Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
So, are you saying that if we were attacked by a foreign invader you aren't a good enough shot to repel them with a lever action .30-30 like John Wayne, or are you saying you need assault rifles to attack the government troops doing their job because you are a "True Patriot...?
I can't imagine another scenario. Help a Bro out, here...
If we were invaded by a foreign power, most people in the area of conquest would be dead before they could reach for their weapon. I get the impression that the far right, despite their excruciating knowledge of guns, has absolute no idea how war actually works. Anybody in this day and age who thinks that "enemy soldiers are going to land on America's shores and invade us" is completely out of touch with reality, and doubly so if they think that rag-tag groups of angry militia men are going to succeed where the US military failed. They seem to think their cute little AR-15's are effective against T-72's, strategic bombers, etc. Absurd.
They are only slightly more out of touch than the "we all need weapons of war to kill duh gubermint!" I like reminding them that every day the US military pounds into the dirt terrorist groups far more organized, trained, and motivated than any disgruntled militia here will ever be. Good luck with that "overthrowing duh gubermint because I hate paying mah taxes!" plan.
If we were invaded by a foreign power, most people in the area of conquest would be dead before they could reach for their weapon. I get the impression that the far right, despite their excruciating knowledge of guns, has absolute no idea how war actually works. Anybody in this day and age who thinks that "enemy soldiers are going to land on America's shores and invade us" is completely out of touch with reality, and doubly so if they think that rag-tag groups of angry militia men are going to succeed where the US military failed. They seem to think their cute little AR-15's are effective against T-72's, strategic bombers, etc. Absurd.
They are only slightly more out of touch than the "we all need weapons of war to kill duh gubermint!" I like reminding them that every day the US military pounds into the dirt terrorist groups far more organized, trained, and motivated than any disgruntled militia here will ever be. Good luck with that "overthrowing duh gubermint because I hate paying mah taxes!" plan.
Like we bombed the hell out of nam and still...um...lost? To a bunch of peashooters. Is that how war works?
If an invasion were ever to happen, however unlikely you think it may be....
Would you rather be armed as a US citizen...... or unarmed?
Unarmed. Because if I were armed, I'd be shot dead. Common sense there.
Reverse the roles in the middle east. The US is now Afghanistan or Syria. The "foreign invaders" (aka, US Military) go from house to house to clear out a block. Who do you think is getting shot? The people with their hands behind their head laying down or those who fruitlessly shoot the armed forces.
If you actually care about survival, you'd surrender your weapon and cooperate. Again, hypothetically, if the US military were to be defeated, we're screwed either way. I don't know about you, but I prefer living.
Unarmed. Because if I were armed, I'd be shot dead. Common sense there.
Reverse the roles in the middle east. The US is now Afghanistan or Syria. The "foreign invaders" (aka, US Military) go from house to house to clear out a block. Who do you think is getting shot? The people with their hands behind their head laying down or those who fruitlessly shoot the armed forces.
If you actually care about survival, you'd surrender your weapon and cooperate. Again, hypothetically, if the US military were to be defeated, we're screwed either way. I don't know about you, but I prefer living.
Sure, let me give up and be put in the equivalent of gitmo by a country that doesn't even at least pretend to have a "fair" justice system. No thanks.
No idea where you decided to make that blabber up from. Even so, life > death. Ask any dead person if they'd rather be alive.... oh wait. You can't.
Blabber? No, Id rather go down fighting than be waterboarded, tortured, sexually abused, threatened while naked by attack dogs, photographed naked by "military" members, held in eternity with no hope of release or trial. Its a pretty simple option, I'd die fighting before I let that happen to me. And to be clear, the United States of America, the country that proclaims to be the most free in the world did all of these things to their prisoners of war, so yeah, no thanks for that.
You all seem to be missing the grand conspiracy. The second amendment meant exactly what it says. That no law shall be made which infringes the right of the people to bear arms. That is war talk. Not the right to protect your family which may be a side codicil.
The founding fathers intended that the citizen body be armed to the point that the could overthrow the government. So the Feds or the States served only as long as the population agreed.
But nowadays that view is both unworkable and opposed by virtually all the powers that be...perhaps for good reason. But they also face the problem that the law cannot be overturned by the amendment process in the existing environs. So the grand conspiracy. We won't amend the second we will simply reinterpret the words to something acceptable.
So all sides on the left and right and between all agree the second does not say what it says and that the historical record plainly shows was intended.
So the intent of the second is of no relevance. It is how we choose to reinterpret the words. And that will, in the end make for a right to own minimal weapons for self defense and other activities. But the intent of the second is only of interest for historic reasons. We have decided it is no longer workable and to defeat it...and we may even be right though the technique used is hardly righteous.
Blabber? No, Id rather go down fighting than be waterboarded, tortured, sexually abused, threatened while naked by attack dogs, photographed naked by "military" members, held in eternity with no hope of release or trial. Its a pretty simple option, I'd die fighting before I let that happen to me. And to be clear, the United States of America, the country that proclaims to be the most free in the world did all of these things to their prisoners of war, so yeah, no thanks for that.
Again, blabber. Enough of your hypothetical situations that would never happen. The US isn't being invaded and won't be. Even if we were, they're not sending millions of people to some torture camps.
You want to see a fantasy invasion of the US? Watch the Amazon series, "The Man in the High Castle" where Japan and German overtake the US. If you watch it, you'll notice something: The average citizen continued on with their daily lives. Yes, they were under a new governmental power, but they weren't tortured or waterboarded or anything. Not too different than when the US invaded Iraq and set up Saddam as a puppet. The average citizen wasn't vastly affected.
That is the reality if an invasion were to ever happen.
You might want to have a word with your president then, lol. Looks like he's ready to neuter them.
Indeed.
After all this talk about Hillary Clinton coming to take away your guns, it's really Trump who is advocating for taking away people's guns.
Listen at about 1:30 into this clip from the other day where he said the police should have taken the Florida shooter's guns away - “The police saw that he was a problem, they didn't take any guns away. Now that could have been policing, but they should have taken them away anyway, whether they had the right or not.”
Again, blabber. Enough of your hypothetical situations that would never happen. The US isn't being invaded and won't be. Even if we were, they're not sending millions of people to some torture camps.
You want to see a fantasy invasion of the US? Watch the Amazon series, "The Man in the High Castle" where Japan and German overtake the US. If you watch it, you'll notice something: The average citizen continued on with their daily lives. Yes, they were under a new governmental power, but they weren't tortured or waterboarded or anything. Not too different than when the US invaded Iraq and set up Saddam as a puppet. The average citizen wasn't vastly affected.
That is the reality if an invasion were to ever happen.
Nope, I don't want to see an invasion, I don't blabber. I present facts of how we treat other countries and I certainly don't use a g-d Amazon series as basis for debate.
Bottom line is that societies fail or are taken over throughout history, its happened to the biggest and best of them, thats a fact, and I'm assuming that set of facts will continue since they have for the last 2000 years. You on the other hand are taking the opposite approach of ignoring those facts and using a television series as part of your argument for how things will go. Its not surprising in a society thats obsessed with reality TV. Feel free to relinquish your rights, but please don't think that your weak and ill-informed opinions mean that anyone else should subject themselves to similar idiocy.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
