Federal Judge obliterates anti-2A laws. Upholds the Constitution.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: superman2012
So, the assumption is it would be everybody against the military. Seems unlikely to me.

Sure they would have resources, but for how long? What happens when the power goes out in the winter up North?

So, the rebels will cut power to civilians for their cause? That's not nice.

I think it would be unlikely too. IF anything were ever to happen even remotely close to this, it wouldn't be as black and white as that.
Meh, rebels, military, take your pick. No one is really nice anyways.

Hmmm, I could accept Ramona Manglona or someone similar on the SCOTUS.

Nobody is perfect, but strong on the 2nd sure as hell defends the rest.

a reply to: superman2012

well in my north(montana) we have fireplaces and lots of trees but not sure if fire places are as common in the east as they are in the west coast

a reply to: superman2012

I'm a former scout so YES I very easily could NO doubt,and blow a couple of birds before they could get ME individually ,Toss in my squad and we could successfully take out a great deal more.
Capture a mortar and KISS your airfield GOODBYE.

originally posted by: superman2012

originally posted by: Logarock

originally posted by: superman2012
This is one right that I will never understand. Congrats though?

Its our poor educational system. Its an easy to understand right when we understand the 2nd, in the context of historical justification as examined in the Federalist Papers and as a right then among the others for securing ourselves against the abuse of government, just to name one offender mentioned.

I understand the wording of it, not the use.

When are the populace going to "secure themselves against the abuse of government"? Think you'll win against the government?

1776... Just think of all the people like you. Saying "think you can beat the British?" Well look what happened...

originally posted by: FauxMulder

originally posted by: superman2012

originally posted by: Logarock

originally posted by: superman2012
This is one right that I will never understand. Congrats though?

Its our poor educational system. Its an easy to understand right when we understand the 2nd, in the context of historical justification as examined in the Federalist Papers and as a right then among the others for securing ourselves against the abuse of government, just to name one offender mentioned.

I understand the wording of it, not the use.

When are the populace going to "secure themselves against the abuse of government"? Think you'll win against the government?

1776... Just think of all the people like you. Saying "think you can beat the British?" Well look what happened...

You could legally own people back then too. Things have changed. That time, is not this time. The weapons are not the same, the citizen population doesn't have the same armory as the government....

originally posted by: cavtrooper7
a reply to: superman2012

I'm a former scout so YES I very easily could NO doubt,and blow a couple of birds before they could get ME individually ,Toss in my squad and we could successfully take out a great deal more.
Capture a mortar and KISS your airfield GOODBYE.

Easy to say. Let's say hypothetically that you could and did. Would you? Knowing that your family would suffer the repercussions? No doubt that you are willing to give your life to a cause you believe in, but, are you willing to gamble with your family's lives as well?

originally posted by: RalagaNarHallas
a reply to: superman2012

well in my north(montana) we have fireplaces and lots of trees but not sure if fire places are as common in the east as they are in the west coast

That would be like a homing beacon for the forces looking for you. Everyone that has a fire going could be considered an enemy. All they would have to do is cut off power and natural gas to an area where they know there are rebels, and wait for the fires to pop up to see where the people are.

Not only could they use their control of utilities to freeze/starve/etc people, but, they could also be used to spot/locate them as well.

originally posted by: butcherguy
a reply to: superman2012

While domestic terrorists are fighting against the military!? Could afghan insurgents get on base? I ask because that is scary as hell

If you look for them, you can find and watch videos of Taliban launching attacks inside the wire in Afghanistan.
They actually go inside the base and kill people and destroy equipment.
If our military is invincible, why are there still Taliban in Afghanistan and ISIS in Iraq?

Invincible does not equal efficient. If the posts I am reading from a former member of the military, they are very inefficient and ineffectual. Most likely not their fault, but the result of the higher ups making decisions...just like any job. Hopefully, the ones fighting now, don't forget their experiences when they get promoted.

originally posted by: projectvxn
a reply to: butcherguy

Just wait I'm sure he'll come up with another unrelated strawman argument.

Just because I lost you, or you don't understand the point I'm trying to make, doesn't make it a straw man argument.

There is a very easy line to follow in the way this conversation has gotten off topic.
I don't understand why this right is needed.
People questioned me on it.
I answered questions.
Not one person has refuted my opinion that it stems from fear and that I feel bad that you guys have to live with that fear every day.
I took the wording that a member presented to me and asked a question.
You said that the average citizen could beat the government if need be.
We took it from there.

