Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

FoxPhoenix135 wrote:Here's a picture of a mortar similar to the one I manned.
Side bubble, side bubble, TNC!

Theres a lot more flame coming out of that barrel then I would have expected. Those must be pretty dangerous to man.

That looks like a nighttime photo. That's probably part of it. Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think you'd usually see that much of a muzzle-flash from a mortar during the daytime.

Shuma,
Wether or not you are sick of hearing the phrase "guns don't kill people", it is still a true statement. A gun is an inanimate object. Unless acted upon by an outside force, it is incapable of killing someone.

A gun is a tool, nothing more, nothing less. It is designed to kill. Your point? It is still a tool. We are tool using animals. We design tools to make a specific task easier.

Before guns were invented people used different tools to kill people. After guns were invented, people still used different tools to kill people. Notice a trend? It is the people, not the tool.

Prisons are a good example. the inmates don't have firearms. Yet oddly enough, they still design tools to help them kill other prisoners.

Prisons are a prime example of gun control. Only the guards have weapons. How much of a say in the running of the prison do the prisoners have? When only one segment of a society has guns, they can control the rest, and thier is not much the unarmed group can do about it.

If a person wants to kill another person, they will. If every gun on the planet suddenly disapeared, guess what? People would still kill people.

Hordini wrote:That looks like a nighttime photo. That's probably part of it. Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think you'd usually see that much of a muzzle-flash from a mortar during the daytime.

Depends on the propellant you're using. Generally you're right, you don't see that much flame in the day, but you see a lot more smoke. Still, all the same, the concussion of the muzzleblast is pretty intense. On the next size mortar, the 120mm (usually mounted or towed) the loaders (that drop the rounds in the tube) have to switch out every 4 minutes or so. If they don't, the concussion can cause nose or ear bleeds. If you have a cold, this stuff really knocks loose the junk in your lungs!

I live in AK now, and most everybody up here knows about guns for hunting purposes. They don't really know statistical things, like FPS of a round, maximum effective range, or anything like that. I only know things like that because we were required to know them in the army for the weapons we used. I tend to compare all rifles to my old M16A4 I used (man that thing was long, I wished I had one of those slick M4A1s with the RIS and collapsible stock.) I do this just to get an idea of how a particular firearm will shoot or perform.

ShumaGorath wrote:Civilian militias are a joke and a liability in a major land invasion, and theres no way this populace is going to overthrow the government without the support of the military (meaning the weapons have little to do with it). Theres really just no reason to have them around other than sport and murder.

A high offical in Japan’s army stated that one of the reasons Japan didn't engage in a land invasion was the "Every blade of grass would have a gun behind it" I would say that counts for something.

Militias played key rules in every war fought on American soil. Simply dismissing them is rather obtuse. Like I said before guns in the hands of responsible citizens makes for a safer enviroment.

I agree with you on one point and that is people of illegal sell guns should be harshly punished. I also think that they should be charged as accomplishes to whatever crime that was committed using that firearm.

ShumaGorath wrote:
The big issue is that the are constitunionally lawful. And I don't expect that to ever change. Americans are in love with guns, so until the end of times they will hug them until someone they know gets shot then they will try and ban them. We'll always have crappy half assed gunlaws.

The right to maintain your own protection is a pretty big deal, the bill of rights was made so the new government would not overstep itself in become a tyrant in its own right. The 2nd amendment is something that is an established right the same as speech and religion. Besides how often are people rob or killed by people using a gun that was acquired legally?

Hey guys, maybe you should stop with the gun law debate. That is not what this topic is about.

FoxPhoenix135 wrote:Hey guys, maybe you should stop with the gun law debate. That is not what this topic is about.

point taken sorry for going OT

I find a lot of the 'pro-gun' propaganda to be absolutely ridiculous.

First off, yes, a gun is a tool. It is specifically designed to kill people. We all agree on this.

Second, everyone only wants the people who should have guns to have guns (there is much debate on who 'should' have a gun, but we'll ignore that for a moment)

Finally, the more guns that you have, and the more available those guns are, the more likely it is that a gun will get into the wrong person's hands.

