Liberal Forum
Archive
‹
No Holds Barred Political Forum
‹
Second Amendment is from 1789. Thus the second amendment only applies to Muskets.
19 Jun 2022 3:36 pm
It is rare that I find myself across the aisle from FOS, but I agree with your riposte - AND, I see and raise your argument. Our near-universal possession of weapons during dubya dubya deuce has been credibly linked by hysterians to the Japanese declining to invade the west coast. Also, the whole, "If they can't destroy a nucleaar sub, an aircraft carrier, and a Low Earth Orbit Space Drone Artificial Intelligence thing that might be a thing, your guns are worthless to the defense of your liberty" narrative? In the words of the great Al Sharpton, I abnegate that vituperation.Spartan » 19 Jun 2022, 3:21 pm » wrote: ↑ I've read this whole thread, and I look at this comment and just shake my head.
Clearly, there are too many people who don't understand the term "asymmetrical warfare". An armed populace, using asymmetrical warfare tactics, would bring a lot of harm down on even a modern military. We've seen in Ukraine how an armed citizenry has been able to delay, disable, and destroy armor. In Iraq and Afghanistan, insurgencies successfully engaged and did damage to the most advanced military in the world. One poster mocks the idea of engaging an F22 with a rifle... but a shot to that F22 pilot's head from a distance when he isn't actually flying his aircraft is just as effective. Engaging soft targets with hit-and-run tactics, disappearing back into the populace and not staying in one place... hard to hit targets from the air when you don't know where they're coming from beforehand or where they went after.
Send in the military to go house to house... and semi-auto carbines like ARs and AKs will wreak havoc. Which, of course, assumes that the military would even willingly engage in active combat against their own friends and neighbors.
In the end, people tell themselves AR-15s aren't relevant in modern warfare... because that's what they want to believe.
If fearing that I am armed stops my neighbor from grabbing my wife's or daughter's ***, my gun has succeeded in defending my liberty. If it stops the local sherrif or other bigwig from like conduct, it has prevented official tyranny. And that prevention of tyranny will never be a statistic - even though it is a fact.
All that Americans need to do in order to understand the effect of an armed populace in keeping government tyranny in check is disarm. Then we will find out - quick, fast, and in a hurry.
When you complain, ur friends roll their eyes and ur enemies rejoice
"Because I SAY I am" is a todler's tantrum, not "science"
You cannot betray me - only yourself, to me.
Who cuts off your dick is not a friend
An opinion you won't defend is not your own
Humanity's Law of the Jungle: Survival NOT of the fittest, but of the tribe
When peeing in the pool, stand on the edge
If gender is not sex, why should a gender claim change what sex you shower with?
"Because I SAY I am" is a todler's tantrum, not "science"
You cannot betray me - only yourself, to me.
Who cuts off your dick is not a friend
An opinion you won't defend is not your own
Humanity's Law of the Jungle: Survival NOT of the fittest, but of the tribe
When peeing in the pool, stand on the edge
If gender is not sex, why should a gender claim change what sex you shower with?