Conquer Club

Posted: **Tue May 05, 2009 6:11 pm**

Yup so good point about not winning against the army anyway. 8-)

Sucker!

Posted: **Tue May 05, 2009 6:16 pm**

Juan_Bottom wrote:Yup so good point about not winning against the army anyway.
Sucker!

I always root for the underdog. I think that the US has lost in Vietnam, and will ultimately loose in Iraq, mostly because Obama has put a timetable on the departure there. There has already been an up-tick there in violence. Our military would be hard pressed to fire upon their brothers and sisters, mothers and fathers. Some, haven taken the oath to defend the Constitution against all enemies, be they foreign or domestic will clearly recognize that our government has been seized by enemies of the constitution if they would seek to turn the US Army against its own people.

It would be a very complicated situation.

Posted: **Tue May 05, 2009 6:21 pm**

captain.crazy wrote:I think that the US has lost in Vietnam, and will ultimately loose in Iraq, mostly because Obama has put a timetable on the departure there.

Do you also think that we lost Vietnam because we left?
We would lose/would have lost niether with unrestricted warfare.

I don't see this being Obama's fualt. The public doesn't even want to be there.

captain.crazy wrote:It would be a very complicated situation.

The only thing that would help an uprising is that loyalty to country that our soldiers have. But give it a little while and it would be a war like any other. Only thing is, unlike Iraq and Vietnam, we won't be pulling out.

Posted: **Tue May 05, 2009 6:28 pm**

Juan_Bottom wrote:
captain.crazy wrote:I think that the US has lost in Vietnam, and will ultimately loose in Iraq, mostly because Obama has put a timetable on the departure there.

Do you also think that we lost Vietnam because we left?
We would lose/would have lost niether with unrestricted warfare.

I don't see this being Obama's fualt. The public doesn't even want to be there.

captain.crazy wrote:It would be a very complicated situation.

The only thing that would help an uprising is that loyalty to country that our soldiers have. But give it a little while and it would be a war like any other. Only thing is, unlike Iraq and Vietnam, we won't be pulling out.

I believe that we4 lost Vietnam because our troops were too stoned to fight, and because they were enjoying the home court advantage. They were incredibly well dug in and we couldn't tell the enemies from the friendlies. Mostly, I don't think that we should have been there. In Iraq, I think that we have made some progress, but we have squashed that by saying that we will leave on a time table... I also do not believe that we should have been there.

True, there would be no pulling out here, but all of the same reasons we lost in Vietnam could be applied here as well, plus some.

Posted: **Tue May 05, 2009 7:02 pm**

jonesthecurl wrote:What do you trade up to from a nuke?

Posted: **Tue May 05, 2009 11:19 pm**

jonesthecurl wrote:What do you trade up to from a nuke?

Nukes are irrelevant in the fight for control of your own country.

"Watch it, or I'll bomb us!!"

Posted: **Tue May 05, 2009 11:32 pm**

captain.crazy wrote:Our military would be hard pressed to fire upon their brothers and sisters, mothers and fathers. Some, haven taken the oath to defend the Constitution against all enemies, be they foreign or domestic will clearly recognize that our government has been seized by enemies of the constitution if they would seek to turn the US Army against its own people.

I think this is accurate.

I have been involved in the Canadian Forces Liaison Council and personally know a number of Canadian reservists very well through that, and several other connections I have. I know that many of them would fight against their own government in defense of civilians. I tend to believe the same would hold true in the USA.

Posted: **Wed May 06, 2009 6:28 am**

captain.crazy wrote:
LordThor wrote:Thank God im British, guns are not common, shootings even less so as a result,

In my opinion, more and more people are going off the rails these days with pressures of modern life etc, if guns are allowed to be carried and are in the public domain, then more deaths will occur.
People have temper rages that are tempory moments of madness... carring a gun could mean useing it, in that second of madness, as apposed to the long walk home, cooling off and having second thoughts about the consequences of your intended actions....

