- Banned
- #361
A city full of government employees and none of them have any respect for the fundamental rights of the citizens? What does that tell you about the nature of government itself?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their homes, for self-protection and the Court made clear that the decision does not mean that restrictions on guns are no longer valid.We no longer have the justification of a "well regulated militia." That qualifier is in there for a reason.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.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?
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?
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.
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.
Why the fuck do you think the rest of us stay armed?