It's time to show all you assault rifle hating flower weenies the truth!!!!

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by NeOmega
Do you really think they couldn't?

No, I don't. Not if the military didn't want us to. The military in Iraq is trying to win not only the hearts and minds of Iraqis, but the whole world. In a revolutionary situation in the U.S., I'm not going to count on the military treating us with kid gloves.

The history of revolution always pits "impossible" odds against a much more powerful establishment.... yet many times these odds are overcome.

Your understanding of revolution is extremely limited. No revolution against a strong state has succeeded . . . not ever. They are only possible when the system begins to break down.

You are imagining a revolution against the US army, not the US government.... and it would depend greatly on the parameters of the revolution.

The U.S. Army is a part of the U.S. government. If the Army sides with the revolution, then the revolution didn't needs its own guns. If it sides against the revolution, it doesn't matter how many guns we have, we will lose.

I can name dozens of ways to penetrate and destroy an army base.... most of them require a level of compliance from with in.

You undermine your argument here, that guns are necessary. What is necessar is not that the public has guns, but that we can win over a significant portion of the military to our cause.

There really shouldn't be any resistance in Iraq right now... but there is.

Why shouldn't there be any resistence? Only an idiot would think there wouldn't be any resistence, which is why we're in this mess in the first place! There is a resistence because our government isn't willing to be the bastards that it would be able to crush the rebellion.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by David Floyd
The point of the 2nd Amendment - JUST LIKE THE REST of the Bill of Rights - was to protect individual liberty against the power of the federal government.

Have you ever read the debates over the Bill of Rights?

[chequita guevara]

If the military refuses to fire on its own people, then we don't need guns.

If the military is willing to fire on its own people, guns won't help us.

BTW, this military has, historically, been willing to fire on its own people.

[Lonestar]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
If the military refuses to fire on its own people, then we don't need guns.

If the military is willing to fire on its own people, guns won't help us.

BTW, this military has, historically, been willing to fire on its own people.

Depends on the situation.

[chequita guevara]

Unarmed students at Kent and Jackson State Univerisites 34 years ago was the last time.

[Straybow]

Originally posted by Provost Harrison
Then they'd just puncture the fuselage and send the plane crashing down randomly over New York

Nope. Bullet holes don't interfere with the flight handling. They're just noisy and annoying for the occupant, who will have to use the drop-down oxygen masks as the pressure drops.

Planes have flown with gaping holes blown in them. One example was a Hawaiian island-hopper that had a twenty-foot section of the roof tear off. One stewardess was lost. Passengers who didn't have their seatbelts on were able to hold on and get the belts fastened without difficulty.

[Straybow]

Originally posted by GePap
BY Africa (yes, a rather loose an incorrect term for this) I mean the endless brush wars and rebel groups and a land awash with cheap ak-47s.

Education and temperment are more important. "Africa" is not "awash" with either education or temperment suited to democracy. Very sad.

[chequita guevara]

Germany and Chile were and see how much good it did either of them.

[Straybow]

Originally posted by Ned
And, what did I say? I said the purpose of the Second Amendment was to provide weapons for the citizen so that they could form military units, also known as militias, to defend the nation. Now, it seems on further inspection, that you agree with me.

Not so. The Constitution addresses the rights of two distinct groups: the States and the People. It's as deep as the bicameral structure of the legislative branch and the electoral college for the executive branch.

The right to a militia respects the States, the right to bear arms respects the People. The two distinct classes of rights cannot be conflated.

[Straybow]

Che, necessary is not "necessary and sufficient." A society with education, temperment, and arms can still fall under dictatorship. That does not void my point, for which you do not have a counter-example.

[chequita guevara]

Japan.

[Ned]

Originally posted by NeOmega


Provide?

I don't see provide in there anywhere.

I see "the right to bear and keep arms, shall not be infringed.

BTW, the founding fathers were educated and intelligent men. They knew, throughout history, governments start on deals and over time they inevitably become corrupt. What they wrote back then, they meant. And they made the right to bear arms #2 for a reason.

Good point on the "provide" angle. That actually was a major cause for the Amendment in the first place -- the fact that the Feds could pass a law saying they would be the sole provider of weapons and then not provide them.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker


What's your point?

The point, K, is that the purpose of the Amendment is to arm citizens in a manner so that they can form military units. The Amendment protects ONLY military weapons, and the Supremes have endorsed this view.

[Ned]

Originally posted by David Floyd
The point of the 2nd Amendment - JUST LIKE THE REST of the Bill of Rights - was to protect individual liberty against the power of the federal government. Nothing more, nothing less. It wasn't to make militias possible, or anything of the sort.

No. The point was to protect the States against Federal Power, not the people.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Joseph
Ted in Ca., the AR-15 is banned, but a 22 auto is not. There is no difference, they are both semiautomatic. It is because the AR-15 is the Civilian version of the M-16.
With a 22 auto Mag and a scope do you know what I coud do?

Joe, the Federal ban on assault weapons was clearly unconstitutional under the Second Amendment as it banned military style weapons. However, a California ban on the same weapons is nominally constitutional unless it interferes with a Federal law or interstate commerce.