We Should Definitely Get Rid of the 2nd Amendment...

[Silenoz]

Does anybody give a crap about the 2nd Amendment, or just me? I mean, please folks, help me out here. This is clear as day.

I'm unsure. I think I need more videos

[89Hen]

I found the two main players who claimed to be dead in this entire 2nd Amendment reduction hoax..

Do you want me to put them in handcuffs myself too, or?

Yes

[CID1990]

Only by stupid fvcks that think they would be able to stand against military firepower with their pissant deer rifle. Stupid fvcks like you...

Let's see...the Iraqi "resistance" did a pretty good job in a guerilla fashion with just AK-47s and IEDs against the might of the U.S. Army...

Are you saying American's could not do the same...plus, how much stomach does the U.S. military have for going up against friends, family, etc...

Asking for a friend...

Plus, there's just the idea of getting into a firefight with fellow Americans- I can only name one or two police officers I have ever worked with who would follow an order to commit a clearly unconstitutional act (they exist, but not in the numbers that would be needed). The military is very similar.

The very possession of firearms and a credible willingness to use them can be enough to force a peaceful solution.

Speculation that just because the average Joe doesn't have a 105mm or a F-16 invalidates the defense argument of the 2nd Amendment is just as stupid as the nuts who argue that a Barrett rifle is necessary for day to day personal defense


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[houndawg]

Only by stupid fvcks that think they would be able to stand against military firepower with their pissant deer rifle. Stupid fvcks like you...

Let's see...the Iraqi "resistance" did a pretty good job in a guerilla fashion with just AK-47s and IEDs against the might of the U.S. Army...

Are you saying American's could not do the same...plus, how much stomach does the U.S. military have for going up against friends, family, etc...

Asking for a friend...

Tell your friend not to worry, they don't have enough landing craft anyway.

[houndawg]

Let's see...the Iraqi "resistance" did a pretty good job in a guerilla fashion with just AK-47s and IEDs against the might of the U.S. Army...

Are you saying American's could not do the same...plus, how much stomach does the U.S. military have for going up against friends, family, etc...

Asking for a friend...

Plus, there's just the idea of getting into a firefight with fellow Americans- I can only name one or two police officers I have ever worked with who would follow an order to commit a clearly unconstitutional act (they exist, but not in the numbers that would be needed). The military is very similar.

The very possession of firearms and a credible willingness to use them can be enough to force a peaceful solution.

Speculation that just because the average Joe doesn't have a 105mm or a F-16 invalidates the defense argument of the 2nd Amendment is just as stupid as the nuts who argue that a Barrett rifle is necessary for day to day personal defense


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Except nobody is making that argument.

The second amendment was enacted by people who were opposed to maintaining a standing Army. Since we have a standing Army it's superfluous. Not necessary to remove it or anything but it doesn't serve any useful function, kind of like some of the old laws about grazing sheep on Boston commons

[CID1990]

Plus, there's just the idea of getting into a firefight with fellow Americans- I can only name one or two police officers I have ever worked with who would follow an order to commit a clearly unconstitutional act (they exist, but not in the numbers that would be needed). The military is very similar.

The very possession of firearms and a credible willingness to use them can be enough to force a peaceful solution.

Speculation that just because the average Joe doesn't have a 105mm or a F-16 invalidates the defense argument of the 2nd Amendment is just as stupid as the nuts who argue that a Barrett rifle is necessary for day to day personal defense


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Except nobody is making that argument.

The second amendment was enacted by people who were opposed to maintaining a standing Army. Since we have a standing Army it's superfluous. Not necessary to remove it or anything but it doesn't serve any useful function, kind of like some of the old laws about grazing sheep on Boston commons

Well good, then. Everybody's happy


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[houndawg]

Except nobody is making that argument.

The second amendment was enacted by people who were opposed to maintaining a standing Army. Since we have a standing Army it's superfluous. Not necessary to remove it or anything but it doesn't serve any useful function, kind of like some of the old laws about grazing sheep on Boston commons

Well good, then. Everybody's happy


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That's what I do, build consensus.

[mrklean]

Plus, there's just the idea of getting into a firefight with fellow Americans- I can only name one or two police officers I have ever worked with who would follow an order to commit a clearly unconstitutional act (they exist, but not in the numbers that would be needed). The military is very similar.

The very possession of firearms and a credible willingness to use them can be enough to force a peaceful solution.

Speculation that just because the average Joe doesn't have a 105mm or a F-16 invalidates the defense argument of the 2nd Amendment is just as stupid as the nuts who argue that a Barrett rifle is necessary for day to day personal defense


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Except nobody is making that argument.

