2nd amendment

Implying fucking sand niggers aren't doing that right now

Our military has quite a bit of experience with urban warfare thanks to these past few wars. I don't think an AR15's gonna matter whatsoever should it come to citizens vs military

Something tells me you have not heard of a place called Vietnam. Also YOU CANNOT CONTROL AN ENTIRE COUNTRY AND IT'S PEOPLE WITH TANKS OR JETS OR BATTLESHIPS OR ANY OF THAT SHIT.

A FIGHTER JET CANNOT STAND ON STREET CORNERS AND ENFORCE NO-ASSEMBLY EDICTS. A FIGHTER JET CANNOT KICK DOWN YOUR DOOR AT 3AM AND SEARCH YOUR HOUSE FOR CONTRABAND.

POLICE ARE NEEDED TO MAINTAIN A POLICE STATE.

AND NO MATTER HOW MANY POLICE YOU HAVE, THEY ARE ALWAYSE OUT-NUMBERED BY THE PEOPLE, WHICH IS WHY IT'S VITAL FOR YOUR POLICE TO HAVE AUTOMATIC WEAPONS AND YOUR PEOPLE TO HAVE NOTHING BUT THEIR LIMP DICKS.

shut up and go read AAR's from a war that your grandpappy didn't fight. Tanks are useful on hard targets (i.e tanks, bunkers, static emplacements) not people. Not insurgents.

Anti personnel armor is quite efficient at eliminating infantry, and homes would offer no protection.

And I agree with you that the military would never be able to control a country the size of the US, there are simply too many people. That being said, a semiautomatic AR15 is not going to be any more effective than a non-AR semiautomatic rifle. In fact, for home invasions as you mention, a shotgun will be the best weapon.

The whole argument is meaningless, because you're arguing that guns like AR15's would somehow give commando groups a tactical edge, when in reality the type of gun used is almost a non-issue; the military would never be able to control the country.

It's about making the government afraid so that they won't pass laws the harm our liberties not about the actual action of fighting the government, besides nothing says the army will side with the government......

If nothing says the army will side with the government then who are you going to fight? Senators?

The army is sworn to protect citizens. To fight against us would be a disrespect to the people and to their promise, and at that point, they are murderers, not soldiers.

No one if we're lucky it's just to keep the government mindful that we will protect our rights if we need to so that it never comes to anything like that
If they're to scared of us to pass laws that hurt our freedoms then we will never have reason to fight anyone.

You know, we have social democrats, socialists, communists and such in our parliament and weapon laws that means you can barely have a pocket knife, and guess what: No tyranny.

If you don't plan to hurt someone you don't need a gun.

We're are you from England were they have camera's watching everyone 24 hours a day, yeah sounds like you real have no tyranny there....

yeah because people have never stood up against their government and won... nope never happend before

again, the most advanced military in the fucking world. Good look defending yourself with a fucking AR-15 while there are drones targeting you from above the clouds

That was when a superior military meant more guns and men, not some of the most advanced technology ever created that's specifically designed for death and destruction

Yes, yes you can. Drones are vulnerable to attacks on their fuel supply, on their pilots, and on the electronic infrastructure that keeps them in the air.

Not just drones, man, that was just an example. I'm talking about the military as a whole and all of their advanced technology

America has a small standing professional army ( i'm using the term Army to refer to the entirety of the department of defense) of 1,456,862 active personel and 1,458,500 reserve.

there are 311,591,917 people in the Us, of which 73,270,043 are males aged 18-49.

there are also 90 guns to every 100 person in the US.

Now even assuming every one of those million and a half active members of the armed forces are trained infantry grunts (pro tip: they aren't) how well do you think they would do against 73 times their own number?

though you are right in some sense the military would not likely leave these vulnerable and would be among the most well defended facility if a dictatorship was formed and most civilians know nothing about modern siege and infiltration tactics so they would likely be defeated. in my opinion the best defense is a education and the military having stronger loyalties to the civilians it protects rather than the generals and government leader. this can be seen in history with the roman empire as the roman empire suffered horribly when its soldiers had more loyalties to their generals than the civilians and government leading to a period of military enforced dictatorships.

and again... people have never won against their government that has an army, no sir, never has that ever happend

I... think you're missing his point.

i don't think he is saying that it hasn't happened but rather that it would be next to impossible currently due to the strength of the army and technological edge it has.
though you are right other countries including america has encountered scenarios were the citizens successfully retaliated against the military. that often happens in countries were the military isn't as strong or it happened in an earlier time period were the weapons were inefficient and inaccuracy.

Or you could exercise your rights as civilians in a democrazy and overthrow the government by non-lethal actions? Or did you like what happened in Syria, Lybia, Egypt and so on and so forth?

Jesus Christ you're mad

Vietnam. Afghanistan, Iraq and any other insurgent driven war.

Good point, but don't you think that if the people tried to overturn the government then the government would put all of it's effort into preventing a revolution rather than only using a small fraction of their power like they do/did in those wars?

Small fraction in these wars? The US armed forces are by far not as good as all the propaganda is trying to tell us.

The Us Navy is larger than the next 13 largest Navies in the world combined.

As of 2012 the US Air Force has 332,854 active personnel, 185,522 civilian personnel, 71,400 reserve personnel, 106,700 air guard personnel and a $140 billion budget. It operates 5,484 aircraft, 450 ICBMs and 63 satellites, making it the largest air force in the world.

During fiscal year 2010, the Regular Army reported a strength of 561,979 soldiers; the Army National Guard (ARNG) reported 362,015 and the United States Army Reserve (USAR) reported 205,281 putting the combined component strength total at 1,129,275 soldiers.

It is the smallest of the United States Armed Forces in the U.S. Department of Defense . . . The Marine Corps is nonetheless larger than the armed forces of many significant military powers; it is larger than the active duty Israel Defense Forces and the active duty British Army, for example.

Should I go on?

God fucking dammit it doesn't have to do with numbers at all. I was talking about training and combat ability.

America is a media driven country that loves the little guy fighting for his rights. Vietnam is a perfect example of a country that was winning the war with technology and numbers having to pull out because the media was against the war. If the U.S. military was used against its own people, even pretending that everyone in the military is fully on board with this idea, the media of our country and others around the world would make public and foreign opinion go tremendously to the rebels favor if they were truly fighting for something that matter, which as was also states, would have to be important because we are rather "lazy." We could do it with our bare fists if we wanted to, if we had the media on our side.

Chris Dorner literally had all the law enforcement Southern California shitting themselves for a week; a couple hundred doing the same thing up and down the state would more-or-less paralyze it.

Even assuming the million and a half active service members are trained infantry grunts (protip: they aren't) how well do you think they will do to 73 times their own number?(73,270,043 are males aged 18-49)
not to mention there are 90 guns for every 100 persons in the US.

I know people who can kill with a toothbrush.

For fucks sake everything around us is a potential weapon. Sure some guns are better at killing a bunch of people at once but the exact same thing can be done by making a pipe bomb out of shit laying around your house. You gave your opinion and its fine and all, i just dont like you commenting as an anonymous fag sack cause you're too afraid of getting red thumbs.

The right to bear ar....oohhhh...NOW I get it.

I lean more to a conservative side but I do agree with strict gun control... I believe in using 2 hands when firing a gun.

okay if you buy a gun you learn how to fire it... idk who goes and buys a gun and carrys it around not knowing how to fire it...

I'm sufficiently trained in my handgun both by practice and arms training sessions. . Go to the range right before a big trip. I don't carry "just to carry". I carry when I go up north or in bad areas. I practice about every week if not more. Become more of a hobby really.

Its why i drink water

this is why we cannot have nice things

so it is wrong to not giving weapons to mentally disabled people?

are you sure YOU aren't mentally disabled?

That is not what you stated, you made it sound like every American is just itching to shoot someone.

I said 'muricans not Americans

that's the difference

'muricans implies its the ones that yells " hurr i got freedom, so this is my lawn"
Americans : I got a gun and I will use it if threatened.

when aren't they? I mean...look at the way their cops arrest people. Whomever they're arresting needs some medical care after he's arrested....

You know that is actually a stereotype for americans right?

well after being on FJ you hardy know what means what anymore

Your fault for not knowing definitions of words you attempt to use, not his.

I did not know the definition of one word and you go on like a scene girl with daddy issues trying to make me look a dick in an attempt to make yourself look better.

get on with your life and stop craving for my attention.

which is a stereotype for the average american.

you are the stereotype for the average butthurts on FJ

no i just hate insolence. If you mean something say it outright, do not resort to niggitry.

And I meant that you shouldn't give guns to those who would abuse the right to own guns. then you start going on and on trying to make me look like a dick and act like I am trying to insult the entire american population and insult me, instead of asking what I meant. so to quote you "So move your 12 year old ass off the fucking internet and eat shit"

you think this is a game? I was talking about the damn hillbilly jacks you idiot. but fine, you want to play?
"niggitry" That's racist and a bad stereotype of dark skinned people.

Niggit: This is NOT a nigger. This is a word of insult. This word is used when you want to insult someone but you don't know what to call them.

Sounds like thou hath used niggitry to me.

Also, Nigger: (noun)1.describes an ignorant, uneducated, foolish individual regardless of race, color, religion, sexual orientation, etc.

So move your 12 year old ass off the fucking internet and follow the picture.

You should re-read what he wrote

I'm American and I don't like guns...

a category of firearms invented by politicians to widen the term of "assault rifle". AR15s arent assault rifles though, since by definition they need to have fully automatic capabilities. politicians such as senator feinstein created the term assault weapon to make them sound scary, and get backing from the people to essentially ban every firearm in existence.

are you aware of what a militia is?

It really doesn't matter. If you say the standard U.S. citizen is not part of a militia, then technically they shouldn't be allowed to bear arms. If you count them as one, they are allowed to be regulated.

>It really doesn't matter.
Oh god my nuts hurt this made me wut so hard.
A militia (pron.: /mɨˈlɪʃə/),[1] or irregular army, generally refers to an army or other fighting force that is composed of non-professional fighters; citizens of a nation or subjects of a state or government that can be called upon to enter a combat situation
Basically everyone is allowed to own guns in case our military needs backup from more abled bodied men. So shit like red dawn or whatever that movie is called dosnt happen so easily.

The chances of a Red Dawn scenario happening is incredibly low at this point in time is incredibly low, and when I said it really didn't matter I may have been confusing, as I meant it doesn't matter how you define a militia, the point still stands. A citizen should be allowed to bear arms, but using the second amendment to back up being allowed to walk around with 30 round magazines and assault rifles is simply ignorant, as the same amendment that is being used to defend these un-needed weapons and weapon accessories states within itself that the state has the right to regulate the militia, and thereby the weapons they can use. I'm not against people being able to own their guns, I'm against people who support guns that have no use besides killing not only other people, but military personnel. I can kill an intruder trying to rob my house or hurt my family with a handgun or a shotgun, even a hunting rifle if need be, but an AR- 15 or an AK-47 for example, would only really be necessary if you were taking on a person with body armor, and the clip size people are advocating are unreasonable for a person in a defensive position against a home invasion to need. The only reason to have an assault rifle with a 30 round mag. is to be the offender

Men OR women.
Sorry my big chauvinistic penis made me forget womans can has guns and do pew-pews in da military too.

Ok, then it seems you are missing the meaning of "regulated"

um, yeah? Just cause the law stops me from buying a gun doesn't mean it'll stop a criminal from getting one, especially since they get them illegally anyway

It sure as hell is my business if they shot me with them.

derr herr herr. im talking about the people who have fire arms but use them responsibly.