Master Don Juan
- Jan 5, 2008
- Reaction score
- Colorado Panhandle
I definitely do. Vietnam vs. USA, Afghanistan vs. Soviet Union. And they didn't need a "constitution" (piece of paper) to do it.But can it flatten everyone across the country all at once?
If you think armed citizens cannot turn back a Government, you should learn more about history.
What I find curious is that when the 2nd Amendment was written, the firepower of munitions the government possessed were roughly equal to that which could be possessed by a citizen. A musket - maybe you could buy a cannon if you were rich. Today there is a huge disparity between what citizens can purchase, and what force the government has at its disposal.
Bokanovsky argued, "The right to bear arms originated from the 1689 English Bill of Rights that states that citizens of England (including colonists) have the right to have 'arms for their defence suitable to their conditions'. It's hard to imagine conditions where nuclear bombs, drones and stingers would be suitable as personal defensive weapons."
If the King of England was okay with a citizen carrying a musket in 1689, why shouldn't the US government be okay with something equal to its own firepower? Some of you have argued about governments going rogue and tyrannical but are telling me the 2nd amendment stops with rifles. The founders did not specify what arms we are guaranteed to bear. Some of you are telling me you are pro-2nd Amendment, but you don't think your neighbor should be allowed to launch a missile. Why not and where in the constitution is this prohibited?