2A Question...

[shankmcgank]

Isnt there some authority who's boots you could be shining right now over in your country, subject?

Lol, I expected something like this. Too predictable.

You know your M4 won't do a damn thing against a tank or Apache or drone launching Hellfire missiles at your head, so you reply with some lame attempt to insult me.

Sorry I ruined your "but but but I need muh 2A to defend against the gubment" argument.

No need for rustled jim jams, just admit that your puny hunting rifle won't do a damn thing to stop the government doing whatever they want to you, if they felt so inclined.

 

[all caps]

Lol, I expected something like this. Too predictable.

You know your M4 won't do a damn thing against a tank or Apache or drone launching Hellfire missiles at your head, so you reply with some lame attempt to insult me.

Sorry I ruined your "but but but I need muh 2A to defend against the gubment" argument.

No need for rustled jim jams, just admit that your puny hunting rifle won't do a damn thing to stop the government doing whatever they want to you, if they felt so inclined.

Free men dont take advice from slaves. Fuck off

 

[shankmcgank]

Free men dont take advice from slaves. Fuck off

Boy are you ever rustled.

Still waiting for you to tell me about how your M4 or AK saves your life against a hellfire? How do you destroy a tank with 5.56 or 7.62 ? Keep avoiding the question, it just proves I'm right.

How'd these guys do with their AKs and RPGs ? Looks to me like they got turned into chunky salsa.

https://www.military.com/video/oper...-apaches-engage-taliban-platoon/1741618611001

 

[Gregolian]

Apaches, F15s, and tanks require soldiers willing to fire on other Americans to do damage.

 

[all caps]

I was out of line in this thread. I'm sorry for the way I have acted.

 

[shankmcgank]

Apaches, F15s, and tanks require soldiers willing to fire on other Americans to do damage.

If there are no soldiers willing to do so, then why do you need the 2A ? Nothing to worry about, right ?

However I'd disagree with this as evidenced by German soldiers rounding up and exterminating Jews, the Khmer Rouge, the NVA, even the soldiers recently killing civilians in Venezuela.

Which brings us back to how Joe is gonna save himself and his family with his M4 against military hardware he can't even see. such as a drone or Apache off in the distance watching him with his M4 or AK.

The range on a Hellfire is between 4 miles to 7 miles depending on trajectory.

The range on an M1 Abrams main gun is 4,400 yards.

Poor Joe can't even see what's about to kill him, nevermind shoot at it. Even if he could see it he still wouldn't be able to hit it at those ranges.

So, again, why the need to "defend against a tyrannical government" when it's quite clear there is no chance for Joe to save himself or his family ?

 

[vengeful]

For the people that say "shall not be infringed on" How do you reconcile those 5 words with felons not having the right to own a firearm? Do you believe that's constitutional or nay?

 

[Gregolian]

For the people that say "shall not be infringed on" How do you reconcile those 5 words with felons not having the right to own a firearm? Do you believe that's constitutional or nay?

To me, personally, depends on felony. Chael Sonnen being a dick and committing fraud should be allowed to vote and own a firearm.

Violent offenses and sex crimes though? No.

 

[shankmcgank]

Look, people.

I understand how important the 2A is to Americans, it's the logic behind the arguments for it, that I'm having issues understanding.

Yes, I'm "devil's advocating" a bit, but im not trying to troll, im trying to understand the logic behind it because you will have 1 of 2 things happen.

Either the government becomes tyrannical and no soldiers are willing to fire on their fellow Americans, or they do fire on them and kill them from ranges that they can't even be seen from.

In both of those situations the 2A won't help. You either have nothing to worry about, or you'll be dead without knowing what killed you.

This is the part I guess I'm trying to understand from an American's point of view when it comes to 2A.

For those who believe I'm a libtard, gun grabber, well think what you want. Nothing could be further from the truth, I've listed some of the guns I've fired in posts above. Something a libtard gun grabber would never be caught dead doing, nevermind posting the footage of it on youtube.

 

[Happy Man]

Boy are you ever rustled.

Still waiting for you to tell me about how your M4 or AK saves your life against a hellfire? How do you destroy a tank with 5.56 or 7.62 ? Keep avoiding the question, it just proves I'm right.

How'd these guys do with their AKs and RPGs ? Looks to me like they got turned into chunky salsa.

https://www.military.com/video/oper...-apaches-engage-taliban-platoon/1741618611001

but the taliban have won.

you need boots on the ground to occupy territory.

every single civil conflict war game the DOD runs, the insurgents trounced the government.

which is why over the last 15 years they have sent in Mexicans by the millions to small town America (countryside) and the Appalachian taliban is now all strung out on opioids.

that was planned. But have no fear, the government would still be defeated.

I cannot think of one logical way they could win. Unless they Brought in tens of millions of mercenary soldiers from around the world.

 

[Gregolian]

Look, people.

I understand how important the 2A is to Americans, it's the logic behind the arguments for it, that I'm having issues understanding.

Yes, I'm "devil's advocating" a bit, but im not trying to troll, im trying to understand the logic behind it because you will have 1 of 2 things happen.

Either the government becomes tyrannical and no soldiers are willing to fire on their fellow Americans, or they do fire on them and kill them from ranges that they can't even be seen from.

In both of those situations the 2A won't help. You either have nothing to worry about, or you'll be dead without knowing what killed you.

This is the part I guess I'm trying to understand from an American's point of view when it comes to 2A.

For those who believe I'm a libtard, gun grabber, well think what you want. Nothing could be further from the truth, I've listed some of the guns I've fired in posts above. Something a libtard gun grabber would never be caught dead doing, nevermind posting the footage of it on youtube.

The “fight tyranny” argument from people I know generally isn’t open combat. It’s to protect you and your from marauding douches and do “hit and run” sorta things if there’s a military presence to get supplies.

no long drawn out conflict sort of thing.

 

[skysolo]

Won't happen, much too late for that now. Canada is going the way of New Zealand, Australia, UK, Germany and Japan.

Very few will fight the government, as we are a country full of gun hating Libtards. Laws will be passed and guns will be banned. The Conservatives were our best hope, and the Liberals didn't win a seat west of Ontario, yet thanks to Ontario and Quebec, they still won the election.

I wonder if America could pass the 2A today ? Something tells me "Antifa", AOC, Buttgieg and the rest of the "guns are bad" folks would scream and cry and sky scream enough that it wouldn't go through.

The second amendment, like all amendments, can have limits.

Our speech is limited everyday. Voting rights are limited in some areas because of gerimandering. But we are obessed because a few politicians want stronger restrictions on high capacity weapons.

How will you life be worse if these weapons were harder to get?

 

[Greta]

Do you agree or disagree that there are options in the middle between the status quo and "take all the guns" in terms of gun laws that could help reduce intentional and/or accidental death?

Well of course there are. Better enforcement of existing laws that prevent non-eligible people like criminals and psychos from buying guns would be my first suggestion.
I would never suggest limiting what kind of weapons people could buy though. Hell, if it were up to me law-abiding citizens would be allowed to buy select-fire assault weapons like M-16's and use for hunting or for whatever else legal use they can come up with. Now, I get it: you feel the US has a gun problem. I don't. I think the US has a mental health problem. Solve that and the gun homicides disappear.

And just to be clear: This is something that I am advocating for in all countries, not just the US.

 

[K-Bag]

Here's the solution, take all guns from the police, military and civilians melt them into swords and the last man standing is the new God Emperor.

 

[usmctanker242]

I understand. The issue I see with this argument is that the citizens with AKs and ARs are no match for a government with F22's, A-10s, Apaches with FLIR and Hellfire missiles, MOABs, and Tomahawk cruise missiles.

