Into the Night
Verified User
Weapons grade cocoa puffs???? Does General Mills know?
2nd Amendment validation
- Thread starter SmarterthanYou
- Start date
Weapons grade cocoa puffs???? Does General Mills know?
SmarterthanYou
rebel
YOU say that 'well regulated militia' was intended to assure ONLY a government regulated group of people had a right to bear arms, right?
State militias were never disbanded in times of peace. They were supposed to be drilling, and used for law enforcement in times of peace. They were never disbanded.
The Jews in the Ghetto of Warsaw were able to stem off complete collapse for 27 days, not months... And that only because the Nazis saw no reason to sacrifice their own troops to shorten the siege. In the end, there was total defeat with few Nazi casualties. It was a sad point in history.
There are about 330 million people in the USA. There is no way that 250 million of t hem own guns.
yeah, gun lovers pile them up. they have arsenals. Having 20 guns makes you safer than 15. It is not about guns, but safety for your family, only it does not work out that way.
Into the Night
Verified User
See the Constitution of the United States.
Into the Night
Verified User
Why?
Into the Night
Verified User
Again, you have no idea what a gun is for. Your hoplophobia is in your way. This isn't about safety.
Last edited:
Into the Night
Verified User
Let's just say that 160 million of them own guns. Happier?
Now to return from your pivot:
The point is that there is somebody near you anytime that you walk down the street that owns guns, and could very well be carrying one.
But they are not shooting up the street, any business, any shopping mall, or any school.
To say that the fact that people own guns is why these events happen is ludicrous at best.
It doesn't matter if someone shows up and starts knifing people (that has happened!) vs the gun. It doesn't matter if someone shows up and starts clubbing people (that has happened too!) vs the gun. It doesn't matter if someone bombs a school (that has happened too!) vs the gun.
No school shooting incident ever took longer than 10 minutes to resolve, one way or the other. Often the shooter shoots himself in the end. In almost every case, these people are suffering withdrawal symptoms from drugs some psychoquackery treatment they were undergoing were prescribing. These mind-altering (and permanently damaging!) drugs often cause homicidal tendencies during withdrawal.
These psychoquacks have a lot to answer for here.
Notice also that the government has kept redefining 'mass shooting' to as little as two people shot. Something that can happen over a former girlfriend. The Democrat agenda is to justify taking the guns away so they can implement their policies Australia or Austria style.
No thanks. People are buying guns for a reason. They are stocking up on ammunition for a reason. They are NOT going to just surrender their weapons.
Last edited:
American Man
Verified User
If firearms could protect against a tyrannical government, then how do account for the thousands of American families who were interred during WW2? Their only crime was having been of Italian or Japanese descent.
If firearms protect against government tyranny, then how was Saddam Hussein able to torture communities in his own country for decades, when pretty much every Iraqi owned firearms that are even illegal in most US states?
Likewise, if firearms are a populace's only protection against tyranny, then how do you explain the Arab Spring, when a thirty-year dictatorship was toppled by unarmed protestors and without a single shot fired?
We have something that the Founding Fathers don't: the privilege of hindsight. Whereas they were working from hypothesis, we have experience to know that their hypothesis about gun rights is incorrect.
An armed populace does not prevent tyranny, nor is an unarmed populace defenseless against it.
Oh, and by the way, the NSA has been illegally spying on us since the 1970s. They've been violating our constitutional right to privacy for a half century and none of these dumbass redneck militias have done a damn thing about it.
If firearms protect against government tyranny, then how was Saddam Hussein able to torture communities in his own country for decades, when pretty much every Iraqi owned firearms that are even illegal in most US states?
Likewise, if firearms are a populace's only protection against tyranny, then how do you explain the Arab Spring, when a thirty-year dictatorship was toppled by unarmed protestors and without a single shot fired?
We have something that the Founding Fathers don't: the privilege of hindsight. Whereas they were working from hypothesis, we have experience to know that their hypothesis about gun rights is incorrect.
An armed populace does not prevent tyranny, nor is an unarmed populace defenseless against it.
Oh, and by the way, the NSA has been illegally spying on us since the 1970s. They've been violating our constitutional right to privacy for a half century and none of these dumbass redneck militias have done a damn thing about it.
Yes, because to leftist morons, fighting for your freedom regardless of outcome is a "sad point in history", right?
Who was in charge when those Americans were interred in camps? Were any of them armed?
So based on your silly lunatic world, armed citizens are just as easy to control as unarmed citizens. Try to be less of a moron. Assuming that's even possible.
That's a LIE and a strawman. The only Iraqi's who were allowed to have arms were those loyal to Saddam.
Again, in your silly lunatic world, armed citizens are just as easy to control as unarmed citizens. Try to be less of a moron. Assuming that's even possible.
You might want to review your history dipshit. Those uprisings resulted in nothing but more repression. Particularly in Syria. Dunce.
The Arab Spring was a series of pro-democracy uprisings that enveloped several largely Muslim countries, including Tunisia, Morocco, Syria, Libya, Egypt and Bahrain. The events in these nations generally began in the spring of 2011, which led to the name. However, the political and social impact of these popular uprisings remains significant today, years after many of them ended.
This is a patently false statement and claim. We have the benefit of history showing how Tyrants disarm their citizens in order to gain control. Of course, uneducated, historically ignorant dunces like you pretend to know something just because....you say it is so. Be less stupid.
Because you say so? Yet we know when tyrannical governments attempt to take control, the first thing they do is DISARM their citizens.
Try to be less of a dishonest lying hack on steroids.
IRONIC coming from an unhinged leftist twit who celebrates Government hegemony. I'm convinced that your stupidity and ignorance are not an act now.
SmarterthanYou
rebel
so this is your official declaration of you being a british enemy of the USA...........thanks.
Into the Night
Verified User
They either didn't have them or they didn't bother to use them. It's also called being outnumbered.
You can't shoot a target unless you can identify it first.
Guns aren't the only weapon.
They had just fought a war with the British, that started over the British seizing guns. See the battle of Lexington and the battle of Concord, and what caused the Patriots to rise up against an army of greater numbers and weaponry.
Yes it does, if the people are willing to defend against it.
They do not have the capability.
The NSA is not a magick agency capable spying on everything. They can monitor a few phone calls, monitor some unencrypted packet activity, look a few cameras, and listen to some radio frequencies...that's all.
There is no 'right to privacy' in the Constitution. See Amendment 4 for clarification:
4th Amendment said:
The NSA is not conducting searches of people on the street.
The NSA is not invading your house.
The NSA is not riffling through your papers.
The NSA is not searching your House or car.
The NSA is not seizing anything.
Your location out in public is NOT protected. It is public knowledge.
What you publish is NOT protected in this way. It is publicly known.
What you say on the phone, telegraph device, internet, television, radio, or publicly is protected by the 1st Amendment (and similar wordings in State constitutions), not the 4th.
Into the Night
Verified User
You are correct. There were, of course, some dissidents who owned firearms anyway, against the law. Revealing them unless there was a good chance of victory would not be smart. This is case of simply being outgunned.
yes, well-regulated militia is the first words of the second. Have you seen it? https://constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/amendment/amendment-ii
Into the Night
Verified User
Argument by repetition fallacy (chanting). You still don't recognize the fact that the 2nd amendment contains more than two words, nor recognize any State constitution.
Correct. There are 250 million guns, but most gun owners owned multiple weapons. I own two myself.