Funny Stereotype

[RakuraiTenjin]

I'm one to have fun at my own expense, but this just happened to me. Just now.

I am cleaning out the den, everything's moved in here from some renovations a long time ago, and I'm putting stuff back in closets.

I come to a dilemna. I have run out of space in my dad's closet for his golf clubs, there's no room because I put all the guns in the spot where the clubs went before.

lol right winger's dilemna.

 

[Icarusintel]

lol, you should just buy another house for the clubs, right? since all republicans are wealthy as shit! rofl

 

[CptStern]

"there's no room because I put all the guns in the spot where the clubs went before."


to a non-american that's pretty disturbing

 

[RakuraiTenjin]

lol, you should just buy another house for the clubs, right? since all republicans are wealthy as shit! rofl

Haha yeah.

I want to hit the lottery :[


lol stern, we're armed. An advantage Americans have over citizens of almost every other 1st world nation on the planet.

 

[Lemonking]

indeed stern what are you planning to do with all those guns?

 

[CptStern]

admire them, stroke them, caress them, whisper sweet nothings into their ears

 

[RakuraiTenjin]

indeed stern what are you planning to do with all those guns?

shoot dem dar terrists.

Hunt, sport shoot, and home defense.

 

[Lemonking]

home defense? where do you live in Columbia?
omg what am I getting myself in to...do I have to buy a rifle before I can live in calii?

 

[CptStern]

ya cuz the red coats are coming, better defend yerself cuz you never know when the government may need to be overthrown ...man if that day ever comes the streets will be red with the blood of the militias ...the army would steamroll over you


hunting for anything other than absolute survival = lack of soul/morally bankrupt

 

[RakuraiTenjin]

ya cuz the red coats are coming, better defend yerself cuz you never know when the government may need to be overthrown ...man if that day ever comes the streets will be red with the blood of the militias ...the army would steamroll over you


hunting for anything other than absolute survival = lack of soul/morally bankrupt

The day a revolution eeds to come about you can bet a good part of the army would be on whoever's side is rebelling (if it's justified. Soldiers swear to the constitution, not any man)

I meant home defense as in, weirdos and crackpots more though, not government goons.

And proof you can't be steamrolled over by the government without putting up a decent fight lies in Ruby Ridge or Waco

 

[CptStern]

The day a revolution eeds to come about you can bet a good part of the army would be on whoever's side is rebelling (if it's justified. Soldiers swear to the constitution, not any man)

I meant home defense as in, weirdos and crackpots more though, not government goons.

And proof you can't be steamrolled over by the government without putting up a decent fight lies in Ruby Ridge or Waco

? there were no survivors of waco ..and Randy Weaver lost his entire family ..how is that not steamrolling?

oh and this

the military is loyal to the military not to individual americans ..if they could shoot unarmed students I'm sure they wouldnt have too many qualms of shooting armed rebels


the media would work against you

 

[RakuraiTenjin]

Kent State isn't the same situation at all, that was an unarmed populace protesting and someone got trigger happy. If you'd want to equate that to anything during the revolution, the Boston Massacre would fit just fine. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boston_Massacre

And there were many survivors of Waco

Remember, the military is made up of just folks. They aren't going to eagerly fight their fellow Americans. Even in a matter of secession. You'd see people return home to fight for their home, just as you saw in the 1860's. What once was the US Army became two armies, fighting.

 

[CptStern]

not the ones that were in the compound ...seventy-five men, women, and children died


oh and kent state IS a good example ...they were unarmed protestors even though a different spin was put forth by the government:

"In response to the attacks, President Nixon gave a speech, saying "This should remind us all once again that when dissent turns to violence it invites tragedy."




Tin soldiers and Nixon's comin'.
We're finally on our own.
This summer I hear the drummin'.
Four dead in Ohio.


