Isn't it time you yanks grew up regarding your gun death epidemic?

[progressive hunter]

Oh Jesus - The constitution doesn't include everything that is illegal. I can't point to anything in the constitution that says you can't own an Abram's Tank or or a Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II fighter jet either. But you can't.

Actually I can own either. Or both.

What the Constitution does include is every power that the Federal Government has along with a handful of explicit limits to the power - limits that are redundant because the Government has only those specifically enumerated powers, limits or not. Even so, one of those explicit limits to the Government's power is: The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

No you can't own both - Please stop lying

I googled it. He can't own either. You can buy an old F16, but not new stuff. Abrams is still in production and the older versions are not currently for sale. But even if you could afford one, were capable of flying it, and went through all the government regulations to own it, good luck trying to buy the ordinance for one. You can't even possess a hand grenade in this country, let alone a bomb or rocket.

Hand grenades are regulated under the National Firearms Act (“NFA”), a federal law first passed in 1934 and amended by the Crime Control Act of 1968. The 1968 amendments made it illegal to possess “destructive devices,” which includes grenades. (26 U.S.C. § 5801.) There’s no doubt that a live hand grenade designed for military combat fits within the law’s provisions—non-military people may not possess them. ..
Under the NFA, the term “destructive device” includes three types of explosives or weapons:
Bombs, grenades, rockets, missiles, and mines (and similar devices). Military grenades fit into this category. How a defendant intends to use the device is irrelevant—mere possession is enough for a conviction.

Is it Legal to Own Hand Grenades?

"Hand grenades" include many more devices besides live military weapons. Often, what constitutes a hand grenade will depend on the view of the court making the decis

www.criminaldefenselawyer.com

But the constitution doesn't say ANYTHING about hand grenades either. Without a modern fighter jet, an Abrams tank. and a case or two of hand grenades, how will Trumpists ever protect themselves, their bunkers and their arsenals against their hostile government?

it says arms,,,
so anything that can be considered an arm is perfectly legal,,,

 

[OldLady]

View attachment 340970 View attachment 340971 View attachment 340972

View attachment 340973 View attachment 340974 View attachment 340975

Do I need to go on? When is the last time the military went in with nothing but guns to fight a war?

Look, this is a ridiculous argument, alright, and not one I want to get into, because I know nothing about modern warfare. I have a general idea what our military has and uses. A vet who was active duty just a few years back told me that it is mostly long distance fighting these days. Do you think if our military wanted to subdue us that they wouldn't use some of these weapons?

The days when the newly hatched Americans were equally matched in weapons with enemy armies is long gone. It is a Walter Mitty dream. I can see the logic behind some of the arguments posters here are using, although I don't agree with them. But yours does not fly.

With each post, you prove my point of your idiocy. That you spoke to a vet and you have pictures of weapons means it may not be understandable ignorance; it must surely be idiocy.

Are you expecting the US government to attack its citizens with stealth bombers? Carpet bombing in Oklahoma City? Salt Lake City? Certainly not New York City but any Republican majority city?

I already pointed out that just sheer numbers of protesters in the USSR and GDR defeated their governments. Those governments had very similar weapons to those you showed. Those weapons work great for subduing the people when they're held over the people as a threat but no one is going to use them. When the people quit believing the bluff, those weapons become nothing.

How fucking stupid do you have to be to think that the government would use such weapons on its own people when the people are armed to defend themselves. Just which American soldiers do you think would ever turn those weapons on Americans?

Congratulations on just defeating your own argument. This country does not need AR's and Tactical Rugers in the hands of civilians for ANY REASON. Those rifles are designed to kill as many people as quickly as possible. There is no other use for them. If that were all the US military had, I'd think about it. But it's not.

Fortunately, ignorant people like you don’t get to decide what I feel is necessary to protect myself & my family...What part of “shall not be infringed” is so hard to understand?

We no longer have the justification of a "well regulated militia." That qualifier is in there for a reason.

It was never a justification to begin with. Well regulated means “in good working order”. The militia have always been the People. It’s an individual right. it shall not be infringed. End of discussion. You are wrong.