Right! I think your described temper rages is the direct result of of our cultural promotion of self righteousness and the ingrained notion that we are not responsible for our actions coupled with a "quick fix pill solution" to every problem imaginable. Imagine, though, how quickly you would have your rage extinguished if, while you were overstepping your bounds, you were suddenly looking down the barrel of a .44. I have seen that happen... my attackers quickly calmed down and decided that they ought not act irresponsibly with my safety.

i think your missing the point someone that decides in a fit of temper to shoot you, does not act like you see in the western cowboy films, and make eye to eye contact, and wait to see who has the fastest draw,...no... they simply shoot you in the back of your head, then pick up your gun to use on anyone else they feel fit..
Thats the point i was making.. they wont be looking down your gun barrel, they will be stepping over your dead carcass...

Posted: **Wed May 06, 2009 7:01 am**

LordThor wrote:
captain.crazy wrote:
LordThor wrote:Thank God im British, guns are not common, shootings even less so as a result,

In my opinion, more and more people are going off the rails these days with pressures of modern life etc, if guns are allowed to be carried and are in the public domain, then more deaths will occur.
People have temper rages that are tempory moments of madness... carring a gun could mean useing it, in that second of madness, as apposed to the long walk home, cooling off and having second thoughts about the consequences of your intended actions....

Right! I think your described temper rages is the direct result of of our cultural promotion of self righteousness and the ingrained notion that we are not responsible for our actions coupled with a "quick fix pill solution" to every problem imaginable. Imagine, though, how quickly you would have your rage extinguished if, while you were overstepping your bounds, you were suddenly looking down the barrel of a .44. I have seen that happen... my attackers quickly calmed down and decided that they ought not act irresponsibly with my safety.

i think your missing the point someone that decides in a fit of temper to shoot you, does not act like you see in the western cowboy films, and make eye to eye contact, and wait to see who has the fastest draw,...no... they simply shoot you in the back of your head, then pick up your gun to use on anyone else they feel fit..
Thats the point i was making.. they wont be looking down your gun barrel, they will be stepping over your dead carcass...

So you want to take my gun away from me, which is the only think that I have to defend myself and others against someone with so little self control that they can flip out and go on a shooting rampage because they are having a bad day? In columbine, if a teacher or a principal had been armed, they could have diminished the violence that day by ten fold. The same thing could have been said about Virginia tech shootings and the more recent shooting in New York where the guy backed his car up to the back door of the resource center and killed all those immigrants. Even if one counter gun had been there, things would have been dramatically different.

So don't tell me that its okay to take guns from the law abiding citizens, the ones that register and go through the criminal back ground checks... the ones that are licensed to carry... because they are the more responsible people. They are the ones that can most effectively stop the loose cannons in our society.

Posted: **Wed May 06, 2009 10:00 am**

captain.crazy wrote: So don't tell me that its okay to take guns from the law abiding citizens, the ones that register and go through the criminal back ground checks... the ones that are licensed to carry... because they are the more responsible people. They are the ones that can most effectively stop the loose cannons in our society.

I don't believe anyone is really talking about taking all guns away from law-abiding citizens. That is pure NRA hype and garbage.

What IS being considered are limitations, particularly to the insane. As much as anything, to unify them and create a database of those who really and truly cannot handle a gun.

The OTHER thing that is being considered, is partially implemented is placing limits on particularl kinds of guns that have very little sports value (I don't say no value, jsut little) compared to the crimes/potential damage they create. These limis include certain automatic weapons, handguns in particular jurisdictions, etc.

I used to be a card-carrying NRA member, but their stands have gone far away from being conservative and teaching safe gun use to pure unadulterated far right "I have the right to own a tank if I want" garbage.

And.. as was said before, by the time government tanks are rolling against us, any gun or weapons you own do little. We DO live in a democracy. All this talk of "revolution".. guess what, we just HAD ONE. And you folks LOST. You will get another chance in 4 more years. If you don't like the policies, that is your chance. HOWEVER, I warn you. Arlan Spector is not the only one completely fed up with Republicans and the rest who keep crying "my rights", while ignoring the responsibities they have as citizens. (and for the record, NO Arlan is not in any way anti-guns!!!! He would never be elected in PA if he were, but he has agreed with certain reasonable limits).

Posted: **Wed May 06, 2009 10:09 am**

captain.crazy wrote:So you want to take my gun away from me

I don't think anyone wants to take a gun away specifically from you, because they might be afraid that you would shoot them. It's a bit of a catch-22, really.

Posted: **Wed May 06, 2009 6:02 pm**

Neoteny wrote:
captain.crazy wrote:So you want to take my gun away from me

I don't think anyone wants to take a gun away specifically from you, because they might be afraid that you would shoot them. It's a bit of a catch-22, really.

