Las Vegas Shooter

Discussion in 'Four Corners' started by Smack, Oct 2, 2017.

  1. madunit

    madunit Super Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2003
    Messages:
    61,282
    Likes Received:
    1,052
    In Numbers. Not with 42 f**king guns per person. And you did say in personal defence as you went on about home invasions dumbarse.




    So alternate views to yours are satire are they?

    There is ZERO skill required to shoot a defenceless animal with a weapon that sprays bullets rapidly in the vague direction you point it. It's not sporting in any sense of the definition.

    If I tied you to a pole a bashed the shit out of your face for a hour, would you call that boxing? would you call it sporting? Of course you f**king wouldn't.

    So the second amendment allows people to have weapons so that they can overthrow their government, via target shooting and killing deer. That'll teach those beaurocrats.
    which uses a single shot weapon and a piece of paper. Not an animal.

    In Australia millions of people have no firearms. We play proper sports, with bats and balls and without the pointless slaughter of animals. I said I'd prefer zero guns. Go find something productive to do with your time than shooting shit. You can play darts which requires more skill than annihilating an animal.

    I did f**kING SAY THAT. I also said at the start of the post which you clearly didn't read, something along the lines of "if the US Wants to keep its second amendment, then..."

    I also said in another post

    "I see no purpose in the existence of guns"

    Learn to f**king read you dumb merkin.
     
  2. myrrh ken

    myrrh ken Bench

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2016
    Messages:
    4,095
    Likes Received:
    1,754
    Quality public education and affordable universal health care and family services? Come on, lets be realistic.
     
  3. madunit

    madunit Super Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2003
    Messages:
    61,282
    Likes Received:
    1,052
    People have the opportunity to hand in their weapons. Law abiding people will do that.

    Criminals will hang onto them.

    It's barely any more drastic than what happened in Australia in 1996. That wasn't in any way tyrranical.
     
  4. rockcod

    rockcod Juniors

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2016
    Messages:
    163
    Likes Received:
    63
    Where did I talk about home invasions? Think your getting confused.

    No, alternate views are cool, you are on next level with the anti gun rants so I thought you were trolling

    Why are you talking about killing deer and stuff with semi auto's people don't generally use semis for hunting game, you have no clue about firearms and shooting and that's ok but you shouldn't really be all for banning stuff and carrying on like a loon when you don't even understand the basics.
     
  5. Jimbo

    Jimbo Immortal

    Joined:
    May 27, 2003
    Messages:
    36,079
    Likes Received:
    1,358
    Well... no they won't

    If people are told by the government to hand in their guns knowing that crims will still have them, that will just make people more likely to want to keep their guns...
     
  6. Bandwagon

    Bandwagon Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2013
    Messages:
    14,430
    Likes Received:
    3,116
    Um yeah, ok. Do you reckon the Soviets, The Chinese and the Viet cong are gonna help out Joe Average just as they did the NVA?

    f**k me.
     
  7. Bandwagon

    Bandwagon Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2013
    Messages:
    14,430
    Likes Received:
    3,116
    Yeah, see above mate.
     
  8. SBD82

    SBD82 First Grade

    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2015
    Messages:
    5,002
    Likes Received:
    4,630
    Maybe I shouldn't use the word tyranny so flippantly, but I'd say that if a government brings in a new law against the will of the people, then enforces it with ruthless force, it is at least starting to border on tyranny.

    Australia is a very different society to the states. My memory of the gun hand in was that people were fairly happy to do it. Although I was pretty young and may have missed the dissenters.
     
  9. Bandwagon

    Bandwagon Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2013
    Messages:
    14,430
    Likes Received:
    3,116
    I'm not ignoring anything, I'm pointing out that the reality. Although I agree that in such an event, fragmentation of the armed forces could well be likely, it's a given such fragmentation would result in a similar fragmentation of arms.
     
  10. SBD82

    SBD82 First Grade

    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2015
    Messages:
    5,002
    Likes Received:
    4,630
    No. But that's not the point. The question was about whether a well armed populace could withstand a modern army. the examples I listed suggest that it's possible.

    In this case, foreign superpowers providing arms would be unnecessary.
     
  11. Bandwagon

    Bandwagon Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2013
    Messages:
    14,430
    Likes Received:
    3,116
    Yet in those examples they did, not to mention they had their own armies , so let's not try and rewrite history....................
     
  12. SBD82

    SBD82 First Grade

    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2015
    Messages:
    5,002
    Likes Received:
    4,630
    They did. But they wouldn't have to in this instance.

    My point is only that a modern army can be defeated by guerilla tactics. I understand they are not perfect comparisons. The Cuban example is different again (I'm talking about the revolution not the attempted US intervention).
     
  13. Smack

    Smack First Grade

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2017
    Messages:
    7,110
    Likes Received:
    2,263
    They won't need too. But isn't that how proxy civil wars start?
     
  14. Bandwagon

    Bandwagon Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2013
    Messages:
    14,430
    Likes Received:
    3,116
    Well, I'll disagree in as much as that whilst I'm quite sure it would still be a shit fight, there is no f**king way an incumbent US government gets overthrown by militias whilst they have the support of the US armed forces, yet without that support they are well and truly f**ked, regardless of the level of armament a militia/s might possess.
     
  15. AJB1102

    AJB1102 Juniors

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2015
    Messages:
    2,325
    Likes Received:
    1,808
    How strong would the military remain though? I reckon majority soldiers fight for the people.

    All I know is I'd sure as f**k tune in to watch. Absolute ratings blockbuster they definitely should do it.
     
    Smack likes this.
  16. Bandwagon

    Bandwagon Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2013
    Messages:
    14,430
    Likes Received:
    3,116
    What are you on about? You cited Vietnam as an example of how militias might oppose and / or defeat the US military, which is a crock of shit example as whilst the Viet cong were a militia, they supported the NVA ( a sovereign army ) who were in turn supported by Russia and China.

    Yeah it's a civil war by proxy, but that's immaterial as any kind of argument to the point at hand.
     
  17. Bandwagon

    Bandwagon Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2013
    Messages:
    14,430
    Likes Received:
    3,116
    Again my point was whoever had the support of the armed forces wins, here it is again....

     
  18. Smack

    Smack First Grade

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2017
    Messages:
    7,110
    Likes Received:
    2,263
    The populace are armed enough to form a resistance, is my point.

    The vietcong won by nullifying American air/arty power using hit and run tactics at close range, using AK's and grenades.
     
  19. Bandwagon

    Bandwagon Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2013
    Messages:
    14,430
    Likes Received:
    3,116
    FFS. The Viet Cong were part of an alliance with the NVA, who were in turn supported by the Russians and the Chinese.
     
  20. SBD82

    SBD82 First Grade

    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2015
    Messages:
    5,002
    Likes Received:
    4,630
    Oh. A shit fight no doubt.

    I think an outright victory for either side would be nearly impossible. Secession of the southern states wouldn't be out of the realms of possibility though.
     

Share This Page