Retired SCOTUS Stevens: Time to repeal the 2nd amendment

[Deleted]

Mar 28, 2018 6:57:21 GMT -5 bamorin said:

Mar 28, 2018 6:42:54 GMT -5 @cwgbuckeyes35 said:

Amazing. How did the US citizens defeat such a large force with all those weapons?

What was the casualty numbers?

And it was you who moved the goal posts forward

Let me ask you this point blank. Would a group of US citizens be able to defeat the entire might of the us military with all its weapons today in a full scale all out war?

depends on the size of the group now doesn't it. a 'group" of Vietnamese citizens who armed themselves took on the entire might of the US military.......give us another of your history lessons (of which you know almost 0 about) and tell the board how well that turned out........who ran in that one?

That was on their turf and 50 years ago.

You damn well know the answer but you just want to be your usual smart ass arrogant self.

I really dont care what size group you got. A few drone strikes and 1 nuclear war head pointed at you would end it quickly

[bamorin]

Mar 28, 2018 7:10:20 GMT -5 @cwgbuckeyes35 said:

Mar 28, 2018 6:57:21 GMT -5 bamorin said:

depends on the size of the group now doesn't it. a 'group" of Vietnamese citizens who armed themselves took on the entire might of the US military.......give us another of your history lessons (of which you know almost 0 about) and tell the board how well that turned out........who ran in that one?

That was on their turf and 50 years ago.

and the question you asked wouldn't be on american citizen turf? Oh my

[Deleted]

Mar 28, 2018 7:12:18 GMT -5 bamorin said:

Mar 28, 2018 7:10:20 GMT -5 @cwgbuckeyes35 said:

That was on their turf and 50 years ago.

and the question you asked wouldn't be on american citizen turf? Oh my

It's also the US military turf as well. Plus like I said with the technology today the US military could fight the entire thing without having to put hardly any ground troops in it.

[bamorin]

Mar 28, 2018 7:42:12 GMT -5 @cwgbuckeyes35 said:

Mar 28, 2018 7:12:18 GMT -5 bamorin said:

and the question you asked wouldn't be on american citizen turf? Oh my

It's also the US military turf as well. Plus like I said with the technology today the US military could fight the entire thing without having to put hardly any ground troops in it.

so, back to my earlier question about your position on the meaning of the 2nd. the 18th century citizen was armed equally to the government to prevent a tyrannical government
from forcing its will on the public. why shouldn't the 21st century citizen be equally armed? do believe a tyrannical government should be able to force its will?

[Deleted]

Mar 28, 2018 8:10:30 GMT -5 bamorin said:

Mar 28, 2018 7:42:12 GMT -5 @cwgbuckeyes35 said:

It's also the US military turf as well. Plus like I said with the technology today the US military could fight the entire thing without having to put hardly any ground troops in it.

so, back to my earlier question about your position on the meaning of the 2nd. the 18th century citizen was armed equally to the government to prevent a tyrannical government
from forcing its will on the public. why shouldn't the 21st century citizen be equally armed? do believe a tyrannical government should be able to force its will?

The dimwit has NO IDEA what it takes to repeal an amendment.  It will NEVER happen.
He also forgets that U.S. soldiers are Americans FIRST, and most of them would never support a dictator wannabe.  They are NOT going to turn on their own families and neighbors.

[Deleted]

Guess we need those baazookas and minutemans after all, eh Mike?

[Deleted]

Mar 28, 2018 8:10:30 GMT -5 bamorin said:

Mar 28, 2018 7:42:12 GMT -5 @cwgbuckeyes35 said:

It's also the US military turf as well. Plus like I said with the technology today the US military could fight the entire thing without having to put hardly any ground troops in it.

so, back to my earlier question about your position on the meaning of the 2nd. the 18th century citizen was armed equally to the government to prevent a tyrannical government
from forcing its will on the public. why shouldn't the 21st century citizen be equally armed? do believe a tyrannical government should be able to force its will?

No and for 2 reasons. 1. They can't. There's too many checks and balances

2. There's no way citizens could win

[Deleted]

Mar 28, 2018 8:24:58 GMT -5 @muttthemaster said:

Mar 28, 2018 8:10:30 GMT -5 bamorin said:

so, back to my earlier question about your position on the meaning of the 2nd. the 18th century citizen was armed equally to the government to prevent a tyrannical government
from forcing its will on the public. why shouldn't the 21st century citizen be equally armed? do believe a tyrannical government should be able to force its will?

The dimwit has NO IDEA what it takes to repeal an amendment.  It will NEVER happen.
He also forgets that U.S. soldiers are Americans FIRST, and most of them would never support a dictator wannabe.  They are NOT going to turn on their own families and neighbors.

