Repeal the 2nd Amendment

[Sensual Boy by Klaus]

I like my guns the way I like my cologne: classy

Give me a 6-shooter, and I am the happiest man in the world.

Repealing the Second Amendment is just wrong. I believe most other pro-gun people here already covered why the US populace being armed is a good thing, and that taking away people's guns would be tyrannical.

[Wikkiwallana]

the day we repeal the second amendment is the day all these tyrants or some shit come in and take over the country.
Lets say North Korea takes over the United States and succeeds. All the Civialians are running amock trying to hide from the Koreans.
What can the people do without guns? They cant win if they dont have guns. Would you rather have a freedoms but many deaths, or no freedom and millions of deaths?

Point made.

are you trying to make fun of the pro-gun people on here?

Given that he has the dumb as shit Paul "occupation" video in his sig, I'm thinking he actually believes that nonsense.

[Not Safe For Work]

foreign army who is probably crippled beyond belief

Massive speculation. Not worth entertaining in the scenario.

from the war it just had with a superpower has to deal with a massive insurgency

Massive speculation. Not worth entertaining in the scenario.

that has probably gotten its hands on its militarys advanced military hardware

Not just speculative, but silly. Not worth entertaining in the scenario.

(Javelines anyone?) they would be retarded to try to fight the insurgency

On the contrary, stamping the 'insurgency' (if there even was one) would be a priority.

civil war? military defects to the civilians after enough deaths.

We've had one. That didn't happen.

[Wikkiwallana]

Here's the simple problem, you take away guns, people use swords, take away swords, they use steak knives, take away steak knives...it all ends with violence using hands[choking someone for instance]. Now, would you rather die [in a homicide situation] over the course of six agonizing minutes [choking] or within 2 seconds [bullet to the head]?

Considering with the proper technique you can kill someone with your hands almost as fast as with a gun I think the point is somewhat moot.

Source? And can your hands do the killing while you are at a safe distance from retaliation?

[North Calaveras]

foreign army who is probably crippled beyond belief

Massive speculation. Not worth entertaining in the scenario.

from the war it just had with a superpower has to deal with a massive insurgency

Massive speculation. Not worth entertaining in the scenario.

that has probably gotten its hands on its militarys advanced military hardware

Not just speculative, but silly. Not worth entertaining in the scenario.

(Javelines anyone?) they would be retarded to try to fight the insurgency

On the contrary, stamping the 'insurgency' (if there even was one) would be a priority.

civil war? military defects to the civilians after enough deaths.

We've had one. That didn't happen.

so its just speculation that a foreign army occupying a country with insurgents didn't suffer terrible fatigue from the defending forces before fighting the insurgency...yeah totally not relavent to the scenario...

[Transhuman Proteus]

You shouldn't be having this discussion if this is something you don't know.



Either. Modern militaries versus survivalists. Totally asymmetric.

foreign army who is probably crippled beyond belief from the war it just had with a superpower has to deal with a massive insurgency that has probably gotten its hands on its militarys advanced military hardware(Javelines anyone?) they would be retarded to try to fight the insurgency

civil war? military defects to the civilians after enough deaths.

Lol. I'd be inclined to say your besmirching the honor and ability of the US military there.

Or just vastly overestimating the ability of average Joes with some guns.

[North Calaveras]

foreign army who is probably crippled beyond belief from the war it just had with a superpower has to deal with a massive insurgency that has probably gotten its hands on its militarys advanced military hardware(Javelines anyone?) they would be retarded to try to fight the insurgency

civil war? military defects to the civilians after enough deaths.

Lol. I'd be inclined to say your besmirching the honor and ability of the US military there.

Or just vastly overestimating the ability of average Joes with some guns.

im not overestimating anyone, they might very well lose, but people here seem to think civilians can't overthrow a occupation(which is absolute bullshit)

[Not Safe For Work]

again...how do you know this, and what situation are they in? foreign army or civil war?

The hypothetical, since it was introduced, has been foreign army.

Fortunately, it doesn't really matter. The only real difference is that, if our own civilians and our own government are at war with one another, our own military doesn't need to 'occupy' us - they're already here.

[Hathradic States]

foreign army who is probably crippled beyond belief from the war it just had with a superpower has to deal with a massive insurgency that has probably gotten its hands on its militarys advanced military hardware(Javelines anyone?) they would be retarded to try to fight the insurgency

civil war? military defects to the civilians after enough deaths.

Lol. I'd be inclined to say your besmirching the honor and ability of the US military there.

Or just vastly overestimating the ability of average Joes with some guns.

I am inclined to tihnk that he is refering to them defecting after enough civilian deaths.

[North Calaveras]

The hypothetical, since it was introduced, has been foreign army.

Fortunately, it doesn't really matter. The only real difference is that, if our own civilians and our own government are at war with one another, our own military doesn't need to 'occupy' us - they're already here.

true, but you have the fact in situation two they might have realtives in the rebellion

[Yes Im Biop]

AT least 7 i know that much.

My point is, which do you think there are more of: civilian owned anti-tank weapons or military owned tanks in a force strong enough to have already beaten the US military and reached US soil?

