Home Original Content Funny Pictures Funny GIFs YouTube Funny Text Funny Movies Channels Search

hide menu
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
User avatar #109 - durgesark (01/13/2013) [-]
The government wants to disarm the public so it can control them with out resistance.
Its happened before in history, they can pull my gun from my cold dead body.
User avatar #159 to #109 - blahness (01/13/2013) [-]
Lol at all the misguided people thinking that the second amendment will protect them from the government if the government decides to go rogue.
yeah, good luck protecting yourselves with your AR-15s and glocks against UAVs, tanks, navy seals, jets, etc.
face it. the sentiment is there, but the constitution clearly wasn't desgined to withstand such long periods of time. Back then, technology was nothing, and the people as well as the army only had muskets. How about now? you think the people can own tanks or fighter jets? and even if they were allowed who would have the financial ability to own one?

So yeah, they WILL pull your gun from your cold dead body. although it might slow them down, it will come nowhere close to stopping them if they do decide to do it.
#284 to #159 - misledzach (01/13/2013) [-]
I would rather fight for my freedom and die, than be alive and a slave.
User avatar #529 to #284 - durgesark (01/13/2013) [-]
Amen to that.
#165 to #159 - kingmarston (01/13/2013) [-]
Umm... Most soldiers would defect if such an order was given to disarm the populace. And since you said that the 2nd amendment doesn't apply today, does that mean the 1st one doesn't either?

AND I'M SO ******* SORRY TO BREAK IT TO YOU BUT THE CONSTITUTION IS STILL THE LAW OF THE LAND.

Oh, look at Afghanistan, they don't have Tanks, Jets, UAVs, or Navy SEALS and their still giving us hell after a decade of war.

Your logic is flawed.
User avatar #168 to #165 - blahness (01/13/2013) [-]
did you miss the part where i said "if they do decide to do it"?
I think you misinterpreted my point there. My point wasn't if the government decided to take away the guns forcibly. it was if the government decides to just turn against its people i.e. **** everything we're gonna be tyrannical.
the constitution would be meaningless if the government decides to control its people. just because it's law doesn't mean it'll stop them. just like how killing is illegal yet people can still do it.
and how does Afghanistan even fit into the situation here.
User avatar #175 to #168 - kingmarston (01/13/2013) [-]
"yeah, good luck protecting yourselves with your AR-15s and glocks against UAVs, tanks, navy seals, jets, etc. "

The Taliban have fertilizer and rusty AK's and we still haven't been able to defeat them after a decade of war. See my point?
User avatar #173 to #168 - kingmarston (01/13/2013) [-]
And that's the ENTIRE POINT OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT. Nothing will be able to stop them from going tyrannical once our firearms have been seized. If they DO decide to go psycho we have a means to fight back with.
User avatar #177 to #173 - blahness (01/13/2013) [-]
as i've said before. the army clearly has an advantage in terms of just about everything. Let me remind you of the laws that restrict high-powered weapons such as RPGs, mortars, etc. if the government exerts control through tyranny then yes, the people can fight back with their guns. But again, like i said in the first post. It might slow them, but it won't stop them. the difference in power level is simply too high
User avatar #191 to #177 - kingmarston (01/13/2013) [-]
I'm sure that's what the British thought too.

You don't seem to understand that people can capture/import gear as well as create their own. You can make a very powerful explosive just by using a few common household ingredients and fertilizer. Why do you think the Taliban have been so tough to beat?

And you don't seem to understand the power it would take for an order of that sort, it just couldn't happen with our current government. If one could control Congress, Presidency, and the Supreme court they would still have to gain control of the other 50 states that each have a legislative branch, executive branch, and judicial branch. As well as their own National Guard Units. So just think about it.
User avatar #205 to #191 - blahness (01/13/2013) [-]
Congratulations. You have just proved that it is nearly impossible for the government to turn against it's people, and thereby turning the 2nd amendment obsolete. Because you're right. In order for the government to turn against it's people, it would have to think about the consequences: how the world would react, how the entire nation would react, even it's own army, and whether the plan would go through or not.
User avatar #213 to #205 - kingmarston (01/13/2013) [-]
Also the fact that it has 90 million gun-owners. Which serves as a hell of a deterrent.
User avatar #124 to #109 - zzforrest (01/13/2013) [-]
If you know anything about the origin of the bill of rights, more importantly the second amendment, you will know that they made that right specifically so that the government couldn't subdue the people. People > Government. If the government tried to take on the people, second amendment would keep their guns safe.
User avatar #125 to #124 - durgesark (01/13/2013) [-]
whos guns? 'their guns' ?
User avatar #126 to #125 - zzforrest (01/13/2013) [-]
The citizens of course.
User avatar #128 to #126 - durgesark (01/13/2013) [-]
Right.
 Friends (0)