You cannot possibly argue that having more guns around means that everyone is safer. The inverse is true. I don't care how many gun toting maniacs have stopped some other person with a gun from doing something bad. That's not their job. If you want it to be your job, stop paying taxes and get rid of police officers.

Most crimes are committed with stolen or illegally purchased guns. You can state all of the anecdotal 'I lock up my guns' crap you want, but not everyone does, and guns are some of the most-stolen items in America. Break-ins just to raid someone's guns are frequent.

Speaking of break ins, did you know most happen during the day, when no one's home? Even in Canada where not everyone sleeps with a gun under their pillow, praying for someone to break in just so you can shoot them.

If it is illegal to own guns, then what happens? If guns can't be legally imported, then the only way to get guns into a country is through smuggling. If it is tougher for someone to get their hands on a gun, or steal one, then less crimes will be committed using guns. Sure, you can't stop everyone from getting their hands on a gun, but making it less simple would go a long way towards controlling the problem. The easier it is to get a gun, the more likely it is that people who want them for nefarious purposes will get them.

Why does one want a gun? To shoot and kill things. Period. If you want to shoot at targets, get a paintball gun.
Why do you want to kill things? Lots of reasons, but it basically boils down to self defense or harm. Less guns for 'self-defense', less guns to harm others, and less of a problem overall. How many guns intended for self-defense get used? And how many intended for harm get used? A LOT more. For every time you hear of a gun killing someone in self-defense there are hundreds if not thousands of cases of a gun user just plain killing someone.

Guns should be in the hands of A) The military and B) the police.

You worry about what if your government suddenly changes and you don't have any guns to protect yourselves, so you want to have guns and bombs there to protect yourselves? Then just take a look at the middle east, where a whole bunch of people who happen to have guns suddenly found their government changing without their consent, so their using their guns to fix their new problem. And guess what, America doesn't seem to like that much.

the above poster has won at debating. discussion ovah!
also to all of you americans who keep guns for self defence, Be a man and use a hockey stick to smack those robbers the way we canadians do

Orkestra wrote:
You cannot possibly argue that having more guns around means that everyone is safer. The inverse is true.

This proves you wrong:

http://www.fff.org/comment/com0512f.asp wrote:

“Gun Control in England: The Tarnished Gold Standard,” written by historian Joyce Lee Malcolm and published in the fall 2004 issue of Journal on Firearms & Public Policy:

[Between 1997 and 2003] crimes with [banned firearms] have more than doubled.... In 2002, for the fourth consecutive year, gun crime in England and Wales rose — by 35 percent for all firearms, and by a whopping 46 percent for the banned handguns. Nearly 10,000 firearms offenses were committed....

Clearly since the ban criminals have not found it difficult to get guns and the balance has not shifted in the interest of public safety....

In the four years from 1997 to 2001 the rate of violent crime more than doubled. The UK murder rate for 2002 was the highest for a century....

A recent study of all the countries of western Europe has found that in 2001 Britain had the worst record for killings, violence and burglary, and its citizens had one of the highest risks in the industrialized world of becoming victims of crime....

And here’s the icing on the cake: “[A] United Nations study of eighteen industrialized countries, including the United States, published in 2002 ... found England and Wales at the top of the Western world’s crime league, with the worst record for ‘very serious’ offenses.” [Emphasis added]

Orkestra wrote:

Why does one want a gun? To shoot and kill things. Period. If you want to shoot at targets, get a paintball gun.
Why do you want to kill things? Lots of reasons, but it basically boils down to self defense or harm. Less guns for 'self-defense', less guns to harm others, and less of a problem overall. How many guns intended for self-defense get used? And how many intended for harm get used? A LOT more. For every time you hear of a gun killing someone in self-defense there are hundreds if not thousands of cases of a gun user just plain killing someone.

Guns should be in the hands of A) The military and B) the police.

