A LITTLE GUN HISTORY
Jul 28, 2012 08:49:30 #
You have got to be kidding!!!!!!! This president has done more TO the military than any other President.
Jul 28, 2012 09:03:34 #
Huey driver you are 110 percent correct...Just check out our neighbors to the South...The mexican cartels would not be near as strong if the populace were armed....I know..I live there about 5 months/year...
Jul 28, 2012 09:04:03 #
[quote=Huey Driver]Received this in an Email. Powerful information
A LITTLE GUN HISTORY
P 1: Real good stuff here. I'm with you on this, Huey Driver, though I live in India (similar situation here)---law-abiding citizens (what few there are) here have a tough time getting a gun license, and have an even harder time buying a gun. Meanwhile, there's a flourishing illegal trade in smuggled and indigenously (cottage industry) manufactured handguns that fire a bewildering array of ordnance, from .22 LR to .315 bore, so criminals have a field day. They'd think twice before attacking me if they felt I might be packing a .32 (authorised civilian bore--so boring) revolver !
No wonder I hero-worshipped Chuck Heston. An' you thought it was only because of Ben-Hur, El Cid and Planet of the Apes !
A LITTLE GUN HISTORY
P 1: Real good stuff here. I'm with you on this, Huey Driver, though I live in India (similar situation here)---law-abiding citizens (what few there are) here have a tough time getting a gun license, and have an even harder time buying a gun. Meanwhile, there's a flourishing illegal trade in smuggled and indigenously (cottage industry) manufactured handguns that fire a bewildering array of ordnance, from .22 LR to .315 bore, so criminals have a field day. They'd think twice before attacking me if they felt I might be packing a .32 (authorised civilian bore--so boring) revolver !
No wonder I hero-worshipped Chuck Heston. An' you thought it was only because of Ben-Hur, El Cid and Planet of the Apes !
Jul 28, 2012 09:12:11 #
ole sarg wrote:
jjwright yo don't know what you are talking about.
do some research
this President has done more for the VA and active soldiers than any other since the end of the Korean War.
As a former Navy man I am surprised you are so ill informed.
do some research
this President has done more for the VA and active soldiers than any other since the end of the Korean War.
As a former Navy man I am surprised you are so ill informed.
As a former Navy man, why do you go by "ole sarg?" :?: :?:
Jul 28, 2012 09:16:25 #
ole sarg wrote:
I set my alarm clock for 6:18 AM and the sun came up. My clock has the ability to make the sun come up!
You provide specious arguments and statements regarding guns.
No one wants to take your guns away. But, remember the cowboy song: Don't take your guns to town boy, don't take your guns to town!
You provide specious arguments and statements regarding guns.
No one wants to take your guns away. But, remember the cowboy song: Don't take your guns to town boy, don't take your guns to town!
:thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:
Jul 28, 2012 09:17:20 #
the UN small arms treaty, supported by Obama & Hillary is designed to eventually confiscate & ban private ownership of handguns...once their foot is in the door..look out..this is not paranoia but exactly the intent of the far left..
Jul 28, 2012 09:17:35 #
Huey Driver wrote:
Received this in an Email. Powerful information b... (show quote)
:thumbdown: :thumbdown: :thumbdown: :thumbdown:
Jul 28, 2012 09:21:03 #
ole sarg wrote:
jjwright yo don't know what you are talking about.
do some research
this President has done more for the VA and active soldiers than any other since the end of the Korean War.
As a former Navy man I am surprised you are so ill informed.
do some research
this President has done more for the VA and active soldiers than any other since the end of the Korean War.
As a former Navy man I am surprised you are so ill informed.
:thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:
I am a Vietnam Vet 100% disabled. Since Obama I have seen a dramatic improvement in the Long Beach VA. I also spent 3 weeks in the Indy VA and was very impressed.
Jul 28, 2012 09:25:50 #
star2344 wrote:
You have got to be kidding!!!!!!! This president has done more TO the military than any other President.
How? What is this based on? Facts?
Not what my neighbor who is a Full Colonel in the US Marines would say. Compare Obama to Bush?
