Guns

@Carl - thanks for unknowingly making my point. Until they were able to obtain heavy weapons - they were using the weapons they had at hand. During the time they have obtained better weapons - such as tanks by capturing them or by some defectors in the military turning them over.

It seems that you most likely have NOT served in the military and if so, you probably held a desk job. Originally Posted by dante0322

Happy to help. And if it's your point that it's taking the use of heavy weapons to bring the Assad regime to its knees doesn't that also imply that it would also take heavy weapons to effectively defend the Second Amendment against a tyrannical regime here, too? If so, you seem to be on Smokin' Joe's side, making his point(s) with slightly different language.

It seems that you most likely have NOT served in the debate club back in high school and if so, you probably held the job of handing the actual debaters bottled water, buddy.

I would not want to get close enough to regular military if at all possible and would prefer to snipe with a 30-06 or .308 to make whatever illegal action was being attempted not worth it to those ordering it or perpetrating it. For those actions a bolt action rifle and revolver would be enough and I wouldn't need an "assault weapon" or even my semi-auto 9mm pistol. e it is cool or I'm paranoid. But, hey, that is just my and about 3 of 4 American's (as long as they can protect their home, hunt and target shoot) opinions, YMMV. Originally Posted by austxjr

I guess that depends if you're a good enough doper to hit .25MOA face shot only.
Since the military has LVL IV body armor, unless you have a .338 Lapua Mag, or Chey Tac or 416 Barret, then unfortunately, your 308/30-06 won't penetrate the body armor. Heck, it won't penetrate full NIJ LVL III either. It may have non critical hit if using teflon AP ammo.

You can only win in a debate only if you are debating yourself. As you do not utilize facts, logic or reasoning. A Junior High School student could wipe your a$$ in a debate with facts.

And AGAIN - the rebels DID NOT have have tanks or heavy artillery to begin with. These items were ACQUIRED over time!

Its apparent you also didn't serve in the military and if you did - you held a desk job.

You need to stop masturbating and start reading - its fundamental!

http://youtu.be/26jdJHrQO6w

Happy to help. And if it's your point that it's taking the use of heavy weapons to bring the Assad regime to its knees doesn't that also imply that it would also take heavy weapons to effectively defend the Second Amendment against a tyrannical regime here, too? If so, you seem to be on Smokin' Joe's side, making his point(s) with slightly different language.

It seems that you most likely have NOT served in the debate club back in high school and if so, you probably held the job of handing the actual debaters bottled water, buddy. Originally Posted by Carl

Special Ops against gun control.

http://specialoperationsspeaks.com/a...st-gun-control

Special Ops against gun control.

http://specialoperationsspeaks.com/a...st-gun-control Originally Posted by dante0322

So what were you expecting? You do understand that people are a product of their environment? If your daddy owned guns and carried a gun, it is more likely that you will own and carry a gun than if your daddy never owned a gun.

Special Ops people are hardly your average U.S. citizens.

How about using data that reflects the U.S. population as a whole. Such as:

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com...icans-support/

I guess that depends if you're a good enough doper to hit .25MOA face shot only.
Since the military has LVL IV body armor, unless you have a .338 Lapua Mag, or Chey Tac or 416 Barret, then unfortunately, your 308/30-06 won't penetrate the body armor. Heck, it won't penetrate full NIJ LVL III either. It may have non critical hit if using teflon AP ammo. Originally Posted by winemaker

And that won't matter anyways. Despite your weapon choice, the drones flying overhead would pick you up with their thermal imaging, run a few lines of code, lock on to your IR signature and smoke your ass. Depending on the manufacture and model of that particular drone, I might be __slightly__ responsible for said smoking of said ass. I won't lose any sleep over it, and haven't yet.

All you pro-military pro-gun Red Dawn dreamists should realize that we live in the era of technology.

I'm all for gun ownership for personal protection, but to try to argue about guns as some reasonable deterrent towards a tyrannically government is idiotic and quite frankly the epitome of delusion. Or maybe it's a grand display of ignorance?

p.s. faught isn't a word. Originally Posted by iplaypoker

http://i.word.com/idictionary/Faught

Do your research before you call someone out.

Or maybe it's a grand display of ignorance? Originally Posted by iplaypoker

Your words, not mine.

Just an FYI- FUCKTARD is a word. Look it up this time.

Read it and weep! Only danger is a GUN FREE ZONE!

http://www.wxyz.com/dpp/news/man-sho...ool-in-detroit

CNN as a source? Really? You might as well use Mother Jones. Here is a valid source.

Read it and weep!

http://www.wxyz.com/dpp/news/man-sho...ool-in-detroit

So what were you expecting? You do understand that people are a product of their environment? If your daddy owned guns and carried a gun, it is more likely that you will own and carry a gun than if your daddy never owned a gun.

Special Ops people are hardly your average U.S. citizens.

How about using data that reflects the U.S. population as a whole. Such as:

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com...icans-support/ Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

Only danger is a Gun Free Zone!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nzkBGQx3HAc

Only danger is a Gun Free Zone!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nzkBGQx3HAc Originally Posted by dante0322

This place seems pretty dangerous.

http://www.khou.com/news/texas-news/...189539281.html

I don't know about guns not being a deterrent to tyrannical government. I look at the difficulty we had taking back Fallujah. When cops and soldiers feel they couldn't walk safely in their own country, they might begin to wonder if they were on the wrong side. It would undoubtedly be a bloody conflict, no doubt.

Again, you are using a mental issue to prop up your argument. The person who was arrested WOULD NOT have been able to commit mass murder at that location as it is NOT a gun free zone! Again you make my point.

This place seems pretty dangerous.

http://www.khou.com/news/texas-news/...189539281.html Originally Posted by Smokin Joe

So, we don't have to worry about the government. I have a bridge to sell you also!

http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2...onviction?lite

Again, you are using a mental issue to prop up your argument. The person who was arrested WOULD NOT have been able to commit mass murder at that location as it is NOT a gun free zone! Again you make my point. Originally Posted by dante0322

So your saying it was safe for the navy seal?