Its purely under the comparison of "oh its not something I do or own so lets ban it"
I agree. I have the same issue with weed.
Its purely under the comparison of "oh its not something I do or own so lets ban it"
The idea that the civilians in this country could stop the US military with any type of weaponry is fucking laughable. The only way you are not going to get crushed by the US military is when the commanding officers refuse orders.
Last I checked, Bill Clinton wasn't the current President.
The idea that the civilians in this country could stop the US military with any type of weaponry is fucking laughable. The only way you are not going to get crushed by the US military is when the commanding officers refuse orders.
Wonder why that is?
or mass desertion but yeah, you're very right
FDR was the first and only president to ignore Washington's 2 term policy. Even the Democrats did want any president/demigod to serve more than 2 terms. Which is why the 22nd is in the Constitution. Just as BHO could follow Clinton's example on weapon regulation.
Wonder why that is?
Exactly. Had the citizens been allowed to keep up with the military of the government, we would actually be following the 2nd amendment and this wouldn't be an issue.
"Could"...
Consider how many Czars the bastard has in his White House. I would say that it is a strong possibility.
The idea that the civilians in this country could stop the US military with any type of weaponry is fucking laughable. The only way you are not going to get crushed by the US military is when the commanding officers refuse orders.
Doesn't matter.. It's not the weapons that make the US army so strong. It's the organization.
Dumbasses, I am agreeing with you both, but it should be amended for the 21st century. I am saying HOW they are armed, not whether they are armed or not. It shouldn't be just about guns, but ALL arms.
Meh, I can see it from both sides.
Look how much trouble we're having with "insurgents", for example. Granted, you could make the argument "but that's a police action!", and you'd be right, but the goal of the US government, in whatever form it took on, would not be to wipe out its citizens in an all out war. It would shift to small skirmishes/resistance fighting at some point, probably quickly, at which point large machines of war (tanks, helicopters, missiles, etc) become substantially less effective.
However, in an all out confrontation between armed citizens and an organized and armed military force the military would ALWAYS win. It's been that way since the dawn of time.
Meh, I can see it from both sides.
Look how much trouble we're having with "insurgents", for example. Granted, you could make the argument "but that's a police action!", and you'd be right, but the goal of the US government, in whatever form it took on, would not be to wipe out its citizens in an all out war. It would shift to small skirmishes/resistance fighting at some point, probably quickly, at which point large machines of war (tanks, helicopters, missiles, etc) become substantially less effective.
However, in an all out confrontation between armed citizens and an organized and armed military force the military would ALWAYS win. It's been that way since the dawn of time.
I beg to differ. Our own independence was fought and won versus an organized military, matter of fact the best military in the world at the time.
most civilians can't afford any of the sh*t anyway so it's a moot point.
It HAS been amended for the 21st century, through numerous other laws and restrictions.