What’s the major difference between owning an ar-15 and say owning a Cadillac gage commando armored car? Why not own an artillery piece as well? A Carl Gustav recoilles rifle?

great points dude

you've changed some hearts and minds today

tomorrow there will be change for us all

utopia is upon us brother

In general it is legal to own artillery pieces in most states. There is a house in Springfield with several cannons in the front yard. Flamethrowers are legal to own but require a permit in California.
Attachments:

Tanks legal, machine guns, armored cars all legal for citizens to own as well as a AR15

Guntard Liberal Idiot Who knows nothing beat it kid !

I'll take a triple minigun. Also legal to own.
Attachments:

.
Attachments:

AR-15’s are for pussies Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> .


Another excellent post, guaranteed to win more converts to our side. Keep it up brother. I don't know anyone who doesn't want to turn over the running of this country to a bunch of high school SJW's. It's Nirvana.

its ok that guns scare you

but these sad little rants about being a pussy because you shoot a certain model of firearm is a bit retarded

are ArmaLite rifle owners the only ones who are pussies or anyone who owns a semi-auto rifle

is it the scary black plastic that makes it an "assault weapon"?

believe it or not mr. lib but there are reasonable gun owners willing to have a conversation about gun control but when you are completely ignorant and slandering people and things you know nothing about its hard to have that conversation.

sweet march though...

AR-15’s are for pussies Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> .
Attachments:

AR-15’s are for pussies Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> .

I'm in the Air National Guard. In my position the only small arms I get to use are pistols. (The plane itself has guns but for practical purposes it is a bomber.)

I personally own rifles and pistols and a few years ago I competed in military marksmanship events. Practice was on my own time and mostly on my own property.

already uniformed Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> AR-15’s are for pussies Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > .
>
> I'm in the Air National Guard. In my position the
> only small arms I get to use are pistols. (The
> plane itself has guns but for practical purposes
> it is a bomber.)
>
> I personally own rifles and pistols and a few
> years ago I competed in military marksmanship
> events. Practice was on my own time and mostly on
> my own property.


the small dicked, nazi, child murderer

I dont believe there should be any limits in a well regulated militia there should be limits only to the extent the militia can safely store, maintain and protect weapons. I think militias should be able to have tanks, subs, aircraft as well a artillery, explosives, missles, mines, bombs. The constitution says nothing about limits to weaponry. None. Where does it say you cannot own a tank?

In the end, with the advent of new and widely available weapons of war, we need a new amendment to change the 2nd. We need to define weapons of war and 'militia' in modern terms and for the future as best we can. I do not think the founders could have foreseen the portability of our devastatingly effective firearms. Lets update it. Lets consider if having a weapon able to empty dozens of rounds in a minute is a right or a privilege or maybe neither.

digital traffic Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> In the end, with the advent of new and widely
> available weapons of war, we need a new amendment
> to change the 2nd. We need to define weapons of
> war and 'militia' in modern terms and for the
> future as best we can. I do not think the
> founders could have foreseen the portability of
> our devastatingly effective firearms. Lets update
> it. Lets consider if having a weapon able to
> empty dozens of rounds in a minute is a right or a
> privilege or maybe neither.

The main point of 2A is to arm the people with sufficient weaponry
that they can overthrow the military of a tyranical government.
The founders definitely intended us to have military weaponry.
Understand what 2A means, and consult writings of the authors if still unclear.

WCM3B Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> digital traffic Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > In the end, with the advent of new and widely
> > available weapons of war, we need a new
> amendment
> > to change the 2nd. We need to define weapons
> of
> > war and 'militia' in modern terms and for the
> > future as best we can. I do not think the
> > founders could have foreseen the portability of
> > our devastatingly effective firearms. Lets
> update
> > it. Lets consider if having a weapon able to
> > empty dozens of rounds in a minute is a right or
> a
> > privilege or maybe neither.
>
> The main point of 2A is to arm the people with
> sufficient weaponry
> that they can overthrow the military of a
> tyranical government.
> The founders definitely intended us to have
> military weaponry.
> Understand what 2A means, and consult writings of
> the authors if still unclear.

You believe in the tooth fairy too? 2nd Amendment was passed for 'militias' in the south where the slaves outnumbered the owners. Overthrow the government with military force? Today? You must be high.

The US spends more than the next largest 7 countries in the world COMBINED. You think you are going to beat the US military with 'assault-style' rifles? I mean how old you? If you think its about becoming a force great enough combat the US military you need to be like everyone else in the world - you are going to need tactical nuclear weapons and you are going to need to be able to use them on US targets inside the US.

