FBI: More People Killed with Hammers, Clubs Each Year Than Rifles

Why use guns? Advertising works better

Honestly, after seeing the bull you lot would swallow all we would ever have to do is hire the right PR firm and we could get you dancing butt naked in the streets with your willies painted pink

 

And the best weapon of Afghanistan was not the gun but the IED

 

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/09/mass-shootings-investigation

 

I actually think that would increase opposition. It would cause elected and military leaders to turn against them leading to a civil war as opposed to a uprising. You can not just kill your way to victory; hearts, minds, and politics decide the victor in those kinds of conflicts. Could the US get away with being as heavy handed as Assad has been in Syria?

Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan shows the main weakness of our military. We can win every battle yet decisively lose the war.

 

Not with the Russians... but lets pretend...
So your argument against scary looking rifles is what?

Says the AGW scientist.

 

What does your inaccurate and misleading MotherJones article have to do with my post?

 

Since you're here and you serve let me ask you along these lines... What if obviously you wouldn't obey orders to start shooting on your countrymen and that. Nobody would expect you to.. But what if your unit.. I'm not sure what the group names are called but your squad of like six or eight men, were told you have a terrorist threat who is a threat to national security, and are ordered by your CO to move into a residential area of the USA, drive there in your humvee or cougar or whatever it is, kick down a specific door at a specific address, and surgically take a certain person, who you are told who it is, shown a photo, and have as your target, hood him, cuff him, and take him straight back..

For context, imagine you aren't aware of any wars or invasions, but there's a general ruckus like things might be kicking off we need to respond to a security threat, but you don't get any more specific information than that.

Would you and your immediate colleagues do such a mission as that? You aren't told the nationality of the target by the way, but their physical description and photograph. Do you complete this mission as normal?

Also, would the reaction, response or anything at all be different based on whether or not this target is a white guy, or a brown guy?

This is all just hypothetical thinking exercise and pure speculation.

 

That's just it.... The army don't do this kind of thing.. So if suddenly they were to be asked to, would they be like okay and assume these new duties on US soil or would they be like WTF that's not in our job description.. How would the reaction to such strange orders be.. A bit more context to reason it out..

The military can be dispatched if the congress decides to, the constitution gives that authority for martial law when the public safety should require it in cases of rebellion or invasion.. Of course realistically this would likely be prompted by a president acting outside his jurisdiction, but nevertheless.

The reason I'm asking is this... Along the lines we were just discussing in the immediatly preceding posts.. Imagine a martial law/civil war type scenario.. I'm trying to think along those lines. That's all. Figure out how or if it could be done.. You couldn't just have a commander be like, "okay it's open season on all Americans not in military uniform fire at will" and you just trade fire with all the civilians.. It would have to involve some kind of gradual escalation process, under pretext of serious national security threat (either real or fabricated congressional approval for martial law, or accepted orders by commander in chief) and highly compartmentalized, small groups of soldiers with different assignments and not coordinating with others, possibly involving parts of the chain of command being skipped.

We were hypothesizing about possible army vs. civilian scenarios and I'm seeing if I can figure out if it can somehow be reasoned out, with your expertise of course, that's why I ask. Even if you are a pilot you went through BT you already know 100 times as much as me.

 

Like all "news" from Faux, it is dishonest and inaccurate.

The categories Rifles, Other guns, and Type not stated add up to well over 2000.

That is not insignificant.

The only people talking about "guns" are you. Reasonable people are talking about specific type of weapons that serve no purpose for hunting or self defense but pose an unacceptable risk to the public.

 

I agree, I do not think the US would they are not that stupid(I hope)

That doesn't change the original intent of the 2nd however, I see the AR-15 and AR-10 platforms as suitable for that purpose. Natural or economic disaster would be far more likely reasons for congress to activate the militia. It never hurts to be prepared for worse case situations.

 

I get your point, NM, and agree that it`s unthinkable to engage your defence forces in a stand up battle. Thing is in this scenario, if the situation was so extremely bad (Syria?), that the military presented a threat to it`s own people, an armed populace would still be much harder to suppress than an unarmed one. At the same time, it would be harder for a bad government to run the country down to such a low level, if the people are armed.

 

That's a very thoughtful answer.. good post and thank you!

 

My god youre a little deceiver arent you?

Woodham had already killed Mom, then walked into school and killed two, then wounded seven before getting back in his car. The ass. principal had to go to his car first.

Why go to all this trouble of trying to deceive other posters here? But please post some links that prove me wrong etc. Go ahead and tell everyone why Im so so very and embarrassingly incorrect.....please

 

http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/19/opinion/bennett-gun-rights/index.html
"In 1997, high school student Luke Woodham stabbed his mother to death and then drove to Pearl High School in Pearl, Mississippi, and shot and killed two people. He then got back in his car to drive to Pearl Junior High to continue his killings, but Joel Myrick, the assistant principal, ran to his truck and grabbed his pistol, aimed it at Woodham and made him surrender."

So, were you lying or were you just ignorant of the facts? Either way, now you know, don't let me catch you doing it again.

 

looks like you've been owned, creation...................
but................but.................but............

 

Who is trying to ban rifles? You guys making things up again.

Come back to reality.

 

No, but it appears there is more than one version of the story

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pearl_High_School_shooting

But even if you count this as a "success" that is one out of 62 mass shootings (more than 4 people killed)

 

Oh! I thought they had a point to make - especially the ones about the armed civilians who did not stop the killers but managed to get themselves shot

 

Off the top of my head:
Chuck Schumer.
Rosie O'Donnell.
Michael Moore.

 

It doesn't fit her agenda...simple as that.

And is Schumer actually shooting a TEK-9 in that pic?!