Matrix Games Forums

Civil War II Patch 1.4 public BetaHappy Easter!Battle Academy is now available on SteamPlayers compare Ageods Civil War to Civil War IIDeal of the week - An updated War in the East goes half Price!Sign up for the Qvadriga beta for iPad and Android!Come and say hi at Pax and SaluteLegends of War goes on sale!Piercing Fortress Europa Gets UpdatedBattle Academy Mega Pack is now available
Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: A new ACW..

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [General] >> General Discussion >> RE: A new ACW.. Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: A new ACW.. - 1/7/2013 8:23:58 AM   
BASB


Posts: 1460
Joined: 2/14/2005
Status: offline


Yep fists, hands and knives cause more deaths than rifles, fair assumptions with these stat posted, I love how we all manipulate statistics to better our own cause or belief or need, I'm probably no different. Few men or women can stand back and look at stats or any other piece of evidence and make true and unbias assessment of any situation. Those few that do are truly great persons.
I can see it slightly differently than chijohnaok, approx 9450 people were killed by firearms as opposed 2450 by knives, fists and feet, yep banned rifles, feet fists and knives will protect us better using the same stats!!!
Just a final thought, that chinaman that slashed 20 odd kids recently in a Chinese school, do you think the result would have been different if he was armed with an AK47 and a couple pistols, an honest assessment yes. nuff sad


< Message edited by BASB -- 1/7/2013 8:25:43 AM >


_____________________________

Formerly Goodwood


(in reply to Missouri_Rebel)
Post #: 61
RE: A new ACW.. - 1/7/2013 10:40:49 AM   
MrRoadrunner


Posts: 910
Joined: 10/7/2005
Status: offline
I think it is time to ban ... schools.
Seems that is a common denominator?

Then the lunatic murderers would have no place to go to get at a crowd of kids, in a gun free zone?
They can go to individual houses and take out those who don't believe in protecting their kids?

RR



_____________________________

“The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane.”
― Marcus Aurelius, Meditations

(in reply to BASB)
Post #: 62
RE: A new ACW.. - 1/7/2013 12:26:12 PM   
2ndACR


Posts: 5648
Joined: 8/31/2003
From: Irving,Tx
Status: offline
Ah but the numbers are also skewed and do not seperate the criminal on criminal crime. Which I have no issue with if innocent people did not get caught up in the cross fire. Bunch of gang bangers want to wipe each other out, I say pass out the ammo.

(in reply to MrRoadrunner)
Post #: 63
RE: A new ACW.. - 1/7/2013 1:30:11 PM   
vonRocko

 

Posts: 1129
Joined: 11/4/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: rhondabrwn



But I ask once again... exactly what is everyone's scenario for using their weapons to fight the feared government takeover?

If I told you, I would probably be labeled a domestic terrorist and investigated and arrested for conspiracy! Free speech...hah. You would probably read in the paper that I "mysteriously" decided to commit suicide by driving into a tree.

(in reply to rhondabrwn)
Post #: 64
RE: A new ACW.. - 1/8/2013 12:44:49 AM   
battlegroundvehicles

 

Posts: 57
Joined: 4/26/2009
Status: offline
I bought an Ak 'cause my neighbor bought one so i needed on to protect myself. My neighbor is buying a used SCUD missile so i will
need one to protect myself. Horse snot. A US civil war now would be a bloodbath unbelived. No armies as such but terrorism and
shootings and bombings on a colossal scale. Will not happen as the majority still have a bit of horse sense. The rest will remain paranoid
and continue to snipe at each other and innocents. There would be no winner and no new 'nations' from a 'new civil war'. no pride, no
faith, no hope, nothing but fear. Before folks proclaim their alliegence to something other than the US and its POTENTIAL for good, they
should think a bit beyond the words. my .02

(in reply to H Gilmer)
Post #: 65
RE: A new ACW.. - 1/8/2013 7:03:13 AM   
chijohnaok


Posts: 541
Joined: 7/29/2002
From: Florida, USA (formerly Chicago)
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: BASB