You see the absurdity of the 'protect against tyrannical government' argument. How about we face the fact that low capacity mags along with slow rate of fire weapons will have to do when taking on the 61 ton M1 Abrams with its Chobham, RH armor, steel encased depleted uranium mesh plating. Now I know what your are saying, 'the AR-15 would cut those tanks down like a hot knife through butter' but Im afraid you will have to make due with a deer rifle.

Ok, I think Ive humiliated you enough. Lets get behind some common sense regulations.

Artillery Cannons Both Legal Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Tanks legal, machine guns, armored cars all legal
> for citizens to own as well as a AR15
>
> Guntard Liberal Idiot Who knows nothing beat it
> kid !

Yeah, they’re legal without the ability to actually fire off rounds. What’s the point of having a turretless armored vehicle or a tank that can’t fire off an HE round?

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."
- Thomas Jefferson, Virginia Constitution, Draft 1, 1776

"I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, January 30, 1787

"The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
- Thomas Jefferson, Commonplace Book (quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria), 1774-1776

“They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
- Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759

"To disarm the people...s the most effectual way to enslave them."
- George Mason, referencing advice given to the British Parliament by Pennsylvania governor Sir William Keith, The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adooption of the Federal Constitution, June 14, 1788


"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops."
- Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, October 10, 1787

"I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers."
- George Mason, Address to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 4, 1788

"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined.... The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun."
- Patrick Henry, Speech to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 5, 1778

"The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms."
- Samuel Adams, Massachusetts Ratifying Convention, 1788

history Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of
> arms."
> - Thomas Jefferson, Virginia Constitution, Draft
> 1, 1776
>
> "I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful
> slavery."
> - Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison,
> January 30, 1787
>
> "The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are
> laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who
> are neither inclined nor determined to commit
> crimes.... Such laws make things worse for the
> assaulted and better for the assailants; they
> serve rather to encourage than to prevent
> homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with
> greater confidence than an armed man."
> - Thomas Jefferson, Commonplace Book (quoting 18th
> century criminologist Cesare Beccaria), 1774-1776
>
> “They that can give up essential liberty to
> obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither
> liberty nor safety."
> - Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of
> Pennsylvania, 1759
>
> "To disarm the people...s the most effectual way
> to enslave them."
> - George Mason, referencing advice given to the
> British Parliament by Pennsylvania governor Sir
> William Keith, The Debates in the Several State
> Conventions on the Adooption of the Federal
> Constitution, June 14, 1788
>
>
> "Before a standing army can rule, the people must
> be disarmed, as they are in almost every country
> in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot
> enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the
> whole body of the people are armed, and constitute
> a force superior to any band of regular troops."
> - Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading
> Principles of the Federal Constitution, October
> 10, 1787
>
> "I ask who are the militia? They consist now of
> the whole people, except a few public officers."
> - George Mason, Address to the Virginia Ratifying
> Convention, June 4, 1788
>
> "Guard with jealous attention the public liberty.
> Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel.
> Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but
> downright force. Whenever you give up that force,
> you are ruined.... The great object is that every
> man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a
> gun."
> - Patrick Henry, Speech to the Virginia Ratifying
> Convention, June 5, 1778
>
> "The Constitution shall never be construed to
> prevent the people of the United States who are
> peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms."
> - Samuel Adams, Massachusetts Ratifying
> Convention, 1788


I gotta ask a glaring question no one has ever asked; why do we follow the proclamations made by men that died over 150 years ago? Sure they thought of a few good ideas that resonate with common citizens, but there’s a lot they suggested that’s redundant. We aren’t living under a colonial administration, we don’t have to worry about indians on the frontier or an oppressive totalitarian regime suppressing our rights. We probably never will. The only people that should possess military style weapons are well trained security forces qualified to operate such equipment. Everyone else is just bush league wannabe soldiers. No better than the VDF. If you want to play soldier, enlist. If not, you always can play COD or fortnite.

history Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of
> arms."
> - Thomas Jefferson, Virginia Constitution, Draft
> 1, 1776
>
> "I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful
> slavery."
> - Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison,
> January 30, 1787
>
> "The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are
> laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who
> are neither inclined nor determined to commit
> crimes.... Such laws make things worse for the
> assaulted and better for the assailants; they
> serve rather to encourage than to prevent
> homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with
> greater confidence than an armed man."
> - Thomas Jefferson, Commonplace Book (quoting 18th
> century criminologist Cesare Beccaria), 1774-1776
>
> “They that can give up essential liberty to
> obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither
> liberty nor safety."
> - Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of
> Pennsylvania, 1759
>
> "To disarm the people...s the most effectual way
> to enslave them."
> - George Mason, referencing advice given to the
> British Parliament by Pennsylvania governor Sir
> William Keith, The Debates in the Several State
> Conventions on the Adooption of the Federal
> Constitution, June 14, 1788
>
>
> "Before a standing army can rule, the people must
> be disarmed, as they are in almost every country
> in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot
> enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the
> whole body of the people are armed, and constitute
> a force superior to any band of regular troops."
> - Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading
> Principles of the Federal Constitution, October
> 10, 1787
>
> "I ask who are the militia? They consist now of
> the whole people, except a few public officers."
> - George Mason, Address to the Virginia Ratifying
> Convention, June 4, 1788
>
> "Guard with jealous attention the public liberty.
> Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel.
> Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but
> downright force. Whenever you give up that force,
> you are ruined.... The great object is that every
> man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a
> gun."
> - Patrick Henry, Speech to the Virginia Ratifying
> Convention, June 5, 1778
>
> "The Constitution shall never be construed to
> prevent the people of the United States who are
> peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms."
> - Samuel Adams, Massachusetts Ratifying
> Convention, 1788

history Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of
> arms."
> - Thomas Jefferson, Virginia Constitution, Draft
> 1, 1776
>
> "I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful
> slavery."
> - Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison,
> January 30, 1787
>
> "The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are
> laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who
> are neither inclined nor determined to commit
> crimes.... Such laws make things worse for the
> assaulted and better for the assailants; they
> serve rather to encourage than to prevent
> homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with
> greater confidence than an armed man."
> - Thomas Jefferson, Commonplace Book (quoting 18th
> century criminologist Cesare Beccaria), 1774-1776
>
> “They that can give up essential liberty to
> obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither
> liberty nor safety."
> - Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of
> Pennsylvania, 1759
>
> "To disarm the people...s the most effectual way
> to enslave them."
> - George Mason, referencing advice given to the
> British Parliament by Pennsylvania governor Sir
> William Keith, The Debates in the Several State
> Conventions on the Adooption of the Federal
> Constitution, June 14, 1788
>
>
> "Before a standing army can rule, the people must
> be disarmed, as they are in almost every country
> in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot
> enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the
> whole body of the people are armed, and constitute
> a force superior to any band of regular troops."
> - Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading
> Principles of the Federal Constitution, October
> 10, 1787
>
> "I ask who are the militia? They consist now of
> the whole people, except a few public officers."
> - George Mason, Address to the Virginia Ratifying
> Convention, June 4, 1788
>
> "Guard with jealous attention the public liberty.
> Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel.
> Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but
> downright force. Whenever you give up that force,
> you are ruined.... The great object is that every
> man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a
> gun."
> - Patrick Henry, Speech to the Virginia Ratifying
> Convention, June 5, 1778
>
> "The Constitution shall never be construed to
> prevent the people of the United States who are
> peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms."
> - Samuel Adams, Massachusetts Ratifying
> Convention, 1788

such hallowed words - why prohibit people from owning nukes - the rich could afford to buy and maintain any number of dozens of operable nukes the Russian oligarchs would willingly sell them. So why not let the Koch Brothers, or George Soros or Bill Gates have tactical nukes. The constitution says we cannot keep people from bearing arms. Where do you draw a line and where.

I say no lines, let those that can afford them have nukes. Hell SpaceX could land a nuke or neutron bomb on the WH lawn in the rose garden if they wanted to. Shouldnt the shareholders of SpaceX be allowed to keep and bear nuclear arms?

More humiliation for you so that is enough for now. How about we just get behind some sensible weapons legislation and stop pretending we are all storing enough muskets for a colonial muster ok?

