2A

  • Thread starter Thread starter rsm
  • Start date Start date
CrazyNutz said:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.” (y)
Click to expand...
Let's see it ALL Fella...

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"
While the U.S. Constitution does not mention God, nearly all state constitutions reference either God or the divine
Most presidents have been sworn in with a Bible, and they traditionally seal their oath of office with the phrase “so help me God.”
Congress has always been overwhelmingly Christian, and roughly nine-in-ten representatives (88%) in the current Congress – including 99% of Republicans and 78% of Democrats – identify as Christian
 
  • Like
Reactions: rsm
rsm said:
How criminals get guns:

https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/guns/procon/guns.html
yet anti-2A activists want to blame and punish law-abiding citizens by restricting our 2A rights.
Click to expand...
30 shot today. 338 mass shootings so far this year.

images
 
Bagel and Creamcheese said:
If you read the article you'd see that lax purchasing restrictions are the source of most guns used in crimes.

Kind of goes against your "everyone should be able to buy a gun like it was a dozen eggs" philosophy.
Click to expand...
not at all. it's FFLs breaking the law, i.e., criminals engaged in criminal activities that assist other criminals.

only a small number of stolen firearms are used by criminals; stealing is also a crime. again, it's criminals engaging in criminal activities, this time against law-abiding citizens.

you may notice a common theme: criminality. :D

if there were no 2A infringements it would be like buying a loaf of bread. As intended by the Constitution.
 
Bagel and Creamcheese said:
30 shot today. 338 mass shootings so far this year.

images
Click to expand...
i'll guess those guns are illegal, and used by people who have criminal records and who should be serving time but were released without bail, or released before their sentences were completed.
 
rsm said:
not at all. it's FFLs breaking the law, i.e., criminals engaged in criminal activities that assist other criminals.

only a small number of stolen firearms are used by criminals; stealing is also a crime. again, it's criminals engaging in criminal activities, this time against law-abiding citizens.

you may notice a common theme: criminality. :D

if there were no 2A infringements it would be like buying a loaf of bread. As intended by the Constitution.
Click to expand...
So, there's a problem. It needs fixing. Right?
 
rsm said:
i'll guess those guns are illegal, and used by people who have criminal records and who should be serving time but were released without bail, or released before their sentences were completed.
Click to expand...
You're just making stuff up now.
 
Bagel and Creamcheese said:
You're just making stuff up now.
Click to expand...
watch and see; only a small number of gun crimes are committed by law abiding citizen gun owners. I'm sure that will be the same in this case.


https://americangunfacts.com/gun-ownership-statistics/
46% of American households own at least one firearm.
32% of Americans say they own a firearm (that's more than 81.4 million Americans.
If the millions of law-abiding citizens who own guns were the problem, you'd see millions of people being shot every week.
 
Stripped Rights said:
That's fine and dandy but as I said in my last post even with the same weapons I don't think we would stand a chance because our government would just get assistance from other countries militaries and we'd be screwed. So if that's the case as I believe it is, then there's no sense in allowing any average dumbass to possess ARs and bombs and shit because we wouldn't be able to stop our government. So what the founding fathers intended concerning restrictions is null and void. If we stood a chance of defending against a tyrannical government I'd think differently.
Click to expand...
Nation state militaries have notoriously struggled with cell based, insurgency type opposition.

Vietnam, Iraq (Post Desert Shield), Afghanistan (Both US & Russia), Somalia, Ukraine (in the onset), just to name a few have seen powerful militaries struggle with much smaller, less organized opponents.

Give the people peer tech to the nation states. Not just weapons but also ammunition, night vision, body armor, optics and they do have a chance using non-conventional tactics.

The above was precisely what the founding fathers had in mind. It is enshrined in their writings. They had just fought and defeated one of the world super powers because they had peer weapons and used unconventional tactics. The founding fathers intent was 100% for citizens to have access to the same weapons the military has access to. Hell back then private citizens had cannons and even war ships that the government hired (ever heard of privateers?) for the defense of the country.

In my mind it Is less about an uprising against a tyrannical US government.

First concern is a breakdown of civil order. If the urbanite come to my rural area looking to take what they need, I am prepared to neutralize them. In all likelihood you are not dealong with a onesy, twosey group of people. You could be dealing with a large group and would need to be able to effectively engage and repel that large group. A 30/30 isn’t going to cut it. An AR fits the bill perfectly.

Second concern is a foreign expeditionary force. You need peer weapons. Again a 30/30 isn’t going to cut it. A well armed citizens militia plus the US military both hammering a foreign force would make their life very difficult. Also that very ”dual” threat has been acknowledged by some of our enemies as a meaningful deterrent to invasion of the US mainland.

The US military’s main advantage is not weapons, or technology frankly. It is logistics. The US military can deliver a gallon of frozen ice cream anywhere in the world in under 24 hours. That is the strategic advantage that the US military holds.
 
