You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Senile Supreme Court Justice Calls For Repeal Of 2nd Amendment, Demonstrates Ignorance Of History
the threat of a tyrannical federal government is, 'a relic of the 18th century.'
This is somewhat true in that second amendment can no longer defend us from governments. 10 million people with AR-15s would get slaughtered by the modern warfare that governments have to offer. This was not the case 100 years ago.
This is irrelevant, unless you think the US is going to Nuke and deploy the army against civilians.
You have no data to make this sweeping generalization, you say it only because it sounds right.
Read the Gulag Archipelago. It puts the lie to your unsupported generalization above.
You lose credibility when you artificially inflate your argument with impossible scenarios. Of course we wouldn't nuke our own land.
At the same time of course we would deploy the army against civilians. That's the whole point. A big justification for the second amendment was so that a militia could be formed to fight against (or even with, if invaded) the government.
Now we have air strikes that can level entire cities and cavalry (tanks) that are immune to rocket propelled grenades and even other lesser tank fire. The second amendment was created when we had horses... lol.
The Gulag Archipelago is totally irrelevant to this conversation. You can't stop a government from being a prison state with guns. We already live in a prison state and if it gets worse an AR-15 isn't going to help anything.
I'd like to point out that you still have no idea what my stance on gun control even is. My only point here is that a civilian militia force stands zero chance of winning any real battle against the government. This isn't an opinion, it's a fact. How could you possibly argue otherwise?
Spot-on. If we're going to mobilize any serious opposition to the imminent threat of a GLOBAL oppressive State, we're going to have to pick our battles. Defending the 2nd amendment simply isn't one of those battles IMO.
"Defending the 2nd amendment simply isn't one of those battles IMO."
The fact that you can say BEING DISARMED is not a battle worth fighting tells me you are on the wrong team.
I didn't say "being disarmed" is not a battle worth fighting for. I said the right to own guns is not a battle worth fighting for. There's a big difference and the pen is indeed mightier than the sword.
Its hard to write after youve been shot dead!
You can write about whatever you want while held in a concetration camp like guantanamo bay nobody is going to be able to read it!