Americans Have a Duty to Be Armed

I don't think all the metro sexual emasculated on the left have wrists strong enough to hold a gun.

 

I did not say anything about vigilantism. And I specifically said that being armed and proficient would vary depending on the context. For most people, it will simply mean having a rifle that they practice with every once in a while. But the most important thing to have is the proper mindset and the proper understanding of one's civic duties. Without that, arms are just objects with no greater purpose.

 

And that somehow proves how tough the owners really are. Give me a break. Now I am relly tough. Why just yesterday I didn't fasten my seat belt.

 

The 2nd amendment like the bill of rights speaks to the individual. Sounds like you find the phallus stuff titillating.

 

Strength is the only thing tyrants and criminals understand. Those who are weak, will be preyed upon. It is basically a law of nature. But human ingenuity has allowed the physically weak to defend themselves with arms. Those who do not avail themselves of this are vulnerable to oppression and exploitation.

 

Sure they would. Why do you think all the pretend ***** soldiers have their pathetic low recoil AR's.

 

Feel free to bunker down in your basement and snitch on your neighbors.

 

Nonsense the physically weak defend themselves with a society of laws. The mentally weak defend themselves with guns.

 

I am not paranoid about my neighbors.

 

I am not paranoid about my neighbors.

 

Your understanding of history is obviously impoverished. Go study the American revolution and get back to me with your findings.

 

I don't care about the second amendment, nor any other part of the Constitution. I don't believe in the legitimatecy of the state, so I will not endorse anything associated with it.

However I will say that far beyond the 2nd Amendment, gun ownership is a property right that is an extension of our right of self ownership.

 

Okay now that everyone has brought up the Vietnam War and Afghanistan

1) No war has ever been won via straight up guerrilla tactics against a superior opponent willing to stay engaged.
It didn't even work in Star Wars.

2) The Vietcong did not defeat the United States. The VC were largely exterminated in the Tet Offensive of 1968. For the next 5 years of U.S. involvement the U.S. largely fought North Vietnamese Army regulars. Which were heavily armed with Soviet bloc weapons.
3) Yeah, the Soviets were forced to withdraw from Afghanistan. But they largely left due to the conflict being a drain on resources and manpower. Not to mention that the Afghan rebels by that time were armed with some pretty advanced weapons such as Stinger SAMs provided by (along with training to use them) by the U.S.
4) The U.S. is in Afghanistan today but its largely to keep fundamentalist Muslims like the Taliban from stepping back into the power void if we leave. That in no way implies the U.S. has been "defeated" or is "losing" in Afghanistan.

Once again, I support the Second Amendment. But I do not indulge in the pure fantasy of patriot Americans being able to resist a repressive government. If the repressive government was backed by the majority of the regular military, we're screwed.

 

You seem to be a reasonable poster but if you think about it, more than half the military would refuse to disarm their fellow Americans. The rest alongside the police could not defeat the people because they are not going to NUKE their own country to disarm the public. What sense does that make?

 

Only up north. I was in the delta down south. We were attacked repeatedly by the Viet Cong. We never saw a NV regular. The same occurred in Saigon. Punji sticks and roadside bombs were a constant threat and you could never distinguish a friendly from a VC. In many ways, a more conventional war against the regular army NV would have been preferable.

 

The thing is the people of the U.S. will never be disarmed. The military isn't going to nuke or carpetbomb the citizens to accomplish this. Half of the police or more (same with the military) will not comply. It's not happening.

 

ONLY IF we want the current 100 shot and killed and the two hundred wounded each day to double.More GUNS equals more people unsafe with a butter knife being armed.

 

I agree with you. Most of the regular and reserve U.S. military would never turn their guns on American civilians at the behest of the federal government en masse.

But in that case that would be another example of the U.S. military protecting American citizens. Not American citizens who practice with a couple of rifles and a few handguns at a range once a month defending against an oppressive government.

 

Do you still sleep under your bed?

 

Then so is 2A.

If you're a male at least 17 and younger than 45, federal law says otherwise.