The second amendment was enacted by people who were opposed to maintaining a standing Army. Since we have a standing Army it's superfluous. Not necessary to remove it or anything but it doesn't serve any useful function, kind of like some of the old laws about grazing sheep on Boston commons

We have done several tings that the founding fathers would not like.
1. having a large standing military
2. Having a large national police force. (FBI, CIA, DEA, ICE, Federal Marshals, Border Patrol)

We are marching closer to having a police state.

[CID1990]

Except nobody is making that argument.

The second amendment was enacted by people who were opposed to maintaining a standing Army. Since we have a standing Army it's superfluous. Not necessary to remove it or anything but it doesn't serve any useful function, kind of like some of the old laws about grazing sheep on Boston commons

We have done several tings that the founding fathers would not like.
1. having a large standing military
2. Having a large national police force. (FBI, CIA, DEA, ICE, Federal Marshals, Border Patrol)

We are marching closer to having a police state.

Well when you keep imagining up new laws, you need police to keep up with them

cant have dudes selling untaxed ciggies on the street, you know


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[mrklean]

We have done several tings that the founding fathers would not like.
1. having a large standing military
2. Having a large national police force. (FBI, CIA, DEA, ICE, Federal Marshals, Border Patrol)

We are marching closer to having a police state.

Well when you keep imagining up new laws, you need police to keep up with them

cant have dudes selling untaxed ciggies on the street, you know


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Whatever

[CID1990]

Well when you keep imagining up new laws, you need police to keep up with them

cant have dudes selling untaxed ciggies on the street, you know


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Whatever

whheeeeeeeeeeee

^^that right there is the point sailing over your head


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Chizzang]

Let's see...the Iraqi "resistance" did a pretty good job in a guerilla fashion with just AK-47s and IEDs against the might of the U.S. Army...

Are you saying American's could not do the same...plus, how much stomach does the U.S. military have for going up against friends, family, etc...

Asking for a friend...

Plus, there's just the idea of getting into a firefight with fellow Americans- I can only name one or two police officers I have ever worked with who would follow an order to commit a clearly unconstitutional act (they exist, but not in the numbers that would be needed). The military is very similar.

The very possession of firearms and a credible willingness to use them can be enough to force a peaceful solution.

Speculation that just because the average Joe doesn't have a 105mm or a F-16 invalidates the defense argument of the 2nd Amendment is just as stupid as the nuts who argue that a Barrett rifle is necessary for day to day personal defense

The Barratt comes in handy when you're on your porch (as I understand it)
and somebody is walking by at 270 yards

[houndawg]

Let's see...the Iraqi "resistance" did a pretty good job in a guerilla fashion with just AK-47s and IEDs against the might of the U.S. Army...

Are you saying American's could not do the same...plus, how much stomach does the U.S. military have for going up against friends, family, etc...

Asking for a friend...

Plus, there's just the idea of getting into a firefight with fellow Americans- I can only name one or two police officers I have ever worked with who would follow an order to commit a clearly unconstitutional act (they exist, but not in the numbers that would be needed). The military is very similar.

The very possession of firearms and a credible willingness to use them can be enough to force a peaceful solution.

Speculation that just because the average Joe doesn't have a 105mm or a F-16 invalidates the defense argument of the 2nd Amendment is just as stupid as the nuts who argue that a Barrett rifle is necessary for day to day personal defense

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It depends, I think. The authorities seem to cut the militia types more slack than lefties. Bundy gets treated with kid gloves and dogs get sicced on the Indians at DAPL.

[Col Hogan]

Plus, there's just the idea of getting into a firefight with fellow Americans- I can only name one or two police officers I have ever worked with who would follow an order to commit a clearly unconstitutional act (they exist, but not in the numbers that would be needed). The military is very similar.

The very possession of firearms and a credible willingness to use them can be enough to force a peaceful solution.

Speculation that just because the average Joe doesn't have a 105mm or a F-16 invalidates the defense argument of the 2nd Amendment is just as stupid as the nuts who argue that a Barrett rifle is necessary for day to day personal defense

The Barratt comes in handy when you're on your porch (as I understand it)
and somebody is walking by at 270 yards

Using a Barrett for a target 270 yards down range is like using a flame thrower to light a cigarette...

[CID1990]

Plus, there's just the idea of getting into a firefight with fellow Americans- I can only name one or two police officers I have ever worked with who would follow an order to commit a clearly unconstitutional act (they exist, but not in the numbers that would be needed). The military is very similar.

The very possession of firearms and a credible willingness to use them can be enough to force a peaceful solution.

Speculation that just because the average Joe doesn't have a 105mm or a F-16 invalidates the defense argument of the 2nd Amendment is just as stupid as the nuts who argue that a Barrett rifle is necessary for day to day personal defense

The Barratt comes in handy when you're on your porch (as I understand it)
and somebody is walking by at 270 yards

or a mile

(at which point you won't know if you're shooting a bad guy or the Dominoes delivery guy)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk