Tea Party Capitol Video was Wrong Video - Racist Slurs May Still have Happened

[Drake Tungsten]

That's a great avatar, MrFun; a great avatar for a great poster.

[MrFun]

aw, thank you

[Elok]

I'm referring to a perfectly standard gun-nut argument, you ninnies, and assumed familiarity with it. I haven't changed a thing. And MrFun, contribute to the argument for real or quit piggybacking. As it is you're just annoying.

[Drake Tungsten]

I'm referring to a perfectly standard gun-nut argument, you ninnies, and assumed familiarity with it.

It's too late to try to change the subject of the argument. You already got pwned.

[Elok]

as you did in the rich people thread where "you have to be pathological to want to spend a million dollars" quickly changed to "more than 30 millions dollars" and then "more than you need".

This must be at least the sixth literal time I've said it: I said nothing about "need." Need was irrelevant to my argument, which was about utility; in terms of needs, people only require a bit above the poverty level. You keep bringing it up, perhaps to annoy me, perhaps just out of some mental tic. I never mentioned "need." Thank you.

[Elok]

I'm referring to a perfectly standard gun-nut argument, you ninnies, and assumed familiarity with it.

It's too late to try to change the subject of the argument. You already got pwned.

And you've been "pwned" about fifty times by HL. Being "defeated" in the imagination of one deranged human being with cognitive issues really doesn't bother me much.

[Drake Tungsten]

MrFun is hardly deranged...

[Elok]

No, he's just enjoying being a hanger-on in this thread for his own reasons, whatever those are. More power to him. Regardless, I really don't care what you think.

EDIT: Actually, y'know what? **** it. I hereby declare that Drake has "won" this argument, and whatever attendant rights, privileges and Kewpie Dolls pertain thereto. There, we agree. Now STFU.

[Drake Tungsten]

You didn't need to "declare" anything. It was already clear that I had won.

[Drake Tungsten]

In keeping with the spirit of this thread, I hereby declare that the sky is blue.

[giblets]

The "our guns might keep the government in check" argument could have actually worked back then too, back when muzzle-loading cannon were the pinnacle of land-based military technology and your average civilian could own everything else...it's just now that said argument is absurd.

Yes, because we all know that ordinary citizens wielding small arms and improvised explosive devices can't possibly stand up to the U.S. military.

So if someone tries to set up a dictatorship, we'll kick them out of power the way the Iraqis kicked out the Americans.

Seriously, what do you mean by "stand up to the U.S. military"???? Inflict a few thousand casualties?

[Wezil]

It's not fair to use Afghanistan as an example Drake. Those Irish insurgents are a real ***** to deal with.

[rah]

Approx number of US military including the reserves 2.2 million.

Number of US citizens that own guns. Approx 60 million. Totally about 200 million Firearms.

I think the US population could put up a good fight.

While there are a considerable number of wack jobs in the military, how many would willingly fire on unarmed American civilians? Think of the advantage that would be.

Granted the military could inflict a lot of damage but their hands would be greatly tied. What, they're going to use nukes.
I'd put my money on organized resistance (assuming some organization)

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Wolverines FTW!!!!

[Elok]

Approx number of US military including the reserves 2.2 million.

Number of US citizens that own guns. Approx 60 million. Totally about 200 million Firearms.

I think the US population could put up a good fight.

While there are a considerable number of wack jobs in the military, how many would willingly fire on unarmed American civilians? Think of the advantage that would be.

Granted the military could inflict a lot of damage but their hands would be greatly tied. What, they're going to use nukes.
I'd put my money on organized resistance (assuming some organization)

My intended point (I'll allow that I wasn't very articulate about it) was that the most powerful factors today are human. The Second Amendment just means that people have access to firearms; they're not trained to fight (ooh, your friend has a Barrett! Can he adjust for wind, gravity, etc and actually use it effectively?), and they don't have support equipment. Ultimately a lot would depend on particular circumstances, but even if you consider Iraq a valid example, most of their casualties against us are/were caused by IEDs, not guns, they suffered vastly greater losses themselves, and the surge put a pretty good damper on them.

Also, if we allow that we're "beaten," it's plain that Iraq's armed forces under Saddam were superior to our own, as Saddam kept the whole region suppressed very nicely for a good few years. Makes you wonder how we flattened them so easily, really. It couldn't be all that stuff I mentioned, could it?