Red Mosquito

BurtReynolds wrote:

LoathedVermin72 wrote:Ban all guns. Ban all police. Ban the military. Kill everyone. Die.

World is a toilet I do not give a fuck bomb every jungle piss earth 2025

1.2 million gun deaths since John Lennon was shot in New York.

America has a cancer.

One million two hundred thousand people. Insanity.

BurtReynolds wrote:The primary purpose of the second amendment is not home/self defense. If anything it protects assault rifles more than hunting rifles.

In that light it's even more ridiculous then. As if anything the average civilian could purchase would protect against a tyrannical government that possesses drones, tanks, nukes, etc. That argument for the 2A holds the least water for me.

--- wrote:the meatwad account continues to be basically the only lib on the board worth engaging

Thanks! But in that case I'd propose that if we want to accomplish anything and bring this nation back from the brink, the first thing we need to do is cut the label bullshit. It's been the most successful means the media and politicians have utilized to make us stop listening to one another and demonize those who don't hold the exact same opinions. We're all on Team America. We all love this country. We all have friends, family and associates that we want to do well. While we've been calling each other libs and conservitards or whatever the nomenclature is, they've robbed us blind and taken away more rights than we'd ever agree to were we a united front against special interests.

I'm not just the meatwad account. My name is Ara and I'm an actual human being and an American. Pleased to meet you.

I think Meatwad is running for RM president

meatwad wrote:

BurtReynolds wrote:The primary purpose of the second amendment is not home/self defense. If anything it protects assault rifles more than hunting rifles.

In that light it's even more ridiculous then. As if anything the average civilian could purchase would protect against a tyrannical government that possesses drones, tanks, nukes, etc. That argument for the 2A holds the least water for me.

yeah I don't buy that argument at all. You can't just look at the combined arms of the military and civilians and conclude the military would win. They obviously aren't going to nuke the midwest over a rebellion, for example. The government couldn't even kick out a few rednecks from a wildlife refuge building.

meatwad wrote:

--- wrote:the meatwad account continues to be basically the only lib on the board worth engaging

Thanks! But in that case I'd propose that if we want to accomplish anything and bring this nation back from the brink, the first thing we need to do is cut the label bullshit. It's been the most successful means the media and politicians have utilized to make us stop listening to one another and demonize those who don't hold the exact same opinions. We're all on Team America. We all love this country. We all have friends, family and associates that we want to do well. While we've been calling each other libs and conservitards or whatever the nomenclature is, they've robbed us blind and taken away more rights than we'd ever agree to were we a united front against special interests.

I'm not just the meatwad account. My name is Ara and I'm an actual human being and an American. Pleased to meet you.

Whatever meatwad.

MadTIGERmaN wrote:Native Americans did not kill one another within the tribe. Its pretty well documented. Sure in wars between tribes, but even today we say theres a difference between killing in war, and murder.
I cant remember which book I read it in? Possibly "Bury My Heart At Wounded Knee" but they have found no word for "murder" in any Native language.

If I had my history of the Mohicans book here, it documented the first "murder" within the tribe. It was an alcohol induced rage and a gun.

You should go stand in front of a mirror, make eye contact with your reflection, and say this out loud: “there were 100s of millions of people here living through starvation and tribal warfare over 8,000 years and yet not a single one of them ever killed another member of their tribe in anger.” See if you can honestly believe that when you say it out loud.

meatwad wrote:

BurtReynolds wrote:The primary purpose of the second amendment is not home/self defense. If anything it protects assault rifles more than hunting rifles.

In that light it's even more ridiculous then. As if anything the average civilian could purchase would protect against a tyrannical government that possesses drones, tanks, nukes, etc. That argument for the 2A holds the least water for me.

Oh my, this.

Not only was this ammendment rendered obsolete with the creation of a standing national army, but the nation would be served well to understand that "well regulated militia" was about the southern posse that rounded up runaway slaves. Not some reinterpretation that citizens will defend themselves from the coming tyrannical boogie man.

It was created specifically to counter a national standing army. It wasn't rendered obsolete by it lol.

edit: and when even a rag like The Root disagrees with you, it might be time to rethink things. https://www.theroot.com/2nd-amendment-p ... 1790894965

they just need to make people take gun safety classes and all that stuff like they do in Japan

BurtReynolds wrote:

meatwad wrote:

BurtReynolds wrote:The primary purpose of the second amendment is not home/self defense. If anything it protects assault rifles more than hunting rifles.

In that light it's even more ridiculous then. As if anything the average civilian could purchase would protect against a tyrannical government that possesses drones, tanks, nukes, etc. That argument for the 2A holds the least water for me.

yeah I don't buy that argument at all. You can't just look at the combined arms of the military and civilians and conclude the military would win. They obviously aren't going to nuke the midwest over a rebellion, for example. The government couldn't even kick out a few rednecks from a wildlife refuge building.

Politics was the only thing preventing them from removing those idiots from Malheur. Had they wanted to, it would have been done in an instant. Of course they're not going to nuke the midwest, but let's be honest here, a few dipshits with AR15s isn't going to stop jack shit when it comes to the US military if that's the fight they want to pick.

remember, voting is also a constitutional right - but the man manages to prevent lots of blacks from doing it

we just need to take the same approach toward guns

the 21st century needs a jim crow of guns

or jane crow

eureka!

Spoiler: show

theplatypus wrote:I think Meatwad is running for RM president

meatwad wrote:

BurtReynolds wrote:

meatwad wrote:

BurtReynolds wrote:The primary purpose of the second amendment is not home/self defense. If anything it protects assault rifles more than hunting rifles.

