WHY do they want the Assault Weapons? - Page 2

General » General Discussion

Site Notices

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - WHY do they want the Assault Weapons? (Page 2 of 2)

Posted: 12/29/2012 8:27:21 AM EDT

[#1]

Quoted:
The idea that an unconventional army couldn't and wouldn't adopt and develop tactics to nullify the weapons of a better equipped army is foolish and ignorant of recent history.

Sarcasm I hope!

Posted: 12/29/2012 8:33:56 AM EDT

[#2]

Minimize insurgency

Posted: 12/29/2012 8:37:44 AM EDT

[#3]

. Ok shortime..... You can tell school is out for the holidays...

Quoted:
I think a better question is why are there so many dumbass threads made in the last couple weeks?

Posted: 12/29/2012 8:40:24 AM EDT

[#4]

Quoted:
WHY..do people keep insisting on calling them assault weapons

Because semantics is no way to win a political argument? You end up looking like an idiot....

Posted: 12/29/2012 8:41:35 AM EDT

[#5]

Quoted:

Quoted:
How did the Vietcong do against us?

Saddam's Feydayeen idiots?

Guerrilla warfare would be the order of the day. Until the rebels get their hands on some hardware.

Both the Vietcong and the Fedayeen Saddam were killed by the dozens, easily, and often....to the point that they both ceased to be a significant threat to the US military.
Rebels would never be able to effectively use "real hardware." The only way an rebellion would be successful is if it either involved a significant portion of the populace and they were willing to actually risk their lives, or if the US military became ineffective due to morale and loyalty conflicts.

I don't see people willing to put their iphones down and walk away from their families to go fight for anything. Most of those types already joined the .mil.

Thats one reason why (if ya wanna talk about the Constitution and the founders intent) we ought not have a standing army.

Posted: 12/29/2012 8:43:53 AM EDT

[#6]

Quoted:

The same reason why people worried about their spouse cheating on them are the most likely to cheat.
Libs think if you have a gun, you will use it to finish any argument or altercation...because they would if they got mad enough.
Mental disorder, but they can't trust themselves so they ant trust you.
And, how else will they feed the masses once we run out of money?
Solent green is people!!!!

In a clinical vernacular it is called "projection". The person imputes the internal conflict within their own psyche on to another person or group. The heart of liberalism can no exists unless they projected. Projection also is what is used to divide and conquer. I am a counselor, so I know my shit.

Posted: 12/29/2012 8:46:28 AM EDT

[#7]

Quoted:

Quoted:
One thing I want to make clear is that I'm not talking about the average liberal idiot on the street. I'm talking about the people who MAKE policy etc....The voters are just "useful idiots".

See there is your mistake. The ones who make policy are just as big of idiots as the voters. The only difference is that THEY believe themselves to be smarter or more educated than the masses.

No there is plenty of them they are not ignorant but evil and merely using the useful idiots to fulfill their agenda.

Posted: 12/29/2012 8:50:19 AM EDT

[#8]

It is a valid point the OP brings up.

The FBI data suggests there is very few killings with all rifles combined. That includes all sporting rifles as well as "assault" rifles.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-8

So it couldn't be about keeping society safe.

Posted: 12/29/2012 8:51:32 AM EDT

[#9]

Quoted:
The idea that an unconventional army couldn't and wouldn't adopt and develop tactics to nullify the weapons of a better equipped army is foolish and ignorant of recent history.

Very true. All the fearsome high tech weaponry we are supposed to cower under our beds about, whether it be drones, mechanized ground vehicles or attack copters has one gigantic shortcoming. It is primarily dependent on the human element to control it. Like they say the body dies without the brain. Million dollar equipment is useless if it's crew is dead. Any type of assymetical conflict would wreak havoc on these command/control centers as well as the delicate information infrastructure & supply lines. Remember the Missouri-Kansas border wars??? Imagine that times 100 with modern weapons.

