What Is Your Opinion Of Gunowners?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
06-07-2017, 01:18 PM
RE: What Is Your Opinion Of Gunowners?
Be like Roland. Big Grin




#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-07-2017, 01:25 PM
RE: What Is Your Opinion Of Gunowners?
(03-07-2017 06:58 AM)Gawdzilla Wrote:  
(03-07-2017 06:14 AM)BackSlider Wrote:  Gun owners in the USA are the largest armed force in the World.

You mean the largest armed rabble in the world. I'm retired Navy, I know a military force when I see one. Drunks with guns don't count.

All the big guns are in the Navy.

(Whoever overlaid the music was brilliant. Smile )








#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes GirlyMan's post
06-07-2017, 02:58 PM
RE: What Is Your Opinion Of Gunowners?
(03-07-2017 06:14 AM)BackSlider Wrote:  During WW II, the Japanese decided not to invade America because they knew most Americans were ARMED!
Wasn't Pearl Harbour part of USA? That was one of the first targets that Japan went for. Pearl Harbour was a complete victory for Japan, even though the Americans at Pearl Harbour were much more trained and heavily armed than your average armchair USA gun enthusiast.

One would think that the key inhibitor to taking the American continent would have been lack of a nearby land base from which to launch the attack.
Problem with naval ships is that ships can sink.

One of the big reasons why the German's had such a hard time trying to invade Britan, the English Channel!

So their downfall was water rather than armed civilians.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-07-2017, 03:47 PM
RE: What Is Your Opinion Of Gunowners?
(06-07-2017 07:19 AM)WhiskeyDebates Wrote:  
(03-07-2017 06:58 AM)Gawdzilla Wrote:  You mean the largest armed rabble in the world. I'm retired Navy, I know a military force when I see one. Drunks with guns don't count.

Guess the Navy is out than Wink

Drunks with battleships do count. Just sayin'.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Gawdzilla's post
06-07-2017, 03:48 PM
RE: What Is Your Opinion Of Gunowners?
(06-07-2017 01:25 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  
(03-07-2017 06:58 AM)Gawdzilla Wrote:  You mean the largest armed rabble in the world. I'm retired Navy, I know a military force when I see one. Drunks with guns don't count.

All the big guns are in the Navy.

(Whoever overlaid the music was brilliant. Smile )







I went on a ride-along with the Jersey when she was testing her main battery for the first time since coming out of mothballs. We were 35 miles off San Diego and people were calling in earthquakes.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Gawdzilla's post
06-07-2017, 03:50 PM
RE: What Is Your Opinion Of Gunowners?
(06-07-2017 02:58 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(03-07-2017 06:14 AM)BackSlider Wrote:  During WW II, the Japanese decided not to invade America because they knew most Americans were ARMED!
Wasn't Pearl Harbour part of USA? That was one of the first targets that Japan went for. Pearl Harbour was a complete victory for Japan, even though the Americans at Pearl Harbour were much more trained and heavily armed than your average armchair USA gun enthusiast.

One would think that the key inhibitor to taking the American continent would have been lack of a nearby land base from which to launch the attack.
Problem with naval ships is that ships can sink.

One of the big reasons why the German's had such a hard time trying to invade Britan, the English Channel!

So their downfall was water rather than armed civilians.
The Japan ran a raid on Pearl Harbor, not an invasion. It was kikusui tactics writ large. For them it was a great success. For their country it got them nuked.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Gawdzilla's post
07-07-2017, 06:01 AM (This post was last modified: 07-07-2017 06:56 AM by RearViewMirror.)
RE: What Is Your Opinion Of Gunowners?
(03-07-2017 06:14 AM)BackSlider Wrote:  During WW II, the Japanese decided not to invade America because they knew most Americans were ARMED!

Lol... not even close to the truth.


(06-07-2017 02:58 PM)Stevil Wrote:  Pearl Harbour part of USA? That was one of the first targets that Japan went for. Pearl Harbour was a complete victory for Japan, even though the Americans at Pearl Harbour were much more trained and heavily armed than your average armchair USA gun enthusiast.

One would think that the key inhibitor to taking the American continent would have been lack of a nearby land base from which to launch the attack.
Problem with naval ships is that ships can sink.

One of the big reasons why the German's had such a hard time trying to invade Britan, the English Channel!

So their downfall was water rather than armed civilians.

