Author Topic: US Constitution - 2nd Amendment (Read 2606 times)

LAWCobra · « **Reply #30 on:** April 07, 2004, 01:29:26 AM »

Tarmac you are correct on many levels there.
Thats why Im afriad of this becoming another viet nam.
either we should just knock the snot bubbles out of em or come home.

Look we aint scaring these people at all.
They have seen years heck centurys of war.

If we are going to impress apon them to "get with the program"
We are going to have to do something MASSIVE.

Or just say to the world hey we got rid of SH now we are going to get OSNL and come home.

-dead- · « **Reply #31 on:** April 07, 2004, 01:35:35 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Tarmac
Chinese Cultural Revolution.

0 out of 10 for Chinese History. Start again, think carefully.

Tarmac · « **Reply #32 on:** April 07, 2004, 01:39:35 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by -dead-
0 out of 10 for Chinese History. Start again, think carefully.

Chinese Communist Revolution. My mistake.

-dead- · « **Reply #33 on:** April 07, 2004, 01:54:53 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Tarmac
Chinese Communist Revolution. My mistake.

Thank you. Mess up again, and my red guard buddies'll drag you through the streets with a dunce's hat on your head and force you to write a self-criticism.

Tarmac · « **Reply #34 on:** April 07, 2004, 02:01:33 AM »

I already criticized myself after googling "cultural revolution" and saying "ahh dammit, that's not what I meant."

mosgood · « **Reply #35 on:** April 07, 2004, 06:36:33 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by vorticon
the trick with overthrowing tyranical governments is...the government has tanks machine guns and training...unless you want every citizen to possess a ak-47 and a RPG with 3000 rounds each to take out the government it just doesnt work...

I can hear a long dead French King saying practically the same thing a few hundred years ago. Listen...., the thing every government in the world fears most is their own population.... and that's the way it should be.

_Schadenfreude_ · « **Reply #36 on:** April 07, 2004, 06:54:58 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by AKIron
You're right Sandman, I don't have the firepower, maybe Lazs does. Seriously though, 250 million people even with only 22 caliber rifles are more than a match for our present government. Especially if you consider that the majority of the military will likely join a just revolution.

However, if no one is allowed to own a firearm, a revolution is much more unlikely to ever begin. Or at least until the oppression is far more grievous.

No one was bearing arms in Poland, or East Germany or any of the other East bloc countries that were under Soviet domination for 50 years.

The right to bear arms argument put forth is simply an excuse for some people who fo some reason need an excuse for an irrelevant gun collection.

_Schadenfreude_ · « **Reply #37 on:** April 07, 2004, 06:55:55 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
History record a case where a superior force lost a war to one of these ragtag movements?

Vietnam?

Sixpence · « **Reply #38 on:** April 07, 2004, 07:33:49 AM »

Well, I don't like how that "law abiding" can be used. If I get a traffic ticket, am I no longer law abiding? That suks. We are getting closer to having it translated like the new Iraq constitution. I don't know about you guys, but i'm ready to join the NRA.

Twist · « **Reply #39 on:** April 07, 2004, 07:44:15 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Tarmac
Why? Asymmetric warfare has worked in the past -- history is full of examples of people overestimating the strength of armies against ragtag resistance movements.

Just ask the Russians who fought in Afghanistan.

Ripsnort · « **Reply #40 on:** April 07, 2004, 07:52:10 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
History record a case where a superior force lost a war to one of these ragtag movements?

Yes, Vietnam.

lasersailor184 · « **Reply #41 on:** April 07, 2004, 08:01:04 AM »

You guys are forgetting.

The US military and the US police are made up of american citizens...

mosgood · « **Reply #42 on:** April 07, 2004, 08:29:50 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by _Schadenfreude_
No one was bearing arms in Poland, or East Germany or any of the other East bloc countries that were under Soviet domination for 50 years.

I'm not understanding what you are saying here? Are you saying that it was a good thing that they didn't bear arms? Was that how Communism was defeated? Not being sarcastic, just not understanding statement.

Quote

The right to bear arms argument put forth is simply an excuse for some people who fo some reason need an excuse for an irrelevant gun collection. [/B]

I don't have a gun, but fully support the 2nd amendment. Why do ppl keep thinking that owning guns is evil? People are responsible for their actions... not the guns. If someone wanted to kill someone but didn't have a gun, they are still gonna kill them with something else. Blaming a GUN for the death of someone is a lame excuse NOT a legitamit reason... IMO

lazs2 · « **Reply #43 on:** April 07, 2004, 08:30:14 AM »

Being able to defend yourself against tyranny from within (criminals or oppressive government) or without (invasion) is a RIGHT a basic human right. It is not something that should be voted on as kanth intimates. To me that is no different than being able to send all people who are of negro decent back to africa or to have every 3rd female baby killed... you don't get to vote on rights guys.

Red Dawn... sappy movie about an invasion not an overthrow of an unpopular government. History is rife with Vietnams and afgans tho..

Pockets of resistance would cause the collapse of an unpopular government who's sole authority was it's army and police made up of..... citizens. They would not like to be sniped and ambushed for a weak government.

as for the silly arguement (made by those who know nothing of firearms) that the guns of the resistance would be no match for the hi tech weaponry of the "government".... The best weapons to have during a resistance movement at first would be the most common... the scoped hunting rifle and the sawed off shotgun and easily concealed pistol/handgun... what they did then they can do equally well now... an ambushed group of conscripst will provide all the "hitech" modern weaponry needed as will armorys.

you wouldn't need to stand and fite in old style trench warfare. You simply need to resist and disrupt until the unpopular government collapses.

and so far as the equally silly arguement that armed citizens are no help in an invasion... there are several examples around the world right now.

plus..... what is the point? People have not changed much... they are meaner if anything... in the U.S. (which is what we are talking about here) the more citizens armed.... the less crime. so why in the world would you want to remove firearms and increase crime or your ability to defend yourself?

What the liberals fail to see when they wish to destroy the constitution is that a strong well armed people are a free people. that was the intent of the constitution... a well armed population can resist but... what the well meaning girls and girly men are advocating is taking away another check or balance in the system... one needed every bit as much now as then.. they gaurantee government arogance in their short sighted version of "progressive". They trust their government to protect them? Yet they fear every right wing elected... It makes no sense. do they feel that if they remove firearms that they will allways be happy with the current government?

lazs

lazs

lazs2 · « **Reply #44 on:** April 07, 2004, 08:33:33 AM »

as for an "irrelevant" gun collection. I have a dozen or so guns.. half are historical arms. I have no problem with people owning "irrelevant" WWII fighter planes that on occassion crash and kill people or antique cars or many other "irrelevant" items... I certainly do not want some british londoner decideing what is relavant for me to own or shoot or drive or eat or whatever.

lazs