Well, as fncceo pointed out, the current Supreme Court ruling is that the right of citizens to bear arms is not contingent on being in the militia. So whatever definition you think you have of a "militia" as understood by the Founding Fathers, it is kinda irrelevant. That same case, though, ruled that citizens can keep guns in their homes, for self-protection and the Court made clear that the decision does not mean that restrictions on guns are no longer valid.

D.C. is for the most part a Gun Free Zone. You can own a gun and store it any way you see fit, according to Heller, but in most circumstances, you can't take it outside your front door.

 

[KGB]

View attachment 340970 View attachment 340971 View attachment 340972

View attachment 340973 View attachment 340974 View attachment 340975

Do I need to go on? When is the last time the military went in with nothing but guns to fight a war?

Look, this is a ridiculous argument, alright, and not one I want to get into, because I know nothing about modern warfare. I have a general idea what our military has and uses. A vet who was active duty just a few years back told me that it is mostly long distance fighting these days. Do you think if our military wanted to subdue us that they wouldn't use some of these weapons?

The days when the newly hatched Americans were equally matched in weapons with enemy armies is long gone. It is a Walter Mitty dream. I can see the logic behind some of the arguments posters here are using, although I don't agree with them. But yours does not fly.

With each post, you prove my point of your idiocy. That you spoke to a vet and you have pictures of weapons means it may not be understandable ignorance; it must surely be idiocy.

Are you expecting the US government to attack its citizens with stealth bombers? Carpet bombing in Oklahoma City? Salt Lake City? Certainly not New York City but any Republican majority city?

I already pointed out that just sheer numbers of protesters in the USSR and GDR defeated their governments. Those governments had very similar weapons to those you showed. Those weapons work great for subduing the people when they're held over the people as a threat but no one is going to use them. When the people quit believing the bluff, those weapons become nothing.

How fucking stupid do you have to be to think that the government would use such weapons on its own people when the people are armed to defend themselves. Just which American soldiers do you think would ever turn those weapons on Americans?

Congratulations on just defeating your own argument. This country does not need AR's and Tactical Rugers in the hands of civilians for ANY REASON. Those rifles are designed to kill as many people as quickly as possible. There is no other use for them. If that were all the US military had, I'd think about it. But it's not.

Fortunately, ignorant people like you don’t get to decide what I feel is necessary to protect myself & my family...What part of “shall not be infringed” is so hard to understand?

We no longer have the justification of a "well regulated militia." That qualifier is in there for a reason.

It was never a justification to begin with. Well regulated means “in good working order”. The militia have always been the People. It’s an individual right. it shall not be infringed. End of discussion. You are wrong.

Well, as fncceo pointed out, the current Supreme Court ruling is that the right of citizens to bear arms is not contingent on being in the militia. So whatever definition you think you have of a "militia" as understood by the Founding Fathers, it is kinda irrelevant. That same case, though, ruled that citizens can keep guns in their homes, for self-protection and the Court made clear that the decision does not mean that restrictions on guns are no longer valid.

D.C. is for the most part a Gun Free Zone. You can own a gun and store it any way you see fit, according to Heller, but in most circumstances, you can't take it outside your front door.

Which is still an unconstitutional restriction as intended by the Founding Fathers. Their intent was rather clear. If you are an honest law abiding citizen, your right to keep & bear arms shall not infringed. This isn’t open to debate. Again you are wrong. Furthermore, McDonald vs Chicago clarified the Heller decision applied to state & local gvts under the 14th Amendment. I don’t give a damn how scary a gun is or how many magazines it can hold, the right of the People to keep & bear arms shall not be infringed.

 

[Oz and the Orchestra]

Just to clear up various points.

Great Britain stood alone against both Hitlers Nazi psycho's and Imperial Japan, despite Churchill's numerous warnings to Roosevelt America sat on its hands for 2 years until attacked..

Soccer as you call it is the greatest professional game in the world. watched by more people than any other sport – 'The beautiful game'.
American Football is a poor copy of English Rugby, but for some unknown reason american players require crash helmets and shoulder pads. Nobody else bothers to play it as the action is usually confined to 10 second passages before each break – boring!
Baseball in the UK is a minor sport played only by adolescent schoolgirls and called Rounders. How can you have a World Series when only the US and Canada play it?