Maybe you don't know what a straw man argument is? For I have answered (to the best of my ability) every question asked of me.

The weapons are not the same but just as it is now the citizen population did NOT have the same armory as the government. If you think the colonialist had the same weapons and military capacity as the British Empire, you're smoking crack. What we had was the willpower to win, the threat of death and loss of freedom. The British were just fighting for a king, to quash another rebellion.

a reply to: superman2012

Where do you live that you don't face both the threat of a corruptible government nor a dangerous criminal element?

Those are issues all civilizations have faced since time immemorial.

Just because you ignore those threats doesn't preclude their propensity to exist.

You don't have to personally understand the human right to armed self defense, but at the same time, your lack of understanding it doesn't nullify it's validity.

originally posted by: muzzleflash
a reply to: superman2012

Where do you live that you don't face both the threat of a corruptible government nor a dangerous criminal element?

Those are issues all civilizations have faced since time immemorial.

Just because you ignore those threats doesn't preclude their propensity to exist.

You don't have to personally understand the human right to armed self defense, but at the same time, your lack of understanding it doesn't nullify it's validity.

I live in Canada. Small town prairie Canada to be more precise. I don't see nor do I foresee the Canadian government doing anything to its citizens that would need an armed uprising.
How can I ignore a threat that doesn't exist?
On your last point, I have to agree. I do not need to personally understand it but I also don't understand how a person can live in fear of armed conflict their whole life. Societal differences I guess. I sure do feel blessed to not have to live like that.

a reply to: superman2012

For the sake of the country they already know it.
OF course we gamble ARE you CRAZY?
THATS what COUNTS YOU out,it's what combat arms DO.
I 'd have TROUBLE stopping my WIFE from trying to go.
WE are America FOR A REASON.
If YOU don't get it I can't teach it.

a reply to: gladtobehere

Great Thread!!!S+F for You!!!
A BIG Dragons Thumbs Up for Judge Ramona Manglona!!!
Right on!!!

Those Who oppose Our Constitutional Rights and work to try to destroy it should be dealt with.
I can't say how, here, but...

originally posted by: cavtrooper7
a reply to: superman2012

For the sake of the country they already know it.
OF course we gamble ARE you CRAZY?
THATS what COUNTS YOU out,it's what combat arms DO.
I 'd have TROUBLE stopping my WIFE from trying to go.
WE are America FOR A REASON.
If YOU don't get it I can't teach it.

Yes, you are right. You could never teach me to put my family in harms way, nor would I ever.
You are also right, you are America for a reason.
That's a lesson I don't want to be taught.

a reply to: superman2012

You aren't an enemy.
You have people like ME as well.
WHO taught the Devil's brigade?
PRACTICALLY gospel to our armed forces.

a reply to: superman2012

Not one person has refuted my opinion that it stems from fear and that I feel bad that you guys have to live with that fear every day.

Your opinion isn't open to data. It's not that you don't understand, it's that you refuse to accept the explanation of those who do. I'm not saying you have to agree with the rationale. But to continue to insinuate that you are somehow mystified is just evidence that you simply aren't open to other views.

All you have is stereotyping and what you feel is true.

$1000 tax on hand guns ANY TAX on guns or ammunition is a POLL TAX.

That is why it should have been 'shot' down.

And YES people.

Gun RIGHTS are CIVIL LIBERTIES.

Of every single person in this land.

The ultimate expression of EQUALITY.

If people treated the first like the second.

Anti gunners heads would explode.

originally posted by: projectvxn
a reply to: superman2012

Not one person has refuted my opinion that it stems from fear and that I feel bad that you guys have to live with that fear every day.

Your opinion isn't open to data. It's not that you don't understand, it's that you refuse to accept the explanation of those who do. I'm not saying you have to agree with the rationale. But to continue to insinuate that you are somehow mystified is just evidence that you simply aren't open to other views.

All you have is stereotyping and what you feel is true.

Fair enough. At least I'm trying to understand the reasoning. As stated earlier, I cannot understand why people can live with such fear. I can accept peoples explanations, but when I ask further questions for clarification, there is a hard stance, almost the same as talking with the religious. It's never, "well, I see your point too.".
As I have also stated before, I understand the wording of it, just not the need. I have heard many points and none of them have even come close to making me even consider changing my mind on the subject. If there was an actual reason (that made sense beyond "it's our right") when so many people are getting killed or harming themselves per capita, then I could latch onto it.
I don't understand what you mean when you say I'm stereotyping. Please explain. Thanks in advance.