Yep fists, hands and knives cause more deaths than rifles, fair assumptions with these stat posted, I love how we all manipulate statistics to better our own cause or belief or need, I'm probably no different. Few men or women can stand back and look at stats or any other piece of evidence and make true and unbias assessment of any situation. Those few that do are truly great persons.
I can see it slightly differently than chijohnaok, approx 9450 people were killed by firearms as opposed 2450 by knives, fists and feet, yep banned rifles, feet fists and knives will protect us better using the same stats!!!
Just a final thought, that chinaman that slashed 20 odd kids recently in a Chinese school, do you think the result would have been different if he was armed with an AK47 and a couple pistols, an honest assessment yes. nuff sad



Hmmm. That "chinaman" lives in a country that not so long ago massacred its own citizens in a public square in the nation's capital.

If only some of the citizens had weapons to defend themselves, do you think that soldiers would have been as eager to follow orders to gun down their fellow countrymen?

_____________________________


(in reply to BASB)
Post #: 66
RE: A new ACW.. - 1/8/2013 7:21:39 AM   
flanyboy

 

Posts: 1354
Joined: 11/30/2006
Status: offline
The only advantage an armed populous would have against a military is perhaps the will to out last. In the 1700s the average civilian had access to more or less all they needed to stand toe to toe or snipe at an enemy army. Artillery and Cavalry were advantages for an army but they pale in comparison to the advantages that a modern military has over it's people. There can be no victory against drones and tanks by force of arms when your stuck with AR-15's, Enfields, and Springfield 1903s. Anyone who believes otherwise is deluding themselves.


The only hope would be to be willing to take tremendous casualties and simply out last the military sniping at them and using time as their greatest weapon. Those eager fools who rush to revolt would be mowed down in the first weeks. An insurgency can be successful, but not through force of arms, merely through endurance.

Rifles would not have stopped Chinese tanks in the 80s.

Syria today should serve as a lesson to anyone eager for a rebellion that it would be a bloodbath and it would be the innocents and revolutionaries that would be slaughtered, and lets face it Syria doesn't have the abilities the US military does in terms of stand off weapons, drones, and signal intelligence that would make a american civil war even more difficult.

The two biggest things going for any revolutionary group in the USA would be if it was wide spread enough the sheer size of the USA likely means it would be impossible to occupy anything but the big population centers leaving a huge population to basically do as they like free from direct military oppression, and the fact that the makeup of the US military culture likely would prevent any wide scale support for draconian style measures being taken against civil disturbances, though it's hard to say what a impact a genuine crisis could have on that culture.

< Message edited by flanyboy -- 1/8/2013 7:22:29 AM >

(in reply to chijohnaok)
Post #: 67
RE: A new ACW.. - 1/8/2013 8:34:16 AM   
Old Eagle101


Posts: 1150
Joined: 11/17/2002
From: Hole-in-the-Wall
Status: offline
quote:

There is no gestapo that will take your gun away. I promise you this. This is never going to happen. No one will come and take anyone's gun away ever.

Tell that to the folks at Waco and Ruby Ridge

_____________________________


(in reply to Aurelian)
Post #: 68
RE: A new ACW.. - 1/8/2013 8:39:25 AM   
Old Eagle101


Posts: 1150
Joined: 11/17/2002
From: Hole-in-the-Wall
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: rhondabrwn


quote:

ORIGINAL: Missouri_Rebel

The Bill of Rights are not up for debate.

Period.

rhondabrwn, with all due respect ma'am, crazies are not constrained by any party or ideology. One need look no further than the Huffington Post. The progressives have commented many times about repealing the 2nd Amendment, calling the constitution toilet paper, suggesting house sweeps for guns, officially naming the NRA as a terrorist origination etc.

I have mostly respected liberals of the not so distant past, classical liberals if you will, even if I did not agree with some of the things they were for. But what has changed imo is that classical liberals feared, and for good reasons, a powerful overreaching government. The radicals of today care nothing of your rights or opinion because they have deemed you too ignorant to have any rational thought to begin with. And your rights? They consider them privileges.

They are calling for a national registry for one thing. Sure makes it easier when those same radicals violate the 4th Amendment and 'decide' to come and take them. Regulation is their vehicle. Confiscation is their designation.

Don't believe me. Just read what those who are pushing this agenda post. No need for conspiracies I say.

'those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.'




