Victory for Gun Rights

i support the ownership of rocket launchers. no i am not joking. I don't understand gun ownership, but I support it fully and fanatically. go guns.
 
:rolleyes:

Rocket launchers? I do not support that. Gun rights I believe should be fairly unlimited. But shit that can blow up a half city block.... Nix.
 
Rocket launcher's aren't really necessary. 10,000,000 small arms around each corner and sticking out every window is enough to deter a tyrant.
 
Damn Yankee said:
Rocket launcher's aren't really necessary. 10,000,000 small arms around each corner and sticking out every window is enough to deter a tyrant.
Click to expand...
Since when is freedom measured by what some opine as "necessary"?

Like detente, the power behind the 2nd Amendment is the people retaining the ability (ie: force of arms) to tell government where to stick it, if necessary. By retaining that ability, we drastically lower the chances it will ever be needed.

"...but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people, while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in discipline and use of arms, who stand ready to defend their rights..." (Alexander Hamilton speaking of standing armies in Federalist 29.)
Click to expand...

"Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom? Congress shall have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American ... The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the People." (Tench Coxe, Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788) (another strong indicator that the arms of a common soldier should also be available to the citizenry.)
Click to expand...

"The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." -- (Thomas Jefferson)
Click to expand...
If the purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to protect ourselves from tyranny of our own government, how does it make sense to allow government vast superiority in arms?

Seems those who helped write and pass the 2nd Amendment would have disagreed about rocket launchers being unnecessary.
 
Damn Yankee said:
That's not the issue. Pragmatism is. Individuals cannot win an arms race with the US government, but the People have much greater numbers.
Click to expand...

the problem with your theory is that too many of 'the people' would rather live on their knees instead of maintain their rule over the government.
 
Damn Yankee said:
That's not the issue. Pragmatism is. Individuals cannot win an arms race with the US government, but the People have much greater numbers.
Click to expand...
So, because not many private people can afford rocket launchers, the solution is to ban them from everyone except government, because it is "pragmatic" to do so?

Care to guess how many people armed with nothing but hunting rifles a single M2 Bradley can take out in a day?
Make that an hour....

OTOH, blow the track off a Bradley (you ain't gonna kill one with a shoulder fired rocket, but they CAN be immobilized), and then the lighter arms will have a chance.

Winning and/or keeping tyranny from encroaching is not a matter of "pragmatism". (At least, not by your use of the word.)
 
Good Luck said:
So, because not many private people can afford rocket launchers, the solution is to ban them from everyone except government, because it is "pragmatic" to do so?

Care to guess how many people armed with nothing but hunting rifles a single M2 Bradley can take out in a day?
Make that an hour....

OTOH, blow the track off a Bradley (you ain't gonna kill one with a shoulder fired rocket, but they CAN be immobilized), and then the lighter arms will have a chance.

Winning and/or keeping tyranny from encroaching is not a matter of "pragmatism". (At least, not by your use of the word.)
Click to expand...

You seem to forget that a unorganized band of squirrel hunters defeated the best trained, best financed and best armed army in the world in the late 18th century. And they did it by reinventing the rules of warfare.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top