Calling you all out Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> history Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of
> > arms."
> > - Thomas Jefferson, Virginia Constitution,
> Draft
> > 1, 1776
> >
> > "I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful
> > slavery."
> > - Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison,
> > January 30, 1787
> >
> > "The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are
> > laws of such a nature. They disarm only those
> who
> > are neither inclined nor determined to commit
> > crimes.... Such laws make things worse for the
> > assaulted and better for the assailants; they
> > serve rather to encourage than to prevent
> > homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked
> with
> > greater confidence than an armed man."
> > - Thomas Jefferson, Commonplace Book (quoting
> 18th
> > century criminologist Cesare Beccaria),
> 1774-1776
> >
> > “They that can give up essential liberty to
> > obtain a little temporary safety deserve
> neither
> > liberty nor safety."
> > - Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of
> > Pennsylvania, 1759
> >
> > "To disarm the people...s the most effectual
> way
> > to enslave them."
> > - George Mason, referencing advice given to the
> > British Parliament by Pennsylvania governor Sir
> > William Keith, The Debates in the Several State
> > Conventions on the Adooption of the Federal
> > Constitution, June 14, 1788
> >
> >
> > "Before a standing army can rule, the people
> must
> > be disarmed, as they are in almost every
> country
> > in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot
> > enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the
> > whole body of the people are armed, and
> constitute
> > a force superior to any band of regular
> troops."
> > - Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading
> > Principles of the Federal Constitution, October
> > 10, 1787
> >
> > "I ask who are the militia? They consist now of
> > the whole people, except a few public
> officers."
> > - George Mason, Address to the Virginia
> Ratifying
> > Convention, June 4, 1788
> >
> > "Guard with jealous attention the public
> liberty.
> > Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel.
> > Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but
> > downright force. Whenever you give up that
> force,
> > you are ruined.... The great object is that
> every
> > man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a
> > gun."
> > - Patrick Henry, Speech to the Virginia
> Ratifying
> > Convention, June 5, 1778
> >
> > "The Constitution shall never be construed to
> > prevent the people of the United States who are
> > peaceable citizens from keeping their own
> arms."
> > - Samuel Adams, Massachusetts Ratifying
> > Convention, 1788
>
>
> I gotta ask a glaring question no one has ever
> asked; why do we follow the proclamations made by
> men that died over 150 years ago? Sure they
> thought of a few good ideas that resonate with
> common citizens, but there’s a lot they
> suggested that’s redundant. We aren’t living
> under a colonial administration, we don’t have
> to worry about indians on the frontier or an
> oppressive totalitarian regime suppressing our
> rights. We probably never will. The only people
> that should possess military style weapons are
> well trained security forces qualified to operate
> such equipment. Everyone else is just bush league
> wannabe soldiers. No better than the VDF. If you
> want to play soldier, enlist. If not, you always
> can play COD or fortnite.

Spot on. Those guys 200 years ago were idiots who did not have a clue. They did not think women should be allowed to vote, and many of them owned slaves. Thus they had no conception of a modern informed civilization and anything they said 200 years ago needs to be taken with a truckload of salt. Better yet, burn all their shit. The Constitution needs to be scrapped and completely re-written to conform with our more advanced thinking today.

>we need a new amendment to change the 2nd

Go for it or Stfu with that, DO IT ! You Liberal Ass !

>What’s the point of having a turretless armored vehicle or a tank that can’t fire off an HE round?

Those rounds are legal, each and every one has to have the class 3 tax stamp and the paperwork /background check to go with them as destructive devices, ad the disposition of each and every one what happened to it. If your a billionaire that's not a problem, Rifled cannon are subject to NFA rules smoothbore are not under federal law, they have always been perfectly legal under the US code

As far as the tank goes , if you have the dough go for it, there legal and hell on the cost of gallons of fuel, but a hell of a lot of fun, That said where you go with a tank is just like a bulldozer, or other heavy equipment, there may be environmental restrictions with heavy penalty's if they are not followed so you best own your own sand box, a big one at that

A smooth bore black powder 12 pound cannon beats the hell out of a AR 15, ask any real artilleryman who is not a liberal hack or gun grabber, few are that thank god!

>If you want to play soldier, enlist.

Babbling BS, from a lippy lib loud mouth idiot Nazi party member, who never enlisted, or ever will

How many militia members in the Revolutionary war "enlisted" ? Not all, many yes. That war was a guerrilla war, the people vs the British. We are all members of the unorganized militia. as they were, and that's why the founders gave the people the 2nd.