That is only partly true. More so with the Japanese and not Germany. The maximum width of the english channel is around 150 miles. Germany had battleships, subs, etc. that regularly patrolled and sank freighters coming to england all the time. So... water to them was not a factor. Nor was it a factor during the war for the American military who not only transported troops and all the equipment needed across the Atlantic ocean to the European Theater to launch an attack and subsequent victory over the next few years. So water to the American's wasn't an issue and if things would have turned out differently I doubt water would have been much of a deterrent to the Nazi party.

It's been awhile since I looked at this thread and I see it's derailed quite often. The original question was "What is your opinion of gun owners" (which I posted a few pages back).

For the average gun owner, rather it be for sport shooting, providing meat for the season, or home protection there is no issue. Once again I am a gun owner but far from a gun nut. One Mossberg 535 that is made for nothing but home defence. It is useless for any other reason other than home defence since the barrel is only 18.5" long with no choke and a collapsible stock. We keep it loaded by the bed.

One S&W M&P 15 (AR 15) which has no practical purpose outside the military but I bought one because I wanted one and I love taking it to the range. As I mentioned in my other post. I completely understand that there are some people that do not like the fact that a military grade weapon can be easily obtainable by the average person since there really is no "practical" reason for me to own one. But it is allowed in my state so I bought one because I wanted one. The only thing I have ever shot with it is paper at the gun range. I have PDX home defence rounds loaded into it so it "could" be used for home defence but is certainly not ideal due to force of the round that comes out of it. I wouldn't trust it even with the PDX ammo for home defence.

Again... I stand in the middle of the gun debate. I see both sides and can agree on arguments on both sides. Gun ownership is a very touchy subject with some people. Not so much with me. As I mentioned in my past post the one thing that bothers me is the direction that we are going in at the moment with the lawsuits that are being brought against manufacturers of military grade weapons because they "can" do a lot of damage. But if that's the case then we should also bring vehicle manufacturers into that lawsuit because the same could be said for them if a vehicle is used to mow down as many people as possible (such as what happened in NYC) last month.

The issue as I see it is this... It is extremely hard to stop someone, no matter the means they choose to use, to cause harm to others if they are under misguided judgement. Guns or vehicles are not the problem IMO. The people behind the trigger or gas pedal are. How we stop that? I don't have that answer.

*EDIT* This is a picture of the only two guns I use.

Do I need the AR15? Absolutely not. But I like shooting it at the gun range and I see no issue with that.

[Image: gX5IVXQh.jpg]

I get to decide what my life looks like, not the other way around.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-07-2017, 03:19 PM
RE: What Is Your Opinion Of Gunowners?
(06-07-2017 03:50 PM)Gawdzilla Wrote:  The Japan ran a raid on Pearl Harbor, not an invasion. It was kikusui tactics writ large. For them it was a great success. For their country it got them nuked.
Well, no.

They only got atom bombs on their cities, killing tens of thousands of civilians, once they had effectively already lost the war.
USA didn't do it as retaliation for Perl Harbour, it was because the Japanese were willing to fight to the bitter end rather than give up and the US would rather kill masses of civilians than fight a lengthy military battle.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-07-2017, 03:26 PM
RE: What Is Your Opinion Of Gunowners?
(07-07-2017 03:19 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(06-07-2017 03:50 PM)Gawdzilla Wrote:  The Japan ran a raid on Pearl Harbor, not an invasion. It was kikusui tactics writ large. For them it was a great success. For their country it got them nuked.
Well, no.

They only got atom bombs on their cities, killing tens of thousands of civilians, once they had effectively already lost the war.
USA didn't do it as retaliation for Perl Harbour, it was because the Japanese were willing to fight to the bitter end rather than give up and the US would rather kill masses of civilians than fight a lengthy military battle.
Given the carnage of Iwo Jima I don't blame them tbh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like adey67's post
07-07-2017, 03:33 PM
RE: What Is Your Opinion Of Gunowners?
(07-07-2017 03:19 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(06-07-2017 03:50 PM)Gawdzilla Wrote:  The Japan ran a raid on Pearl Harbor, not an invasion. It was kikusui tactics writ large. For them it was a great success. For their country it got them nuked.
Well, no.

They only got atom bombs on their cities, killing tens of thousands of civilians, once they had effectively already lost the war.
USA didn't do it as retaliation for Perl Harbour, it was because the Japanese were willing to fight to the bitter end rather than give up and the US would rather kill masses of civilians than fight a lengthy military battle.
You misread me. The ultimate result of the raid on Pearl was the atomic bombs. I never said anything about revenge.

BTW, if you want to read all forty volumes of the Congressional Investigation into the Attack on Pearl Harbor I have them online.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Gawdzilla's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: