Then doesn't that obviate the needs for gun ownership within the citizenry?Originally Posted by Fahooglegods
We can't have it both ways.
|
|
Then doesn't that obviate the needs for gun ownership within the citizenry?
We can't have it both ways.
Again. See Civil War
Because they're scary looking.
But don't think for a second handguns aren't next on the list.
No one cares to answer this...I've been trying for a while.
except the westboro nuts amount to about 2 dozen people.....
us gun toting neanderthals will never be marginalized in this country
Absolutely not. I said I didn't know anyone, but just as artillery said there is a % that would. Perhaps you should read the entire post instead of extrapolating bits and pieces. Plus, you still have DHS, FBI, CIA.......
WTF are you talking about with your last sentence?
Huh. Funny I don't recall serving in the Civil War.
Again. I DON'T KNOW A SINGLE PERSON THAT I SERVED WITH THAT WOULD FOLLOW SUCH AN ORDER.
A lot of illiterates in here today.
Well then, thanks for the pointless ****ing anecdote, in that case. We were laboring under the misconception that you were attempting to add to the discussion.
This
...and this
People in this thread are both at-once forwarding the following two points:
1. The US Armed Forces would never attack civilians.
2. We needs guns under the Second Amendment ot protect us from the federal government's ability to suppress our inalienable rights.
Can't have it both ways. And besides, my main point is this: we can't even come close to protecting ourselves from the federal government at this point in time, so we need to re-think and re-evaluate the purpose of the Second Amendment in relation to modernity.
Ahhhh, someone is **** hurt because they misinterpreted a simple statement. There is a percentage that would fire on American citizens (no ****) but that is < the percentage that would not fire on American citizens. But please, do continue trying to cultivate your worthless point.
I think it depends upon the actions of the folks in question.
If Westboro bunkered up, do you think the military, ATF, or Guard would have any problem killing the **** out of them if they opened fire on troops?
Can't have it both ways? So we can't have a large percentage of a military that wouldn't fire on American citizens and a citizenry that owns weapons? Where the hell is that in any legal documentation? Since you're a lawyer you should be able to find a link rather quickly. I will wait.
Really? Your answer is in my post that you quoted.
Side note that is a law enforcement issue, not military.
Fine, then lets rethink and reevaluate the 1st amendment, the 4th amendment in relation to modernity. The world is a dangerous place with lots of bad guy terrorists out there, so lets just do away with the 4th so that the government can come search your ****, without any evidence to suggest that you're a terrorist, just to be safe (they're already doing, so why not just get rid of so we don't have to burden the poor government with rules and rights of the people).
Let's see so much hate speech these days because of political discussion and dissention, etc. **** the 1st amendment and lets just use a system that whoever is in charge gets to say what can and can't be said. These are modern times after all and dissenting opinion is bothersome to our leaders and burdensome what they determine is the common good.
The 3rd amendment? ****, the military is too ****ing expensive these days. Let's do away with all post housing and just put these soldiers in people homes and save us some money.
The 5th, well Obama signed NDAA so that one and the 6th and essentially the 8th already tossed aside.
Shall we continue down the list and figure out which ones we need to rethink and reevaluate in relation to modernity?
The following users like this post: fdubzou
Federal law enforcement depending on the circumstance.
I can bet you that the Guardsmen would have had no problem offing groups of armed looters in my neighborhood after the may 3rd tornadoes if fired upon.
Second amendment be damned.
Actually, yes we should. We have lots of problems and our rights have been continually eroded for decades. I absolutely think we need to sit down and re-think WTF the federal government is doing. I think you and I agree on that.
I think we've already seen what federal law enforcement will do in regards to Westboro bunkering up. The Military would not be involved in a situation like that.
You can't offer both points at the same time. It's illogical. I'm sure you can see that, and I don't even know why you're arguing.
I think it would largely depend on the scope of the weaponry that Westboro had.
how about they actually follow the constitution and our bill of rights instead of taking a **** on it when it gets in their way? Seems like a novel approach to me.
Those folks in Waco were pretty loaded up. Military did not get involved there.
****hurt? Yeah, I'm ****hurt. I'm ****hurt you won't tell us more personal stories that don't add to the discussion!
Firstly. Your going to bet me on something that happened back in May but never really happened? Huh.
Secondly. We were fired on when delivering supplies to New Orleans after Katrina. We didn't return fire. So there is that.
We rely on the electorate to accomplish these things...you feel good about that?
I don't.
Hahaha babysteps, my friend. Babysteps. The federal government would stop functioning if it immediately had to act in accordance with strict interpretations of the Constitution!
Still waiting for that mutually exclusive legality link.
The tornadoes were in 1999.
We were expressly ordered by he occupying military forces that we would be shot on sight if we violated the martial curfew.
This actually happened.
Do you even have a point? Is your point that federal agents wouldn't kill civilians, given the proper motivation? You're wrong. Is your point that some, individually, wouldn't? Perhaps, but they'd just get kicked out of their position and replaced with another agent that would.
