Gun Control What's your take??? - Page 19

blktoptrvl · #**181** 01-23-2013, 01:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TerminatorX5

blktop - the article on afgan is piece of trash written by someone who had no clue about afgan, soviet union, poland, hungary or yugoslavia... if you care, find your own sources.

afgans were and still are defending the poppy crops... you have opium - you have guns around it... not to diminish the strategic value of old Silk Road - the afgan warlords are collecting a "tax" on every truck passing through their territory (usually a $1 for unit of cargo - 100 bails of something = $100, 500 CD players = $500 US$).

Russia can sustain a war far better than the US - everytime a war stepped into Russia, they survived... 1812 failure of Napoleon. 1945 failure of Hitler... most time they stepped out of Russia - they failed (not counting that Alps mission with General Suvorov, which was successful). in 1986 there was a huge dissent (Academician Sakharov), which raised awareness inside Russia. which dwindled the support for the war...
We are failing in afgan because we thought we could fast forward feudalic society stuck in Middle Ages into the XXI century... which proved not to be working...

Thanks, But...

I did not seek out or read the article, because I already knew that the Soviet-Afghan war was a proxy war, it was part of the cold war, and it was a LIMITED war. In no sense of the term could it be considered a TOTAL war.

Sponsored Links

TerminatorX5 · #**182** 01-23-2013, 01:27 PM

Russia

as a matter of reference to Sakharov is interesting - he was pro-weapons, and later turned against weapons...

Andrei Sakharov - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Sakharov was arrested on January 22, 1980, following his public protests against the Soviet intervention in Afghanistan in 1979, and was sent to internal exile in the city of Gorky, now Nizhny Novgorod, a city that was off-limits to foreigners.
On December 19, 1986, Mikhail Gorbachev, who had initiated the policies of perestroika and glasnost, called Sakharov to tell him that he and his wife may return to Moscow

Do you need links to sources showing Hitler's failure? or you will take my word for it? same goes for Napoleon in 1812. i can dig something for you...

or you are one of those who still believe that that WWII started with Japs bombing Pearl Harbor and ended with us bombing of Hirosima and Nagasaki?

you can't believe everything that you are told - and i commend you demanding facts... as long as you do it across the board...

and besides, i am not for taking your guns from you, i already said it before... i am for making sure that the guns are not in the hands of untrained people, regarless if they have the right to have it or not...

blktoptrvl · #**183** 01-23-2013, 01:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by noncom23

You guys wanna post some facts to
back up anything you say?
Or do we just go with your
opinion?

The Soviets committed only 90,000 troops at any one time (a total of 650K served over the course of the war) to Afghanistan. They claimed to be there at the request of the Afghan Gov to assist them and not to be there to take over the country. In fact, they took over the capital and never moved into the countryside after.

90K out of 1M+ less than 9 percent of their Army. Doesn't sound like TOTAL war to me. How about you?

Frozen · #**184** 01-23-2013, 01:44 PM

fellow bmw enthusiasts, love the advice and the the tips about my car. not sure if this discussion is right for this board. pardon me for interjecting...

TerminatorX5 · #**185** 01-23-2013, 01:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Frozen

fellow bmw enthusiasts, love the advice and the the tips about my car. not sure if this discussion is right for this board. pardon me for interjecting...

we are having fun - we still have more in common that unites us than differences that separate us...

at the end of the day, if my opponents are stranded on the roadside, i still will stop and offer a help... i am sure, they would do the same...

we are just exercising our 1st amendment right... that's all... lol..

noncom23 · #**186** 01-23-2013, 02:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TerminatorX5

we are having fun - we still have more in common that unites us than differences that separate us...

at the end of the day, if my opponents are stranded on the roadside, i still will stop and offer a help... i am sure, they would do the same...

we are just exercising our 1st amendment right... that's all... lol..

Its the final stage resistor, I know it!
Damn...lol.

noncom23 · #**187** 01-23-2013, 02:59 PM

Don't worry about the gun situation.
obama has it all in hand.

