It's the Bill of Rights, Stupid (not the Bill of Needs): A study in Meme...
It always happens. After a tragic incident with a firearm, the Gun Control crowd begin foaming at the mouth. The brass had not even cooled this Sunday after the tragic mass killing in a church in Texas when the mamby pamby snowflakes began crying about gun control. And the arguments are always the same. You don't need a semi-automatic weapon, You don't need a magazine with more than 3, 5, 8, 10 rounds (take your pick), The 2nd Amendment only applied to flintlocks, If we could save just one life...and on and on.
This picture isn't a meme. It was taken outside a strip mall in Ferguson MO, during the Ferguson riots. The strip mall suffered no damage. Because these guys were there, with ARs, with 30 round magazines.
Gun grabbers like to laugh at the notion that people need semi-automatic firearms to protect against a corrupt government. It's the same old tired excuse that the government has tanks, and grenades, and other weapons we citizens don't have access too. But the fact is, citizens in this country have already fought a corrupt government. A history the gun grabbers don't want to learn about. But it's there. And frankly, history has shown us what happens when a populace is disarmed.
Just the other day I was told that the founding fathers would probably have written the 2nd amendment differently if they had know what type of weapons we had available today. The underlying argument is the old "2nd Amendment applies to flintlocks only" argument. Hogwash!
The Supreme Court has ruled on just about every form of modern technology as it applies to the Constitution. Not just to the 1st Amendment, but also the 4th, 5th, and 14th. And with the Heller decision, it has ruled on the 2nd. If you still think it only applies to flintlocks, I look forward to greeting the Post rider with your quill and parchment argument.
Statistically, semi-auto weapons account for a very small percentage of firearm deaths. But that doesn't stop the gun control snowflakes from arguing that they need to be banned. Because, it's always the fault of the gun.
Lately I've heard the argument that guns are only made to kill people. That's fallacious reasoning. The purpose of a gun is to discharge an object in an accurate flight. Kind of like the purpose of a car is to move from point a to point b. Both can be used to kill people.
I always hear the argument that cars and trucks are regulated by the government, and anyone who wants to drive must have a license. So why shouldn't we make everyone who wants to own a gun get a license? Simple. Driving a care is not a Constitutionally protected RIGHT. Owning a firearm is.
The gun grabbers have now tried to soften their arguments. They're attempting to appeal to a notion of "Sensible Gun Control". That's a lie. Adding more laws will not stop criminals.
I picked these next two memes carefully. You see, when the terrorist attacks occurred in France, you didn't see a bunch of French citizens screaming for gun control. Because, well, they already have some pretty stiff gun control laws. And yet, it didn't stop these terrorists from killing many people. The French didn't blame the gun. They blamed the terrorists.
And Terrorists don't need guns to kill us. Trucks. Truck bombs. It's not about the gun, it's about the hate.
I used to argue with the gun grabbers about all of these. I used to lay out statistics to show that their fear of guns was misplaced. I used to explain specific situations that many, many people across the US face where a semi-automatic firearm, with a magazine of 30 rounds was EXACTLY what was needed. I used to. I don't any more. Because it doesn't matter that my arguments are backed up with statistics and facts. Nothing is going to change the minds of the snowflake sheeple who think the police are the only ones who need guns.
It was in fact a Liberal gun owner who showed me the light in arguing about gun control. None of the statistics matter. None of the facts matter. I'm not going to change your mind. But I don't care. It's called the Bill of Rights. And it has many SCOTUS rulings that support it as an individual right.
Tags
Who is online
72 visitors
You need to tell that to the Afghani's how bout the Vietnamese? Look at what those pesky Afghani's did to the mighty Red Army?
which they certainly were.....
You think this nation is any different that Afghanistan or Vietnam?
If you do, I got news for ya.....
IMO, the thought that the US Military would revolt against the government is pretty far fetched. And that a group of militia could defeat them is right out of ''Red Dawn''...
Let's get back to reality.
I don't think we would have to worry about that. I'm pretty sure that the leadership of our military today would have serious problems fighting on our own soil, against our own people. IN fact, I'm rather confident that if it got that bad, they themselves would realize the government had gone rogue, and would either step aside, or act to stop it themselves.
You mean my Super Soaker won't defeat the US Military.
Can a soldier go against his or hers own family?
E.A err with the " Right Ingredient " is can Indeed,,, Shhs keep This Quite :-)
It depends on what you mean by the government ''going rogue''....An armed coup is high treason.
It will the Air Force. Less effective against the Navy.
Depends on if they win or lose. Lose, and it's treason. Win, and it's a Revolution.
If they win, which I seriously doubt then what you have is a military junta running the country. That is not something in anyone's best interest.
