Pro-Gun Anti-Gun.

[Deadmanwalking_05]

Originally Posted by Raptor

Anecdotal evidence.

My own views on firearms and their legality change, but I wouldn't use people I know as reason to side one way or the other.

And Terminus is correct, you're not going to stop someone in SAPI plates with that.

That's because you guys are counting on someone shooting the plates,head shots are tricky but when pulled off they do have good results.

[Terminus]

Originally Posted by Deadmanwalking_05

With one well aimed shot a person armed with just a single shot rifle would soon have a Government issue M-16,Complete with "rock-n-roll" switch, a dozen or so 30 round magazines,hell maybe even an M-9 pistol depending on rank,not to mention Frag Grenades.

First of all, the "Rock-n-roll" switch went out with the M-16a1. The M-16a2/a4 only feature three round burst. Aimed fire wins battles, not spray and pray.

Second, that single shot is difficult for well trained military snipers to make, much less for Joe Hunter who has a single shot rifle.

Third, you do realize that almost all front line military units are in fire teams, right? You would still have to deal with the rest of the team if your highly unlikely shot was successful.

[Deadmanwalking_05]

Originally Posted by Terminus

First of all, the "Rock-n-roll" switch went out with the M-16a1. The M-16a2/a4 only feature three round burst. Aimed fire wins battles, not spray and pray.

Second, that single shot is difficult for well trained military snipers to make, much less for Joe Hunter who has a single shot rifle.

Third, you do realize that almost all front line military units are in fire teams, right? You would still have to deal with the rest of the team if your highly unlikely shot was successful.

If you think mine would be the only civilian rifle sounding off you are sadly mistaken my friend,never underestimate the enemy.

Besides which would look more out of place a bunch of guys wearing digital camo that don't really understand the layout of the area they were just dropped or trucked into,or a bunch of hill billies that know their weapons,the local terrain,have full support from the people that live in the area,and are expert marksmen/woodsmen in their own right.

I'm not saying we would win hands down,but you can bet your last dollar that the other guys would know they were in a fight after all was said and done.

[Terminus]

Originally Posted by Deadmanwalking_05

If you think mine would be the only civilian rifle sounding off you are sadly mistaken my friend,never underestimate the enemy.

Besides which would look more out of place a bunch of guys wearing digital camo that don't really understand the layout of the area they were just dropped or trucked into,or a bunch of hill billies that know their weapons,the local terrain,have full support from the people that live in the area,and are expert marksmen/woodsmen in their own right.

I'm not saying we would win hands down,but you can bet your last dollar that the other guys would know they were in a fight after all was said and done.

I'm seriously beginning to question what you know about the military.

Of course you're not going to be the only person firing. However, the military isn't just going to be using fire teams either. They're going to be calling in close air support, helicopters, artillery, sniper support, thermal imaging drones, and tanks. Once again, your rifle isn't going to be doing a darn against these, and because of that, probably won't do a thing against the individual fire teams either.

Your argument for a "bunch of hill billies" was invalidated during the 1980s. The Afghan Mujahideen, who knew their territory, lived in the area, were expert marksmen in their own right, and had access to tons of weapons, were being utterly destroyed by the Soviet Invasion. Even armed with machine guns, the Mujahideen couldn't take down the Soviet Hinds without extensive help from the Americans, who supplied missile launchers to the resistance.

There are very few, if any, modern examples of a small-but-armed militia winning against a professional military for a reason.

[Deadmanwalking_05]

Originally Posted by Terminus

I'm seriously beginning to question what you know about the military.

Of course you're not going to be the only person firing. However, the military isn't just going to be using fire teams either. They're going to be calling in close air support, helicopters, artillery, sniper support, thermal imaging drones, and tanks. Once again, your rifle isn't going to be doing a darn against these, and because of that, probably won't do a thing against the individual fire teams either.