- CSNY

 

[RakuraiTenjin]

not the ones that were in the compound ...seventy-five men, women, and children died


oh and kent state IS a good example ...they were unarmed protestors even though a different spin was put forth by the government:

"In response to the attacks, President Nixon gave a speech, saying "This should remind us all once again that when dissent turns to violence it invites tragedy."




Tin soldiers and Nixon's comin'.
We're finally on our own.
This summer I hear the drummin'.
Four dead in Ohio.


- CSNY

I mean it's not comparable to the losses that would be incurred in an armed conflict between militia forces and government forces. A lot of them have the same training or are former government, and the government isn't going to be eager to use big weapons (airstrikes, large bombs, artillery, etc) until it escalates, and by that time any national movement would be snowballing into what couldn't be stopped.

 

[CptStern]

I dont agree ...any and every government would move quickly to quell any sort rebellion ...they'd have to or else it would lead to civil war

 

[RakuraiTenjin]

I dont agree ...any and every government would move quickly to quell any sort rebellion ...they'd have to or else it would lead to civil war

No guerilla activity can be stopped by military action. You can only occupy and prevent further/immediate attacks by defending yourself or doing raids on guerilla strongholds. While that goes on, the source of their fighting must be proved null or else cause them to lose public support.

In any situation in the United States, you might have a long drawn out bloody conflict, but you wouldn't be able to stop the rebels if the cause is just and supported morally by a majority of the populace.

 

[CptStern]

No guerilla activity can be stopped by military action. You can only occupy and prevent further/immediate attacks by defending yourself or doing raids on guerilla strongholds. While that goes on, the source of their fighting must be proved null or else cause them to lose public support.

so you're defending insurgency ..terrorism even?

In any situation in the United States, you might have a long drawn out bloody conflict, but you wouldn't be able to stop the rebels if the cause is just and supported morally by a majority of the populace.

the propaganda/spin machine would never allow that to happen ...the media would brand you terrorists, public opinion would be against you ...I mean didnt McVeigh want to achieve a re-awakening of militia groups to what (in his mind) the government is doing to the citizens of US? had he only targeted legitamate targets (again in his mind, I dont condone his actions) say the military, I believe it would have had no less an impact on the general populace




oh and check your PM, I need closure on our last discussion

 

[No Limit]

ya cuz the red coats are coming, better defend yerself

One of my favorite movie quotes is the following from Snatch:

Turkish: What's that?
Tommy: It's me belt, Turkish.
Turkish: No, Tommy. There's a gun in your trousers. What's a gun doing in your trousers?
Tommy: It's for protection.
Turkish: Protection from what . . . zee Germans?

 

[CptStern]

heheh I had forgotten that line ...loved that movie

 

[SOCL]

but you wouldn't be able to stop the rebels if the cause is just and supported morally by a majority of the populace.

Didn't the rebellion in the southern United States of America end without guerilla warfare despite the fact that people to this day still proudly fly Confederate (i.e. seccessionist) battle flags? Further, on an ironic note, aren't the people who claim to be "rebels" truly the ones who also claim to be the most patriotic? My history professor once put it: "Patriotism is the final stronghold for scoundrels".

By the way, according Georgia state law (Georgia the United State, not the nation-state), in order for one to own a house, one must own a firearm (specifically a rifle or shotgun, pistols apparently do not count). This is a fine example of how ridiculous are some laws concerning firearms in the USA.

 

[RakuraiTenjin]

Didn't the rebellion in the southern United States of America end without guerilla warfare despite the fact that people to this day still proudly fly Confederate (i.e. seccessionist) battle flags? Further, on an ironic note, aren't the people who claim to be "rebels" truly the ones who also claim to be the most patriotic? My history professor once put it: "Patriotism is the final stronghold for scoundrels".

By the way, according Georgia state law (Georgia the United State, not the nation-state), in order for one to own a house, one must own a firearm (specifically a rifle or shotgun, pistols apparently do not count). This is a fine example of how ridiculous are some laws concerning firearms in the USA.