Yes it is true you can be prosecuted and jailed for carrying a knife in the UK, also a screwdriver, knuckleduster or simple sharpened piece of plastic can land you in court, all clssed as offensive weapons and referred to as 'going tooled up'.

You see men in the UK would view anyone carrying a gun or knife as unhinged and inadequate.
Real men fight with their fists - Queensbury rules, no kicking, biting, hitting below the belt or when a man is down!

Freedom of speech is all very well, but I suppose like us you have race hate laws? You can't use the 'N' word to describe an African American without landing yourself in court. There are over 6 million reasons you should not be allowed to deny Auschwitz, Treblinca, Sobibor. etc.
My personal view of anybody professing to be a Nazi is that they must be detained under the Mental Health Act. If they are found to be of sound mind, they should be sent to a Re-education Centre. If that fails to change their views they should be executed by hanging. In every other circumstance I am totally against the death penalty.

Abortion? I must admit I'm not comfortable with it! Probably partly due to my Roman Catholic upbringing. First of all I think it should be restricted to the first few weeks of pregnancy. Second there has to be a good reason, - a cleft palette, or Downs Syndrome - would not be a good reason Ultimately I think education of young people is the answer though I accept at the end of the day it is a woman's right to choose.!

 

[OldLady]

This isn’t open to debate. Again you are wrong.

I wasn't wrong; you're saying the Supreme Court was wrong.

 

[Desperado]

Gun related deaths per 100,000 population.

USA 12.21
UK 0.23

France 2.83
Canada 2.00
Sweden 1.6
Italy 1.31
Germany 1.17
Australia 0.9
Japan 0.6
Spain 0.31

With a population of 333546000 in the USA. That works out at 40,000 gun deaths per annum.

Coronavirus deaths in comparison work out at 98,000,- true that is more than twice as many, but gun deaths happen every year. Considering the lengths gone to, to stop Corona, isn't it time a total ban on guns was taken to bring the USA in line with what we consider to be a civilized society.

Isn't time you fucking foreigners stop telling Americans what to do!
If you do not like the way we do things nobody is forcing you to come here.

 

[DrLove]

View attachment 340970 View attachment 340971 View attachment 340972

View attachment 340973 View attachment 340974 View attachment 340975

Do I need to go on? When is the last time the military went in with nothing but guns to fight a war?

Look, this is a ridiculous argument, alright, and not one I want to get into, because I know nothing about modern warfare. I have a general idea what our military has and uses. A vet who was active duty just a few years back told me that it is mostly long distance fighting these days. Do you think if our military wanted to subdue us that they wouldn't use some of these weapons?

The days when the newly hatched Americans were equally matched in weapons with enemy armies is long gone. It is a Walter Mitty dream. I can see the logic behind some of the arguments posters here are using, although I don't agree with them. But yours does not fly.

With each post, you prove my point of your idiocy. That you spoke to a vet and you have pictures of weapons means it may not be understandable ignorance; it must surely be idiocy.

Are you expecting the US government to attack its citizens with stealth bombers? Carpet bombing in Oklahoma City? Salt Lake City? Certainly not New York City but any Republican majority city?

I already pointed out that just sheer numbers of protesters in the USSR and GDR defeated their governments. Those governments had very similar weapons to those you showed. Those weapons work great for subduing the people when they're held over the people as a threat but no one is going to use them. When the people quit believing the bluff, those weapons become nothing.

How fucking stupid do you have to be to think that the government would use such weapons on its own people when the people are armed to defend themselves. Just which American soldiers do you think would ever turn those weapons on Americans?

Congratulations on just defeating your own argument. This country does not need AR's and Tactical Rugers in the hands of civilians for ANY REASON. Those rifles are designed to kill as many people as quickly as possible. There is no other use for them. If that were all the US military had, I'd think about it. But it's not.

Fortunately, ignorant people like you don’t get to decide what I feel is necessary to protect myself & my family...What part of “shall not be infringed” is so hard to understand?

We no longer have the justification of a "well regulated militia." That qualifier is in there for a reason.

It was never a justification to begin with. Well regulated means “in good working order”. The militia have always been the People. It’s an individual right. it shall not be infringed. End of discussion. You are wrong.

Well, as fncceo pointed out, the current Supreme Court ruling is that the right of citizens to bear arms is not contingent on being in the militia. So whatever definition you think you have of a "militia" as understood by the Founding Fathers, it is kinda irrelevant. That same case, though, ruled that citizens can keep guns in their homes, for self-protection and the Court made clear that the decision does not mean that restrictions on guns are no longer valid.

D.C. is for the most part a Gun Free Zone. You can own a gun and store it any way you see fit, according to Heller, but in most circumstances, you can't take it outside your front door.

Which is still an unconstitutional restriction as intended by the Founding Fathers. Their intent was rather clear. If you are an honest law abiding citizen, your right to keep & bear arms shall not infringed. This isn’t open to debate. Again you are wrong. Furthermore, McDonald vs Chicago clarified the Heller decision applied to state & local gvts under the 14th Amendment. I don’t give a damn how scary a gun is or how many magazines it can hold, the right of the People to keep & bear arms shall not be infringed.

That ISN'T what Justice Scalia concluded.

“Nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.”​

​

The Second Amendment allows for more gun control than you think

We’re approaching the 10th anniversary of the Supreme Court’s landmark Heller decision. It didn’t cause a revolution in gun laws.

www.vox.com

 

[OldLady]

Just to clear up various points.

Great Britain stood alone against both Hitlers Nazi psycho's and Imperial Japan, despite Churchill's numerous warnings to Roosevelt America sat on its hands for 2 years until attacked..

Soccer as you call it is the greatest professional game in the world. watched by more people than any other sport – 'The beautiful game'.
American Football is a poor copy of English Rugby, but for some unknown reason american players require crash helmets and shoulder pads. Nobody else bothers to play it as the action is usually confined to 10 second passages before each break – boring!
Baseball in the UK is a minor sport played only by adolescent schoolgirls and called Rounders. How can you have a World Series when only the US and Canada play it?

Yes it is true you can be prosecuted and jailed for carrying a knife in the UK, also a screwdriver, knuckleduster or simple sharpened piece of plastic can land you in court, all clssed as offensive weapons and referred to as 'going tooled up'.

You see men in the UK would view anyone carrying a gun or knife as unhinged and inadequate.
Real men fight with their fists - Queensbury rules, no kicking, biting, hitting below the belt or when a man is down!

Freedom of speech is all very well, but I suppose like us you have race hate laws? You can't use the 'N' word to describe an African American without landing yourself in court. There are over 6 million reasons you should not be allowed to deny Auschwitz, Treblinca, Sobibor. etc.
My personal view of anybody professing to be a Nazi is that they must be detained under the Mental Health Act. If they are found to be of sound mind, they should be sent to a Re-education Centre. If that fails to change their views they should be executed by hanging. In every other circumstance I am totally against the death penalty.

Abortion? I must admit I'm not comfortable with it! Probably partly due to my Roman Catholic upbringing. First of all I think it should be restricted to the first few weeks of pregnancy. Second there has to be a good reason, - a cleft palette, or Downs Syndrome - would not be a good reason Ultimately I think education of young people is the answer though I accept at the end of the day it is a woman's right to choose.!

Awwww, shit. You just came here to troll, and I swallowed it hook line and sinker and fought the good fight for hours and hours with these nutcases. I adore your views on free speech, btw, troll or no.

 

[Dale Smith]

Gun related deaths per 100,000 population.

USA 12.21
UK 0.23

France 2.83
Canada 2.00
Sweden 1.6
Italy 1.31
Germany 1.17
Australia 0.9
Japan 0.6
Spain 0.31

With a population of 333546000 in the USA. That works out at 40,000 gun deaths per annum.

Coronavirus deaths in comparison work out at 98,000,- true that is more than twice as many, but gun deaths happen every year. Considering the lengths gone to, to stop Corona, isn't it time a total ban on guns was taken to bring the USA in line with what we consider to be a civilized society.

Those countries you mentioned have been overrun by military aged muslim males that rape European women with impunity while European men have no way to defend them. As I have stated many times before, if you want my weapon, I'll give you the ammo first in the form of emptied shells. The last movie I saw where only "da gubermint" had weapons was Schindler's List and it didn't work out all that well for the Jews. The Chinese people are brutalized by gun toting commie fucks. I am sure a wimp like you would recoil in abject fear at the mere sight of a gun.