Your argument for a "bunch of hill billies" was invalidated during the 1980s. The Afghan Mujahideen, who knew their territory, lived in the area, were expert marksmen in their own right, and had access to tons of weapons, were being utterly destroyed by the Soviet Invasion. Even armed with machine guns, the Mujahideen couldn't take down the Soviet Hinds without extensive help from the Americans, who supplied missile launchers to the resistance.

There are very few, if any, modern examples of a small-but-armed militia winning against a professional military for a reason.

And what does a fire team have to do before calling in all that expensive hardware?

They have to make contact with the opposing force correct?

Well what is to say they would live long enough to make the call after making contact?

[Terminus]

Originally Posted by Deadmanwalking_05

And what does a fire team have to do before calling in all that expensive hardware?

They have to make contact with the opposing force correct?

Well what is to say they would live long enough to make the call after making contact?

I think someone is going to notice, "Oh hey, Fire team Alpha hasn't responded in 12 hours. I think someone better, you know, go check that out".

Besides, with the advent of modern radio, you'd have to kill the entire fire team simultaneously before they could signal they're under attack. (This is assuming the fire team isn't already being covered by drones, helicopters, or an AC-130.)

[Deadmanwalking_05]

Originally Posted by Terminus

I think someone is going to notice, "Oh hey, Fire team Alpha hasn't responded in 12 hours. I think someone better, you know, go check that out".

Besides, with the advent of modern radio, you'd have to kill the entire fire team simultaneously before they could signal they're under attack. (This is assuming the fire team isn't already being covered by drones, helicopters, or an AC-130.)

12 hours that's more than enough time to listen to their radio and figure out where to stage the next (Even more effective) ambush with newly acquired equipment.

Plus have you ever driven the roads around my way (if you did you would know why I say that)

I do understand what you're saying about the radio tech though,and again you would need to under stand the Terrain (Very mountainous and hilly),which would mean that the radio's effectiveness would be cut down a bit.


Plus the predators would need infrared to see through the tree cover (In the spring and summer) other wise you would be left with a lot of pretty pictures but not a whole lot of info.

[Terminus]

Originally Posted by Deadmanwalking_05

12 hours that's more than enough time to listen to their radio and figure out where to stage the next (Even more effective) ambush with newly acquired equipment.

12 hours is an extremely high estimate. I'd make it out to be more like 45 minutes.

Originally Posted by Deadmanwalking_05

I do understand what you're saying about the radio tech though,and again you would need to under stand the Terrain (Very mountainous and hilly),which would mean that the radio's effectiveness would be cut down a bit.

Plus the predators would need infrared to see through the tree cover (In the spring and summer) other wise you would be left with a lot of pretty pictures but not a whole lot of info.

Pretty much all predators have infrared technology these days, which means we have a lot of pretty pictures about where you are.

What do you think troops have been fighting in during the Afghan and Iraq wars? They're in mountainous and hilly terrain. Trust me when I say this is not a problem for them, because most of their radios can go BVR.

[Deadmanwalking_05]

Originally Posted by Terminus

12 hours is an extremely high estimate. I'd make it out to be more like 45 minutes.



Pretty much all predators have infrared technology these days, which means we have a lot of pretty pictures about where you are.

What do you think troops have been fighting in during the Afghan and Iraq wars? They're in mountainous and hilly terrain. Trust me when I say this is not a problem for them, because most of their radios can go BVR.

Even in that amount of time they couldn't get there fast enough to stop us from moving away and focus on hitting other patrols.

And the best way to avoid a sweep from the air is to keep moving,even with the 45-minute time frame a bunch of guys that know the hills would be in a completely different spot,ready for another strike.

[Godslayer Jillian]

Seriously, why the fuck do you want to fight in the hills if only thing you want to do is exactly the same millions did that put Obama in the White House?

[Duane]

Make sure to play some Iron Maiden when fighting in the hills. That way you'll have some tunes to fight to, and something to listen to when you're being bitch slapped by Uncle Sam.