Posted: 12/29/2012 9:05:19 AM EDT

[#10]

Quoted:
As an LEO and former .mil infantryman who has fought in war I can unequivocally tell you that "yes" a man with a rifle CAN standup to the military. A lone rifleman kept our battalion at bay for 30 days in Ramadi....one man.

Lots of wisdom in comments above.

Yes, "we" could stand up against the .mil. They know that too

And, at some point the .mil will began to question it's leadership as to why they are killing their fathers, uncles, aunts, brothers, and sisters. Refuse to obey orders and turn en masse against the tyrant.

Posted: 12/29/2012 9:22:25 AM EDT

[#11]

Quoted:

Quoted:
One thing I want to make clear is that I'm not talking about the average liberal idiot on the street. I'm talking about the people who MAKE policy etc....The voters are just "useful idiots".

See there is your mistake. The ones who make policy are just as big of idiots as the voters. The only difference is that THEY believe themselves to be smarter or more educated than the masses.

No there is plenty of them they are not ignorant but evil and merely using the useful idiots to fulfill their agenda.

That is my thought as well, the people at the top are truly fucking evil- Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot fucking evil....!

Posted: 12/29/2012 9:22:38 AM EDT

[#12]

Quoted:
It's really a simple question. I have repeatedly heard-especially here from certain folks, that "The idea that citizens could stand up to the American military is a joke".....Well, ok, let's not go there....but then tell me WHY they want to take them away? If they aren't afraid of them, then why expend the political capital etc...to take them-cause they KNOW it will be a shitstorm?.... Here's what I think- In poker, we call it a tell.....someone has checked their hole card....and they aren't as sure as the "experts" are.

Again, please, please don't violate the COC in advocating the overthrow of the government and shooting police or federal agents. I want to know why you think they want to take guns away from the American people if there is no chance they could be successful in resisting government oppression. Do they really believe that society would be "safer"?

Easy target for gun grabbers.

Its easy to convince someone that something scary needs to go away. Gun grabbers convince fence sitters, that normally don't know any better, that these are full-auto M16s and AK47s.

Our so called assault weapons are just low hanging fruit and they wont stop there if they can pull this off.

Posted: 12/29/2012 9:23:19 AM EDT

[#13]

It's probably already been posted, but the answer is control.

Posted: 12/29/2012 9:26:15 AM EDT

[#14]

Feinstein and her staff can't sleep at night being terrified at the thought of multiple .50 BMGs being pointed in their direction. I wonder if it's a subconscious projection of guilt?? LOL Vampires fear holy water and stakes, while cold-blooded, maniacal politicians fear a Barrett .50 BMG. In revolutionary times, this realization would be referred to as a "healthy" check on power:

http://www.examiner.com/article/some-politicians-fear-citizens-with-50-caliber-rifles-and-that-s-a-good-thing

As the Sipsey Street Irregulars' Mike Vanderboegh notes, .50 caliber rifles seem to be something of an obsession of hers:

"There is one thing that is always fascinating to me about Feinstein. She can't mention gun control without mentioning fifty caliber rifles. I mean she is a monomaniac on the subject. It is obvious that the thought of a projectile which can be fired from a mile away that can penetrate her limousine's armor in some nominal green zone "safe envelope" is the stuff of her nightmares.

Posted: 12/29/2012 9:39:12 AM EDT

[#15]

Quoted:
It's really a simple question. I have repeatedly heard-especially here from certain folks, that "The idea that citizens could stand up to the American military is a joke".....Well, ok, let's not go there....but then tell me WHY they want to take them away? If they aren't afraid of them, then why expend the political capital etc...to take them-cause they KNOW it will be a shitstorm?.... Here's what I think- In poker, we call it a tell.....someone has checked their hole card....and they aren't as sure as the "experts" are.

Again, please, please don't violate the COC in advocating the overthrow of the government and shooting police or federal agents. I want to know why you think they want to take guns away from the American people if there is no chance they could be successful in resisting government oppression. Do they really believe that society would be "safer"?

