Times have changed slightly and Finland had to give up vast tracts of their land and pay damages.
Gun control - US vs. rest of the world
- Thread starter James R
- Start date
Times have changed slightly and Finland had to give up vast tracts of their land and pay damages.
Sure have, the tanks need more gas and supply lines in the north are even weaker. Sticky bombs and pipe bombs, easier than ever to make.
Finland was a gnat compared to Russia, even in 39'. They paid damages only because the axis lost the war. Had they not thrown in for Germany(I realize the politics quite acutely), they would have made out with the 1940 agreement with russia, which wasn't so bad considering they were a minor power that beat the shit out of a major power(and ALL Russian might in 39'- ok minus Zhukov).
Finland was a gnat compared to Russia, even in 39'. They paid damages only because the axis lost the war. Had they not thrown in for Germany(I realize the politics quite acutely), they would have made out with the 1940 agreement with russia, which wasn't so bad considering they were a minor power that beat the shit out of a major power(and ALL Russian might in 39'- ok minus Zhukov).
You seem to forget large parts of the war. The first part went really well for the Finns, the second not so well.
you seem to be forgetting that you are always wrong, by virtue of being a kaaskop
superstring01
Moderator
I skimmed over the paragraph, my bad.
On that, I stand corrected. I do not think that a person should need to show "cause". However, I don't see anything wrong with registering a gun and having to pass a reasonable test to obtain a license. People need licenses to posess and operate cars and aircraft, they need licenses to posess and use certain substances-- it's only reasonable for people to have to pass a test to obtain certain fire arms.
Can I change my answer?
~String
im not sure about aircraft, but you most certainly dont need a license to possess an automobile. you need a license to operate one while engaging in commerce
You need at the very least a minumum of 40 flight hours (20 dual (w/instructor) and 20 solo) in an airplane before you can get your private pilot's license.
I don't forget. Classic - win every battle, yet lose the war. WWII(39-45), at the highest level, was nothing more than a competition of economies. They still beat the living shit out of the Russians. They just ran out of bullets, supplies etc. Germany would have done well to pay closer attention to what happened in the Winter war.
but to own one, is a license needed?
Ask Trump, Branson, et all
Ohhhh. I'm not sure about owning one. I wouldn't think so, but you don't need a license to own a car, just to drive it.
If I had the cash, I could go to a car dealer right now and buy a car; no license needed. It's when I go to register and tag it, would be when I'd need to show my license.
this is the issue to me.
i could cause untold destruction with a pickup truck in the course of 5 minutes...just as much as with a bazooka, easily.
yet, for some reason, im not allowed to own a bazooka.
this is unconstitutional, immoral, and an effort to make you helpless when the new gestapo rolls in with their RFID scanners and mandatory national id cards.
i could cause untold destruction with a pickup truck in the course of 5 minutes...just as much as with a bazooka, easily.
yet, for some reason, im not allowed to own a bazooka.
this is unconstitutional, immoral, and an effort to make you helpless when the new gestapo rolls in with their RFID scanners and mandatory national id cards.
A more refined version can be found as usual on wikipedia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_history_of_Finland_during_World_War_II
I'm totally agree with spurious here. I do like our gun control laws (Swiss 
)
New weapons have to be applied for first but that isn't a problem as long as you don't have a criminal history or one of endangering yourself and/or others. It is easier to buy a weapon from a private person where only a copy of the criminal record are nessecary and a contract that records the deal that has to be kept by both parties. The Weapons and ammo have to be locked up (rifles are a exception but the Breechblock has to be locked up). They are only allowed to be carried at home and to the shooting range and back. To carry it in public you need a carrying permit. (which is almost impossible to get if you don't work as a bodyguard or security personel)
Then nearly every gunowner has had military training, and people with a carrying permit require aditional training, especially about RoE
I have a SIG550 in my bedroom. The defence Department lends it to me for premilitary shooting practice at 300m (I hit in a 20-30cm radius at that distance and have already won awards) Any Citizen between 17 and 19 can do this.
And I feel very safe here
)New weapons have to be applied for first but that isn't a problem as long as you don't have a criminal history or one of endangering yourself and/or others. It is easier to buy a weapon from a private person where only a copy of the criminal record are nessecary and a contract that records the deal that has to be kept by both parties. The Weapons and ammo have to be locked up (rifles are a exception but the Breechblock has to be locked up). They are only allowed to be carried at home and to the shooting range and back. To carry it in public you need a carrying permit. (which is almost impossible to get if you don't work as a bodyguard or security personel)
Then nearly every gunowner has had military training, and people with a carrying permit require aditional training, especially about RoE
I have a SIG550 in my bedroom. The defence Department lends it to me for premilitary shooting practice at 300m (I hit in a 20-30cm radius at that distance and have already won awards) Any Citizen between 17 and 19 can do this.
And I feel very safe here
Oh yes. That was the problem the Jews had in Germany. lack of education. If only they'd been better educated, they could have um, er..........what?
Nice.
If a conservative said something like that, he'd be run out of town on a rail.
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you're refering to illegals.
Really? How's it out of control? It's not the law-abiding citizens causing the problems, it's the criminals that don't follow any laws whatsoever. The majority of our crimes happen in large hellhole cities that already have strict gun laws or outright bans. All the laws mentioned in the opening post only restrict law-abiding citizens that aren't a problem, and do nothing to the criminals who you're supposedly trying to stop. It seems some people don't know the definition of what a criminal is, someone who breaks the law. More laws won't do shit to them.
+1
Har har, LoL!
Go ahead and pick any law you want to enact and tell me how a criminal is going to follow that. We already have laws that require licenses for concealed carried hanguns yet gangbangers and criminals still do so without one. You want to start raiding everyone's homes to make sure they're following proper storage laws such as locking up their guns and ammo as you want? Good luck with that one. People will just hide them like they do other items that are supposedly against the law (drugs, etc).
+2
Yeah, I'd love to hear that one.
+3
You put too much faith in tanks. Like others said, they're sitting ducks without infantry around to protect em, which is what the guns would be for. Tanks are only really effective at taking our other tanks or vehicles, not people. And in cities, they need even more infantry support as they'll be easy to take out with homemade mines or sticky bombs, or better yet, like uprisings of the past, lure them in, block off their exit, and hijack the freakin' thing. I won't ever have to worry about a tank unless I'm on highway or other wide open area, which uh, I wouldn't do. Plenty of hills, forests, and mountains over here. I'd just have to worry about ground soldiers and bombs from up above.
The only law I'm for in regards to gun control is a license that shows you have the necessary skills to safety operate em.
- N