Because it is my right, as an american to choose how I wish to have the ability to protect myself, or the potential in which I would wish to protect myself as a law-abiding citizen. If you cannot accept the FACT that a firearm is a tool, like any other tool made since "a tool" became a fething concept, get the feth out of this thread. Seriously. Why do I want to kill things? For conservation, because of tradition (I was raised with family activities such as duck, deer, pheasant, and grouse hunting, everyone in my family would go, even the dogs.), for being a responsible member of my American society and participating in these specific activities that my ancestors have done even before they arrived in north america. So I have the ability and responsibilty of being able to provide for my family and myself if need be. Grocery stores won't be around forever you know!

You seem to not be able to grasp that for an American citizen, if I am armed, if I have the chance, choice, and opportunity to protect those weaker, injusticed, or wronged, in a timely manner (because local, state, and federal government reaction times vary in terms of being able to come to the aid of their citizens) that I will be able to, if need be able to rely upon myself instead of others, aka the govt, in order to live a happy and independant life not afraid of other people and what they might do to me, because I am unable to protect myself and others.

thekingofdinner wrote:the above poster has won at debating. discussion ovah!
also to all of you americans who keep guns for self defence, Be a man and use a hockey stick to smack those robbers the way we canadians do

Yeah, that's why we have Jesse Custer and John Wayne instead of.....uh whoever you have over there in canuck-land.

Sure, great, people kill people. I'm 100% behind everyone on that. It takes conscious will to shoot someone, and it's not the gun's fault.

But people do want to shoot people with guns, and having guns makes it easier. Plains as day. You can't shoot someone with a gun that you don't have.

Hunting is perfectly okay with me. It's a great pastime, is useful and fun, and causes ridiculously few human deaths each year.

But what about your handguns? 'excuse me, I'm just taking my glock into the woods to shoot some rabbits'
Crimes committed with guns are most frequently done with handguns and other small arms. Which are completely useless aside from killing people, which you either want to do or you don't.

Not owning a gun won't make you helpless. Having fewer guns in the country actually empowers you. Less other people with guns means fewer people with the power to kill you efficiently. I'd say that makes your odds better, wouldn't you?

Also, I know that the Founding Fathers were brilliant and worked hard and did their best to make a set of rules that made sense for a country over a hundred years ago that had just finished fighting a war on their own soil. Naturally, when lack of a stable governmental system is a problem, they are concerned about the citizens. In a country that has been stable for over a century, though, there is no need to keep everyone armed to keep the bandits off of their land. The second amendment is outdated and useless in a place where there are TWO highly trained groups of professionals to use the guns. Things have changed a little since the time your constitution was written.

Maybe it's time for reform.


TLR version.
Other than hunting rifles, guns are there to kill people. Also, the second amendment was better when they wrote it.

So, we ban guns. Big deal. The criminals ALREADY have them. So then the law abiding citizenry are the only people without guns. Good idea.
But just for a hypothetical let's say we do manage to get rid of all the non-governmental firearms in the country.... what then? We can't even keep people from crossing our borders illegally, do you really think that the drug smugglers and coyotes will truly NOT 'import' firearms too as soon as there's a big enough market for it? A ban will simply NOT work; The cat's out of the bag, so to speak.

Let's compare Vermont's crime per capita vs. California's shall we? (Vermont has almost NO gun control on the state level; You don't need any sort of liscence to carry in any fasion you want. California has some of the nation's strictest gun laws; Several NON 'assault' weapons are outright banned, most considered much safer than the ubiquitous 9mm round in terms of over penetration and target acquistion)

From this site: http://www.statemaster.com/state/VT-vermont/cri-crime

Vermont:

Arson deaths 0 [44th of 49]
Firearms Death Rate per 100,000 9.6 [34th of 51]
Homicide > Victims by Sex > Female 46.2 % [5th of 49]
Homicide > Victims by Weapon > Other Weapons 7.7 % [49th of 49]
Larceny-theft 10,493 [49th of 51]
Lynchings > Black 0 [39th of 44]
Lynchings > Total 1 [42nd of 44]
Lynchings > White 1 [42nd of 44]
Motor vehicle theft 586 [51st of 51]
Murder and nonnegligent manslaughter 12 [48th of 51]
Property crime total 14,379 [49th of 51]
Robbery 110 [49th of 51]
Violent crime 852 [50th of 51]


