Members Mr. Friendly Posted December 28, 2012 Members Share Posted December 28, 2012 Good Guys/Bad Guys...LOL. That's about as deep as the NRA likes it's sheep to tread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Mesa4x12er2 Posted December 28, 2012 Author Members Share Posted December 28, 2012 Yep, the government never oversteps.http://gizmodo.com/5971743/senate-ap...ne-tapping-lawSenate Approves Warrantless Phone Tapping for Next Five Years Sam BiddleBy a vote of 73 to 23, the US Senate just voted for the warrantless surveillance of American citizens until 2017.The vote, set to affirm to eradicate the FAA Sunsets Extension Act of 2012, means we'll be living with Bush-era spy laws for another half decade. In 2007, the Senate voted to grant blanket immunity to companies like AT&T, which conspired with the NSA to monitor American digital conversations without government oversight after 9/11. Today's vote continues that immunity, and provides further carte blanche for the American intelligence-gathering apparatus. Phone calls, texts, and emails are all fair game Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Mesa4x12er2 Posted December 28, 2012 Author Members Share Posted December 28, 2012 Yep, the government never oversteps.http://gizmodo.com/5971743/senate-ap...ne-tapping-lawSenate Approves Warrantless Phone Tapping for Next Five Years Sam BiddleBy a vote of 73 to 23, the US Senate just voted for the warrantless surveillance of American citizens until 2017.The vote, set to affirm to eradicate the FAA Sunsets Extension Act of 2012, means we'll be living with Bush-era spy laws for another half decade. In 2007, the Senate voted to grant blanket immunity to companies like AT&T, which conspired with the NSA to monitor American digital conversations without government oversight after 9/11. Today's vote continues that immunity, and provides further carte blanche for the American intelligence-gathering apparatus. Phone calls, texts, and emails are all fair game Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members TheRymanChu Posted December 28, 2012 Members Share Posted December 28, 2012 Tunisia had one of the lowest weapon's ownership rates in the world, yet they just overthrew their government. The right to have a rifle to overthrow the government was a valid one prior to the Mexican-American war, where the boys from West Point proved that you can drop mortar on your opponents all day long and don't have to engage them face-to-face to defeat them. The U.S. Army's weapons have gotten far superior in the 176 years since then: cruise missiles, fighter jets, helicopters, chemical and biological weapons. Good luck overthrowing that with a rifle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members TheRymanChu Posted December 28, 2012 Members Share Posted December 28, 2012 Tunisia had one of the lowest weapon's ownership rates in the world, yet they just overthrew their government. The right to have a rifle to overthrow the government was a valid one prior to the Mexican-American war, where the boys from West Point proved that you can drop mortar on your opponents all day long and don't have to engage them face-to-face to defeat them. The U.S. Army's weapons have gotten far superior in the 176 years since then: cruise missiles, fighter jets, helicopters, chemical and biological weapons. Good luck overthrowing that with a rifle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Mesa4x12er2 Posted December 28, 2012 Author Members Share Posted December 28, 2012 Originally Posted by Mr. Friendly Good Guys/Bad Guys...LOL. That's about as deep as the NRA likes it's sheep to tread. Just trying to simplify for the people that don't seem to be willing to back down even in the face of actual facts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Mesa4x12er2 Posted December 28, 2012 Author Members Share Posted December 28, 2012 Originally Posted by Mr. Friendly Good Guys/Bad Guys...LOL. That's about as deep as the NRA likes it's sheep to tread. Just trying to simplify for the people that don't seem to be willing to back down even in the face of actual facts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members diocide Posted December 28, 2012 Members Share Posted December 28, 2012 Originally Posted by Mesa4x12er2 Nope. Do you defend or enforce the first amendmant this vehemently against the religious right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members diocide Posted December 28, 2012 Members Share Posted December 28, 2012 Originally Posted by Mesa4x12er2 Nope. Do you defend or enforce the first amendmant this vehemently against the religious right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Mesa4x12er2 Posted December 28, 2012 Author Members Share Posted December 28, 2012 Originally Posted by TheRymanChu Tunisia had one of the lowest weapon's ownership rates in the world, yet they just overthrew their government. The right to have a rifle to overthrow the government was a valid one prior to the Mexican-American war, where the boys from West Point proved that you can drop mortar on your opponents all day long and don't have to engage them face-to-face to defeat them. The U.S. Army's weapons have gotten far superior in the 176 years since then: cruise missiles, fighter jets, helicopters, chemical and biological weapons. Good luck overthrowing that with a rifle. Yeah, cruise missiles and fighters jets. I guess those will work if you're just trying to completely decimate everyone. We have had all of those things for a long time yet we still have a hard time in the sandbox against peasant {censored}ers with rudimentary bombs and {censored} guns. Great points. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Mesa4x12er2 Posted December 28, 2012 Author Members Share Posted December 28, 2012 Originally Posted by TheRymanChu Tunisia had one of the lowest weapon's ownership rates in the world, yet they just overthrew their government. The right to have a rifle to overthrow the government was a valid one prior to the Mexican-American war, where the boys from West Point proved that you can drop mortar on your opponents all day long and don't have to engage them face-to-face to defeat them. The U.S. Army's weapons have gotten far superior in the 176 years since then: cruise missiles, fighter jets, helicopters, chemical and biological weapons. Good luck overthrowing that with a rifle. Yeah, cruise missiles and fighters jets. I guess those will work if you're just trying to completely decimate everyone. We have had all of those things for a long time yet we still have a hard time in the sandbox against peasant {censored}ers with rudimentary bombs and {censored} guns. Great points. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Mesa4x12er2 Posted December 28, 2012 Author Members Share Posted December 28, 2012 Originally Posted by diocide Do you defend or enforce the first amendmant this vehemently against the religious right? Uh, what? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Mesa4x12er2 Posted December 28, 2012 Author Members Share Posted December 28, 2012 Originally Posted by diocide Do you defend or enforce the first amendmant this vehemently against the religious right? Uh, what? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members diocide Posted December 28, 2012 Members Share Posted December 28, 2012 Originally Posted by Mesa4x12er2 Uh, what? When people talk about prayer in school etc etc, do you argue against it as vehemently and passionately we you do this topic? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members diocide Posted December 28, 2012 Members Share Posted December 28, 2012 Originally Posted by Mesa4x12er2 Uh, what? When people talk about prayer in school etc etc, do you argue against it as vehemently and passionately we you do this topic? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members TheRymanChu Posted December 28, 2012 Members Share Posted December 28, 2012 Originally Posted by Mesa4x12er2 Yeah, cruise missiles and fighters jets. I guess those will work if you're just trying to completely decimate everyone. We have had all of those things for a long time yet we still have a hard time in the sandbox against peasant {censored}ers with rudimentary bombs and {censored} guns. Great points. U.S Casualties in Iraq: 3,532 Iraqi Military Casualties: 47,269 U.S. Casualties in Afghanistan: 2,171 with 17,619 wounded Afghani Military Casualties: 1,711 with 18,109 wounded Iraq was clearly a 13:1 sound defeat. Afghanistan is roughly a draw. Great points Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members TheRymanChu Posted December 28, 2012 Members Share Posted December 28, 2012 Originally Posted by Mesa4x12er2 Yeah, cruise missiles and fighters jets. I guess those will work if you're just trying to completely decimate everyone. We have had all of those things for a long time yet we still have a hard time in the sandbox against peasant {censored}ers with rudimentary bombs and {censored} guns. Great points. U.S Casualties in Iraq: 3,532 Iraqi Military Casualties: 47,269 U.S. Casualties in Afghanistan: 2,171 with 17,619 wounded Afghani Military Casualties: 1,711 with 18,109 wounded Iraq was clearly a 13:1 sound defeat. Afghanistan is roughly a draw. Great points Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members ffemt596 Posted December 28, 2012 Members Share Posted December 28, 2012 Originally Posted by TheRymanChu U.S Casualties in Iraq: 3,532 Iraqi Military Casualties: 47,269 U.S. Casualties in Afghanistan: 2,171 with 17,619 wounded Afghani Military Casualties: 1,711 with 18,109 wounded Iraq was clearly a 13:1 sound defeat. Afghanistan is roughly a draw. Great points It's about territory, not casualty ratios. The Art of War. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members ffemt596 Posted December 28, 2012 Members Share Posted December 28, 2012 Originally Posted by TheRymanChu U.S Casualties in Iraq: 3,532 Iraqi Military Casualties: 47,269 U.S. Casualties in Afghanistan: 2,171 with 17,619 wounded Afghani Military Casualties: 1,711 with 18,109 wounded Iraq was clearly a 13:1 sound defeat. Afghanistan is roughly a draw. Great points It's about territory, not casualty ratios. The Art of War. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members TheRymanChu Posted December 28, 2012 Members Share Posted December 28, 2012 Originally Posted by ffemt596 It's about territory, not casualty ratios. The Art of War. How much territory do you think you can gain when you lose your troops at a 13:1 ratio? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members TheRymanChu Posted December 28, 2012 Members Share Posted December 28, 2012 Originally Posted by ffemt596 It's about territory, not casualty ratios. The Art of War. How much territory do you think you can gain when you lose your troops at a 13:1 ratio? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Mesa4x12er2 Posted December 28, 2012 Author Members Share Posted December 28, 2012 Originally Posted by TheRymanChu U.S Casualties in Iraq: 3,532 Iraqi Military Casualties: 47,269 U.S. Casualties in Afghanistan: 2,171 with 17,619 wounded Afghani Military Casualties: 1,711 with 18,109 wounded Iraq was clearly a 13:1 sound defeat. Afghanistan is roughly a draw. Great points Now consider this. Do you think if things got to that point that the military and leos would just be ok killing their countrymen? I don't. If that's not enough remember those 300 million guns we have between 90 million hands. That's a serious number. Many, many times over the number in the military and leos even if they all were ok with killing Americans. So anyway, yeah. I didn't really have a point except that it's possible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Mesa4x12er2 Posted December 28, 2012 Author Members Share Posted December 28, 2012 Originally Posted by TheRymanChu U.S Casualties in Iraq: 3,532 Iraqi Military Casualties: 47,269 U.S. Casualties in Afghanistan: 2,171 with 17,619 wounded Afghani Military Casualties: 1,711 with 18,109 wounded Iraq was clearly a 13:1 sound defeat. Afghanistan is roughly a draw. Great points Now consider this. Do you think if things got to that point that the military and leos would just be ok killing their countrymen? I don't. If that's not enough remember those 300 million guns we have between 90 million hands. That's a serious number. Many, many times over the number in the military and leos even if they all were ok with killing Americans. So anyway, yeah. I didn't really have a point except that it's possible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members ffemt596 Posted December 28, 2012 Members Share Posted December 28, 2012 Originally Posted by TheRymanChu How much territory do you think you can gain when you lose your troops at a 13:1 ratio? Ask the Viet Cong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members ffemt596 Posted December 28, 2012 Members Share Posted December 28, 2012 Originally Posted by TheRymanChu How much territory do you think you can gain when you lose your troops at a 13:1 ratio? Ask the Viet Cong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.