*sighs, turns over "DAYS SINCE LAST MASS SHOOTING IN AMERICA" sign to 0*

GasBandit

GasBandit

Staff member
@Li3n said:
Ah yes, the famous american winters, that would impede troop movement and allow for a few snipers to pin down whole battalions.
Click to expand...
Well, that and taking out tanks in urban environments. Which happens to us, as well, which is why we're so reluctant to use them thusly, and go with Humvees instead.

See, the thing is, an actual internal conflict against the majority of your own population would pretty much guarantee there's no "political will" to deplete, or to stop the type of atrocities one needs to counter guerrilla warfare and enemy combatants hiding within the local population.
Click to expand...
That's a matter of debate, but it still doesn't mitigate that it's better to be in a desperate struggle with little hope than marched in line into a camp with no hope at all.
 
Null

Null

Ah yes, "we need rifles to protect against government tyranny". It's an absurd argument but it is pretty much the only one left, I guess.

Again, Gas, you're lying about how things happened in Iraq. We didn't get chased out. The Iraqi government asked us to pull troops out. We did. Daesh temporarily captured areas in the wake of the pull out and have been losing ground for two years to Iraqi national forces and Kurds in Syria. That is a very significant difference from "the guerrillas chased us out with our tail between our legs".

So in the event that all the things ammosexuals fear come to pass and armed rebellion against the government seems to be the course of action, let's look at what we'll be dealing with.

The gun that ammosexuals feel is necessary for their freedom, the AR-15 type rifle. 5.56mm high velocity ammunition, effective range of about 500-700 yards. 30 round box magazine. Great for gunning down clusters of unarmed civilians in schools, concerts, and restaurants.

On the other side, you have Predator drones with Hellfire missiles, AH-1 Cobra attack helicopters with 30mm chin turrets and rocket pods, the M270 Multiple Launch Rocket System, and the M109A6 Paladin self-propelled howitzer. The M109A6 can halt from being on the move to being ready to fire within 30 seconds, can fire unassisted 155mm high explosive shells up to 18 miles and rocket-assisted rounds up to 30 miles, and can fire at maximum 4 rounds per minute, with a sustained rate of 1 round per minute. It doesn't even have to be in the same county to hit you, and your first warning will be the shriek of the shell as it descends on your position. The M270 can fire rockets loaded with submunitions up to 45 miles and deploy over 20,000 grenade-sized submunitions capable of clearing a square kilometer of terrain. While neither the M270 or Paladin are especially well armored by ACV standards, they are impervious to small arms and resistant to shell splinters.

Also, it's worth noting that the T-28 tanks that the Russians invaded Finland with had poor suspension (a real impediment on rough terrain), an operational range of 140 miles, a top speed of 23 mph, and after upgrades, 80mm of frontal armor. It was vulnerable to fire - molotov cocktails could cause the engine to overheat and the ammunition to cook off - and was nearly incapable of fording rivers.

An M-60 MBT like one might find in a National Guard Armory, by contrast, has a very sophisticated suspension, an operational range of 500 miles, 258mm of frontal armor, and can be buttoned up to resist NBC attacks and ford rivers up to 4 feet deep.

So that's really an apples and scorpions comparison.
 
GasBandit

GasBandit

Staff member
Krisken said:
And having guns wouldn’t prevent it if that were to happen.
Click to expand...
It may or may not depending on a number of other factors, but having no guns definitely wouldn't prevent it.

Null said:
Ah yes, "we need rifles to protect against government tyranny". It's an absurd argument but it is pretty much the only one left, I guess.

Again, Gas, you're lying about how things happened in Iraq. We didn't get chased out. The Iraqi government asked us to pull troops out. We did. Daesh temporarily captured areas in the wake of the pull out and have been losing ground for two years to Iraqi national forces and Kurds in Syria. That is a very significant difference from "the guerrillas chased us out with our tail between our legs".

So in the event that all the things ammosexuals fear come to pass and armed rebellion against the government seems to be the course of action, let's look at what we'll be dealing with.

The gun that ammosexuals feel is necessary for their freedom, the AR-15 type rifle. 5.56mm high velocity ammunition, effective range of about 500-700 yards. 30 round box magazine. Great for gunning down clusters of unarmed civilians in schools, concerts, and restaurants.

On the other side, you have Predator drones with Hellfire missiles, AH-1 Cobra attack helicopters with 30mm chin turrets and rocket pods, the M270 Multiple Launch Rocket System, and the M109A6 Paladin self-propelled howitzer. The M109A6 can halt from being on the move to being ready to fire within 30 seconds, can fire unassisted 155mm high explosive shells up to 18 miles and rocket-assisted rounds up to 30 miles, and can fire at maximum 4 rounds per minute, with a sustained rate of 1 round per minute. It doesn't even have to be in the same county to hit you, and your first warning will be the shriek of the shell as it descends on your position. The M270 can fire rockets loaded with submunitions up to 45 miles and deploy over 20,000 grenade-sized submunitions capable of clearing a square kilometer of terrain. While neither the M270 or Paladin are especially well armored by ACV standards, they are impervious to small arms and resistant to shell splinters.

Also, it's worth noting that the T-28 tanks that the Russians invaded Finland with had poor suspension (a real impediment on rough terrain), an operational range of 140 miles, a top speed of 23 mph, and after upgrades, 80mm of frontal armor. It was vulnerable to fire - molotov cocktails could cause the engine to overheat and the ammunition to cook off - and was nearly incapable of fording rivers.

An M-60 MBT like one might find in a National Guard Armory, by contrast, has a very sophisticated suspension, an operational range of 500 miles, 258mm of frontal armor, and can be buttoned up to resist NBC attacks and ford rivers up to 4 feet deep.

