Upload
Login or register
Anonymous comments allowed.
asd
#109 - durgesark
Reply +6
(01/13/2013) [-]
The government wants to disarm the public so it can control them with out resistance.
Its happened before in history, they can pull my gun from my cold dead body.
#159 to #109 - blahness
Reply -1
(01/13/2013) [-]
Lol at all the misguided people thinking that the second amendment will protect them from the government if the government decides to go rogue.
yeah, good luck protecting yourselves with your AR-15s and glocks against UAVs, tanks, navy seals, jets, etc.
face it. the sentiment is there, but the constitution clearly wasn't desgined to withstand such long periods of time. Back then, technology was nothing, and the people as well as the army only had muskets. How about now? you think the people can own tanks or fighter jets? and even if they were allowed who would have the financial ability to own one?

So yeah, they WILL pull your gun from your cold dead body. although it might slow them down, it will come nowhere close to stopping them if they do decide to do it.
#284 to #159 - misledzach
Reply +2
(01/13/2013) [-]
I would rather fight for my freedom and die, than be alive and a slave.
#529 to #284 - durgesark
Reply 0
(01/13/2013) [-]
Amen to that.
#165 to #159 - kingmarston
Reply +5
(01/13/2013) [-]
Umm... Most soldiers would defect if such an order was given to disarm the populace. And since you said that the 2nd amendment doesn't apply today, does that mean the 1st one doesn't either?

AND I'M SO ******* SORRY TO BREAK IT TO YOU BUT THE CONSTITUTION IS STILL THE LAW OF THE LAND.

Oh, look at Afghanistan, they don't have Tanks, Jets, UAVs, or Navy SEALS and their still giving us hell after a decade of war.

Your logic is flawed.
#168 to #165 - blahness
Reply -4
(01/13/2013) [-]
did you miss the part where i said "if they do decide to do it"?
I think you misinterpreted my point there. My point wasn't if the government decided to take away the guns forcibly. it was if the government decides to just turn against its people i.e. **** everything we're gonna be tyrannical.
the constitution would be meaningless if the government decides to control its people. just because it's law doesn't mean it'll stop them. just like how killing is illegal yet people can still do it.
and how does Afghanistan even fit into the situation here.
#175 to #168 - kingmarston
Reply +1
(01/13/2013) [-]
"yeah, good luck protecting yourselves with your AR-15s and glocks against UAVs, tanks, navy seals, jets, etc. "

The Taliban have fertilizer and rusty AK's and we still haven't been able to defeat them after a decade of war. See my point?
#173 to #168 - kingmarston
Reply +1
(01/13/2013) [-]
And that's the ENTIRE POINT OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT. Nothing will be able to stop them from going tyrannical once our firearms have been seized. If they DO decide to go psycho we have a means to fight back with.
#177 to #173 - blahness
Reply -2
(01/13/2013) [-]
as i've said before. the army clearly has an advantage in terms of just about everything. Let me remind you of the laws that restrict high-powered weapons such as RPGs, mortars, etc. if the government exerts control through tyranny then yes, the people can fight back with their guns. But again, like i said in the first post. It might slow them, but it won't stop them. the difference in power level is simply too high
#191 to #177 - kingmarston
Reply 0
(01/13/2013) [-]
I'm sure that's what the British thought too.

You don't seem to understand that people can capture/import gear as well as create their own. You can make a very powerful explosive just by using a few common household ingredients and fertilizer. Why do you think the Taliban have been so tough to beat?

And you don't seem to understand the power it would take for an order of that sort, it just couldn't happen with our current government. If one could control Congress, Presidency, and the Supreme court they would still have to gain control of the other 50 states that each have a legislative branch, executive branch, and judicial branch. As well as their own National Guard Units. So just think about it.
#205 to #191 - blahness
Reply -2
(01/13/2013) [-]
Congratulations. You have just proved that it is nearly impossible for the government to turn against it's people, and thereby turning the 2nd amendment obsolete. Because you're right. In order for the government to turn against it's people, it would have to think about the consequences: how the world would react, how the entire nation would react, even it's own army, and whether the plan would go through or not.
#213 to #205 - kingmarston
Reply 0
(01/13/2013) [-]
Also the fact that it has 90 million gun-owners. Which serves as a hell of a deterrent.
#124 to #109 - zzforrest
Reply +3
(01/13/2013) [-]
If you know anything about the origin of the bill of rights, more importantly the second amendment, you will know that they made that right specifically so that the government couldn't subdue the people. People > Government. If the government tried to take on the people, second amendment would keep their guns safe.
#125 to #124 - durgesark
Reply +1
(01/13/2013) [-]
whos guns? 'their guns' ?
#126 to #125 - zzforrest
Reply +1
(01/13/2013) [-]
The citizens of course.
#128 to #126 - durgesark
Reply +1
(01/13/2013) [-]
Right.
#118 to #109 - killyojoy
Reply +1
(01/13/2013) [-]
Comment Picture
#113 to #109 - luiselvergas
Reply +7
(01/13/2013) [-]
Comment Picture