Well for one it wasn't until 2008 that anyone said in the US that individual citizens have the right to carry arms.  The DC case.

 Also not many people believe their AR-15 is going to stop a US Navy carrier group from blowing up the local power, water and food supply.  Back when we all had muskets it made more sense.

 Not many people believe their current firearms will stop the US military from obliterating their neighborhood if by some miracle anyone could convince them to do it.  To me thats like asking if a 6 year old should carry a knife while I shoot him in the back of the head from 100 yards.

 If it makes some people feel better to have a shotgun in their hand when a cruise missile drops down on them then that's great.  Personally I'd rather use the tools that work in todays environment, like fund mitigation, active election activity etc. as I have found that I get more done that way than with any of the guns I own.

 If I had access to the same war tools as our government I'd say it would be more like the days of both citizens and government having close to equal footing.  The 2nd would apply closer in its original sentiment that way.

had access to the same war tools as our government I'd say it would be more like the days of both citizens and government having close to equal footing.  The 2nd would apply closer in its original sentiment that way.
Back to top          Email Personal Message Add to My Buddy List    IP Logged


Abso freaking Lootelee

That said
I see no reason to surrender what meager weapons we have. The
Navy destroyer is unlikely in east Texas, and missiles need targets,
Somehow poor, oppressed people have managed to make it really tough for our
Greatest military on Earth
in other countries.

A pistol can drop a guy who has a great rifle, ammunition, all kinds of things.
A chainsaw can slow a column, snipers can make it tough,
Your grasp of what people who are being screwed can do might be limited.

"I see no reason to surrender what meager weapons we have."

 Nobody has said to surrender firearms, nor was it intentionally implied.

 I was attempting to say that given the firearms that we have purchased, and get to keep indefinitely, that they do not compare to the weapons that the government has at its disposal.

 We used to, but we do not now.

An armed citizenry can absolutely defend themselves against their government or invasion. In every case? No, but its a fighting chance.

The point is you can find many cases where a citizenry armed with light weapons can fight to a standoff and eventually 'win' a conflict. And I would argue that in Vietnam, we had vastly superior firepower, yet unwillingness to use it left us fighting on more equal terms.

again, think about how long we've been fighting the Taliban? How long the Palestinians have been fighting Israel?

Now think how easily the Jews were rounded up. Think how much different thing would have been if American slaves were allowed to own firearms.

The 2nd Amendment protects the nation from the unthinkable. It's hard to live with sometimes, but so is the 4th Amendment, so is the 1st Amendment.

MShipley wrote on 06/04/18 at 09:46:28:

I do not have guns because I intend to take on the Government. there are 3 primary reasons.
1. Defend my home, family and property.
2. In case of a societal meltdown.
3. Because I want to, I enjoy shooting and last I heard this was a free country. However there are many that are trying to change that.

Said Perfectly.
#1.  A-Yep.
#2. A-Yep
#3.  Gee, I like shooting, in all sorta of forms.
And like Shooting, better than, Golf, Soccer, Tennis, Football, Hockey, Basketball, etc, etc, etc,.
"...However there are many that are trying to change that...."


 

“…I believe the 2nd Amendment is outdated….”

I wonder where the, Freedom of Information Act, (FOIA),
        would be,
with out that useless, outdated  thing called the 2nd.