the founding fathers had people who owned and operated there own battleships . i should have access to what ever the government is willing to use on its own people .
Canada is right nearby, and they don't have pesky things like the First Amendment. Go there. They also have a far more effeminate prime minister than Margaret Thatcher.
All they have to do is live in another country, hell just live in a shitty neighborhood for five minutes, and you'll see why you need the second amendment.
The only person who gets to decide how I defend my castle is me. No one else gets to tell me how or with what to defend it. It’s my castle and I, and only I, will decide what tool(s) is appropriate for the defense of it.
These people will never understand that when they argue against the second amendment they are actually shitting all over Big R God given human rights. It is a human rights issue for gods sake.
Technically but you need a special license I think and supervision for that so the average militiaman would be SOL thanks to unconstitutional horseshit.
The entire point of the 2nd amendment is to facilitate insurrections capable of toppling the government.
This is the problem with leftists. They simply cannot fathom that the constitution exist to protect the people from the government rather than the other way around. Leftists expect the people to be subordinate to government, like they are in communist shitholes. They don't understand the concept of the government being subordinate to the people.
That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness
I disagree. He should've weaponized his base, and set them loose if the intent was to remove deep rooted corruption. The surgical bullshit this board expected is nothing but fantasy. Revolution is violent, ugly, and bloody.
They’re for propelling a projectile in the direction they’re aimed. In the case of firearms, that projectile is a bullet. It’s a purpose built tool. What good, and evil people choose to use it for is on them, but yes, sometimes guns are used for shooting people, and rightfully so.
No, they are certainly for killing other people. They were originally designed to kill people, and for the most part their modern design is around the most effective and efficient way of killing people.
Shying away from this is pointless and does more harm than good. People need to be comfortable with the fact that, when they buy a weapon (especially an AR15, AK47, or handgun) its to give themselves an advantage over other humans.
“No, they are certainly for killing other people. They were originally designed to kill people, and for the most part their modern design is around the most effective and efficient way of killing people.”
I disagree. 🤷🏼♂️
“Shying away from this is pointless and does more harm than good. People need to be comfortable with the fact that, when they buy a weapon (especially an AR15, AK47, or handgun) its to give themselves an advantage over other humans.”
I’m not shying away from anything. Had you said “shying away from what the tool has been, and is continued to be used for often times is pointless, and does more harm than good”, I probably would agree, but I do not agree with your original statement/wording.
“People need to be comfortable with the fact that, when they buy a weapon (especially an AR15, AK47, or handgun) its to give themselves an advantage over other humans.”
I don’t necessarily agree with this either. I will say that when anyone is in fear for their life/bodily harm they will grab, and use the best tool they have at their immediate disposal. That could be anything that evens the odds and/or gives them an advantage, including, but not limited to, a steel toe boot, a hammer(any blunt object), a knife(any sharp object), a vehicle, and yes, even a gun. I would also argue that depending on the situation, and number of attackers, present, there are much better defensive/offensive tools to defend one’s life with while also stopping a threat and/or killing them. I could go into multiple examples, and explain why, but I’m sure you can use your imagination, and figure it out.
This is a great discussion fren. God speed fellow pede.
I mean, you can disagree all you want. The hand cannon and fire lance were literally designed with war in mind, and were intended to not only scare the shit out of their enemies but to also kill and maim them through explosive power and shrapnel/debris. They sure as shit weren't designed to kill fucking deer.
Also, firearms are the most efficient means of dispatching an enemy, with the only real situation where this isn't the case being a foe who is so close one cannot actually maneuver their firearm to pose a threat. Also, the availability of other means of defense has nothing to do with the overall purpose of firearms in the place, which is to kill people. The founders wrote the second amendment with this in mind, modern firearms are almost universally designed with this is mind, and your most popular firearms platforms have been designed with this in mind.
Coyotes and hogs are best hunted with AR platform rifles. Not that it matters but the AR is a hunting rifle. 6.5 Creedmoor can be used to hunt almost any medium to large game in North America.
You realize I referred to it as a platform and also mentioned an uncommon caliber of the AR-10(6.5 Creed)?
5.56 is good for hunting hogs and stuff like coyotes. So the most generic straight up AR people think of is indeed used for hunting. Plus the modularity of the weapon system allows for a wide range of applications ranging from .22lr to .50 cal. Add in all the abilities to attach accessories and it's easily the most useful rifle available to Americans.
