[split] Firearm Education Thread (lots of pics)
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
12-11-2014, 08:39 AM
RE: [split] Firearm Education Thread (lots of pics)
(11-11-2014 06:01 PM)Chas Wrote:  Don't think "Oh, that can't happen here!" Wrong, it already has on smaller scales.

"A happened, therefore B>A can happen!"

That's disappointingly equivocal.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-11-2014, 09:01 AM
RE: [split] Firearm Education Thread (lots of pics)
(11-11-2014 06:18 PM)yakherder Wrote:  The highest reported murder rates, then. Either way, things are bad and the fact that we've essentially militarized our southern border guards in the last 10 years is not just a movie.

That Caracas has a sky-high homicide rate doesn't mean that the border is guarded due to the threat posed by roving gangs of Venezuelan rape-murderers. The situation is a little more complicated than "it's bad down there".

(11-11-2014 06:18 PM)yakherder Wrote:  
Quote:I don't think civilian small arms are particularly effective against APCs and rocket artillery.
A common misconception, in a sense. To state the obvious, vehicles do not operate themselves. They are operated by squishy people and limited by their fueling and maintenance needs. They are only useful when you have a base of operations to return them to after a mission and a predictable supply of resources to keep them running, and that base of operations is extremely vulnerable in guerrilla style warfare where front lines are absent and/or undefined, as are the convoys required to keep them running, many of which are in fact vulnerable to small arms fire and, as we've discovered in recent years, homemade explosives. The more obvious answer to the threat of advanced equipment is to commandeer and use it for yourself. See ISIS.

Guerillas need safepoints and supply lines, too, for that matter.

See ISIS, indeed. Against forces with no morale or cohesion, they've seen a great deal of success. But there's a reason the SAA still hold the western half of their country.

Anyone sufficiently ruthless will be more than happy to call a desert peace.

(11-11-2014 06:18 PM)yakherder Wrote:  If you're actually interested in the subject of overcoming over-modern military forces with less sophisticated equipment through the use of insurgent/guerrilla tactics, or even just understanding why we're so vulnerable to it, I suggest Tactics of the Crescent Moon Militant Muslim Combat Methods.

The more advanced an infrastructure the more weak points it has. I'm aware of that.

These things neither happen overnight nor exist in vacuums, is more my point.

(11-11-2014 06:18 PM)yakherder Wrote:  You'd be surprised what two or three well placed marksmen could potentially do to an airfield when you take into consideration that the pilots have to step out the door to get into their planes.

If they can't even secure the perimeter I think that's the last of their concerns...

(11-11-2014 06:18 PM)yakherder Wrote:  
Quote:Even fantasising about such scenarios is pointless. Someone else will either have more guns or more friends or both.
I'm not talking about throwing my guns in a backpack and taking on insurgencies by myself. I'm talking about organized action with others like me. And yes, getting killed is always a possibility. Nothing we conclude here can change that. Rest assured, however, that the second shit hits the fan and I conclude that an internal conflict is likely, I'm going for the big guns, and my small guns might be an important factor in making that happen. Call it fantasizing if you wish. Dealing with violent criminals and combatants in some form or another has been my reality for most of my adult life. My paranoia is not baseless.

What do you suppose the likelihood of internal conflict is, in your end of the world? There's a hell of a spectrum between "opportunistic looting" and "mere anarchy loosed upon the world".
(although now I'm struggling to find examples of complete societal breakdown absent significant outside armed conflict - small-scale resource exhaustion, is all I can think of)

But, okay. So you're the one with more guns and more friends. Well; at least that takes care of my worries. I'll just join your civil war faction, and hope you turn out to be the benevolent sort of dictators.

I am not trying to dismiss your experiences or your reaction to those experiences. I can understand your reaction without agreeing with it.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-11-2014, 09:36 AM (This post was last modified: 12-11-2014 09:42 AM by yakherder.)
RE: [split] Firearm Education Thread (lots of pics)
(12-11-2014 08:02 AM)Bows and Arrows Wrote:  I have stood in a voting booth and tried to decide if I want to vote for the person who wants to take away my constitutional rights to a weapon or my individual rights to my body and my right to choose.

maybe most people dont think about those issues when casting their ballot but when we know the next President (for instance) will be appointing to the Supreme Court, then a person should be considering those things.

I definitely think about those things, my decision ultimately based on my belief that a right is only as valuable as the leverage you have with which to defend that right. Therefore, if there are ten issues at stake and candidate 1 shares my view on 9 of them while candidate 2 shares my view only in regards to firearms, I'm voting for candidate 2. I'm that stubborn about it.