In that light it's even more ridiculous then. As if anything the average civilian could purchase would protect against a tyrannical government that possesses drones, tanks, nukes, etc. That argument for the 2A holds the least water for me.

yeah I don't buy that argument at all. You can't just look at the combined arms of the military and civilians and conclude the military would win. They obviously aren't going to nuke the midwest over a rebellion, for example. The government couldn't even kick out a few rednecks from a wildlife refuge building.

Politics was the only thing preventing them from removing those idiots from Malheur. Had they wanted to, it would have been done in an instant. Of course they're not going to nuke the midwest, but let's be honest here, a few dipshits with AR15s isn't going to stop jack shit when it comes to the US military if that's the fight they want to pick.

You dont think politics would play a role in a larger rebellion? Of course it would. And how many military and police are anti-2nd amendment? I promise you it isn't anything close to a majority. There is no doubt the military's fighting ability would be immensely compromised in a domestic war against its own citizens.

Obviously it depends on the situation-- and most rebellions fail anyway-- but the argument that a sizeable proportion of the country armed with firearms couldn't successfully resist the military in any circumstance is delusional.

srsly

people here are acting like Red Dawn never happened

96583UP wrote:srsly

people here are acting like Red Dawn never happened

Our history is being erased.

BurtReynolds wrote:

meatwad wrote:

BurtReynolds wrote:

meatwad wrote:

BurtReynolds wrote:The primary purpose of the second amendment is not home/self defense. If anything it protects assault rifles more than hunting rifles.

In that light it's even more ridiculous then. As if anything the average civilian could purchase would protect against a tyrannical government that possesses drones, tanks, nukes, etc. That argument for the 2A holds the least water for me.

yeah I don't buy that argument at all. You can't just look at the combined arms of the military and civilians and conclude the military would win. They obviously aren't going to nuke the midwest over a rebellion, for example. The government couldn't even kick out a few rednecks from a wildlife refuge building.

Politics was the only thing preventing them from removing those idiots from Malheur. Had they wanted to, it would have been done in an instant. Of course they're not going to nuke the midwest, but let's be honest here, a few dipshits with AR15s isn't going to stop jack shit when it comes to the US military if that's the fight they want to pick.

You dont think politics would play a role in a larger rebellion? Of course it would. And how many military and police are anti-2nd amendment? I promise you it isn't anything close to a majority. There is no doubt the military's fighting ability would be immensely compromised in a domestic war.

Obviously it depends on the situation-- and most rebellions fail anyway-- but the argument that a sizeable proportion of the country armed with firearms couldn't successfully resist the military in any circumstance is delusional.

Dude, if the shit hits the fan they're going to snuff it out real quick. Had one of those Billy Badasses at Bundy's ranch with feds in their scopes pulled the trigger, it would have been a short-lived bloodbath. Taking over an empty wildlife refuge in Bumfuck, Oregon is a lot different than if an organized group began attacking the power grid, or federal buildings, etc. That shit would be over real quick, regardless of who believes what about the second amendment.

Sorry man but I think it's delusional to think that rednecks with AR15s could do fuck-all against the most powerful military the world has ever known. Keep in mind that 3% of the population owns half the guns. Nothing a few focused airstrikes couldn't deal with post-haste.

meatwad wrote:

BurtReynolds wrote:

meatwad wrote:

BurtReynolds wrote:

meatwad wrote:

BurtReynolds wrote:The primary purpose of the second amendment is not home/self defense. If anything it protects assault rifles more than hunting rifles.

In that light it's even more ridiculous then. As if anything the average civilian could purchase would protect against a tyrannical government that possesses drones, tanks, nukes, etc. That argument for the 2A holds the least water for me.

yeah I don't buy that argument at all. You can't just look at the combined arms of the military and civilians and conclude the military would win. They obviously aren't going to nuke the midwest over a rebellion, for example. The government couldn't even kick out a few rednecks from a wildlife refuge building.

Politics was the only thing preventing them from removing those idiots from Malheur. Had they wanted to, it would have been done in an instant. Of course they're not going to nuke the midwest, but let's be honest here, a few dipshits with AR15s isn't going to stop jack shit when it comes to the US military if that's the fight they want to pick.

You dont think politics would play a role in a larger rebellion? Of course it would. And how many military and police are anti-2nd amendment? I promise you it isn't anything close to a majority. There is no doubt the military's fighting ability would be immensely compromised in a domestic war.

Obviously it depends on the situation-- and most rebellions fail anyway-- but the argument that a sizeable proportion of the country armed with firearms couldn't successfully resist the military in any circumstance is delusional.

Dude, if the shit hits the fan they're going to snuff it out real quick. Had one of those Billy Badasses at Bundy's ranch with feds in their scopes pulled the trigger, it would have been a short-lived bloodbath. Taking over an empty wildlife refuge in Bumfuck, Oregon is a lot different than if an organized group began attacking the power grid, or federal buildings, etc. That shit would be over real quick, regardless of who believes what about the second amendment.

Sorry man but I think it's delusional to think that rednecks with AR15s could do fuck-all against the most powerful military the world has ever known. Keep in mind that 3% of the population owns half the guns. Nothing a few focused airstrikes couldn't deal with post-haste.

You're assuming they would be the ones attacking.

But yeah a few airstrikes never mobilized and radicalized the bombed country against the strikers... oh wait.

and gun ownership in the US is between 32-43%