The American revolution depended on guerilla tactics for it's victory. But alas, it always depends on the situation itself.

That Georgia law isn't enforced either . It's akin to laws that say alligators must not wear yellow trousers on sunday in church, just old weird rubbish.

 

[SOCL]

The American revolution depended on guerilla tactics for it's victory. But alas, it always depends on the situation itself.

I beg to differ. The American Revolution, though fought through the use of guerilla tactics, was beginning to be a loss for the American colonists until mercenary Prussian general von Steuben was hired to help George Washington train the Continental Army. Further, the Americans were still losing until they won the Battle of Saratoga and gained recognition by the sovereign nation of France and, through them, gained recognition and aide from the Spanish Empire. When this happened, the British were forced to begin fighting a multi-front world war against not only the American colonists, but also French and Spanish forces all around the globe. The American Revolution was won because of France's agreement to step in to the conflict, in the process sending troops, battleships, and aide to the American cause in North America, thus leading to what many call the 'end' of the revolution at the surrender of Lord Cornwalis at the Battle of Yorktown. George Washington and his guerilla force were, the entire time, in the northern part of the eventual-USA trying to hold of another British invasion from Canada into New York, he had very little to do with it. Trust me, I wrote a thesis on this particular topic.

And the Battle of Saratoga was not won by Washington, but von Steuben-trained forces under Horatio Gates.

That Georgia law isn't enforced either . It's akin to laws that say alligators must not wear yellow trousers on sunday in church, just old weird rubbish.

Yes, I realize, but it's just an example of how ridiculous are some firearms laws.

 

[RakuraiTenjin]

I beg to differ. The American Revolution, though fought through the use of guerilla tactics, was beginning to be a loss for the American colonists until mercenary Prussian general von Steuben was hired to help George Washington train the Continental Army. Further, the Americans were still losing until they won the Battle of Saratoga and gained recognition by the sovereign nation of France and, through them, gained recognition and aide from the Spanish Empire. When this happened, the British were forced to begin fighting a multi-front world war against not only the American colonists, but also French and Spanish forces all around the globe. The American Revolution was won because of France's agreement to step in to the conflict, in the process sending troops, battleships, and aide to the American cause in North America, thus leading to what many call the 'end' of the revolution at the surrender of Lord Cornwalis at the Battle of Yorktown. George Washington and his guerilla force were, the entire time, in the northern part of the eventual-USA trying to hold of another British invasion from Canada into New York, he had very little to do with it. Trust me, I wrote a thesis on this particular topic.

And the Battle of Saratoga was not won by Washington, but von Steuben-trained forces under Horatio Gates.

I stand corrected. Hehe.

I agree that many of the gun laws are out of wack. Not sure from what viewpoint you're coming towards that from, but (to me) the 2004 sunset of the 10 year ban on assault rifles was a great start to getting things back on track.

 

[SOCL]

I agree that many of the gun laws are out of wack. Not sure from what viewpoint you're coming towards that from, but (to me) the 2004 sunset of the 10 year ban on assault rifles was a great start to getting things back on track.

I don't truly say much about firearms, but I do have a strong opinion on assault rifles. Namely because when I was younger, a bank of Virginia Beach was robbed by a guy with an assault rifle. When the police came to get him, he decided to not go down without a fight and killed five innocent people in the bank and wounded many others. Had he had a regular hunting rifle or even something like an M14, he couldn't have unloaded so many bullets, but he did and in the process killed a friend of mine. I don't hold this against anyone who owns an assault rifle, but I do see why the ban was in place.


EDIT: Don't get me wrong, I don't believe in the ban only because of this incident for I already believed it before then, it simply reinforced my belief. Interesting, though, because when I was far younger (younger than when I decided to agree with the ban, which is before the bank robbery) I used to think like you do about assault rifles. Again, though, it wasn't the robbery that changed my mind.