Are you pro-gun, or anti-gun?

  • Thread starter Thread starter RC_Sojourner
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
josh987654321 said:
Okay, so in regards to functionality, May I ask, what does an AK47’s functionality lack from the standard model?
Click to expand...
When firing an AK-47, the user pulls the trigger and the firearm continues to fire until all the ammunition has been expended. That’s what “fully automatic” means.

Semi-automatic means that when the trigger is pulled, one, and only one bullet is fired.
Could you please give me a legitimate reason in owning an AK47?
Click to expand...
First, once again I’ll say it. Unless someone has a class-3 license issued by the federal government AK 47s (true AK-47s) are illegal to own.

Having said that, though, I’ll still answer the question. Collecting is a legitimate reason. Target shooting is another legitimate reason. Just because a person owns a certain firearm does not mean that such a person intends to kill anyone. It’s a false assumption.
 
Quill_and_Sword said:
I think everybody should be required to own a gun and keep it on them. Maybe that’s totally wrong, but everybody would be able to defend themselves, and if anybody pulled a gun on you, you’d have a gun, too. Rape rates would plummet. 🤷
Click to expand...
Everybody should be REQUIRED to own a gun? In that case, let’s make sure everybody knows how to use a gun first.
 
FrDavid96 said:
Here in the US we have a First Amendment that protects freedom of the press. We have a Second Amendment which protects the right to keep and bear arms.

Personally, I am more worried by having a next-door neighbor who subscribes to the New York Times than I am about having a next-door neighbor who owns a shotgun.
Click to expand...
I have to agree.

And yes, I am “pro-gun” as defined by the OP.

And yes, I own a handgun form personal protection.
 
I’m not really anti-gun, but I do support stricter gun laws, plus I don’t think it is necessary for someone to own an assault rifle.
 
migueltojose said:
Because governments and other civil institutions are powerful and corruptible, or willfully or un-willfully manipulated. It’s not a question of if, but when. It is inevitable. Even if it is “okay” 99.999% of the time. That’s like once every 30 years. All it takes is once. Do not underestimate the power of governments. They proliferate by nature. They have no incentive to limit themselves. Why would they? Kind of silly to think they would. They can always come up with lots of reasons why they need to grow… so they can do more for us, so they can protect us from ourselves. This continual growth is very dangerous.

For this reason, we need to have the ability to arm ourselves in a manner that will protect us from the highest forms of weaponry available anywhere. Of course, this is not realistic due to money and technology… but we should at least be aware and consider the options and be armed to some degree.
Click to expand...
May I ask to what degree? Atomic bomb? May I ask, have you seen some of the weaponry the US and Russia and many other countries have at their disposal? If you are thinking something like ‘The Patriot’ in this day and age, I believe you are dreaming.

Thank you for reading
Josh
 
migueltojose said:
Because governments and other civil institutions are powerful and corruptible, or willfully or un-willfully manipulated. It’s not a question of if, but when. It is inevitable. Even if it is “okay” 99.999% of the time. That’s like once every 30 years. All it takes is once. Do not underestimate the power of governments. They proliferate by nature. They have no incentive to limit themselves. Why would they? Kind of silly to think they would. They can always come up with lots of reasons why they need to grow… so they can do more for us, so they can protect us from ourselves. This continual growth is very dangerous.

For this reason, we need to have the ability to arm ourselves in a manner that will protect us from the highest forms of weaponry available anywhere. Of course, this is not realistic due to money and technology… but we should at least be aware and consider the options and be armed to some degree.
Click to expand...
I agree, but, I encourage you to have hope. It is possible.

Even a modern army cannot successfully occupy a people that doesn’t want to be occupied. If America lost in Vietnam, and in Afghanistan (I mean… basically)… I really doubt they can occupy this country. I mean, keep in mind, that if the government ever does become so tyrannical as to turn against the people, that the loyalty of the military will probably crumble.

The military is a lot less ideological than it used to be, and no propaganda could convince the majority of soldiers to fight their own countrymen (I would think).
 
johnnyt3000 said:
I’m not really anti-gun, but I do support stricter gun laws, plus** I don’t think it is necessary for someone to own an assault rifle**.
Click to expand...
That’s OK, neither does the government, that is why they are incredibly rare outside of military and law enforcement.

The only one that I personally know that has such a weapon is local firearms dealer who sells them to the police. He is were the police in Metro Detroit purchase them from. So, by definition, has to be able to legally own them before he can sell them.
 
josh987654321 said:
May I ask to what degree? Atomic bomb? May I ask, have you seen some of the weaponry the US and Russia and many other countries have at their disposal? If you are thinking something like ‘The Patriot’ in this day and age, I believe you are dreaming.

Thank you for reading
Josh
Click to expand...
Both Russia and the United States were defeated in Afghanistan.

Afghanistan is a nation of 30 million people. How do you think the U.S. military would fare against a nation of 315 million people?

Keeping in mind, that, as I said above, the military isn’t going to want to kill their friends and families. They’d desert before blindly protecting the government. What percentage of the military would side with the government against the people? I doubt it would be more than half.
 
Asking someone if they are pro or anti gun is like asking someone if they are pro or anti hammer, shovel, or car. It’s a tool.
 
RC_Sojourner said:
I agree, but, I encourage you to have hope. It is possible.

