Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
I don't think you know what you're talking about. Time and time again, people have held off armys.The constitutional provision for private gun ownership has been made redundant by time as armaments have since progressed beyond the firearm. And a citizens army wielding small arms would have little chance of success against a tyrannical government armed with the some of the best weapons of war man has ever made. What do you think?
I think that the founders could not have imagined offset printing, let alone the internet and social media. Therefore, your speech has been determined to be detrimental to the country and you may not say such things anymore.The constitutional provision for private gun ownership has been made redundant by time as armaments have since progressed beyond the firearm. And a citizens army wielding small arms would have little chance of success against a tyrannical government armed with the some of the best weapons of war man has ever made. What do you think?
The constitutional provision for private gun ownership has been made redundant by time as armaments have since progressed beyond the firearm. And a citizens army wielding small arms would have little chance of success against a tyrannical government armed with the some of the best weapons of war man has ever made. What do you think?
No one wants really big nukes to be available, surely.
I don't think you know what you're talking about. Time and time again, people have held off armys.The constitutional provision for private gun ownership has been made redundant by time as armaments have since progressed beyond the firearm. And a citizens army wielding small arms would have little chance of success against a tyrannical government armed with the some of the best weapons of war man has ever made. What do you think?
Afghanistan against the SovietsI don't think you know what you're talking about. Time and time again, people have held off armys.The constitutional provision for private gun ownership has been made redundant by time as armaments have since progressed beyond the firearm. And a citizens army wielding small arms would have little chance of success against a tyrannical government armed with the some of the best weapons of war man has ever made. What do you think?
It worked really well for Defrezze (SLA) and Koresh (branch davidians) and their followers - against a police dept. and a para military LE agency - didn't it.
No one wants really big nukes to be available, surely.
I think the likelihood of even an oppressive, fascist US government using nukes against rebellious citizens on their own soil is very remote, since they themselves and their own followers also live there. It would take a very stupid, suicidal person to go that route. So I don't really have a problem with the fact that ownership of the quite rare materials necessary for nukes is very restricted, particularly since the cost of those materials is prohibitively high, anyway.
But leaving aside the "all or nothing" fallacy argument, it is a fact that the Founding generation had the technology of large weapons (cannons, for example) available and in use, and felt no necessity to limit the possession of such. You can argue whether or not they were correct in doing so, but you cannot honestly argue that they wrote the Second Amendment in ignorance of the issue.
Afghanistan against the SovietsI don't think you know what you're talking about. Time and time again, people have held off armys.The constitutional provision for private gun ownership has been made redundant by time as armaments have since progressed beyond the firearm. And a citizens army wielding small arms would have little chance of success against a tyrannical government armed with the some of the best weapons of war man has ever made. What do you think?
It worked really well for Defrezze (SLA) and Koresh (branch davidians) and their followers - against a police dept. and a para military LE agency - didn't it.
The Vietcong against the United States.
Forgot about those. Thanks. As you are no doubt aware, facts like these mean nothing to the stains.
They would never be there to begin with. It's a club for men, not makeup wearing pathetic sissies.Forgot about those. Thanks. As you are no doubt aware, facts like these mean nothing to the stains.
Those who talk the talk, but when it comes to walking the walk, my guess is the first time they see the Elephant they run like a bat out of hell.
Even if that's all true, what's your point? how is having less weaponry better than none? it would seem that the more out gunned you are the more the need for it. but that aside, isn't the claim about guns from those that want stricter controls claiming that they are not wanting to take them away or abolish the second amendment? or has that argument become so transparent that abandoning it altogether now seems a face saving way to go...and what about the first amendment, with all the high tech communications systems and devicecs have we progressed beyond the need for a free press?...I hope notThe constitutional provision for private gun ownership has been made redundant by time as armaments have since progressed beyond the firearm. And a citizens army wielding small arms would have little chance of success against a tyrannical government armed with the some of the best weapons of war man has ever made. What do you think?
Even if that's all true, what's your point? how is having less weaponry better than none? it would seem that the more out gunned you are the more the need for it. but that aside, isn't the claim about guns from those that want stricter controls claiming that they are not wanting to take them away or abolish the second amendment? or has that argument become so transparent that abandoning it altogether now seems a face saving way to go...and what about the first amendment, with all the high tech communications systems and devicecs have we progressed beyond the need for a free press?...I hope notThe constitutional provision for private gun ownership has been made redundant by time as armaments have since progressed beyond the firearm. And a citizens army wielding small arms would have little chance of success against a tyrannical government armed with the some of the best weapons of war man has ever made. What do you think?
Nice attempt at a spin, sorry, it does not turn.
Gun control does not mean total gun confiscation from the public sector.
The argument that is does, or that any form of gun control will lead to such an outcome is a logical fallacy, i.e. a Slippery Slope Argument.
There may be a few extremists who seek such an outcome, but the vast majority of those who seek some control over who owns, possesses or has in their custody and control a firearm does not seek the outlaw of guns by sober, sane and law abiding citizens for protection;
You know why, because they are the "sober, sane and law abiding citizens;" you referred to. and I would ague that each form of gun control is just another step toward making the 2nd amendment toothless...the fact that you keep referring to the NRA and the second amendment only further strengthens the argument that this about a transparent attempt to abolish the 2nd amendment.
- Many NRA supporters argue that any form of gun control violates the 2nd A.;
given the fact that gun violence in America has become a common event, one which kills and maims innocents by accident or design, a circumstance with great the costs to treat surveyors, an autopsy when necessary, and the criminal investigation are costly, and paid for by the taxpayer;
Finally, some forms of gun control already exist,
and in the opinion of Scalia in Heller, room was left for gun controls;
the NRA and it's advocates' argument's against any form of gun control, like yours, are specious.
No one wants really big nukes to be available, surely.
I think the likelihood of even an oppressive, fascist US government using nukes against rebellious citizens on their own soil is very remote, since they themselves and their own followers also live there. It would take a very stupid, suicidal person to go that route. So I don't really have a problem with the fact that ownership of the quite rare materials necessary for nukes is very restricted, particularly since the cost of those materials is prohibitively high, anyway.
But leaving aside the "all or nothing" fallacy argument, it is a fact that the Founding generation had the technology of large weapons (cannons, for example) available and in use, and felt no necessity to limit the possession of such. You can argue whether or not they were correct in doing so, but you cannot honestly argue that they wrote the Second Amendment in ignorance of the issue.
And of course it is so easy to carry a cannon into a movie theater, an airport or onto a college campus.
