Political Correctness

[jetbaby]

No, you're just more French. Why struggle when you can throw the white flag.

[Mandalorian FaLLouT GoD]

im not french. talk to susan.

[S4ur0n27]

Damn, even he knows my nickname

[Retlaw83]

In canada we have unregistered guns all over and barely anyone gets shot. I hear of shootings everywhere in the states everyday. I guess we are more civilized.

I'd think it would have more to do with population density. I'd also imagine that there's less gang activity in Canada.

[S4ur0n27]

What do you mean by population density? It's not like we are spread over all of Canada. We DO have cities with millions of people.

[Radoteur]

Does canada have the gangster culture of America?

My main reason to keep and bear arms is because I'm afraid of my government. What I find bizarre is these liberals who say that George Bush is Hitler and then say how bad guns are. These retards should realize that if George Bush really is as bad as Hitler they need guns. After exhausting all other means to get him out of power, of course.

Someone told me that automatic weapons are effective for defending a position, as with a weapon set on full auto you can't aim and kill the enemy in an assault. or something like that. So this guy thinks that the government wants to take away automatic weapons, because they want to take away our ability to defend ourselves. It sounds like a crazy conspiracy theory, but the bit about automatic weapons being better for defense sounds pretty reasonable. Does anyone know more about this?

How can anyone that plays Fallout be against guns?

ps where's menno and hammer?

[airsoft guy]

That's exactly why we have the Second Amendment in the United States. The founding fathers wanted to make sure that in case the shit hit the fan we would be able defend ourselves and take back the country. When all else fails vote from the rooftops.

Fun fact about automatic weapons in the United States: since the 1934 National Firearms Act, which heavily regulated the sale and possession of automatic weapons, short barreled or sawed off rifles and shotguns, silencers and explosive devices, up until the mid eighties there had only been one shooting with a legally owned automatic weapon, which led to another act banning the manufacture of automatic weapons for the civilian market in 1986 I believe. I think I was called the Firearms Owners Protection Act, but I would have to go check. Furthermore the shooting was perpetrated by a crooked cop. Seems there was an informant with some dirt on him and he was going to go and turn him in so our friend the cop decided to pay him a visit with his good buddy MAC-11.

One man’s action caused them to pass a law making it harder for the rest of us. Of course that’s how a lot of laws get passed. Sensationalism causes lawmakers to spew bullshit. Like Ted Kennedy, he was bitching about so called “armor piercing bullets.� If you knew what he was talking about you would know he was talking about banning full metal jacketed and jacketed hollow point rifle rounds. Of course they’re armor piercing, they’re high velocity rifle rounds used for big game. A little flimsy piece of Kevlar they issue police isn’t going to stop that shit. You need ballistic plating to stop that shit and ballistic plates are heavy and expensive and difficult to move around in, especially in the confines of a patrol car. Lots of police already don’t like wearing vests, how do you think they’re going to respond when you hand them a vest that weighs another sixty pounds.

[Franz Schubert]

That's exactly why we have the Second Amendment in the United States. The founding fathers wanted to make sure that in case the shit hit the fan we would be able defend ourselves and take back the country. When all else fails vote from the rooftops.

The founding fathers didn't take into account modern technology - tanks, planes, bombs, etc. Do you seriously think that a militia banding together could defeat our military? Maybe 200 years ago, but not anymore. A revolution would be sqashed like a bug.

[airsoft guy]

So is that your reason for banning guns? Just because they would likely win because they have tanks and planes and bombs? What you don't take into account is the fact that there are somewhere between 60 and 90 million people who own firearms in the United States, owning about 270 million firearms, plus plenty of ammo. BB might win, but we would sure give him a run for his money, don't you think?

Furthermore, I don't think if a "war" broke out between the citizens and BB it would be a standing war where we all line up and take turns shooting at each other, it would be a guerilla war.

Also, you have to factor in the people that would defect, taking their knowledge and equipment with them. I'm sure more than a few in the armed forces would leave to join the citizens in their revolt.

Would a revolution be hard? You bet your ass. Could we win it? Ditto.

[Radoteur]

That's exactly why we have the Second Amendment in the United States. The founding fathers wanted to make sure that in case the shit hit the fan we would be able defend ourselves and take back the country. When all else fails vote from the rooftops.

The founding fathers didn't take into account modern technology - tanks, planes, bombs, etc. Do you seriously think that a militia banding together could defeat our military? Maybe 200 years ago, but not anymore. A revolution would be sqashed like a bug.

The Vietnam War

[Retlaw83]

Oh, we could have won in Vietnam if there weren't so many political restrictions. If you take a look at it, there is no major action in 'Nam that wasn't won by U.S. and RVN forces.

[boywoos]

What about the Tet offensive?

[Lunchmeat]

Speaking of the Tet Offensive, I just saw The Siege of Firebase Gloria. That R. Lee Ermy is one quotable fellow.

[Retlaw83]

What about the Tet offensive?

The Tet Offensive was beaten back within a week with no territorial or military gains for the North Vietnamese. It cost them a lot of lives and a lot of supplies for with no military good to come from it.

HOWEVER, the way it was portrayed in the media made it a major political/propaganda victory for them.

[HappySuitcase Man]

What about the Tet offensive?

The Tet Offensive was beaten back within a week with no territorial or military gains for the North Vietnamese. It cost them a lot of lives and a lot of supplies for with no military good to come from it.

HOWEVER, the way it was portrayed in the media made it a major political/propaganda victory for them.

It goes beyond a military defeat -- it basically demonstrated to the U.S. that they weren't just facing isolated bouts of resistance. They had a whole country against them. In Saigon, the U.S. didn't even know that the Viet-cong was in the city until they were being shot at. The fact that a huge uprising like the Tet Offensive could take place made U.S. planners think twice about the Vietnam War being a "winnable" war.

[Retlaw83]

It was still winnable militaristically. But the political bars on force stopped that from happening.

Had their been no-holds barred, though, the U.S. military would have won the war for the RVN soundly. However, after it was all said and done there probably wouldn't have been much of North Vietnam left.

In the end, political victory is more important than military victory.

Also, the U.S. was well aware that the Viet Cong were everywhere. But they were unprepared for the Tet Offensive (which occurred on the Vietnamese new year) because the enemy had never performed an operation on that scale. Additionally, the Vietnamese new year had been declared a day of cease-fire because of the holiday, so U.S. and RVN forces were busy relaxing when the assaults hit.

[Kashluk]

In the end, political victory is more important than military victory.

You're actually saying US *won*, in *any* aspect? Ok, I don't know what kind of history you've been taught, but the rest of the world might think a bit otherwise.

[Retlaw83]

They won every single military engagement.

[Kashluk]

If retreat equals victory, then I must say that I've learned something new. Both political AND military losses were too much, even for a superpower. It left a stain in her foreign policy for years, especially in European and Soviet affairs.

[Retlaw83]

We left the country because it was stupid to be there in the first place. JFK began committing troops - and perhaps he could have managed it effectively if he had not died - Johnson mired us in the there, and Nixon got us out.

If you check your history, you will find every major action (I say action because there were very few battles in Vietnam) was won by U.S. and RVN forces.