Should citizens be able to own these too ? Would you be ok with a rich private citizen owning his own, armed F22 or Apache ?

I've seen a lot of combat videos from Iraq and Afghanistan where 1 Apache wipes out an entire enemy fighting force armed with AKs and RPGs. How is Joe Smith going to fare any better with his M4 ?

You're god damned right the citizens should be allowed to have that kind of weaponary. The reality here is that law abiding citizens don't gear up and go on mass shooting sprees. Tanks are already owned by plenty of civilians (Arnold Schwarzenegger has one, many others have older tanks), and many others have fully capable fighter jets (mostly older MiG's and such).

Look...I'm a Marine and I did 4 tours of combat. I did one to Pakistan in support of Enduring Freedom in 2001-2002, and the rest I did in Iraq with one being the main push into Baghdad, another being the push into Fallujah, and then another tour in Fallujah doing what they call "counter-insurgency" operations. Believe you me that a motivated person who is on their own ground can be a formidable opponent for an overbearing government. Air is 99% useless in actual combat...you can take that to the bank. They make for some great footage but 99 times out of 100 they can't hit the broad side of fucking barn with their ordnance. I've NEVER once...NOT EVER seen helicopters or fighter jets actually hit their intended target; neither in training or in combat. I have seen them miss over and over, have fail-to-fires, and actually shoot M1A2 tanks rather than T55 or T62 Russian built tanks. Whether you comprehend it or not air power alone can't win a full on war. You need ground forces and while the infantry has some great weapons, they are are indeed vulnerable to things like rifle fire, landmines, and IED type weapons. I've seen that shit with my own eyes...scary and brutal.

Note: During the Phantom Fury battle there was an AC-130 on station some nights who was god damned amazing! They were lighting shit up all night and it was so impressive because it was the only time I'd ever seen air do anything. But this a cargo plane that had been refitted to be aerial gunship, and wasn't a fighter jet, a bomber, or an attack helicopter.

The shit we see overseas right now in China with Hong Kong, and China and the Uighur's is fucking horrible. The shit we have heard about in North Korea, and Darfur... the expropriations during the rule of socialism and communism in the 20th and 21st century...people SHOULD worry about a corrupt government. I'll bring it up, but there is really no need; Mao, Hitler, Stalin, and Mussolini all took the guns from their citizens...either by force or by "slippery slope laws."

Law abiding citizens aren't causing the problems and the mass shootings which you keep on bringing up are more often than not done with weapons which don't legally belong to the person doing the shooting. Also, with 2 borders (Canada and Mexico) being extremely porous if you try to ban guns they will just cross the border illegally. In essence you'll turn a law abiding citizen who wasn't hurting anybody into someone who needs now to go to jail...is that an outcome which you desire?

One last piece here; during Hurricane Katrina the sheriff of New Orleans instituted an illegal gun confiscation after the hurricane hit and destoryed the city. You might have heard repots of people shooting at the National Guard? Most of that was because the government (both police and National Guard) went door to door and confiscated LEGALLY owned weapons. People were trapped with no way out and had to deal with looters and criminals, and the police and National Guard (who were fully armed with combat weaponry) confiscated firearms which disallowed the citizens to defend themselves. It can 100% happen again and we should never give the government an inch because they will always take 10 miles.

 

[PHATV]

Serious questions from an uninformed Canadian.

The Constitution has been amended many times. What would it taek for the 2A to be amended?

Going from memory, but both the house and the senate and then 3/4 of the states. It's a tall order. Intentionally.

 

[Gregolian]

You're god damned right the citizens should be allowed to have that kind of weaponary. The reality here is that law abiding citizens don't gear up and go on mass shooting sprees. Tanks are already owned by plenty of civilians (Arnold Schwarzenegger has one, many others have older tanks), and many others have fully capable fighter jets (mostly older MiG's and such).

