In response to:

Why the 2nd Amendment

watkinson Wrote: Jan 02, 2013 6:03 PM
Unless the people have acess to the same guns and hardware that the military does then I don't think that the "over throw a tyranical government" argument works. When the latest model tank comes through your front door, your 35 round magazine will be as effective as the 25 round one.
Colonialgirl Wrote: Jan 02, 2013 10:24 PM
Not too bright about military history are you; You probably went to some namby-pamby liberal school where they spoon fed you with the leftist pablum and lies.
Stratboy Wrote: Jan 02, 2013 6:32 PM
You are assuming that at least half of the military wouldn't join us. I believe they would, and probably more.
serwin Wrote: Jan 02, 2013 6:32 PM
The vast majority of soldier would refuse to fire on innocent civilians. The USSR found that out the hard way.
Original Saepe_Expertus Wrote: Jan 02, 2013 6:14 PM
Watkinson...TWO WORDS: Posse Comitatus.
GodsLaws Wrote: Jan 02, 2013 6:12 PM
Ask the Syian military about the effectiveness of small arms fire. Or the English for that matter.
Stratboy Wrote: Jan 02, 2013 6:31 PM
Or the Russians and the US who have been fighting the Afghans for 25 years between them,
Rep. John Lewis, D-Ga., in the wake of the Newtown, Conn., shootings, said: "The British are not coming. ... We don't need all these guns to kill people." Lewis' vision, shared by many, represents a gross ignorance of why the framers of the Constitution gave us the Second Amendment. How about a few quotes from the period and you decide whether our Founding Fathers harbored a fear of foreign tyrants.

Alexander Hamilton: "The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed," adding later, "If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is...