Jul 28, 2012 09:28:54 #
I wish I had an alarm clock like yours. Unfortunately all mine does is make a racket.
Now for your comment that no one wants to take away my guns. Try Sara Brady and her followers. Then there was a group led by some woman that camped out down near Bush's ranch (can't remember her name right now). And then there is Hillary. Don't even suggest to me that there aren't people who want to take away our guns. Unfortunately, there are lots of them.
Now for your comment that no one wants to take away my guns. Try Sara Brady and her followers. Then there was a group led by some woman that camped out down near Bush's ranch (can't remember her name right now). And then there is Hillary. Don't even suggest to me that there aren't people who want to take away our guns. Unfortunately, there are lots of them.
Jul 28, 2012 09:29:49 #
If we look around us we see that other countries have some control of their guns. In 2004, handguns murdered:
5 people in New Zealand
37 people in Sweden
56 people in Australia
184 people in Canada
19 people in Japan
73 people in the UK
11,344 people in the United States
Even adjusting for population, these numbers are horrifying. Japan has almost half as many people as the United States. So how can these numbers be so dreadfully lopsided? Last I heard, Japan was considered civilized, modern and open compared to, say, Cuba. So why are those numbers so wildly out of proportion? Gun control. Pretty simple.
Among 26 of the industrialized nations, 86% of gun deaths among children under age 15 occurred in the United States. As of 2008 the city of Philadelphia alone had in storage 65,000 (yes, thousand) confiscated semi-automatic or fully automatic weapons. Every year one-half million violent crimes are committed with firearms in the USA. On average, each hour of every day, one person is murdered with a gun. There are an estimated 250 million guns in the USA. One in four Americans owns a gun. In 2004, semi-automatic assault weapons were again legal after a 10-year ban. Over 20 states have Castle Laws wherein you can shoot to kill any armed or unarmed person who poses a threat to your property, not just your life.
5 people in New Zealand
37 people in Sweden
56 people in Australia
184 people in Canada
19 people in Japan
73 people in the UK
11,344 people in the United States
Even adjusting for population, these numbers are horrifying. Japan has almost half as many people as the United States. So how can these numbers be so dreadfully lopsided? Last I heard, Japan was considered civilized, modern and open compared to, say, Cuba. So why are those numbers so wildly out of proportion? Gun control. Pretty simple.
Among 26 of the industrialized nations, 86% of gun deaths among children under age 15 occurred in the United States. As of 2008 the city of Philadelphia alone had in storage 65,000 (yes, thousand) confiscated semi-automatic or fully automatic weapons. Every year one-half million violent crimes are committed with firearms in the USA. On average, each hour of every day, one person is murdered with a gun. There are an estimated 250 million guns in the USA. One in four Americans owns a gun. In 2004, semi-automatic assault weapons were again legal after a 10-year ban. Over 20 states have Castle Laws wherein you can shoot to kill any armed or unarmed person who poses a threat to your property, not just your life.
Jul 28, 2012 09:35:45 #
Not my words, but makes sense:
Not sure if I can agree with that. By all accounts Japan never tried to win a head to head war vs the US. They wanted to keep a steady rythm of victories over them, while establishing a double layer of ring defences on the pacific (phillipines-marianas-marcus island was the inner, NG-solomons-Marshalls-wake-eastern aleutians was the outter) to convince the US that a counterattack was unfeasible. They never intended to invade the US mainland as such, as far as I can tell.
Midway was never in the initial plans of Japan when the war started. It was out of the twin concentric defence rings they planned to set up in the pacific, and too far from the mainland (and too close to Hawaii) to set an easy invasion. The reasons to attack Midway rested mostly in the aftermath of the doolittle raid over tokyo. Pearl Harbor had crippled the US battleline but their carriers were still unharmed, and Yamamoto wanted those carriers to be sunk at all costs. The attack on Tokyo was an insult to the Japanese armed forces (and the IJN in particular), and had been launched from carriers. And the US Carrier striking force was the only offensive weapon left in US inventory by then, so it only made sense to force a major battle to trap and sink them. Midway was intended to be that battle, the island was of secondary or even tertiary importance, what Yamamoto wanted was the US carriers...things turned out to be pretty different tho.
