Ah. THIS IS WHY the left demands to stop Americans gun ownership

[calfoxwc]

they plan to win a "civil war"

https://www.theblaze.com/news/2018/01/28/throw-out-the-u-s-constitution-says-the-week-magazine-correspondent

“Make no mistake, a constitutional collapse would be a tremendously destabilizing and dangerous event, and raise a significant chance of insurrection, civil war, or a military dictatorship,” Cooper wrote. “But if and when it comes, it won’t be by choice — it will be because the ancient, janky mechanisms of the American Constitution simply failed.”

This IS THE LEFT/DEMOCRATS/LIBERALS, folks.

Here's what they dream about:

getting rid of:

What rights would be eliminated?

Here are some of the Constitution’s “janky mechanisms” that Cooper wants to throw in the trash:

• First Amendment: Freedom of press, speech and assembly.
• Second Amendment: The right to keep and bear arms.
• Third Amendment: The Right to refuse quartering soldiers on private property.
• Fourth Amendment: Freedom from illegal search and seizures.
• Fifth Amendment: Rights for people accused of crimes.
• Sixth Amendment: The right to a speedy trial by jury in a district where a crime occurred.
• Seventh Amendment: The right to a jury trial for civil cases.
• Eighth Amendment: Protection from cruel and unusual punishments and excessive bail.
• Ninth Amendment: The idea that “certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”
• Tenth Amendment: Limiting the power of the federal government.

[MLD Woody]

Three in a row for the blaze?

 

Don't ding ding

[calfoxwc]

stop it. address the subject of the thread.

[TexasAg1969]

7 hours ago, calfoxwc said:

stop it. address the subject of the thread.

Actually the wording you have in for the second amendment is not accurate.

"A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"

Even the Supreme court has forgotten that first part.

 

That being said you can pry my guns out of my cold dead hands.

[DieHardBrownsFan]

That being said you can pry my guns out of my cold dead hands.

 

Ditto.

[calfoxwc]

3 hours ago, TexasAg1969 said:

"A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"

  Actually, in the context of the language used back in those days, it reads:

"A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, STILL, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"

Admitting that a well-regulated army is still necessary, like the army Britain had.... they emphasized that the PEOPLE absolutely ALSO HAVE THE RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS. That is what they faced - an army that turned on the people - and disarmed the people. Therefore - they added that safeguard - in no uncertain terms - that the people will also keep and bear arms always.

 

[TexasAg1969]

1 hour ago, calfoxwc said:

  Actually, in the context of the language used back in those days, it reads:

"A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, STILL, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"

Admitting that a well-regulated army is still necessary, like the army Britain had.... they emphasized that the PEOPLE absolutely ALSO HAVE THE RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS. That is what they faced - an army that turned on the people - and disarmed the people. Therefore - they added that safeguard - in no uncertain terms - that the people will also keep and bear arms always.

 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

A lot of history in there up to the Supreme Court most recent rulings on constitutionality. Worth a thorough read if you want to know all that went into the debates/decisions.

[MLD Woody]

16 hours ago, calfoxwc said:

stop it. address the subject of the thread.

That liberals are trying to ban guns to start a civil war and enact a military dictatorship?

 

Address that "subject"?

 

........... 

[calfoxwc]

are that dense>? got permanent woodpecker concussion?

they want to take over, get rid of our Constitution that stands in their way, and they know

it would lead to tremendous social upheaval, possibly even civil war.

Banning guns would have nothing to do with starting the civil war, it would just emphasize that

disarming Americans would expedite their attempt. Learn to THINK. just once?

[MLD Woody]

You're insane

 

"Use your BRAIN for once. How else would the civil war work. Ban guns!"

 

"Of course I need the antenna above my head. How else would I communicate with the Aliens. Learn to THINK!

[The Cysko Kid]

12 hours ago, TexasAg1969 said:

Actually the wording you have in for the second amendment is not accurate.

"A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"

Even the Supreme court has forgotten that first part.

 

That being said you can pry my guns out of my cold dead hands.

 

Ok...let's put it this way...if a well regulated militia formed the current left would defecate their pants and roll around in it screaming about white terrorism. 

[Westside Steve]

22 hours ago, TexasAg1969 said:

Actually the wording you have in for the second amendment is not accurate.

"A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"

Even the Supreme court has forgotten that first part.

 

That being said you can pry my guns out of my cold dead hands.

So you (or somebody) think that citizens should own equal Firepower with the military if, and only if, they slap together a militia and it conforms to somebody's vague idea of well-regulated?

And since you insist on taking it literally what would will regulated mean in your opinion?

