American History...and its relationship to rifles RE: Foreign Invasion!
 

Greetings,
It is often cited that one of the successes of today's President, Mr. Bush, is that no military attacks have landed on domestic soil since september 11, 2001. I was thinking about what that meant exactaly, and a thought came to me regarding guns and the laws [sic] attempting to govern them.

It is well known that there has never been a successful military invasion of the American people, owed chiefly to the proliferation of rifles in the countryside. Some have tried - border fueds with Mexico come to mind. I would say that the British in 1812 were the closest ever to "being successful" but they found occupation impossible. They were able to penetrate, but any invader is forever surrounded on 3 sides by men with guns. That is America. The Japanese in World War II had no intent whatsoever in ever landing a single boot on American soil. How could they?

That is still true today. So we're faced with a conundrum:

To those who may support the banning of firearms,

Are you proposing a complete & and total reworking of the logistical and physical organization of the Army, Navy, and Airforce? These groups, with superior battle intelligence, know exactaly what 250,000,000 firearms on the American mainland mean to defense and indeed they take it into consideration and count on it when making battle plans.

So in essence, a person asking for the banning of firearms is asking to change the entire structure of the armed forces, their battlements, satellite positions, infrastructure, number of enlisted men, daily and yearly budget, etc. How can they account for this?
-----------



I was just wondering if my argument is sound, and what kind of answers I might expect from my opponent, Adamantus NoGunnus.

Re: American History...and its relationship to rifles RE: Foreign Invasion
 

Egyptian, you also must ad the fact that many technologies in both weapons and equipment currently used by our military were originally developed and paid for by the civilian market. Barret .50 cal comes to mind.

Looking for logic from a Lib is like looking for a pot of AU at the end of a rainbow (no offense to the Irish). The unintended consequences of a gun ban are not quantifiable. Bx3:10_1_19:

Re: American History...and its relationship to rifles RE: Foreign Invasion
 

Re: American History...and its relationship to rifles RE: Foreign Invasion
 

Re: American History...and its relationship to rifles RE: Foreign Invasion
 

I grew up in a rough school in the 50s. Built my first "zip" gun covertly in metal shop in 8th grade; and I wasn't the only one. Might still be able to remember how to do it if I scraped down to the bottom of the memory bin. Might not be as fine as the one that "Carbine" Williams built covertly while locked up in a federal pen for offing a revenuer[the first M1 carbine], but I'm sure it would be useable in obtaining a better weapon on some dark windy night.

Re: American History...and its relationship to rifles RE: Foreign Invasion!
 

Yes, that's pretty much what they're asking for. They want a heavily armed police state and more laws to keep them safe. They want a bigger military to carry out their pet projects and they want to get rid of posse comitatus. Bigger budgets aren't a problem, they're the goal! How to fund them isn't a problem, they'll just tax the rich, tax businesses, tax things that a large number of people disapprove of, confiscate property, raise fines on and increase enforcement of minor offenses, etc.

Of course, not all of them seek that. Some are just scared of guns and can't think beyond that fear.

Re: American History...and its relationship to rifles RE: Foreign Invasion
 

The Final Bump to the Top

Re: American History...and its relationship to rifles RE: Foreign Invasion
 

One other thing that most anti gun people probably haven't considered are the tax increases across the board for everyone. I'm sure most states make a measurable profit from gun registration every year. Once that revenue stream has dried up, they'll just shift it over to something else that everyone will have to pony up for.

Same thing with cigarettes. Non smokers b!tch so they increase the taxes on cigarettes to encourage quitting. In my state they've outlawed smoking inside establishments so everyone smokes on the sidewalks. Funny thing is the people who walk down the street b!tch about having to walk through my smoke now that I'm not allowed to do so inside. Unintended consequence for them.

Where's the extra revenue for the state going to come from once they stamp out all of the smokers? Tack it on to alcohol? Increase sales tax?

People really need to think these things all the way through. They'd come to the same conclusion and tell state and local law makers to STFU and do more with less...just like private companies do. God forbid we ask the gov to be efficient.
:coolbeer:

Re: American History...and its relationship to rifles RE: Foreign Invasion
 

My opponent, Adamantus NoGunnus, is still being a dick.

Re: American History...and its relationship to rifles RE: Foreign Invasion
 

I think that your argument is fairly sound but what it seems to lack is the numbers. The change to the military (ours) is the amount of money that it would cost, or that tax revenue would not cover, to expand the forces, feed, sustain arm and equip. Also logistics of transport and insertion/extraction. I

If you could work over an estimate or two it might assist in smiting Mr. Nogunnus.