Had Midway been a Japanese victory what would've happened?...probably not much. Hawaii was out of the scope of probable (or even possible) japanese targets because it was almost unfeasible to successfully invade it-it would've overstretched the japanese navy to the point of rupture.
US mainland was completely out of question-the distances involved were extreme.Remember aswell that both to invade hawaii and/or the Eastern US a lot of troops would've been needed. The Navy did not have enough manpower to pull something like that (the Japanese Marine force was mostly based on regimental combat teams for amphib operations of limited scope), and the Army was:
1-Absolutely not going to cooperate with the navy, at least not easily (japanese Army-Navy rivalry was extreme, they fought each other constantly). That would mean that one of the key points of any long range invasion like Hawaii or US would be poisoned from the start -no interbranch cooperation meant the operation would be a disaster from the start.
2-already heavily commited both in China, Burma/India, and New Guinea. There was a hefty manpower reserve in Manchukuo but neither the Imperial staff nor the Army staff wanted to weaken that force too much because they wanted it to act as a deterrent against possible Soviet agression. The Japanese Army without taking large units out of Manchukuo-which was politically impossible to pull off, would've had no resources to mount a successful large scale invasion in the US Mainland.
3-Lack of proper amphibious resources. The japanese landings at the start of the war were doing against unprepared enemies, and using barely adequate ships as amphibious transports. To land in USA would be very very different than landing on, say, Legaspi. The scope of the operation would be much different, the ammount of troops to be landed ,too, the distances from the Japanese supply sources (the mainland) would be all the way across the pacific meaning enormous travel times for the supply convoys, and Japan had not enough ships to keep such a invasion supplied.
Those 3 points were well known for all the IMperial staff and of course by the IJA. They would've never agreed to such an operation. There's also the important part of intel and recce. It was nigh impossible for Japan to conduct a proper recconaisance over the US mainland, and it would've been very difficult to the point of almost impossible to conduct a proper research on the possible landing locations.
We all know the ammount of preparation work the landings on Normandy needed, and the immense logistical problems faced by the allied force in france afterwards after one of the mulberries was put out of order, cherbourg port destroyed by the germans, and Antwerp not captured until late in 1944. The japanese had quite a stretch of water to cross (quite bigger than the Channel), no Mulberries at all (they were an allied improvisation), and would've needed a similar or bigger ammount of troops to succesfully invade US mainland.
Nope-it was impossible. Japan never planned nor intended to invade the US mainland. It was well out of reach for them, and they always knew it.
Not sure if I can agree with that. By all accounts Japan never tried to win a head to head war vs the US. They wanted to keep a steady rythm of victories over them, while establishing a double layer of ring defences on the pacific (phillipines-marianas-marcus island was the inner, NG-solomons-Marshalls-wake-eastern aleutians was the outter) to convince the US that a counterattack was unfeasible. They never intended to invade the US mainland as such, as far as I can tell.
Midway was never in the initial plans of Japan when the war started. It was out of the twin concentric defence rings they planned to set up in the pacific, and too far from the mainland (and too close to Hawaii) to set an easy invasion. The reasons to attack Midway rested mostly in the aftermath of the doolittle raid over tokyo. Pearl Harbor had crippled the US battleline but their carriers were still unharmed, and Yamamoto wanted those carriers to be sunk at all costs. The attack on Tokyo was an insult to the Japanese armed forces (and the IJN in particular), and had been launched from carriers. And the US Carrier striking force was the only offensive weapon left in US inventory by then, so it only made sense to force a major battle to trap and sink them. Midway was intended to be that battle, the island was of secondary or even tertiary importance, what Yamamoto wanted was the US carriers...things turned out to be pretty different tho.
Had Midway been a Japanese victory what would've happened?...probably not much. Hawaii was out of the scope of probable (or even possible) japanese targets because it was almost unfeasible to successfully invade it-it would've overstretched the japanese navy to the point of rupture.