We don't want or need your sorry too stupid lib ass either to defend America

what coders Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> WCM3B Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > digital traffic Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > In the end, with the advent of new and widely
> > > available weapons of war, we need a new
> > amendment
> > > to change the 2nd. We need to define weapons
> > of
> > > war and 'militia' in modern terms and for the
> > > future as best we can. I do not think the
> > > founders could have foreseen the portability
> of
> > > our devastatingly effective firearms. Lets
> > update
> > > it. Lets consider if having a weapon able to
> > > empty dozens of rounds in a minute is a right
> or
> > a
> > > privilege or maybe neither.
> >
> > The main point of 2A is to arm the people with
> > sufficient weaponry
> > that they can overthrow the military of a
> > tyranical government.
> > The founders definitely intended us to have
> > military weaponry.
> > Understand what 2A means, and consult writings
> of
> > the authors if still unclear.
>
> You believe in the tooth fairy too? 2nd Amendment
> was passed for 'militias' in the south where the
> slaves outnumbered the owners. Overthrow the
> government with military force? Today? You must
> be high.
>
> The US spends more than the next largest 7
> countries in the world COMBINED. You think you
> are going to beat the US military with
> 'assault-style' rifles? I mean how old you? If
> you think its about becoming a force great enough
> combat the US military you need to be like
> everyone else in the world - you are going to need
> tactical nuclear weapons and you are going to need
> to be able to use them on US targets inside the
> US.
>
> You see the absurdity of the 'protect against
> tyrannical government' argument. How about we
> face the fact that low capacity mags along with
> slow rate of fire weapons will have to do when
> taking on the 61 ton M1 Abrams with its Chobham,
> RH armor, steel encased depleted uranium mesh
> plating. Now I know what your are saying, 'the
> AR-15 would cut those tanks down like a hot knife
> through butter' but Im afraid you will have to
> make due with a deer rifle.
>
> Ok, I think Ive humiliated you enough. Lets get
> behind some common sense regulations.

Yet, the big bad US Military lost to rice farmers and cave dwellers with AK's.

14/88 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Yet, the big bad US Military lost to rice farmers
> and cave dwellers with AK's.

Actually, the US Military did not lose; regardless of the fact the US as a nation did. That is a very important distinction.

an AR-15 and everyday handgun are BOTH semi-automatic

all that means is 1 pull of the trigger = one bullets fired

there is no difference between the two



regardless of anyones theory about the 2nd amend. - it is a fact that no civilized country prohibits law abiding citizens from owning a weapon to protect themselves or family if they have one

less than 3% of ALL gun related deaths are from legal gun owners

if you take out suicide by guns, the numbers prove that guns have little to do with murder and crime rates, UNTIL you look at the places where gun ownership is not allowed, or almost impossible to get - those places (Chicago, Baltimore....) have the most gun related crime in the country because the law abiding public has little to no means to protect themselves

same thing happened in Australia - the public VOLUTARILY gave up 1/3 of all legally owned weapons.........gun related crimes skyrocketed as criminals obviously did not turn in their guns and much of the public was disarmed - it was a free-for-all for the criminals


areas of high legal ownership of firearms, like Virginia, see very little in gun violence because criminals are basically cowards that only want easy prey

the only places you will see with big numbers of gun violence are in black ghetto areas, areas where criminal blacks can commute to then leave quickly (think any metro stop place), or where there is a concentration of ms-13 and so on

the basic fact is limiting the public from legal gun ownership = much more crime and death, whereas areas with MORE legal guns the crime rates go way way down

yes, there is a few crazy fucks that go off every year, but there is little to do about that - only thing would be a data base (private between doctors and gun retailers) that disallow certain people to ever own a gun in the first place.............that is one liberty we should give up in the name of actually reducing gun deaths


the "only a good guy with a gun can stop a bad guy with a gun" holds completely true - those who disagree always say just wait for the cops or only the trained police should have guns..........EXACTLY! the cops are "good guys with guns"!

boils down to this - if you have a criminal break into your home with a gun, meaning to do harm....do you want to call the police and wait for them, giving a murderous armed person time to kill or do you want the OPTION to own a firearm yourself, so you can defend yourself and or your family? you choose!

14/88 wrote:
> Yet, the big bad US Military lost to rice farmers
> and cave dwellers with AK's.


You can’t compare some backwards hicks who have no real support to the VC. The Vietcong had the backing of at the time was the largest military industrial complex in the world (USSR) and had an unlimited supply of weapons and materiel. The US was fighting a war 10,000 miles away and was at a logistical, strategic and political disadvantage. Do you think Joe shmo from the boonies really has a prayer against the most sophisticated military in the world in their own backyard? Absolutely not.