I like you! Just figured you were a normie when it came to guns (look at the bs we see online every day). When I went hog hunting in TX, I preferred a 300 blackout upper since it has a bit more knock down power compared to the 5.56 or 223, but effective range was a bit limited. Since the inception of the new big game rounds developed, I have taken a liking to my 350 legend as it has some umph while not much more recoil than a 223, and bullets are fairly cheap (and available) for a larger caliber. 450 is another hole puncher, but the recoil and sound report is ridiculous and seems to have more cycling problems. Of course, the 223 or 556 nato has a extended range, but through a typical AR barrel it isn't too much farther when it come to precision for a typical shooter.
Love the 6.5 in a bolt for extended range shooting as it puts my old Savage 270 to shame.
My biggest issue lately is lack of ammo in general. Hard to find powder to even reload in these parts. Reverted back to the old 220 swift for smacking the yotes since I don't feel like burning through my other ammo stache at the moment.
I am not an expert on all the different cartridges but I do want to build a 300 BLK myself. I will have to look into the 350 legend for sure, don't know much about it. The AR system has a lot of different flavors and a lot to learn. It's fun though.
It's even easier when it's in your own backyard. They can't get away with the level of collateral damage considered acceptable when fighting rebels overseas.
This is why the response to the capital protest pisses me off so much. They basically told us we aren’t ALLOWED to revolt against our own government and take it back, even though it’s in our freaking constitution.
"..what do you need this for?" Overthrowing tyrannical governments. You need only look at the personal correspondence of the founding fathers to see what they meant.
Yep, and I was flamed by family for even mentioning the Battle of Athens (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Athens_(1946)), where returning GI’s literally laid siege to the county jail to ensure free and fair elections in their county. None of the GI’s were prosecuted.
This is one of the core ethos of America. Either you are on board with this or you are not really an American, regardless of what your birth certificate or passport says.
Failed to represent them is accurate. So many people wrongfully call politicians "our leaders" no, they are our elected representatives. They are not our leaders.
The Capital Building was literally designed to be scaled and climbed. Why do you think the base walls are literally a ladder.
The second amendment is for the security of a free state. Guns are used to combat crime, provide food for your family (hunting), and to topple a tyrannical government. Hunting can provide security (food), but it's not the primary purpose. Also, I don't NEED a gun anymore than you need a fucking iPhone or a fancy car. I'm a free citizen so I'm allowed to own whatever kind of property I want. People like this can get fucked.
Women are highly socialistic and easily manipulated. That is why cults target them specifically. That is also why businesses target women. Women bring in the men.
The founding fathers never put a limit on gun ownership because their intention was for people to have a general right to own them no matter what the reason, whether it's hunting or self defense, it doesn't even require a reason. The right doesn't say "you can own guns for X purpose", which means it was intended as no reason needed to be given.
And they also clearly meant for guns to be a right especially to keep from hostile takeovers. Imagine if guns were banned when we were still fighting England. We wouldn't have been able to form militia's, regular citizens wouldn't have been able to fight back. Gun ownership as a right was to ensure that no entity, foreign or domestic, could subjugate the citizenry.
They also clearly made it a hard coded right, to keep government from removing it, regardless of the governments intentions. The founding fathers were well aware of the possibility that without it established as a right, that the government could easily pass laws to ban guns. Which means they fully intended for there to be ZERO limits on gun ownership, and wrote that with the future in mind. They knew guns would get more advanced, they had already seen it themselves. So they knew there was an evolution of gun, yet made no distinction or time limit on that right, which means they fully accepted the right would extend to the evolution of guns.
Furthermore, the founding fathers clearly intended that any amendment of rights were meant to only be added to in their scope, not removed or whittled down. So their interpretations can only be expanded upon, not shrunken. A good example is free speech on the internet. That's an expansion of the scope of rights the government has to accept when argued.
No matter how many dirty politicians and dirty lawyers try to argue against the scope of rights, there's no way to square it up,, the founding fathers were clear, which is exactly why they have to use all of these mental gymnastics to try to just make these limitations a seemingly long term established precedent, so they can use that precedent to overshadow the original intent.
We need to dismantle gun control and all participate in civil disobedience as a warning to our new tyrannical foreign occupation. This will be harder said than done as I personally know some people signaling a cucking in law enforcement.
Enough of this argument it's not persuasive whatsoever. You're just patting each other on the back.
"The poorest and most vulnerable need to be able to protect themselves, in particular women and minorities who are not being helped, or actively harmed by, their police."
the founding fathers had people who owned and operated there own battleships . i should have access to what ever the government is willing to use on its own people .
Sure it is. A tyrant hunting license.
Do you need a tag or is it open season?
The season is only every 244 years...
According to Jefferson, it’s more like whenever the fuck you want.
the founding fathers had people who owned and operated there own battleships . i should have access to what ever the government is willing to use on its own people .
