And unless you have damn near a file cabinet's worth of paperwork just possessing a machine gun will put you in prison. What about this is so hard for die hard uber liberals to grasp? They act like you can walk into walmart and just buy a fucking machine gun
There is a legitimate question being touched on by this idiot’s sign: is there a legitimate reason to have high capacity weapons in regards to ammo? In what legal situation would they be useful?
The reason is that for 99.9% of people, they are either bought for a collection, or simply because they are fun to shoot. I do agree that it seems a bit excessive though.
For some of us in extremely rural locales it is genuinely for defense. Im a half hour from help, and it only takes a few seconds for pissed off wildlife or some psycho to waste you.
In my area mountain lions are the only real threat, but go any farther north you start getting into bears and moose, which are pretty stout and aggressive to boot
When the few seconds it takes to reload can mean the difference between life and death, more ammunition is always a plus. Not only that, but people always forget thst the second amendment ain't even about hunting or self defence, it's about giving us the power to defend our freedoms.
My main question is, if they think Trump is "literally Hitler" why do they want to give him the power to take away their best method of defending themselves against his "unlawful regime"?
Because there is no way to not be ludicrously outgunned by the US military. Since that’s not realistic but the same tools being used to kill large numbers of people is, it’s the lesser of the evils to keep only weapons that are incapable of large scale damage legal.
@scatmandingo the writing is "a well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state" which considering the context means defense against a tyranical government.
Well it can also be read as defense against enemies of the state. Either definition is about community defense (militia). It wasn’t until a few years ago that the Supreme Court decided that the 2nd amendment had anything at all to do with individual ownership of guns.
It doesn't matter if we're outgunned, you're just using that as an excuse. And you're not considering the military units that will most likely desert after being ordered to attack the people they've sworn to protect, bringing their own military equipment along with them.
Thats fair. And to @chakun's credit an insurgency would be incredibly viable, we've been tied up in Afghanistan for damn near 20 years fighting dudes with soviet surplus and clapped out Hiluxes
I’m not using it as an excuse. It’s just a realistic interpretation. When you think of military units deserting you are thinking they are going to bring rifles and APVs. The problem is they can’t bring the real weaponry that makes a difference. Without air support you will lose to those who have it. You can take a plane but you need somewhere to land it, you need supply lines for fuel, etc.
@scatmandingo the comment about being outgunned was the one I hadn't seen. and thanks on the username btw :)
1Reply
deleted
· 5 years ago
You do know, that by going with the logic of this sign, you could hunt children free range and at no moral cost, thus decriminalizing the entire Parkland shooting to just "he had a gun" rather than "he killed seventeen children".
why would you hunt children anyways? most are fairly fatty and would be fairly bad for you. All that sugar makes for a bad meal for whoever ends up eating it.
Comments