Motioncorey wrote

Iion wrote See how it goes when you try to some karate kick with a guy with a gun and you are unarmed.

Okay so when they see me reach for my gun, I'll have a better chance at surviving

Take a look at this.



Now I know that not everyone is going to be as fast as that. But if you practice, you can have a pretty good draw time. I am not positive about this, but I think when you go and get a ccw, during your training, you practice your draw time. And many people who have a ccw, practice their draw times.

Your not going to want to be like this guy...


But you should wait for your chance.

Still not home but charger my phone.

There will always be people who hate firearms and blame them for murders and blame them for crime but at the end of the day, there is someone behind That firearm with bad intentions. The firearm doesn't think or feel or act. It's an object and just like every other object in life. It requires a human to operate. Firearms are not the problem, people are.

Do you know how many times I've stopped someone for a traffic violation and they are conceal carry citizens. About 75% of my stops are. The citizens are always polite and inform me that they are currently carrying. Only the criminals try to hide weapons and commit crimes.

Now I'm not one for calling people out but you know Tywin or someone else will comment and say that other countries with firearms banned are so peaceful, blah
Blah blah. At the end of the day, if the police are not present. The only line of defense is a firearm.

Let me give you an example. There is a portion of my county that's about 30 minutes off the state highway and there is a small community there with no local police meaning me, the sheriffs office is their police. So let's say Mrs. Tech game was sleeping and someone broke into her house, right? She calls 911 and says she needs help because someone is on her house.

By the time the dispatcher routes the call to the switch station and it's forwarded to an officer in the field and they respond. It could take 10-15 minutes to respond at a safe speed for an officer

Now someone with combat experience, 10-15 minutes in a life or death situation is a very serious amount of time. So let's say Mrs techgame is waiting for the police to arrive and the suspect finds her and kills her or rapes her.

BUT because she was allowed to own a firearm she was able to defend herself until the police arrive.

THAT is why firearms are legal for citizens to carry. The citizens of our country have the right to protect themselves against all enemies foreign and domestic and protect their property at all costs.

Now liberals can spew all this political bullshit and say guns are bad. But I have this simple question for liberal senators and politicians, if firearms are so bad, why do you have 15 body guards who all carry one? Why not give them OC spray since the east coast can only legally use that outside their home to defend themselves.

Glock wrote Now liberals can spew all this political bullshit and say guns are bad. But I have this simple question for liberal senators and politicians, if firearms are so bad, why do you have 15 body guards who all carry one? Why not give them OC spray since the east coast can only legally use that outside their home to defend themselves.

Nobody ever said that a pepper spray was more effective for disabling or killing a person than a gun. Guns were originally made by the Chinese in 1000 AD for the purpose of battle and that's where they're most effective. Killing other people.

A bodyguard is a trusted personnel who should be allowed to carry a gun because the majority of the time they know what they're doing and they usually don't bring the gun home with them.

Not to mention that bodyguards also carry batons, tasers and pepper spray. Not every bodyguard carries a gun and it mainly depends on the laws of the country they're in. A gun is a last resort and should only be used if necessary.

Now onto the topic,

Guns can be really useful or extremely harmful depending on who's using them and for what reason. If you want to kill another human being then they're incredible and extremely effective.

I don't see personal target practice or shooting as a legitimate reason to own guns because that can easilly be done at a legitimate gun club or at home with airsoft weapons with the exact same effect. There's so many other sports that are both safer and more cost effective like archery or knife throwing as opposed to shooting real weapons.

This topic could go on for days but I'll leave it here. Statistically, countries with less/no guns are safer and less violent. This whole guns don't kill people is bullshit. Otherwise every other country would have a crime rate as high as America which they clearly don't.

The main reason that Americans don't want guns banned or more control is because they believe that the rights will be taken away or that it will infringe their second ammendment.

In my opinion, everyone's right to life by nature is more important a piece of paper written by humans that says everyone should be allowed to bear arms without any infringement. The second ammendment is broken all the time if you consider the amount of people who are denied gun ownership or that almost nobody is allowed a fully automatic weapon. I'm not going to go too much detail with the constitution being written in a time where an Indian with a bow could fire thirty arrows in the same time that a man could fire and reload his musket once. Guns in those days weren't mass killing machines like they are now.