WSS

 

[calfoxwc]

2 hours ago, The Cysko Kid said:

 

Ok...let's put it this way...if a well regulated militia formed the current left would defecate their pants and roll around in it screaming about white terrorism. 

 and the woodpecker feathers would fly, all the males would gather in a volcano steam bath. The females gave up on them and left long ago to find some non-sissy birdmen. Woody would be in the steam bath.

[TexasAg1969]

14 hours ago, Westside Steve said:

So you (or somebody) think that citizens should own equal Firepower with the military if, and only if, they slap together a militia and it conforms to somebody's vague idea of well-regulated?

And since you insist on taking it literally what would will regulated mean in your opinion?

WSS

 

Not important what I think. It's more important what they were thinking in coming up with the 2nd amendment. Go back and read the link I provided to the history behind it all with subsequent Supreme Court rulings.

Some might argue that the National Guard is a well regulated militia since every unit is under the control of each individual state governor. I personally think they are a great organization that responds well to major disasters like the recent hurricanes in Texas, Fla. & Puerto Rico (maybe a little less so there because of massive infrastructure damage presenting overwhelming obstacles). I was a Guard member for a number of years and it's made up mostly of veterans who spend a lot of time training new members. That includes professional military training with up to date military weapons that remain in armories so they can't be taken out for personal use. No one knows they are there until they are suddenly needed. I was proud to be in that "well regulated militia" and support it wholeheartedly.

Even so I still like to go bird hunting and occasional target shooting, so I have no argument with Supreme Court rulings allowing me that. But as to military grade weapons, I'd rather they stayed with the military and the National Guard. So far the courts have agreed with that concept.

[DieHardBrownsFan]

So you saying my claymore's and puff the magic dragon are a no no?

[Westside Steve]

27 minutes ago, TexasAg1969 said:

Not important what I think. It's more important what they were thinking in coming up with the 2nd amendment. Go back and read the link I provided to the history behind it all with subsequent Supreme Court rulings.

and we know what they were thinking. At that time in American history we were at risk of being overtaken Again by the English or possibly the French or maybe even another foreign power. Much more than we are today military wise. In that time every US citizen is expected to have the best Weaponry he could have in case the people were needed to turn back an insurrection. Aside from that the phrase well-regulated is vague to the point of meaninglessness.

Some might argue that the National Guard is a well regulated militia since every unit is under the control of each individual state governor. I personally think they are a great organization that responds well to major disasters like the recent hurricanes in Texas, Fla. & Puerto Rico (maybe a little less so there because of massive infrastructure damage presenting overwhelming obstacles). I was a Guard member for a number of years and it's made up mostly of veterans who spend a lot of time training new members. That includes professional military training with up to date military weapons that remain in armories so they can't be taken out for personal use. No one knows they are there until they are suddenly needed. I was proud to be in that "well regulated militia" and support it wholeheartedly.

Even so I still like to go bird hunting and occasional target shooting, so I have no argument with Supreme Court rulings allowing me that. But as to military grade weapons, I'd rather they stayed with the military and the National Guard. So far the courts have agreed with that concept.

 

[The Cysko Kid]

1 hour ago, TexasAg1969 said:

Not important what I think. It's more important what they were thinking in coming up with the 2nd amendment. Go back and read the link I provided to the history behind it all with subsequent Supreme Court rulings.

Some might argue that the National Guard is a well regulated militia since every unit is under the control of each individual state governor. I personally think they are a great organization that responds well to major disasters like the recent hurricanes in Texas, Fla. & Puerto Rico (maybe a little less so there because of massive infrastructure damage presenting overwhelming obstacles). I was a Guard member for a number of years and it's made up mostly of veterans who spend a lot of time training new members. That includes professional military training with up to date military weapons that remain in armories so they can't be taken out for personal use. No one knows they are there until they are suddenly needed. I was proud to be in that "well regulated militia" and support it wholeheartedly.

Even so I still like to go bird hunting and occasional target shooting, so I have no argument with Supreme Court rulings allowing me that. But as to military grade weapons, I'd rather they stayed with the military and the National Guard. So far the courts have agreed with that concept.

It doesn't matter because as Vietnamese and Iraqis and afghans and, I'm sure, hundreds of other example (including early Americans) proved it is possible to fight and even defeat the world's best army with inferior weapons and poor training. A 30-06 hunting rifle is every bit as deadly as a fully automatic m-16/ar variant. Possibly more so because you're not relying on spray n' pray. 

So this whole "military grade weapons" nonsense is a nice talking point but ultimately pretty useless. 

[tiamat63]

2 hours ago, DieHardBrownsFan said:

So you saying my claymore's and puff the magic dragon are a no no?

