(Forum War)-AyeCappy vs World

[Mack]

They just had to inforce them, i didnt know that. still thats why they inforced them heavily I would believe

[Mack]

one part of the usa currently is if someone managed to get past the army and into a city or something like that the usa's populace would probably be able to resist the invaders mostly if they came out into the country because well people around here have a ton of guns

Agreed, otherwise we would be chasing armies with pitchforks, axes and whatnot

[Donald Trump]

one part of the usa currently is if someone managed to get past the army and into a city or something like that the usa's populace would probably be able to resist the invaders mostly if they came out into the country because well people around here have a ton of guns

Such an event is insane to think about. US coastal guard and constant air moderation leaves that impossible. As well, killing civilians makes the "invaders" hated. This would be more of a stupid idea that no country would ever even think of doing. I am sure if such an event was to happen; jets and napalm would be used. Not ground forces lol.


And we would have an armed police force and an armed army. No pitchforks there.

[Most Lee Harmless]

They just had to inforce them, i didnt know that. still thats why they inforced them heavily I would believe

They didnt have to enforce them, they relaxed them.

Your view arises from a 'counterfactual argument' proposed by opponents of gun control in the USA : that is a 'what if' reading of history changing certain facts then speculating on what would have happened. This argument required the fact of pre-existing gun controls to be ignored and replaced by the 'what if' of the Nazi introduction strict gun control to disarm and there-by weaken its opponents. The argument was intended to mirror the state of gun-control in the USA at the time and thus to promote the notion of the armed populace defending itself from state tyranny. So, the whole thing is a fallacy born of a mis-reading and mis-understanding of this 'counterfactual' ( the clue is there in the word) argument : it is not historical fact, it is fantasy.

[Maha]

one part of the usa currently is if someone managed to get past the army and into a city or something like that the usa's populace would probably be able to resist the invaders mostly if they came out into the country because well people around here have a ton of guns

Agreed, otherwise we would be chasing armies with pitchforks, axes and whatnot

what is the chance of a nation invading the US mainland? any idea what it takes to get an army lined up on her jump off points ready to execute a major invasion?

i hope that the US military are smarter than Napoleons colonels, they designed a defense line all along the border; Napoleon scoffed them for trying to stop smugglers. 'getting passed the army' is stuff for bad movies.

[Mack]

They just had to inforce them, i didnt know that. still thats why they inforced them heavily I would believe

They didnt have to enforce them, they relaxed them.

Your view arises from a 'counterfactual argument' proposed by opponents of gun control in the USA : that is a 'what if' reading of history changing certain facts then speculating on what would have happened. This argument required the fact of pre-existing gun controls to be ignored and replaced by the 'what if' of the Nazi introduction strict gun control to disarm and there-by weaken its opponents. The argument was intended to mirror the state of gun-control in the USA at the time and thus to promote the notion of the armed populace defending itself from state tyranny. So, the whole thing is a fallacy born of a mis-reading and mis-understanding of this 'counterfactual' ( the clue is there in the word) argument : it is not historical fact, it is fantasy.

What did you read if i may ask, i would like to see it. I do not doubt that the information I have read could be false.

[Mack]

one part of the usa currently is if someone managed to get past the army and into a city or something like that the usa's populace would probably be able to resist the invaders mostly if they came out into the country because well people around here have a ton of guns

Agreed, otherwise we would be chasing armies with pitchforks, axes and whatnot

what is the chance of a nation invading the US mainland? any idea what it takes to get an army lined up on her jump off points ready to execute a major invasion?

i hope that the US military are smarter than Napoleons colonels, they designed a defense line all along the border; Napoleon scoffed them for trying to stop smugglers. 'getting passed the army' is stuff for bad movies.

Not much, just time... no racial pun intended but look at how many Muslims are already here, which by the knowledge of the stuff ive read, some groups have declared war on America or the "West. how many illegal immigrants of any type are here.. imagine if a large rich group had a long-term plan

[Most Lee Harmless]

They just had to inforce them, i didnt know that. still thats why they inforced them heavily I would believe

They didnt have to enforce them, they relaxed them.

Your view arises from a 'counterfactual argument' proposed by opponents of gun control in the USA : that is a 'what if' reading of history changing certain facts then speculating on what would have happened. This argument required the fact of pre-existing gun controls to be ignored and replaced by the 'what if' of the Nazi introduction strict gun control to disarm and there-by weaken its opponents. The argument was intended to mirror the state of gun-control in the USA at the time and thus to promote the notion of the armed populace defending itself from state tyranny. So, the whole thing is a fallacy born of a mis-reading and mis-understanding of this 'counterfactual' ( the clue is there in the word) argument : it is not historical fact, it is fantasy.

What did you read if i may ask, i would like to see it. I do not doubt that the information I have read could be false.

There is a wiki on the subject, (google 'gun control germany 1933') but I was aware of pre-war German gun control laws from other reading on the subject. It is interesting as Europe as a whole tended to and still does restrict private firearms among the general population : but one must bear in mind that following WW1 there was widespread social upheaval, particularily in Germany which almost came to a general armed revolt, which was much more of a factor in European politics in the following years.

[Maha]

What did you read if i may ask, i would like to see it. I do not doubt that the information I have read could be false.

a simple search gives :P

Not much, just time... no racial pun intended but look at how many Muslims are already here, which by the knowledge of the stuff ive read, some groups have declared war on America or the "West. how many illegal immigrants of any type are here.. imagine if a large rich group had a long-term plan

we're talking about an army, not about terrorist attacks. and be careful to group all muslim together. most want to live quiet lives, i have lived among them. they're not so different! the few who are dangerous don't represent the quiet majority. don't force the peaceful muslim (take for example all the muslim who are so more out of tradition or upbringing rather than of deep felt personal commitment, just like the many secularized christians.) to defend themselves against a hating majority!

illegal immigrants as a long term plan for what? who or what can be behind such a longterm scheme????

Europe is flooded by immigrants as well. many risk their lives and the lives of their wives and children to reach Europe. they left jobs, home and family behinds to face an uncertain future. some rant that this is a muslim masterplan. but just look at why they are leaving; civil war at her brutest. the destruction of a (muslim) civilization in order to infiltrate Europe??? of course will terrorist try to enter europe disguised as refugees. to implement the weapon of the terrorist: fear! fear is a multiplier. fear is irrational and demands action. action that will benefit the terrorists.

in the US what is at stake? who is the real enemy and what can they do? who are not the enemy at the moment but can be pushed towards it by misplaced hostile reactions? who benefits from that?

it's often said that the US is founded on a dream, on ideals. Democracy at her finest! Yet it is forgotten that democracy is more than the rule of 50%+1. democracy only works when the majority defends the rights of the minority! with the growing polarization in the world the real victim will be the democratic form of governance!

[DezNutz]

what is the chance of a nation invading the US mainland? any idea what it takes to get an army lined up on her jump off points ready to execute a major invasion?

i hope that the US military are smarter than Napoleons colonels, they designed a defense line all along the border; Napoleon scoffed them for trying to stop smugglers. 'getting passed the army' is stuff for bad movies.

100%. It is happening currently. You don't need to be an armed military to invade a country. Subversion of a nation's border and laws by other means is still an invasion.