2nd Amendent doesn't allow me ENOUGH arms to defend myself

[DoItMyself]

Im sick of the gun grabbers, but, the 2nd amendment was meant to allow citizens to protect themselves from tyrannical government. So, yes, I should have all the rifles I want. BUT, government has armed up far bigger now.

The 2nd Amendent doesn't go far enough.

The tyrannists have DRONES now. How can I defend myself with an AR15 against a drone? Should citizens be allowed to have high tech air defense systems if they want?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Actually, given the idiocy of the OP, you pose a much greater threat to the rights enshrined in the Second Amendment than any ‘gun grabber.’

 

[Mr. H.]

Are you really that bad of a shot?

 

[DoItMyself]

Actually, given the idiocy of the OP, you pose a much greater threat to the rights enshrined in the Second Amendment than any ‘gun grabber.’

No, you're just a closet libtard.

If the government wants to oppress us with tyranny, they aren't sending troops or homeland security to our doors with AR15's. They'll tax us to death, pass crazy laws, put up roadblocks, and then use drones.

My rifle and pickup are no match for drones or roadblocks with tanks and swat teams.

How does the 2nd allow me to defend myself? It needs expansion.

 

[DoItMyself]

If I'm responsible and law abiding, there is no reason I should be banned from having any of the same weapons the military and swat have.

 

[Moonglow]

You can get class 9 weapons.

 

[Moonglow]

If I'm responsible and law abiding, there is no reason I should be banned from having any of the same weapons the military and swat have.

Where will you get the money for your own TOW launcher and missiles? Can you maintain an ICBM?

 

[DoItMyself]

If I'm responsible and law abiding, there is no reason I should be banned from having any of the same weapons the military and swat have.

Where will you get the money for your own TOW launcher and missiles? Can you maintain an ICBM?

If all citizens could have them, there would be more demand, and companies like Bushmaster and Remington would expand into making those weapons for civilian owners also. They're only that expensive because only the government can have them, and the government is big spending and spends way too much.

All Americans should have defense against government tyranny, and they use drones and tanks, not just AR15's.

 

[zeke]

If I'm responsible and law abiding, there is no reason I should be banned from having any of the same weapons the military and swat have.

Where will you get the money for your own TOW launcher and missiles? Can you maintain an ICBM?

If all citizens could have them, there would be more demand, and companies like Bushmaster and Remington would expand into making those weapons for civilian owners also. They're only that expensive because only the government can have them, and the government is big spending and spends way too much.

All Americans should have defense against government tyranny, and they use drones and tanks, not just AR15's.

Hey dude. I am the one that gets to jerk these gun nuts around.

How come you didn't advocate giving newborn babies their first gun at birth? I and the NRA are supporters of this fine idea. But not you eh? No trigger locks either.

And if you can't make a Molotov cocktail, what good are you?

Have you been studying your copy of the "Art of War"? There in lies the solution to your concerns about having less in the way of firepower, grasshopper.

 

[BlindBoo]

Im sick of the gun grabbers, but, the 2nd amendment was meant to allow citizens to protect themselves from tyrannical government. So, yes, I should have all the rifles I want. BUT, government has armed up far bigger now.

The 2nd Amendent doesn't go far enough.

The tyrannists have DRONES now. How can I defend myself with an AR15 against a drone? Should citizens be allowed to have high tech air defense systems if they want?

I think the 2nd was to reinforce the notion that every citizen who was part of their States' Well Regulated Militia was a defender of the country against foreign and domestic enemies, including domestic insurrections, had a guaranteed right keep their arms in their homes. Not to protect us from the Government of the People. Instead of having a large revenue sucking standing Army. A policy we abandoned a century ago. The courts have since decided that citizens do have the right to posses certain firearms for personal protection/survival as well. That is a right separate from the State Militias. So where do you draw the line?

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Froot Loops for breakfast!