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 totally agree...but the catch is...the person must be willing to use the assault weapon!
Think about it...if we honor and respect the 2nd Amendment, people that go and shoot up Govt buildings would be labelled as 'patriots'...(this is not the case today though), nearly everyone views such a person as a 'domestic terrorist'.
This is one reason why I do not think the 2nd Amendment is useful (especially today), the simple fact is, not many people are willing to pull and gun and shoot a Govt employee in the attempt to stop 'tyranny'...for that to even be effective, would require 100s of 1000s of American citizens, all willing to shoot!
If the government were to first abolish the 2nd Amendment then outlaw the civilian possession of firearms. Followed by Gestapo like tactics to go on house to house warrantless searches of every dwelling in the United States. You'd better believe that tens of millions would be willing to shoot back. If that's not worth fighting against then nothing is. It's estimated that about 22,000 armed civilians marched into Richmond, VA to protest Virginia's proposed draconian gun control legislation. Just try to imagine this happening in every community throughout the nation. I think that you grossly underestimate the strength and resolve of those of us that strongly believe in the 2nd Amendment and Constitutional Law.
Let me put it to you this way. It's highly unlikely that the Pentagon's arsenal would be used against American civilians. They'd have to obliterate every single town, village, city and neighborhood. If so the military would have to destroy their own friends, family and neighborhoods. There would be absolutely nothing left for them to come back to. If the civilian population were destroyed who'd supply the military with supplies? There'd be nobody left to work the factories, farm the fields and deliver the supplies. All commerce would come to a grinding halt.
About the only way they could possibly do it would be to go on house to house searches where they would be met with overwhelming and fierce resistance. With a continental land mass of 3,800,000 square miles they just don't have the manpower to search every home throughout the United States. Not too mention all of the remote areas that hardly anyone knows even exist. Indeed there are tens of thousands of people who live in these places throughout the United States. The armed civilian population are scattered all over the continental United States, Alaska and Hawaii. It would be impossible for the military to declare and enforce Martial Law throughout the entire United States.
The armed civilian population at around 100 million or so would vastly outnumber government forces. According to Wikipedia, there are 1,477,896 active and 1,458,500 reserve personal in the US Armed Forces. This includes Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, and Coast Guard. I'd be willing to bet that at least 75% of those who serve in the military are strong supporters of the 2nd Amendment and Constitutional law same for state and local law enforcement personnel. My guess is that the majority of service members would disobey orders, and in all probability would use their weapons against those that ordered them to do so. It wouldn't surprise me if they joined forces with the civilian population that takes up arms in the fight against a tyrannical form of government. The first to go would be the politicians that gave the orders.
Quote:
At tense Virginia rally, gun rights activists vow their fight ... https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news...l-not-n1118811
About 22,000 people attended the rally, 6,000 on Capitol Square and 16,000 outside the security gates, authorities said. Members of an armed militia group arrive near the Virginia Capitol building...
Thousands of armed activists gather at Virginia's pro-gun rally https://www.cnbc.com/2020/01/20/thou...gun-rally.html
Jan 20, 2020 · More than 22,000 armed gun-rights activists peacefully filled the streets around Virginia’s capitol building on Monday to protest gun-control legislation making its way through the newly...
Thousands of Armed US Gun Rights Activists Join Peaceful ... https://www.voanews.com/usa/thousand...virginia-rally
Jan 20, 2020 · RICHMOND, VIRGINIA - More than 22,000 armed gun-rights activists peacefully filled the streets around Virginia's capitol building on Monday to protest gun-control legislation making its way through...
Capitol gun rally: 22,000 attendees, one arrest, no violence ... https://www.virginiamercury.com/2020...ginia-capitol/
Jan 20, 2020 · Authorities said an estimated 22,000 people attended Monday’s gun rally, which ended without incident despite fears that far-right extremists were planning to hijack the event. They said approximately 6,000 people entered the weapon-free zone within Capitol Square and another 16,000 people stood on the streets outside the gate.
Without the military initiating a tyrannical government overthrough, it would be possible but very difficult to organize enough civis to risk their lives. It would have to be a secret organized simultaneous to the second, of thousands taking each local armory across the country and all the Guard airfields also. Almost impossible. That's why those in power are vetting the military brass as we speak. Just look at what's happening with in Myanmar , just horrible. It always makes , think of the civil war song "Johnson Boys" . The South have their lyrics, then the Yanks changed them to fit their narrative.