Gang's. Big ones would have all manner of hardware. Mercenary groups for hire (They are making nice dough in Chicago now) And like someone said above. If someone pushed back the US military. They would be faced by every big city gang. And they don't have rules.

[Sardine World]

are you trying to make fun of the pro-gun people on here?

Given that he has the dumb as shit Paul "occupation" video in his sig, I'm thinking he actually believes that nonsense.

repeal the second amendment and see what happens
obviously that would settle the argument

[Wikkiwallana]

I'm aware of how mountainous the US can be. But there are more plains than mountains.

so? the american plains don't have that much population anyways, most of it is east/west coasts which do have lots of forests, i would hate having to fight an insurgent army hiding in the foothills of california or the sierra nevada.

Which is why the plains would be quickly taken over, cutting the eastern and western resistances off from each other, and making smuggling all the more difficult.

[Vallermoore]

If you make guns illegal, most of those disarmed will be good guys. What if that maniac in the cinema had been shot quickly as soon as he started shooting by a legal gun owner?Would you still want to disarm the people?

[North Calaveras]

so? the american plains don't have that much population anyways, most of it is east/west coasts which do have lots of forests, i would hate having to fight an insurgent army hiding in the foothills of california or the sierra nevada.

Which is why the plains would be quickly taken over, cutting the eastern and western resistances off from each other, and making smuggling all the more difficult.

im not even sure our own military is big enough to occupy the US lol

[Not Safe For Work]

so its just speculation that a foreign army occupying a country with insurgents didn't suffer terrible fatigue from the defending forces before fighting the insurgency...yeah totally not relavent to the scenario...

No, I'm saying it's pure speculation that the modern army these survivalists are resisting is going to be 'crippled beyond belief' or fighting a 'massive insurgency' or facing a foe utilizing 'advanced military hardware'.

I'm not saying that occupying armies don't suffer fatigue. You basically completely failed to actually address... anything.

[Whipporwill]

guns are bad, goyim! oy vey!

[Hathradic States]

We've had one. That didn't happen.

We've never had a civil war in this country.

[Wikkiwallana]

Its called smuggling, genious. And its as easy as you think, and its been done during the Afghan war with the Soviets.

Because the circumstances there are sufficiently replicable in the US to allow that to work. You'll be attacked by soviets (with all the applicable corruption, mismanagement etc that brought), aided by a US level nation, and have vast cave systems and inhospitable terrain to aid you in hiding your stolen aircraft and tanks.

I'm sorry, I suck at detecting sarcasm. Are you being serious and agreeing with him, or sarcastic and agreeing with me?

[Not Safe For Work]

Fortunately, it doesn't really matter. The only real difference is that, if our own civilians and our own government are at war with one another, our own military doesn't need to 'occupy' us - they're already here.

true, but you have the fact in situation two they might have realtives in the rebellion

They might. And historically, the way to deal with that 'problem' is to give your soldiers really good food and stuff.

[Not Safe For Work]

Which is why the plains would be quickly taken over, cutting the eastern and western resistances off from each other, and making smuggling all the more difficult.

im not even sure our own military is big enough to occupy the US lol

They don't actually need to garrison troops in every house, any more.

[Arkinesia]

Tenth Amendment.

Banning firearms in individual states would be an overstep into federal authority, thus violating the Tenth Amendment.

Uh, he just proposed letting the states do it, did you even read the post?

States can't do anything covered by federal authority. They can have differing regulations but they can't, for instance, take over immigration enforcement, or outright ban firearms. Those are two powers enumerated only to the federal government.

[Drekka]

Which is why the plains would be quickly taken over, cutting the eastern and western resistances off from each other, and making smuggling all the more difficult.

im not even sure our own military is big enough to occupy the US lol

Yea. It would be really difficult for
Each soldier to control 400-ish people
each

[Chernoslavia]

The NRA can talk all they want about how "guns don't kill people ... people kill people" but at the end of the day if the guns weren't manufactured in the first place, the point would be moot.

Since no court seems willing to put a logical legal interpretation on the 2nd amendment to the US Constitution, it should just be outright appealed.

In every tragedy there is a silver lining - and if this Colorado shooting catastrophe brings us any closer to banning recreational ownership of assault rifles and handguns in the US, then maybe something can come of it.

It's just too easy to get a hold of a gun.

I just knew someone would bring this up. One guy shooting a bunch of folks with weapons not meant for personal defense doesn't mean all personal firearms should be banned

Agreed, and no type of firearm should be banned at all.

[Wikkiwallana]

My point is, which do you think there are more of: civilian owned anti-tank weapons or military owned tanks in a force strong enough to have already beaten the US military and reached US soil?

Gang's. Big ones would have all manner of hardware. Mercenary groups for hire (They are making nice dough in Chicago now) And like someone said above. If someone pushed back the US military. They would be faced by every big city gang. And they don't have rules.

Do gangs have anti-aircraft weaponry? Could they put their fights with each other on hold long enough to present an organized resistance to invasion, or would they be too busy capitalizing on the chaos and lack of law enforcement to try to thin the competition? And how did the ones in coastal cities survive the shellings?