California:
Firearms Death Rate per 100,000 9.8 [30th of 51]
Homicide > Victims by Sex > Female 18.9 % [44th of 49]
Homicide > Victims by Weapon > Other Weapons 16 % [44th of 49]
Lynchings > Black 2 [28th of 44]
Lynchings > Total 43 [21st of 44]
Lynchings > White 41 [13th of 44]
Motor vehicle theft 242,693 [1st of 51]
Murder and nonnegligent manslaughter 2,485 [1st of 51]
Property crime total 1,156,017 [1st of 51]
Robbery 70,968 [1st of 51]
Violent crime 194,120 [1st of 51]

So the death rate by firearms isvirtually identical, but ALL other crime is greater in California by leaps and bounds. (If I was prone to hyperbole, I would say 'an order of magnitude.)

So yes gun control works...... if you want a citizenry of victims.

@ Orkestra:

Once again what you have written is so fethed up its nothing more then sad.

I have a bearskin rug in my living room that I killed with a .44 Magnum useing 240 Grn Jsp. So dont come in here and try to fething claim that handguns cant be used for hunting. Go out into the woods and hunt one down with a wheel gun THEN come back here and speak from experience.

I have used my Walther P99 to hunt and kill Rabbit in the past, and I use it to drive off Coyotes that try to get at my chickens.

Also just to drive the point you have missed home..... If you disarm a populace, you will NOT I say again NOT disarm the criminals. If you do this you actually make it easier for gang bangers and other criminals to prey on the general populace.

I highly suggest you read LordHats post above.

So the Amendments are outdated? Well I guess we can take out the 2nd.... and the right to assemble, and a fair trial, and free speach ect ect since they ALL were written over 200 years ago and are outdated as you claim.

So the death rate by firearms isvirtually identical, but ALL other crime is greater in California by leaps and bounds. (If I was prone to hyperbole, I would say 'an order of magnitude.)

So yes gun control works...... if you want a citizenry of victims.

Cherry picked statistics were cherry picked!

It's pretty easy to look good compared to a state with a sizeable border drug war and incredible gang problems. Neither of which are caused by guns but are made intensely more deadly with them.


Because, y'know, Vermont.

I highly suggest you read LordHats post above.

If you want an intense amount of hyperbole and statistics wrangling.

So the Amendments are outdated? Well I guess we can take out the 2nd.... and the right to assemble, and a fair trial, and free speach ect ect since they ALL were written over 200 years ago and are outdated as you claim.

Except the right to assemble and free speach are still essential parts in a civil democratic society. The right to bear arms and form militias are not. No one ever seems to want to remember that the right to bear arms is designed specifically for the free right to form militias for national defense. Considering we have the most powerful military in the world and no amount of red dot scops on your civilian issue m4 are going to take out that chinese tank (indeed your attempt to help "defend" this nation will only compromise the actual militaries ability to do so) that specific part of the amendments is outdated. You just like loud noises, theres no real civil or national reason to own military issue weapons.


As for your bear skin rug. I'm pretty sure it would have been safer and more effective to hunt the bear with an actual hunting weapon. Not a pistol (pistols being designed primarily for personal defense against other people, though in the same way that intercontinental missiles are "defense" against other nations).

Mattlov wrote:If paintball guns count, um, I've got about 20 guns.

I intend to get a pistol one of these days when I can talk my wife into it.

I thought the liberal gun haters made us call paintball guns 'paintball markers' because the word gun was so violent..

I wonder what they'd think of my old cap gun.. I suppose I'd have to call it a cap sounder.. lol

LoL
Sadly you are correct.

When I worked for DZ paintball we actually had to start calling them "markers" cause moms would come into the store and as soon as we said "GUN" some would freak the feth out thinking that someone was going to shoot there kid....... literally.

@Shuma:
Yeah.... Ive got enough military exp to know that a small team of people can do an very large amount of damage with very little in the way of fancy toys. Its what I did during OIF 1&2.

