
05-27-2022, 11:36 AM
|
Sage
|
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 18,536
Thanks: 0
Thanked 4,871 Times in 1,420 Posts
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by MartinSE
And at the time it was argued it was possible for a militia to use muzzle loaders to take back a rogue government.
I expect AR15's against the new XM5 will be found lacking. I expect 9MM against a M1 Abrams will be found lacking. On and On.
Are you suggesting citizens should have Cruise missiles? Why not automatic weapons? Why not F35's? After all, if the constitution - specifically the 2nd amendment - wants to be sure the populous can take back a rogue government , then it would seem to follow the citizens should be allowed to be equally armed.
Let's look at Ukraine - are we sending them civilian weapons? No, we are depleting our military arsenal because they do not have enough weapons locally capable of defending against a modern military.
So, unless you want access to Cruise, M1 Abrams, F35's and more, your argument is some what lacking.
I will completely agree there are many places in the US where a person may need a weapon to protect themselves and their loved ones. I have NO problem with that, or them. I question the need of a citizen to have 1,000 to 5,000 weapons stashed in the survival bunker. I question the need for a private citizen to own and M1 Abrams.
Do you?
|
Why would anybody waste the time even thinking about an isolated case that no way in any way shape or form represents presence of ANY significance.
|
The Following User Says Thank You to billethkid For This Useful Post:
|
|
|