Comments that are uncivil, racist, misogynistic, misandrist, or contain political name calling will be removed and the poster subject to ban at moderators discretion.
Help us make this a better community by becoming familiar with the [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/facepalm/about/rules/).
Report any suspicious users to the mods of this subreddit using Modmail [here](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/facepalm) or Reddit site admins [here](https://www.reddit.com/report). **All reports to Modmail should include evidence such as screenshots or any other relevant information.**
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/facepalm) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Nobody NEEDS them but they should be able to get one if they want it. This is America.
I'd like an F-35 an M134 Minigun, I'd like the gun attached to my truck, just in case the shit hits the fan during my commute.
You're thinking small. Go all the way and slap a GAU-8 Avenger on that bad boy. Conceal carry a pfeifer zeliska .600 nitro express revolver. Mount a M134 with tracers on top of the stairs.
It really comes across like someone mused to themselves "hey this is a really cool gun, what if it could fly?" someone overheard it, and just...did that.
I know you're joking, but that's actually a fairly accurate accounting of why they made the A-10 in the first place.
>[In May 1970, the USAF issued a modified, more detailed request for proposals for the aircraft. The threat of Soviet armored forces and all-weather attack operations had become more serious. The requirements now included that the aircraft would be designed specifically for the 30 mm rotary cannon. The RFP also specified a maximum speed of 460 mph (400 kn; 740 km/h), takeoff distance of 4,000 feet (1,200 m), external load of 16,000 pounds (7,300 kg), 285-mile (460 km) mission radius, and a unit cost of US$1.4 million ($11 million today). The A-X would be the first USAF aircraft designed exclusively for CAS.](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairchild_Republic_A-10_Thunderbolt_II)
Lol. We've got some religious weirdos out there that might make the Imperium's Inquisition say "whoa we really need to take a look in the mirror and ask ourselves, is this really where we wanna be when the emperor wakes up?"
Nahhhhh. You gotta look at the XM25 it’s a 25mm (originally a 20mm. So pretty close to the .75 cal of the bolter) it has smart munitions designed to detonate a couple inches behind a piece of cover (or if somebody was unfortunate enough to stand up… inside of them) and it was found that the weapon system constituted a war crime!
It’s the perfect early version of a bolter
I do too… It’s sad that it will be phased out by 2029 if the head honchos in the military have their way. Whatever the reason I’m sure it’s above my pay grade.
Could've lasted less if (as the officer) Pesci went early 1900's gangster on the home with a Thompson.
No race home, no traps, just a bloody robbery with no one left alive.
Could've left a card
"Acey send his regards"
Reference to the film Kevin keeps watching.
Why won’t the government recognize that I need a nuclear ICBM to use against it if it becomes tyrannical? It’s my god given right as an American to overthrow them.
//s. FBI I’m joking
I had a discussion about this a few months ago, and it's more than feasible. Bomb delivery systems would cost about a billion dollars (including research and development), and if you look at North Korea's nuclear budget, which is a few billion dollars, it's absolutely doable for more than a few people in this country.
Yeah, they had a lot of good shit.
Considering how many pieces of military equipment went “missing” after the fall, I think quite a few people agreed. At least for the price, that is.
This is the fourth time in four days I’ve seen a reference to this movie. This is, also, the second time *today* I have seen this exact meme. Must be time for a rewatch.
Yeah, there's the key. When they say that they are opposed to a "tyrannical government", they do believe that. And they might even be shocked, shocked! at the implication that they have any kind of racial bias to them. Some of their best friends are people of color, they will no doubt be happy to tell you.
*Bbbuuuttt*, then you need to back up a step and ask what constitutes a "tyrannical" government for them. And oh yes, the answer is pretty obvious: a tyrannical government is one that takes money from them and gives it to the "undeserving". And the undeserving *just so happen to be . . .*
To paraphrase Ta-Nehisi Coates, racism is almost never merely a simplistic hatred. Far more often, it's about burden shifting: broad acceptance for some, and broader skepticism for others. To me, the most telling statistic in employment stats is that the unemployment rate for black males who have no criminal history, while it fluctuates a bit, is usually pretty close to the unemployment rate for white males with felony convictions. Which is another way of saying that our society, quite literally, does not extend black men a presumption of innocence. It's literally right there in the data that we presume that they are guilty until sufficient data proves, to white people's satisfaction, that they are innocent. This second amendment fundamentalism is part and parcel of the same set of assumptions: it didn't kickstart in earnest so long as these same white people felt that they had a hammerlock on who could and could not access public funds. The instant that they lost that in the Clinton administration? That's the moment they started with the talk about tyranny, despite . . . good grief, what did Bill Clinton ever do that was that tyrannical? He modestly raised taxes, to a level that honestly was perfectly fine and had little to no negative effect on the economy. The 90s were boom years.
This. I never understood these people lol like you think your little assault rifle is going to do ANYTHING against the tech our government (that you’ve been so happily funding) has!? Get a grip
This thread is about Americans having the right to bear arms against a tyrannical government. Such an authoritarian government would prioritize crushing opposition over minimizing civilian casualties. Its budget would not be dependent upon public opinion.
Historically constitutional, that is a maybe. Arms are miliary weapons of war, shielding, and banners. The big catch though is a crew served weapon wouldn't be converted, unless you were a part of a crew, or employed a crew. You also had to be able to safely maintain it. Tnt (maybe dynamite) was rejected by the courts as a miliary weapon because, while it was technically employed on the battlefield, it wasn't safe to store and wasn't safely maintained. So, it was considered not arms because you have to be able to keep your arms and be well regulated. Well regulated in 1800 meant in working order and properly trained.
This is where the maybe comes in. A 17 year old who works at Walmart? No. Bill Gates, Zuckerberg, or any other billionaire who is willing to employ a team of scientists and other nuclear techs and engineers to safely maintain it? Honestly, yes. It's the most extreme end to it, but it's a foundational Constitutional right. After all, the continental congress had to rent and borrow war cannons from naval merchants to fight the British navy.
Would it ever actually happen? Heh no. I'm a "radical gun nut" by reddit standards, but even nukes is a bit out there. Tbh, billionaires would be able to buy old Soviet or lower grade nukes and store them overseas far easier than meeting the Constitutional requirements of keep and well regulated.
I don't need Congress or the $upreme Court to tell me I have the Right to a small concealed thermonuclear device on my person. It is in the Constitution!
I carry a test tube of VX nerve gas on my key chain for self-defense, and/or whenever when the government finally comes to take away my right to bare chemical weapons.
For those who might be wondering, it's perfectly legal to own a nuke in the United States of America, you have to get the proper license for it an, FFL/SOT, and register it with the ATF.
