# Gun Control **URL:** \ **Category:** NYSpeed Off Topic\ **Created:** [September 28, 2006, 3:55pm UTC](https://forums.speedlife.net/t/gun-control/18174 "2006-09-28T15:55:19Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 1\ **Showing post:** 86
**Author:** ![StrokedZ28](https://yyz2.discourse-cdn.com/flex034/user_avatar/forums.speedlife.net/strokedz28/32/7592_2.png) [@StrokedZ28](https://forums.speedlife.net/u/StrokedZ28)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2006, 4:08pm UTC](https://forums.speedlife.net/t/gun-control/18174/86 "2006-09-29T16:08:33Z")
> [@JayS](#): > > Your point seemed to be that a bunch of citizens with AK’s and Uzi’s would have no chance against the far greater power of the armed forces of the government, and therefor the 2nd amendment was flawed, because citizens could not overthrow a government by force. > > My point was that the armed forces would be MUCH smaller if a cival war ever broke out. Would all off them abandon the government? No. Would enough that a well regulated militia could have a chance? Certainly. Would that militia’s chance be much less if only armed with handguns and shotguns, I think that’s clear as well. > > PS… you sig image is as broken as your logic 😉 Your point was that we need automatics to defend us against the gov’t. Now your saying that our military would fragment and weaken the govt ability to fight. So what happens to all those guns and weapony from the part of the military that doesn’t follow the gov’t? This paranoid hypothetical situation is not enough to say that ordinary people should be allowed to own weapons that designed specifically to kill as many PEOPLE as possible. People don’t need uzi’s. And my logic is based off study and research of world history and American politcal history. --- _[View the full topic](https://forums.speedlife.net/t/gun-control/18174)._