You are honest-to-goodness not making any pertinent point in relation to the Second Amendment.
As I said above:
You can't offer both points at the same time. It's illogical. I'm sure you can see that, and I don't even know why you're arguing.
Nobody violated curfew. It is likely that they would not have shot someone if they did, but I can tell you they would have if confronted with force.
So at that time a bomb was the weapon that would do the most destruction since he didn't have access to an AR-15.
So you want to ban guns so crazy people start building bombs again?
I understand that it actually happened. However, they never shot a soul. So in essence your bet never actually happened.
no it wouldn't. it would actually start functioning as it should.
... Don't be naive.
Exactly!!
Anybody see a massive lawsuit against the mother's estate for negligent homicide/wrongful death?
People that don't know/understand the difference between a AR-15 semi auto rifle (Civilian) and a Full auto (Military) M16 weapon should stop posting about things they don't know anything about.
An AR-15 is just like a 223 hunting rifle, one trigger pull = one round.
A M16 is the military version full auto rifle.
Full auto rifles can be purchased but it requires a "tax stamp" which involves a very intense background check, $500, and about a year to get.
Full auto rifles cost about 10 times as much, and are very hard to get.
The AR-15 this guy used/or had in his car is not full auto! Is not a military rifle! Is not any different than some hunting rifles except it's black and is made to look like a military rifle. IT'S NOT A FULL AUTOMATIC MILITARY RIFLE!!!
3 users like JDShellnutt's post: Eigenvalue, fdubzou, OUMallen
With a some exceptions, they've failed tremendously in the last 100 years. They funny thing is tyranny doesn't happen over night. It comes little by little, piece by piece, in the name of safety and security. We don't need guns today because the government is here to protect us and guns are scary and there's crazy people all over this country, and in this modern world, your self defense is it's responsibility and it would never trample on your rights to keep you safe. Well, except it needs to monitor all your telephone calls, emails, text messages, voice mails, web searches, molest you in the airports, etc., because there are bad people out there and we just need to keep you safe. It's needs a multibillion dollar server farm to storage all that data, but its done to protect you. And also, since there are bad people out there, it might also need to lock some citizens up indefinitely because it just want to be sure you're extra safe. But don't fear it, because it's done to protect you. Don't worry that it's banned things before and people still died by the very things we banned. It know what it's doing and it knows what's best for you and your family better than you do. But, but I've nothing to hide and I've done nothing wrong so I don't care. Silly fool, you thought you were the one who determined if you did anything wrong. It, the federal/central government, decides is if you did anything wrong and a threat, not you and you have no idea what those determinations are or will be in the future.
Yeah, we don't need to keep guns anymore in this modern society. The government is only here to help us.
The following users like this post: Cabbage_town_kid
I'm sure somebody, and some ambulance chaser will try to go after the estate, the brother, the father, the school district, etc.
OKCPD = 1029 Officers http://www.okc.gov/okcpd/
OKC Population = 591,967. Really? Overmatched? LOL
Please see Vietnam and Afghanistan (Soviet and US). The most powerful military this planet has ever seen cannot stop small fighting forces that evade, steal, and use guerrilla tactics. Is it entirely impossible that we could fight a tyrannical government? Not probable, but definitely possible.
You say that like it's a bad thing.
The following users like this post: OUMallen
Where were you in 2003?
I was saying that **** back then and got called a Commie Terrorist Sympathizing Traitor.
Why the change in heart?
What % of murders are committed with ****ault rifles?
I was wringing my hands back in the day saying NCLB was a good idea b/c 'We've got to do something!!!' Boy, was I wrong on that one.
Speak for yourself!
The following users like this post: kingswitz
Decentralized guerilla warfare, while troublesome, is not a meaningful challenge to the federal government's power. That presupposes the federal government generally controls the land. And if the government chose to end the resistance, even in a brutal and unforgiving way, it could in a matter of days or weeks.
Think of it this way: what if the colonists didn't have any cannons or boats or muskets? What if they only had those little flintlock pistols (or whatever they're called) and primitive weapons to fight the British? We'd be speaking the King's English, mate.
Today, we are incredibly outmatched. Things the federal government has that American civilians do not and cannot attain: airplanes, tanks, APVs, mines, helicopters, mortars, cruise missiles, all manner of navy, radar systems, automatic weapons, grenades.
Given the foregoing, I again ****ert: we cannot put up any meaningful violent resistance against our federal government. As such, we should possibly really think about what the Second Amendment means (and should mean) in 2012.
Geeez dude. I made a simple, but factual statement (about the military, not federal agents) and you either misunderstood what I wrote or just deliberately put words into my mouth. Either way you are chasing a red herring.
If this is the case, why didn't we leave Vietnam victorious? Why are we still in Afghanistan? I do believe all of the above are being used there, and most were being used in Vietnam. As far as colonial times, we fought the british with unconventional methods and were chastised for it. It is highly effective against the most advanced technology.
Because we weren't willing to kill everyone we needed to kill. It's not because we couldn't do it.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