You're reading too much into my comment Kavika. I'm not saying a military coup would be the first thing that happens. What I'm saying is, if our government ever got to the tyrannical point that the reason for the 2nd Amendment would be necessary, I'm confident the military leadership would not support such a government.
I don't think I'm reading to much into it Bruce. If the government got to tyrannical the military wouldn't support it...What would they do, armed insurrection, coup, sit it out on the sidelines, go on strike.
None of those options are a good idea in our form of government.
I don't think I'm reading to much into it Bruce. If the government got to tyrannical the military wouldn't support it...What would they do, armed insurrection, coup, sit it out on the sidelines, go on strike.
They would look to history to tell them what was appropriate. and what would come to the fore would be the example of Phil Sheridan.
Col Sheridan was the Commandant of West Point at the start of the war. when the actual firing started, he formed the corps of cadets on the field and made an announcement. All cadets that felt that they could not serve the nation in this time of rebellion, that felt that their loyalties would be elsewhere, were dismissed from duty with the proviso that their resignations be on his desk by the end of the day.
It was all done respectfully and peacefully as military doctrine demanded.
47% of the corps of cadets resigned as did 67 % of his staff.
AS far as the enlisted men, those who felt they could not serve in such an army would just not show up for duty, the senior NCO's would also resign.
That's how it happened at the start of the Civil War. and would probably be the way it would be handled in the event the government decided that it needed to take military actions against the citizenry.
Not all soldiers would support such a government. and, lets not forget all those retired folk out there. Already trained and prepared.... (probably holding most of the guns also)
And that does not count the numerous citizens, who maybe not having any formal training on military operations, would be very willing to learn on the job.... After all, that is what a militia is, isn't it?
They wouldn't go on strike nor just sit on the sidelines, they would make a choice, hell, they would be forced to make a choice.
None of those options are a good idea in our form of government.
Agreed, it wasn't in 1861, and it wouldn't be today either. but another thing history teaches us from that debacle in 1861, the nation will survive.....
One way or the other.....
But, it will cease to be divided.....
why is trump surrounded by generals?
the left likes to think trump is being "restrained/controlled" by those generals, which is simply too funny for words.
those generals are supporting/protecting trump while the republic is restored and the liberal world order is destroyed.
people who love their country enough to die for it do not turn around and suddenly start attacking their own country.
80% of the military will walk away if given illegal orders.... it is kind of hard to fly a bomber without a ground crew.
anyone who has been in a combat unit knows - we most certainly will.
This isn't 1861 and West Point isn't a decision making force. Our military is spread all over the world and numbers in the millions. We also have the National Guard.
The JCS, if anyone was to make a decision it would be them. Military doctrine states protect from all enemies, both foreign and domestic. That is very clear and attempting a coup or what ever you want to call it would be treason. Plain and simple.
As for the retired military and citizens out there with weapons I find that to be foolish. Playing soldier is a pipe dream. Being a highly trained solider, Marine, Air Force or Naval personal is a whole different story then being a civilian with a rifle.
And yes the Nation would survive. The division in the 60's and 70's was, IMO, much worse then it today and we survived without a military conflict.
I have been in a combat unit, and in a actual war, and no we won't.
The last time the US military numbered in the millions was 1990, 2,043,705 it has been a million something ever since. (currently about 1.25 million all branches)
The last time the ground forces (Army plus Marines) was over a million was 1972, 1,009,198.
The last time the Army was over a million was in 1971, 1,123,810.
Current force levels are, (as of 2014 three years ago) Army, 515,888; Navy, 319,120; Marines, 192,787; Air Force, 326,259; total overall not counting President Obama's force reductions in 2015-16, 1,354,054.
The US military does not number in the millions and hasn't for several decades. In fact we are at the lowest force level since the start of WWII. And those levels are maintained by the placing on active status all reserve units, the actual numbers on active duty are considerably smaller......
Our technology makes us the most potent military in the world, but we do not have the active forces to fight a prolonged war. That is assuming of course that the Soldier, Sailor or Marine is a robot and will execute any order given.....
Their duty is to execute only lawful orders.....
Ask William Calley about that one.
And before anyone gets their panties in a bunch on where I got the data from,
U.S. Military Personnel 1954-2014 ; by David Coleman
Closing the article to comments. Going to bed. Be back this evening.
Great art gallery. Thanks for putting this together.
This article is now re-opened for comment.
E.A HEYYY!!! Wait a Minute~!!!!
Next things WE know you be putting a PHOTO of YOU in Nappies!!! CUT that OUT!
Just the other day I was told that the founding fathers would probably have written the 2nd amendment differently if they had know what type of weapons we had available today.
If they knew what passed for news today, they might change the 1st first.
'Well regulated' militia. That was written in.
"Shall not be infringed." That was written in.