Americans fought for their freedoms, they didnt negotiate them, I dont think anyone south of the border expects Canadians to understand.
We fought for our freedom in 1812 against those very same freedom loving American taskmasters. I demand the right to carry a bazooka as a result, and if anyone outside of Canada disagrees, they simply don't understand what I went through hundreds of years ago, and they never will.
__________________
"An adherent of homeopathy has no brain. They have skull water with the memory of a brain."
The Following 18 Users Say Thank You to HPLovecraft For This Useful Post:
Are you saying racism doesn't exist? And also the civil rights movement was 50 years ago so it wasn't that long ago they were treated as second class citizens.
They have a right to a well regulated MILITIA as a check against a tyrannical government...
...This amendment came from a totally different context and era and has been totally perverted.
..Also, the amount of weaponry needed to balance out the US Armed forces would be ridiculous...rocket launchers would barely be a start if that is what you were trying to accomplish..
Exactly. In fact, Justice Scalia's remarks did a remarkable job of illustrating the absurdity of the modern gun lobby's purported interpretation of the 2nd amendment.
__________________
"Life of Russian hockey veterans is very hard," said Soviet hockey star Sergei Makarov. "Most of them don't have enough to eat these days. These old players are Russian legends."
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Makarov For This Useful Post:
Should private individuals have the right to own SAMs, attack helicopters, tanks, and fighter jets, then? Where, if anywhere, should the line be drawn?
Private organizations do already. I'm also wondering where the line should be drawn. A rocket launcher is WAY to far for me. You can't target shoot with it, nevermind hunting.
2nd amendment is meant to allow citizens to own the necessary tools to if need be, overthrow the government if it becomes too tyrannical.
American colonists were barred from owning guns by the British. Its very difficult to overthrow a government if you have rocks and sticks and they have guns (unless of course you have a board with a nail in it).
.
That assumes that the tyranny isn't down to the street level.
Iraq under Saddam Hussein had one of the most heavily armed civilian populations in the world. You have to be careful that the people overthrowing the government have everyone's best interests at heart.
In the 21st century, it is virtually impossible to overthrow a government without the support of the military (or outside military support).
I dread the day when a guy like James Holmes walks into a crowded place with an RPG.
__________________
"A pessimist thinks things can't get any worse. An optimist knows they can."
The Following User Says Thank You to FlamesAddiction For This Useful Post:
Private organizations do already. I'm also wondering where the line should be drawn. A rocket launcher is WAY to far for me. You can't target shoot with it, nevermind hunting.
Unless you are John Rambo. Then you can do whatever the hell you want.
Private organizations do already. I'm also wondering where the line should be drawn. A rocket launcher is WAY to far for me. You can't target shoot with it, nevermind hunting.
Then why the heck couldnt you just answer that when I asked you in another thread?
If anyone was arguing, 'we need to preserve gun rights to defend against the potential for a tyrannical government, and we need to massively reduce the size of our armed forces down to a point that a well-motivated and armed populace could defeat the government-run army', that would at least be a coherent argument. Those arguments go hand-in-hand. But it certainly seems like the same voting block that is for gun rights is also for continued military overspending, which pretty-much obliterates the whole idea that this is about tilting any possibility of armed conflict in favour of the populace over the government-run army. No doubt the founding fathers were not really thinking about the potential for the US military to be the largest and most well-funded in the world. Nor were they thinking about firearms that had the potential for a single individual to kill dozens in a single moment of confusion.
Look, if this is really about the whole tyranny thing, then the argument should not be 'what guns should we be allowed to have and what ones should we not be allowed to have', but rather 'how can we protect against the threat of tyrannical government in today's climate?' Those two questions basically have zero relation to one another.
Last edited by octothorp; 07-30-2012 at 01:20 PM.
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to octothorp For This Useful Post:
That assumes that the tyranny isn't down to the street level.
Iraq under Saddam Hussein had one of the most heavily armed civilian populations in the world. You have to be careful that the people overthrowing the government have everyone's best interests at heart.
In the 21st century, it is virtually impossible to overthrow a government without the support of the military (or outside military support).
I dread the day when a guy like James Holmes walks into a crowded place with an RPG.
After Saddam was overthrown, the US refused to work with the heavily armed civilian population, and they turned on the US.
Biggest mistake of the Iraq War, right after actually invading.
2nd amendment is meant to allow citizens to own the necessary tools to if need be, overthrow the government if it becomes too tyrannical.
American colonists were barred from owning guns by the British. Its very difficult to overthrow a government if you have rocks and sticks and they have guns (unless of course you have a board with a nail in it).
Yes, some of this is taken to the extremes with gun ownership. But most people against the 2nd amendment dont even think someone should be able to own a handgun so extremes exist on both fronts.
Americans fought for their freedoms, they didnt negotiate them, I dont think anyone south of the border expects Canadians to understand.
So with the US government having control of tanks, jet fighters, submarines and air craft carriers, US citizens should have the right to acquire those necessary tools?
So with the US government having control of tanks, jet fighters, submarines and air craft carriers, US citizens should have the right to acquire those necessary tools?
You forgot secret space program
The Following User Says Thank You to SeeBass For This Useful Post:
So with the US government having control of tanks, jet fighters, submarines and air craft carriers, US citizens should have the right to acquire those necessary tools?
I'd LOVE to drive a tank to work. It'd be a pain to fuel, but I'm sure I'd get my favourite spot everyday.
I demand Canadians get the 2nd Amendment.
__________________
The Following User Says Thank You to kirant For This Useful Post:
Imagine. A homeowner defending his property against an intruder whips out a bazooka. The intruder runs and the homeowner deploys a bazooka round, misses the intruder and destroys the home across the street.
that sounds like a clip from a family guy episode.... peter launches an rpg which then smokes cleveland's house. of course, cleveland is in the tub. he slowly slides off the second floor, exclaiming, 'no! no! no! nooooooooooo!'
__________________ "...and there goes Finger up the middle on Luongo!" - Jim Hughson, Av's vs. 'Nucks
The Following User Says Thank You to bc-chris For This Useful Post:
Everyone should have access to an aircraft carrier, blackhawk helicopters and drones. Especially the drones, lord knows when there's traffic on the way to work a nice drone attack will clear up that congestion.
__________________
"Think I'm gonna be the scapegoat for the whole damn machine? Sheeee......."
Ah yes the "overthrow the tyrannical government" angle. A law written for a time when people were using black powder muskets with a 80 yard range is definitely still applicable when some gamer in Washington can level your block in Michigan with an unmanned drone, a hellfire and a joystick.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by MisterJoji
Johnny eats garbage and isn’t 100% committed.
The Following User Says Thank You to nik- For This Useful Post:
