PsyOps
Pixelated
A tank is no more dangerous than an AR in the hands of a law abiding person.
A "Well Regulated Militia" .....
- Thread starter nhboy
- Start date
A tank is no more dangerous than an AR in the hands of a law abiding person.
TheLibertonian
New Member
Law abiding people can be very, very stupid.
PsyOps
Pixelated
The old presumption of guilt excuse for gun control.
TheLibertonian
New Member
It's not a presumption of guilt. It's a presumption that it's unnecessary for a private citizen to own a nuclear warhead, or a tank, or a bomb.
Imagine for half a second what would the situation be if say, the militia who took over that bird refuge had a tank.
You want to fear the government using the army to oppress people? How little excuse wold it take to deploy them against militias armed with tanks, rocket launchers, and jets.
No I'm not.
Something we had the inalienable right to be.
We'd be a lot more evenly matched. Which is exactly the situation the founders specifically wanted to promote, oddly enough. How about that?
"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops."
- Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, October 10, 1787
"What, Sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty .... Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins."
- Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, I Annals of Congress 750, August 17, 1789
"A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves…and include, according to the past and general usuage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms… "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them."
- Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1788
Last edited:
This_person
Well-Known Member
You're suggesting that the only reason the government only oppresses us as much as they do is they know they can EVEN MORE in the future because they know we can't fight back, right?
TheLibertonian
New Member
No, I'm suggesting that giving them an excuse is a bad thing. We can justify small arms. If every militia group starts throwing tanks around the only answer is more tanks, which means using the military as a police force, which we don't want.
Once again, your suggesting a system that will lead to anarchy and the rise of a warlord economy where the richest people own private armies that they can fight the government with and rule over the rest of us.
Last edited:
Yep, that is exactly what he is suggesting...and exactly what the framers had hoped to prevent.
This_person
Well-Known Member
WE, the PEOPLE are the private army. That's the whole point.
We can justify small arms through nukes, in my opinion. The reason for the second amendment is to fight against enemies foreign and domestic, thus the people are to be capable of being armed to the point of the government's arms.
TheLibertonian
New Member
I can't wait for the corporations to decide to overthrow the government and turn is into a serfdom.
Amazing how you keep advocating for that, for the rich to rule of us. Of course now you're talking about via force of arms.
This_person
Well-Known Member
What the hell are you talking about?
I am suggesting the people be armed. What does that have to do with corporations or "the rich"? (Please define who is "rich")
TheLibertonian
New Member
Corporations are people.
A corporate entity, given free access to all arms, can build a base, train an army, and attack the country.
Of course since every neo-nazi, neo-communist, and other hate group would also be stocking up on high grade weapons and nuclear arms as they could afford then a city or two will probably be reduced to ash well before that point.
DC, for example.
But hey, we can['t presume the fascist and the soviets want to overthrow our government so we couldn't ask what they planned to do with the nuke. I mean, what business is it of ours if they load it into regular unmarked van (bought legally) and detonated it in DC?
This_person
Well-Known Member
Yes, freedom is risky. What's your point?
Actually, we can assume they do. That's what we have an army for (enemies, foreign and domestic) and a population that is armed to protect against.
PsyOps
Pixelated
Who are you to decide what is necessary for me? You trust such weapons more in the hands of government? The law abiding citizen has tolerated far more abuse from our own government than the government has suffered at the hands of the people. Think about that for a while.
Whatever you smoke every day...it's some killer chit.
*cough* *cough*..come on..pass that thing.
BTW..many corporations have built army's that possessed an impressive array of weaponry. That Prince fella, and Blackwater, for example...
The main thing would be - *why* - because while toppling banana republics and running black ops is one thing, it costs serious bucks to maintain a large military - and corporations are in it for the bucks.