 

[Anathema]

You see men in the UK would view anyone carrying a gun or knife as unhinged and inadequate.
Real men fight with their fists - Queensbury rules, no kicking, biting, hitting below the belt or when a man is down

We have a former US Army officer who put it very well... “If you ever find yourself in a fair fight, your tactics suck.” The point of a fight is to WIN, not to play nice. If there are rules it’s a game, not a fight.

Guns, knives, OC spray, etc.. are all force multipliers. They allow the less physically gifted to survive and win against larger, more well trained opponents. That and they allow those of us who are trained to expend less energy ending the fight quickly and brutally.

 

[OldLady]

So, I'm still puzzing about Canada violent crime rates being so much higher than Canada's. Here's another country heard from, so to speak:

A comparison of police-reported crime rates between Canada and the United States for 2000 shows that the U.S. has much higher rates of violent crime, while Canada generally has higher rates of property crime. Despite differences in rates, trends in crime between the two countries have been quite similar over the past twenty years. • In Canada, there were 542 homicides in 2000 resulting in a national rate of 1.8 homicides per 100,000 population. By comparison, there were 15,517 homicides in the U.S., resulting in a rate (5.5) three times higher than Canada’s. • Both countries have seen a decline in the number of homicides during the past decade, particularly in the U.S. Twenty years ago, the American homicide rate was about four times that of Canada. • Similarly, the aggravated assault rate in the U.S. was more than double the Canadian rate in 2000. The U.S. also showed a higher rate of robbery (65% higher) than Canada. About 41% of robberies in the U.S. involved a firearm, compared to 16% in Canada.

https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/en/pub/85-002-x/85-002-x2001011-eng.pdf?st=dnoKvDm8

 

[Markle]

If you're a convicted felon, you have NO right to own a gun. And straw buyers and private sellers at gun shows (legal in over half our states) have NO right to sell you one. It is MY right to make sure your access is greatly restricted.

90% of US voters concur.

Can a convicted felon then buy one from crooks on the street? Yes, but it makes such access riskier and more difficult.

You must have forgotten to include your reliable source and working link to the poll, survey, or whatever you used to support your statement that, "90% of US voters concur" that it is your RIGHT to make sure that my access to a weapon is greatly restricted.

If someone buys and sells guns at a gun show, they must do background checks.

Don't know how to use Mr Googley?

90% of Americans back background checks for all gun sales?

In the first hours after the Las Vegas mass shooting, many leading elected officials in Wisconsin issued statements abou

www.politifact.com

Unless you are a criminal or a kook (latter in question ;-) then nobody is restricting your access.

And NO, private sellers can sell at shows in nearly ALL states with NO obligation to do anything other than confirm you to be an adult.

Gun Show Background Checks State Laws

View a map showing different state gun show laws.

www.governing.com

Here was my statement which you dodged. Based on what you stated.

"You must have forgotten to include your reliable source and working link to the poll, survey, or whatever you used to support your statement that, "90% of US voters concur" that it is your RIGHT to make sure that my access to a weapon is greatly restricted."

What you are talking about then is a PRIVATE SELLER LOOPHOLE. That gun shows are a huge loophole is a myth.

 

[mudwhistle]

Gun related deaths per 100,000 population.

USA 12.21
UK 0.23

France 2.83
Canada 2.00
Sweden 1.6
Italy 1.31
Germany 1.17
Australia 0.9
Japan 0.6
Spain 0.31

With a population of 333546000 in the USA. That works out at 40,000 gun deaths per annum.

Coronavirus deaths in comparison work out at 98,000,- true that is more than twice as many, but gun deaths happen every year. Considering the lengths gone to, to stop Corona, isn't it time a total ban on guns was taken to bring the USA in line with what we consider to be a civilized society.

If we wanted to become subjects we'd move to the UK.

So do us a favor and stop tossing off on our constitution and save your jizz for your Royals. They seriously suck ass.

 

[KGB]

This isn’t open to debate. Again you are wrong.