It's also laughable to believe that armed citizens could actually defend themselves against their government that has tanks, gas, aircraft and so on. As I said before, the constitution was written in a time where the government and the people were relatively equal in terms of weapons. However, that's certainly not the case today.

I don't want to get into another argument like other threads, this is just my opinion on the matter. This is an interesting topic but also extremely lengthy and there's thousands of different points and discussions for both the pros and cons of guns.

Motivational wrote

Glock wrote Now liberals can spew all this political bullshit and say guns are bad. But I have this simple question for liberal senators and politicians, if firearms are so bad, why do you have 15 body guards who all carry one? Why not give them OC spray since the east coast can only legally use that outside their home to defend themselves.

Nobody ever said that a pepper spray was more effective for disabling or killing a person than a gun. Guns were originally made by the Chinese in 1000 AD for the purpose of battle and that's where they're most effective. Killing other people.

A bodyguard is a trusted personnel who should be allowed to carry a gun because the majority of the time they know what they're doing and they usually don't bring the gun home with them.

Not to mention that bodyguards also carry batons, tasers and pepper spray. Not every bodyguard carries a gun and it mainly depends on the laws of the country they're in. A gun is a last resort and should only be used if necessary.

Now onto the topic,

Guns can be really useful or extremely harmful depending on who's using them and for what reason. If you want to kill another human being then they're incredible and extremely effective.

I don't see personal target practice or shooting as a legitimate reason to own guns because that can easilly be done at a legitimate gun club or at home with airsoft weapons with the exact same effect. There's so many other sports that are both safer and more cost effective like archery or knife throwing as opposed to shooting real weapons.

This topic could go on for days but I'll leave it here. Statistically, countries with less/no guns are safer and less violent. This whole guns don't kill people is bullshit. Otherwise every other country would have a crime rate as high as America which they clearly don't.

The main reason that Americans don't want guns banned or more control is because they believe that the rights will be taken away or that it will infringe their second ammendment.

In my opinion, everyone's right to life by nature is more important a piece of paper written by humans that says everyone should be allowed to bear arms without any infringement. The second ammendment is broken all the time if you consider the amount of people who are denied gun ownership or that almost nobody is allowed a fully automatic weapon. I'm not going to go too much detail with the constitution being written in a time where an Indian with a bow could fire thirty arrows in the same time that a man could fire and reload his musket once. Guns in those days weren't mass killing machines like they are now.

It's also laughable to believe that armed citizens could actually defend themselves against their government that has tanks, gas, aircraft and so on. As I said before, the constitution was written in a time where the government and the people were relatively equal in terms of weapons. However, that's certainly not the case today.

I don't want to get into another argument like other threads, this is just my opinion on the matter. This is an interesting topic but also extremely lengthy and there's thousands of different points and discussions for both the pros and cons of guns.

Okay, with all due respect. You have no idea what you are talking about. I made the reference about the east coast and OC spray because in my home town of NJ and in NY and most states along the east coast do not allow knives, tasers or any other instrument for self defense besides OC or pepper spray.

Also, the body guards I am referring to are politicians not some body guard for Justin Bieber.

Body guards for politicians are either private or secret service. Both parties carry firearms.

I'm working so I cannot respond to you fully.

Motivational wrote

Glock wrote Now liberals can spew all this political bullshit and say guns are bad. But I have this simple question for liberal senators and politicians, if firearms are so bad, why do you have 15 body guards who all carry one? Why not give them OC spray since the east coast can only legally use that outside their home to defend themselves.

Nobody ever said that a pepper spray was more effective for disabling or killing a person than a gun. Guns were originally made by the Chinese in 1000 AD for the purpose of battle and that's where they're most effective. Killing other people.

A bodyguard is a trusted personnel who should be allowed to carry a gun because the majority of the time they know what they're doing and they usually don't bring the gun home with them.

Not to mention that bodyguards also carry batons, tasers and pepper spray. Not every bodyguard carries a gun and it mainly depends on the laws of the country they're in. A gun is a last resort and should only be used if necessary.

