First change..... Bodyman can do whatever he wants. Second change...... Nobody can retaliate against bodyman. Should be enough
So let's see.... the Soviets had tanks.... helicopters.... jets.... nukes.... how did that go for them against the Afghani? You're right. The American public could not square off in a conventional war against the greatest military in the world. But nobody would do that. That's not how an insurgency works, and if you haven't noticed, we don't fare so well against insurgencies/guerrilla warfare. Vietnam? Iraq? Afghanistan? How have these wars gone for us? Would you call them a success? After the initial ass beating that we put on their conventional armies, we fought long, drawn out, pointless occupations against local insurgents. What people don't seem to understand is that the 2nd amendment isn't about squaring off against a standing army. There's a reason why it specifically mentions a militia. An armed populace is a deterrent. It keeps the government from ever trying to go full on dictator, like Turkey, or North Korea, or Venezuela. The British wanted to disarm us, and that's ultimately what set off the Revolutionary War. If they had succeeded in disarming the colonies, do you think we would have this country today?
No. I didn't say anything about overthrowing the government. I am talking about history. I love history. I'm a huge history buff, and people like you seem to forget history. People that forget history are doomed to repeat it. You made a sweeping comment about snowflakes that think they can win a war with the government. I'm merely showing you some examples of how it didn't matter that one side had tanks and planes and nukes. The Soviets had a huge advantage over the Afghani people, and by the end of that war they had lost over 14,000 troops, they had lost 451 aircraft, they had lost 147 tanks. It's not as simple as "hahaha rednecks... you can't beat the army!!"
You're talking about people defending themselves from an incursion in THEIR country. Russia invaded afghanistan. Apples to Asparagus. If the government decides to go all dystopian there will be little that we can do about it for some time save some Hunger games type revolution that would take decades. So arming up for it like the Vegas shooter (23 guns and 19 at home) is pretty pointless.
We have almost no military presence in Oregon, so any occupying force would be an invading force if Oregon were to revolt.
YESSSSSS!!! Let's get rid of the South!!! Even though my grandmother was born in Monroe LA and I have lots of family there... That just sounds crazy...
1. I would define the term "Natural Born Citizen" instead of leaving it to common knowledge of the day. 2. Modify the 14th amendment to be consistent with the above. 3. Define standards requirements to be a voter and to become a citizen eligible to bear arms. 4. Redefine the 2nd amendment as the right of citizens to bear arm is the same as their right to self defense. This was indeed a factor in the original intent. Natural born citizen should be required to meet the same standards to begin to bear arms. The right to be armed for self defense is different from a non existing right to offense. The right to bear arms should be dependent on the same standards to become a citizen voter, except in time of war or emergency as declared by the President.
Agreed--long-sleeved shirts should be required for all migrant workers. Sunburn-related hospitalizations for illegals cost us millions!!
How about adding the word "teddy" between the 21st and 22nd word of the 2nd amendment? "paddington" would also be funny. Kinda.
Makes sense to me. Pot was illegal everywhere not long ago and everyone still smoked it. Why do you think gun laws will keep people from owning guns?
Because they do. Y'all complain about mental health problems getting guns but don't want to do anything about it and claim HIPPA laws. You don't want to do anything about this shit.