[Deadmanwalking_05]

Originally Posted by Godslayer Jillian

Seriously, why the fuck do you want to fight in the hills if only thing you want to do is exactly the same millions did that put Obama in the White House?

What?

I'm going to try and answer this as best I can.


The reason I would fight in the hills to begin with is to keep the freedoms we have now,and to regain the freedoms we have almost lost.

[Saya]

I like this Terminus fellow.

[Godslayer Jillian]

And you will do that by killing military and... voting?
But people are allowing a fascist dictatorship by not killing military and voting?

[Duane]

Wait... I lost track of this... what is he using to justify all this shit?

[Deadmanwalking_05]

Originally Posted by Godslayer Jillian

And you will do that by killing military and... voting?
But people are allowing a fascist dictatorship by not killing military and voting?

I'm not saying the only way is to kill military,that is the last thing anyone should do,Vote first,shoot last (Let me know when this sinks in).

And hopefully the People will learn to keep better track of who is running for public office positions as a result of all the fighting and bloodshed.

[Godslayer Jillian]

You kill someone and you think the people will think all the better just of that?
Violence over education?
Besides, who will present the people with the new choices anyway?

[Deadmanwalking_05]

The people will, through freedom of choice.

[Duane]

Oh geez, it's not like this is Cuba...

[Godslayer Jillian]

Why does a violent revolution grant freedom of choice we didn't have before?

Do remember that the forefathers of the time you are so melancholy about were a self-selected elite that fought with only a third of the population's support and ruled over the hundred percent of them.

[Deadmanwalking_05]

Originally Posted by Godslayer Jillian

Why does a violent revolution grant freedom of choice we didn't have before?

Do remember that the forefathers of the time you are so melancholy about were a self-selected elite that fought with only a third of the population's support and ruled over the hundred percent of them.

It wouldn't be a freedom we haven't had before,it would be the same freedom but with a better understanding of what it costs.

As well as what can be caused by careless votes.

[Alan]

You get a violent 'civil war', the country's infrastructure has been divided; I assume you want to fight the current federal system so the white house is out.
Why the fuck do you think you can immediately call for fair elections? You're not actually thinking this out, are you?

[Duane]

Dude, inciting a civil war would make things worse, not better, you can think as hard as you like, there just isn't a good enough reason to do this to justify it in the case that... well you make things a 100 times worse.

[Deadmanwalking_05]

Originally Posted by Duane

Dude, inciting a civil war would make things worse, not better, you can think as hard as you like, there just isn't a good enough reason to do this to justify it in the case that... well you make things a 100 times worse.

I'm not trying to incite a civil war,I'm trying to help us fucking avoid one,how many times do I have to tell you that?


It starts at the voting booth and the choices that are made there,if the people fail to do their part,if things get bad enough as a result of those choices,then and only then as a last line of defense against an out of control Government,is violence to be used.

[Delkaetre]

I still want to know the justification for eight guns.
If you have one hand gun you carry at all times, and a second kept at home as backup, and a rifle for hunting and (if you're, pardon my French, fucking batshit and think you're going to have shoot people in a civil war that will break out any month now) possibly ranged self defence, that's still just THREE guns. Not eight.

The other five- are they rare collectors' items, historical pieces, heirlooms? In which case they don't need to be functional, because they're display pieces. Do you just really like owning lots and lots of highly lethal weapons? In which case, I'd really like to know why desire to own things is sufficient justification for owning them. I might like to own rare or deadly animals, but I certainly wouldn't acquire them just because I really want to.

Unlike clothing, books, paintings, sculpture, records and so on, guns are not a harmless thing to collect. Guns are deadly, and if someone broke into your house while you were away, that's (presumably) seven more lethal weapons now loose in the local criminal community. A break in isn't terribly likely, but if you're paranoid to go constantly armed, then you should be paranoid enough to recognise the risk of burglary while you're away.
You need better justification to collect guns than just wanting to, you need actual reasons.