Col. Homestar wrote:-good post snipped for space-
Agreed on assault weapons. I wouldn't say a gun ban is "never" going to happen, but it'll take at least 50 years and a lot of education if it does. A better question would be - what can be done to make violence unnecessary? I favor eliminating poverty and promoting mental health.
WD-40 wrote:I believe the point was not that ONLY bad Governments want to take away your guns, but that by people 'owning' guns and having the right to bear them helps keep good governments FROM going bad...To keep them in-check. A Government SHOULD fear the People, because they represent the Peoples interest due being elected by The People. If the majority of the 'legitimate' People want to change Laws, well, bring it. We dont change them because some Congressional leaders or the Prez grabs an 'opportunity' of impassioned anger to push personal or Party Agendas. thats just stupid and irresponsible! And that's exactly what we're seeing today.
Okay, that is an interesting argument - "widespread gun ownership prevents governments from going bad." To which I ask, how do you explain the Middle East? They've had rebellions, sure, but those don't occur everywhere and often make the government
worse.
WD-40 wrote:Regarding the North Pole, our biggest threats are who? Hmmmm...China, Russia, North Korea and Iran come to mind. They are located where?....Hmmmmm....the other side of the Planet the last I checked. If they were to launch anything from 'land' for an airborne assault (ballistic missiles included), from which direction would you figure would afford them the shortest direction for fuel burn and surprise? Think about that.
As a Jet Pilot, I recently HAD to fly a mission 'requiring no fuel stop' from Denmark to Los Angeles because of what we were carrying. Look at a globe, and tell me the route 'you' would take limiting yourself to 5,000 nautical miles of fuel without stopping to refuel en route.
(Hint: I had to fly way north of Iceland en route and got a great view of the 'Northern Lights'. Yes, modern technology allows us to fly directly over the North Pole if we 'had' to, and No, I did not have to fly directly over the Pole.)
So you college aged book worm worms who have no military or aviation experience 'presuming' you know everything because you read it in a book or on line can just consider that academia is no substitute for 'actual experience'. Keep in mind, that I agree it would not be in Chinas or Russia's interest to attack us in any way short of Nuclear Threat toward them. Remember, I was using Hypotheticals for the gun point regarding the Fore Fathers to spar with Crater.
But North Korea and Iran are just whacky enough to lob missiles at anyone.
Oh, I know polar routes are used for travel. They just aren't helpful for an actual invasion. You can't invade by air when your opposition has the best-funded air force and is operating from their home territory. You can't get ships across the Arctic easily, and if they do land in Canada you have to cross hundreds of miles of frozen terrain before you get to anything remotely resembling a strategic target. Missiles are not an invasion and can't be stopped by assault rifles anyway.
Posted: Mon Jan 07, 2013 7:22 pmer how small they are). I mean, no one can get angry about that right? It's a reasonable precaution.
Crater will still continue with his emotional [female dog] and bring little or nothing to this discussion. 