The second american revolution was a failure, and the winners called it a civil war over slavery.
Open season for sure. Probably some pay for large volume pest removal.
They are viewed as invasive pests for the ecosystem so it’s encouraged
Like feral hog, rats, venemous snakes, and nutria
Starlings are also a good comparison. Flock together in weak, noisy batches, stealing our crops and devastating our land.
Open all four seasons.
You need a tag.
I was about to say something like this
Me, too.
This guy... this guy is knows what's up.
That’s what Boebert said, Godluv’er!
You also need a gun for when an angry mob tries to burn down your home or business.
I hear people saying "Why does a normal person need an automatic weapon?" When you're facing an angry mob of 100 people, that's when.
Exactly. If they don’t like what the text of the constitution says then they’re living in the wrong country.
Canada is right nearby, and they don't have pesky things like the First Amendment. Go there. They also have a far more effeminate prime minister than Margaret Thatcher.
We could work out an exchange program where we take you and Canada takes all of our communist.
IMO Canada is lost, but Godspeed.
Whatever you think of Thatcher, she was no wuss. Hardassed bitch from hell.
The Iron Lady for sure. She had zero patience for Commies.
All they have to do is live in another country, hell just live in a shitty neighborhood for five minutes, and you'll see why you need the second amendment.
Don’t even engage them with that rhetoric.
The truth of the matter is this:
The only person who gets to decide how I defend my castle is me. No one else gets to tell me how or with what to defend it. It’s my castle and I, and only I, will decide what tool(s) is appropriate for the defense of it.
These people will never understand that when they argue against the second amendment they are actually shitting all over Big R God given human rights. It is a human rights issue for gods sake.
TIL
Rick Dalton spoiled it for everyone.
which is why propane powered "not a flamethrower" with high pressure nozzles are a thing ;)
I thought you used canister shot for that...
Full auto, grenades, canister shells, napalm, all fun options.
You can buy grenades?
Technically but you need a special license I think and supervision for that so the average militiaman would be SOL thanks to unconstitutional horseshit.
Because history is 100% crystal clear. All governments fail. ALL OF THEM. It is wise to have a gun when it does.
Exactly all it takes is just ONE overbearing government and the whole things comes down.
People like this Know fuck all about American history. SAD!
Thank a teacher today!
The entire point of the 2nd amendment is to facilitate insurrections capable of toppling the government.
This is the problem with leftists. They simply cannot fathom that the constitution exist to protect the people from the government rather than the other way around. Leftists expect the people to be subordinate to government, like they are in communist shitholes. They don't understand the concept of the government being subordinate to the people.
Jan 6th proved beyond doubt that 99% of Republican politicians (including Ted Cruz) are Leftists.
But isn't the whole idea of democracy that the Government is representative of the people? It IS the people.
The Roman's feared the mob the most. Look at how well the French revolution went! Everyone's head rolled even the ppl who started it.
If you read our declaration of independence it's all about flipping the bird to a government that no longer represents you
That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness
Republic
Many not any tune.
I disagree. He should've weaponized his base, and set them loose if the intent was to remove deep rooted corruption. The surgical bullshit this board expected is nothing but fantasy. Revolution is violent, ugly, and bloody.
Then topple them too. If we can topple a government that has killed hundreds of millions, then we take out a few pesky state governments.
That’s the best laugh I’ve had in a while.
The proper response to this is this:
https://archive.org/details/TheGulagArchipelago/Solzhenitzyn_-_Gulag_Archiepelago_-_001-104.mp3
Awesome!
I literally just bought this book last week
Guns are for shooting people. Sometimes bad guys need shot.
They’re for propelling a projectile in the direction they’re aimed. In the case of firearms, that projectile is a bullet. It’s a purpose built tool. What good, and evil people choose to use it for is on them, but yes, sometimes guns are used for shooting people, and rightfully so.
No, they are certainly for killing other people. They were originally designed to kill people, and for the most part their modern design is around the most effective and efficient way of killing people.
Shying away from this is pointless and does more harm than good. People need to be comfortable with the fact that, when they buy a weapon (especially an AR15, AK47, or handgun) its to give themselves an advantage over other humans.
“No, they are certainly for killing other people. They were originally designed to kill people, and for the most part their modern design is around the most effective and efficient way of killing people.”
I disagree. 🤷🏼♂️
“Shying away from this is pointless and does more harm than good. People need to be comfortable with the fact that, when they buy a weapon (especially an AR15, AK47, or handgun) its to give themselves an advantage over other humans.”