And you are right.... No amount of 5.56 is going to take a tank out..... Unless you have a Silencer in a good hide and you take out the driver/operator. Not that hard... did it several times at NTC as Op4.

Plus any savy person can make a varity of simple household destructive devices that will stop a tank. Off the top of my head I can think of Molotoves, Thermite, HMX to include Nitro ect ect. All of which Joe Average with internet access can cook up in his kitchen.

And yes, Hunting with a rifle like my Kar98 or M1Garand would have been "safer".... but where is the thrill to safely kill something from 700meters away??? I guess everyone that bowhunts is missing out........

I cherry picked RELEVANT stats..... if you want a more 'comparable' state... let's try my own state, Arizona, also a "state with a sizeable border drug war and incredible gang problems". (I admit our gang problems are quite as bad as CA's but they're not what you'd call moderate, either.) Our gunlaws are More restrictive than Vermont's (CCW required to carry concealed) but much less than California's (No specific weapons bans, and open carry without any permits).

Arson deaths 0 [38th of 49]
Firearms Death Rate per 100,000 18 [5th of 51]
Forcible rape 1,941 [14th of 51]
Gun violence > % Gun 72.4 [4th of 50]
Gun violence > % Knife 10.8 [41st of 49]
Gun violence > % Other Weapons 16.9 [42nd of 50]
Gun violence > Number of homicides 414 [13th of 50]
Gun violence > Population 5,739,879 [18th of 50]
Hate Crimes > Disability related 1 [14th of 49]
Hate Crimes > Ethnicity related 38 [9th of 49]
Hate Crimes > Race related 52 [25th of 49]
Hate Crimes > Religion related 30 [14th of 49]
Hate Crimes > Sexual orientation related 28 [15th of 49]
Hate Crimes > Total number 149 [14th of 50]
Homicide > Total number of victims 445 [13th of 0]
Lynchings > Black 0 [44th of 44]
Lynchings > Black (per capita) 0 per 1 million people [44th of 44]
Lynchings > Total 31 [25th of 44]
Lynchings > Total (per capita) 5.219 per 1 million people [28th of 44]
Lynchings > White 31 [18th of 44]
Lynchings > White (per capita) 5.219 per 1 million people [23rd of 44]
Motor vehicle theft 54,849 [4th of 51]
Murder and nonnegligent manslaughter 465 [13th of 51]
Property crime total 285,370 [12th of 51]
Violent crime 30,916 [15th of 51]

There you go. I agree the region has a lot to do with crime (we get a LOT of felons fleeing CA warrants, and a lot citizens fleeing CA felons), but once again the correlation appears to be less restrictions on an armed populace = less crime of any nature.

Also, it seems that this site does not have the same statistic labels for every state; I believe a lot of the states have differing methods of recording crime.

jp400 wrote:LoL
Sadly you are correct.

When I worked for DZ paintball we actually had to start calling them "markers" cause moms would come into the store and as soon as we said "GUN" some would freak the feth out thinking that someone was going to shoot there kid....... literally.

It's the same reason people were calling it swine flu, and apparently it's the liberal agenda to see it called something else to be PC (rather than the fact that theres no real reason to call it that and its a disengenuous association that gives people the wrong idea). It's not a left wing stance that things can't be called guns, and they call them markers because associating your business with adolescent gunplay is bad business.


Idiotic nomenclature laws aren't a left wing thing, it's a right wing one on most major issues (war on "terror", "theory" of evolution, "axis" of "evil" etc).

There you go. I agree the region has a lot to do with crime (we get a LOT of felons fleeing CA warrants, and a lot citizens fleeing CA felons), but once again the correlation appears to be less restrictions on an armed populace = less crime of any nature.

Also, it seems that this site does not have the same statistic labels for every state; I believe a lot of the states have differing methods of recording crime.