I once caught a 22 short in my teeth at 30 yards.

I got a cavity, so now I just use my catcher's mitt.

Posted: **Wed May 06, 2009 7:29 pm**

I honestly did not see that one coming at all. Well played.

Posted: **Thu May 07, 2009 5:23 am**

Its not so much that i want to take your gun away captain.crazy, but more my opinion that guns should not be carried in normal day to day life full stop.
I do think that if guns were not so readily available and tighter laws were enforced to prevent them being carried as a normal way of life, perhaps some of the shootings would not happen as access to guns would not be so easy.
I accept that if someone is hell bent on getting a gun they wont give a flying hoot about the law and will probably be able to get hold of a gun.
But if it is made harder to get hold of weapons that chance is reduced.
Im not an expert on guns or the laws regarding them in the UK let alone America, but i can say there are far less shooting in the UK per head than in the States, maybe this is because of tighter laws, guns have to be registered here and be for a reason, i.e. a gun club or hunting, but they have to be under lock and key, and are not permitted to be carried in the normal day to day life.
Someone else will know more about the laws on this than me.

Posted: **Thu May 07, 2009 4:21 pm**

I plan on getting a concealed weapon license when I'm 21 & a pistol to keep in my car/house

Posted: **Thu May 07, 2009 4:48 pm**

PLAYER57832 wrote:
captain.crazy wrote: So don't tell me that its okay to take guns from the law abiding citizens, the ones that register and go through the criminal back ground checks... the ones that are licensed to carry... because they are the more responsible people. They are the ones that can most effectively stop the loose cannons in our society.

I don't believe anyone is really talking about taking all guns away from law-abiding citizens. That is pure NRA hype and garbage.
No it isn't. Our Commander in Chief voted to do this very thing as a state senator.
What IS being considered are limitations, particularly to the insane. As much as anything, to unify them and create a database of those who really and truly cannot handle a gun.
This already exists.
The OTHER thing that is being considered, is partially implemented is placing limits on particularl kinds of guns that have very little sports value (I don't say no value, jsut little) compared to the crimes/potential damage they create. These limis include certain automatic weapons, handguns in particular jurisdictions, etc.

Automatic weapons are already restricted from the general public. As for handguns in particular juristictions, the Supreme Court ruled last year that this is unconstitutional. It is a constitutional right not only to keep arms, but to bare arms as well.

Also, they could ban hunting and all fire arms related sporting entirely and this would not violate the Constitution. The Second Ammendment and hunting are not one and the same.

Posted: **Thu May 07, 2009 5:23 pm**

GabonX wrote:
PLAYER57832 wrote:
captain.crazy wrote: So don't tell me that its okay to take guns from the law abiding citizens, the ones that register and go through the criminal back ground checks... the ones that are licensed to carry... because they are the more responsible people. They are the ones that can most effectively stop the loose cannons in our society.

I don't believe anyone is really talking about taking all guns away from law-abiding citizens. That is pure NRA hype and garbage.

No it isn't. Our Commander in Chief voted to do this very thing as a state senator.

He voted to take away ALL guns from law-abiding citizens????? You will have to provide proof of that one!

GabonX wrote:
PLAYER57832 wrote:What IS being considered are limitations, particularly to the insane. As much as anything, to unify them and create a database of those who really and truly cannot handle a gun.
This already exists.

It exists in very loose form, it needs to be tightened, as evidenced by the Virginia Tech shooting.

GabonX wrote:
PLAYER57832 wrote:The OTHER thing that is being considered, is partially implemented is placing limits on particularl kinds of guns that have very little sports value (I don't say no value, jsut little) compared to the crimes/potential damage they create. These limis include certain automatic weapons, handguns in particular jurisdictions, etc.

Automatic weapons are already restricted from the general public. As for handguns in particular juristictions, the Supreme Court ruled last year that this is unconstitutional. It is a constitutional right not only to keep arms, but to bare arms as well.

The automatic weapon ban is up for renewal. And, there are serious gaps in that legislation. The move is to tighten some of the loopholes.

GabonX wrote:Also, they could ban hunting and all fire arms related sporting entirely and this would not violate the Constitution. The Second Ammendment and hunting are not one and the same.

