Ban democrats from owning guns

[Jacob/Lee]

~300 million civilians v ~2.5 million military personnel. Assuming we could find a way stop a tank/helicopter, we'd have a pretty damn good chance. There's a reason why quantity v quality tactics work well.

[Ad Bot]

[Counter98]

Oh yeah, because civilian weapons will really defend against our immense military. Some good logic there.

During the revolutionary war, the American patriots defeated the British, probably the strongest army in the world at the time, using ordinary hunting rifles that every man had access to. And guess what, they won!

[e-maxx]

And...? The point is that it is semi automatic. It will pump out lead as faster as your finger can press the trigger. A shotgun requires pumping, and a hunting rifle (bolt) requires you to rooster it, thus taking it more time to shoot.

Semi automatic weapons = faster killing
Manual/non semi automatic weapons = slower killing

My mistake in my previous comments--I meant to speak about semi automatic weapons overall, not just assault rifles.

NO
even if it is a semi automatic it still needs to go through the whole re-chambering cycle

~300 million civilians v ~2.5 million military personnel. Assuming we could find a way stop a tank/helicopter, we'd have a pretty damn good chance. There's a reason why quantity v quality tactics work well.

yeah 300 million minus the people who won't fight

but it could work

[Jacob/Lee]

During the revolutionary war, the American patriots defeated the British, probably the strongest army in the world at the time, using ordinary hunting rifles that every man had access to. And guess what, they won!

There was also an ocean separating us (fun fact: 400 years ago, oceans were unbelievably difficult obstacles that were expensive as forget to cross WITHOUT bringing armies of soldiers with you), which took about 3 months to cross, we knew the land well, and we picked up guerilla tactics eventually.

[Harm94]

~300 million civilians v ~2.5 million military personnel. Assuming we could find a way stop a tank/helicopter, we'd have a pretty damn good chance. There's a reason why quantity v quality tactics work well.

Tanks can be disabled with IED's. A moltov exploding on the back of the rear engine of an abrams can stop it. It could force the crew to abandon the vehicle and wait for a recovery team to take it back for repairs. Also only foolish officers send tanks into urban fights and I can go into more detail why its a bad idea to send a tank into an urban fight.

Helicopters like the huey and black hawk are vunerable to small arms fire. Looted M136 launchers could destroy an idle or low flying chopper. Apaches are tougher to crack. You'll need a stinger missle, 20mm anti-tank rifle, or a flak gun.

Also no no large group of soldiers would attack there country. Makes you wonder why the government wants to replace human soldiers with robots.

[Doomonkey]

Stop. The chart in the OP is blatantly false. Look at Louisiana, one of the worst murder rates by firearm in the country according to numerous 2011 data charts. Now according to the chart that was posted, it has a low crime rate. Doesn't add up.
http://flowingdata.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/underload-26d.png
http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2011/jan/10/gun-crime-us-state

Murder rates don't correlate directly to violent crime rates. According to the United States census, Kentucky has significantly more murders per person than Louisiana. However, their total violent crime rate per person is less than half that of Louisiana's.

[Wynd_Fox]

Makes you wonder why the government wants to replace human soldiers with robots.

So fewer of our people will be slain.

[Jacob/Lee]

So fewer of our people will be slain.

We know how that'll turn out.

[Funkadelic]

I'm loving done with this argument. You're just too stubborn to realize that nobody needs their goddamn assault rifles/semi automatic weapons to defend a house. People just want to keep their god damn guns so they can have fun shooting them. Well sometime you gotta wake up to reality and see that guns can blow innocent children to bits in the matter of minutes.

[Harm94]

I'm loving done with this argument. You're just too stubborn to realize that nobody needs their goddamn assault rifles/semi automatic weapons to defend a house. People just want to keep their god damn guns so they can have fun shooting them. Well sometime you gotta wake up to reality and see that guns can blow innocent children to bits in the matter of minutes.

People who hate guns are just as stubborn. I make sure my stuff is locked away and child proof. Also quoted incase you come back.

So fewer of our people will be slain.

Or be cause robot will do what you say against there will?

[Funkadelic]

People who hate guns are just as stubborn. I make sure my stuff is locked away and child proof. Also quoted incase you come back.

Why would you quote when I'm not going to edit it? (I'm not part of the argument, this is just a question)

[Wynd_Fox]

Or be cause robot will do what you say against there will?

Really? You think that's why?!
Wait, are you kidding? I can't tell.

[Harm94]

Why would you quote when I'm not going to edit it? (I'm not part of the argument, this is just a question)

Just incase you do decide to come back.

Really? You think that's why?!
Wait, are you kidding? I can't tell.

Well you see inanimate objects have no mind.
Computer! Look for some research for me!
Computer: No bitch, I'm tired!

[Wynd_Fox]

No, no, I understood your point. I just find it unlikely that that's the primary motivation.

[Fredulus]

No, no, I understood your point. I just find it unlikely that that's the primary motivation.

of course it isn't the motivation lol
unless you're a conspiracy theorist. then, yes, 9/11 was an inside job, obama is a terrorist, and the government wants robot soldiers so they can slaughter civilians