Ah, everyone is crazy save thee and me... and... (wait for it.....) sometimes I think ME a bit crazy as well

I'm not any kind of classic liberal... I'm just a reformed conservative Republican who fell on hard times and got a real, close look at poverty and discrimination in America... and it changed me forever... I care about people, all people, all races and I don't want to see them massacred in any "bloody Kansas" re-enactment over manufactured fears and hatreds. I want to see equal rights for all and the right to a living wage, adequate medical care, a decent un-politicized education for everyone, and personal safety and freedom for all. If that makes me crazy in some people's eyes, then so be it.

But I ask once again... exactly what is everyone's scenario for using their weapons to fight the feared government takeover? You have your guns, now how do you see them being used to defend freedom? I haven't heard a plan yet from anyone I've asked. What would ACW II look like... you are all expert military gamers... how do you see it playing out. What kind of government would replace the feared declaration of martial law by Executive Order. I'd be interested in your plans. Rush Limbaugh, President for Life perhaps? Imposition of Biblical Law? A mandated State Religion? A good old military dictatorship by the Joint Chiefs of Staff? A return to the Articles of Confederation and eliminate a National Government? A Libertarian society with minimal laws and everyone for themselves? So many possibilities, but would you really prefer any of these to our current, admittedly imperfect, Democracy?

Ask the Viet Cong how it's done. Or Castro. I could go on.


_____________________________


(in reply to rhondabrwn)
Post #: 69
RE: A new ACW.. - 1/8/2013 8:51:03 AM   
Old Eagle101


Posts: 1150
Joined: 11/17/2002
From: Hole-in-the-Wall
Status: offline
98,000 people killed by medical errors

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,520822,00.html

the latest year for which detailed statistics are available - there were 12,664 murders in the US. Of those, 8,583 were caused by firearms.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2011/jan/10/gun-crime-us-state

Doctors kill more than 10 times as many people as guns. We could save more lives yearly by hunting down quacks.

_____________________________


(in reply to Old Eagle101)
Post #: 70
RE: A new ACW.. - 1/8/2013 9:03:13 AM   
flanyboy

 

Posts: 1354
Joined: 11/30/2006
Status: offline
War is very very different than it was in the 60s or 70s or even 80s. Syria is fighting the rebels with 80s tech more or less. You can out last but a military victory is highly highly unlikely vs a military like the US and your going to take atrocious casualties. That of course assumes the ruling party has the political will to slaughter its own people.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Old Eagle101


quote:

ORIGINAL: rhondabrwn


quote:

ORIGINAL: Missouri_Rebel

The Bill of Rights are not up for debate.

Period.

rhondabrwn, with all due respect ma'am, crazies are not constrained by any party or ideology. One need look no further than the Huffington Post. The progressives have commented many times about repealing the 2nd Amendment, calling the constitution toilet paper, suggesting house sweeps for guns, officially naming the NRA as a terrorist origination etc.

I have mostly respected liberals of the not so distant past, classical liberals if you will, even if I did not agree with some of the things they were for. But what has changed imo is that classical liberals feared, and for good reasons, a powerful overreaching government. The radicals of today care nothing of your rights or opinion because they have deemed you too ignorant to have any rational thought to begin with. And your rights? They consider them privileges.

They are calling for a national registry for one thing. Sure makes it easier when those same radicals violate the 4th Amendment and 'decide' to come and take them. Regulation is their vehicle. Confiscation is their designation.

Don't believe me. Just read what those who are pushing this agenda post. No need for conspiracies I say.

'those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.'




Ah, everyone is crazy save thee and me... and... (wait for it.....) sometimes I think ME a bit crazy as well

I'm not any kind of classic liberal... I'm just a reformed conservative Republican who fell on hard times and got a real, close look at poverty and discrimination in America... and it changed me forever... I care about people, all people, all races and I don't want to see them massacred in any "bloody Kansas" re-enactment over manufactured fears and hatreds. I want to see equal rights for all and the right to a living wage, adequate medical care, a decent un-politicized education for everyone, and personal safety and freedom for all. If that makes me crazy in some people's eyes, then so be it.

