Originally posted by dadudemon
Multiple tantrums by being shut down with facts. Oh my!TIL: Robtard thinks nobody knew about technology, guns, and science back in the late 1700s, he thinks that people back then were super stupid, he thinks that those people made laws that would only apply in extremely specific technology-bereft scenarios, and he thinks that - because of all the previous things he thinks- gun laws don't make sense in our contemporary landscape.
Yeah, makes sense if you line up a bunch of falsehoods to come up with a conclusion like that. I understand where you're coming from, Robtard. 🙂
But, don't worry, I've got you set straight with actual facts!
You're welcome.
Bingo I loved it, it almost made me think Bash had somehow taken control of Robs account.
Originally posted by Surtur
^More pretend winning, I love it. They should change the name from AR-15 to MS-13 and then leftists will wanna protect them.
Sad, but true. Maybe Nancy Pelosi will even start claiming the guns have a "spark of divinity" and are "God's children" as well as she did with the actual gang. lol
Originally posted by TempAccount
Regardless of constitutionality, my personal opinion is that the idea of a militia existing to challenge a tyrannical government is full of shit. Maybe back in the 1700's it could have been a fair fight with simple weaponry, but anyone with two brain-cells to rub together should be able to see that the armed forces of the government possesses weaponry that far out-classes anything a private party can get. Easiest example would be the AR-15 which is a semi-auto, inferior derivative, of the M16.People are talking about the second amendment militias as a barrier to the feds infringing on state-sovereignty as if the national guard stands any sort of chance against the vastly superior weaponry possessed our government. We are in a period where victories are not determined by the amount of men or valor but by the click of a computer mouse.
State forces are a joke. The 2nd 'mendment is obsolete from a militia to protect state sovereignty POV.
(also as I've said in the past a bunch of pot-bellied middle-aged men aren't going to do jack)
My personal opinion (being a fan of military rule/martial law) is that only those who undergo training in the armed forces should be allowed to bear arms. More now than ever; today's civilians lack self-discipline and the common sense to responsibly stow and wield a gun. Countless times I see on the news children getting access to firearms as a result of idiotic owners. It's sad that the responsible owners must bear the price, but I'm sure they'd be able to past the rigors of military training (your average soyboy/incel can't--so cut down on mass shootings?).
Tl;dr:
2nd amendment militia as a force to challenge a tyrannical federal government is impractical in the 21st century (not so much in the 18th) as technological advances have already given the feds "the victory" so to speak. My personal opinion is that only those who undergo military training have access to guns.
There are nearly 400 million guns owned by civilians in this country compared to less than 5 million owned by the military.
Originally posted by TempAccount
Regardless of constitutionality, my personal opinion is that the idea of a militia existing to challenge a tyrannical government is full of shit.
Man, you're right.
Let's go rewrite history. Let's tell the people from Vietnam and Afghanistan that they did not successfully wage war with the most powerful militaries on the planet from their huts, trees, and shacks.
So glad you cleared that ups for us. 🙂
FYI, if what you said was correct, then the DHS wouldn't have scenarios run in their tabletops about coordinated attacks against the government.
Originally posted by Surtur
There are nearly 400 million guns owned by civilians in this country compared to less than 5 million owned by the military.
yeah, but that's not accounting for higher level equipment and most importantly the armed forces are trained, can coordinate, can perform country-wide coordinated operations, while you will never see 2% of the general population spread randomly to have any amount of that level of coop
Originally posted by EmperordmbI've realized that I'm more like Ted Beneke in my current state.
Nah dude that's Kurk
Originally posted by gold slorg
yeah, but that's not accounting for higher level equipment and most importantly the armed forces are trained, can coordinate, can perform country-wide coordinated operations, while you will never see 2% of the general population spread randomly to have any amount of that level of coop
Originally posted by ArtificialGlory
Just make ammunition extremely hard to acquire and you can effectively ban guns while not violating the right to bear arms.