I think:

1. Firearms, including military style arms are a symbol that represents in idea. The far left hates the idea of a heavily armed citizenry. They want to change the way we view ourselves.

2. Civilian population cant stand up to the military directly, but indirect guerilla tactics wether sucessfull or not could drag everything else down, especially the economy. Assuming the military does'nt fracture and join our side like in some ME countries. Depends on what precedes it i'd suppose.

3. The US fought in Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq against a technically inferior foe. Yes we kick their assess, but look at how long it takes. In that time frame the political winds can change. The US would become its own Quaqmire.

Posted: 12/29/2012 9:40:51 AM EDT

[#16]

Quoted:

Quoted:
One thing I want to make clear is that I'm not talking about the average liberal idiot on the street. I'm talking about the people who MAKE policy etc....The voters are just "useful idiots".

While I think some politicians actually believe the stuff they spew, the majority of politicians just want a career in office and will do whatever is popular to stay in office. Unfortunately, banning 'assault weapons' is a popular hot topic and many are seizing the opportunity to win voters over. It's why politicians flip-flop.

Most do, i agree. There are true believers though.

Posted: 12/29/2012 9:40:54 AM EDT

[#17]

Quoted:

Quoted:
One thing I want to make clear is that I'm not talking about the average liberal idiot on the street. I'm talking about the people who MAKE policy etc....The voters are just "useful idiots".

See there is your mistake. The ones who make policy are just as big of idiots as the voters. The only difference is that THEY believe themselves to be smarter or more educated than the masses.

No there is plenty of them they are not ignorant but evil and merely using the useful idiots to fulfill their agenda.

That is my thought as well, the people at the top are truly fucking evil- Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot fucking evil....!

Agreed. Look who the current leader grew up around and who his friends and mentors have been all his life. Communists and socialists.

Posted: 12/29/2012 9:43:20 AM EDT

[#18]

Just Passed the Half Way Point!
12,500+ signatures in 48 hours!
Let's Keep it Rolling-- SEND A MESSAGE TO GUNGRABBERS!

IMPEACH FEINSTEIN!

Those that can, please spread this around on FB and Twitter.
The faster we can hit the numbers the more power this has!

Posted: 12/29/2012 9:48:36 AM EDT

[#19]

Quoted:

Just Passed the Half Way Point!

12,500+ signatures in 48 hours!

Let's Keep it Rolling-- SEND A MESSAGE TO GUNGRABBERS!

IMPEACH FEINSTEIN!
Those that can, please spread this around on FB and Twitter.

The faster we can hit the numbers the more power this has!

Yeah, I'll sign that petition right after I sign the one demanding that the government build a Death Star.

Posted: 12/29/2012 9:53:27 AM EDT

[#20]

Quoted:

Quoted:

Just Passed the Half Way Point!
12,500+ signatures in 48 hours!
Let's Keep it Rolling-- SEND A MESSAGE TO GUNGRABBERS!

IMPEACH FEINSTEIN!

Those that can, please spread this around on FB and Twitter.
The faster we can hit the numbers the more power this has!

Yeah, I'll sign that petition right after I sign the one demanding that the government build a Death Star.

"If ye love wealth better than liberty,
the tranquility of servitude
better than the animating contest of freedom,
go home from us in peace.
We ask not your counsels or your arms.
Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you.
May your chains set lightly upon you,
and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen."

-S. Adams

Posted: 12/29/2012 9:58:17 AM EDT

[#21]

They wan the china model for us. They can't have that if people have the ability to resist which rifles, despite all the "you can't stand up to the military" hand wringing, give us.

Posted: 12/29/2012 10:00:10 AM EDT

[#22]

Quoted:

Quoted:
One thing I want to make clear is that I'm not talking about the average liberal idiot on the street. I'm talking about the people who MAKE policy etc....The voters are just "useful idiots".

See there is your mistake. The ones who make policy are just as big of idiots as the voters. The only difference is that THEY believe themselves to be smarter or more educated than the masses.