So that's really an apples and scorpions comparison.
Click to expand...
You're rewriting/revising history to suit your narrative. And you're also getting bogged down in details to ignore the truth that's right in front of you. If tanks beat militia every time then why wasn't the Iraq occupation an immediate and complete success simply by us rolling into every city and town with tanks?

Because they don't. At least not if you aren't conducting a scorched-earth campaign and want there to be something of value left when you're done.
 
mikerc

mikerc

GasBandit said:
At least not if you aren't conducting a scorched-earth campaign and want there to be something of value left when you're done.
Click to expand...
If you genuinely believe that the US military is willing to conduct a scorched earth campaign against your civilian population then I'd wager you have bigger problems to worry about than the 2nd amendment.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jay
GasBandit

GasBandit

Staff member
mikerc said:
If you genuinely believe that the US military is willing to conduct a scorched earth campaign against your civilian population then I'd wager you have bigger problems to worry about than the 2nd amendment.
Click to expand...
Call me an optimist, I'm arguing from the standpoint that they would not do so. I can't speak for the others.
 
Krisken

Krisken

I’m not sure optimist is what I would use to describe someone who ho thinks they should have guns for an unlikely government tyranny scenario.
 
PatrThom

PatrThom

Celt Z said:
We've run rampant over the 2nd Amendment, like it was handed down from god, and not made by men who said we could adjust as needed. I acknowledge there are a practical need for some guns, but we need to make far tighter rules about who can have guns and how many and what kind.
Click to expand...
They have been getting tighter and tighter as time goes on. No more full-auto, maximum magazine capacity, minimum barrel length, waiting periods, eligibility requirements, and on, and on. And yet, every time a regulation is passed to prevent the next shooting...there comes another shooting.
Clearly, this is not a question of "insufficient regulation." I mean, drugs are significantly more restricted than guns, yet we constantly hear how they find their way into the wrong hands.

--Patrick
 
Dave

Dave

Staff member
This thread has been put in a time out. I will open it again, but I'm giving it a cooling off period.

I'm also going to do some judicious pruning.
 
Bubble181

Bubble181

stienman said:
Could be that it is 51% in one direction, but the graph shows either solid red or blue. It would be nice to have percentages by state, or a red <--> purple <--> blue gradient based on the percentages.
Click to expand...
Mouse-over per state gives the %ages...And some of it's noted in the text ;)
 
Fun Size

Fun Size

This is my insight to this topic over on a friends pro-gun FB post:

Let's be honest: the real issue is that the guns have been associated with manhood, so we hear "gun control" but think "penis control", and no congress of rich, white men is going to vote for that. This is what's knows as a "logical phallacy".
 
Gruebeard

Gruebeard

@Li3n said:
I wonder who had stock in a bump stock making company?
Click to expand...
The shooter. Well, whoever he willed it to.

. . . I just realized that some lunatic might actually do something like this as an alternative to staging a suicide to look like an accident for the insurance money.
 
Bubble181

Bubble181

Well, I certainly understand that reasoning. It's legal to smoke weed, but not necessarily to grow it; it's legal to sell alcohol but not necessarily to make your own; there's plenty of laws about protecting the right to an abortion but not protecting abortion clinics, and I can even draw a comparison to voter disenfranchisement where having one office issuing them in the whole state, hours away from poor black neighborhoods, is still "enough" to not be a burden towards getting an id.
Likewise,a single gun selling office regulated by the government where people can apply for a gun still wouldn't limit their access unduly, right?
 
GasBandit

GasBandit

Staff member
DarkAudit said:
Oh dear. This just took an interesting turn. The 9th circuit rules there is no Constitutional right to *sell* arms.
Click to expand...
It's the 9th Circus, of course the ruling is gonna be stupid :p watch as it also completely fails to change anything.

Bubble181 said:
Well, I certainly understand that reasoning. It's legal to smoke weed, but not necessarily to grow it; it's legal to sell alcohol but not necessarily to make your own; there's plenty of laws about protecting the right to an abortion but not protecting abortion clinics, and I can even draw a comparison to voter disenfranchisement where having one office issuing them in the whole state, hours away from poor black neighborhoods, is still "enough" to not be a burden towards getting an id.
Likewise,a single gun selling office regulated by the government where people can apply for a gun still wouldn't limit their access unduly, right?
Click to expand...
Weed, pot, and abortions are not constitutionally protected rights, at least not any moreso than anything else you can buy like milk or thumbtacks (in fact, weed is still illegal in most of the country to possess at all).

And interestingly enough, there is also no constitutionally protected right to vote, either. At least not at the federal level. Some state constitutions decided they wanted to put that in theirs.
 
Tress

Tress

Dei said:
I think there are a few amendments that disagree with this one.
Click to expand...
For example...
The 15th, although written to affirm the voting rights of African-Americans, specifically talks about the fact that each citizen has the right to vote.
 
GasBandit

GasBandit

Staff member
Dei said:
I think there are a few amendments that disagree with this one.
Click to expand...
Nope. The amendments to which you refer only prohibit discrimination based on exact criteria. But there is no actual constitutional guarantee of a right to vote. That was reaffirmed in 2000 in the supreme court decision of Bush v Gore. Section II subsection B explains that it is not the individual citizen that has a right to vote in federal elections - but the State legislatures. However, when a State legislature chooses to vest its right to vote with its people, the 15th, 19th, 24th and 26th amendments prohibit them from denying that vote on the basis of race, color, previous servitude, sex, non-payment of taxes, or age (so long as you're over 18). That's it. Colorado could decide to disenfranchise anyone whose first name began with the letter T, and it'd clear all federal constitutional hurdles (the State constitution might be another matter).

This is why every so often somebody introduces legislation to try to change that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top