Exactly. You just proved we dont need the 2nd amendment anymore

[oujour76]

Mar 28, 2018 7:10:20 GMT -5 @cwgbuckeyes35 said:

I really dont care what size group you got. A few drone strikes and 1 nuclear war head pointed at you would end it quickly

Mike, think we should try that in Afghanistan? Or Syria?

[Deleted]

Mar 28, 2018 9:54:58 GMT -5 oujour76 said:

Mar 28, 2018 7:10:20 GMT -5 @cwgbuckeyes35 said:

I really dont care what size group you got. A few drone strikes and 1 nuclear war head pointed at you would end it quickly

Mike, think we should try that in Afghanistan? Or Syria?

You're missing the point.

Do you honestly think a group of regular us citizens, even armed with every AR 15 or guns they could find could fight and defeat the entire might of the US military

Because according to Bam the answer is yes and easy

[Deleted]

Mar 28, 2018 9:06:23 GMT -5 @cwgbuckeyes35 said:

Mar 28, 2018 8:24:58 GMT -5 @muttthemaster said:

The dimwit has NO IDEA what it takes to repeal an amendment.  It will NEVER happen.
He also forgets that U.S. soldiers are Americans FIRST, and most of them would never support a dictator wannabe.  They are NOT going to turn on their own families and neighbors.

Exactly. You just proved we dont need the 2nd amendment anymore

No I didn't.  I proved you are an idiot.
The 2nd Amendment also gives us the right to own firearms for self-defense against nutcase taxi drivers and other criminals.   We have the right to own firearms for hunting, shooting recreation, and other reasons as well.

You don't deny people their rights just because you don't like it. 

[oujour76]

Mar 28, 2018 9:58:44 GMT -5 @cwgbuckeyes35 said:

Mar 28, 2018 9:54:58 GMT -5 oujour76 said:

Mike, think we should try that in Afghanistan? Or Syria?

You're missing the point.

Do you honestly think a group of regular us citizens, even armed with every AR 15 or guns they could find could fight and defeat the entire might of the US military

Because according to Bam the answer is yes and easy

In the conventional sense, certainly the answer is no. But, this would not be a conventional action, it would be more akin to guerilla warfare. Which is not what large armies are designed to fight. Look, it's a big IF as to whether or not such a war would ever take place. It also assumes the rank and file of the military would be willing to fire on their own citizens in a large scale manner. That's also a big IF. Many might construe such a thing as an illegal order, i.e. one they do not have to obey. Will say this as well...the notion that just because the military still has bigger weapons is not a reason to repeal the Second Amendment.

[Deleted]

Mar 28, 2018 10:15:28 GMT -5 @muttthemaster said:

Mar 28, 2018 9:06:23 GMT -5 @cwgbuckeyes35 said:

Exactly. You just proved we dont need the 2nd amendment anymore

No I didn't.  I proved you are an idiot.
The 2nd Amendment also gives us the right to own firearms for self-defense against nutcase taxi drivers and other criminals.   We have the right to own firearms for hunting, shooting recreation, and other reasons as well.

You don't deny people their rights just because you don't like it. 

So much irony

[Deleted]

Mar 28, 2018 10:18:06 GMT -5 oujour76 said:

Mar 28, 2018 9:58:44 GMT -5 @cwgbuckeyes35 said:

You're missing the point.

Do you honestly think a group of regular us citizens, even armed with every AR 15 or guns they could find could fight and defeat the entire might of the US military

Because according to Bam the answer is yes and easy

In the conventional sense, certainly the answer is no. But, this would not be a conventional action, it would be more akin to guerilla warfare. Which is not what large armies are designed to fight. Look, it's a big IF as to whether or not such a war would ever take place. It also assumes the rank and file of the military would be willing to fire on their own citizens in a large scale manner. That's also a big IF. Many might construe such a thing as an illegal order, i.e. one they do not have to obey. Will say this as well...the notion that just because the military still has bigger weapons is not a reason to repeal the Second Amendment.

You're right. But again that wasn't the point of this.

[Deleted]

Mar 28, 2018 10:18:06 GMT -5 oujour76 said:

Mar 28, 2018 9:58:44 GMT -5 @cwgbuckeyes35 said:

You're missing the point.

Do you honestly think a group of regular us citizens, even armed with every AR 15 or guns they could find could fight and defeat the entire might of the US military

Because according to Bam the answer is yes and easy

In the conventional sense, certainly the answer is no. But, this would not be a conventional action, it would be more akin to guerilla warfare. Which is not what large armies are designed to fight. Look, it's a big IF as to whether or not such a war would ever take place. It also assumes the rank and file of the military would be willing to fire on their own citizens in a large scale manner. That's also a big IF. Many might construe such a thing as an illegal order, i.e. one they do not have to obey. Will say this as well...the notion that just because the military still has bigger weapons is not a reason to repeal the Second Amendment.

Ask the Russians how well a "well equipped army" fared against a bunch of ragtag Afghan guerillas.