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.
I support the 2nd amendment...But do you really think America would ever be invaded by a foreign power?
Of course you know that's not realistic. You just sound angry
You could argue we already have. Checks and balances exist to keep human nature in check. If a group of people decide they want to tell everyone what to do "for their own good" what's to stop them from abusing their authority? Guns ensure government doesn't overextend their authority. Right now many of our policy is dictated by groups of globalists in groups such as the CFR and World Bank. Who's to say they should decide how the entire planet lives their lives?
The 2nd Amendment was designed for situations exactly as those being faced in Ukraine. Tyrants want the population to be disarmed so that they are easier to control.
It is not surprising that liberals, who are totalitarians at heart, support the very same measures as other fascists in wanting to disarm and weaken the population.
If Putin is successful in taking Ukraine, the very first thing he will do is to INITIATE GUN CONTROL. Such measures are the actions of tyrants who fear the people.
If the 2nd amendment followers acted with some sort of eye to national defense, the debate would be different. But I don't really see that.
I mean - the militia referred to in the 2nd is pretty clearly defined:
Quote:
Clause 15. The Congress shall have Power * * * To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions.
Clause 16. The Congress shall have Power * * * To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress.
This fairly well describes what a lot of countries would call a Home Guard. But I'm not seeing a US militia being trained according to the discipline prescribed by Congress. I'm seeing a ton of people arming themselves in a very undisciplined manner, and the inevitable consequences.
If the followers of the 2nd adopted the Swiss attitude to marksmanship and firearms - one fairly described as "We should be ready to fight for what's ours", I'd respect that. Instead, I'm hearing a lot of talk along a much more self-centered way of thinking - "I want to be able to shoot anyone coming for what's mine". (And an unhealthy fascination with the firearm as an object, but that's a longer debate.)
I support the 2nd amendment...But do you really think America would ever be invaded by a foreign power?
Of course you know that's not realistic. You just sound angry
Quote:
Originally Posted by NeutralParty
I support the 2nd amendment...But do you really think America would ever be invaded by a foreign power?
Guns ensure government doesn't overextend their authority.
The forces of the US government - that is, law enforcement - kill US citizens at a rate somewhere between 10 and 50 times that of other Western nations. An armed society is manifestly not a polite one.
If the 2nd amendment followers acted with some sort of eye to national defense, the debate would be different. But I don't really see that.
I mean - the militia referred to in the 2nd is pretty clearly defined:
This fairly well describes what a lot of countries would call a Home Guard. But I'm not seeing a US militia being trained according to the discipline prescribed by Congress. I'm seeing a ton of people arming themselves in a very undisciplined manner, and the inevitable consequences.
If the followers of the 2nd adopted the Swiss attitude to marksmanship and firearms - one fairly described as "We should be ready to fight for what's ours", I'd respect that. Instead, I'm hearing a lot of talk along a much more self-centered way of thinking - "I want to be able to shoot anyone coming for what's mine". (And an unhealthy fascination with the firearm as an object, but that's a longer debate.)
Ukrainian citizens weren't a militia until a few days ago. I've heard stories of folks going to the police station and getting AK-47s. "Know how to use that?". "No, but I'll figure it out."
You think maybe the Ukrainians need gun safety courses before they head out on the streets to defend their lives and country?
If the 2nd amendment followers acted with some sort of eye to national defense, the debate would be different. But I don't really see that.
I mean - the militia referred to in the 2nd is pretty clearly defined:
Quote:
Clause 15. The Congress shall have Power * * * To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions.
Clause 16. The Congress shall have Power * * * To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress.
This fairly well describes what a lot of countries would call a Home Guard. But I'm not seeing a US militia being trained according to the discipline prescribed by Congress. I'm seeing a ton of people arming themselves in a very undisciplined manner, and the inevitable consequences.
If the followers of the 2nd adopted the Swiss attitude to marksmanship and firearms - one fairly described as "We should be ready to fight for what's ours", I'd respect that. Instead, I'm hearing a lot of talk along a much more self-centered way of thinking - "I want to be able to shoot anyone coming for what's mine". (And an unhealthy fascination with the firearm as an object, but that's a longer debate.)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dane_in_LA
This fairly well describes what a lot of countries would call a Home Guard. But I'm not seeing a US militia being trained according to the discipline prescribed by Congress.
The 2nd Amendment was designed for situations exactly as those being faced in Ukraine. Tyrants want the population to be disarmed so that they are easier to control.
It is not surprising that liberals, who are totalitarians at heart, support the very same measures as other fascists in wanting to disarm and weaken the population.
If Putin is successful in taking Ukraine, the very first thing he will do is to INITIATE GUN CONTROL. Such measures are the actions of tyrants who fear the people.
WAKE UP
When we are invaded by a foreign country, then folk should talk. But even then, there's a "well regulated" and well-trained militia sworn to protect us; proven to be much better than that of Ukraine, and definitely better than some cats in the forests of northern Michigan.....!
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.