 

Personally I support the Shmuck out of this.  

[MLD Woody]

4 hours ago, The Cysko Kid said:

It doesn't matter because as Vietnamese and Iraqis and afghans and, I'm sure, hundreds of other example (including early Americans) proved it is possible to fight and even defeat the world's best army with inferior weapons and poor training. A 30-06 hunting rifle is every bit as deadly as a fully automatic m-16/ar variant. Possibly more so because you're not relying on spray n' pray. 

So this whole "military grade weapons" nonsense is a nice talking point but ultimately pretty useless. 

In your hundreds of examples, I'd look at two things

- the environment/territory the war/battle was fought (mountain terrain vs the suburbs)

- the difference between what the common man had access to and what the military does (when in history?). Back in early American history vs now. Where we're talking about unmanned drones and attack helicopters

[calfoxwc]

those aren't guns. those are weaponized aircraft. with missiles and guns. but basically, self-defense of an oppressed society

have to have the guns. The war was fought on city streets, fields.and forests, and we have mountains. Dems/fascists dream of cancelling our Constitution - like the article said- but they admit they couldn't as long as we had our guns.

    It's a dangerous nonsense scenario the author of that crap talks about. If someday it actually happened, it would break our country apart - break our military. Everyone knows, who have been in the military - that you are not required to follow an illegal order, you are not ALLOWED to follow an illegal order. The only way possible would be to have foreign troops come here. They wouldn't have a chance in hades of winning, either. Unless you disarmed our military and civilian population, too.

   Just seriously dangerous, since we have these nutjobs all around our country. and the deep state is in full blown cya mode.

[The Cysko Kid]

1 hour ago, MLD Woody said:

In your hundreds of examples, I'd look at two things

- the environment/territory the war/battle was fought (mountain terrain vs the suburbs)

- the difference between what the common man had access to and what the military does (when in history?). Back in early American history vs now. Where we're talking about unmanned drones and attack helicopters

The afghans beat the Russians who had all that and are still resisting the might of the US military to this day. 

[calfoxwc]

woody never looks anything up.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guerrilla_warfare

 

[calfoxwc]

 

[MLD Woody]

4 hours ago, The Cysko Kid said:

The afghans beat the Russians who had all that and are still resisting the might of the US military to this day. 

What are the Russians exactly trying to accomplish

Also, wouldn't that fall under my first point, bring a rough terrain?

[The Cysko Kid]

It would probably be convenient for an invading army if everywhere was Nebraska but...it's not. 

[TexasAg1969]

17 hours ago, The Cysko Kid said:

It doesn't matter because as Vietnamese and Iraqis and afghans and, I'm sure, hundreds of other example (including early Americans) proved it is possible to fight and even defeat the world's best army with inferior weapons and poor training. A 30-06 hunting rifle is every bit as deadly as a fully automatic m-16/ar variant. Possibly more so because you're not relying on spray n' pray. 

So this whole "military grade weapons" nonsense is a nice talking point but ultimately pretty useless. 

I'm putting in my order for a self-propelled 8" Howitzer in that case. I got pretty good at calling it in as an FO with the Wyoming Nat. Guard.

Plus it has the advantage of competing with some of these damn Texans in pickup trucks that think they own the f'n roads with their toy "Big Wheels".

[MLD Woody]

14 hours ago, The Cysko Kid said:

It would probably be convenient for an invading army if everywhere was Nebraska but...it's not. 

How much of American has a similar terrain to Afghanistan?

[The Cysko Kid]

The entire middle? You know...the Rocky mountains? Or the east? The Appalachian/smoky/Adirondacks? The Sierra Nevadas? 

 

Actually quite a lot of America is mountainous. That was kind of a stupid question.

[MLD Woody]

Uh... That's definitely not the "entire middle". 

The strips of the US that are the Rocky's or Appalachian mountains (the latter of which doesn't compare to the mountains in Afghanistan) is a much smaller percentage than that of Afghanistan that is covered.

 

 

 

Not to mention the infrastructure we have in place  to  traverse these landscapes vs what's in Afghanistan.

 

[The Cysko Kid]

40 minutes ago, MLD Woody said:

Uh... That's definitely not the "entire middle". 

The strips of the US that are the Rocky's or Appalachian mountains (the latter of which doesn't compare to the mountains in Afghanistan) is a much smaller percentage than that of Afghanistan that is covered.

 

 

 

Not to mention the infrastructure we have in place  to  traverse these landscapes vs what's in Afghanistan.

 

The entire western 1/3 and Eastern 1/4th of the country is mountainous. Again, kind of a stupid question.