Yep- its called arrogance...

Posted: 12/29/2012 10:04:46 AM EDT

[#23]

This is my take on it

I had sort of an epiphany yesterday while driving home.
The people that want us disarmed are the same stupid fucks that came up with the Participation Trophy.

They do understand the world isn't fair, but they want it to be so bad they will ignore their own best interest to make it so.

They can't or won't protect themselves or their loved ones, so they want you to be in the same state of helplessness.

Posted: 12/29/2012 10:13:02 AM EDT

[#24]

1)They are full of beans if they tell you small arms can't be used to cause trouble for a government. Look at Syria, Libya, N. Ireland, heck look at the trouble we have had in Afghanistan and Iraq.

2) They know if Americans were to someday pick up guns in resistance against a government that has overstepped it's bounds it would likely be their side people would be revolting against.

3) People who have the right to keep and bear arms are less fearful of exercising their other rights. If only the police and the military have guns then there really isn't anything stopping the government from coming and getting you because you said something they didn't like. Our Constitution is written so that the citizenry has the means to resist with force attacks on their God given rights.

Posted: 12/29/2012 10:13:52 AM EDT

[#25]

Don't forget that we have a lot of veterans in the population who probably used hundreds of hours of boring hurry up and wait time or guard duty time thinking "self, if I was going to fight me and my own, how would I go about it?"

Posted: 12/29/2012 10:21:29 AM EDT

[#26]

Quoted:

Quoted:
I've wondered about this topic as well.

Here's the pattern with AWBs:

The legislation is proposed

Both sides begin screaming

Time passes

Nothing happens

Repeat.

It's a political mechanism for wasting time, smoke to cover other events and to divert support/attention from other activities

Yeah, except for that one time in 1994.

. . . and that other time in 1968.

. . . and 1934.

But otherwise, I totally see what you're saying.

you forgot 1986

Posted: 12/29/2012 10:21:31 AM EDT

[#27]

Read my sig

Posted: 12/29/2012 10:46:59 AM EDT

[#28]

Quoted:

Quoted:

Just Passed the Half Way Point!

12,500+ signatures in 48 hours!

Let's Keep it Rolling-- SEND A MESSAGE TO GUNGRABBERS!

IMPEACH FEINSTEIN!
Those that can, please spread this around on FB and Twitter.

The faster we can hit the numbers the more power this has!

Yeah, I'll sign that petition right after I sign the one demanding that the government build a Death Star.

"If ye love wealth better than liberty,

the tranquility of servitude

better than the animating contest of freedom,

go home from us in peace.

We ask not your counsels or your arms.

Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you.

May your chains set lightly upon you,

and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen."

-S. Adams

Do you really think that Samuel Adams would care about a meaningless internet petition? Really??

Posted: 12/29/2012 10:54:45 AM EDT

[#29]

Quoted:
One thing I want to make clear is that I'm not talking about the average liberal idiot on the street. I'm talking about the people who MAKE policy etc....The voters are just "useful idiots".

For the same reason as why we have the drug war, CONTROL...

Posted: 12/29/2012 10:57:59 AM EDT

[#30]

"They" want to ban guns.

"assault weapons" are the low hanging fruit.

Posted: 12/29/2012 11:02:50 AM EDT

[#31]

It's about control.
Nothing more, nothing less.

Posted: 12/29/2012 11:04:12 AM EDT

[#32]

Do you really think that Samuel Adams would care about a meaningless internet petition? Really??

This about sending a message.
The message is that we want to hold enemies of our Constitution and Bill of Rights to account.
That is all.

Don't want to get on board, scared to look foolish? Fine.
This has the power to grab media attention and gives supporters a venue in which to vent.
Just look at it as a morale building exercise.

Or, sit on your ass and snipe from the sidelines.

