- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Is this the trade off for gun rights?
Posted on 8/6/19 at 1:04 pm to SammyTiger
Posted on 8/6/19 at 1:04 pm to SammyTiger
quote:
You honestly think that?
What do you think a modern military response would look like if they decided to go after civilians?
1
Posted on 8/6/19 at 1:05 pm to SammyTiger
quote:
Aren’t you asking me how I can Supposed to protect my other rights without a gun?
No. I'm asking you why you need those rights at all. Just trust the government and it'll all work out.
Posted on 8/6/19 at 1:05 pm to Clames
And like I said I’m against Les that impose restrictions outside an full amendment .
But I don't think Amending the second amendment is beyond reproach.
But I don't think Amending the second amendment is beyond reproach.
Posted on 8/6/19 at 1:06 pm to Clames
Now do you think the army couldn’t fight off the populace or the army wouldn’t/a large portion would defect and fight against the government
Posted on 8/6/19 at 1:06 pm to SammyTiger
quote:
But I don't think Amending the second amendment is beyond reproach.
Well that makes 1 of us
Posted on 8/6/19 at 1:06 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
and to get shot while buying some milk for the kids’ cereal.
Are you suggesting that in a country of 300,000,000+, a death count of a couple dozen is a valid reason to change a law?
Posted on 8/6/19 at 1:06 pm to Wtodd
quote:
Defect? Again, not sure if serious. It's not defecting, it's defending US citizens and the Constitution.
Is it defending the constitution if it’s an amendment? Ratified by 3/4 of the states?
Posted on 8/6/19 at 1:06 pm to SammyTiger
quote:
So why do you need guns.
So much for being a “soft gun rights supporter”.
Posted on 8/6/19 at 1:07 pm to upgrayedd
Posted on 8/6/19 at 1:08 pm to Godfather1
I said My reasons.
Notice I didn't List “ability to overthrow the government” as one of them.
Notice I didn't List “ability to overthrow the government” as one of them.
Posted on 8/6/19 at 1:08 pm to SammyTiger
quote:
But I don't think Amending the second amendment is beyond reproach.
It is. The best chance was nearly 30 years ago when a far higher proportion of the population was convinced by gun-control advocacy. Not even close now and far more states have passed far more pro-2A legislation than those that have passed gun-control laws.
Posted on 8/6/19 at 1:09 pm to SammyTiger
quote:
You already admitted there is no chance of winning without real military arms.
If he did, which I seriously doubt, he is wrong. The military has to take orders from somewhere. You think citizens are just going to sit around and be targets while the government is killing us?
I would think the events of the last week or so would enlighten folks who don't seem to understand how awful, vicious, and destructive their fellow man can be.
Posted on 8/6/19 at 1:09 pm to SammyTiger
quote:
Now do you think the army couldn’t fight off the populace or the army wouldn’t/a large portion would defect and fight against the government
Once again, what do you think that scenario would look like?
Carpet bombing?
Indiscriminate shelling of entire cities?
Or do you think it would look more like Afghanistan and Vietnam?
Posted on 8/6/19 at 1:10 pm to SammyTiger
quote:
You’re kidding yourself if you think you have the means to take down the US military. The only way the US Government is losing a civil war is if a large portion of the military defects.
You’re AR isn’t going shite vs a drone.
This argument has played out a million times on this board, you are an idiot for operating from the assumption that the military would all blindly follow orders to take up arms against their fellow citizens, which would never happen, study after study has been done about this and every conclusion is that the government loses every time because not only of military defections to join up with the rebellion, but military who stay behind to operate as moles and sabatoge from within.
Posted on 8/6/19 at 1:10 pm to SammyTiger
quote:
Is it defending the constitution if it’s an amendment? Ratified by 3/4 of the states?
The only reason....I'll say it again....the only reason the 2nd amendment would be changed would be to disarm the citizens....that's it.
Posted on 8/6/19 at 1:11 pm to SammyTiger
Both, the Army can't fight a protracted battle against a population vastly better equipped than goat frickers in the ME and a very large percentage would defect or simply not take up arms against the fellow countrymen.
Posted on 8/6/19 at 1:12 pm to troyt37
It would be hard to take over the government without taking over places that are slightly more guarded than a Walmart.
Posted on 8/6/19 at 1:13 pm to SammyTiger
quote:
It would be hard to take over the government without taking over places that are slightly more guarded than a Walmart.
You really think it's necessary to storm government buildings in order to take down a government?
Posted on 8/6/19 at 1:13 pm to SammyTiger
quote:
Notice I didn't List “ability to overthrow the government” as one of them.
And nobody’s talking about “overthrowing the government”. That’s just histrionics on your part.
They’re talking about the reasons for the 2A, i.e., to serve as a hedge against an overly dictatorial government.
This whole thread is one big concern troll.
Posted on 8/6/19 at 1:13 pm to Clames
quote:
simply not take up arms against the fellow countrymen.
This is correct bc the military would know it would be the end of the US
Page 3 of 7
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News