off and jizzing on their guns and shit, it's pretty weird... lol, but anyways...

Do you actually believe it's impossible that the USA could ever fall to tyranny? Based on the way human history has unfolded I'd say it's more like an inevitability. Maybe not tomorrow, maybe not in 5 years, maybe not in 50 years, but it's likely to happen. They don't say "history repeats itself" for no reason.

Alexander Tytler's Cycle:

http://www.commonsensegovernment.com//pix/tytler.jpg

The famous Fatal Sequence quotation, sometimes known as the Tytler cycle, is

"The historical cycle seems to be: From bondage to spiritual faith; from spiritual faith to courage; from courage to liberty; from liberty to abundance; from abundance to selfishness; from selfishness to apathy; from apathy to dependency; and from dependency back to bondage once more."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Tytler

An interesting quote from Tytler:

"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the majority discovers it can vote itself largess out of the public treasury. After that, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits with the result the democracy collapses because of the loose fiscal policy ensuing, always to be followed by a dictatorship, then a monarchy."

- Alexander Tytler

So much for 3 equal branches of government to keep the balance of power in check...

In all honesty I think the primary reason anyone might need to use a gun to defend themselves in a situation of civil unrest is if there were some kind of large scale natural disaster that we were unprepared for and people were caught in and became desperate. Something like that could happen.

It could happen, but I don't see it happening in our lifetime.

Anything could happen. When you look back on history no empire has stood forever, but something that is different now than in the past is we are more of a global economy than at any time in the past. That is only going to continue. What happens with that is it becomes in other countries's best interests to intervene and help some of those that are failing and hurting. You know for sure nobody was in the mood to help the Romans, but there are many that might come to our aid if we suffered a full economic collapse if for no other reason than we will likely bring them down with us if they didn't. That could prolong the empire, potentially for hundreds of years beyond when it might collapse which could be hundreds of years down the road.

The reason I bring up the sexual gratification with the guns is that I think for many guys they are like fast cars, big toys and other things that they spend their money on as a replacement of their failing libido. They are an extension of the cock. Most, no check that, every conspiracy theorist I have ever known personally had a serious personality disorder. They needed the conspiracies as a way to make them feel superior to other people. It allowed them to fell like they knew the truth and they were working silently behind the scenes to save us all. The same goes for many gun owners. They think they are going to rise up and protect us from the tyranny of a government that tries to take over its citizens by force. Just go to a busy gun range and look at the looks on the guy's faces as the fire those guns. You would think they had their hands on Megan Fox's ass.

I noticed that as well :winkwink:

If you look at Tytler's cycle and the US you could make the argument that we are currently somewhere in between the complacency and apathy sections. We have abundance and there is plenty of selfishness here. Most of us are pretty complacent and you can see the apathy in this last election. You can see the different social classes getting more and more apathetic towards each other. More and more people are already turning to the government for help. We are seeing that shift now with more and more people becoming social liberals and the conservatives/republicans scrambling to re-brand their message in order to stay relevant in the presidential elections. Eventually we will see a collapsed middle class that will then need the government to supply it with healthcare and help them get jobs and education. The thing is we could exist in that mode for decades, if not centuries until people start feeling like they are living in bondage. When that eventually happens it doesn't mean that it is the end of the country, but it could be a sea change in power, maybe a dictator, but to me it would more likely another political party offering a rebirth of the great nation and all her freedoms.

most shootings are done by mentally handicapped, why is it so bad to make sure they cant get their hands on guns?

It's not. Tonight I was reading an Ask Me Anything on Reddit with a guy who was in the theater in Aurora Colorado when that crazy guy opened fire. Someone asked him how he thinks something like this could be prevented in the future and his response was great: "Mental health care should be easier to get than firearms."

If I remember the details correctly: The Aurora shooter was getting mental health care, he was seeing a psychiatrist and they found 4 prescription bottles in his apartment.

The shooter also supposedly told someone in prison that his psychiatrist "programmed" him to commit the shooting. Who knows if he actually said that to the person in prison, and even if he did we would have no way of knowing if he was telling the truth or lying his ass off as a crazy psychopath is likely to do. It's interesting though, here's the article:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/1...n_2207724.html

Either way, the point is that he WAS receiving what people consider "mental health care" and he still did what he did anyways... and the psychiatrist or pills could have been part of the reason.

So basically, you feel that a rifle gives you an "advantage" against the most sophisticated and largest military in the world? Funny, Taliban thought the same way.

:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

No, it doesn't give you an advantage, but it gives you a better chance than not having the rifle.

It is possible the pills were part of the problem. He might have also been not getting the right kind of treatment and/or the wrong medicine. Sadly, with this kind of illness is very hard to diagnose. The real kicker to me is that he bought the guns he used to carry out this shooting. I don't know what the answer is as to how to keep people like that from buying guns without limiting other's freedoms, but it seems to me there should be some way we can do that and make both sides happy.

I wouldn't mind it if the background checks somehow could see if the person had been prescribed psychotropic drugs, but then we still get back to the same problem of a person being able to obtain a weapon illegally.

So when guns are banned and someone commits a shooting anyways with an illegal weapon I guess people will feel better about the situation and say "Well, at least he didn't do it with a gun he bought legally."

I personally wouldn't have a problem with that either. I would even be willing to add in that if you were under psychiatric care and the doctor thought you could be dangerous you go on the no gun list. If one day you are doing better you can come off of it.

Like you say, the guy could have still gotten a gun. He could have gone to a gun show and bought a rifle from a private party, but it might have been more difficult for him to get the arsenal he had. If he had been forced to use a 6 shot revolver and a 4 shot hunting rifle he likely would have done a lot less damage.

lol at least some people make an attempt to justify their views. yours is basically 'cause i says so'..

stop saying that. at the root of every problem is people.. obviously...people create these objects, people use these objects and people create laws about these objects. any one with an ounce of common sense should get that just because the actual items are impossible to blame doesn't mean nothing can be done to prevent deaths. prescription drugs are inanimate objects as well.

Better chance at what? A better chance as you try to shoot the guided missile with a .223 round before it slams into the ground wiping out everything within a 1/8 mile? Or a better chance against shoulder fired missiles to take out your position? A better chance against a tank? Predator drones are out of range of your crappy little light arms.

As a former and passive student of warfare, i'd say you are a bit out of date with your thinking if you believe a rifle is going to make a difference. At best, it will just make you feel like you tried, before you died. We've been in Iraq and Afghanistan for how many years now? More soldiers have died by suicide than by fighting in Afghanistan. Stop and think about what that says about the state of modern warfare and technology.

The only thing small arms will do is give someone on the ground a target to paint with a laser, so the missile can take out your home and neighbors. That is all. This isn't the year 1773, in case you haven't noticed.

:2 cents:

You guys don't need rifles, you need medication and therapy.

And not a single criminal in the USA gives a fuck.

You could also lay down some cover fire with your tz73, while I pop some smoke cannisters for some quick subterfuge. Then you can go to the silenced gt678 for clean headshots while I fall back to the M202a autoshotty. Then its Miller time.