Ummm ... you don't seem to grasp the simplest concepts. I will try and make it simple for you. Big bad government that doesn't care to honor it's citizens rights and liberties is why the declaration of independence and the US constitution were drafted in the first place. They were educated men and put the second amendment in to safeguard against "Big bad government that doesn't care to honor it's citizens rights and liberties." So ... if Big bad government that doesn't care to honor it's citizens rights and liberties nor the constitution ... gets out of hand ... then the Guns help protect against their oppression. Please read it slow ... just one more time ... It is common knowledge and part of a basic education ... So unless your a tard or a third grader or a plain idiot ... it should be pretty easy to get.
I may have misread the intent of your post and responded harshly [in the previous post] If I did and you were not intending on mocking ... then I am deeply sorry for being rude. I re-read your post and saw it could have been read two ways. --One in jovial agreement and sarcastic chiding of the Government. --The other in a mocking tone. Again ... if it was the former ... my sincerest apologies for the disrespect. Sincerely; George
To answer your question, Killthesunshine, the 2nd Amendment is not about hunting or sport shooting. It was created as a guarantee that the American people would be free. It was created as a counter balance to even the remote possibility of govt tyranny. It is wrong to think about a single individual with an AR-15 going up against an F 22 Raptor...that is just stupid. The idea is that with 80 to 100 million gun owners the US cannot be ruled by force. Think about that for a moment... 80 to 100 million gunowners. Of course the govt has control of nuclear weapons, but if they ever used them against the populace they would rule over rubble. The US and Russia lived for 50 years under mutual assured destruction. The 2nd amendment and 300 million firearms in the hands of individual citizens is a form of mutual assured destruction, but also the greatest protection of freedom that exists in the world today. One of the military leaders in Imperial Japan during the second World War was quoted as warning his superiors that if they ever invaded America, they would face "a gun behind every blade of grass". Some commentators say that people are too irresponsible and cruel to be armed... that is is too dangerous for the average citizen to be able to own a significant firearm. I think that because some people are so evil and cruel, it is far too dangerous for the citizenry (most of whom are decent) to not own firearms including semi-automatic rifles.
You're a few hundred years behind the times. The modern state not only has vastly more firepower than any bunch of kooks armed with a few assault rifles, it is also well organized with sophisticated command and control systems, rapid deployment of overwhelming armed force to any geographical location, excellent communications and frequently (but not always) quite good intelligence. The chance of any armed group offering any significant organized military threat to any modern Western state is effectively zero. If your goal is martyrdom, then it's just the thing otherwise forget it. Actually bombings are far more disruptive as a weapon than rifles (of any flavor). And in general with less immediate risk to the perpetrator. If your goal is to arm the population against the potential for tyranny, then everybody should have a garden shed stocked with ammonium nitrate - just in case.
No my argument is exactly in line with the times. Think about it for a moment. Armies cannot control a land mass as large as the United States by flying overhead and dropping bombs. They have to occupy neighborhoods and control the people. That is the key. If you argue that 20,000 citizens with rifles could not hold off the Armed Forces of the United States then you are correct. However if you consider the enormous amount of armed citizens in this country (80 to 100 million) do not kid yourself, even with the sophisticated command and control the US Military employs they would not be able to hold and control the US mainland while fighting such enormous numbers of armed citizens. The US Army, National Guard and Marine Corps simply is not large enough. All the Command and Control in the World will not help you assert control over an armed populace unless you have troops on the ground. Yes they could employ tactical and strategic nuclear weapons, but they would have a hollow victory. I was referencing Mutual Assured Destruction to highlight the power of deterrence. First and foremost the 2nd Amendment was created as deterrence against Tyranny. For that Deterrence to be effective the citizenry needs to be allowed to own weapons such as the AR-15. Do not think for a second that having millions of Americans owning weapons like that would create a hell on earth for any individuals trying to oppress the citizenry by force of arms. Back in 1967 during the riots in Detroit the National Guard was not really able to control things against even small groups of mostly criminals rampaging with .38 specials and a few shot guns. They eventually had to call in the 82nd Airborne to assist. Now this was not the population in rebellion as a whole on a nationwide basis...that would be completely overwhelming. During World War II one of the reasons that the Nazis decided not to invade Switzerland was because of the armed citizenry and the enormous difficulty of subduing the population. This is also why the Nazis instituted very strict gun laws in the areas that they conquered. Back during the Clinton Administration I remember watching C-Span and seeing the State Department ask some Generals why they could not invade the former Yugoslavia after bombing the heavy weapons of the Serbian Army out of existence. The generals said that without a peace accord if they went into that area by force they would need at least 800,000 men due to so many Serbian partisan fighters in the mountains. As far as invading even a place like IRAN the military is telling the congress about the enormous numbers of troops needed and the Iranian civilian population is not armed. Remember command and control is not enough without boots on the ground.
i never said ban all guns. I think that's a bad idea. i asked why we need SEMI-AUTO RIFLES? I do think we need progressively greater regulation and restriction OVER TIME to weed out those guns that serve no obvious purpose for DEFENSE. Agreed?
why do you think that is? are you suggesting that access to even MORE weapons technology makes for a safer society?