I wasn't wrong; you're saying the Supreme Court was wrong.

no you are wrong each & every time you bring up your gun grabbing statements because a firearm looks scary to you & this should be banned for citizen use.

 

[OldLady]

This isn’t open to debate. Again you are wrong.

I wasn't wrong; you're saying the Supreme Court was wrong.

no you are wrong each & every time you bring up your gun grabbing statements because a firearm looks scary to you & this should be banned for citizen use.

Do you think making up asinine stuff about me each and every time you post is going to crush me? You're just showing yourself to be someone who can't be trusted to tell the truth.

 

[Frankeneinstein]

Gun related deaths per 100,000 population.

USA 12.21
UK 0.23

France 2.83
Canada 2.00
Sweden 1.6
Italy 1.31
Germany 1.17
Australia 0.9
Japan 0.6
Spain 0.31

With a population of 333546000 in the USA. That works out at 40,000 gun deaths per annum.

Coronavirus deaths in comparison work out at 98,000,- true that is more than twice as many, but gun deaths happen every year. Considering the lengths gone to, to stop Corona, isn't it time a total ban on guns was taken to bring the USA in line with what we consider to be a civilized society.

Your numbers are skewered within the context of your delusion...the numbers for gun deaths in America are far lower among NRA members than any european country.
The "epidemic" in America is confined for the most part to "gun control" and "safe space" areas where the left wing "grown ups" are.

 

[justinacolmena]

black market for stolen guns on the street.
...
stop another person from exercising their rights.

There's a black market in murder for hire, and there's a black market for REVOKING gun rights of honest law abiding citizens.

 

[Blues Man]

Oh Jesus - The constitution doesn't include everything that is illegal. I can't point to anything in the constitution that says you can't own an Abram's Tank or or a Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II fighter jet either. But you can't.

Actually I can own either. Or both.

What the Constitution does include is every power that the Federal Government has along with a handful of explicit limits to the power - limits that are redundant because the Government has only those specifically enumerated powers, limits or not. Even so, one of those explicit limits to the Government's power is: The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

No you can't own both - Please stop lying

I googled it. He can't own either. You can buy an old F16, but not new stuff. Abrams is still in production and the older versions are not currently for sale. But even if you could afford one, were capable of flying it, and went through all the government regulations to own it, good luck trying to buy the ordinance for one. You can't even possess a hand grenade in this country, let alone a bomb or rocket.

Hand grenades are regulated under the National Firearms Act (“NFA”), a federal law first passed in 1934 and amended by the Crime Control Act of 1968. The 1968 amendments made it illegal to possess “destructive devices,” which includes grenades. (26 U.S.C. § 5801.) There’s no doubt that a live hand grenade designed for military combat fits within the law’s provisions—non-military people may not possess them. ..
Under the NFA, the term “destructive device” includes three types of explosives or weapons:
Bombs, grenades, rockets, missiles, and mines (and similar devices). Military grenades fit into this category. How a defendant intends to use the device is irrelevant—mere possession is enough for a conviction.

Is it Legal to Own Hand Grenades?

"Hand grenades" include many more devices besides live military weapons. Often, what constitutes a hand grenade will depend on the view of the court making the decis

www.criminaldefenselawyer.com

You might be able to buy one but there is no way you'll keep it in the air.

Those fighter planes need a lot of maintenance.

And even if you could find someone with the certifications to perform the maintenance and source the needed parts the cost would be astronomical

 

[freyasman]

Of course. That is what all guns are for. And like I already said, times change. There is no way in hell the citizens of this country could withstand attack by our government armed with their AR's and hunting rifles. That is the most laughable argument of all. The Founders did not want a standing army because they did not want the central government having control of a military force they could use against the people. Well, guess what? If they wanted to, they sure as hell could now. Even if we had machine guns, it wouldn't matter.

The Second Amendment was written in a different time, long ago, and no longer applies for any of the reasons it was written.

Your idiocy never fails to amaze me. The government of the German Democratic Republic was overthrown without guns, as was the USSR. Not to say that we don't need guns for that reason but it shows that government might isn't enough to protect government. They're not going to nuke us. Their machine guns don't kill any faster or better than a well-used AR-15.