19/72 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> 14/88 wrote:
> > Yet, the big bad US Military lost to rice
> farmers
> > and cave dwellers with AK's.
>
>
> You can’t compare some backwards hicks who have
> no real support to the VC. The Vietcong had the
> backing of at the time was the largest military
> industrial complex in the world (USSR) and had an
> unlimited supply of weapons and materiel. The US
> was fighting a war 10,000 miles away and was at a
> logistical, strategic and political disadvantage.
> Do you think Joe shmo from the boonies really has
> a prayer against the most sophisticated military
> in the world in their own backyard? Absolutely
> not.

Not exactly. The US was not defeated militarily. In fact even the Tet Offensive was an overwhelming military defeat for N. Vietnam and the Viet Cong. The US withdrawal from the war, aka defeat, was caused by decline of public support for the war -- not by military loss.

19/72 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> 14/88 wrote:
> > Yet, the big bad US Military lost to rice
> farmers
> > and cave dwellers with AK's.
>
>
> You can’t compare some backwards hicks who have
> no real support to the VC. The Vietcong had the
> backing of at the time was the largest military
> industrial complex in the world (USSR) and had an
> unlimited supply of weapons and materiel. The US
> was fighting a war 10,000 miles away and was at a
> logistical, strategic and political disadvantage.
> Do you think Joe shmo from the boonies really has
> a prayer against the most sophisticated military
> in the world in their own backyard? Absolutely
> not.

A well armed insurgency using guerrilla hit and run tactics has defeated larger armies.

19/72 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> 14/88 wrote:
> > Yet, the big bad US Military lost to rice
> farmers
> > and cave dwellers with AK's.
>
>
> You can’t compare some backwards hicks who have
> no real support to the VC. The Vietcong had the
> backing of at the time was the largest military
> industrial complex in the world (USSR) and had an
> unlimited supply of weapons and materiel. The US
> was fighting a war 10,000 miles away and was at a
> logistical, strategic and political disadvantage.
> Do you think Joe shmo from the boonies really has
> a prayer against the most sophisticated military
> in the world in their own backyard? Absolutely
> not.

Lol!! First of all, thinking that all civilian military will side with libshits is pure fantasy. We are the most heavily armed citizenry in the world. You are outnumbered and definitely outgunned. Your days are numbered, faggot

You are doomed.
Attachments:

Read some history Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> 19/72 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > 14/88 wrote:
> > > Yet, the big bad US Military lost to rice
> > farmers
> > > and cave dwellers with AK's.
> >
> >
> > You can’t compare some backwards hicks who
> have
> > no real support to the VC. The Vietcong had the
> > backing of at the time was the largest military
> > industrial complex in the world (USSR) and had
> an
> > unlimited supply of weapons and materiel. The
> US
> > was fighting a war 10,000 miles away and was at
> a
> > logistical, strategic and political
> disadvantage.
> > Do you think Joe shmo from the boonies really
> has
> > a prayer against the most sophisticated
> military
> > in the world in their own backyard? Absolutely
> > not.
>
> A well armed insurgency using guerrilla hit and
> run tactics has defeated larger armies.

Yes it has, but that’s not the point. Joe the plumber doesn’t have access to anything remotely capable of successfully combating most of the marquee weapons in the US inventory.

"The US withdrawal from the war, aka defeat, was caused by decline of public support for the war -- not by military loss."

And this is how the NRA will be defeated in this country. Via lack of public support.

