Ron Paul takes the lead in Iowa.

[Dauphin]

I'd have thought the militia arms of the US would be about as useful and relevant as the French Resistance was.

[Felch]

Or the Viet Cong. American air power and armor sure were decisive there.

[Dauphin]

My point is, given the utter remoteness of an invasion of the US, with or without a heavily equipped militia army, I don't consider it even a remotely relevant reason to introduce more or alternatively relax gun controls. It's thinking appears stuck in the 18th Century American mindset when the militia was of relevant importance.

[Felch]

By D-Day the French Resistance had about 100,000 people in it. The United States has 270,000,000 firearms in private hands. There is no basis for comparison.

EDIT: I misunderstood.

[Felch]

My point is, given the utter remoteness of an invasion of the US, with or without a heavily equipped militia army, I don't consider it even a remotely relevant reason to introduce more or alternatively relax gun controls. It's thinking appears stuck in the 18th Century American mindset when the militia was of relevant importance.

I'd rather live in a country where invasion was unrealistic than in one where it was a real possibility.

[kentonio]

You decided that we lost a war. My original statement was that the US is nigh invulnerable, and that our militia contributes that that.

Thats a bit disingenuous, people were talking about citizens owning guns, and you said they.. 'Preserve our liberties.'. Which is nonsense.

You're argument is absurd, in that it separates two facts and tries to deal with them separately. The United States has both the most powerful military and the most heavily armed militia. We have both. At the same time. That matters because any invasion will have to deal with both. Assuming PLA land on the west coast, they'd have to fight through thousands of miles of varied terrain, with a heavily armed and hostile population in their rear, and the most powerful military to their front. It's hard enough fighting a conventional war, an ocean away from your homeland. It's even more difficult when your target has enough guns to arm 9 out of every 10 people. Invading armies ignore partisans at their peril.

No, they are two different things. Your military is unbeatable currently, and no-ones disputing that. Your citizens having guns however doesn't mean ****. You'd just have tens of thousands of gungho rednecks in pickup trucks getting slaughtered in the first few weeks. It's also worth pointing out that the Iraqis and Afghans spent decades living under oppressive regimes and dealing with the problems that caused. In Afghanistan especially you already had groups that had spent years fighting in savage conflict. You really think that millions of Americans who have spent their lives eating fatty foods and *****ing about NASCAR are going to be as prepared to deal with an occupying force? Oh and lets not forget: well over 100,000 Iraqis dead from a population of around 30m. You think America could handle a million civilian deaths?

[Dauphin]

I'd rather live in a country where invasion was unrealistic than in one where it was a real possibility.

Ok. Not sure why you are stating the obvious. Can't even tell if you are referring to my point or talking tangentially.

[Dauphin]

No, they are two different things. Your military is unbeatable currently, and no-ones disputing that. Your citizens having guns however doesn't mean ****. You'd just have tens of thousands of gungho rednecks in pickup trucks getting slaughtered in the first few weeks. It's also worth pointing out that the Iraqis and Afghans spent decades living under oppressive regimes and dealing with the problems that caused. In Afghanistan especially you already had groups that had spent years fighting in savage conflict. You really think that millions of Americans who have spent their lives eating fatty foods and *****ing about NASCAR are going to be as prepared to deal with an occupying force? Oh and lets not forget: well over 100,000 Iraqis dead from a population of around 30m. You think America could handle a million civilian deaths?

I don't think resorting to Southern stereotypes is a good idea, unless you are trying to get a much promised rise out of the South.

[Felch]

No, they are two different things. Your military is unbeatable currently, and no-ones disputing that. Your citizens having guns however doesn't mean ****. You'd just have tens of thousands of gungho rednecks in pickup trucks getting slaughtered in the first few weeks. It's also worth pointing out that the Iraqis and Afghans spent decades living under oppressive regimes and dealing with the problems that caused. In Afghanistan especially you already had groups that had spent years fighting in savage conflict. You really think that millions of Americans who have spent their lives eating fatty foods and *****ing about NASCAR are going to be as prepared to deal with an occupying force? Oh and lets not forget: well over 100,000 Iraqis dead from a population of around 30m. You think America could handle a million civilian deaths?

More American civilians have combat experience than Chinese soldiers. Try again.

[Felch]

Ok. Not sure why you are stating the obvious. Can't even tell if you are referring to my point or talking tangentially.

I didn't really understand your point at first. I was just talking out of my ass. As usual.

[a.kitman]

ITT felch think a shootgun will beat a tactical nuke.

[Dauphin]

I didn't really understand your point at first. I was just talking out of my ass. As usual.

Given the back conversation I've now read, and my unexplained position, it's understable you'd misinterpret.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Great. We've ticked off the "I love my guns" angle. Seeing as we've already covered conspiracy theories, we just need to cover the following Ron Paul-supporter stereotypes to get a full house-

FEMA death camps in the USA
The Bilderberg Group control the world
9-11 was an inside job

[Felch]

What about dope, Bugs?

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Well done sir, there are literally no arguments that cannot be strengthened by adding 'NOT! party time, excellent!' at the end. I am slain.

Arguements are better established and strengthened when they reference affirming opinions not contra opinions incorrectly interpreted as confirmation. In the latter cases, the arguements are seen as weak bereft of intellectual weight and reflect rather poorly on the poster. Do try to keep up.