But I ask once again... exactly what is everyone's scenario for using their weapons to fight the feared government takeover? You have your guns, now how do you see them being used to defend freedom? I haven't heard a plan yet from anyone I've asked. What would ACW II look like... you are all expert military gamers... how do you see it playing out. What kind of government would replace the feared declaration of martial law by Executive Order. I'd be interested in your plans. Rush Limbaugh, President for Life perhaps? Imposition of Biblical Law? A mandated State Religion? A good old military dictatorship by the Joint Chiefs of Staff? A return to the Articles of Confederation and eliminate a National Government? A Libertarian society with minimal laws and everyone for themselves? So many possibilities, but would you really prefer any of these to our current, admittedly imperfect, Democracy?

Ask the Viet Cong how it's done. Or Castro. I could go on.



(in reply to Old Eagle101)
Post #: 71
RE: A new ACW.. - 1/8/2013 10:16:03 AM   
Jim D Burns


Posts: 3043
Joined: 2/25/2002
From: Salida, CA.
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: flanyboy

The only advantage an armed populous would have against a military is perhaps the will to out last.


Any kind of war vs. the people in the US will see massive defections of military troops/units to the peoples side. There isn't the robotic culture of follow orders no matter what in the US military like there was in the German and Russian militaries of the past century, so as soon as someone said shoot them you'd see a huge shock reverberate throughout the military officer corps and my guess is a large percentage of it would turn on the government. That's why he asked for his own private army, "that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well funded".

Jim


_____________________________



(in reply to flanyboy)
Post #: 72
RE: A new ACW.. - 1/8/2013 10:28:08 AM   
NefariousKoel


Posts: 2920
Joined: 7/23/2002
From: Murderous Missouri Scum
Status: offline
I like waffles.

(in reply to Jim D Burns)
Post #: 73
RE: A new ACW.. - 1/8/2013 10:47:53 AM   
Jim D Burns


Posts: 3043
Joined: 2/25/2002
From: Salida, CA.
Status: offline
Great video about crime statistics and how they get manipulated by the media and politicians:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ooa98FHuaU0

Turns out you brits without any guns to protect yourselves with are getting hammered by violent crimes. Almost 4 times more violent crime in Britain than the US. And in areas where gun ownership is common here in the states (rural non-urban), violent crime is almost non-existent.

Jim


< Message edited by Jim D Burns -- 1/8/2013 10:52:47 AM >


_____________________________



(in reply to NefariousKoel)
Post #: 74
RE: A new ACW.. - 1/8/2013 1:50:25 PM   
Rtwfreak

 

Posts: 382
Joined: 12/11/2011
Status: offline
I hear they are paying .15 a bushel for pickin peaches this spring.

(in reply to Jim D Burns)
Post #: 75
RE: A new ACW.. - 1/8/2013 2:01:02 PM   
chijohnaok


Posts: 541
Joined: 7/29/2002
From: Florida, USA (formerly Chicago)
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: NefariousKoel

I like waffles.


I like waffles too!

I think that the best topping that you can put on a waffle is grape jelly.


_____________________________


(in reply to NefariousKoel)
Post #: 76
RE: A new ACW.. - 1/8/2013 2:05:30 PM   
chijohnaok


Posts: 541
Joined: 7/29/2002
From: Florida, USA (formerly Chicago)
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns


quote:

ORIGINAL: flanyboy

The only advantage an armed populous would have against a military is perhaps the will to out last.


Any kind of war vs. the people in the US will see massive defections of military troops/units to the peoples side. There isn't the robotic culture of follow orders no matter what in the US military like there was in the German and Russian militaries of the past century, so as soon as someone said shoot them you'd see a huge shock reverberate throughout the military officer corps and my guess is a large percentage of it would turn on the government. That's why he asked for his own private army, "that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well funded".

Jim




Bingo!

I cannot say that this would have been the result in China but I think you are right on the money for the united states



_____________________________


(in reply to Jim D Burns)
Post #: 77
RE: A new ACW.. - 1/8/2013 3:17:55 PM   
chijohnaok


Posts: 541
Joined: 7/29/2002
From: Florida, USA (formerly Chicago)
Status: offline
1) the police cannot be there to prevent every crime.
Citizens should have the means to defend themselves.

quote:

It is estimated that if all lawful civilian self defense killings were counted, the actual number of violent criminals killed by citizens might exceed the number killed by police each year by as much as five times

http://www.guncite.com/journals/katesval.html#fn86

2) in the United States, the right to bear arms is a natural right protected in the Bill of Rights of the US Constitution.
It is a right, just as is the freedom of speech, of the press, of the right to due process, the right of assembly, etc.