ETA, sorry about the thread hijack

Posted: 12/29/2012 11:08:16 AM EDT

[#33]

The point isn't whether we would actually be able to win an all out war against our own government. As long as we as a population are well armed, it will keep them in check to a point. They aren't going to be attempting to load us into cattle cars if we have the ability to shoot back. It's all a part of the "checks and balances" system we learned about in school. But once we are disarmed, all bets are off. That's the awful truth that our liberal friends refuse to accept.

Posted: 12/29/2012 11:09:17 AM EDT

[#34]

In most countries, just send in some troops with weapons and make the subjects do as they are told.
In the USA, that would not work too well.
So this raises the stakes because the govt now has to send in tanks and heavy weapons, this is a lot less palatable.

Posted: 12/29/2012 11:12:58 AM EDT

[#35]

Fractional disarmament. The 2A is the only thing preventing the same kind of "positive change" seen in other countries that have gone socialist/communist.

People forget that the Weather Underground considered the death of 20 million Americans in re-education camps as "acceptable".

Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile

Posted: 12/29/2012 11:22:43 AM EDT

[#36]

We as armed Americans, as a group, outnumber and hold more firearms than all the armies of the world combined.

Could we take on and win against our own army on our own soil?

Certainly.

Here's why:

The Army doesn't have enough tanks to put just ONE in each named city in America. Between tanks, Bradleys,

and other vehicles, they MIGHT be able to put one in each city. ONE. And for support it could have just one,

maybe two, HMMWVs.

That's it. That's all. Nobody who is in a position to command deployment of the army's vehicles would split them

up so far, so the result would be concentrations of vehicles in a few cities and the rest would be totally untouched.

An army depends on resupply. Even the best provisioned forces can't run long or far without a robust logistical chain,

and if it did come to US military vs US citizens, the military would find that its logistical chain is torn to shreds at

every point where it comes into contact with civilian contractors. There would be no resupply.

No, I'm never going to worry about the idea of the US military (or government) going head to head against the largest

armed force in the world bar none: The citizens of the United States.

We as armed civilians hold immense power in our hands and it's time we realized it. But we are mostly ignorant of the

scope of our collective power if we should choose to wield it.

This is something the antis want to change. We are too powerful for their tastes. They want to get us to disarm before

we realize how much power we really hold.

I'm awake. I know how much power we hold. Do YOU?

We hold enough power to completely run the show if we really get organized.
CJ

Posted: 12/29/2012 11:28:16 AM EDT

[#37]

Quoted:
We as armed Americans, as a group, outnumber and hold more firearms than all the armies of the world combined.

Could we take on and win against our own army on our own soil?

Certainly.

Here's why:

The Army doesn't have enough tanks to put just ONE in each named city in America. Between tanks, Bradleys,
and other vehicles, they MIGHT be able to put one in each city. ONE. And for support it could have just one,
maybe two, HMMWVs.

That's it. That's all. Nobody who is in a position to command deployment of the army's vehicles would split them
up so far, so the result would be concentrations of vehicles in a few cities and the rest would be totally untouched.

An army depends on resupply. Even the best provisioned forces can't run long or far without a robust logistical chain,
and if it did come to US military vs US citizens, the military would find that its logistical chain is torn to shreds at
every point where it comes into contact with civilian contractors. There would be no resupply.

No, I'm never going to worry about the idea of the US military (or government) going head to head against the largest
armed force in the world bar none: The citizens of the United States.

We as armed civilians hold immense power in our hands and it's time we realized it. But we are mostly ignorant of the
scope of our collective power if we should choose to wield it.

This is something the antis want to change. We are too powerful for their tastes. They want to get us to disarm before
we realize how much power we really hold.

I'm awake. I know how much power we hold. Do YOU?

We hold enough power to completely run the show if we really get organized.

CJ

Correct. I suspect that most of the Joint Chiefs as well as the heads of intelligence agencies are keenly aware of this fact. Any type of prolonged, assymetrical conflict they would eventually lose horribly, due to the major logistical obstacles you outlined. Simply put, most of the rifles and guns hoarded in this nation must go. Such demoralization and subjugation created by disarmament would in turn dampen the fires of the mind and heart. The ivory tower elites and the antis know this.

Posted: 12/29/2012 11:43:13 AM EDT

[#38]

This is why the long term goal is to get people into cities ... tight groups that can be more easily controlled via control of food/water/etc.

Posted: 12/29/2012 11:43:38 AM EDT

[#39]

Quoted:
We as armed Americans, as a group, outnumber and hold more firearms than all the armies of the world combined.

Could we take on and win against our own army on our own soil?

Certainly.

Here's why:

The Army doesn't have enough tanks to put just ONE in each named city in America. Between tanks, Bradleys,
and other vehicles, they MIGHT be able to put one in each city. ONE. And for support it could have just one,
maybe two, HMMWVs.

That's it. That's all. Nobody who is in a position to command deployment of the army's vehicles would split them
up so far, so the result would be concentrations of vehicles in a few cities and the rest would be totally untouched.

An army depends on resupply. Even the best provisioned forces can't run long or far without a robust logistical chain,
and if it did come to US military vs US citizens, the military would find that its logistical chain is torn to shreds at
every point where it comes into contact with civilian contractors. There would be no resupply.

No, I'm never going to worry about the idea of the US military (or government) going head to head against the largest
armed force in the world bar none: The citizens of the United States.

We as armed civilians hold immense power in our hands and it's time we realized it. But we are mostly ignorant of the
scope of our collective power if we should choose to wield it.

This is something the antis want to change. We are too powerful for their tastes. They want to get us to disarm before
we realize how much power we really hold.

I'm awake. I know how much power we hold. Do YOU?

We hold enough power to completely run the show if we really get organized.

CJ

Not to mention, a large percentage of the military would be on the side of the people. At one point in his life George Washington fought for the crown. Robert E. Lee served in the union army. The majority of our military will not fight against those they swore to protect.

Posted: 12/29/2012 11:49:55 AM EDT

[#40]

Quoted:
WHY..do people keep insisting on calling them assault weapons

I have been asking this for a long time. One can assault another with a stapler. Does it make said stapler an assault stapler? That term is coined by gun haters to evoke a emotional based connotation that the " assault rifle" is a perpetually evil entity that is designed solely to kill unlawfully.

Posted: 12/29/2012 11:56:57 AM EDT

[#41]

Quoted:
I think a better question is why are there so many dumbass threads made in the last couple weeks?

yep...

Posted: 12/29/2012 12:07:53 PM EDT

[#42]

Quoted:
How did the Vietcong do against us?

Saddam's Feydayeen idiots?

Guerrilla warfare would be the order of the day. Until the rebels get their hands on some hardware.

I agree, guerilla tactics would be the way to go, maybe the only way. However most rebel armies are supplied from somewhere with heavy hardware. Who would supply American patriots?? Commies wouldn't, because the commies are in control here. Theres no democracies in Europe that would help for fear of retaliation from US, plus they are mostly under commie control anyway. Asia? Chinese could just for the fun of watching us kill each other, but they are well on their way of taking America peacefully so not very likely. Afraid Patriots would be pretty much on their own. This is what happens when you are too tolerant for too long. This lefty crap could have been stopped long ago, now its too late. Hell is coming and theres no way to stop it.

Posted: 12/29/2012 12:34:06 PM EDT

[#43]

Quoted:
We as armed Americans, as a group, outnumber and hold more firearms than all the armies of the world combined.

Could we take on and win against our own army on our own soil?

Certainly.

Here's why:

The Army doesn't have enough tanks to put just ONE in each named city in America. Between tanks, Bradleys,
and other vehicles, they MIGHT be able to put one in each city. ONE. And for support it could have just one,
maybe two, HMMWVs.

That's it. That's all. Nobody who is in a position to command deployment of the army's vehicles would split them
up so far, so the result would be concentrations of vehicles in a few cities and the rest would be totally untouched.