Could, but no one is in any way seriously considering this. The NRA, etc has tried to claim that this is what Obama will do/wants, but it is pure fear-mongering, not based upon facts.

As for hunting... there are a lot more serious issues there than gun ownership. And, though I am not going to get into it in this thread, that is a topic I do know a fair amount about. That is, it is not gun ownership limits that will/are a threat to hunting.

Posted: **Thu May 07, 2009 7:05 pm**

Lucky Se7en wrote:I plan on getting a concealed weapon license when I'm 21 & a pistol to keep in my car/house

Keep your pistol on your person... always... no exceptions.

Posted: **Thu May 07, 2009 7:09 pm**

PLAYER57832 wrote:
GabonX wrote:
PLAYER57832 wrote:
captain.crazy wrote: So don't tell me that its okay to take guns from the law abiding citizens, the ones that register and go through the criminal back ground checks... the ones that are licensed to carry... because they are the more responsible people. They are the ones that can most effectively stop the loose cannons in our society.

I don't believe anyone is really talking about taking all guns away from law-abiding citizens. That is pure NRA hype and garbage.

No it isn't. Our Commander in Chief voted to do this very thing as a state senator.

He voted to take away ALL guns from law-abiding citizens????? You will have to provide proof of that one!
GabonX wrote:
PLAYER57832 wrote:What IS being considered are limitations, particularly to the insane. As much as anything, to unify them and create a database of those who really and truly cannot handle a gun.
This already exists.

It exists in very loose form, it needs to be tightened, as evidenced by the Virginia Tech shooting.
GabonX wrote:
PLAYER57832 wrote:The OTHER thing that is being considered, is partially implemented is placing limits on particularl kinds of guns that have very little sports value (I don't say no value, jsut little) compared to the crimes/potential damage they create. These limis include certain automatic weapons, handguns in particular jurisdictions, etc.

Automatic weapons are already restricted from the general public. As for handguns in particular juristictions, the Supreme Court ruled last year that this is unconstitutional. It is a constitutional right not only to keep arms, but to bare arms as well.

The automatic weapon ban is up for renewal. And, there are serious gaps in that legislation. The move is to tighten some of the loopholes.
GabonX wrote:Also, they could ban hunting and all fire arms related sporting entirely and this would not violate the Constitution. The Second Ammendment and hunting are not one and the same.

Could, but no one is in any way seriously considering this. The NRA, etc has tried to claim that this is what Obama will do/wants, but it is pure fear-mongering, not based upon facts.

As for hunting... there are a lot more serious issues there than gun ownership. And, though I am not going to get into it in this thread, that is a topic I do know a fair amount about. That is, it is not gun ownership limits that will/are a threat to hunting.

They do not have the right to vote away the second amendment. they want too, because they are planning to shift America's power from the people to the totalitarian oligarchy that is already in place... I am sorry that you are too liberal (read dense) to understand this, but more and more people are waking up the the growing tyranny in our house. We will not stand for this.

Posted: **Thu May 07, 2009 7:25 pm**

captain.crazy wrote:They do not have the right to vote away the second amendment.

EXACTLY.. and they are not doing so!

captain.crazy wrote:they want too, because they are planning to shift America's power from the people to the totalitarian oligarchy that is already in place... I am sorry that you are too liberal (read dense) to understand this, but more and more people are waking up the the growing tyranny in our house. We will not stand for this.

Pure baloney! What you are really doing is feeding more people akin to ol Mr Weaver, etc. If anyone is formenting a problem, it is the NRA and the rest using fear to foster political gain. Sad part is, if enough people believe it, an overthrow is exactly what we will get.. but not into sanity, into anarchy.

Show me one shred of evidence that Obama or anyone else in power is seriously trying to take away all guns from all citizens. It simply is not true.

Posted: **Thu May 07, 2009 7:35 pm**

PLAYER57832 wrote:
captain.crazy wrote:They do not have the right to vote away the second amendment.

EXACTLY.. and they are not doing so!

captain.crazy wrote:they want too, because they are planning to shift America's power from the people to the totalitarian oligarchy that is already in place... I am sorry that you are too liberal (read dense) to understand this, but more and more people are waking up the the growing tyranny in our house. We will not stand for this.