To suggest that the time for needing to defend against murderous, totalitarian, governments is in the past is not surprising for you, especially, or for the left, as a whole. The standing army is right around one million. They don't stand a chance against the civilian population. Not that they would need to; a large number would not turn their guns on their own neighbors - but some would; there are those who would kill their own mothers in the furtherance of their communist goals.

Imagine a force of 2 million, that's all the army and all of law enforcement combined, trying to take the guns of 100 million gun owners.. How do you think that's going to turn out? They would have early success; calling each gun owner killed a wacko. Eventually, it would become clear. And probably 50 million of the gun owners would give up their guns, maybe even 75 million.

No; armed combat against the government doesn't scare me at all. It's never going to happen - because we have guns.

You really have no idea about anything of which you speak on here. It's all emotion and how you wish it was. You've never researched the data, the science, the history, or the facts.

I don't know if it will be in your lifetime, your children's, or your grandchildren's, but the day will come when your ilk will be begging my ilk to defend them.

View attachment 340970 View attachment 340971 View attachment 340972

View attachment 340973 View attachment 340974 View attachment 340975

Do I need to go on? When is the last time the military went in with nothing but guns to fight a war?

Look, this is a ridiculous argument, alright, and not one I want to get into, because I know nothing about modern warfare. I have a general idea what our military has and uses. A vet who was active duty just a few years back told me that it is mostly long distance fighting these days. Do you think if our military wanted to subdue us that they wouldn't use some of these weapons?

The days when the newly hatched Americans were equally matched in weapons with enemy armies is long gone. It is a Walter Mitty dream. I can see the logic behind some of the arguments posters here are using, although I don't agree with them. But yours does not fly.

The people they bomb are the same ones making them, thus after a few weeks they get no more ordinance to use up, but you really believe that American military personnel are willing to kill their own families and friends in the process?

You really think the military will kill millions of its own people.........?

No, I don't. I'm not the one promoting taking up our AR's to defend our liberty from the commie pinko fag Nazi government of ours. This whole conversation is just plain stupid.

Look up "democide"; it's a mistake to think that governments are unwilling to kill their own people.
But I have personally seen people fight the US military with nothing more than small arms, and those guys did pretty good considering.
Here in the US, where the agents of the state (LE and military) are outnumbered by 1000 to 1, and they and their families have to live here? Good fucking luck......

 

[freyasman]

Oh Jesus - The constitution doesn't include everything that is illegal. I can't point to anything in the constitution that says you can't own an Abram's Tank or or a Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II fighter jet either. But you can't.

Actually I can own either. Or both.

What the Constitution does include is every power that the Federal Government has along with a handful of explicit limits to the power - limits that are redundant because the Government has only those specifically enumerated powers, limits or not. Even so, one of those explicit limits to the Government's power is: The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

No you can't own both - Please stop lying

I googled it. He can't own either. You can buy an old F16, but not new stuff. Abrams is still in production and the older versions are not currently for sale. But even if you could afford one, were capable of flying it, and went through all the government regulations to own it, good luck trying to buy the ordinance for one. You can't even possess a hand grenade in this country, let alone a bomb or rocket.

Hand grenades are regulated under the National Firearms Act (“NFA”), a federal law first passed in 1934 and amended by the Crime Control Act of 1968. The 1968 amendments made it illegal to possess “destructive devices,” which includes grenades. (26 U.S.C. § 5801.) There’s no doubt that a live hand grenade designed for military combat fits within the law’s provisions—non-military people may not possess them. ..
Under the NFA, the term “destructive device” includes three types of explosives or weapons:
Bombs, grenades, rockets, missiles, and mines (and similar devices). Military grenades fit into this category. How a defendant intends to use the device is irrelevant—mere possession is enough for a conviction.

Is it Legal to Own Hand Grenades?

"Hand grenades" include many more devices besides live military weapons. Often, what constitutes a hand grenade will depend on the view of the court making the decis

www.criminaldefenselawyer.com

But the constitution doesn't say ANYTHING about hand grenades either. Without a modern fighter jet, an Abrams tank. and a case or two of hand grenades, how will Trumpists ever protect themselves, their bunkers and their arsenals against a hostile government?

Your attitude is indicative of your ignorance and your arrogance.