3) unless you had some magical means to do so, you could not eliminate every gun in the United States (allowing for law enforcement to be armed).
Certain states and localities have enacted very strict gun controls, at times making it so difficult to obtain one that their legal possession was effectively banned.
The City of Chicago and Washington DC were examples of this. If i recall, Chicago in 2012 had more murders than any city in the US, despite the rigid restrictions. Criminals have the guns; the average law abiding citizen did not.



< Message edited by chijohnaok -- 1/8/2013 8:43:42 PM >


_____________________________


(in reply to BASB)
Post #: 78
RE: A new ACW.. - 1/8/2013 3:28:51 PM   
Perturabo


Posts: 2203
Joined: 11/17/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: chijohnaok

1) the police cannot be there to prevent every crime.
Citizens should have the means to defend themselves.

quote:

It is estimated that if all lawful civilian self defense killings were counted, the actual number of violent criminals killed by citizens might exceed the number killed by police each year by as much as five times

http://www.guncite.com/journals/katesval.html#fn86

And where police actually appears and uses guns they are much more likely to kill innocents than armed citizens.
There was a recently a "mass shooting" case in a centre of a big city.
It turned out that the "mass shooter" has just killed his ex-boss and when police arrived they started shooting people at random, wounding 9 people!

< Message edited by Perturabo -- 1/8/2013 3:29:01 PM >


_____________________________

Without social solidarity manifested in the form of welfare state, people inhabiting one territory are a non-nation of mortal enemies engaged in competition for survival.

(in reply to chijohnaok)
Post #: 79
RE: A new ACW.. - 1/8/2013 8:40:17 PM   
barkorn45

 

Posts: 256
Joined: 1/17/2010
Status: offline
a few years aga a woman and her daughter in kansas were victims of a breakin they called 911 before they were overpowered.
when the police showed up they saw the house was dark shown their light on the house and drove off.
meanwhile the perps had gagged them and were raping them at that time.
after it was all over they tried to sue the police department but the court decided that THE POLICE ARE NOT OBLIGATED TO PROTECT AN INDIVIDUAL ONLY SOCIETY AS A WHOLE.
so much for to protect and to serve!

(in reply to Perturabo)
Post #: 80
RE: A new ACW.. - 1/8/2013 8:45:38 PM   
wodin


Posts: 7704
Joined: 4/20/2003
From: England
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns

Great video about crime statistics and how they get manipulated by the media and politicians:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ooa98FHuaU0

Turns out you brits without any guns to protect yourselves with are getting hammered by violent crimes. Almost 4 times more violent crime in Britain than the US. And in areas where gun ownership is common here in the states (rural non-urban), violent crime is almost non-existent.

Jim



Tell me about it..I'd move if I was able too..out of this country in a flash.

a farmer was arrested recently for firing his shotgun at thieves in the UK..great isn't it

< Message edited by wodin -- 1/8/2013 8:47:21 PM >


_____________________________

My Tactical wargame facebook page.

https://www.facebook.com/Tacticalwargame


(in reply to Jim D Burns)
Post #: 81
RE: A new ACW.. - 1/8/2013 8:47:58 PM   
barkorn45

 

Posts: 256
Joined: 1/17/2010
Status: offline
what i find interesting is the people who continue to harp the militia aspect of the second amendment overlook the fact that all the rights protected by the amendments are INDIVIDUAL rights so why would the 2nd be any different.
quote:

ORIGINAL: chijohnaok

1) the police cannot be there to prevent every crime.
Citizens should have the means to defend themselves.

quote:

It is estimated that if all lawful civilian self defense killings were counted, the actual number of violent criminals killed by citizens might exceed the number killed by police each year by as much as five times

http://www.guncite.com/journals/katesval.html#fn86

2) in the United States, the right to bear arms is a natural right protected in the Bill of Rights of the US Constitution.
It is a right, just as is the freedom of speech, of the press, of the right to due process, the right of assembly, etc.

