We can't have it both ways.
WTF are you talking about with your last sentence?
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.
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.
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?
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? Shit, 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?
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.
Secondly. We were fired on when delivering supplies to New Orleans after Katrina. We didn't return fire. So there is that.
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.
You are honest-to-goodness not making any pertinent point in relation to the Second Amendment.
So you want to ban guns so crazy people start building bombs again?
Anybody see a massive lawsuit against the mother's estate for negligent homicide/wrongful death?
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!!!
Yeah, we don't need to keep guns anymore in this modern society. The government is only here to help us.
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.
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 assert: 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.