Is there anything that would have stopped Adam Lanza from the massacre?

cannabineer

cannabineer

Ursus marijanus
st0wandgrow said:
Everything you just listed is true.

So that means that our military (regular Americans like you and I) will turn on civilians and you will need a stock-pile of guns/ammo to fight the Army, Navy, Airforce, and Marines?

Quite a leap, don't you think?
Click to expand...
This sort of thing has happened before and will happen again. Zombie apocalypses never have, so your effort to equate the likelihood of the Gov't going bad with that of a zombie apocalypse isn't sincere.
But as has been pointed out, this nation had a civil war in the past, and Germany secured its power by means of a gun ban one human lifetime ago.

It would be extremely foolish to think we're "too advanced" for that to happen. We're maintaining the appearance of the prosperous society we became in the '50s and '60s, but it's a veneer. If it cracks, the wisdom of relying on gov't for anything except martial law ... would be revealed as bad.

Giving the gov't absolute power will lead to the foregone outcome ... absolute corruption. Guns are a useful instrument of social control precisely because of their capacity for ugliness. That's a better reason for "assault weapon bans" than anything the soccer moms could say or do. cn
 
desert dude

desert dude

Well-Known Member
st0wandgrow said:
Everything you just listed is true.

So that means that our military (regular Americans like you and I) will turn on civilians and you will need a stock-pile of guns/ammo to fight the Army, Navy, Airforce, and Marines?

Quite a leap, don't you think?
Click to expand...
Libya...

Syria...

Not so much of a leap. What makes it very unlikely to happen in the US is the second amendment, and a very armed population.
 
canndo

canndo

Well-Known Member
NoDrama said:
More like UN troops would be used. As a former Marine I am very aware of what would happen if the chief of the executive told Marines to attack US Civilians. You see the Marines are a special force that can go to war at any time, any place without congressional approval. the Marines are the special forces of the president, one of the reasons they call Marines "The President's own." They are his own personal force with air, land, and sea capabilities and the ability to combine all three into a force of shock & awe. None of my brothers would EVER obey orders to attack american civilians on US soil. We all had those discussions and I can tell you that the Marine Corps just wouldn't do it.




If you want o hear the truth from one of the most decorated Marine Veterans who ever lived read his book. http://books.google.com/books/about/War_Is_a_Racket_Large_Print_16pt.html?id=sDR_6yqPtfkC

Try not to get too upset over the truth.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Is_a_Racket
Click to expand...
All that need ever be done to convince our armed forces to take up arms against one's own coutrimen is to show them that they are dangerous to the Constitution of the united States, and that, currently is a pretty easy thing to do. It is one thing to expect them to shoot at unarmed civilians but quite another when they confront an armed irrelular militia. "defend against enemies foreign or domestic" is enough. Oathkeepers will be washed away. Look around. It takes very little for our government to convince even people who distrust that very government to do what is not in their best interests and even less to have the military conform to government's most basic propaganda.
 
st0wandgrow

st0wandgrow

Well-Known Member
NoDrama said:
St0w? Are you going to teach your kids to drive like maniacs, cut people off, speed and pass on the right hand? Or are you going to show them proper respect for a 2 ton thing capable of massive deaths and injuries by showing them the proper and responsible way to drive?
Click to expand...
Do you drive slow in the left hand lane?
 
Trolling

Trolling

New Member
canndo said:
No, if I don't have guns then it would be in my best interest that no one have them. They are dangerous and they are designed only to kill people and they are very bad.
Click to expand...
You don't respect his opinion?

And in the world today, that's getting crazier by the minute, it's sad to say but I do see the need for them, especially since so many are already out there, I personally don't own one but that's only because I'm too poor lol. Saying you don't want one doesn't really mean much to the mugger.
 
desert dude

desert dude

Well-Known Member
"
The Adam Lanzas of the world have all too much in common with the terrorists Hawley described. They can plan around any knowable, predictable obstacles put in their way.That makes a knee-jerk legal response ineffective — and maybe worse, if it lures people into a false sense of security.



So, what can be done? Hawley and his frequent critic, Bruce Schneier, agree that just two responses to hijacking attempts have been effective: hardening airplane cockpits and psychologically preparing passengers and air crew to actively resist attackers. Forget the theater at the airports, which is the equivalent of the gun/video game/legal-whatever bloviating in Congress; it's those two changes that have mattered.



If hardening targets and preparing people at the scene to intervene if necessary works against terrorist attacks on airplanes, it just may work at schools and elsewhere. What does that mean in real terms? Well, that's where the real discussion should begin. Debates over new legal restrictions on people who didn't commit the crime are a pointless distraction."
 
N

NoDrama

Well-Known Member
desert dude said:
"
The Adam Lanzas of the world have all too much in common with the terrorists Hawley described. They can plan around any knowable, predictable obstacles put in their way.That makes a knee-jerk legal response ineffective — and maybe worse, if it lures people into a false sense of security.



So, what can be done? Hawley and his frequent critic, Bruce Schneier, agree that just two responses to hijacking attempts have been effective: hardening airplane cockpits and psychologically preparing passengers and air crew to actively resist attackers. Forget the theater at the airports, which is the equivalent of the gun/video game/legal-whatever bloviating in Congress; it's those two changes that have mattered.



If hardening targets and preparing people at the scene to intervene if necessary works against terrorist attacks on airplanes, it just may work at schools and elsewhere. What does that mean in real terms? Well, that's where the real discussion should begin. Debates over new legal restrictions on people who didn't commit the crime are a pointless distraction."
Click to expand...
We could throw rocks and small books at them. That might help.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top