An army depends on resupply. Even the best provisioned forces can't run long or far without a robust logistical chain,
and if it did come to US military vs US citizens, the military would find that its logistical chain is torn to shreds at
every point where it comes into contact with civilian contractors. There would be no resupply.

No, I'm never going to worry about the idea of the US military (or government) going head to head against the largest
armed force in the world bar none: The citizens of the United States.

We as armed civilians hold immense power in our hands and it's time we realized it. But we are mostly ignorant of the
scope of our collective power if we should choose to wield it.

This is something the antis want to change. We are too powerful for their tastes. They want to get us to disarm before
we realize how much power we really hold.

I'm awake. I know how much power we hold. Do YOU?

We hold enough power to completely run the show if we really get organized.

CJ

Violence is completely unnecessary.
Just do nothing.
A massive, nationwide, general strike.
Longshoremen, truckers...everyone.

Politicians love money, hit them in their pocketbook...it's what hurts the politicians most.
The second that they smell a hit to their pocketbooks coming, they'll change their position.

People have to get off the asses and stand up and be counted.
Join the NRA and other pro-gun organizations, get off of their asses and vote.

Here is what I see as most pathetic...
Only about 100 million people (total, whether left or right wing) out of 207 million Americans eligible to vote, actually did so.
Politicians know that the "silent majority" is largely right-of-center...but don't have the strength of conviction to go out of their way to do anything, nor keep themselves informed.
There are roughly 300 million guns in this nation, yet there are only 4.3 million NRA members...that is a sad point.
Gun owners are allowing themselves to be bullied and led-around by their government because most of them don't have the strength of conviction to organize and do something about it.

Imagine how powerful the NRA would be if they had 100 million members instead of just 4.3 million?
Imagine if they had a voting block of 100 million members?
Nobody in DC would dare oppose them.

Gun owners MUST organize, they MUST vote, they MUST become politically active, stand up and be counted and MUST keep themselves informed.
If they don't...they will eventually lose their second amendment rights.
It's only a matter of time.

Posted: 12/29/2012 12:47:55 PM EDT

[#44]

Quoted:
It's really a simple question. I have repeatedly heard-especially here from certain folks, that "The idea that citizens could stand up to the American military is a joke".....Well, ok, let's not go there....but then tell me WHY they want to take them away? If they aren't afraid of them, then why expend the political capital etc...to take them-cause they KNOW it will be a shitstorm?.... Here's what I think- In poker, we call it a tell.....someone has checked their hole card....and they aren't as sure as the "experts" are.

Again, please, please don't violate the COC in advocating the overthrow of the government and shooting police or federal agents. I want to know why you think they want to take guns away from the American people if there is no chance they could be successful in resisting government oppression. Do they really believe that society would be "safer"?

If the government truly wanted to curb murder with a ban on one type weapon they would outlaw any weapon that shot the 9MM Luger round. Yep it is that simple, doing away with the 9MM guns would get rid of the bulk of the murder weapons in the US and the left knows it. Getting rid of the semi-auto rifles would only take care of less than 1% of the weapons used to murder. No it has nothing with reducing the murders in the US it is all about being able to control the people when in fact the people are suppose to be in control of the government.It is my hope and in I pray that the government does not push the issue as I believe that it, the government is setting on a tender box of taking the semi-auto weapons, history tells us that a fight could go in many directions with the end being good for no one. However I also believe that we need a leader with the courage to stand up and say government you have to and you will be cut. if that was done then and only then should the people be ask to pay more taxes but only to pay down the debt.

"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive."
Noah Webster, 1787

Posted: 12/29/2012 1:07:36 PM EDT

[#45]

Quoted:

Violence is completely unnecessary.

Just do nothing.

A massive, nationwide, general strike.

Longshoremen, truckers...everyone.

Shut it down. Correct. Peacefully and totally.

How long would any arm of the government be able to operate if civilian contractors and

sellers were to simply stop providing goods and services for them?