Look...I'm a Marine and I did 4 tours of combat. I did one to Pakistan in support of Enduring Freedom in 2001-2002, and the rest I did in Iraq with one being the main push into Baghdad, another being the push into Fallujah, and then another tour in Fallujah doing what they call "counter-insurgency" operations. Believe you me that a motivated person who is on their own ground can be a formidable opponent for an overbearing government. Air is 99% useless in actual combat...you can take that to the bank. They make for some great footage but 99 times out of 100 they can't hit the broad side of fucking barn with their ordnance. I've NEVER once...NOT EVER seen helicopters or fighter jets actually hit their intended target; neither in training or in combat. I have seen them miss over and over, have fail-to-fires, and actually shoot M1A2 tanks rather than T55 or T62 Russian built tanks. Whether you comprehend it or not air power alone can't win a full on war. You need ground forces and while the infantry has some great weapons, they are are indeed vulnerable to things like rifle fire, landmines, and IED type weapons. I've seen that shit with my own eyes...scary and brutal.

Note: During the Phantom Fury battle there was an AC-130 on station some nights who was god damned amazing! They were lighting shit up all night and it was so impressive because it was the only time I'd ever seen air do anything. But this a cargo plane that had been refitted to be aerial gunship, and wasn't a fighter jet, a bomber, or an attack helicopter.

The shit we see overseas right now in China with Hong Kong, and China and the Uighur's is fucking horrible. The shit we have heard about in North Korea, and Darfur... the expropriations during the rule of socialism and communism in the 20th and 21st century...people SHOULD worry about a corrupt government. I'll bring it up, but there is really no need; Mao, Hitler, Stalin, and Mussolini all took the guns from their citizens...either by force or by "slippery slope laws."

Law abiding citizens aren't causing the problems and the mass shootings which you keep on bringing up are more often than not done with weapons which don't legally belong to the person doing the shooting. Also, with 2 borders (Canada and Mexico) being extremely porous if you try to ban guns they will just cross the border illegally. In essence you'll turn a law abiding citizen who wasn't hurting anybody into someone who needs now to go to jail...is that an outcome which you desire?

One last piece here; during Hurricane Katrina the sheriff of New Orleans instituted an illegal gun confiscation after the hurricane hit and destoryed the city. You might have heard repots of people shooting at the National Guard? Most of that was because the government (both police and National Guard) went door to door and confiscated LEGALLY owned weapons. People were trapped with no way out and had to deal with looters and criminals, and the police and National Guard (who were fully armed with combat weaponry) confiscated firearms which disallowed the citizens to defend themselves. It can 100% happen again and we should never give the government an inch because they will always take 10 miles.

“That’s a danger close fire mission sir”
“Danger close?”
“Sir, anything within 500 meters is considered danger close. That’s a cunt hair over 250. That’s on our heads”

 

[oldshadow]

Disclaimer: I'm Canadian and very pro gun.

I see the 2nd amendment used all the time by pro gun Americans as a reason why people should be able to keep them, specifically weapons that the media would label an "assault rifle" such as an M4 / AK47 and their variants.

2A was added in 1791, that's over 200 years ago. The Gatling Gun wasn't invented until 1862, almost 100 years later, so unless I'm ignorant about a certain type of gun from the 1790s-1860s period, there were no very rapid firing / automatic type weapons around at that time, at least comparable to what is available today. If I'm wrong here, please let me know.

With this in mind, I refer to the Democrat argument (not mine) that the right to bear arms meant muskets, or rifles of the day which were single shot, not semi automatic pistols with 15+ round magazines, Uzi's, M4s, AKs and in some cases, automatics that can legally be owned, such as in Florida with a class 2 license.

While owning slaves was at one time allowed and widely accepted, society changed and slavery was outlawed. While I understand that owning slaves wasn't an amendment to the constitution, treaties and deals are changed, withdrawn from or just plain ignored quite frequently.