3) unless you had some magical means to do so, you could not eliminate every gun in the United States (allowing for law enforcement to be armed).
Certain states and localities have enacted very strict gun controls, at times making it so difficult to obtain one that their legal possession was effectively banned.
The City of Chicago and Washington DC were examples of this. If i recall, Chicago in 2012 had more murders than any city in the US, despite the rigid restrictions. Criminals have the guns; the average law abiding citizen did not.




(in reply to chijohnaok)
Post #: 82
RE: A new ACW.. - 1/8/2013 8:49:09 PM   
parusski


Posts: 4591
Joined: 5/8/2000
From: Wyoming, Even Liberals Welcome
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: chijohnaok

1) the police cannot be there to prevent every crime.
Citizens should have the means to defend themselves.

quote:

It is estimated that if all lawful civilian self defense killings were counted, the actual number of violent criminals killed by citizens might exceed the number killed by police each year by as much as five times

http://www.guncite.com/journals/katesval.html#fn86

2) in the United States, the right to bear arms is a natural right protected in the Bill of Rights of the US Constitution.
It is a right, just as is the freedom of speech, of the press, of the right to due process, the right of assembly, etc.

3) unless you had some magical means to do so, you could not eliminate every gun in the United States (allowing for law enforcement to be armed).
Certain states and localities have enacted very strict gun controls, at times making it so difficult to obtain one that their legal possession was effectively banned.
The City of Chicago and Washington DC were examples of this. If i recall, Chicago in 2012 had more murders than any city in the US, despite the rigid restrictions. Criminals have the guns; the average law abiding citizen did not.




Well said chijohnaok. But those advocating removing the RIGHT of citizens to bear arms ignore cities like Chicago, with these numbers just released:

Chicago 2011 Homicides- 441
Chicago 2012 Homicides- 533
PLUS- 92

Chicago 2011 Person Shot- 2,217
Chicago 2012 Person Shot- 2,698
Plus- 481


_____________________________

"I hate newspapermen. They come into camp and pick up their camp rumors and print them as facts. I regard them as spies, which, in truth, they are. If I killed them all there would be news from Hell before breakfast."- W.T. Sherman

(in reply to chijohnaok)
Post #: 83
RE: A new ACW.. - 1/8/2013 8:57:38 PM   
barkorn45

 

Posts: 256
Joined: 1/17/2010
Status: offline
another thing people ought to be worried about is the ruling of the supreme ct.on chicago's and wash.d.c gun bans.
it basically eliminates the individual states 2nd amendments in their state constitutions and makes the feds preeminent.
you watch and see the ruling will come up when that fool biden's committee comes up with their "comprehensive"gun legislation!

(in reply to barkorn45)
Post #: 84
RE: A new ACW.. - 1/8/2013 10:54:43 PM   
chijohnaok


Posts: 541
Joined: 7/29/2002
From: Florida, USA (formerly Chicago)
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: barkorn45

another thing people ought to be worried about is the ruling of the supreme ct.on chicago's and wash.d.c gun bans.
it basically eliminates the individual states 2nd amendments in their state constitutions and makes the feds preeminent.
you watch and see the ruling will come up when that fool biden's committee comes up with their "comprehensive"gun legislation!



Not sure if you saw it, but despite the USSC's decision, the IL General Assembly is moving forward with an assault weapons ban (that will most likely cross back into the very same thing that the USSC rules against them on recently).

_____________________________


(in reply to barkorn45)
Post #: 85
RE: A new ACW.. - 1/8/2013 11:09:33 PM   
BASB


Posts: 1460
Joined: 2/14/2005
Status: offline
Hey can I say this, I'm amazed this thread wasn't locked earlier, this issue is a hot potato to say the least. There obviously strong beliefs on both sides of the debate, the impressive part of this thread has been the ability of the forum community to express their belief without personal attacks on the poster. Hmm perhaps we are a little mature than we thing we are, well done folks. End of waffle. Waffles icecream and maple syrup yaum.
Ron

_____________________________

Formerly Goodwood


(in reply to barkorn45)
Post #: 86
RE: A new ACW.. - 1/8/2013 11:25:39 PM   
Titanwarrior89


Posts: 3079
Joined: 8/28/2003
From: arkansas
Status: offline
Conserv vs leftest that will be the next civilwar....abound by regions not states.  And it may not be shooting war but a war of change.....bad change....a nation of change....I think it has already started and the Leftest are winning.