Without the military initiating a tyrannical government overthrough, it would be possible but very difficult to organize enough civis to risk their lives. It would have to be a secret organized simultaneous to the second, of thousands taking each local armory across the country and all the Guard airfields also. Almost impossible. That's why those in power are vetting the military brass as we speak. Just look at what's happening with in Myanmar , just horrible. It always makes , think of the civil war song "Johnson Boys" . The South have their lyrics, then the Yanks changed them to fit their narrative.
Why am I not surprised that someone who can't understand normal people's occasional need to resist part or all of a tyrannical government, can't even spell "overthrow"?
Show me where it says "any" arms. This argument is much like Sov Cits who claim the right to travel, but don't seem to grasp that nowhere is your right to travel by any means mentioned. You can travel on your feet to your heart's desire. Hence, when you're required to have a driver's license to operate a car, your right to travel hasn't been violated. You can still exercise said right via some other mode. The 2nd Amendment says you have the right to bear arms. If you are carrying a pocket knife, you're armed and your rights are intact. The Constitution isn't meant to cover every scenario. The implementation of the Constitution is via law. The judicial system is in place in case of legislative overreach. As such, individual citizens don't get to interpret the Constitution any way they want. It simply doesn't work that way. Until SCOTUS says other wise, "assault" weapon bans are perfectly Constitutional. Personally, I think assault weapon bans are stupid. They're an attempt to solve a problem that doesn't exist and are based on hysteria, not fact. Even worse, such bans will deprive tens of millions of people the ability to enjoy target shooting, hunting, etc. Frankly, the anti-gun crowd are nothing but a bunch of low self esteem power-hungry nannies. The thrive on being buzz-kills. Anytime they see someone having fun, they jump in to put a stop to it. Guns, high performance cars, motorcycles, skateboards, you name it. If it's fun, they want to regulate it out of existence.
All rights have limitations. However the Heller decision stated "common use". Rifles with detachable magazines are pretty damn common yes?
Also the Miller decision stated arms used for "militia purposes" and the weapons such as a sawed off shotgun do not apply. So then what arms are connected with militia purposes?
All rights have limitations. However the Heller decision stated "common use". Rifles with detachable magazines are pretty damn common yes?
Yes... and the AR-15 is by far the most commonly-owned such rifle, by civilians (that's you and me).
Quote:
Also the Miller decision stated arms used for "militia purposes" and the weapons such as a sawed off shotgun do not apply. So then what arms are connected with militia purposes?
In the 1939 "U.S. v. Miller" USSC trial, Miller and his lawyers didn't even show up for the hearing. NOBODY showed up for the Defense. That side of the courtroom was empty.
So the anti-gun-rights prosecution (government agents) took advantage of the windfall, and read several lies into the record. The Justices rubber-stamped them into an "Opinion", since there was nobody present in the courtroom to refute them.
Those lies included:
1.) The 2nd amendment applies only to people in a military group such as a "militia".
2.) The 2nd amendment applied only to firearms in common use by the U.S. military at the time.
3.) The gun in question at the trial (a short-barrelled shotgun) was not in common use by the U.S. military in the most recent war (WWI)
4.) The 1934 National Firearms Act which required a tax of $200 for every time an affected firearm was sold or otherwise transferred, was not an unconstitutional infringement on the people's right to own and carry that firearm.
5.) ....and some other obvious fibs.
If this case were re-tried today, the 1939 case would be overturned in about 5 minutes.
The real threat that sovereign law abiding U.S. citizens are facing right now is the liberal media. They are establishing a narrative on behest of the president and his political cohorts to saturate the masses with disinformation that will garner support in subverting the Constitution, namely the 2nd Amendment, a major national security blanket for the United States. The media is telling you that guns are the heart of the problem ....................they are not. Guns have not caused these tragic shootings that America has been experiencing the last 20 years. The NRA is not to blame either. What really is to blame is a radical flawed ideology called liberalism. The media has embrace it and will stop at nothing until the goal of transforming America into a progressivism state of mind. They are the main assault weapon that you, the American citizen faces. I want you to pay attention to just 6 reasons released last month why assault weapons should not be banned. If you are blessed with good ole common sense, you should be able to agree with these logical reasons.
Yeah yeah media this, government that, the world is out to get you. But I'll watch your video anyway.
A few seconds in, and another BS comparison. We can't ban airplanes, obviously. I shouldn't have to explain the difference between a mode of transport and a deadly weapon.
About 40 seconds in, Ice T comes in. Just cause you're paranoid doesn't mean you should get the right to have an assault weapon. Even an assault weapon isn't going to save you from tyranny anyway.
The Constitution can be interpreted pretty loosely. I think it needs changing, but he IS right that it is the law of the land.