With this said, how do you feel the founding fathers would have written the 2A knowing the issues that mass shootings are causing, especially in the US ?

And why do people think that an amendment written 200 years ago, before "assault rifles", mass shootings, high capacity magazines (etc.) is the only argument they need ? Yes, I'm aware that pistols are frequently used in mass shootings as well, many of these being semi auto, and having stock 15+ round magazines available to empty before needing to reload.

When I read comments on news sites, forums and the like, I frequently see " the second amendment says...", and that just seems so weird to me considering how much society has changed, and the fact that the founding fathers had no knowledge of what was to come 200 years ahead.

For the record I don't like the gun grab that just happened in New Zealand, and I don't like the way Canadian gun laws are going either.

I just don't understand how a lot of people's blanket answer is "the second amendment says..." from 200+ years ago.

Help me out here ?



TL/DR: I don't understand how 2A is an extremely common blanket answer to people's ideas at attempting to reduce gun violence / mass shootings.

Simple answer is if it applies to the 2nd amendment then the same applies to all of our other rights. Such as the 1st and the 4th

 

[Stoic1]

We went from this

Disclaimer: I'm Canadian and very pro gun.

I see the 2nd amendment used all the time by pro gun Americans as a reason why people should be able to keep them, specifically weapons that the media would label an "assault rifle" such as an M4 / AK47 and their variants.

2A was added in 1791, that's over 200 years ago. The Gatling Gun wasn't invented until 1862, almost 100 years later, so unless I'm ignorant about a certain type of gun from the 1790s-1860s period, there were no very rapid firing / automatic type weapons around at that time, at least comparable to what is available today. If I'm wrong here, please let me know.

With this in mind, I refer to the Democrat argument (not mine) that the right to bear arms meant muskets, or rifles of the day which were single shot, not semi automatic pistols with 15+ round magazines, Uzi's, M4s, AKs and in some cases, automatics that can legally be owned, such as in Florida with a class 2 license.

While owning slaves was at one time allowed and widely accepted, society changed and slavery was outlawed. While I understand that owning slaves wasn't an amendment to the constitution, treaties and deals are changed, withdrawn from or just plain ignored quite frequently.

With this said, how do you feel the founding fathers would have written the 2A knowing the issues that mass shootings are causing, especially in the US ?

And why do people think that an amendment written 200 years ago, before "assault rifles", mass shootings, high capacity magazines (etc.) is the only argument they need ? Yes, I'm aware that pistols are frequently used in mass shootings as well, many of these being semi auto, and having stock 15+ round magazines available to empty before needing to reload.

When I read comments on news sites, forums and the like, I frequently see " the second amendment says...", and that just seems so weird to me considering how much society has changed, and the fact that the founding fathers had no knowledge of what was to come 200 years ahead.

For the record I don't like the gun grab that just happened in New Zealand, and I don't like the way Canadian gun laws are going either.

I just don't understand how a lot of people's blanket answer is "the second amendment says..." from 200+ years ago.

Help me out here

To this...

Lol, I expected something like this. Too predictable.

You know your M4 won't do a damn thing against a tank or Apache or drone launching Hellfire missiles at your head, so you reply with some lame attempt to insult me.

Sorry I ruined your "but but but I need muh 2A to defend against the gubment" argument.

No need for rustled jim jams, just admit that your puny hunting rifle won't do a damn thing to stop the government doing whatever they want to you, if they felt so inclined.

Here we are folks. It's always the least genuine folks who represent the anti-2A crowd.

Such a poor and thinly veiled attempt to disguise his real leaning.

BTW - you're Canadian. So fuck off. Worry about Canadian shit. Like snow, hockey, and maple syrup. eh.

 

[SammyPops]

Going from memory, but both the house and the senate and then 3/4 of the states. It's a tall order. Intentionally.

So a democratic controlled house and senate seems like something that's happened before. No idea how the 3/4 of states work re: gun control.