English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

If you look at the demographics of the US population that without their guns they would be one of the most vulnerable peoples on Earth

2007-01-13 15:17:17 · 18 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government Politics

18 answers

So would any other country. What a thoughtless remark.

2007-01-13 15:20:10 · answer #1 · answered by ? 3 · 6 1

um, no.

we aren't all armed to the teeth, we wouldn't be much more vulnerable. Most the people in this country with guns own pistols or hunting rifles. These are not the weapons you need to ward off an invasion. You need tanks and bombs, which our military will continue to have even if the government takes away your own personal firearms.

your theory makes absolutely no sense. when is the last time American civilians warded off more than a raccoon or a criminal?

2007-01-13 15:35:34 · answer #2 · answered by Jessica 4 · 3 0

what?

can you explain with a little detail what you're talking about?

how do demographics say that the U.S. population would be the most vulnerable without their guns?

are you saying that anyone without guns is vulnerable?

or that the U.S. is all the more vulnerable, compared to other nations... if you took everyone's gun away?

either way... I don't think it's true... we're fairly large people and we're fairly healthy and strong... if no one had guns... I think we would fair pretty well in hand to hand combat...

2007-01-13 15:42:38 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 2 0

I just read a study that said on average only 13 percent of the houses on the upper east coast have guns so if someone wanted to try to conquer a part of the USA that would probably be where the would go because the study also says 60 percent of houses in the south have guns. yet most of the people on the east coast want less guns, no profiling, no terrorist surveillance, less military and on and on. wonder how fast those views would change.

2007-01-13 15:39:58 · answer #4 · answered by CaptainObvious 7 · 1 1

No, US resistance would be massive. You cannot conquer very easily people that refuse to be conquered.
Hitler learned that with Britain.
You would need a big military to secure all key points needed.
Maybe destroying all McDonald's will hurt their morale the most.

2007-01-13 15:50:25 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 3 0

Actually no. Since we have a ridiculously over-sized military, we would be impossible to conquer. So that is hardly a good reason to stop the government from collecting all the guns.

2007-01-13 15:25:36 · answer #6 · answered by Longhaired Freaky Person 4 · 1 2

Armed to the teeth? I do not have any guns. My wife does not. Her brother does not. My Mother does not. My sister does not. Why would we be vulnerable?
Where do you get this type of stuff?

2007-01-13 15:22:37 · answer #7 · answered by Jimfix 5 · 3 1

I'm certainly glad that we are 'armed to the teeth' here in Texas. And I learned to aim and shoot just as soon as I emigrated. You have no idea what you are talking about. Your brave forces and our brave forces are fighting terrorism and we need to be behind them not asking dumb questions like this.

2007-01-13 17:08:41 · answer #8 · answered by Ann R 1 · 2 0

Any population without a gun is vulnerable. (Dr. Fine, speak for yourself)

2007-01-13 16:17:59 · answer #9 · answered by ehs1193 2 · 3 0

Bring it on, baby - I don't need a gun to protect myself from the likes of you.

I'm into kickboxing - I know damned well I could take you.

2007-01-13 15:54:45 · answer #10 · answered by Jadis 6 · 2 0

To bad we won't be disarmed! And even though we have some bird brains living among us, somewhere in there thick heads they know how great of a nation we have and will stand up and kick the s**t out of punks like you. And those who won't will be taken down by folks like me! With my big gun!!! What he said, The Brits, 1776.......:)

2007-01-13 15:25:16 · answer #11 · answered by Anonymous · 1 2

fedest.com, questions and answers