#MuhGuns

Calling you all out Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> history Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of
> > arms."
> > - Thomas Jefferson, Virginia Constitution,
> Draft
> > 1, 1776
> >
> > "I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful
> > slavery."
> > - Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison,
> > January 30, 1787
> >
> > "The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are
> > laws of such a nature. They disarm only those
> who
> > are neither inclined nor determined to commit
> > crimes.... Such laws make things worse for the
> > assaulted and better for the assailants; they
> > serve rather to encourage than to prevent
> > homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked
> with
> > greater confidence than an armed man."
> > - Thomas Jefferson, Commonplace Book (quoting
> 18th
> > century criminologist Cesare Beccaria),
> 1774-1776
> >
> > “They that can give up essential liberty to
> > obtain a little temporary safety deserve
> neither
> > liberty nor safety."
> > - Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of
> > Pennsylvania, 1759
> >
> > "To disarm the people...s the most effectual
> way
> > to enslave them."
> > - George Mason, referencing advice given to the
> > British Parliament by Pennsylvania governor Sir
> > William Keith, The Debates in the Several State
> > Conventions on the Adooption of the Federal
> > Constitution, June 14, 1788
> >
> >
> > "Before a standing army can rule, the people
> must
> > be disarmed, as they are in almost every
> country
> > in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot
> > enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the
> > whole body of the people are armed, and
> constitute
> > a force superior to any band of regular
> troops."
> > - Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading
> > Principles of the Federal Constitution, October
> > 10, 1787
> >
> > "I ask who are the militia? They consist now of
> > the whole people, except a few public
> officers."
> > - George Mason, Address to the Virginia
> Ratifying
> > Convention, June 4, 1788
> >
> > "Guard with jealous attention the public
> liberty.
> > Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel.
> > Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but
> > downright force. Whenever you give up that
> force,
> > you are ruined.... The great object is that
> every
> > man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a
> > gun."
> > - Patrick Henry, Speech to the Virginia
> Ratifying
> > Convention, June 5, 1778
> >
> > "The Constitution shall never be construed to
> > prevent the people of the United States who are
> > peaceable citizens from keeping their own
> arms."
> > - Samuel Adams, Massachusetts Ratifying
> > Convention, 1788
>
>
> I gotta ask a glaring question no one has ever
> asked; why do we follow the proclamations made by
> men that died over 150 years ago? Sure they
> thought of a few good ideas that resonate with
> common citizens, but there’s a lot they
> suggested that’s redundant. We aren’t living
> under a colonial administration, we don’t have
> to worry about indians on the frontier or an
> oppressive totalitarian regime suppressing our
> rights. We probably never will. The only people
> that should possess military style weapons are
> well trained security forces qualified to operate
> such equipment. Everyone else is just bush league
> wannabe soldiers. No better than the VDF. If you
> want to play soldier, enlist. If not, you always
> can play COD or fortnite.


Sorry you either didn't know your father, didn't listen to him or just had a bad father.
AND May God Bless you.

14/88 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> what coders Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > WCM3B Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > digital traffic Wrote:
> > >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> >
> > > -----
> > > > In the end, with the advent of new and
> widely
> > > > available weapons of war, we need a new
> > > amendment
> > > > to change the 2nd. We need to define
> weapons
> > > of
> > > > war and 'militia' in modern terms and for
> the
> > > > future as best we can. I do not think the
> > > > founders could have foreseen the
> portability
> > of
> > > > our devastatingly effective firearms. Lets
> > > update
> > > > it. Lets consider if having a weapon able
> to
> > > > empty dozens of rounds in a minute is a
> right
> > or
> > > a
> > > > privilege or maybe neither.
> > >
> > > The main point of 2A is to arm the people
> with
> > > sufficient weaponry
> > > that they can overthrow the military of a
> > > tyranical government.
> > > The founders definitely intended us to have
> > > military weaponry.
> > > Understand what 2A means, and consult
> writings
> > of
> > > the authors if still unclear.
> >
> > You believe in the tooth fairy too? 2nd
> Amendment
> > was passed for 'militias' in the south where
> the
> > slaves outnumbered the owners. Overthrow the
> > government with military force? Today? You
> must
> > be high.
> >
> > The US spends more than the next largest 7
> > countries in the world COMBINED. You think you
> > are going to beat the US military with
> > 'assault-style' rifles? I mean how old you?
> If
> > you think its about becoming a force great
> enough
> > combat the US military you need to be like
> > everyone else in the world - you are going to
> need
> > tactical nuclear weapons and you are going to
> need
> > to be able to use them on US targets inside the
> > US.
> >
> > You see the absurdity of the 'protect against
> > tyrannical government' argument. How about we
> > face the fact that low capacity mags along with
> > slow rate of fire weapons will have to do when
> > taking on the 61 ton M1 Abrams with its
> Chobham,
> > RH armor, steel encased depleted uranium mesh
> > plating. Now I know what your are saying, 'the
> > AR-15 would cut those tanks down like a hot
> knife
> > through butter' but Im afraid you will have to
> > make due with a deer rifle.
> >
> > Ok, I think Ive humiliated you enough. Lets
> get
> > behind some common sense regulations.
>
> Yet, the big bad US Military lost to rice farmers
> and cave dwellers with AK's.

I think that China had something to do with that friend. Also they had a lot more than assault rifles. Also the jungle.

You keep thinking your toy AR-15 will defeat the USA military.

AR-15 vs US 61 ton M1 Abrams with its Chobham, RH armor, steel encased depleted uranium mesh plating.