Note: The Leftest Headquarters is the Supreme Court of the United States!

< Message edited by Titanwarrior89 -- 1/9/2013 12:44:41 AM >


_____________________________

"Before Guadalcanal the enemy advanced at his pleasure. After Guadalcanal, he retreated at ours".

"Mama, There's Rabbits in the Garden"

(in reply to BASB)
Post #: 87
RE: A new ACW.. - 1/8/2013 11:36:39 PM   
Qwixt

 

Posts: 363
Joined: 6/19/2006
Status: online
Guns will never be 100% banned in the U.S. so it's a silly topic to even debate, or feel threatened about. There's nothing that can convince me that assault weapons and military automatic weapons need to be possessed by citizens. Semi-automatic and no clips over 5 rounds.

Furthermore, state allegiance has pretty much disappeared outside of college sports. Now taking that into consideration, in order for there to be a civil war over a topic like guns, you have to be willing to kill your neighbor because there would not be clear cut lines. I'd like to think that there only so many nuts are willing to do that. At most, it would be cowardly terrorist acts against innocent people because these guys wouldn't face down tanks, and modern U.S. military.

(in reply to BASB)
Post #: 88
RE: A new ACW.. - 1/9/2013 12:02:44 AM   
chijohnaok


Posts: 541
Joined: 7/29/2002
From: Florida, USA (formerly Chicago)
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Qwixt

Guns will never be 100% banned in the U.S. so it's a silly topic to even debate, or feel threatened about. There's nothing that can convince me that assault weapons and military automatic weapons need to be possessed by citizens. Semi-automatic and no clips over 5 rounds.

Furthermore, state allegiance has pretty much disappeared outside of college sports. Now taking that into consideration, in order for there to be a civil war over a topic like guns, you have to be willing to kill your neighbor because there would not be clear cut lines. I'd like to think that there only so many nuts are willing to do that. At most, it would be cowardly terrorist acts against innocent people because these guys wouldn't face down tanks, and modern U.S. military.


Could you please clarify what you mean by "these guys"?
Who does "these guys" consist of?

Also (while I'm not the gun expert) "military automatic weapons", while they maybe e obtained legally by average citizens, the process is so involved, and takes so long, that they are very uncommon. Could someone confirm or clarify this?

_____________________________


(in reply to Qwixt)
Post #: 89
RE: A new ACW.. - 1/9/2013 12:09:57 AM   
Qwixt

 

Posts: 363
Joined: 6/19/2006
Status: online
quote:

ORIGINAL: chijohnaok


quote:

ORIGINAL: Qwixt

Guns will never be 100% banned in the U.S. so it's a silly topic to even debate, or feel threatened about. There's nothing that can convince me that assault weapons and military automatic weapons need to be possessed by citizens. Semi-automatic and no clips over 5 rounds.

Furthermore, state allegiance has pretty much disappeared outside of college sports. Now taking that into consideration, in order for there to be a civil war over a topic like guns, you have to be willing to kill your neighbor because there would not be clear cut lines. I'd like to think that there only so many nuts are willing to do that. At most, it would be cowardly terrorist acts against innocent people because these guys wouldn't face down tanks, and modern U.S. military.


Could you please clarify what you mean by "these guys"?
Who does "these guys" consist of?

Also (while I'm not the gun expert) "military automatic weapons", while they maybe e obtained legally by average citizens, the process is so involved, and takes so long, that they are very uncommon. Could someone confirm or clarify this?


The ones willing to kill their neighbor over gun rights, and willing to start a civil war. I'd like to think it's a very small portion of the public, and keep in mind my first sentence.

< Message edited by Qwixt -- 1/9/2013 12:10:33 AM >

(in reply to chijohnaok)
Post #: 90
Page:   <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>
All Forums >> [General] >> General Discussion >> RE: A new ACW.. Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.178