It required 90% of our gunpowder from foreign sources, almost 50% of our funding, and the intervention of 30 ships of the line and 8000 soldiers. At Yorktown US forces were the least powerful on the field, after the French and British. If it isn't for the French, the Revolution is crushed by 1780. And it also took fighting by France, Spain and the Netherlands across half the globe to keep reinforcements from the colonies.
It required the creation of a professional army, vast expenditures by foreign governments, the breakout of a massive war across Europe, and the direct intervention of a military far more poweful than our own. Even then, it was Rochembeau who created the plan, and Adams, Washington, and Rochembeau all commented that if the war lasted another year, France would likely have withdrawn support and the war would have been lost. But sure, it was all yankee doodle dandy and brave American patriots. Guess that's all your mind can grasp.
You are conflating "the right to bear arms" with revolution. These are obviously very different things, Especially if we are talking primarily about the right for individuals to generally own guns in pretty much whatever types and quantities that they want. Most 1st world countries don't recognize THAT right and yet they still enjoy about as much freedom and rights as we do.
I think you just accidentally conceded that the 2nd Amendment's original purpose was to ensure an armed militia for a brand new country without much of a military. I'm glad you have a better understanding of what the amendment actually means.
When the government starts becoming overbearing and not respecting peoples rights the only solution is to rise up violently, which is why @Obiwan-Can-Blow-Me must have supported all the BLM protests.
I've had an understanding of what it actually means for quite some time. https://wordforge.net/index.php?posts/2746587/
Right, dogma. There are free states without militias. Madison was speaking of the small professional armies of the day - mass mobilization began in his lifetime, starting with the Napoleonic Wars, where large subsections of the populace were mass enscripted. The Founding Fathers got a lot of shit wrong, and this is obviously one of them. Most of the free countries of the world right now do not have a militia, and your bringing up conceits over 200 years out of date doesn't change that.
Well there seem to be three main options: You supported them. You didn't support them because you thought the complaints of rights being infringed were invalid. You didn't support them because you thought the complaints were valid but force isn't an appropriate response to rights being infringed.
The right to own firearms isn't going to go away in the United States any time soon. YMMV on whether or not that's a good or bad thing. However, it boggles my mind that sensible restrictions and regulations on what kind of guns and ammo one can own are trumpeted as assaults on the Second Amendment. There's sensible restrictions and regulations on all sorts of things and no one really seems to mind--think cars, prescription drugs, zoning laws. But guns are somehow sacrosanct? Why? Is it the 'shall not be infringed upon' clause? If so, should there be any legal limit on what arms an American can own? The Constitution doesn't explicitly say 'guns.' So what's the limit?
The Second says "arms," generally understood to mean such weapons as an individual soldier can carry and operate. Which means anything like a crew-served weapon is out, and ordnance (bombs, artillery shells, missiles, etc) are also out.
Seems like you would need those things in order to successfully rebel against a tyrannical government.
I'm not conflating anything. I supported their right to protest. I agreed with their complaints that the police have become too militarized. I agree that there needs to be police reform in this country. I don't agree that we're at the point where violence is an acceptable response to these grievances.
I think it's because the words "sensible" "common sense" and "reasonable" mean different things to different people. Who decides what are acceptable weapons & ammo? It's just not as simple as whether or not we should have seat belts/restraints in cars for example - that's binary for the most part. But the varieties and uses of guns are much more complicated.
Last year I really thought Trump was going to do some crazy shit like declare martial law and we’d have tanks in the streets across the country, that would be a good point to start gathering people together like they did in the colonies and start thinking about how we could fight back. I don’t own any fire arms though and I’m not skilled in any way so I’d probably have to take a different role in that type of situation.
Who decides? My guess would be our elected lawmakers. Guns are more complicated than seat belts, but they're not rocket science.
They probably do, but they are completely out of 5.56 mm , 30-06 , 9 mil and other rounds people might actually need.
I'm not questioning the legality of owning a tank. FF says he would take up arms against the government if 1) the president declared martial law and 2) there were tanks in the streets across the country. But he doesn't have any arms (how sad). So my question to those of you with arms: how many tanks in how many communities would it take for you to take up arms?
So this is what the red half of the country is defending: Yet the minute one of these become a full fledged human on the other side of the womb,it's a "welfare leech" Pick a fucking struggle.