If the founders knew what stealth bombers, Abrams tanks, etc were, I have a hard time believing they would still think civilians should be armed equally to the military. More importantly, do any of you conservatives believe a civilian should be able to own a bomber and munitions? A tank? Just curious.
Yes, it could theoretically help in an invasion scenario, but that's unrealistic for at least the next 20 years or so. And if our government can't defeat an invading force, and somehow that invading force's supply lines and everything else that comes with an invasion survive the logistical nightmare that is invading the US, we're screwed anyway.
The reason foreign nations don't consider invading the US is the diplomatic and economic consequences, as well as the military strength of the US. Frankly it wouldn't make much sense for anyone to invade us at this point.
#5 pretty much goes against his own cause. Hell yeah guns are dangerous
He doesn't specify how many people are in the assault weapon industry specifically. Not to mention that just because civilians couldn't own the guns doesn't mean they would stop making guns for law enforcement, military, foreign nations, etc.
"If the founders knew what stealth bombers, Abrams tanks, etc were"
But they did NOT ban any of the most lethal weapons of the time.
Private citizens owned battleships armed with cannons. Why were NOT they banned?
President Thomas Jefferson gave Lewis & Clark SEMI-automatic rifles.
Why weren't they banned?
Tells me MORE then what you think!
"Yes, it could theoretically help in an invasion scenario, but that's unrealistic for at least the next 20 years or so"
You might to check out what was said BEFORE Japan invaded us and bombed Pearl Harbor!
Nothing personal but, I don't think you know much about the topic you are claiming to know.
Well I think that it is pretty silly to ban civilian versions of military weapons because the realty so called civilian versions of military weapons aren't full automatic nor to they even fire 3 round busts like the M4 or the M16. The civilian version of the M16 is semi-automatic like dozens of non-assault weapon semi-automatics. Ban a weapon because it has a pistol grip, is black and doesn't have a wooden stock doesn't make much sense to me because these are purely cosmetic.
BUT BANNING HI-CAPACITY MAGAZINES MAKES A WORLD OF SENSE!
No it doesn't solve the problem of gun violence but it would help.
No criminals don't pay attention to laws, but so what. The mere possession of a high capacity magazine allows law enforcement to arrest and confiscate what is out there. If prepers want to bury them for the day their Red Dawn fantasies come to fruition, fine, better buried than moving around the streets.
This is no silver bullet (pun intended) but its something.
"BUT BANNING HI-CAPACITY MAGAZINES MAKES A WORLD OF SENSE!"
I just want to let you know how you are wrong about this Pic. It was taken in Israel. Anyone who has ever been to Israel knows you see a lot of armed military all over. The Women in with the Rifle is not a teacher. She is a parent Chaperone. Also, in Israel there is compulsory military duty.
Do you want to live in a society that has to provide armed escorts all over? Do you think your third grade teacher would be comfortable with a side arm while teaching long division?
We need a cultural change........Just because some of you have does not mean you get to dictate to the rest of us that we all need to carry a weapon.
Lastly, did you serve your Country in arms? Have you ever had a shoot an enemy combatant? It is not as easy as you would think; especially if your not expecting it.
" Do you think your third grade teacher would be comfortable with a side arm while teaching long division?"
Why do you ASSUME?
1. You act as if only cowardly women are 3rd grade teachers.
2. MORE guns are being sold to women then ever before.
"We need a cultural change......."
3. We need teaching the Constitution and WHY it was written the way it was!
"Lastly, did you serve your Country in arms?" Yes.
" Have you ever had a shoot an enemy combatant?" Yes.
" It is not as easy as you would think"
4. Please only speak for yourself. When someone is shooting at YOU, it is damned EASY to shot back!
"especially if your not expecting it."
5. You SHOULD expect to be shot at when at war in the country we are fighting in.
So when they wrote the Constitution our Founding Fathers knew what an assault weapon was? Try again, all that says is the right to bear "arms." It says nothing about assault weapons because it was left up to us to decide what form of "arms" that should and shouldn't be allowed.
arms plural of arms (Noun)
Noun
Weapons and ammunition; armaments: "they were subjugated by force of arms".
By the definition of "arms" you are saying no form of "weapon" should be "infringed." Well then where do I sign up for a tank and a rocket launcher to take with me whenever I go out shopping, don't want to "infringe" on those "arms."
"So when they wrote the Constitution our Founding Fathers knew what an assault weapon was?"
First, there is NO such thing as an"assault weapon".
It is a made up term and each state has defined it their own way.
Second, the semi-auto WAS around back then.
"Well then where do I sign up for a tank"
Third, a new privately own military arms museum just recently opened with WORKING tanks.
Do your own research, contact him, and ask where he got his working tanks from.
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.