Pure baloney! What you are really doing is feeding more people akin to ol Mr Weaver, etc. If anyone is formenting a problem, it is the NRA and the rest using fear to foster political gain. Sad part is, if enough people believe it, an overthrow is exactly what we will get.. but not into sanity, into anarchy.

Show me one shred of evidence that Obama or anyone else in power is seriously trying to take away all guns from all citizens. It simply is not true.

The bastards in office now what to make this country as socialist as Europe. that means no guns for regular people.

Posted: **Thu May 07, 2009 7:42 pm**

captain.crazy wrote:
The bastards in office now what to make this country as socialist as Europe. that means no guns for regular people.

Proof?

Posted: **Thu May 07, 2009 7:47 pm**

Who needs proof when you have conjecture and speculation?

Posted: **Thu May 07, 2009 8:23 pm**

PLAYER57832 wrote:
captain.crazy wrote:
The bastards in office now what to make this country as socialist as Europe. that means no guns for regular people.

Proof?

I wrote that before I saw your most recent post... no, that's not proof.

Though he has not directly voted for banning guns outright (You know that no bill has ever been presented to Congress)

Lets take a look at history.

"This year will go down in history. For the first time a civilized nation has full gun registration. Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient, and the world will follow our lead into the future."
--Adolph Hitler, 1935

German Firearms Act of 1937:
"No civilian is to have a firearm without a permit and permits will not be issued to [persons] suspected of acting against the state. For Jews this permission will not be granted. Those people who do not require permission to purchase or carry weapons [include] the whole SS and SA, including the Death's Head group and officers of the Hitler Youth." [Kates, Restricting Handguns pg. 185, 1979]

Adolph Hitler:
"The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to permit the conquered Eastern peoples to have arms. History teaches that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by doing so." April 11, 1942, quoted in Hitler's Tischegesprache Im Fuhrerhauptquartier 1941-1942, [Hitler's Table-Talk at the Fuhrer's Headquarters 1941-1942], Dr. Henry Picker, ed. (Athenaum-Verlag, Bonn, 1951); The original source is notes taken by Hitler associate Martin Bormann, a document called Bormann-Vermerke.

England:

Over the course of the 20th century, the UK gradually implemented tighter regulation of the civilian ownership of firearms through the enactment of the 1968, 1988, 1994 and 1997 Firearms (Amendment) Acts leading to the current outright ban on the ownership of all automatic, and most self-loading, firearms in the UK.

====================================================================

You may not see what is happening, but I do. We are heading into the direction of gun control. It starts with "registration", and the banning of "certain" weapons. Then, as we see in congress, you have to pass "evaluation" even though you have no history of violent crime? Then the right to conceal your weapons goes away. Then the rest.

I see that they are subjecting the first amendment to all kinds of bullshit too. Fairness doctrine? New "cyber bullying" laws? Since when does someone risk fines and jail for calling someone a dick head?

Keep in mind that the woes of this country cannot be hung on the neck of one person... that would be too easy. The enemies of the USA are many, they have been working for a long time to reap the riches of this nation for centuries and we are now in the end game.

Posted: **Thu May 07, 2009 8:31 pm**

None of this is anything more than more inuendos.

Repeat: NO ONE in power is trying take all guns away from Americans!

Several groups are finding benefit from pretending this is a real threat. If you want to look to the REAL threat, its all those groups spreading lies. They are making people so paranoid that its not going to matter what kind of president Obama is, how much good he does OR how idiotic his opposition is ( Palin anyone?), he may be defeated.

THAT is what this garbage is about. Not guns, but political gain for OTHER agendas. And you can bet it is not an agenda favorable to either you or I!

Conquer Club

Do you own a gun?

Re: Do you own a gun?

Re: Do you own a gun?

Re: Do you own a gun?

Re: Do you own a gun?

Re: Do you own a gun?

Re: Do you own a gun?

Re: Do you own a gun?

Re: Do you own a gun?

Re: Do you own a gun?

Re: Do you own a gun?

Re: Do you own a gun?

Re: Do you own a gun?

Re: Do you own a gun?

Re: Do you own a gun?

Re: Do you own a gun?

Re: Do you own a gun?

Re: Do you own a gun?

Re: Do you own a gun?

Re: Do you own a gun?

Re: Do you own a gun?

Re: Do you own a gun?

Re: Do you own a gun?

Re: Do you own a gun?

Re: Do you own a gun?

Re: Do you own a gun?