DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Everything Else... President Obama, before you try that gun grab, I have a WARNING for you…

See, this is where the scary term "assault rifle" comes in.

All guns are deadly, no doubt. Most "assault" rifles (the term isn't anything but a negative attention getter) are in the .223 or 5.56 cal (basically the same thing).

Sad thing is, the people trying to make laws don't even know what a mag is compared to a clip. They don't know what semi auto is compared to automatic. Most of them couldn't tell you what a .223 round even means.

A 5.56 round? In a gun with a barrel shroud and, AND a flash suppressor? Must be bad, right?

AR-15. Armalite Rifle - NOT Assault Rifle.

.308, heck, even a 12 gauge shotgun slug........


We don't have a gun problem - we have a people problem. Swish had some decent comments earlier in this thread.

But bottom line, the people making the laws are pretty dumb when it comes to guns.

They'll come at you with drones, bombers, tanks, and lots of other things that can out-gun an AR-15, or any civilian weapon.

Never understood the "protection" argument when the government tech eclipses the civilian stuff.

This doesn't make sense.

I don't trust the government either, but I trust people even less.

The government didn't shoot up schools.

The government isn't shooting up places cause a girl didn't want to go out with it.

Yes, I'm more scared of society than I am of some government takeover.

The PEOPLE did that, not the government.

Have you ever understood what has happened in........I don't know......say, Afghanistan?

Our military totally owned the Afghanis in military power. So did Russia back when they tried to do whatever it was they were doing.

Due to rules of engagement, at least for us, it was/is a struggle.

Do you think the rules of engagement for u.s. troops attacking u.s. citizens would be more stringent, or less stringent, than what the u.s. troops had in Afghanistan?

I have a hard time believing u.s. troops would go all out on u.s. civilians. Even if they did, unless they went all out (which the u.s. hasn't done in about forever), I can't see troops blowing up u.s. citizens.

The government has already taken you over.

Says who? A random poster on DT?

The government tech is operated by cousin jimmy and uncle bob. Sons and daughters killing their own families?

The largest army ever faced was something like 1.5 million men. There are 30+ million hunters in America today, minimum.

Nah, bud. You've said it yourself.

Not really. Just because I disagree with pretty much anything you say doesn't mean the government has taken me over.

It just means I don't agree with you.

You truly think armed citizens with AR-15s would defeat the might of the US military?

Like the guy who shot his leg off with explosives on the lawnmower.

Yea, he's gonna do a ton of damage.

Do you honestly think the u.s. would use the might of the u.s. military against it's own citizens, when the u.s. military doesn't have the balls to use the might of its military against foreign enemies?

??

You do realize the military only takes action when congress/the president says so, right?

The military doesn't have the balls to use the might of the military? Lay off the drugs and alcohol.

Da hell you talking about?????????????????????????????

I don't do drugs, of any sort - not even ibuprofen. I'm sober as can be.

Hey, bud, light another one.

You were in the military. Your telling me you'd start cruising down the streets in Cleveland, shooting people that disagreed with the gov't?

Wow man, better light another one.

See, this is why I've said that people need to start reading their post out loud before they hit submit.

"When the US military doesn't have the balls to use the might of its military against foreign enemies?"

I want you to read that out loud. We can read it together if you like.

You're saying that the military can just do whatever the hell they want, at any time.

You do understand that's not how it works, correct? Obviously not. So once again, the military can only take action under congress/ the presidents approval.

The us military and the government is not the same thing.

Also, let's say I correct your incoherent post. We've been at war since 2001, how on earth do you think we don't have the balls to fight foreign enemies.

Stop posting. You're embarrassing yourself.

Why don't you ask North Vietnam.

Are you really that dense that you can't see what I'm saying? Maybe I need to spell it out for you. Read along: The u.s. military - the people that serve, will not voluntarily bomb u.s. citizens.

Seriously, is that beyond your ability to recognize?

I didn't address that because I know they won't.

I addressed the other part of your dumbass post. You're wrong in saying we don't have the balls to battle foreign enemies, when that's exactly what we're currently doing.

Pointless bro. Stay in your lane, don't comment on what's tough and who has balls. You have none.

We lost Nam due to the fuerilla warfare on unfamiliar land.

That wouldn't be an issue here.

Plus, just look at the civil war. The army with might, economy, and technology will win. The south lost due to being weak in many different areas.

The u.s. military - the people that serve, will not voluntarily bomb u.s. citizens.

TRUTH!