Pull up drug use and gang related activity statistics. Also prison recidivism and immagrant crime. I think you'll find that it's not the gun laws but the major social issues caused by the immagrant poverty and high drug rates that cause the problems. Correlation does not equal causation and you're still cherry picking your statistics then giving a random cause. I could just as easily say that the more northern your state the less crime there is.

ShumaGorath wrote:
Except the right to assemble and free speach are still essential parts in a civil democratic society. The right to bear arms and form militias are not. No one ever seems to want to remember that the right to bear arms is designed specifically for the free right to form militias for national defense. Considering we have the most powerful military in the world and no amount of red dot scops on your civilian issue m4 are going to take out that chinese tank (indeed your attempt to help "defend" this nation will only compromise the actual militaries ability to do so) that specific part of the amendments is outdated.

Who said the militias were to defend the citizenry from other governments?

For context: "When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty." "The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." - Both from Thomas Jefferson

Asmodai wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:
Except the right to assemble and free speach are still essential parts in a civil democratic society. The right to bear arms and form militias are not. No one ever seems to want to remember that the right to bear arms is designed specifically for the free right to form militias for national defense. Considering we have the most powerful military in the world and no amount of red dot scops on your civilian issue m4 are going to take out that chinese tank (indeed your attempt to help "defend" this nation will only compromise the actual militaries ability to do so) that specific part of the amendments is outdated.

Who said the militias were to defend the citizenry from other governments?

For context: "When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty." - Thomas Jefferson

The thing is, thats the same as fighting a foreign government. If peasant militias have no chance in hell against russia then they have an even smaller chance against the american military. Which has thousands of tanks, jets, nuclear subs, missiles, PROTOTYPE GOD DAMN POWER ARMOR, attack choppers, etc.

The only thing that will overthrow the US government is the democratic process or the military itself. The peasantry will just get itself shot.

Wow, those statistics are incredibly useful to this discussion, oh wait.

Let's look at some of these statistics. I'll start with the absurd.

Homicide > Victims by Weapon > Other Weapons 7.7 % [49th of 49]

'other weapons' compared to what? I'm assuming that Vermont, (which you say has the least gun control) is being reported as having the lowest number of homicides committted with weapons other than guns and knives (the two usual forerunners for weapons) I'd be interested in seeing, you know, an actual gun violence statistic, which would be there because otherwise an 'other weapons' listing is ridiculous.

Next up:

Vermont: Property crime total 14,379 [49th of 51]
California: Property crime total 1,156,017 [1st of 51]

Don't get me wrong, but these happen to be straight up numbers, rather than per capita. Let's see here.... (from Wikipedia)
Vermont has a population of 608,827, ranking 49th of all 50 states
California is the most populous U.S. state. - the state is home to eight of the nation's fifty largest cities. - Population Total 36,756,666 (2008 est.)

Let's take out a calculator. California has a lovely 60 times the number of people. It's also well known that crime clusters in urban areas, which, as seen above, California has in spades. Also, the warmth of the state makes it home to a large vagrant and impoverished community, who can survive the winter with little to no shelter. Gun control is, clearly, the only factor.

And, another gem.

Vermont: Firearms Death Rate per 100,000 9.6 [34th of 51]
California: Firearms Death Rate per 100,000 9.8 [30th of 51]

In an actual fair comparison (per capita) California is very close to Vermont in number of actual gun deaths. Which is pretty impressive for a state with large urban areas, which are notably gang friendly.

Also, speaking of crime, did you know it tends to cluster around areas where wealth, property, and people accumulate? Like cities and ports?

Anyways, let's draw some more good conclusions from these statistics.

Vermont: Homicide > Victims by Sex > Female 46.2 % [5th of 49]
California: Homicide > Victims by Sex > Female 18.9 % [44th of 49]

Conclusion: The Vermont men like to take their guns (most are owned by men) and use them to kill the defenseless women.
Most gun owners are men. Presumably, California, with it's gun laws, has less men with firearms. Therefore, the number of women as victims goes down, because there is more equality in gun ownership.
(DISCLAIMER: I know that that is ludicrous. Just like the rest of his statistics.)

End result: Statistics =/= an argument without being used intelligently.

