|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 404 responses total. |
nharmon
|
|
response 299 of 404:
| 
Jan 19 18:28 UTC 2006 |
I think Dan Cross would be a fun guy to play paintball with...maybe not
against, but with! :)
|
cross
|
|
response 300 of 404:
|
Jan 19 21:41 UTC 2006 |
This response has been erased.
|
bru
|
|
response 301 of 404:
|
Jan 20 07:19 UTC 2006 |
What do you want me to put up cross? I do not need to join you to know
you think you know it all, but apparently do not. Many of the people I
am working with down here are experienced military, and I was raised by
people who were experienced military, and most of my friends were in or
are in teh military, and NONE of them have the attitude you seem to
have. NONE. They all know what would be involved in fighting a civil
war in the U.S. None of them think it would be a cakewalk, or even
winable by our military. You need to find a unit that specializes in
something more than putting muscles on both ends of your body.
|
bru
|
|
response 302 of 404:
|
Jan 20 11:32 UTC 2006 |
I am not denegrating his service here, nor his enthusiasm or training.
But cross really needs to understand the document he is sworn to
defend, and the limits of his mlitary training. If you think you are
invincible in the field, you will let yourself and your teamates down
when you take a reality check.
IED's are not the only thing killing and injuring our soldiers, and a
large caliber hunting rifle has a lot more energy in its bullet than a
5.56 round carries. One round from your battle rifle will not stop a
bull elephant, nor will it penetrate my ballistic vest with the heavy
trauma plate.
but your face has not trauma plate to protect it either.
|
nharmon
|
|
response 303 of 404:
|
Jan 20 13:19 UTC 2006 |
Is this really a conversation we need to be having?
|
cross
|
|
response 304 of 404:
|
Jan 20 14:25 UTC 2006 |
This response has been erased.
|
happyboy
|
|
response 305 of 404:
|
Jan 20 19:10 UTC 2006 |
i love that bru is giving you training and constitutional
education advise.
he is my hero. he is the wind beneath my wings. wait, no...
that may have been some chili repeating on me.
|
cross
|
|
response 306 of 404:
|
Jan 20 22:04 UTC 2006 |
This response has been erased.
|
mcnally
|
|
response 307 of 404:
|
Jan 20 23:27 UTC 2006 |
Well, I'm glad *someone* is finding this whole discussion amusing.
|
cross
|
|
response 308 of 404:
|
Jan 20 23:37 UTC 2006 |
This response has been erased.
|
albaugh
|
|
response 309 of 404:
|
Jan 20 23:45 UTC 2006 |
> Parades don't intimidate
Hah - rcurl has evidently never been to Northern Ireland during marching
season!
|
rcurl
|
|
response 310 of 404:
|
Jan 21 03:50 UTC 2006 |
It's the threat, not the parade, that intimidates. If they paraded with funny
floats and asked everyone to join in, there need be no threat. It doesn't
matter what form a threat takes to be a threat.
|
bru
|
|
response 311 of 404:
|
Jan 21 06:34 UTC 2006 |
cross, you wrote, and I quote...
"That said, the second amendment is outdated. Hunting rifles and
revolvers are not going to contributed to a well-ordered and equiped
militia in this day and age. This sort of thing comes from the days
where members of the US military supplied their own weapons and
uniforms (yes, there was such a "time).
This in no way invalidates what the second ammendment was put in for.
It isn't there to require you be a member of the militia to own a gun.
It is there to make sure you are able to defend yourself and your
family from a government gone wild.
"It's like this. If you're one of those Ruby Ridge whackos with a
bunch of 9mm handguns and some paramilitary camp in the mountains, and
they sent me in with my equipment, weapons, and body armor,
well...shoot at me all you want, but I guarantee that the bullets will
bounce off of me and stick to you."
What I am pointing out to you is that your armored vest is not going to
stop a .300 remington, nor is your face shield going to stop a .30-06
You are not a tank nor an armored vehicle, and people in this country
carry ammo just as big or bigger than anything you carry, and those
trained from an early age in how to shoot can probably outshoot most
marines. I know I can, because I have done it.
And that Ruby ridge wacko was a veteran Green Beret. And we won't get
into why you think it is okay for the FBI to shoot a boys dog, shoot
the boy in the back killing him, and then have a sharpshooter kill an
unarmed woman holding a baby. Houriuchi should have been tried as a
criminal, as should the managers of that debacle.
|
nharmon
|
|
response 312 of 404:
|
Jan 21 13:27 UTC 2006 |
Come on Bru. You made your point, but the last paragraph there is over
the line. Dan said nothing about the FBI's actions being okay.
|
cross
|
|
response 313 of 404:
|
Jan 21 17:48 UTC 2006 |
This response has been erased.
|
cross
|
|
response 314 of 404:
|
Jan 21 17:54 UTC 2006 |
This response has been erased.
|
happyboy
|
|
response 315 of 404:
|
Jan 22 01:35 UTC 2006 |
they'll make neat and festive sounds when they bounce off the
tanks just prior to the michigan militia being treaded and
turned into redneck bisque?
|
nharmon
|
|
response 316 of 404:
|
Jan 22 03:39 UTC 2006 |
If I shot at a tank with my Glock, I might chip the paint, causing the
steel to rust, and putting a hole in the armor!
|
cross
|
|
response 317 of 404:
|
Jan 22 03:40 UTC 2006 |
This response has been erased.
|
cross
|
|
response 318 of 404:
|
Jan 22 03:44 UTC 2006 |
This response has been erased.
|
nharmon
|
|
response 319 of 404:
|
Jan 22 05:42 UTC 2006 |
I do not disagree with you Dan. The military technology that exists
today could never have been imagined by the framers of our constitution.
That makes the 2nd amendment difficult to apply, as evident by the
contradicting legal opinions in place.
But until the amendment is changed or repealed, its still the law of the
land.
|
naftee
|
|
response 320 of 404:
|
Jan 22 06:22 UTC 2006 |
you guys are talking in a way that makes it seem that the military isn't
composed of 'average citizens'.
|
cross
|
|
response 321 of 404:
|
Jan 22 07:24 UTC 2006 |
This response has been erased.
|
mcnally
|
|
response 322 of 404:
|
Jan 22 07:59 UTC 2006 |
re #318: You know that that argument cuts both ways, right? From an
anti-gun-ownership standpoint you can use it to reason that the rationale
for an armed citizenry is outdated, but from a pro-weapons standpoint it
works just as well (which is to say, not especially..) as an argument that
citizens should be allowed to own anti-tank weapons and surface-to-air
missiles if they so choose.
|
bru
|
|
response 323 of 404:
|
Jan 22 08:48 UTC 2006 |
well, individuals used t be able to own cannon during the civil war and
earlier. I think you still can own a muzzle loading cannon today. It
ain't going to compete with a 155 howitzer, thats for sure.
The citizens are not going to be shooting down any aircraft with
hunting rifles either, or stand up against a determined advance against
a brigade. No one thinks that, and no one has said that. But if I
want to get my hands on a SAM, I will need to start with a rifle. If I
intend to take on an M1-A1, I will need to use other means, but a rifle
or pistol would be a good start.
If I was the violent kind, I could have taken several military rifles
from the National Guard down here with nothing but my pistol. these
guys are walking around with unloaded rifles, and they are not wearing
armor, just fatigues.
in a guerilla war, you take what you need from the enemy, or it is
given to you by people who agree with your position.
|