or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › General › Current Events, Power and Money › Take all of the guns. All of them.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Take all of the guns. All of them. - Page 15

post #211 of 1722
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrooksLauren77 View Post
 

Honest question for American posters. Do you think guns will resist a tyrannical government armed with semi-autonomous drones, tanks, soldiers with superior marksmanship and the like?


Anyone?

post #212 of 1722
Quote:
Originally Posted by englade321 View Post


Uh where you think the second amendment came from


Well, I'm no expert on the American Revolution, but telling the king of England and his taxes to fuck off was one of them.

post #213 of 1722
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrooksLauren77 View Post


Well, I'm no expert on the American Revolution, but telling the king of England and his taxes to fuck off was one of them.
Uh it was a joke about being handed down from God
post #214 of 1722

I don't think you understand what I was referencing then.

 

Godwin's Law.

post #215 of 1722
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrooksLauren77 View Post


Anyone?
Even with the most rudimentary understanding of the U.S. Constitution, the system of govt with its checks and balances and the power of citizens through the electoral process you should be to see how ludicrous that sounds. People that go around spouting that kind of stuff don't even believe it themselves
post #216 of 1722
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrooksLauren77 View Post

I don't think you understand what I was referencing then.

Godwin's Law.
Ok I had to google that one . My mistake shog[1].gif
post #217 of 1722
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrooksLauren77 View Post

Honest question for American posters. Do you think guns will resist a tyrannical government armed with semi-autonomous drones, tanks, soldiers with superior marksmanship and the like?
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrooksLauren77 View Post


Anyone?

You're assuming that 1) everyone in the military would choose to fight against the citizens and 2) such a battle would be fought on traditional grounds. Neither of those things are true, but as lighthouse mentioned, it would never happen in the first place.
post #218 of 1722
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by suited View Post



You're assuming that 1) everyone in the military would choose to fight against the citizens and 2) such a battle would be fought on traditional grounds. Neither of those things are true, but as lighthouse mentioned, it would never happen in the first place.


This former grunt would fight against a civilian uprising. 

post #219 of 1722
Quote:
Originally Posted by suited View Post



You're assuming that 1) everyone in the military would choose to fight against the citizens and 2) such a battle would be fought on traditional grounds. Neither of those things are true, but as lighthouse mentioned, it would never happen in the first place.

Fair points. Mostly see conspiracy theorists who think this way.

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by ethanm View Post
 


This former grunt would fight against a civilian uprising. 

I thought you American jarheads are told to uphold the constitution.

post #220 of 1722
Quote:
Originally Posted by ethanm View Post


This former grunt would fight against a civilian uprising. 

There wouldn't be an uprising, necessarily. If and when something like this happened, I would foresee a migration of like minded people to certain areas of the country, then you'd see an attempt at secession.
post #221 of 1722

Didn't Obama expand gun rights?

post #222 of 1722
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrooksLauren77 View Post

I thought you American jarheads are told to uphold the constitution.

He answered this earlier. He said "the oath doesn't include which interpretation." Also, jarheads are Marines.
post #223 of 1722
MFW Ethan realized JA was on his side:

post #224 of 1722
Quote:
Originally Posted by brokencycle View Post


He answered this earlier. He said "the oath doesn't include which interpretation." Also, jarheads are Marines.

Didn't see that, and I used jarhead as a purposefully ignorant catch-all term.

post #225 of 1722
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrooksLauren77 View Post

used jarhead as a purposefully ignorant catch-all term.
Prolly be a good idea to avoid that in the future
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Current Events, Power and Money
Styleforum › Forums › General › Current Events, Power and Money › Take all of the guns. All of them.