Then I guess we’re all fucked then because the people are no where near as well armed as the military. And automatic weapons still wouldn’t help us either in that situation.
And no the founding fathers did not want the people to be as well armed as the military, if that were true, the people would have had its own navy and artillary.
People should have the right to defend themselves I agree, but again, YOU DON’T NEED AN UZI TO DO IT. Stop being so paranoid.
How many of you have actually studied the founding fathers?
Time to start building up the militia now boys, before Hillary 2008.
If ever there will be a case for the part of the 2nd Amendment that says “being necessary to the security of a free State”, it will probably be under her government.
No, if a government does not have the support of its people it will die. A government is nothing without the governed. Look at all the major revolutions in the world, it wasn’t the number of guns that made the difference it was the number of people involved.
same can be said for cars too (which take a hell of alot more lives than guns do every year)… so why don’t we govern the cars (as well a drop speed limits) so they do no more than 40 mph? I mean, we don’t need to go any faster than that…
while were at it… alchohol too, it destroys lives… not only from accidents. We don’t need it… so lets just make it illegal because someone might do something stupid with it
So basically you’re saying the 2nd amendment is flawed, our right to bear arms shouldn’t be needed at all because it isn’t needed to keep government in check.
Guess what… we’d still be under a British flag without an armed population. Because no matter how many people you have, they are not going to be willing to line up and get shot.
Which is why I’m glad I live in a country where our founding fathers did not agree your opinion. No amount of trying to skirt around it with statements like, “The people could never take on the government with weapons in today’s world” isn’t going to change the fact the founding fathers placed this right at the top of the list, #2, only behind the right of free speech.
And the Hillary thing was a joke, sort of. While I seriously doubt I’ll be joining the militia and attempting to overthrow the government if she gets elected, you have to admit it would be more likely to have a cival war under her than under Bush. There was a thread a while back where people tried to argue that we were on the verge of cival war under Bush.
One problem… The people who most strongly disagree with Bush, at least with the zealousness needed for revolution, are the same ones who oppose the 2nd amendment. It’s hard to start a cival war with rocks and sticks. Even more so when your “base of 18-24 year olds” is too lazy to even get out and vote, much less revolt. The people who would most strongly oppose Hillary would be the ones with the guns. So .000001 percent chance under Bush, but .0001 percent under Hillary. It still doesn’t mean we should throw out the right to be prepared, because who knows what we’ll be electing by 2020.
:word: Same here. I know a lot of you think I am an idiot…but when it comes to firearm safety I am VERY SERIOUS. Guns are not toys. There is no such thing as “accidental” shootings. If people were more responsible, we would not have any “accidents”. They can all be avoided with proper firearm safety practices. I also come from a family of hunters. Firearm safety has been drilled into me since I was a child.
Correct me if I am wrong, but I heard something interesting. Somone had told me that there has only been one case of a legaly purchased hand gun used in a crime in like the past 20 years, and the perp was a cop. Is that true? I don’t even know where to start looking to check.
Without even looking it up I’m willing to say you’re wrong there. Just stop and think about the number of people murdered each year, and statistically it’s almost impossible.
Please don’t quote me then post something so dumb. Japan bombed Pearl Harbor because they wanted to cripple our fleet before they continued their attacks in Southeast Asia. Their hope was this would greatly delay us being able to get involved. What they failed to realize was how much this “would awaken the sleeping giant”. Pick up a history book once and a while.
Yeah but It was just something I had been thinking about. I figured it would be wrong, hence why I asked lol. It is true howevere that more people die from Dr malpractice every year than by guns.
Please tell me when the people of the United States had enough weaponry to pose a serious threat to the Government since the civil war, and even then those weapons still came from the gov’t.
If your argument is that the 2nd Amendment is needed to keep the people prepared for when the gov’t turns evil then yes it is flawed because it has never been followed that way since 1789. Your misinterpreting it.
Show me a time when they NEEDED to since then. The fact is if government did get that bad people would arm themselves and fight, and the fact that we have guns available makes it possible.
We have a volunteer armed forces, so a large percent of that would disappear if the government tried to use it against it’s own people. It wouldn’t be a squadron of F117A’s vs the militia, it would be a greatly depleted armed forces against a militia that would more than likely be made up at least in part of former armed service people.
Regardless of what the President tells the US military to do, they are not going to war against the US. Do you honestly believe that citizens are going to kill their own familes and friends because they were told to by their President? Even if hey have swarn to do so, I highly doubt it will happen.
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.