Check the personal gun stats btw.

Obama Tailoring Military Leadership to Only Those Who Will Shoot Fellow Americans

JCL · #**188** 01-23-2013, 04:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by noncom23

You guys wanna post some facts to
back up anything you say?
Or do we just go with your
opinion?

Facts are good.

Quote:

Originally Posted by noncom23

Don't worry about the gun situation.
Obama has it all in hand.

Check the personal gun stats btw.

Obama Tailoring Military Leadership to Only Those Who Will Shoot Fellow Americans

A little short on facts, a little long on opinion.

JCL · #**189** 01-23-2013, 04:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by noncom23

The idea of the entire article is to show that without weapons the people are only subjects to their dictatorial governments. Whether guns were there before or after the tyranny, the people can become free with weapons. With no weapons, no chance.

Can you see that concept?

Absolutely. But following your logic further, there are two potential threats in the US, compared to Afghanistan. If the threat is from outside your country, or for that matter inside, then you have an army, and a pretty big one at that, as well as various other forces. So I would conclude that you would only need your own weapons if the threat was your own government. You may need something bigger than a semi automatic rifle, in that case, even withstanding the Afghanistan example.

Quote:

Originally Posted by noncom23

Ok. Now we have weapons, take them away, where are we? No better off than any other country run by subjective dictators who
have weapons to point at us, while we have sticks. To you this is "splitting hairs". To us and many other oppressed peoples, this is loss of freedom.

But the question was, why are you jumping all the way to taking them away? The proposals being discussed are for some form of gun control, not confiscation of all weapons. Is every form of gun control a type of communist threat? If the answer is simply that you believe that every current gun regulation (all 15,000 of them) is a restriction of your rights, and that you would like them all removed, just say so.

Quote:

Originally Posted by noncom23

We keep our weapons to remind the government who is in charge. The US government works for the people. The people are in control. Most are too asleep to see it, but that is the fact.

OK, that clarifies that the threat, or at least one threat, is your government. Now you need to make sure you have enough weapons to overcome the US army et al.

JCL · #**190** 01-23-2013, 05:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by noncom23

I know these words are wasted, but to many of us without freedom, there is no point in being here. We won't give our rights away at a whim because those rights are trivial to so many others blinded by their currnent beliefs and that they want to force those beliefs on us.

I separated this because I think it is a distinct point. I don't think words are wasted. I would much rather we discuss this with words, than be shooting at each other over it.

But here is something I think is a waste: the lives of children impacted by gun violence. I think they should have rights and security too.

Quote:

Protect Children, Not Guns
Key Facts
January 3, 2013

A child or teen dies or is injured from guns every 30 minutes.

 18,270 children and teens died or were injured from guns in 2010
 1 child or teen died or was injured every 30 minutes
 50 children and teens died or were injured every day
 351 children and teens died or were injured every week More children and teens die from guns every three days than died in the Newtown massacre.
 2,694 children and teens died from guns in 2010.
 1 child or teen died every 3 hours and 15 minutes
 7 children and teens died every day
 52 children and teens died every week
 Between 1979 and 2010, 119,079 children and teens died from guns. This is more child and teen deaths in 32 years than U.S. soldiers killed in action in the Vietnam (47,434), Korean (33,739), Afghanistan (1,712), and Iraq (3,518) wars combined. The number of children under five who died from guns was more than the number of law enforcement officers who died from guns in the line of duty in 2010.
 82 children under five died from guns in 2010, compared to 58 law enforcement officers killed by guns in the line of duty. Three times more children and teens were injured by guns in 2010 than the number of U.S. soldiers wounded in action that year in the Afghanistan war.
 15,576 children and teens were injured by guns in 2010.
 1 child or teen injured every 34 minutes
 43 children and teens injured every day
 300 children and teens injured every week

Full article here, with data links and sources.

Protect Children, Not Guns 2012

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Sponsored Links