Even a modern army cannot successfully occupy a people that doesn’t want to be occupied. If America lost in Vietnam, and in Afghanistan (I mean… basically)… I really doubt they can occupy this country. I mean, keep in mind, that if the government ever does become so tyrannical as to turn against the people, that the loyalty of the military will probably crumble.

The military is a lot less ideological than it used to be, and no propaganda could convince the majority of soldiers to fight their own countrymen (I would think).
Click to expand...
I think a couple Nukes would do the trick, as I said before, if you are thinking something like the movie with Mel Gibson in it ‘The Patriot’ in this day and age, than I believe you are dreaming.

Thank you for reading
Josh
 
johnnyt3000 said:
I’m not really anti-gun, but I do support stricter gun laws, plus I don’t think it is necessary for someone to own an assault rifle.
Click to expand...
Assault Rifle- semi-automatic magazine fed rifle that looks scary. Take the guts out of an assault rifle and put them into a wooden stock and you end up with a poor copy of a hunting rifle (i.e. the standard “not scary looking” hunting rifle does more damage than the standard “scary” assault rifle).
 
RC_Sojourner said:
Both Russia and the United States were defeated in Afghanistan.

Afghanistan is a nation of 30 million people. How do you think the U.S. military would fare against a nation of 315 million people?
Click to expand...
As I said, a couple nukes would reduce that number alot.
RC_Sojourner said:
Keeping in mind, that, as I said above, the military isn’t going to want to kill their friends and families. They’d desert before blindly protecting the government. What percentage of the military would side with the government against the people? I doubt it would be more than half.
Click to expand...
Have you seen some of the weaponry the US uses against the Taliban? AC130 Gunship’s, Apache’s, Drone’s?

I mean, some of this stuff would take you out before you even knew you were being attacked, unless you had some of that at your disposal, I believe you wouldn’t stand a chance.

Thank you for reading
Josh
 
meltzerboy said:
Everybody should be REQUIRED to own a gun? In that case, let’s make sure everybody knows how to use a gun first.
Click to expand...
Actually, google “Kennesaw, Georgia”. Kennesaw Georgia is a town which recently passed a law making gun ownership mandatory. They copied the law of Nelson, Georgia, which has had a similar law on its books since 1982.

Neither statute is enforced, but they are on the books. Therefore, Quill and Sword’s opinion is shared by at least two Georgia townships. If Quill and Sword wanted to try and change the law in his municipality in order to require that gun ownership be mandatory… it would not be unprecedented.
 
I don’t consider myself pro-gun in the sense that it is some born in American right.

However, I do think that in some areas it is a really good idea to have a gun. I mean if I was a rancher I’d want a gun. Not as much for my protection, but to protect my livestock. If I lived in the middle of nowhere Alaska, I’d want a gun for my own protection. I’d like to point out that in these cases the concern is not another human, but wild animals.

I think someone who wants to hunt for food should have the right to have a rifle to do so (although a crossbow wouldn’t harm the meat as much).

Some guy in New York City, or other urban environment does not need a gun. The chances of them using for hunting are slim to none. You’d have better luck getting rid of a burglar with a table leg.
 
josh987654321 said:
As I said, a couple nukes would reduce that number alot.

Have you seen some of the weaponry the US uses against the Taliban? AC130 Gunship’s, Apache’s, Drone’s?

I mean, some of this stuff would take you out before you even knew you were being attacked, unless you had some of that at your disposal, I believe you wouldn’t stand a chance.

Thank you for reading
Josh
Click to expand...
Well, you’re more cynical than me. You honestly think the United States government would nuke the United States? I can’t envision a scenario where that would ever happen.

As I said, Afghanistan, a nation of 30 million people beat both Russia and the U.S.

An airforce cannot destroy an entire population. The U.S. would be guilty of genocide well before that. I’m sorry, but these arguments simply do not refute any of the points I made in my post.

If the U.S. military (which is being reduced to 400,000 active duty troops) cannot occupy Afghanistan, then it cannot occupy the United States.
 
RC_Sojourner said:
Well, you’re more cynical than me. You honestly think the United States government would nuke the United States? I can’t envision a scenario where that would ever happen.

As I said, Afghanistan, a nation of 30 million people beat both Russia and the U.S.

An airforce cannot destroy an entire population. The U.S. would be guilty of genocide well before that. I’m sorry, but these arguments simply do not refute any of the points I made in my post.

If the U.S. military (which is being reduced to 400,000 active duty troops) cannot occupy Afghanistan, then it cannot occupy the United States.
Click to expand...
So hows it working for the Taliban atm?
 
josh987654321 said:
As I said, a couple nukes would reduce that number alot.

Have you seen some of the weaponry the US uses against the Taliban? AC130 Gunship’s, Apache’s, Drone’s?

I mean, some of this stuff would take you out before you even knew you were being attacked, unless you had some of that at your disposal, I believe you wouldn’t stand a chance.

Thank you for reading
Josh
Click to expand...
What you are talking about is a conventional force engaging an unconventional force in asymmetric warfare. The conventional force will always lose (no matter how much firepower it has) as long as the populace supports the unconventional force. Asymmetrical warfare is all about “the hearts and minds” and not “the bullets and bombs.”
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top