Good Luck
New member
Already answered.
Victory for Gun Rights
- Thread starter Billy the Great Khan
- Start date
DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
So a "combat ready F-22 with all it's systems intact" should be made available to American citizens. Is that your position?
Good Luck
New member
Try taking a reading for comprehension course, then get back to me.
DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
American citizens aren't foreign agents.
Good Luck
New member
Are you really this fucking DENSE? Do you actually need it spelled out for you at the 2nd grade reading level?
You asked where I'd draw the line.
I replied to your question, even quoting it so you'd know what I was answering: "Weapons that have a significant classified technological component."
And then I added an explanation for where I draw the line: "It wouldn't be wise to give foreign agents open access to a combat ready F-22 with all it's systems intact."
How is that so hard to understand? We don't want classified technical components on the open market because then foreign agents could simply buy them to gain knowledge of our military systems. And from that, our enemies can a: find means to counter our weapons systems and b: copy them to use against us. Therefore, an F-22 with full combat weapons system would not be something we'd want openly sold alongside Cessnas.
Clear now?
DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
Why stop there?
Good Luck
New member
Asked and answered you brain dead pustule.
DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
But shouldn't our citizens have access to the best military tools? Why put them at a disadvantage?
DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
How ironic.
Good Luck
New member
How many ways do you need it explained? It would be unwise to put critical classified military technologies on the open market. It is that simple.But shouldn't our citizens have access to the best military tools? Why put them at a disadvantage?
As far as disadvantage to the people, since you can probably count on one hand the number of people who actually have the financial means to acquire such items, AND would be willing to actually spring for the costs of not only purchasing, but maintaining such items, any "disadvantage" is minimal compared to the advantages of keeping our high-end military technologies reasonably secure.
Also, as was proven by elements of the 101st Airborne in the Battle of the Bulge, it IS possible for infantry, using nothing more than man-pack weapons (those I am advocating the people have full legal access to), to hold off a superior, armored force.
Good Luck
New member
Says the mindless Canadian twat whose concept of freedom is limited to "better dead than poor or abused".There's nothing more entertaining than two Righties having a discussion. Using convoluted logic they invariably end up at the proverbial cliff's edge, then simultaneously jump off while still pattering.
I love it!
Can you refute anything in this discussion? Or is your claim of "convoluted logic" one more piece of shit you pulled out of the ass in which you keep your head firmly implanted?
DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
1. Yet there are some people who could afford the weapons no matter how expensive they may be. Why put them at a disadvantage? Besides, most "classified" technologies are merely "secret", and secrets cost very little.
2. Thanks for proving my earlier point about snipers with readily available hunting rifles holding off regular army with fully automatic weapons.
Good Luck
New member
But if we end up giving away those secrets, any enemy can use that to learn how to counter the abilities of said weapons, thus any advantage will be negated. The advantage of having weapons systems that can do things our enemies do not know how to counter (because how they work is secret) far outweighs any advantage of having them available to the open market.
LOL Riiiight. The only thing proven here is your continued inability to read for comprehension.2. Thanks for proving my earlier point about snipers with readily available hunting rifles holding off regular army with fully automatic weapons.
There is just a BIT of difference between having anti-armor weapons (which the 101st had - that being my point) and being limited to rifles.
Give me a platoon of good men with a full compliment of infantry weapons and ammo, adequate time to dig in a prepared defense, and I'll put them up against a platoon of Bradlys with reasonable confidence of holding them off. Might even do a fair job against a squadron of M1 Abrams, given a bit of luck. Add in an anti-armor squad from our parent infantry company, and even a squadron M1s will have a very bad day trying to dig us out of our defensive positions.
Limit us to rifles, and the best thing we can do is withdraw quietly under the philosophy that it is sometimes better to live to fight another day, than die in a hopeless stand. With luck (and at the probable cost of half the platoon) we might be able to take out an officer or senior NCO before their reaction would route us.
Rifles, alone, simply can NOT fight armor and expect to win. OTOH, it does not, necessarily, take armor to defeat armor. It does, however, take more than snipers.
DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
Wouldn't the militia, in the scenario that we are discussing, be considered an enemy to the US government?
SmarterthanYou
rebel
who cares. the government is not our ruler, we are it's ruler. If the militia were to rise against the government, i'd say the government obviously was doing something wrong.
Good Luck
New member
The day the U.S. government declares the militia to be their enemy, (stupid presidential faux pas not withstanding) THAT is the day we need to worry whether we have the force of arms to put the fuckers back in their place. Hopefully it is a day that will never come.
Meanwhile, the government AND the people both have a vested interest in keeping our military secrets secure from outside enemies, which is the factor that makes putting classified military technologies on the open market a bad idea.
DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
But that's the scenario being discussed.
Good Luck
New member
Is the militia a CURRENT enemy of the government?
We are discussing what, if any, limitations should be in place for private access to the weapons of war NOW, in case that scenario ever develops. Your responses so far indicate you do not believe the people should have access to anything more than basic hunting rifles, and they would be sufficient if we get to the point of violent rebellion.
I am taking the position that rifles are NOT enough to combat a modern standing army, but that the expectation of access to highly technological weapons systems is unreasonable because of security concerns over keeping the technologies secret from CURRENT enemies. (where "enemy" is defined as a foreign agency not friendly with the U.S.) and therefore, a reasonable limitation would be those weapon systems with significant classified technologies, but any weapon or weapon system that involves common technologies should be available to all U.S. citizens who have not lost their rights through due process.
Frankly, it seems you're more intent on trolling the topic than actually discussing it.
If you want to discuss actually being IN the situation where a large body of the people feel compelled to violent rebellion, and we are in an active war against a federal government run amok, then my answer is we use whatever we have at that time to steal more: tanks, planes, missiles, even nukes.
DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
That's not the point. We are discussing the scenario where they would be the enemy of the government.