For reference as to how things can change, ancient Persia was one of the first places to incorporate something resembling religious freedom at a time when Europe was stuck in the dark ages. As culture and the balance of power fluctuates, so do your rights if you don't safeguard them.

'Murican Canadian
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-11-2014, 09:46 AM
RE: [split] Firearm Education Thread (lots of pics)
cjlr I'll reply later. They're gonna give me shit at work if I don't get off my phone lol. Boring day too... I should put it in the first world problems thread.

'Murican Canadian
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-11-2014, 10:26 AM
RE: [split] Firearm Education Thread (lots of pics)
(12-11-2014 08:02 AM)Bows and Arrows Wrote:  
(11-11-2014 08:44 PM)yakherder Wrote:  In the U.S. it is an interesting game that's being played. As an example of how things work here, even though the sale of fully automatic weapons are no longer allowed, no mention of actually trying to take away those which people already owned has ever been attempted or mentioned as a possible intent. This avoids the scenario of having to order federal officers to walk up to automatic weapon owners and ask them to hand them over. It is also "allowed" to pass, so to speak, by gun owners for a number of reasons. First, whether for hunting, home defense, or to bolster a militia bent on preparing for doomsday, the use of fully automatic weapons is rarely rational. And second, just about any gun enthusiast knows how to easily convert a semi-automatic weapon into a fully automatic weapon. If I truly had the need, I could do it in 10 minutes in my garage with a drill. It was, therefore, not deemed as a major threat to gun owners.

The 10 year federal assault weapons ban was a different story. Again, they didn't actually attempt to confiscate those which were already owned, nor did they attempt to prohibit the sale of those which had already been produced (in anticipation of the ban, a SHITLOAD were produced). Thus, all they accomplished was making the price of assault weapons temporarily go up. They were never not available. And for that minor win, if you want to call it that, the Democratic party paid dearly. The gun enthusiasts who would have otherwise been uninterested in politics wanted to make sure that whoever was in office when it came time for the 10 year ban to be brought to the table and potentially extended was pro gun, and for those who would have otherwise been anti-Bush, Al Gore did not fit that highly relevant criteria. Thus, in 2000 he was elected and his 2004 reelection occurred in the months following it's expiration. For those of you who were anti-Bush even before it was cool, remember how close the election was (Gore won the popular vote), and now consider how different it would have been if Clinton had never entertained the idea of the ultimately useless federal assault weapons ban.

Moral of the story? Choose your battles very, very carefully.

With recent pushes for gun control in the wake of shootings like at Sandy Hook, much the same thing has occurred. Feeling threatened, people who otherwise would have either been in the middle or possibly even leaned liberal but happened to be gun owners went republican just a few days ago, resulting in one of the most crushing Republican sweeps in recent history, and at a time when many liberals had enthusiastically convinced themselves that the Republican party was finished.

The opposition is well aware of this, and it's no coincidence that Obama has been silent in regards to gun control recently. If the Democratic party pushes the gun control issue right now, as 2016 looms in the not so distant future, I can absolutely guarantee that they will lose the presidential election. In a year or so when they start their debates and such, don't be surprised if the Democratic nominee is unusually silent on the issue despite prodding from supporters.


I have stood in a voting booth and tried to decide if I want to vote for the person who wants to take away my constitutional rights to a weapon or my individual rights to my body and my right to choose.

maybe most people dont think about those issues when casting their ballot but when we know the next President (for instance) will be appointing to the Supreme Court, then a person should be considering those things.

I'm in favor of both.

Paleoliberal • English Nationalist • Zionist • Rightist • Anti-Islam • Neoconservative • Republican • Linguistic Revivalist and Purist

Happily Divorced from the Left!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-11-2014, 10:26 AM
RE: [split] Firearm Education Thread (lots of pics)
(12-11-2014 08:02 AM)Bows and Arrows Wrote:  
(11-11-2014 08:44 PM)yakherder Wrote:  In the U.S. it is an interesting game that's being played. As an example of how things work here, even though the sale of fully automatic weapons are no longer allowed, no mention of actually trying to take away those which people already owned has ever been attempted or mentioned as a possible intent. This avoids the scenario of having to order federal officers to walk up to automatic weapon owners and ask them to hand them over. It is also "allowed" to pass, so to speak, by gun owners for a number of reasons. First, whether for hunting, home defense, or to bolster a militia bent on preparing for doomsday, the use of fully automatic weapons is rarely rational. And second, just about any gun enthusiast knows how to easily convert a semi-automatic weapon into a fully automatic weapon. If I truly had the need, I could do it in 10 minutes in my garage with a drill. It was, therefore, not deemed as a major threat to gun owners.