Now onto the topic,

Guns can be really useful or extremely harmful depending on who's using them and for what reason. If you want to kill another human being then they're incredible and extremely effective.

I don't see personal target practice or shooting as a legitimate reason to own guns because that can easilly be done at a legitimate gun club or at home with airsoft weapons with the exact same effect. There's so many other sports that are both safer and more cost effective like archery or knife throwing as opposed to shooting real weapons.

This topic could go on for days but I'll leave it here. Statistically, countries with less/no guns are safer and less violent. This whole guns don't kill people is bullshit. Otherwise every other country would have a crime rate as high as America which they clearly don't.

The main reason that Americans don't want guns banned or more control is because they believe that the rights will be taken away or that it will infringe their second ammendment.

In my opinion, everyone's right to life by nature is more important a piece of paper written by humans that says everyone should be allowed to bear arms without any infringement. The second ammendment is broken all the time if you consider the amount of people who are denied gun ownership or that almost nobody is allowed a fully automatic weapon. I'm not going to go too much detail with the constitution being written in a time where an Indian with a bow could fire thirty arrows in the same time that a man could fire and reload his musket once. Guns in those days weren't mass killing machines like they are now.

It's also laughable to believe that armed citizens could actually defend themselves against their government that has tanks, gas, aircraft and so on. As I said before, the constitution was written in a time where the government and the people were relatively equal in terms of weapons. However, that's certainly not the case today.

I don't want to get into another argument like other threads, this is just my opinion on the matter. This is an interesting topic but also extremely lengthy and there's thousands of different points and discussions for both the pros and cons of guns.

Body guards usually take their stuff home with them, at least in the US and the people I've talked to anyways. Anyway, what I really want to talk about is what I have highlighted in red and striked out.

Honduras, El savador, Jamaica, Venezuela, Guatemala, South Africa, Columbia, Brazil, etc. the list goes on and on. These are countries that have low gun ownership, yet extremely high homicide rates. Paraguay has less than half the guns as America, yet double the homicide rates. South Africa has less guns than Paraguay, yet double the homicides. I'm also talking in terms of per 100 people as some of these places are much larger than others.

Guns do not kill people, anyone who says otherwise is an idiot. Sorry not sorry, but they are. A gun cannot walk on its own and fire into a crowd. A human has to do that.

As far as the military vs the people, we have almost 319 million citizens of the US. As of 31 December 2013, 1,369,532 people were on active duty in the armed forces, with an additional 850,880 people in the seven reserve components. This puts the military at a HUGE dis advantage, not to mention that if they get the orders to fire on US citizens, do you think all of them will, or will some of them say no to that order? Also, US citizens have tanks, gas, humvees, etc.

Motivational wrote A bodyguard is a trusted personnel who should be allowed to carry a gun because the majority of the time they know what they're doing and they usually don't bring the gun home with them.

What makes them trusted? Every American has to get a permit to carry concealed, and different states have different laws on open carry. But what makes them trusted?

And many security guards take guns home with them. Where did you get those "statistics" from?

Not to mention that bodyguards also carry batons, tasers and pepper spray.

That is true.

A gun is a last resort and should only be used if necessary.

In some cases sure. Maybe something like a drunk guy trying to start a fight or something like that.

But in cases where someone's house is getting broken into. You normally do not know what they are going to do or what they have. At that point, I am not going to risk my life for what they are going to do. Are they just going to break in to my house and rob me? Or are they planning on killing me? In either case, they can catch some lead.

If you can difuse the situation without a gun, then that is great. But in many cases, that is not what can happen.

I don't see personal target practice or shooting as a legitimate reason to own guns because that can easilly be done at a legitimate gun club or at home with airsoft weapons with the exact same effect.

Exact same effect?

What airsoft gun can replicate that?

And even if they are done at a legitimate gun club, they are still shooting guns.

While airsoft is cool and all, it is not the same as guns.

There's so many other sports that are both safer and more cost effective like archery or knife throwing as opposed to shooting real weapons.

It is not always about the cost. And guns can be safe. It is the person that is using it. If you take the right precautions, then there should be almost no reason as to why someone would get shot.

And can you explain why archery and knife throwing is safer than guns? All of them can kill you.

This whole guns don't kill people is bullshit.

Technically bullets kill people. I get what you mean. But guns do not kill people on their own. It takes a person to shoot the gun.

The main reason that Americans don't want guns banned or more control is because they believe that the rights will be taken away or that it will infringe their second ammendment.

That is true. But for some, a gun is their only defense. For some guns are what allows them to put food on the table.

The second ammendment is broken all the time if you consider the amount of people who are denied gun ownership or that almost nobody is allowed a fully automatic weapon.

Is everybody allowed to own a fully automatic gun? No. But most law abiding citizens could go through all of the work to get one. The reason that a lot of people do not own them is because people have to go through a lot of work and they are expensive.

It's also laughable to believe that armed citizens could actually defend themselves against their government that has tanks, gas, aircraft and so on. As I said before, the constitution was written in a time where the government and the people were relatively equal in terms of weapons. However, that's certainly not the case today.

We have already went over this. The people are stronger than you think. We have tanks, guns, aircraft, etc. And the government is not going to just go and bomb cities. Why would they destroy the same place that they are trying to control? And many people who are in the military and police force, are pro gun. They are not just going to follow the leader.

002 wrote Honduras, El savador, Jamaica, Venezuela, Guatemala, South Africa, Columbia, Brazil, etc. the list goes on and on. These are countries that have low gun ownership, yet extremely high homicide rates. Paraguay has less than half the guns as America, yet double the homicide rates. South Africa has less guns than Paraguay, yet double the homicides. I'm also talking in terms of per 100 people as some of these places are much larger than others.

Oh no, please tell me that you didn't just compare some of the poorest countries in the world, where the majority of the population is living in poverty and has no option but to steal and commit crimes as a means of survival, to first world countries?

Do you not understand that comparing a country like South Africa which is completely ruined, filled with corruption, poverty, terrible resouce management and racism to the most powerful country in the world is blatantly stupid? Of course South Africa is going to have worse crime rates, it's a mess of a country. This is even worse than you trying to compare Switzerland to the UK.

I was reffering to first world and second world countries like the UK, Russia, Japan, China etc. America has by far the worst gun crimes from them and they also have the most leniant gun laws.

Guns don't kill people but they're used by people to kill people and without them, killing someone is a lot harder. Take away the guns and you take away the easiest way to kill someone. It's an almost hilarious argument, it's like me saying that sarin gas is harmless and doesn't kill people, people breathe the gas in and they die. It's not the sarin gases fault, it's the idiots that decide to breathe it in. Make sarin gas legal, it's harmless.

002 wrote Guns do not kill people, anyone who says otherwise is an idiot. Sorry not sorry, but they are. A gun cannot walk on its own and fire into a crowd. A human has to do that.

As far as the military vs the people, we have almost 319 million citizens of the US. As of 31 December 2013, 1,369,532 people were on active duty in the armed forces, with an additional 850,880 people in the seven reserve components. This puts the military at a HUGE dis advantage, not to mention that if they get the orders to fire on US citizens, do you think all of them will, or will some of them say no to that order? Also, US citizens have tanks, gas, humvees, etc.

If you government wanted to destroy the people it would be ridiculously easy. They would simply line the army up with gas masks and tell them that it's a practice drill and then drop sarin gas or any other type of gas that's deadly into all the villages and cities. The majority of people don't have gas masks and would be killed. Or about thirty or forty tanks could go in and nobody would be able to stop them.

And don't try and say that U.S. soldiers wouldn't do it, do you not remember the Nazis and WW2? They listened to Hitler and putting people into concentration camps and torturing, starving and gassing them is a lot worse than simply dropping gas or blowing stuff up in a tank.

I know that Cioran has used the sarin gas argument before but it's the most poisonous gas and that's the only reason I'm using it as an example.

Motivational wrote Guns don't kill people but they're used by people to kill people and without them, killing someone is a lot harder. Take away the guns and you take away the easiest way to kill someone. It's an almost hilarious argument, it's like me saying that sarin gas is harmless and doesn't kill people, people breathe the gas in and they die. It's not the sarin gases fault, it's the idiots that decide to breathe it in. Make sarin gas legal, it's harmless.

Getting rid of guns will stop gun violence, there is no reason to argue other wise. But getting rid of guns will not stop crime.

If you government wanted to destroy the people it would be ridiculously easy.

If the government wanted to kill everybody and destroy America, then I am sure that they could do it very easily.

They would simply line the army up with gas masks and tell them that it's a practice drill and then drop sarin gas or any other type of gas that's deadly into all the villages and cities.

That does not make sense. Why would the government go through all of this trouble? What would they end up with? A whole bunch of dead bodies and destroyed towns.

The majority of people don't have gas masks and would be killed. Or about thirty or forty tanks could go in and nobody would be able to stop them.

Just because you have a tank, does not mean that you are invincible.

And don't try and say that U.S. soldiers wouldn't do it, do you not remember the Nazis and WW2? They listened to Hitler and putting people into concentration camps and torturing, starving and gassing them is a lot worse than simply dropping gas or blowing stuff up in a tank.

you have to remember that most german soldiers didn't. the ones that did were SS troopers, who weren't even soldiers in the strictest sense. the SS were a private militia of the Nazi party, political fanatics who had spent years being propagandised into thinking that these 'innocents' were the enemy looking to enslave their country and that they would be the ones to make Germany great again. you lump all that together and then put them in position where a person in authority is ordering you to do these things. well theres only one realistic outcome.

[ Register or Signin to view external links. ]

The nazis really believed what they were doing was right. They were brainwashed.
And anyone who did not believe in what they were doing was killed.

I could not find any statistics about how many people in the military support guns. But the number has to be very high assuming that some of their jobs require using guns.

If the soldiers do not believe in what they are doing, then why would they do it? Maybe they would, if they were forced to. But assuming that a majority of the military is pro-gun, they would not carry out the orders.

Lets take guns for example. Since you do not like guns, would you vote for guns to have less restrictions on them in the U.S.? No, you do not agree with it.

Motivational wrote Guns don't kill people but they're used by people to kill people and without them, killing someone is a lot harder. Take away the guns and you take away the easiest way to kill someone. It's an almost hilarious argument, it's like me saying that sarin gas is harmless and doesn't kill people, people breathe the gas in and they die. It's not the sarin gases fault, it's the idiots that decide to breathe it in. Make sarin gas legal, it's harmless.

Continuous wrote Getting rid of guns will stop gun violence, there is no reason to argue other wise. But getting rid of guns will not stop crime.

How did you reply with that response after reading my paragraph? Where did I even mention gun violence or gun crime? This is the exact reason I stopped replying in the other thread, you literally just keep replying with pointless and off-topic responses, to posts that aren't directed towards you and using your opinion as some sort of valid point.

When did I say that it would stop crime? Nobody thinks that banning guns is going to completely stop crime, obviously not. It will however, significantly lower crime and eliminate gun violence completely. See Japan or China if you want evidence.

Motivational wrote If your government wanted to destroy the people it would be ridiculously easy.

Continuous wrote If the government wanted to kill everybody and destroy America, then I am sure that they could do it very easily.

Why did you even comment that? You just repeated my post back to me but changed it so that it was wrong. Where did you conclude that the U.S. government could very easily kill everyone? Do you know how quick America would be nuked from every country if it so much as fired a single nuke? America wouldn't be able to fight the whole world.

This is seriously the most pointless thing I've ever read on TTG. Just my same post repeated back to me and changed to be wrong for the sole reason of making your reply look bigger.

Motivational wrote They would simply line the army up with gas masks and tell them that it's a practice drill and then drop sarin gas or any other type of gas that's deadly into all the villages and cities.

Continuous wrote That does not make sense. Why would the government go through all of this trouble? What would they end up with? A whole bunch of dead bodies and destroyed towns.

You've just proven my point exactly. The American government isn't going to attack you, so why is the second amendment so important? It's completely based around the idea that the people can defend themselves if they're attacked by the government, but we all know that it doesn't matter if you have guns or not, you're still going to be killed and the government will

Motivational wrote The majority of people don't have gas masks and would be killed. Or about thirty or forty tanks could go in and nobody would be able to stop them.

Continuous wrote Just because you have a tank, does not mean that you are invincible.

Yet again, completely pointless and off-topic reply.

I never mentioned a single tank, I said thirty or forty tanks. The key words are thirty and forty. One tank is not invincible, neither is thirty or forty because I actually never said that tanks are invincible? No idea where you got the word invincible from.

The average person is not stopping a tank. It's a simple as that. Sure, if you had grenades and missile launchers then you could try but the average citizen doesn't.

Motivational wrote And don't try and say that U.S. soldiers wouldn't do it, do you not remember the Nazis and WW2? They listened to Hitler and putting people into concentration camps and torturing, starving and gassing them is a lot worse than simply dropping gas or blowing stuff up in a tank.

you have to remember that most german soldiers didn't. the ones that did were SS troopers, who weren't even soldiers in the strictest sense. the SS were a private militia of the Nazi party, political fanatics who had spent years being propagandised into thinking that these 'innocents' were the enemy looking to enslave their country and that they would be the ones to make Germany great again. you lump all that together and then put them in position where a person in authority is ordering you to do these things. well theres only one realistic outcome.

[ Register or Signin to view external links. ]

Continuous wrote The nazis really believed what they were doing was right. They were brainwashed. And anyone who did not believe in what they were doing was killed.

No. They said that in court so they wouldn't be killed after the war. That's the first thing you say if you're about to be charged with war crimes, put the blame on the person above you and say that they told you that you'd be killed if you didn't follow their orders. The majority of the officers who were executed tried this tactic too and were killed because it obviously wan't true.

Did you seriously just use Quora as a source too? You know that it's just a message board like this were people ask questions and other people try their best to answer them? That's not a legitimate source, it's completely biased and opinionated.

Continuous wrote I could not find any statistics about how many people in the military support guns. But the number has to be very high assuming that some of their jobs require using guns.

What has this got to do with anything and when did I say that people in the military don't like guns? I've said that guns should be used in the military, they are after all perfect killing machines.

Continuous wrote If the soldiers do not believe in what they are doing, then why would they do it? Maybe they would, if they were forced to. But assuming that a majority of the military is pro-gun, they would not carry out the orders.

I genuinely have no idea what you're talking about. The government turning on the people has nothing to do with being pro-gun or anti-gun.

As I said, they obviously wouldn't be told that the plan was to kill everyone. Only the most powerful people would know and the average soldiers would think that it was a training drill. My point was simply that the second amendment is completely irreverent because we don't live in a time where the government and the people are equal anymore.

Motivational wrote How did you reply with that response after reading my paragraph? Where did I even mention gun violence or gun crime?

You did not. But since you want to get rid of guns, I replied with that.

This is the exact reason I stopped replying in the other thread, you literally just keep replying with pointless and off-topic responses, to posts that aren't directed towards you and using your opinion as some sort of valid point.

Just because your response was not directed at me, does not mean that I can't respond to it. It was not pointless.

It is not a opinion. Research has shown that places like the UK has even more crime then America, but yet they have very strict gun laws.

When did I say that it would stop crime? Nobody thinks that banning guns is going to completely stop crime, obviously not. It will however, significantly lower crime and eliminate gun violence completely. See Japan or China if you want evidence.

Let me restate what I just said...
"Research has shown that places like the UK has even more crime then America, but yet they have very strict gun laws."
[ Register or Signin to view external links. ]
[ Register or Signin to view external links. ]

You just tried to attack me because of my opinions. When you just stated your opinion. Actually that was not even a opinion, it was a lie.

Why did you even comment that? You just repeated my post back to me but changed it so that it was wrong. Where did you conclude that the U.S. government could very easily kill everyone? Do you know how quick America would be nuked from every country if it so much as fired a single nuke? America wouldn't be able to fight the whole world.

You took what I said out of context. What I meant was "If the government wanted to kill everybody IN AMERICA and destroy America, then I am sure that they could do it very easily. "

I said this so that you do not keep using that excuse. The government is not going to just destroy America. There is no point is destroying the whole country. It would cause pointless damage. But if that is what they wanted to do, then they could do it.

This is seriously the most pointless thing I've ever read on TTG. Just my same post repeated back to me and changed to be wrong for the sole reason of making your reply look bigger.

That one statement was just part of my response. It was not to make the response longer. It was me telling you that if the government wanted to kill America and its people, that they could, but that is not what they would do.

You've just proven my point exactly. The American government isn't going to attack you,

Just because the government is not going to gas the country, does not mean that they are not going to try and take our guns.

so why is the second amendment so important?

The second amendment is what allows us to keep and bear arms.

It's completely based around the idea that the people can defend themselves if they're attacked by the government, but we all know that it doesn't matter if you have guns or not, you're still going to be killed and the government will

That is something that may or may not happen. We will not know what happens until it happens.

Motivational wrote The majority of people don't have gas masks and would be killed. Or about thirty or forty tanks could go in and nobody would be able to stop them.

Continuous wrote Just because you have a tank, does not mean that you are invincible.

Yet again, completely pointless and off-topic reply.

You said that if 30-40 tanks went in, that nobody would be able to stop them. I said that tanks are not invincible. How is that off topic?

I never mentioned a single tank, I said thirty or forty tanks. The key words are thirty and forty. One tank is not invincible, neither is thirty or forty because I actually never said that tanks are invincible? No idea where you got the word invincible from.

You did not use the word invincible, but that is basically what you meant. You said that nobody would be able to stop them.

The average person is not stopping a tank. It's a simple as that. Sure, if you had grenades and missile launchers then you could try but the average citizen doesn't.

It only takes one person to make a IED. And it only takes one IED to blow up a tank.

No. They said that in court so they wouldn't be killed after the war. That's the first thing you say if you're about to be charged with war crimes, put the blame on the person above you and say that they told you that you'd be killed if you didn't follow their orders. The majority of the officers who were executed tried this tactic too and were killed because it obviously wan't true.

How is it not true? The whole point of propaganda is to change someones views. And Hitler was very effective at this.

Take North Korea for example. We few kim jong un as a horrible person. But his citizens view him as a god. This is because of propaganda. He is a dictator and bans all of these things, and kills people who do not agree with him. But his people still like him, because they have been brainwashed.

And the whole "put the blame on the person above you and say that they told you that you'd be killed if you didn't follow their orders" is completely possible. Hitlers army killed 6 million jews, why would they have any trouble killing a few more people?

Did you seriously just use Quora as a source too? You know that it's just a message board like this were people ask questions and other people try their best to answer them? That's not a legitimate source, it's completely biased and opinionated.

That is like saying that Wikipedia is not a source because people can change it. I used it as a source, because it was not my words. I should have worded it as a citation. I could have gone and found a "legitimate" source, but I felt like that person has a very well worded statement.

And this obviously did not apply to everyone, but for the majority of them, they would be killed for not obeying.

And besides what makes a source legitimate? Because it is posted on a big news network? I could go and find many different people and sources who have said the same thing as the person who I quoted.

It is like me saying that guns have stopped millions of crimes. Does that mean that because I said it, that it is not a "legitimate" fact? No. I am just restating what others have said. The same goes for the person that I quoted.

Continuous wrote I could not find any statistics about how many people in the military support guns. But the number has to be very high assuming that some of their jobs require using guns.

What has this got to do with anything and when did I say that people in the military don't like guns? I've said that guns should be used in the military, they are after all perfect killing machines.

It was just part of my response, you should have read the rest.

I genuinely have no idea what you're talking about. The government turning on the people has nothing to do with being pro-gun or anti-gun.

What I am trying to say is that if people do not agree with something, then they are not going to do it. And since a good majority of the government is pro-gun, they are not going to help the government get rid of guns.

As I said, they obviously wouldn't be told that the plan was to kill everyone. Only the most powerful people would know and the average soldiers would think that it was a training drill.

Unless you are "special", you can tell the difference between bombing your country and a drill.

And most of the people who are high up in the military started at the bottom. They worked there way up. They can still have the same view and have a high ranking position.

My point was simply that the second amendment is completely irreverent because we don't live in a time where the government and the people are equal anymore.

And that is your opinion. How can you try to attack me because I use my opinion, when you do the same thing.

Most of your response was you talking about how do not understand what I said or how you do not think it is relevant. It is complete bs. You are trying to discredit my statements because you do not agree with them. You try and act like I am not making sense.