EDIT:

asmodai wrote:

Who said the militias were to defend the citizenry from other governments?

For context: "When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty." "The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." - Both from Thomas Jefferson

So what you're saying is that in the US today there is still a real threat of the military and government both deciding that they have views completely different from the average american (the average american presumably the one filling the ranks of the nation's army) and deciding to oppress the entire country. Is that what you're saying? That A) it will happen and B) All of the members of the military would be totally behind sudden shifts to communism?

Be realistic, please.

One thing your forgetting is that if the US was to have a civil war... do you honestly think that nobody in the armed forces is going to split and join the other side?

jp400 wrote:One thing your forgetting is that if the US was to have a civil war... do you honestly think that nobody in the armed forces is going to split and join the other side?

In which case their civilian allies are going to have guns to spare. It's not byob war, and about the only thing peasant militias would be able to do on either side of the conflict is either join the military (as would likely occur to all the "militias") or shoot other civilian militias to death. Something that inevitably solves nothing. About the only thing civilian militias are good for in a time of crisis is to be a recruiting pool for the friendly military force (any civil war would be accompanied by a draft on both sides of the conflict). In which case their militia is again just a pointless formality.

FoxPhoenix135 wrote:Here's a picture of a mortar similar to the one I manned.
Side bubble, side bubble, TNC!

if america had a right bear arms, I could get me a mortar or howitzer or even a decent rocket propelled grenade. but sadly very few people support my quest to become a heavily armed liberal. until that time I will remain just a gun toting liberal.

That being said if my opponent was carring during a game. I would ask his ass to leave the gun at home next time.

What I don't understand is how people think that if the government suddenly banned guns and made them illegal. Why people would even turn them in in the first place. I grew up in a hunting family, where we all know how to shoot guns, clean them, and gut the animals we kill, (which is then delivered to my mom to cook). I for one have 2 personal shotguns that my dad has given to me. 1 for hunting and 1 for target shooting. (They're old shotguns so the hunting one doesn't like light shells anymore) I also have access to the rest of our collection, which includes a whole heck of alot more shotguns as well as rifles, and plenty of BB guns from being a kid.

Most of my friends back home have at least fired a gun, and most of us grew up with BB guns shooting at cans and such in the backyard.

I for one am glad I have guns in my home. And I know for a fact if the government tried to make me turn in my guns I would hide them and refuse to turn them in.

We collect and we're enthusiastic about them, but we're not "nuts"..

Here in MS, we're allowed to carry loaded handguns in our cars. We have the castle doctrine where if someone gets into our house or car we can assume they mean to do bodily harm. If someone's attacking someone or committing a felony to ourselves, property, vehicle, or another person, we're allowed to use deadly force to stop them.

I used to own several rifles and handguns, but no assault rifles or Saturday night specials, they were semi-automatic rifles with detachable magazines and affordable handguns; I lost them in a boating accident.

A few of my friends have CCW's and carry concealed, because a bad guy can get to you before you get to your phone to call 911 and explain where you live and what's happening.

Cops are under no obligation to prevent or stop crimes or violence, they're here to catch the perpetrators and haul them to jail, after the crime is done.

And if you shoot someone unjustly, you're a perpetrator too.

Bah, mortars are a waste of time...anything with a bore of less than 120mm, or a muzzel velocity of less than 1000m/s is completely pointless Hmmm coming from a military background, I still partake in shooting. Be it fun, as in airsoft, or shooting for a bit of game with permision I still use guns responsible (where my battered broken body will let me). So does that make me a Gun nut? In my old gaming group (I've moved south since) 9 out of 15 used to be interested in guns in one form or another. Mostly airsoft.

Guns are a tool, they exist whether we like it or not and there is a deep debate as to who should have the right/ability to hold them. That is best left to national debate, and each way of looking at the issue is correct for some group (I'm not advocating either way).

Btw, pistols are a great way to take out tanks , that Plasticard armor is great on the M1. Chally has a great thing, called armored hatches and thick armor in general. Pistol away boys, and remember: If you ain't Cav, then you just ain't