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.
å
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%
look man, in red dawn, they flee to the hills, and defeat the invaders
so this already happened
case closed
All posts by this account, even those referencing real things, are entirely fictional and are for entertainment purposes only; i.e. very low-quality entertainment. These may contain coarse language and due to their content should not be viewed by anyone
I'd like to see the democrat with enough sack to ok the use of bomb strikes on American soil, even in an open rebellion. I suppose they could always say it was the Russians...
I can't see that playing well on the Facebooks though.
All posts by this account, even those referencing real things, are entirely fictional and are for entertainment purposes only; i.e. very low-quality entertainment. These may contain coarse language and due to their content should not be viewed by anyone
The whole conversation is moot anyway because it’s not like anyone in this country isn’t a lazy sack of shit who couldn’t be bothered to break away from their Big Mac value meal, their Instagram updates or their trip to Costco for more useless bullshit to take on a tyrannical government amirite?
meatwad wrote:The whole conversation is moot anyway because it’s not like anyone in this country isn’t a lazy sack of shit who couldn’t be bothered to break away from their Big Mac value meal, their Instagram updates or their trip to Costco for more useless bullshit to take on a tyrannical government amirite?
meatwad wrote:The whole conversation is moot anyway because it’s not like anyone in this country isn’t a lazy sack of shit who couldn’t be bothered to break away from their Big Mac value meal, their Instagram updates or their trip to Costco for more useless bullshit to take on a tyrannical government amirite?
meatwad wrote:The whole conversation is moot anyway because it’s not like anyone in this country isn’t a lazy sack of shit who couldn’t be bothered to break away from their Big Mac value meal, their Instagram updates or their trip to Costco for more useless bullshit to take on a tyrannical government amirite?
thanks for reminding me i have a couple amazon prime purchases to make
All posts by this account, even those referencing real things, are entirely fictional and are for entertainment purposes only; i.e. very low-quality entertainment. These may contain coarse language and due to their content should not be viewed by anyone
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.
He's critical of the NRA, but as an insider of gun culture, he has some useful stuff to share with lefties. In the article below, he explains how the Assault Weapons Ban made the NRA more intransigent, and how it has competitors that are even more extreme.
BurtReynolds wrote:It was created specifically to counter a national standing army. It wasn't rendered obsolete by it lol.
In my haste I left out the word "modern." Similar to the absurdity of the individual citizen fending off our war machines is the idea of a single state fending away the other 49.
Monkey_Driven wrote:What's the stat, only about 15-20 percent of gun deaths involve shooters with mental issues? Seems like gun control is the logical start to this issue, since you know, they are involved with 100 percent of gun deaths.
Even if you want to approach this as a mental health problem (and we absolutely have a massive mental health problem in the US), the dumbass "pull yourself up by your bootstraps" mentality of Americanism means that's not getting addressed in any serious way any time soon, so in the meantime, we clearly can't handle our access to firearms, so it needs to go.
Right. One side of the mouth says this is an issue for doctors to sort out. The other side of the mouth says doctors should choose not to see a patient unless they can pay the bill.
Almost like one side says you shouldn't get an abortion and then also says they're not going to help the kids at all.
Monkey_Driven wrote:Agreed, though I feel it is a maculinity issue more than anything.
Gun violence is highly correlated with men, no doubt. But masculinity is a culturally driven trait and we don’t have an example of a modern society or culture where women have held primary responsibilities for resource defense or norm enforcement. It’s possible if the roles were reversed it would be equally as bad.
That was kind of my point. Many of the leading causes of gun deaths are related to mental health, misguided masculinity, and drugs/acohol. Tough to fix everything. Gun regulation by comparison is much easier.
Guns are already highly regulated. there is more that can be done, but it’s difficult from a constitutional perspective. It seems like at least talking about some of the cultural issues might be easier until the boomers are mostly gone.
"The fatal flaw of all revolutionaries is that they know how to tear things down but don't have a f**king clue about how to build anything."
Monkey_Driven wrote:Agreed, though I feel it is a maculinity issue more than anything.
Gun violence is highly correlated with men, no doubt. But masculinity is a culturally driven trait and we don’t have an example of a modern society or culture where women have held primary responsibilities for resource defense or norm enforcement. It’s possible if the roles were reversed it would be equally as bad.
That was kind of my point. Many of the leading causes of gun deaths are related to mental health, misguided masculinity, and drugs/acohol. Tough to fix everything. Gun regulation by comparison is much easier.
Guns are already highly regulated. there is more that can be done, but it’s difficult from a constitutional perspective. It seems like at least talking about some of the cultural issues might be easier until the boomers are mostly gone.
We could start shooting them. That'll speed things up and then we can fix America.
Rangi Guy wrote:So skating back to the train station after work today things went wrong.....now my skateboard is at the bottom of the harbour