I’m not shying away from anything. Had you said “shying away from what the tool has been, and is continued to be used for often times is pointless, and does more harm than good”, I probably would agree, but I do not agree with your original statement/wording.
“People need to be comfortable with the fact that, when they buy a weapon (especially an AR15, AK47, or handgun) its to give themselves an advantage over other humans.”
I don’t necessarily agree with this either. I will say that when anyone is in fear for their life/bodily harm they will grab, and use the best tool they have at their immediate disposal. That could be anything that evens the odds and/or gives them an advantage, including, but not limited to, a steel toe boot, a hammer(any blunt object), a knife(any sharp object), a vehicle, and yes, even a gun. I would also argue that depending on the situation, and number of attackers, present, there are much better defensive/offensive tools to defend one’s life with while also stopping a threat and/or killing them. I could go into multiple examples, and explain why, but I’m sure you can use your imagination, and figure it out.
This is a great discussion fren. God speed fellow pede.
I mean, you can disagree all you want. The hand cannon and fire lance were literally designed with war in mind, and were intended to not only scare the shit out of their enemies but to also kill and maim them through explosive power and shrapnel/debris. They sure as shit weren't designed to kill fucking deer.
Also, firearms are the most efficient means of dispatching an enemy, with the only real situation where this isn't the case being a foe who is so close one cannot actually maneuver their firearm to pose a threat. Also, the availability of other means of defense has nothing to do with the overall purpose of firearms in the place, which is to kill people. The founders wrote the second amendment with this in mind, modern firearms are almost universally designed with this is mind, and your most popular firearms platforms have been designed with this in mind.
“Imean, you can disagree all you want.”
I know, that’s why I did it. 😁
Coyotes and hogs are best hunted with AR platform rifles. Not that it matters but the AR is a hunting rifle. 6.5 Creedmoor can be used to hunt almost any medium to large game in North America.
Also the 2nd Amendment is not for hunting.
I would also like to throw in the AR can be whatever you want it to be since it is so modular
Because I don’t have an AR
Because I don’t have 10 guns
This is the way.....
You realize AR is a platform and not a caliber, right?
You realize I referred to it as a platform and also mentioned an uncommon caliber of the AR-10(6.5 Creed)?
5.56 is good for hunting hogs and stuff like coyotes. So the most generic straight up AR people think of is indeed used for hunting. Plus the modularity of the weapon system allows for a wide range of applications ranging from .22lr to .50 cal. Add in all the abilities to attach accessories and it's easily the most useful rifle available to Americans.
I like you! Just figured you were a normie when it came to guns (look at the bs we see online every day). When I went hog hunting in TX, I preferred a 300 blackout upper since it has a bit more knock down power compared to the 5.56 or 223, but effective range was a bit limited. Since the inception of the new big game rounds developed, I have taken a liking to my 350 legend as it has some umph while not much more recoil than a 223, and bullets are fairly cheap (and available) for a larger caliber. 450 is another hole puncher, but the recoil and sound report is ridiculous and seems to have more cycling problems. Of course, the 223 or 556 nato has a extended range, but through a typical AR barrel it isn't too much farther when it come to precision for a typical shooter.
Love the 6.5 in a bolt for extended range shooting as it puts my old Savage 270 to shame.
My biggest issue lately is lack of ammo in general. Hard to find powder to even reload in these parts. Reverted back to the old 220 swift for smacking the yotes since I don't feel like burning through my other ammo stache at the moment.
I am not an expert on all the different cartridges but I do want to build a 300 BLK myself. I will have to look into the 350 legend for sure, don't know much about it. The AR system has a lot of different flavors and a lot to learn. It's fun though.
“You can’t fight the most powerful guvment in the world with a couple of AR15s!”
laughs in Vietcong
Hold my beer while I burn your village.
It's even easier when it's in your own backyard. They can't get away with the level of collateral damage considered acceptable when fighting rebels overseas.
This is why the response to the capital protest pisses me off so much. They basically told us we aren’t ALLOWED to revolt against our own government and take it back, even though it’s in our freaking constitution.
It's always an insurrection until you win.
What pisses me off is that it wasn't a revolt and they're treating it as such.
"..what do you need this for?" Overthrowing tyrannical governments. You need only look at the personal correspondence of the founding fathers to see what they meant.
Anyone who says the words "I believe in/support the second amendment but ..." automatically doesn't believe in/support the second amendment.
Yep, and I was flamed by family for even mentioning the Battle of Athens (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Athens_(1946)), where returning GI’s literally laid siege to the county jail to ensure free and fair elections in their county. None of the GI’s were prosecuted.
anytime some fucking retard asks me "why do you have to have an ar15?" my response is always "why shouldnt i?"
never go on the defensive with these shitstains
Respond, "I don't need a AR, we need multiple ARs".
Insurrection is exactly what it’s for. The left are willing idiot mouthpieces for liberal fascism because of their ignorance.
But MUH ruLe oF laW! - Republicans
This is one of the core ethos of America. Either you are on board with this or you are not really an American, regardless of what your birth certificate or passport says.
They're going the right way for a smacked bottom.
Oh but it IS a hunting license...hunting commies and traitors. SSSHHHHHH! Be vewy quiet, I'm hunting pinkos.
A hunting license is permission to kill certain animals with a gun, not something that restricts the ownership of a gun.
Failed to represent them is accurate. So many people wrongfully call politicians "our leaders" no, they are our elected representatives. They are not our leaders.
The Capital Building was literally designed to be scaled and climbed. Why do you think the base walls are literally a ladder.
Soy fag: wHy Do YoU nEeD aLl ThOsE gUnS?
Me: Because, fuck yeah! Why not?
Link - https://twitter.com/CeasarSolid/status/1352978754218250243
But it really is....
I wanted to say "Its not a tumah" but then remembered arnold can eat a bag o dicks
Jan 6th was the day the 2nd Amendment was meant for. Patriots showed up unarmed. Now America is dead. Learn Mandarin.
Shay doesn't own a gun 🤣
The second amendment is for the security of a free state. Guns are used to combat crime, provide food for your family (hunting), and to topple a tyrannical government. Hunting can provide security (food), but it's not the primary purpose. Also, I don't NEED a gun anymore than you need a fucking iPhone or a fancy car. I'm a free citizen so I'm allowed to own whatever kind of property I want. People like this can get fucked.
Women are highly socialistic and easily manipulated. That is why cults target them specifically. That is also why businesses target women. Women bring in the men.
Seems not to be working as intended tho...
LEGIIIIIIIIIT.
The founding fathers never put a limit on gun ownership because their intention was for people to have a general right to own them no matter what the reason, whether it's hunting or self defense, it doesn't even require a reason. The right doesn't say "you can own guns for X purpose", which means it was intended as no reason needed to be given. And they also clearly meant for guns to be a right especially to keep from hostile takeovers. Imagine if guns were banned when we were still fighting England. We wouldn't have been able to form militia's, regular citizens wouldn't have been able to fight back. Gun ownership as a right was to ensure that no entity, foreign or domestic, could subjugate the citizenry. They also clearly made it a hard coded right, to keep government from removing it, regardless of the governments intentions. The founding fathers were well aware of the possibility that without it established as a right, that the government could easily pass laws to ban guns. Which means they fully intended for there to be ZERO limits on gun ownership, and wrote that with the future in mind. They knew guns would get more advanced, they had already seen it themselves. So they knew there was an evolution of gun, yet made no distinction or time limit on that right, which means they fully accepted the right would extend to the evolution of guns. Furthermore, the founding fathers clearly intended that any amendment of rights were meant to only be added to in their scope, not removed or whittled down. So their interpretations can only be expanded upon, not shrunken. A good example is free speech on the internet. That's an expansion of the scope of rights the government has to accept when argued.
No matter how many dirty politicians and dirty lawyers try to argue against the scope of rights, there's no way to square it up,, the founding fathers were clear, which is exactly why they have to use all of these mental gymnastics to try to just make these limitations a seemingly long term established precedent, so they can use that precedent to overshadow the original intent.
yeah america is FUCKED!! thanks to dumbass leftists.
We need to dismantle gun control and all participate in civil disobedience as a warning to our new tyrannical foreign occupation. This will be harder said than done as I personally know some people signaling a cucking in law enforcement.
Well and that worked really well lmao
Enough of this argument it's not persuasive whatsoever. You're just patting each other on the back.
"The poorest and most vulnerable need to be able to protect themselves, in particular women and minorities who are not being helped, or actively harmed by, their police."
It takes a lot to over throw the government, HENCE WHY WE HAVEN'T SEEN SHIT!!! Too much to lose, everything to gain.
The last line is 2nd amandment.... if we let them take that away its over.....
the founding fathers had people who owned and operated there own battleships . i should have access to what ever the government is willing to use on its own people .
It is a hunting license.
For tyrants.
And soon it will be the only right guaranteed in the Constitutional that requires a license to exercise.
Shay Dalseybis obviously informed and I was too for a time.
Be prepared to do something, the federal gun ban is a priority for senile biden ...
Up vote X aBiden Because it's 100% true.
BULLSHIT... GET YOUR HUNT'N PERMIT RIGHT HERE! https://patriots.win/p/11SJxpCs93/