Last edited:
Stripped Rights said:
Probably the least likely scenario that could ever happen. With that logic you should live in an underground bunker and never ever go outside because you just never know when the sky will start falling. I understand being cautious but thoghts about government collapse are absurd.
Click to expand...
Wrongo. Actually the most likely scenario.

The “big one“ in California could easily trigger a financial meltdown.

Severe water shortages where there is not enough to meet basic needs.

Food chain disruption.

Banking system collapse.

A large meteor strike

A targeted nuclear or biological attack on US soil.

Any singular or combination of these events (and many other scenarios) could easily see the fabric of civil society unravel.

It comes down to Maslow’s heirarchy of needs. The longer a society loses the ability to provide for the bottom two tiers of Maslow’s heirarchy for it’s people, the more likely it becomes that civil order will collapse.

The government will not be able to take care of everyone if civil society unravels. There would probably be some effort to secure the future, but you would not be included. The rich, powerful, affluent, and connected would be the beneficiaries of any such effort.

A lot of people will be left to fend for themselves.

Then it will be the people like you who chose not plan for the uncomfortable possibilities (and as a result have to steal others resources to secure their basic needs) that those of us who have prepared will have to “deal” with.

Desperate people do desperate things. Prepared people neutralize desperate people who are doing desperate things.

I find no joy in the prospect of such a reality, but will do what I have to do should such a scenario materialize.

And a bunker is a bad idea if you don’t have the resources and means to pull it off. It can easily become a tomb. Mobility is life.

Bottom line: prepare for the worst. Hope for the best.
 
Last edited:
Do you really believe those people:
  1. Could afford a “bomber” or “tank”?
  2. Could find their way into a transaction to acquire such equipment if they could afford it?
  3. Would be able to operate a bomber or tank if they did manage to acquire it?
  4. Would be able to acquire the ordnance needed to turn the equipment into an actual weapon? Without getting themselves “on the radar”?
  5. And finally they would not blow themselves up if they were successful in steps 1-4?
So given those considerations to your implausible hypothetical… sure I am fine with it.

I personally would love to own a Howitzer. And I could! Getting rounds for it is a whole new ballgame though.
 
Last edited:
Clig Herdunkachuk said:
Do you really believe those people:
  1. Could afford a “bomber” or “tank”?
  2. Could find their way into a transaction to acquire such equipment if they could afford it?
  3. Would be able to operate a bomber or tank if they did manage to acquire it?
  4. Would be able to acquire the ordnance needed to turn the equipment into an actual weapon? Without getting themselves “on the radar”?
  5. And finally they would not blow themselves up if they were successful in steps 1-4?
So given those considerations to your implausible hypothetical… sure I am fine with it.

I personally would love to own a Howitzer. And I could! Getting rounds for it is a whole new ballgame though.
Click to expand...
They could get an AR 15 or something and IMO that's bad enough with their mentality.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: rsm
Stripped Rights said:
They could get an AR 15 or something and IMO that's bad enough with their mentality.
Click to expand...
But that is not your call to make.

How do you know they can get an AR? I could easily see a bunch of felons there. As I lke to say “a nexxus of bad decision making”.

Sure they could get one illegally, but that would be true even if you got your dream of an assualt weapons ban.

There are a shit ton of weapons out there on the black market. No law you will pass will have the slightest impact on illegal guns.

And the very idiots you are worried about are precisely the type to be ok with going to an illegal purchase if legal guns are unavailable.

I want legal guns and will grudingly tolerate background checks.
 
Clig Herdunkachuk said:
But that is not your call to make.

How do you know they can get an AR? I could easily see a bunch of felons there. As I lke to say “a nexxus of bad decision making”.

Sure they could get one illegally, but that would be true even if you got your dream of an assualt weapons ban.

There are a shit ton of weapons out there on the black market. No law you will pass will have the slightest impact on illegal guns.

And the very idiots you are worried about are precisely the type to be ok with going to an illegal purchase if legal guns are unavailable.

I want legal guns and will grudingly tolerate background checks.
Click to expand...
Our system is so fucked up, it's easier to obtain a firearm illegally than it is to do so legally.

?‍♂️
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Flavatrocious
Withdrawn Fryette PS-2A
Replies
0
Views
195
Flavatrocious
Flavatrocious
J
Sold Fryette PS-2A Power Station
Replies
1
Views
387
jmpman
J
rsm
Rumor: Bondi to remove delegation of authority power from ATF
Replies
3
Views
241
rsm
rsm
7704A
Withdrawn (Found!) Fryette Power Station
Replies
4
Views
577
7704A
7704A
E
Sold Axe-FX III MKII, Fryette Power Station PS-2A, Mesa 1x12 Cab w/ Celestion Peacekeeper
Replies
4
Views
582
7704A
7704A
Back
Top