And you would die, for sure. I can just see the video feed from the helicopter looking at some guys in infrared at night.
"I have a group of guys with weapons hiding in that building, do I have permission to engage?"
"Copy, smoke em."
Welcome Guest!
Hunters that don't understand the 2nd Amendment
- Thread starter Miguel Cervantes
- Start date
And you would die, for sure. I can just see the video feed from the helicopter looking at some guys in infrared at night.
"I have a group of guys with weapons hiding in that building, do I have permission to engage?"
"Copy, smoke em."
Miguel Cervantes
Jedi Master
Why is your thinking, when it comes to an armed revolt by the mass populous, only relegated to minuscule numbers?
If we only use the American Revolution numbers of active participants starting the war (3%) and divide the number of gun owners in America by the population, then divide that by the 3% participant number from the first revolution that renders nearly a 1.5 million man armed insurrection against an oppressive government. Many of whom have had active combat training by the very government they are opposed to.
This is just the percentage numbers that started the Revolution, nearly 10% actively participated in the Revolution which would be a much larger civilian army.
I believe we are so far removed from the history of our country some people have no clue how big and ugly such a conflict would be.
King George said something along the same lines.
You're thinking AmRevII would be a set piece battle. It won't. It will be a guerilla action and a lot of it will be aimed at cutting the head off the snake.
How did the VC, armed with old SKS rifles and bamboo punji stakes, hold out for years against the biggest military in the world; and eventually run them out of Vietnam?
We didn't want to win that war, because we didn't want to occupy it after it was all done like we did in Korea. We wanted to slap them around long enough for the South Vietnamese to get their act together, which of course never happened. And they had a lot more weaponry than SKS rifles and booby traps, provided by the Soviets mostly. And finally, they lost a lot more men than the US did by far.
I said what I said about the infrared vision partly as a joke, but also to make a point. If somehow there was a war between people not wanting to surrender their weapons vs government forces intent on taking them, our government has a lot more firepower. Guerrilla forces throughout history prevail against larger professional armies by wearing them down and losing a lot of guys in comparison.
You're assuming the people in the government that operate the firepower would use it against their fellow Americans. I'm willing to bet more than 50% of them would refuse to do so or flip to our side, take the weapons and use them on the government.
b rad
Senior Member
I know many people who wouldn’t but there quite a few that would be scared of a article 92
EuroTech
Senior Member
What I don't need is someone telling me what I need!
If they keep it up we will unite and you will see the second amendment bunch come out of the woodwork and I will be there with bells on!!!
There is only a few things more important and they need the second to protect them.
If they keep it up we will unite and you will see the second amendment bunch come out of the woodwork and I will be there with bells on!!!
There is only a few things more important and they need the second to protect them.
bullgator
Senior Member
Public opinion will be a large part of a civil war. The scenario above would hurt the government if the MSM had the guts to show it, and since blood sells, they just might do it.
Red350SS
Senior Member
My bet is your 50% estimate is way conservative...
brownhounds
Banned
You sound like an educated history man. But that don't matter now and has nothing to do with the op. You are missing the point. We don't need any more laws. Laws don't work. That's the only history lesson you need to keep in mind. Are you on the politician's side?
I enjoying studying history very much. But I bring it up illustrate points about warfare, not to say anything about gun control and why its a good idea or not. The truth is I have mixed feelings about it. On the one hand, I like being able to own firearms, and I wouldn't willingly give mine up. On the other, I think most can agree that not everyone should be able to own firearms, for various reasons. Gun control is not black and white, there are shades of gray, and there are no easy solutions.
Lilly001
Senior Member
"Not everyone should be able to own firearms"
So who gets to decide?
That is the problem.
The Connstitultion list it second in order in the BOR.
Per that document the only way to exclude someone from that right would be by due process ( which includes the right to a hearing, and to confront ones accusers) and review by the judicial branch.
Felons, mental deficients, I have no problem if due process is followed.
Subjective evaluation by anyone (everyone) with a political agenda will be the death of the republic.
So who gets to decide?
That is the problem.
The Connstitultion list it second in order in the BOR.
Per that document the only way to exclude someone from that right would be by due process ( which includes the right to a hearing, and to confront ones accusers) and review by the judicial branch.
Felons, mental deficients, I have no problem if due process is followed.
Subjective evaluation by anyone (everyone) with a political agenda will be the death of the republic.
Browning Slayer
Official Voice Of The Dawgs !
Pretty sure it is in black and white.. Shall not be infringed..
An easy solution is to enforce the laws already on the book's and quit punishing law abiding citizens.
Giving the government more power is not the answer. I'm sorry you have a hard time seeing that.
Miguel Cervantes
Jedi Master
Lawful citizens of these United States should not be hindered in exercising their rights to the full extend of the wording in the Constitution to any lesser degree than any known Criminal would do illegally.
In other words, no law will prevent a felon or any other Criminal not yet accused or convicted of fully ignoring the law, thus ALL citizens should have the equal unfettered access to practice their Constitutional Right to own and carry firearms without ANY infringement from Government.
Yes, the laws already on the books that already control gun ownership in this country. I see perfectly well that guns are already controlled in this country, and have been for decades. The first national gun control law was passed in 1934, and there have been many since. They all in some way limit who can legally own what type of weapons. If "white" is unrestricted ownership of any type of firearm by any citizen of the US, and "black" is complete prohibition of firearms, how can anyone argue that we aren't already some shade of gray? Sorry to break it to you, 2nd amendment rights have been infringed upon for a very long time.
Browning Slayer
Official Voice Of The Dawgs !
They have and with you're way of thinking, they'll continue too.
Just because they've been infringed before doesn't mean we can continue to butcher the 2nd.
We are starting to get really tired of it. And if people keep cornering a bear, eventually the bear is going to bite ya.
I respect you, and everyone else on this thread for your beliefs. And I agree a lot more with you than the other side than you realize. But, "my way of thinking" is that I will think, I will ask questions, I will bring up facts, and I won't apologize for it.
OmenHonkey
I Want Fancy Words TOO !
* Scenario * Hey Steve I got a group of snowflakes about 1000 yards out headed this way hollering about give up your guns... Smoke em Honkey !!!
boatbuilder
Senior Member
The media is owned by the same corporations that own the government. They is going to make the public believe that anyone who stands against the government was a child molester and racist rapist. They will also use the terrorist label a lot as well.
Similar threads
