Guns.

[caleb]

So our victory over a war with china will be assured because all the citizens with guns will shoot down the nukes. I get it now!

[Earthdog]

DAMN the secret is out!!!! Are you some kinda spy Caleb??
(Can ya fill me in on the secret brownie recipe??)

[img]smile.gif[/img]

[caleb]

Can not tell. Aaaaaaaaancient chinese secret......well ok here it is http://www.ironworksforum.com/ubb/no...;f=10;t=008547

[Ar-Cunin]

Originally posted by MagiK: Fortunatly for US citizens, citizens of Denmark do not get to decide our laws

I wasn't trying to make your laws - I just thought that everybody should read the second amendment including the commentaries.

Originally posted by Earthdog: Morgan has made some very valuable points. I concur that if someone takes our guns away you take away our personal security. Gun dont kill people by themselves. They need a person to weild them.

Yes - people WITH guns kills (a comment to the old "guns don't kill .....)

I was discussing this with a friend yesterday and he tried to tell me that guns are dangerous. I disagree. People are dangerous. If someone wants you dead, youll be dead. He asked if a coffee cup or a pencil were as dangerous as an M-16??? I said equally as dangerous.. He asked how did I figure that??? My response was let someone stab you in the neck 42 times with a pencil and tell me how safe it is. The only difference is the RANGE at which you die. And I just have to think that being stabbed repeatedly with a pencil is MUCH more painful than being shot. I have a pretty good knowldge of what it feels like to be shot because I've BEEN shot. How many other people that post here can say that? Im STILL against gun laws.

If somebody tries to kill you with a pencil, you'll have a significantly better chance of surviving, than if the attacker uses a gun

I haven't been shot - and chances are that I never will. Because guns are so limited in Denmark

Its funny to me in a weird sort of way, that in light of my previous paragraph that people who commit serial multicide generally dont use guns. They use pencils, knives, poisons, cars, or even an article of the victims own clothing. In Australia there have only been 2 or 3 serial killers that have actually used guns in any of their murders. Stabbing seems to be the favourite method, with poison running a close second. How are they going to keep people from getting knives or rat poison?

You can never guard against these 'nutcases' - they'll kill with their bare hands if nothing else is availeble. So maybe we should cut everybodies hands off

Take the guns away from the law abiding citizens and the only people that have guns are the criminals. Thats a fact. Why do liquor stores still get held up in Australia?? Because the Criminals didnt turn their guns in like everyone else did. THEIR CRIMINALS DUHHHHH.

And why did the criminals get the guns in the first place - because they were readily availeble. DUHHHHH

How many guns were owned by the general public in France when Hitler invaded??? Would I be correct in saying "Not many"???.

No there were plenty of guns in France - hunting is very popular. And there was also a great deal of sympathy with the nazi ideology - just as in the rest of europe. (Vichy government) So the general populace wasn't a likely to resist. The fabel French resistance is largely a myth. Besides hunting rifles isn't a lot of help against panzer. And France was in shock after the stunning collapse of the 'most modern' army in the world. After that I doubt many ordinary french citizens were 'dying' to get to fight the germans.

Sorry if the above paragraph was a bit rambling.

I know this is what some people consider cold war paranoia but the reason the USA will never be invaded is because too many guns owned by the public would make invasion very difficult. Anywhere there is a farm, ranch, or just a good ole redneck the invaders will have more than just the military to worry about.

Not to mention distances, size of the regular army and size of the contry. Civilians will be hard pressed to fight a modern army

Not so in France, Bosnia, Slovakia, Holland, ect

France - covered above.
Bosnia - again plenty of hunting rifles - which were used by both sides in the civil war - but again not much use against armor (see Srebenitza(sp?)).
Slovakia - I don't understand - Slovakia have only existed as a nation since 1992 - and have never been involved in any fighting.
Holland - did fight during WW2 - and was run over by a vastly supirior enemy.

I pray to God there is never another Hitler. Europe is easy pickins. Not so in the USA. And for one simple reason, Guns.

Easy pickings? France and the UK have 'nukes'
Guns? - Try 'nukes' - again

[Earthdog]

How likely are France and England to nuke their own territory? The international community kind frowns on that. Theyd have to rely on a more converntional means to repel invaders. More likely to see India and/or Pakistan nuke eachother.

I asked the question about how many guns were woned in France when the Germans invaded because I honestly didnt know. Ok so they owned guns and were unwilling to fight. Not my fault. And a deer rifle in the hands of a civilian is just as deadly to infantry as it is in the hands of a soldier. The civilian has to be just as willing to die in defense of his country as the soldier is. And as you stated that wasnt the case in France.

Thank you for your timely info.

[ 05-27-2002, 04:14 AM: Message edited by: Earthdog ]

[Ar-Cunin]

Originally posted by Earthdog: How likely are France and England to nuke their own territory? The international community kind frowns on that. Theyd have to rely on a more converntional means to repel invaders. More likely to see India and/or Pakistan nuke eachother. I asked the question about how many guns were woned in France when the Germans invaded because I honestly didnt know. Ok so they owned guns and were unwilling to fight. Not my fault. And a deer rifle in the hands of a civilian is just as deadly to infantry as it is in the hands of a soldier. The civilian has to be just as willing to die in defense of his country as the soldier is. And as you stated that wasnt the case in France. Thank you for your timely info.

you're welcome [img]smile.gif[/img]

And no - England and France won't nuke themselves - but they'll have the opportinity to use their nuclear weapons against attackers. To demonstrate the French's willingness - during the cold war they had some of their weapon permanently pointed as West Germany - in order to hit any coventional forces that the Warsaw-pact might have uses to invade Western Europe and destroy them before they would have reached France.

And yes - I'm worried about another possible conflict over Kashmir

[Donut]

Originally posted by Earthdog: I still think Texas should Succeed.

Are you telling us that Texas is not a success? I blame George W! [img]smile.gif[/img]

[Earthdog]

[/qb][/QUOTE]Are you telling us that Texas is not a success? I blame George W! [img]smile.gif[/img] [/QB][/QUOTE]

PMSL @Donut

Texas is quite a success I think they should succeed from the Union and become an independent nation again. I know its never going to happen but its something to hope for [img]smile.gif[/img]

Something about all this well equiped militia stuff, its called the national gaurd and for some reason the national guard gets called to duty by the federal government in particular for overseas conflicts and that in itself contradicts what the state militia was established for. The State Militia is supposed to be for the state governor to call to duty in times of invasion by hostile forces, disaster, or civil unrest.

Any thoughts on this peoples??

[Ar-Cunin]

Well - you could argue that the deployment of national guard forces in fx. Afghanistan helps to keep USA a safer place, by helping to stamp out terrorism.

[Attalus]

Originally posted by Donut: quote: Originally posted by Earthdog: I still think Texas should Succeed.

Are you telling us that Texas is not a success? I blame George W! [img]smile.gif[/img] [/QUOTE]Uh, Donut, I think that you are joking, but just for the record, I believe that is a typo for "secede" which is still a popular idea around here, but, as I tell people, we tried that once and it didn't turn out too well....