How stupid do you have to believe that your AR-15, or a million of them will overthrow a Tyrannical US Govt? Look at the civil war, if ever there was a chance to overthrow the govt it was back then and it failed miserably. Weapons systems are far too complex these days to be operated by a civilian or even succeeding force. Unless, that is, it is a tactical nuclear device.

Should George Soros have nukes?

Do you think that the entire government wouldn't split into factions when tyranny is realized?
Do you not think that some would abandon the military, if ordered to kill civilians? And take weaponry with them.

The government is run by people TOO.

Funny, Obama wants everyone who hates America to have nukes, sells illegal guns to drug dealers, assainates Americans, staged school shootings and it was all A-OK with libtards.

Trump comes along and all he wants to do is enforce our current laws and strengthen and unify America and libtards go apeshit.

Gun laws based on technology from the time of the Constitution:

Muzzle-loading muskets and rifles only, no breechloaders.
Flintlock or matchlock only; no caplocks.
Round ball ammunition only.
Black powder only.
No prepackaged cartridges; must load powder, patch, ball separately.

While the caplock was patented in 1907 and breechloaders and prepackaged ammunition had been invented previously, they were not in common use and hence not what the framers of the Constitution had in mind.

Liberals hate the Constitution.

.
Attachments:

Like other Lib attempts at Memes. This one too is oxymoronic.

From the left, what's the matter is it raining ? Will the kid get hit by lightning ?

Or will lazy stupid careless lib momma get into a car wreck blabbing on her cell phone ?

Maybe shes going to fly on a vacation ?

Or get lured into smoking some weed from leftist drug pushers, then OD on other drugs !

1000's of times better odds than being in a school shooting you leftist propaganda hack

Liberal Simple Shits all right Simple Simple it is, as their leftist following bs promoting minds

Propaganda to stop a war, or legalize weed, many things is one thing, it can be shitty depending on the cause supported , but propaganda to take the Bill of Rights away from the people and trash it is high treason

The first semi-automatic pistol was created in the 18th century. OP is a mopey muther fucker.

.
Attachments:

Simple Simple Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> .


Lol! The department of education, liberals and parents are the reason these kids get killed. Keep posting memes and hashtags that make you feel better. I'll kiss my kids goodnight everyday with them knowing I love them because I would never subject them to public school.

If there was ever a reason to restrict firearms, you wackadoodle gun nuts are it. None of you should be allowed to own anything even remotely resembling a gun. You people are truly sick.

TO Traitors

>Re: Since the gun nuts think they should be able to own semi automatic weapons, why stop there?
Posted by: Simple Simple ()
Date: March 26, 2018 08:58PM
Attachments:

CITATION FOR TREASON

>Spot on. Those guys 200 years ago were idiots who did not have a clue. They did not think women should be allowed to vote, and many of them owned slaves. Thus they had no conception of a modern informed civilization and anything they said 200 years ago needs to be taken with a truckload of salt. Better yet, burn all their shit. The Constitution needs to be scrapped and completely re-written to conform with our more advanced thinking today.
Attachments:

Slippery slope all right, no guns at all is their goal and no hunting or fishing after that

The South Won't Rise Again Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> If there was ever a reason to restrict firearms,
> you wackadoodle gun nuts are it. None of you
> should be allowed to own anything even remotely
> resembling a gun. You people are truly sick.


Good luck with that.

digital traffic Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I dont believe there should be any limits in a
> well regulated militia there should be limits only
> to the extent the militia can safely store,
> maintain and protect weapons. I think militias
> should be able to have tanks, subs, aircraft as
> well a artillery, explosives, missles, mines,
> bombs. The constitution says nothing about limits
> to weaponry. None. Where does it say you cannot
> own a tank?
>
> In the end, with the advent of new and widely
> available weapons of war, we need a new amendment
> to change the 2nd. We need to define weapons of
> war and 'militia' in modern terms and for the
> future as best we can. I do not think the
> founders could have foreseen the portability of
> our devastatingly effective firearms. Lets update
> it. Lets consider if having a weapon able to
> empty dozens of rounds in a minute is a right or a
> privilege or maybe neither.

"A well informed electorate, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and read Books, shall not be infringed."


Who has the right to keep and read books? Voters? Everyone? Books for all purposes or only books related to voting?

Calling you all out Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> history Wrote:
> why do we follow the proclamations made by men that died over 150 years ago?

Because these particular things they said back then still make good sense today.

The need to be capable of overthrowing tyrants has not changed.
And, no, you don't need nuclear bombs to do that.

AR-15’s are for pussies Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> .


Ravi's posting anonymously again.