Seems to me, a well regulated Militia needs assault weapons and not muzzle loaders.

I won't do high fence, and would give up the right to ever chase a trophy bull for a cow in the freezer each year.

 

Just kidding you about hunting him. You can just about feed him by hand and he's not much more than pet that gets to breed to his heart's content.

 

I know you were kidding. No one let's you shoot prime breeding stock.

 

Then perhaps, since you are apparently the go-to expert on all matters pertaining to asymmetric warfare, and the undeniable superiority of the united states military compared to all other forces, you should explain to everyone present precisely what these differences are. Elaborate on how the united states military, which cannot wipe out an enemy that utilizes pressure cookers, random stones, and outdated firearms as its primary armaments, can utterly dominate three hundred and eleven million potential enemy combatants that have access to far superior firearms, and in far greater quantities than any other nation in the world. Elaborate on your position to show that your confidence is not actually arrogance.

 

I agree with but we should be consistent and include the ability to bear children.

 

30K civilians killed in Texas? I guess they must be on the side of responsible government.

- - - Updated - - -

Those should be easliy achievable.

 

That gets my vote as the weakest response of the year.

 

With more free time, sure. That job thing, always getting in the way of fun.

 

Sorry, but your silly ideas don't require me to explain them. But you could tell us where you find the three hundred and eleven potential enemy combatants that you think the american military is dominating.

 

The three hundred and eleven million figure is the approximate population of the united states. Considering just how many firearms are currently in circulation, and how many more are being added to that amount every single day according to available background check records, every single person living in the country would need to be treated as a potential enemy combatant. Children and the elderly in middle eastern countries have been pushed into service of terrorist organizations as either soldiers armed with machine guns, or suicide bombers, requiring everyone encountered to be treated as a potential enemy combatant. There is quite literally no reason the same standard would not need to be applied in the united states.

 

no, it aint easy, It will cost at least $50,000 and take at least 5 years to do all that, all the spare time you have, too.

 

^^^
If the anti-gun side could not argue with fallacious appeals to emotion, ignorance and/or dishonestly, they'd be silent.

 

I am sure that would all make sense if one assumes the behaviors of the citizens of a first world country are going to mirror the behaviors of people in third world countries.

 

Note the use of the word "potential". Would all 331 million fight? No. Could any of them, at some point, choose to resist a tyrannical government? That possibility can't be discounted.

Would you fight a tyrannical government or would you support such a government?

 

You mean like the number of gun deaths in the US as compared to other countries? Or perhaps the need for " assault weapons" for self defense.

 

Yes -- those are both examples of appeals to the fallacies I listed. Well done.

 

Why do you use the word "need"?

 

What's the problem with his quotes, Schumer still serving, Clinton still in the public eye, handgun control inc is still in business, what makes you think their views have changed? You can do better than that. Don't you want your 2nd amendment rights when Trump goes rogue?

 

Look into your research, could/would you tell me how many private citizens own assault weapons legally?

 

Define exactly what a so-called "assault weapon" is in the context of this discussion, and then you will be gotten back to.

 

None of which changes the fact that, should the united states military be called upon to engage in war against the public of the united states, every last person in the country would need to be regarded as a potential enemy combatant. That is not to say that everyone would be an enemy combatant, only that it would be absolutely necessary to treat more than three hundred and eleven million individuals as potential enemy combatants, because there would be no way of telling who would and would not pose a threat. Quite literally no one could be trusted, and regarded as being safe, because anyone and everyone could potentially kill them.

That is what the united states military would face if the decision was made to regard the united states citizenry as a threat in need of being addressed. And it is a situation that has even less hope for success than the threat in the middle east.

Regardless of what you claim, the united states military would be in a hopeless situation that simply cannot be won or otherwise overcome. All of their training, tactics, equipment, and support network would be rendered completely useless as a result.

 

Define exactly what a so-called "assault weapon" is in the context of this discussion, and then you will be gotten back to.

 

Ban most guns and have only one gun store in the nation ran by the federal police----then you have Mexico.

 

Well the need for "assault weapons" for self defense is certainly a fallacy. Glad we have reached. agreement

- - - Updated - - -

Because that is the justification often used for "assault weapons" If people just said they were cool toys that would be more honest.

- - - Updated - - -

Sure, right after you tell me how many Americans own them illegally.

- - - Updated - - -

That is obviously why I put it in quotes.

 

The amount of sense being made by yourself is even less than usual. You claim that no one has actual need for a firearm classified as a so-called "assault weapon" but what exactly qualifies as a so-called "assault weapons" has become so vague and poorly defined in recent years, the classification quite literally means nothing anymore. Assuming it ever meant anything to begin with.

Again, define exactly what a so-called "assault weapon" is in the context of this discussion, and then you will be gotten back to. Because as it is currently, the state of California has gone so far as to classify even single-shot rifles as so-called "assault weapons" thus proving the classification simply means whatever someone wishes for it to mean.