06-16-2016, 09:54 PM
(06-16-2016, 12:26 PM)playwrite Wrote:True it's not the 1700's. Our weaponry is far more advanced and deadly. You must assume that the US military would remain loyal and intact. I assume that the military would remain loyal to their own (friends, family and their community or home) and spit accordingly. I don't think the left actually has what it would take to win a war with the right.(06-16-2016, 03:22 AM)Galen Wrote:(06-14-2016, 09:33 AM)pbrower2a Wrote:You might want to look at what an English professor has to say on the language of the Second Amendment. If you had bothered to understand the history of the American Revolution then you would know that it was about making sure that the new government would not have a monopoly on the use of force. Thomas Jefferson was very clear about the purpose of the Second Amendment. It was about the individual being able to defend themselves from the random criminal and an oppressive government. This implies that the citizens must have arms equivalent to the infantry.(06-14-2016, 02:26 AM)Galen Wrote:(06-14-2016, 02:18 AM)taramarie Wrote: Yes while i was typing out my response i was actually thinking Obama says one thing but may be wanting to do something else. I distrust politicians and as i have said elsewhere politicians 99% of the time are telling sweet lies for power. I felt like mentioning that but just going by what i have seen. My thoughts are primarily what i am thinking which may not be based on fact.Someone who just wants to tweak the laws a bit wouldn't keep harping on the subject so much. I always like to pay more attention to what they do than what they say. It is one of my many tricks for spotting lies.
The Second Amendment provides for states to have their own militias (National Guard, state police).
And what is really bizarre about that notion is you and your militia buddies would last about 3 minutes against a platoon of Army troops, much less against a couple of Marines. This isn't the late 1700s.