How long would any army base be able to operate its complement of armored vehicles

running only on the fuel reserves (and other necessary consumables) stockpiled on base

property, in the event of a full mobilization?

How many day's worth of fuel does, say, Offutt AFB, Nebraska have in storage for flight

operations?

In any case I'm sure the answer is never more than maybe, oh, two week's worth? To anyone

who might have a clear answer on this, am I even in the ballpark?

The operation of the military in the US is fully dependent on the good will and cooperation of

the many civilians and contractors who support every aspect of military operations. Lose that

good will and it's just shut down just like that.

CJ

Posted: 12/29/2012 2:30:09 PM EDT

[#46]

Quoted:

Violence is completely unnecessary.
Just do nothing.
A massive, nationwide, general strike.
Longshoremen, truckers...everyone.

Shut it down. Correct. Peacefully and totally.

How long would any arm of the government be able to operate if civilian contractors and
sellers were to simply stop providing goods and services for them?

How long would any army base be able to operate its complement of armored vehicles
running only on the fuel reserves (and other necessary consumables) stockpiled on base
property, in the event of a full mobilization?

How many day's worth of fuel does, say, Offutt AFB, Nebraska have in storage for flight
operations?

In any case I'm sure the answer is never more than maybe, oh, two week's worth? To anyone
who might have a clear answer on this, am I even in the ballpark?

The operation of the military in the US is fully dependent on the good will and cooperation of
the many civilians and contractors who support every aspect of military operations. Lose that
good will and it's just shut down just like that.

CJ

The only problem with your theory is that when the military got to needing anything, they'd just go take it. Who's going to stop them?

And don't you think they already know what they'll need and where to get it?

If it gets to that point, they'll go very proactive to procure their necessities.

Unless you destroy the things they need before they get there, you can't stop them from resupplying themselves.

Our best hope is that a lot of them won't fire on their own countrymen in the first place and will make it exceedingly hard on those that do.

That, and the fact that the leaders of the bad guys in the Government will be for the most part like Bin Laden. Afraid to stick their heads up lest they become "pink mist" courtesy of some patriot and his (by then) banned rifle.

Posted: 12/29/2012 3:15:45 PM EDT

[#47]

Quoted:

Quoted:

Shut it down. Correct. Peacefully and totally.
How long would any arm of the government be able to operate if civilian contractors and

sellers were to simply stop providing goods and services for them?
How long would any army base be able to operate its complement of armored vehicles

running only on the fuel reserves (and other necessary consumables) stockpiled on base

property, in the event of a full mobilization?
How many day's worth of fuel does, say, Offutt AFB, Nebraska have in storage for flight

operations?
In any case I'm sure the answer is never more than maybe, oh, two week's worth? To anyone

who might have a clear answer on this, am I even in the ballpark?
The operation of the military in the US is fully dependent on the good will and cooperation of

the many civilians and contractors who support every aspect of military operations. Lose that

good will and it's just shut down just like that.
CJ

The only problem with your theory is that when the military got to needing anything, they'd just go take it. Who's going to stop them?
And don't you think they already know what they'll need and where to get it?
If it gets to that point, they'll go very proactive to procure their necessities.
Unless you destroy the things they need before they get there, you can't stop them from resupplying themselves.
Our best hope is that a lot of them won't fire on their own countrymen in the first place and will make it exceedingly hard on those that do.
That, and the fact that the leaders of the bad guys in the Government will be for the most part like Bin Laden. Afraid to stick their heads up lest they become "pink mist" courtesy of some patriot and his (by then) banned rifle.

Things have to be made. They don't just exist. A destroyed factory needs to be rebuilt. Trained workers need raw materials to create a finished product. It's not as simple as just taking it.

Posted: 12/29/2012 3:47:33 PM EDT

[#48]

Full Retard, this thread has it.

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - WHY do they want the Assault Weapons? (Page 2 of 2)

General » General Discussion

Warning

Confirm Action

About AR15.COM

Stay Connected

Newsletter

Contact Us