The 10 year federal assault weapons ban was a different story. Again, they didn't actually attempt to confiscate those which were already owned, nor did they attempt to prohibit the sale of those which had already been produced (in anticipation of the ban, a SHITLOAD were produced). Thus, all they accomplished was making the price of assault weapons temporarily go up. They were never not available. And for that minor win, if you want to call it that, the Democratic party paid dearly. The gun enthusiasts who would have otherwise been uninterested in politics wanted to make sure that whoever was in office when it came time for the 10 year ban to be brought to the table and potentially extended was pro gun, and for those who would have otherwise been anti-Bush, Al Gore did not fit that highly relevant criteria. Thus, in 2000 he was elected and his 2004 reelection occurred in the months following it's expiration. For those of you who were anti-Bush even before it was cool, remember how close the election was (Gore won the popular vote), and now consider how different it would have been if Clinton had never entertained the idea of the ultimately useless federal assault weapons ban.

Moral of the story? Choose your battles very, very carefully.

With recent pushes for gun control in the wake of shootings like at Sandy Hook, much the same thing has occurred. Feeling threatened, people who otherwise would have either been in the middle or possibly even leaned liberal but happened to be gun owners went republican just a few days ago, resulting in one of the most crushing Republican sweeps in recent history, and at a time when many liberals had enthusiastically convinced themselves that the Republican party was finished.

The opposition is well aware of this, and it's no coincidence that Obama has been silent in regards to gun control recently. If the Democratic party pushes the gun control issue right now, as 2016 looms in the not so distant future, I can absolutely guarantee that they will lose the presidential election. In a year or so when they start their debates and such, don't be surprised if the Democratic nominee is unusually silent on the issue despite prodding from supporters.


I have stood in a voting booth and tried to decide if I want to vote for the person who wants to take away my constitutional rights to a weapon or my individual rights to my body and my right to choose.

maybe most people dont think about those issues when casting their ballot but when we know the next President (for instance) will be appointing to the Supreme Court, then a person should be considering those things.
I have similar issue before I get in the booth. Most of the time I get pissed and not vote or protest vote 3rd party. Being moderate I get screwed by either of the major parties and the 3rd parties do not stand a chance anyway.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-11-2014, 10:29 AM
RE: [split] Firearm Education Thread (lots of pics)
(10-11-2014 02:20 PM)Metazoa Zeke Wrote:  Here is a firearm fact, guns do nothing but cause unnecessary death and suffering and should only exist in video games. Drinking Beverage
In the absence of firearms people will find other ways to inflict death and suffering. Crime existed before the gun and will continue to exist in the absence of the gun.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes wazzel's post
12-11-2014, 10:48 AM
RE: [split] Firearm Education Thread (lots of pics)
(12-11-2014 10:29 AM)wazzel Wrote:  
(10-11-2014 02:20 PM)Metazoa Zeke Wrote:  Here is a firearm fact, guns do nothing but cause unnecessary death and suffering and should only exist in video games. Drinking Beverage
In the absence of firearms people will find other ways to inflict death and suffering. Crime existed before the gun and will continue to exist in the absence of the gun.

Indeed.

Guns are not qualitatively different from other weapons - only by (slight) degree. Should I own a sword? Or a spear? That's the cause of plenty of unnecessary death and suffering right there.

But while total elimination (of any weapon or type of weapon) is not practical (or remotely possible) I think it's clear that some regulation is better than none. Easier access to weapons for the purposes of self-defense is only necessary if easier access to weapons has already lowered the effort barrier for those who use that access to provoke the very situations you need to defend yourself from...

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes cjlr's post
12-11-2014, 10:56 AM
RE: [split] Firearm Education Thread (lots of pics)
Addressing this in a funny way:











Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Gaest's post
12-11-2014, 11:05 AM
RE: [split] Firearm Education Thread (lots of pics)
I could see Dems winning by a landslide if their stance was something along the lines of "the only new restrictions are for mental health patients and we will just enforce the current laws better"

but wanting to disarm America or put all sorts of restrictions in place, those moderate Dems will vote Rep to keep their rights.


"Life is a daring adventure or it is nothing"--Helen Keller
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Bows and Arrows's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: