Valid
Freedom USA
Sort:
#166 agree to disagree, crêpes are better than pancakes but worse than waffles
The right to bear arms againt an oppressive government is a right I hold dearly. If a government did arise that was tyrannical, then I personally would gladly serve to free the population. And if you think about it, the colonial people were way outmatched, facing a trained army
The_R3d_Hood wrote:
The right to bear arms againt an oppressive government is a right I hold dearly. If a government did arise that was tyrannical, then I personally would gladly serve to free the population. And if you think about it, the colonial people were way outmatched, facing a trained army
It's your time to shine now.
While I agree that the current government could operate in a much more civilized manner, i do not think that violence should be the first response
#169 the level of difference between then and now is super big, like they didn't have close to the abilty of destruction the army has now
The_R3d_Hood wrote:
The right to bear arms againt an oppressive government is a right I hold dearly. If a government did arise that was tyrannical, then I personally would gladly serve to free the population. And if you think about it, the colonial people were way outmatched, facing a trained army
I agree that the British were quite strong and the aid of the french was necessary to win the war but I think it's far worse these days. An unorganized militia against the current US military sounds more dire than in the revolutionary war.
173 then we should organize the militia
Maybe if some external help came (like Canada 
) it could be done but I still think it is way harder. The US military is just very very strong.
Lordpotato999 wrote:
Wasn't the point of the 2nd amendment to help create a militia ready to protect the freedom of the country from oppressive regimes or other? I mean, I would love to believe that the civilians could take down the US military but that is impossible nowadays. There is no way that a "militia" can stand a chance if an oppressive government does take hold of the country making the main point of the amendment useless. If the amendment wanted to actually accomplish its job it would need to let civilians have far better weaponry and technology because warfare has changed a lot since 1787.
The American civilian militia is the largest and best trained military in the history of our world, 200 million strong. The modern military tops out at less than 1.5 million barely trained greenhorns fresh out of the cities. Civilians own guns, tanks, anti aircraft weapons, PT boats, fighter jets, flame throwers, and nearly anything else the military has or has had. In any armed conflict there will be sides taken up by the military and their forces will be further divided. The American civilian militia is unmatched in all of history. Think about preppers alone. They make up a force at least 25 million strong. You shouldn’t bet on the military.
Surely none of you support this, right?
#177 basix run as fast as you can, they can not shoot all of us.
Bezap wrote:
#177 basix run as fast as you can, they can not shoot all of us.
Last one there is the rotten egg.
#180 oh I haven't seen there is a video my bad
ExploringWA wrote:
Lordpotato999 wrote:
Wasn't the point of the 2nd amendment to help create a militia ready to protect the freedom of the country from oppressive regimes or other? I mean, I would love to believe that the civilians could take down the US military but that is impossible nowadays. There is no way that a "militia" can stand a chance if an oppressive government does take hold of the country making the main point of the amendment useless. If the amendment wanted to actually accomplish its job it would need to let civilians have far better weaponry and technology because warfare has changed a lot since 1787.
The American civilian militia is the largest and best trained military in the history of our world, 200 million strong. The modern military tops out at less than 1.5 million barely trained greenhorns fresh out of the cities. Civilians own guns, tanks, anti aircraft weapons, PT boats, fighter jets, flame throwers, and nearly anything else the military has or has had. In any armed conflict there will be sides taken up by the military and their forces will be further divided. The American civilian militia is unmatched in all of history. Think about preppers alone. They make up a force at least 25 million strong. You shouldn’t bet on the military.
200 million?? I do not see how that is possible. I could argue that the militia could also be divided but I don't want to delve too deep in hypotheticals. Now I did not know that the civilians were so well equipped and if they were I surely agree with you the militia could take them but the main point of a conflict would be the logistical and technological advantage.
Lordpotato999 wrote:
ExploringWA wrote:
Lordpotato999 wrote:
Wasn't the point of the 2nd amendment to help create a militia ready to protect the freedom of the country from oppressive regimes or other? I mean, I would love to believe that the civilians could take down the US military but that is impossible nowadays. There is no way that a "militia" can stand a chance if an oppressive government does take hold of the country making the main point of the amendment useless. If the amendment wanted to actually accomplish its job it would need to let civilians have far better weaponry and technology because warfare has changed a lot since 1787.
The American civilian militia is the largest and best trained military in the history of our world, 200 million strong. The modern military tops out at less than 1.5 million barely trained greenhorns fresh out of the cities. Civilians own guns, tanks, anti aircraft weapons, PT boats, fighter jets, flame throwers, and nearly anything else the military has or has had. In any armed conflict there will be sides taken up by the military and their forces will be further divided. The American civilian militia is unmatched in all of history. Think about preppers alone. They make up a force at least 25 million strong. You shouldn’t bet on the military.
200 million?? I do not see how that is possible. I could argue that the militia could also be divided but I don't want to delve too deep in hypotheticals. Now I did not know that the civilians were so well equipped and if they were I surely agree with you the militia could take them but the main point of a conflict would be the logistical and technological advantage.
Gun owners outnumber the unarmed, with a current best estimate of guns in 200 million homes. The sheer numbers are staggering. Imagine a foreign military trying to put boots on the ground where over half the population has enough guns to arm the entire population of 360 million people.
I can't help but think it's strange that a post discussing politics has been here for three months without a moderator closing it. Political discussion is not allowed in the forums. I wish it was, there's lots I would love to discuss. For some reason, certain political discussions are closed with mere mention of world events. How is it not hypocritical of chess.com to say "no political or religious discussion in forums" yet allow certain topics to be discussed but not others.
Please Sign Up to comment.
If you need help, please contact our Help and Support team.
#161 pancakes are way worse than waffles, I'm sorry that I'm the one who needs to deliver this bad news to you first
Crêpes are better than both