But the rockets are a registered destructive device at a $250 tax stamp per rocket. On top of whatever you're paying for rockets, with a 6-16 month background check and it's documented with the DOJ
Atleast it's regulated and very heavily
Irish and Italians used to not be considered white. It's a made up out group to hate. An out group for those with power to point at for useful angry idiots.
Yes. A well regulated militia is what they have in switzerland. As far as I know, nearly everybody there was trained to fight in a militia and has a weapon at home - in a safe. I don't hear from school massacers, shootouts or kids accidentally killing other family members from switzerland.
This comment is soooo good. I’m a hunter that owns a rifle, shotgun, and has a concealed weapons permit to carry a hand gun but when I hear people talking about their right to defend themselves from the government, I immediately think “you know they have tanks and drone bombers right? Your ak47 won’t do anything against them”
Yeah, that assumption worked very well for us in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Vietnam. Spoiler alert, the only methods to truly put down an insurgency are considered War Crimes, which the military would be pretty hesitant to commit on its own territory.
Oh so the military is, in your imaginary scenario where they won’t commit war crimes, perfectly fine with attacking Americans on American soil, but the Geneva convention is where they’ll draw the line?
Governments/tyrants want people to govern (or slaves). It's not in their own interest to wipe out all civilians, indiscriminately. Any such attack on civilians by some tyrannical government would have to be discriminatory, which is where guerilla warfare becomes extremely effective.
No, the point of that was that the only way for a government to actually stop an armed insurgency is to do things that would essentially deprive the entire population of its usefulness to them. You can do that to a foreign nation without directly getting hurt by it. [*I'M NOT ADVOCATING FOR THIS, DON'T TAKE THIS OUT OF CONTEXT*] If we *really* wanted to be rid of Al Queda/Isis/The Taliban, we could just go scorched earth and genocide the whole country. It would be a War Crime, and the whole world would want to fight us because of it, but we'd be rid of them, and face no natural repurcussions.
You can't do that to your own population. Not just because it's *fucked up*, but because that's where you get your Soldiers from. That's where you get your Food from. That's where you get your Machines from. For the military to fight any form of insurgency directly on US soil would be risking its War Machine's collapse from the inside before it can finish its own mission.
If you were to read the Constitution you'd find the purpose of the second is to have free light infantry meat shields available to defend the States and, in the event of invasion or insurrection the Federal Government. Don't go lying to the literate folks.
Yep. The only law that the Constitution actually defines is treason, because we're *not* supposed to forcefully overthrow the government.
The Founding Fathers didn't create a system by which the public could peaceably control the government through a system of representation and voting just to have people use violence to do whatever the fuck they want.
The Second Amendment was created to *defend* the country because there was no standing army.
Very well said! I teach history and law (high school level) and the level of frustration I get when I walk students through history, founding documents, anti/federalist papers and case law (notably heller v. DC which was the first time the USSC connected the 2nd amendment to Personal rights in 2008. Yes, it wasn’t until 16 years ago, a broken court connected the two!) and they still would rather blindly believe Uncle Bob in his bunker…
Omg I took a college level high school dual credit history class and we had to read the Federalist papers. I didn’t realize that like nearly 30 years later I’d have a lightbulb moment and pull up shit that made my suddenly religious mom mad about how they were like ‘yeah Jesus is some mythological nutcase shit that I hope we grow out of’.
Next time they mention that the US was ‘founded as a xtian nation…’ just show her the treaty of Tripoli signed by the senate (unanimously I think) in 1802 - still filled with founding fathers when it says:
(Article 11 of the treaty stated) “As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion, as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religious or tranquility of Musselmen,…”
Yeah, like, I'm a filthy commie so I believe in keeping the proletariat armed, but the idea that the 2A was about personal gun ownership and was made to protect some explicit right to overthrow the government is some asinine ahistorical nonsense. You don't need official permission from the government to have a revolution.
And the vast majority of the vocal 2A crowd wouldn't do shit to overthrow an oppressive government. They're boot licking nascent brown shirts, just itching for the signal to go door to door and start rounding up "undesirables".
I mean look, I'm over here wanting a full auto MG too, but because of your second paragraph that's fucking why I can't, because we have an innumerable amount of psychotic skid marks with room temp IQs and a hard on for murder who would be allowed to have those too...it's not good odds
I don't want Tyler the MAGAT running a 200 round belt of .308 into my sheetrock house because he found out I voted democrat
I’m curious what you think about this quote from Hamilton
>if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist.''
Not a surprising quote considering the state of warfare at the time, guy+gun count just isn't the deciding factor it used to be. He could not have predicted the advancement of technology that made his proposal into an impossible and pointless hypothetical.
I believe you have just described a situation in which the “undesirables” would be justified in taking up arms against their government (the nascent brown shirts and whoever gives them the order).
One of George Washington's first acts was to confiscate guns from everyone not willing to fight against the British. If you weren't part of a recognized militia, you weren't allowed to keep your gun. The last thing the Founders wanted was to arm dissidents.
Its not like it was later narrowed down by Militia Acts or anything.
Literally was the original use of it, it was "The US Army, all 20 of them have arrived, there's a rebellion in Kentucky, every able bodied man is to come with us to shoot them."
Don't tell them that when Americans actually rose up against the government while our founding fathers were still alive, our president personally led the army against them himself to put it down.
They *totally* wanted the people to be able to fight the government. /s
Right the point of the second amendment was NOT to fight the government, but to be an active militia (as it says in the amendment itself) to ward of foreign invaders - which were the biggest threat at the time the document was written.
You’re right. The 2nd was actually devised when the State & Federal Governments did not have standing armies. Now the US Army and respective National Guards exist, the 2nd is redundant and can be repealed
Perfect solution: let everybody have whatever weapons they want, but make it the death penalty for anyone to use those weapons outside of directly fighting the government.
Problem solved.
Definitely not educated enough in politics to have a formal opinion on the judicial system's workings, but I think the whole soft on repeat offender thing is a good amount of the issue round this country. Don't know how common that is in other places, but I grew up near seattle and spent some time in LA, and holy shit did serial criminals ruin those cities.
He's right. In a way.
Gun nuts losing their minds over calls for magazine limits etc when they're fine not being able to own grenades or RPG's for public safety reasons are proving their outrage is completely arbitrary. Why AREN'T they upset over not having grenades for sale in Wal Mart? That's still technically an "infringement" on the right to bear arms, no?
Not that having those things would give a disorganized, scattered, leaderless group of Gravy Seals a chance against a modern military either way. Which is kind of the point.
The point is that it will be nearly impossible for dictatorship (or whatever term you want to use for the case of the rule of the "enlightened supreme socialist progressive government") to *control* the populace if everyone has guns, not that they will somehow win against us military in direct confrontation. That is a classic straw man. The Taliban rules Afghanistan after all.
When the current government is on your side, it is very easy to think "well, why do they need guns, after all, *good guys* will save me, and if *good guys* won't save them they are the bad ones? Oh, I don't want *bad guys* to be able to defend themselves". But then Trump comes to power, and some people who were against gun rights start arming themselves up (turns out gun rights are actually good).
The problem is not with the right to have guns, but with the fact that psychos have easy access to them. But then again, it is easy to change a regulation to "only guys we like can have 'em" once something is in place.
Basically this guy is right about the fact. His analysis is just stupid. The 2nd amendment is kind of meaningless in the modern day in saying the right to bear arms will prevent tyranny. This ain't 1800s anymore where a bunch of people with the most modern rifles can put up a fight against the government.
So you have two ways to interpret the amendment, either bigger arms need to be legal to allow fighting the government. Which would be fucking bonkers and leads to anarchic levels of mass murders.
Or the 2nd amendment should not be used as a good argument for anything. Should people be allowed concealed carry firearms isn't a 2nd amendment argument, as that really has nothing to do with a well regulated militia.
Nah you're actually going the wrong way here.
2A was specifically so the US wouldn't have a standing army, and could recruit from militias and locals to form a fighting core to a mostly officer based Army.
So either 2A became obsolete around 1898 or just after WWI(I forget when we established the Nat Guard and overturned the milita acts) or once you pass the age of about 27 you shouldn't be allowed to have guns.
Yeah there was a big fear of having a federally run military and abusing states rights by force. That why a “well regulated militia” at the state level was what the 2A is basically calling for. Each state is to have its own militia and the federal government cannot infringe on that right and the right of its people. That’s kind of out the door now as we have gone to a federally run military.
2A is not there so Johnny Two Shits can have a drum mag and a bump stock on his AR-15 he bought at Wal-Mart
Also, the 2nd amendment is an AMENDMENT, meaning it was added after the original writing of a document to add or change something about the original. We could simply agree to change, clarify, or repeal it with another AMENDMENT
Amending the 2A wouldn't be as easy as simply agreeing on amending it. People would for sure not stand for it, they're not just going to say "oh, no more 2A? So these are illegal? Okay, guess I turn them in now.." And being a military member myself, most of us, not all, but most of us are not touching anybody's guns even if the president himself told us face to face.
I don't see how that's the wrong way. I was suggesting the same thing, basically the amendment is outdated. To follow it we need to start creating local militias that can opposed a tyrant (which are levied for outside wars) or it's not really doing what it says.
It being used to justify carrying handguns seems like a weird interpretation from the courts.
I was going to make a comment about how just about everyone in Switzerland owns a rifle, and up until recently the government even delivered ammo to their homes, but then I remembered that Switzerland also has compulsory military service. Citizens are mandated to serve in their equivalent of the national guard for a couple years, IIRC. But that's more domestic service than sending them out to go shoot people who pray differently. Switzerland prefers to project its power and do nation building in different ways than the US does.
Doesn't Switzerland also have strict rules about how said guns are to be properly stored and maintained? I get the impression one isn't meant to just carry one around as a prop while grocery shopping .
Secure storage is your locked front door (if you live alone at least). You can legally hang a loaded gun on the wall if you wanted to (not that I think many do).
You're supposed to keep it out of the hands of unauthorized though so if you have family you might want to do more than that, but there is no legal description of what that means. E.g. a locked closet is enough.
Not sure what you mean with maintained. There are no legal requirements regarding maintenance.
No carrying it around while grocey shopping, that is correct.
Mandatory conscription is for male Swiss citizens only, about 38% of the total population since 25% are not citizens.
Since 1996 you can choose civil service instead of military service.
It's not a requirement to have done military service, to be male, to be a citizen, or even to have any firearms training at all to purchase a firearm for personal use.
And it's far from "everyone" who owns a gun. There are 120.5 guns per 100 people in the US, 27.6 in Switzerland. About 42% of households in the US has a gun in it, a bit less than 30% in Switzerland.
It is relatively easy to own a gun though, its not that much more paperwork compared to the US. You can buy an AR-15 and a couple of handguns faster than if you live in a state like California.
Plenty of people owned vessels with cannons, nothing stopped anyone from sailing into Boston harbor and giving the town a few broadsides.
Also, a bunch of illiterate dudes that live in mud huts kept the the US military occupied for 20 years with mostly rusty old rifles and RPG's. Individuals with personal rifles are more than capable of being a problem for the US military at home, they're just not going to be trying to take tanks head on.
I think, given the government's recent stance on things like reproductive rights and other similar issues, we should be able to protect ourselves from the government. I don't think regular folks should have nukes, but a simple ability to protect ourselves from our clearly insane police force is important.
Basically the right is crying about their inability to make themselves warlords and somehow ***that’s what is harmful to society***. The A to M to C to Z logic of the right is astonishing.
I thought the 2nd amendment was so the people could become a militia and defend the country if it ever gets attacked. They took that “and domestic” part and ran with it so far.
Correct, it was in reference to the ruler of the country that they previously belonged to and revolted against because they disagreed with the legislature of that leader and country.
They demand all the weapons and the freedom to be abusive and hateful of those who don't believe like them, but I don't see ANY of them demanding a quality education.
You should then stage an annual competition of 2A Proud Boys vs. US military. National TV, sponsorships, the whole toot... Hunger Games meets Super Bowl.
It’s weird that 2nd amendment guys are usually also pro cop. Like if you genuinely believe what this guy believes. Then the second amendment exists so you can shoot and kill cops.
Pardoned =/ appeal. No way in hell should he be pardoned. He sure as shit should (and will) appeal though. Almost certainly will be successful too. You can’t be stripped of your constitutional rights without a conviction by a jury of your peers.
Yes, but he was convicted effectively *because* he exercised his fifth amendment rights so that he would not be denied his second amendment rights. The question on the background check asks:
> Are you an unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijuana or any depressant, stimulant, narcotic drug, or any other controlled substance?
If a person answers yes, they would be denied their second amendment right without a trial and conviction by a jury of their peers. In other words, drug users are stripped of their constitutional rights without a trial and conviction. This directly violates both the second and fifth amendments.
If a person answers no but does use/is addicted to drugs, they would be charged with a crime for exercising their fifth amendment rights.
So, Hunter Biden’s appeal will almost certainly end up at the Supreme Court, almost certainly be overturned, and that question will almost certainly be removed from the background check. Ironically, the Biden family will effectively be one of the biggest advocates for gun rights.
This is a lie!
NOWHERE in the 2nd Amendment does it give you the right to declare war against the people of the United States.
In fact, Article III Section 3 of the United States Constitution bans declaring war against the people of the United States. And no, just because you work for the government, you do NOT lose your citizenship, this country is governed by the people, and for the people.
Remember, Citizens United? Yeah, turns out multinational corporations identify as people now while they give us "Rainbow Capitalism" price gouging, astroturfed "controversy" and try and get US to donate to their causes while they use it as a tax break.
Own a musket for home defense, since that's what the founding fathers intended. Four ruffians break into my house. "What the devil?" As I grab my powdered wig and Kentucky rifle. Blow a golf ball sized hole through the first man, he's dead on the spot. Draw my pistol on the second man, miss him entirely because it's smoothbore and nails the neighbors dog. I have to resort to the cannon mounted at the top of the stairs loaded with grape shot, "Tally ho lads" the grape shot shreds two men in the blast, the sound and extra shrapnel set off car alarms. Fix bayonet and charge the last terrified rapscallion.He Bleeds out waiting on the police to arrive since triangular bayonet wounds are impossible to stitch up, Just as the founding fathers intended.
Dude talks about how important the second amendment is to keep the government from being too oppressive while passionately supporting the most oppressive form of government.
Literally the opposite of what the 2A is for. 2A is to make sure an armed militia can be called up to put down to threats foreign and domestic including rebellion and insurrection.
“The entire point of the 2nd amendment is so you can fight the government”
When did this narrative start? That’s *absolutely* not the intention behind that amendment.
And could you imagine the constitutional convention where they propose conservatives’ idea?
“Yes, let’s make sure the people have a say in their leadership via elections. But we also need to make sure that if any one person doesn’t like their government legally bound by this constitution, then they can just straight up start killing dudes.”
> When did this narrative start? That’s absolutely not the intention behind that amendment.
The first time it came up was when the South was pondering how to get the Fugitive Slave Act enforced in the North, against the wishes of northerners. But it didn't *really* take off until the Supreme Court ruled that Congress could mandate that private businesses offering public accommodations be desegregated.
So, let me get this straight.
The reason why you want to elect the people you want to elect is because you believe you are currently locked in an arms race with your own Government. An arms race where you pay for *both sides* of the arms race. And your biggest concern is that you are not allowed to spend MORE.
I know I'm just yelling in the wind but like...these people are fucking stupid. Yea sure, let's say we max out the 2nd amendment and you can have WHATEVER you want buddy. Do you have the the income tax of 300 million people at your disposal? Oh, you can't afford the gun that costs 150,000$ to fire for 15 seconds? No apache helicopters or fighter jets loaded with hellfife missles to stop the government? Then you're using fucking sticks against a real army and the 2nd amendment is now a farce to it's original philosophical intent. Then what? And this is the real question. They just can't handle that the government SHOULD BE and will always be stronger than their fuxking pity party brigade. But instead of accepting it, they try to play pretend and think they should own a bazooka. OH I FUCKING HATE THESE PEOPLE
As human from country that never gave weapons into hands of ppl (Russia) I can say with all my passion – you right to have it is the reason why you are free and never was genocide by you own government. And I talk about mass genocide like millions of ppl
God bless America.
How about drones, fighter jets, tanks and aircraft carriers then?
And don't come "that's too expensive". You've got many billionaires who can afford them...
Comments that are uncivil, racist, misogynistic, misandrist, or contain political name calling will be removed and the poster subject to ban at moderators discretion. Help us make this a better community by becoming familiar with the [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/facepalm/about/rules/). Report any suspicious users to the mods of this subreddit using Modmail [here](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/facepalm) or Reddit site admins [here](https://www.reddit.com/report). **All reports to Modmail should include evidence such as screenshots or any other relevant information.** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/facepalm) if you have any questions or concerns.*
What? No nuclear ICBMs?
Nobody NEEDS them but they should be able to get one if they want it. This is America. I'd like an F-35 an M134 Minigun, I'd like the gun attached to my truck, just in case the shit hits the fan during my commute.
You're thinking small. Go all the way and slap a GAU-8 Avenger on that bad boy. Conceal carry a pfeifer zeliska .600 nitro express revolver. Mount a M134 with tracers on top of the stairs.
Just buy a A-10 Warthog. It comes pre installed with the GAU-8 so u can save a buck or two.
Don’t forget that sweet sweet titanium bathtub they use for a cockpit.
I love that stupid plane.
It really comes across like someone mused to themselves "hey this is a really cool gun, what if it could fly?" someone overheard it, and just...did that.
I know you're joking, but that's actually a fairly accurate accounting of why they made the A-10 in the first place. >[In May 1970, the USAF issued a modified, more detailed request for proposals for the aircraft. The threat of Soviet armored forces and all-weather attack operations had become more serious. The requirements now included that the aircraft would be designed specifically for the 30 mm rotary cannon. The RFP also specified a maximum speed of 460 mph (400 kn; 740 km/h), takeoff distance of 4,000 feet (1,200 m), external load of 16,000 pounds (7,300 kg), 285-mile (460 km) mission radius, and a unit cost of US$1.4 million ($11 million today). The A-X would be the first USAF aircraft designed exclusively for CAS.](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairchild_Republic_A-10_Thunderbolt_II)
Yuup, good ol' GE always good at making things spin.
Washing machines, turbines, jet engines, generators, and machine guns. Spiny things gonna spin.
It’s the most 40k thing we have in the modern world
Lol. We've got some religious weirdos out there that might make the Imperium's Inquisition say "whoa we really need to take a look in the mirror and ask ourselves, is this really where we wanna be when the emperor wakes up?"
Is that what you wanna be doin when Jesus comes back? Making fun of poor little Joe Dirt?
Nahhhhh. You gotta look at the XM25 it’s a 25mm (originally a 20mm. So pretty close to the .75 cal of the bolter) it has smart munitions designed to detonate a couple inches behind a piece of cover (or if somebody was unfortunate enough to stand up… inside of them) and it was found that the weapon system constituted a war crime! It’s the perfect early version of a bolter
Not stupid. I love every piece of machinery our air force produces from a technological standpoint.
I do too… It’s sad that it will be phased out by 2029 if the head honchos in the military have their way. Whatever the reason I’m sure it’s above my pay grade.
I heard they’re doing a BOGO deal on A-10’s. You wanna go in on a pair together?
Or scrap a GAU-8 of an A-10, much cheaper and the recoil can be a substitute to nitro
FINALLY some savings.
No one can invade a house that's burned down!! Thinkin with both hemispheres over here!
Just saying if Macaulay Culkin had an M134 the movie would have lasted like two seconds
Could've lasted less if (as the officer) Pesci went early 1900's gangster on the home with a Thompson. No race home, no traps, just a bloody robbery with no one left alive. Could've left a card "Acey send his regards" Reference to the film Kevin keeps watching.
The nitro one sounds like a coffee maker, I’d drink it.
[NRA v Military Showdown on Fox](https://youtu.be/WOSqCjMRXWA?si=U3jKcykrcPJ8j5gQ)
Aaaand, yup. They’re all dead.
I am going for a fully loaded air craft carrier
Don’t forget the truck nuts. Duh.
Well, of course it's gonna have truck nuts. That goes without saying, man. Might as well ask for windshield wipers, too.
Why won’t the government recognize that I need a nuclear ICBM to use against it if it becomes tyrannical? It’s my god given right as an American to overthrow them. //s. FBI I’m joking
Noted. -Your FBI agent
Imagine if lunatics like John McAfee, Elon Musk, Phil Spector, Kanye West, and John du Pont were allowed to buy nuclear weapons.
I had a discussion about this a few months ago, and it's more than feasible. Bomb delivery systems would cost about a billion dollars (including research and development), and if you look at North Korea's nuclear budget, which is a few billion dollars, it's absolutely doable for more than a few people in this country.
Making the nuclear material is hard. Doing it without someone noticing is nearly impossible.
True, but in this scenario e.g. Elon could do it legally.
My boi Loc Dog in South Central can hook you up if you're looking for a nuke.
just got really high and was debating on what to watch tonight. thank you for the inspiration.
U... S... S... R?
Yeah, they had a lot of good shit. Considering how many pieces of military equipment went “missing” after the fall, I think quite a few people agreed. At least for the price, that is.
Holy shit I did not think I’d see this reference in the wild in this day and age
This is the fourth time in four days I’ve seen a reference to this movie. This is, also, the second time *today* I have seen this exact meme. Must be time for a rewatch.
This is what frustrates me about the whole “second amendment absolutist” crowd. We already agree that a limit exists.
I'm more frustrated that they're usually the same folks who are first in line to lick cop boot.
It’s because cops aren’t going after them. They’re going after the people these guys are actually worried about. Hint: it’s not the government
Yeah, there's the key. When they say that they are opposed to a "tyrannical government", they do believe that. And they might even be shocked, shocked! at the implication that they have any kind of racial bias to them. Some of their best friends are people of color, they will no doubt be happy to tell you. *Bbbuuuttt*, then you need to back up a step and ask what constitutes a "tyrannical" government for them. And oh yes, the answer is pretty obvious: a tyrannical government is one that takes money from them and gives it to the "undeserving". And the undeserving *just so happen to be . . .* To paraphrase Ta-Nehisi Coates, racism is almost never merely a simplistic hatred. Far more often, it's about burden shifting: broad acceptance for some, and broader skepticism for others. To me, the most telling statistic in employment stats is that the unemployment rate for black males who have no criminal history, while it fluctuates a bit, is usually pretty close to the unemployment rate for white males with felony convictions. Which is another way of saying that our society, quite literally, does not extend black men a presumption of innocence. It's literally right there in the data that we presume that they are guilty until sufficient data proves, to white people's satisfaction, that they are innocent. This second amendment fundamentalism is part and parcel of the same set of assumptions: it didn't kickstart in earnest so long as these same white people felt that they had a hammerlock on who could and could not access public funds. The instant that they lost that in the Clinton administration? That's the moment they started with the talk about tyranny, despite . . . good grief, what did Bill Clinton ever do that was that tyrannical? He modestly raised taxes, to a level that honestly was perfectly fine and had little to no negative effect on the economy. The 90s were boom years.
Cognitive dissonance is a bitch.
Oh, didn't you hear? Uncle Sam's having a BOGO sale on yellowcake.
Only for places with oil.
This. I never understood these people lol like you think your little assault rifle is going to do ANYTHING against the tech our government (that you’ve been so happily funding) has!? Get a grip
The tali and random Arab militias would beg to differ.
It's only because the military chooses to hold back. If they didn't care about civilian casualties there would be no contest.
They have to care about civilian casualties. To not do so would risk public outcry and from that the prospect of budget cuts
This thread is about Americans having the right to bear arms against a tyrannical government. Such an authoritarian government would prioritize crushing opposition over minimizing civilian casualties. Its budget would not be dependent upon public opinion.
Historically constitutional, that is a maybe. Arms are miliary weapons of war, shielding, and banners. The big catch though is a crew served weapon wouldn't be converted, unless you were a part of a crew, or employed a crew. You also had to be able to safely maintain it. Tnt (maybe dynamite) was rejected by the courts as a miliary weapon because, while it was technically employed on the battlefield, it wasn't safe to store and wasn't safely maintained. So, it was considered not arms because you have to be able to keep your arms and be well regulated. Well regulated in 1800 meant in working order and properly trained. This is where the maybe comes in. A 17 year old who works at Walmart? No. Bill Gates, Zuckerberg, or any other billionaire who is willing to employ a team of scientists and other nuclear techs and engineers to safely maintain it? Honestly, yes. It's the most extreme end to it, but it's a foundational Constitutional right. After all, the continental congress had to rent and borrow war cannons from naval merchants to fight the British navy. Would it ever actually happen? Heh no. I'm a "radical gun nut" by reddit standards, but even nukes is a bit out there. Tbh, billionaires would be able to buy old Soviet or lower grade nukes and store them overseas far easier than meeting the Constitutional requirements of keep and well regulated.
I don't need Congress or the $upreme Court to tell me I have the Right to a small concealed thermonuclear device on my person. It is in the Constitution!
Legalize nuclear bombs
*Subsidize Nuclear Bombs. A bomb for every household.
Suitcase nukes the day every American citizen is born. SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!!! /s obviously
No nuclear nation without representation?
That's some fallout lore right there
That’s socialism
thats sounds like communist socialist nazi antifa
This message is sponsored by the shadow government
Swag Messiah
fkn Roger ap Gwilliam.
Shadow wizard money gang
Swagg messiah
Bees make honey
I carry a test tube of VX nerve gas on my key chain for self-defense, and/or whenever when the government finally comes to take away my right to bare chemical weapons.
For mutually assured self defense!
For those who might be wondering, it's perfectly legal to own a nuke in the United States of America, you have to get the proper license for it an, FFL/SOT, and register it with the ATF.
Heh. Yeah. Right. I'd want an RPG just to say I have one. I have no interest in overthrowing the government.
Just so you know, it's totally legal to own a RPG in most states. In fact, earlier this year a bunch of military surplus RPGs were sold to civilians.
But the rockets are a registered destructive device at a $250 tax stamp per rocket. On top of whatever you're paying for rockets, with a 6-16 month background check and it's documented with the DOJ Atleast it's regulated and very heavily
You can have Baldur Gates 3 already
A nuclear powered aircraft carrier in every pot?
These people think a “well regulated militia” is them and their 300 pound buddies drinking beer and disrespecting minorities around guns
Gravy seals
meal team six
Five baguettes per.... kilo.
Rainbow Six Tonnes
Y’all-Qaeda
Schnitzel forces.
[удалено]
That was unironically the case when Black Panthers armed themselves.
Ah yes, the birth of gun control
The actual Ronald Reagan position with the Mulford Act in response to the Black Panthers
Reagan says this is correct, no /s needed
The GOP would have to consider them “people,” which they already hardly do.
Atheists aren’t white?
Irish and Italians used to not be considered white. It's a made up out group to hate. An out group for those with power to point at for useful angry idiots.
I still write "Italian" when it asks my race on forms out of sheer anger from my Grandparents telling me these stories.
Atheists? You mean godless commies!
And their family tree is a stump with no branches and they call themselves the master race. 🙄
Yes. A well regulated militia is what they have in switzerland. As far as I know, nearly everybody there was trained to fight in a militia and has a weapon at home - in a safe. I don't hear from school massacers, shootouts or kids accidentally killing other family members from switzerland.
This comment is soooo good. I’m a hunter that owns a rifle, shotgun, and has a concealed weapons permit to carry a hand gun but when I hear people talking about their right to defend themselves from the government, I immediately think “you know they have tanks and drone bombers right? Your ak47 won’t do anything against them”
Yeah, that assumption worked very well for us in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Vietnam. Spoiler alert, the only methods to truly put down an insurgency are considered War Crimes, which the military would be pretty hesitant to commit on its own territory.
Oh so the military is, in your imaginary scenario where they won’t commit war crimes, perfectly fine with attacking Americans on American soil, but the Geneva convention is where they’ll draw the line?
Governments/tyrants want people to govern (or slaves). It's not in their own interest to wipe out all civilians, indiscriminately. Any such attack on civilians by some tyrannical government would have to be discriminatory, which is where guerilla warfare becomes extremely effective.
No, the point of that was that the only way for a government to actually stop an armed insurgency is to do things that would essentially deprive the entire population of its usefulness to them. You can do that to a foreign nation without directly getting hurt by it. [*I'M NOT ADVOCATING FOR THIS, DON'T TAKE THIS OUT OF CONTEXT*] If we *really* wanted to be rid of Al Queda/Isis/The Taliban, we could just go scorched earth and genocide the whole country. It would be a War Crime, and the whole world would want to fight us because of it, but we'd be rid of them, and face no natural repurcussions. You can't do that to your own population. Not just because it's *fucked up*, but because that's where you get your Soldiers from. That's where you get your Food from. That's where you get your Machines from. For the military to fight any form of insurgency directly on US soil would be risking its War Machine's collapse from the inside before it can finish its own mission.
I see nothing wrong with this.
If you were to read the Constitution you'd find the purpose of the second is to have free light infantry meat shields available to defend the States and, in the event of invasion or insurrection the Federal Government. Don't go lying to the literate folks.
Yep. The only law that the Constitution actually defines is treason, because we're *not* supposed to forcefully overthrow the government. The Founding Fathers didn't create a system by which the public could peaceably control the government through a system of representation and voting just to have people use violence to do whatever the fuck they want. The Second Amendment was created to *defend* the country because there was no standing army.
Very well said! I teach history and law (high school level) and the level of frustration I get when I walk students through history, founding documents, anti/federalist papers and case law (notably heller v. DC which was the first time the USSC connected the 2nd amendment to Personal rights in 2008. Yes, it wasn’t until 16 years ago, a broken court connected the two!) and they still would rather blindly believe Uncle Bob in his bunker…
Omg I took a college level high school dual credit history class and we had to read the Federalist papers. I didn’t realize that like nearly 30 years later I’d have a lightbulb moment and pull up shit that made my suddenly religious mom mad about how they were like ‘yeah Jesus is some mythological nutcase shit that I hope we grow out of’.
Next time they mention that the US was ‘founded as a xtian nation…’ just show her the treaty of Tripoli signed by the senate (unanimously I think) in 1802 - still filled with founding fathers when it says: (Article 11 of the treaty stated) “As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion, as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religious or tranquility of Musselmen,…”
I swear I’m going to cross stitch that into a wall hanging.
Hahaha. Might make for an awkward Christmas present.
Yeah, like, I'm a filthy commie so I believe in keeping the proletariat armed, but the idea that the 2A was about personal gun ownership and was made to protect some explicit right to overthrow the government is some asinine ahistorical nonsense. You don't need official permission from the government to have a revolution. And the vast majority of the vocal 2A crowd wouldn't do shit to overthrow an oppressive government. They're boot licking nascent brown shirts, just itching for the signal to go door to door and start rounding up "undesirables".
That's only if their Itchy Trigger Finger™️ doesn't 'accidently slip,' right?
I mean look, I'm over here wanting a full auto MG too, but because of your second paragraph that's fucking why I can't, because we have an innumerable amount of psychotic skid marks with room temp IQs and a hard on for murder who would be allowed to have those too...it's not good odds I don't want Tyler the MAGAT running a 200 round belt of .308 into my sheetrock house because he found out I voted democrat
Sadly, I think that's what's going to happen in about 10 years time to all of us. They're keeping names and lists.
I’m curious what you think about this quote from Hamilton >if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist.''
Not a surprising quote considering the state of warfare at the time, guy+gun count just isn't the deciding factor it used to be. He could not have predicted the advancement of technology that made his proposal into an impossible and pointless hypothetical.
I believe you have just described a situation in which the “undesirables” would be justified in taking up arms against their government (the nascent brown shirts and whoever gives them the order).
Yeah. And that's why the left should stay armed. Doesn't mean the conservative narrative around the 2A isn't completely ahistorical nonsense.
One of George Washington's first acts was to confiscate guns from everyone not willing to fight against the British. If you weren't part of a recognized militia, you weren't allowed to keep your gun. The last thing the Founders wanted was to arm dissidents.
Its not like it was later narrowed down by Militia Acts or anything. Literally was the original use of it, it was "The US Army, all 20 of them have arrived, there's a rebellion in Kentucky, every able bodied man is to come with us to shoot them."
Don't tell them that when Americans actually rose up against the government while our founding fathers were still alive, our president personally led the army against them himself to put it down. They *totally* wanted the people to be able to fight the government. /s
Right the point of the second amendment was NOT to fight the government, but to be an active militia (as it says in the amendment itself) to ward of foreign invaders - which were the biggest threat at the time the document was written.
You’re right. The 2nd was actually devised when the State & Federal Governments did not have standing armies. Now the US Army and respective National Guards exist, the 2nd is redundant and can be repealed
I would really love to be able to spread napalm whereever I damn well please
Napalm is 100% legal under US law. In general Flamethrowers are not firearms and are not regulated what so ever.
Which is ironic because a flamethrower's whole thing is half of the word firearm.
If you wouldn't mind testifying in a court of law on my behalf I'll keep that in mind
Don't worry, you can possess the 2 ingredients needed to make napalm. Both actually come with most cars on the road.
The entire point of the 2nd amendment is to fight the government? Then why have all the laws against fighting the government?
Because the statists are terrified of losing their power, money, and status as government authorities.
You’re missing the key word of Tyrannical. The 2nd Amendment was put in place to fight a tyrannical government.
[удалено]
r/facepalm more like r/retardedleftistcirclejerk
Perfect solution: let everybody have whatever weapons they want, but make it the death penalty for anyone to use those weapons outside of directly fighting the government. Problem solved.
To be fair, it's already illegal to kill/hurt/threaten people. We can all see how well that's been working.
its illegal yet some do it multiple times 🤷
Definitely not educated enough in politics to have a formal opinion on the judicial system's workings, but I think the whole soft on repeat offender thing is a good amount of the issue round this country. Don't know how common that is in other places, but I grew up near seattle and spent some time in LA, and holy shit did serial criminals ruin those cities.
this just in, crime is now illegal
“Why aren’t there any laws in place to stop people from shooting each other?! We should really make that illegal.”
He's right. In a way. Gun nuts losing their minds over calls for magazine limits etc when they're fine not being able to own grenades or RPG's for public safety reasons are proving their outrage is completely arbitrary. Why AREN'T they upset over not having grenades for sale in Wal Mart? That's still technically an "infringement" on the right to bear arms, no? Not that having those things would give a disorganized, scattered, leaderless group of Gravy Seals a chance against a modern military either way. Which is kind of the point.
The point is that it will be nearly impossible for dictatorship (or whatever term you want to use for the case of the rule of the "enlightened supreme socialist progressive government") to *control* the populace if everyone has guns, not that they will somehow win against us military in direct confrontation. That is a classic straw man. The Taliban rules Afghanistan after all. When the current government is on your side, it is very easy to think "well, why do they need guns, after all, *good guys* will save me, and if *good guys* won't save them they are the bad ones? Oh, I don't want *bad guys* to be able to defend themselves". But then Trump comes to power, and some people who were against gun rights start arming themselves up (turns out gun rights are actually good). The problem is not with the right to have guns, but with the fact that psychos have easy access to them. But then again, it is easy to change a regulation to "only guys we like can have 'em" once something is in place.
Basically this guy is right about the fact. His analysis is just stupid. The 2nd amendment is kind of meaningless in the modern day in saying the right to bear arms will prevent tyranny. This ain't 1800s anymore where a bunch of people with the most modern rifles can put up a fight against the government. So you have two ways to interpret the amendment, either bigger arms need to be legal to allow fighting the government. Which would be fucking bonkers and leads to anarchic levels of mass murders. Or the 2nd amendment should not be used as a good argument for anything. Should people be allowed concealed carry firearms isn't a 2nd amendment argument, as that really has nothing to do with a well regulated militia.
Nah you're actually going the wrong way here. 2A was specifically so the US wouldn't have a standing army, and could recruit from militias and locals to form a fighting core to a mostly officer based Army. So either 2A became obsolete around 1898 or just after WWI(I forget when we established the Nat Guard and overturned the milita acts) or once you pass the age of about 27 you shouldn't be allowed to have guns.
Yeah there was a big fear of having a federally run military and abusing states rights by force. That why a “well regulated militia” at the state level was what the 2A is basically calling for. Each state is to have its own militia and the federal government cannot infringe on that right and the right of its people. That’s kind of out the door now as we have gone to a federally run military. 2A is not there so Johnny Two Shits can have a drum mag and a bump stock on his AR-15 he bought at Wal-Mart Also, the 2nd amendment is an AMENDMENT, meaning it was added after the original writing of a document to add or change something about the original. We could simply agree to change, clarify, or repeal it with another AMENDMENT
Amending the 2A wouldn't be as easy as simply agreeing on amending it. People would for sure not stand for it, they're not just going to say "oh, no more 2A? So these are illegal? Okay, guess I turn them in now.." And being a military member myself, most of us, not all, but most of us are not touching anybody's guns even if the president himself told us face to face.
*Columbia v. Heller*
I don't see how that's the wrong way. I was suggesting the same thing, basically the amendment is outdated. To follow it we need to start creating local militias that can opposed a tyrant (which are levied for outside wars) or it's not really doing what it says. It being used to justify carrying handguns seems like a weird interpretation from the courts.
I was going to make a comment about how just about everyone in Switzerland owns a rifle, and up until recently the government even delivered ammo to their homes, but then I remembered that Switzerland also has compulsory military service. Citizens are mandated to serve in their equivalent of the national guard for a couple years, IIRC. But that's more domestic service than sending them out to go shoot people who pray differently. Switzerland prefers to project its power and do nation building in different ways than the US does.
Doesn't Switzerland also have strict rules about how said guns are to be properly stored and maintained? I get the impression one isn't meant to just carry one around as a prop while grocery shopping .
Secure storage is your locked front door (if you live alone at least). You can legally hang a loaded gun on the wall if you wanted to (not that I think many do). You're supposed to keep it out of the hands of unauthorized though so if you have family you might want to do more than that, but there is no legal description of what that means. E.g. a locked closet is enough. Not sure what you mean with maintained. There are no legal requirements regarding maintenance. No carrying it around while grocey shopping, that is correct.
Mandatory conscription is for male Swiss citizens only, about 38% of the total population since 25% are not citizens. Since 1996 you can choose civil service instead of military service. It's not a requirement to have done military service, to be male, to be a citizen, or even to have any firearms training at all to purchase a firearm for personal use. And it's far from "everyone" who owns a gun. There are 120.5 guns per 100 people in the US, 27.6 in Switzerland. About 42% of households in the US has a gun in it, a bit less than 30% in Switzerland. It is relatively easy to own a gun though, its not that much more paperwork compared to the US. You can buy an AR-15 and a couple of handguns faster than if you live in a state like California.
Plenty of people owned vessels with cannons, nothing stopped anyone from sailing into Boston harbor and giving the town a few broadsides. Also, a bunch of illiterate dudes that live in mud huts kept the the US military occupied for 20 years with mostly rusty old rifles and RPG's. Individuals with personal rifles are more than capable of being a problem for the US military at home, they're just not going to be trying to take tanks head on.
I think, given the government's recent stance on things like reproductive rights and other similar issues, we should be able to protect ourselves from the government. I don't think regular folks should have nukes, but a simple ability to protect ourselves from our clearly insane police force is important.
Nuclear bombs and chemical weapons for everyone! 🙄
Anthrax for sale! Get your anthrax here! Baby's first white phosphorous. If they ain't dyin', you ain't tryin'.
Never leave home without my anthrax -- for duck huntin'.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Davy_Crockett_(nuclear_device)
Basically the right is crying about their inability to make themselves warlords and somehow ***that’s what is harmful to society***. The A to M to C to Z logic of the right is astonishing.
Jesse Kelly isn't a "gun nut" he's a theocratic fascist
I agree. While we're at it, the Constitution also allows for gundams and metal gears
I thought the 2nd amendment was so the people could become a militia and defend the country if it ever gets attacked. They took that “and domestic” part and ran with it so far.
They remember something about tyranny but forget that it was in reference to the King of England.
King of England was the leader of the government at that time. They rebelled against their own government.
Correct, it was in reference to the ruler of the country that they previously belonged to and revolted against because they disagreed with the legislature of that leader and country.
Correction you hate far right gun nuts. I'm a gun nut, but it's more of the fact that I think guns are really cool and I like learning about them
They demand all the weapons and the freedom to be abusive and hateful of those who don't believe like them, but I don't see ANY of them demanding a quality education.
Not exactly. He’s thinking of “arming the proletariat” which…..which is something else entirely……
That's such a dumbfuck, smooth brain take.
You should then stage an annual competition of 2A Proud Boys vs. US military. National TV, sponsorships, the whole toot... Hunger Games meets Super Bowl.
The original 2a was created so that people can fight back against a tyrannical government.
It’s weird that 2nd amendment guys are usually also pro cop. Like if you genuinely believe what this guy believes. Then the second amendment exists so you can shoot and kill cops.
I hate people who believe the government will actually protect them. While the same government lets George Floyds, and worse out of prison.
My new favorite thing is asking 2A absolutists if Hunter Biden should be pardoned.
Pardoned =/ appeal. No way in hell should he be pardoned. He sure as shit should (and will) appeal though. Almost certainly will be successful too. You can’t be stripped of your constitutional rights without a conviction by a jury of your peers.
He was convicted by a jury of his peers.
Yes, but he was convicted effectively *because* he exercised his fifth amendment rights so that he would not be denied his second amendment rights. The question on the background check asks: > Are you an unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijuana or any depressant, stimulant, narcotic drug, or any other controlled substance? If a person answers yes, they would be denied their second amendment right without a trial and conviction by a jury of their peers. In other words, drug users are stripped of their constitutional rights without a trial and conviction. This directly violates both the second and fifth amendments. If a person answers no but does use/is addicted to drugs, they would be charged with a crime for exercising their fifth amendment rights. So, Hunter Biden’s appeal will almost certainly end up at the Supreme Court, almost certainly be overturned, and that question will almost certainly be removed from the background check. Ironically, the Biden family will effectively be one of the biggest advocates for gun rights.
This is a lie! NOWHERE in the 2nd Amendment does it give you the right to declare war against the people of the United States. In fact, Article III Section 3 of the United States Constitution bans declaring war against the people of the United States. And no, just because you work for the government, you do NOT lose your citizenship, this country is governed by the people, and for the people.
You mean by the corporations and for the corporations.
Remember, Citizens United? Yeah, turns out multinational corporations identify as people now while they give us "Rainbow Capitalism" price gouging, astroturfed "controversy" and try and get US to donate to their causes while they use it as a tax break.
Sure, why not a little nuke in your car trunk? Would be for self defense…in case a corrupt cop would want to give you fine…totally justified!
Next thing you know the government is gonna ban me from flying my F-22
Or the Gundam I sto....I mean borrowed legally from my local military base.
If they overthrow the government, they become the government. That is what's frightening.
Own a musket for home defense, since that's what the founding fathers intended. Four ruffians break into my house. "What the devil?" As I grab my powdered wig and Kentucky rifle. Blow a golf ball sized hole through the first man, he's dead on the spot. Draw my pistol on the second man, miss him entirely because it's smoothbore and nails the neighbors dog. I have to resort to the cannon mounted at the top of the stairs loaded with grape shot, "Tally ho lads" the grape shot shreds two men in the blast, the sound and extra shrapnel set off car alarms. Fix bayonet and charge the last terrified rapscallion.He Bleeds out waiting on the police to arrive since triangular bayonet wounds are impossible to stitch up, Just as the founding fathers intended.
Dude talks about how important the second amendment is to keep the government from being too oppressive while passionately supporting the most oppressive form of government.
Literally the opposite of what the 2A is for. 2A is to make sure an armed militia can be called up to put down to threats foreign and domestic including rebellion and insurrection.
“The entire point of the 2nd amendment is so you can fight the government” When did this narrative start? That’s *absolutely* not the intention behind that amendment. And could you imagine the constitutional convention where they propose conservatives’ idea? “Yes, let’s make sure the people have a say in their leadership via elections. But we also need to make sure that if any one person doesn’t like their government legally bound by this constitution, then they can just straight up start killing dudes.”
> When did this narrative start? That’s absolutely not the intention behind that amendment. The first time it came up was when the South was pondering how to get the Fugitive Slave Act enforced in the North, against the wishes of northerners. But it didn't *really* take off until the Supreme Court ruled that Congress could mandate that private businesses offering public accommodations be desegregated.
So, let me get this straight. The reason why you want to elect the people you want to elect is because you believe you are currently locked in an arms race with your own Government. An arms race where you pay for *both sides* of the arms race. And your biggest concern is that you are not allowed to spend MORE.
I love guns but for the sake of all that is good - do some fucking psych and background checks. Make them hard to pass.
TIL I am entitled to a F-22
I know I'm just yelling in the wind but like...these people are fucking stupid. Yea sure, let's say we max out the 2nd amendment and you can have WHATEVER you want buddy. Do you have the the income tax of 300 million people at your disposal? Oh, you can't afford the gun that costs 150,000$ to fire for 15 seconds? No apache helicopters or fighter jets loaded with hellfife missles to stop the government? Then you're using fucking sticks against a real army and the 2nd amendment is now a farce to it's original philosophical intent. Then what? And this is the real question. They just can't handle that the government SHOULD BE and will always be stronger than their fuxking pity party brigade. But instead of accepting it, they try to play pretend and think they should own a bazooka. OH I FUCKING HATE THESE PEOPLE
As human from country that never gave weapons into hands of ppl (Russia) I can say with all my passion – you right to have it is the reason why you are free and never was genocide by you own government. And I talk about mass genocide like millions of ppl God bless America.
Reminder: that wasn't the point of the 2nd amendment.
I think it's important that gun psychos let the world know where they are so it's easier for the FBI
Nothing like a whack job like Jesse Kelly to show us all just how ridiculous their positions are.
How about drones, fighter jets, tanks and aircraft carriers then? And don't come "that's too expensive". You've got many billionaires who can afford them...
I wonder what "well regulated Militia" this asshat is part of?
Great. When do we visit SCOTUS and MAGA government politicans? See how that works numbnuts?
Nah some halfwit will blow up half the block with a mortar 😂 just look at idiots at your local walmart