This is beyond ridiculous. Number 1, nobody needs assault rifles on the day to day. Second, if the government decided to come take shyt over it would be a wrap. Did you not see that manhunt in Boston? fukk is your weak ass rifle going to do to drones? You're hanging onto some fantasy world in which a small armed militia of starved and largely untrained Americans hide in bunkers for years while launching grenades at government forces. You sound ridiculous. Like I said, gun rights owners need to just say they like having guns and be done with it. Stop trying to rationalize that shyt.I agree with Cruz on this. Obviously one armed person will not stop government tyranny, but a mass movement of armed people?
Do you realize no one from the Bundy Ranch standoff last year was charged? Despite aiming rifles at federal agents?
You guys don't realize how armed forces attacking an American city would cause fissures and divisions in those same forces. It would cause, at the least, massive civil resistance and unrest, and likely defections and depending on the scale, civil war.
On paper, people in the US have the most tools to free themselves, yet have the most narrow and short-sighted political imaginations in the world.
This is almost turning me into a single-issue voter. Democrats can't be allowed to do away with gun rights, or limit them to some fukking hunting rifles.
This has to be said about the GOP and gun rights
- Thread starter NkrumahWasRight Is Wrong
- Start date
JahFocus CS
Get It How You Get It
Whether they are needed on the "day to day" is irrelevant.
Ah, the unstoppable drones
Because electronic systems are absolutely impervious to being disabled, right? 
Yes, we like having firearms. Many owners also will not be told they can't have them because of some whiny clowns who don't know anything about firearms trying to ram through some bullshyt legislation.
they would need a military coup..but in that case they might not be needed at all..and yea im saying they should at least change their rhetoric towards the aforementioned angle if they are going to play the defense against tyranny card. Its a nuanced micro thesis on political tactics but also that there is a legitimate alternative interpretation of the constitution that would still suit their purposes, be more rational to the public and thus also be more practical rather than their current approach. Its seems more so based in civil unrest with a constitutional justification right now and it should be the reverse
pretty well put chap. That essentially mirrors my personal opinion although, to me, it seemed like his take was way more macro than a simple hide in bunkers defense..but either way I dont think the Cruz rationale is at all reasonable
word. Lol @ regular people stopping fighter jets, special forces, and hard trained military. Guns aint stopping shyt unless you get a split in the military.
JahFocus CS
Get It How You Get It
I don't think we live in the same world 
The same forces that catch L's against rice farmers and opium farmers?
Certainly Americans have more going for them and access to more resources than those groups did/do?
The same forces that catch L's against rice farmers and opium farmers?
Certainly Americans have more going for them and access to more resources than those groups did/do?
"Any unarmed people are slaves, or are subject to slavery at any given moment."I agree with Cruz on this. Obviously one armed person will not stop government tyranny, but a mass movement of armed people?
Do you realize no one from the Bundy Ranch standoff last year was charged? Despite aiming rifles at federal agents?
You guys don't realize how armed forces attacking an American city would cause fissures and divisions in those same forces. It would cause, at the least, massive civil resistance and unrest, and likely defections and depending on the scale, civil war.
On paper, people in the US have the most tools to free themselves, yet have the most narrow and short-sighted political imaginations in the world.
This is almost turning me into a single-issue voter. Democrats can't be allowed to do away with gun rights, or limit them to some fukking hunting rifles.
Huey P. Newton
thats my general take on him but maybe the political delusions of grandeur actually dumbed him down. likely just troll pandering but who knows. He does always seem very sharp to me when he is in an objective hearing but he also doesnt find himself in too many of those situations anymore
@Great Scott just stop it. That's all I will say to that. You guys are not devolving this argument into one that is about having the necessary tools for a potential rebellion as opposed to something that is a guaranteed right. Few people are foolish enough to pretend that Americans are about to rise up and go shot for shot with their government.I don't think we live in the same world
The same forces that catch L's against rice farmers and opium farmers?
Certainly Americans have more going for them and access to more resources than those groups did/do?
As for you, you're right, we don't live in the same world. I live in a practical one, you live in some sort of Hunger Games like fantasy. Who caught Ls against rice and opium farmers in the 21st century? You're mistaking an occupation with a domestic takeover. How many hundreds of thousands of Iraqis died while we attempted to occupy that country with a relatively small force of people? Now what would happen if you're telling US soldiers to take over their own backyards in which they know who everyone is, are not going to announce that they are about to take over, and will have the full force of the military available? Moreover, they won't have to worry about political ramifications. They can approximate who has guns based on where they are being sold. They cancel all job payments and cease/destroy all of the supermarkets. They would cut off public water. Somehow I think the US military will be more comfortable dealing with Peggy Sue in the suburbs, and people in the country than going into an Iraqi desert, or Asian Jungles.
JahFocus CS
Get It How You Get It
You need to just stop it. Have you heard of the Civil War?
The last time there was widespread, country-wide conflict, it ended up being the costliest war ever for American lives. Come on breh.You think all soldiers are robots? The state would LOVE that but fact is, at least SOME of them will think a little bit and not go along with destroying their own country.
What would you have the people do in should we have a tyrannical government? What limits would you place on the 2nd amendment now?
Here's some more heat:
"A man's rights rest in three boxes: the ballot box, the jury box, and the cartridge box."
- Frederick Douglass
88m3
Fast Money & Foreign Objects
Exactly.
I love when guys argue the Vietnam, Korea, Iraq, Afghanistan angle. The US wasn't just fighting and occupying a populace they were also fighting regional and global super powers(China, CCCP, Pakistan, Iran). Million(s) died. How many American citizens are going to be willing to die so your guns aren't confiscated or Obama can't form his Caliphate? Not many.
JahFocus CS
Get It How You Get It
They're too strong 
Vote Democrat and hope for the best!
I agree with Cruz on this. Obviously one armed person will not stop government tyranny, but a mass movement of armed people?
Do you realize no one from the Bundy Ranch standoff last year was charged? Despite aiming rifles at federal agents?
That has little to do with gun rights and more to do with white privilege.
