How soon you'd change your drum beat if your government rounded you up and lined you up to be exterminated. This has happened many times through out recorded history. I'm sure the victims or their families, survivors, or anyone that lived through a horrific event like that had escape, self preservation, or murder on their mind. Go through a life/death experience by the will of the same people you trust to protect you and your views on self perservation or the preparation for it will change. If you think your government or any government is free from many forms of corruption, genocide, or putting your life in danger one only needs to look at history. If we can go 1000 years without an event like this I'd might change my mind. But we can't even go one human life cycle with out this treatment found throughout the world. Laugh at those that know the real world or prepare for a possible day when theirs could be turned up side down, but I bet you wouldn't be laughing if you were dragged from your home by your own government and marched into a death camp with no means of doing anything about it. I'm glad everything is fine for you now, but if you think the world is on any sort of upworld spiral you're sadly mistaken.

I almost feel sorry for the amount of trust you put into people whos only true interest is money and power. That's exactly why big business and banks run the world. That's exactly why decisions in government are hardly ever based on their moral implications but instead on their financial ones. That's why 9 out of every 10 people in a power position got there because of their ties to big business, big oil, or family/political power ties. It has absolutely nothing to do with what you are hoping to achieve. And if you think those that have been bread to be a congressman from birth, grew up having the maid clean their room, paid other people to do their homework/studies while attending any ivy league school, etc., know anything about the common man, you have really got to be kidding yourself. There is no such thing as democracy anywhere in the world. You can vote all you want, but you're voting for the person or people that were put in that position to be voted for in the 1st place. I think a typical presidential campaign is on the verge of 200 million dollars now. In other words, it's big brother and the boys club running the show. It's always been this way and continues to get worse.

I'm not saying that people need to round up an arsenal or any of that jazz, but if your government won't let you own a gun there's a very big problem. The other thing is the US was founded upon that principle. When the colonists sent the brits packing, much of the fighting was done by the average man and his own weapons. That has been pounded into our heads since we could walk. That's kinda what America is all about, the roots of it if you will. We fled to get out of the that in Europe. We will not be oppressed by any form of government especially our own without being able to have the right to own weapons that your government has.

Indeed lol. Thank god i found out, i always suspected there Was something amiss with my dear country :). No worries nearmiss, i am out of herr too, the last few posts kinda killed the discussion. Nite folks

Owning a handgun or AR15 would not stop the military or a SWAT team. If they want to get you, they will...

Your military is made up of the sons and daughters of its citizens. We'd have a nice discussion with our kids about what's going on and and believe me...we parents would flip'em. Then the hunter becomes the hunted.

These are their moms and dads that they'd be asked to perform such deeds upon. A foreign Army would be considered an invasion which is in entirely different matter.

But to round up their own...

Right, I would really like the anti-gun folks to answer this simple question:

You accept the fact that the majority of law abiding gun owners are not criminals nor do any harm to anybody with their guns, yet there is a small percentage of them who in most case don't turn out to be suitable for gun ownership due to medical/psychological conditions and kill others, so to you the best solution is to ban guns or regulate them even more strictly in order to avoid bad things would happen again, is that right?

According to your theory then what shall we do about Muslims? Yes, the majority are cool, but a small percentage of them, even in our own countries, have turned out to be terrorists or linked to them. Shall we follow the same logic just because a small minority is criminal? Shall we ban Islam and Muslims from our countries?

I don't wanna get in a religious debate here, all Im trying to say is that your gun banning theory is one step further towards a regime, maybe one with no guns,but surely not a safer nor a more free one. Don't you really think that your diversity and/or lack of interest/knowledge on the matter,fuelled by the government fear mongers, is just not enough of a valid reason to instate a ban that in reality won't solve problems?

It's like saying "hey, we don't like gingers because **paste here any ridiculous reason made up specifically** let's get rid of 'em!", still sounds like that place in Europe in the early 30s..

You either didn't read a thing I said or entirely missed the point of it. I never said 1 person could take on any sort of swap team let alone the military.

Very basic military strategy is based on the opposition's armed forces. The population level hardly comes into play (unless it's the US) - only the strength of the weapons and the numbers/amounts of people in the military of that particular country. That is why you could get 20,000 of the Jewish to board a train with only 100 Nazi's overseeing the entire operation. That's why the military doesn't base it's amount of troops for a conflict on the size of the population only the size of it's military.

Because of this strategy, unarmed, helpless civilians can be herded like cattle with relative ease - as was clearly demonstrated with Nazi Germany during WWII. To break it down even further. Just for numbers sake (I'm not going to be bothered to give exact numbers) but lets say Nazi Germany had a military of 500,000 strong. Easily 350,000 of those troops would be near the front lines far spread out. The rest is left to logistical, medical, sustainment etc., of anything from command, to resupply, to maintaining Auschwitz etc, etc., etc.,.. That's pretty standard military operation during any sort of conflict.

Now take the number of population of countries over ran with such a seemingly small amount of troops staggered throughout Europe and then take into consideration the amount of people in the millions that couldn't do anything.

Now take that 100 person swat team you talked about earlier. Now go ahead and try to round up 20,000 of the Jewish when all 20,000 of them have guns. You soon realize, as a military strategist, that this isn't gonna work to well. You soon realize you're going to need many more people to get the same job done. By doing that you also soon realize that this pulls resources from other areas of conflict where you may need them the most. Then you soon realize the sheer amount of resources required to maintain let alone achieve your mission has gone through the roof. Now you need 10x the ammunition, 10x the fuel, 10x the bombs, 10x the tanks, and 10x the manpower to put up with the once unable to do anything population that is helpless and isn't even included in your military strategy as a real threat compared to the now millions of people taking on your military of 500,000. That's what happens when citizens are armed. That's why any sort of military strategy to invade the US would be suicide, and that's why it's one of the few countries if at all, that has never in it's life had any sort of attempt at an invasion. Our military is big enough. But you invade us, you'd have majority of the country doing it's part as well.

You may think "what a crock" or I'm full of BS. But it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out just how powerful numbers are. Especially those that are armed. People didn't just walk into the gas chambers on their own free will. That armed weapon pointed at their head does a hell of a lot of convincing.



Edit: @ EZ - I don't really consider the war of 1812 an invasion. Most of the fighting occurred on the water or in water ways close to the coastal areas. There was obviously fighting on land but they didn't exactly make it very far ;) I would consider Iraq an invasion as we setup military bases where ever we needed them throughout the entire country. I guess I should have worded my response differently.

Lets see here each person with a weapon has 100 rounds. And since that is a multiplying factor ... wait a second this is a trick question!

yea you are right...we might as well submit to the nearest authority...resistance is useless...why bother standing up for what is right....why bother standing up for ones inherent rights...lets trade our dignity and freedom for a false sense of security....

the japanese did not even think about doing any thing to mainland usa, because they feared and rightly so that their was "an american with a gun behind every blade of grass"

but yea the people can just rely on some authority to keep them safe...move along....

ahem.. Don't forget 200 years ago, to the year. (The War of 1812)
I'm from Canada btw ;)

You have some valid points... except for the last couple of words you posted.

@ ATAG Bliss (#356)...

and pretty much what happened in Iraq/ Vietnam