Who knows the land better than the man who has hunted it all his life?
Yea, in the civil war it took 4 years to defeat the south, in Pennsylvania by the way.

While I agree, it's not so clear.

Kent state.

Unarmed Citizens against scared kids with guns.

I want to address this, as I have seen this elsewhere.

To me, the concept of an assault weapon is more in the design of the magazine and the ability to change and insert a new magazine within a few seconds.

It does not make a difference if the weapon is a gun or a rifle. It is the ability to change magazines fast that makes an ordinary weapon an assault weapon in my view.

Require a double action (preferably with a twist to unlock) to unload and reload a magazine and limit the number of bullets to 10...

That way the person is dependent upon multiple weapons or finding the time to take his hands off of the trigger to

Limit the magazine 10 and require that they get off of the trigger to reload. It wont cure every scenario, but it may help.

No matter how you spin it, still US military.

And you realize the military is filled with scared kids with guns, right?

My first deployment, I just turned 19, straight to afghan.

http://www.statisticbrain.com/demographics-of-active-duty-u-s-military/

>36% of the USMC is 21 or younger, and would likely be the tip of the spear if the US suspended Posse Comitatus.

I could, FB... but I've chosen not to this time.
I've been down this rabbit hole too many times on this forum, and it gets me nowhere.

Matter of fact, I've been down too many of these rabbit holes on a great many topics over the past 4-5 years or so, and I just can't see burning any more time than I already have. You deserve a direct response, but I'm sorry... you came here late- and right about when 'the camel's last straw' was being placed on my back. As a result, I've backed waaaaay (tf) off from posting around here. It's a new trend of mine that I don't see changing any time soon... y'all done wore me (tf) out.

(Besides... it's Summer- and there are better things to do than verbally slam-dance with all you shut-ins... )


I won't get sucked into this discussion, but I will respond to you, out of respect. It won't address your specific request, but it will tell you where I'm at, right now.

If you want to know me or the background that forms my opinions, I'm right there in my posts. Family background, work history, tales from childhood- all of it. AND... my position on firearms is in there, too. Every single one of my posts is still here, and you can access them on my profile page.

I'm frankly exhausted with the whole issue. The posters here represent a microcosm of the exact same stuff that's going on coast-to-coast: entrenched ideologies battling it out to another stalemate, while nothing ever changes. Streets still run with blood, flesh gets ripped apart, families are destroyed, and nothing- nothiiiiing is ever going to change.

In my last post about guns a few months ago, the question was asked: "what can be done?"
I said:

"There's nothing TO be done. Dead Americans are a price ALL Americans must be prepared to pay, so that some Americans can exercise their rights to own these lethal devices."

They'll never give them up because they love them like I love music, alcohol and sex- and they don't have to, because the constitution says they don't.

It's really that simple.
Slam-dunk. No discussion necessary.
People want what they want.


++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++


So, FB- there's nothing at all to do. And as such, there's nothing left to say. And that includes "thoughts and prayers," words of sympathy for the victims and their families, expressions of moral outrage, and everything else. It's all blsht and window dressing that we play out time and time again.

All freedoms come at a price.
As it pertains to the 2nd amendment, the price of that freedom is Death... because the object in question specifically deals in Death. That's its sole purpose for existing, so why shouldn't America's cost for freely owning an object like this be directly related to the object in question?

Cause/effect.
Because we all have free access to guns, people will die every single day from guns.

Deal with it, America.
Own it.
Accept it.
Because you made it.

It's neither a good thing nor a bad thing. It is simply a reality- and consequence of what our society has chosen for itself. It's like I intimated before: your right to own a gun means that I must accept the possibility of someone using a gun upon me or one of my loved ones. The numerical odds of that happening in my life are a gazillion-to-one, but I still assume that risk... so that you can own your guns. THAT'S the definition of being a patriot, even if I willingly CHOOSE to not own a gun.

Look... I've said many times before that I'm not 'anti-gun.' I've never once advocated for gun round-ups, government confiscation, or even 'buy-back plans'. Whether guns should exist or not is not my point. My point is this:

It stops being a 'problem' when we all stop trying to see it as a problem that requires a solution. Instead, we should all just accept the Daily Death Toll as the cost of one of our Freedoms... the same way we accept the fact that our 1st amendment guarantees that some asshat is going to say something that each of us finds offensive.

We all must pay for each other.