US mainland was completely out of question-the distances involved were extreme.Remember aswell that both to invade hawaii and/or the Eastern US a lot of troops would've been needed. The Navy did not have enough manpower to pull something like that (the Japanese Marine force was mostly based on regimental combat teams for amphib operations of limited scope), and the Army was:
1-Absolutely not going to cooperate with the navy, at least not easily (japanese Army-Navy rivalry was extreme, they fought each other constantly). That would mean that one of the key points of any long range invasion like Hawaii or US would be poisoned from the start -no interbranch cooperation meant the operation would be a disaster from the start.
2-already heavily commited both in China, Burma/India, and New Guinea. There was a hefty manpower reserve in Manchukuo but neither the Imperial staff nor the Army staff wanted to weaken that force too much because they wanted it to act as a deterrent against possible Soviet agression. The Japanese Army without taking large units out of Manchukuo-which was politically impossible to pull off, would've had no resources to mount a successful large scale invasion in the US Mainland.
3-Lack of proper amphibious resources. The japanese landings at the start of the war were doing against unprepared enemies, and using barely adequate ships as amphibious transports. To land in USA would be very very different than landing on, say, Legaspi. The scope of the operation would be much different, the ammount of troops to be landed ,too, the distances from the Japanese supply sources (the mainland) would be all the way across the pacific meaning enormous travel times for the supply convoys, and Japan had not enough ships to keep such a invasion supplied.
Those 3 points were well known for all the IMperial staff and of course by the IJA. They would've never agreed to such an operation. There's also the important part of intel and recce. It was nigh impossible for Japan to conduct a proper recconaisance over the US mainland, and it would've been very difficult to the point of almost impossible to conduct a proper research on the possible landing locations.
We all know the ammount of preparation work the landings on Normandy needed, and the immense logistical problems faced by the allied force in france afterwards after one of the mulberries was put out of order, cherbourg port destroyed by the germans, and Antwerp not captured until late in 1944. The japanese had quite a stretch of water to cross (quite bigger than the Channel), no Mulberries at all (they were an allied improvisation), and would've needed a similar or bigger ammount of troops to succesfully invade US mainland.
Nope-it was impossible. Japan never planned nor intended to invade the US mainland. It was well out of reach for them, and they always knew it.
Jul 28, 2012 09:43:30 #
I think it might be safe to say that we will never be able to get all the guns in the US. What I would like to see is a more realistic and relevant set of stats on gun deaths in the US. Let's remove from the total the suicides, the people killed by law enforcement, accidents, criminal killings, etc. and what's left? How many gun deaths per year by good honest lawful folks? Maybe we should compare that figure with deaths by automobiles?
Jul 28, 2012 09:54:33 #
handguns murdered NO ONE..someone holding them did....do you ban axes or knives if a crime is committed with them..
Jul 28, 2012 10:06:23 #
Wilpharm,
Get Real. If the Colorodo shooter was armed with a knife, a bat or a battle axe would he have been able to inure or kill seventy people before he was stopped? If you don't think it's about guns then you are simply in denial.
Let me say this as a responsible gun owner and sportsman. I don't need a 33 or 100 round magazine to hunt deer or shoot clay. I don't need a flash supressor to defend my home. I don't need a colapsable stock to take a rifle to the range. Why can't we introduce some reason into this debate? No one wants to take your guns away if your or sane and not a criminal but why do we need military weapons, other than the my guns bigger than your gun childishness that I see throughout this debate.
Get Real. If the Colorodo shooter was armed with a knife, a bat or a battle axe would he have been able to inure or kill seventy people before he was stopped? If you don't think it's about guns then you are simply in denial.
Let me say this as a responsible gun owner and sportsman. I don't need a 33 or 100 round magazine to hunt deer or shoot clay. I don't need a flash supressor to defend my home. I don't need a colapsable stock to take a rifle to the range. Why can't we introduce some reason into this debate? No one wants to take your guns away if your or sane and not a criminal but why do we need military weapons, other than the my guns bigger than your gun childishness that I see throughout this debate.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.