Every single one of our rights and freedoms exacts a price from each and every one of us citizens. NOTHING IN LIFE IS FREE... and many of our rights and freedoms require that some be inconvenienced (pay the cost) so that others can have some of what they want. It's why Americans are always beefing: each of us wants what we want (from OUR version of 'America'), and lately, all of us are absolutely OK with some other American being pissed off that 'others' get to have some of what they want. We Americans act like toddlers in a sandbox- with one toy less than there is toddlers.... and I'm tired of it.

It's why expecting compromise and 'common-sense' approaches to gun legislation will never work- and why I support the idea, without ever believing that it will actually happen. Folks don't really want to talk honestly about it... and all the 'side-issue talk' is (officially) boring to me now.

When we all start looking at it my way, it becomes much easier to see this thing for what it really is: a fight about everything else BUT the actual cost of the 2nd amendment.

It's not a 'problem.'
It's not a 'symptom of a disease.'
It's a natural consequence of the choices we have made.

Now... if we could begin a conversation with the assumption that weekly mass shootings and overloaded city morgues are 'America's new normal,' then that might be a conversation I could be interested in.

But this current discussion?
Nope.

Because there's nothing to see here that I haven't already seen a thousand times before. Nobody ever wins these conversations. Nobody ever 'breaks the internet' with their insightful commentary. Nobody ever moves another person's needle even one degree from what they thought 5 seconds before they logged into a thread like this. And 12 days from now, there will be another bloodbath that sparks the same conversation all over again. Groundhog Day.

I'm done.
I'm out.

This is America in the 21st century. It is the America we made- in the 20th century. We should be dealing with the reality of it face up-front, instead of arguing about who has guns, who uses guns, and who's the bad guy. The United States of America made this bloody bed for ourselves. Because we chose to.

Now, it's time for us all to get a good night's sleep- with a clean conscience.

America is whom she's made of herself.
One step at a time.

E Pluribus Unum.

Good god this is excellent

Have you ever wondered why Obama has purged so many high ranking officers? Honest question.

Bravo. The problem is that the pro gun control politicians do not want a clear definition of what an assault rifle actually is, as it will paint them into a corner and not provide loopholes to ban other firearms.

You don't know much about Marines do you?

It's neither a good thing nor a bad thing. It is simply a reality- and consequence of what our society has chosen for itself. It's like I intimated before: your right to own a gun means that I must accept the possibility of someone using a gun upon me or one of my loved ones. The numerical odds of that happening in my life are a gazillion-to-one, but I still assume that risk... so that you can own your guns. THAT'S the definition of being a patriot, even if I willingly CHOOSE to not own a gun.

Very well written buddy, and I do recall you posting a similar sentiment in the past. I can't say I really disagree with you, but in all honesty I think you're taking a rather myopic view of the issue, if maybe cynical.

The reason why it's a gazillion to 1 odds you or your family will be a victim of gun related violence is because the vastly overwhelming majority of guns in this country are in the hands of people who will never use them against you or your family. This isn't some 3rd world country over run by roving warlords. I say "myopic" because this isn't just about protecting yourself from being shot, it's also about being protected form all other forms of crime. There was a stat floating around about a year or so ago that according to the FBI between 800,000 and 2 million times a year has a person used (fired, displayed, or implied they had one) a gun to protect themselves from becoming a victim of a crime. Personally that is too broad a range for me to use as reliable. But for arguments sake, let's lower that number to 500,000 times in a year. That's still significantly more people who have used it for the right reasons than the wrong.

You are 100% correct that the trade off is that people will use it to kill others. I don't see how anyone can deny that. People often site Great Britain and Australia, saying their strict gun laws allows them to have a lower murder rate. What people ignore is that those countries also have much higher rates of aggravated assaults (robberies, muggings, getting your ass thoroughly kicked, etc) than we do. THAT is the trade off THEY make: laws that don't do anything to protect their citizens from being victims in other ways.

Oh don't do that. You know how he gets when you give him credit or tell him he was right about something.

Don't worry about me, I've learned to fist pump in private. I made the mistake once and fist pumped at home about being right about something, my wife fired back 10 things I was wrong about.

You may find this enlightening...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MCSySuemiHU

Did she go back in time bringing up stuff?

I laugh to myself at the men and the ladies,
who can't control drugs but want to limit my babies.
Make more laws they often shout in the Press,
as bullets fly by from someone who could care less.
I step over junkies as I walk my pet Beagle,
do they not realize drug use is illegal?

-40

Some how, my wife's memory of things I was wrong about goes back to before we even met. I've never figured out how she does that.

I see your poems are just as bad as your predictions.

Time Lord