pull down to refresh
0 sats \ 4 replies \ @Public_N_M_E 13 Feb \ parent \ on: ABORTION and GUNS poll culture
Being not American I'm not hugely familiar with the second amendment, so I'm grateful you out it down there in black and white.
My thoughts on that was that it was written in a very very different era. And in my view was written with the intent to protect the right to defend yourself with weapons against a tyrannical state or even foreign invader as you mentioned.
But I do feel it was written with the weapons of the time in mind. Muskets, single bolt action rifles. Not AR15s.
If you require, as a civilian, a weapon of that calibre, you sir are in way over your head. Although I believe you should be able to defend yourself against aggressors like tyrannical state. You're going up against a well funded and well trained military. No local militia is taking on the US army. You don't stand a chance. The best you could hope for is those highly trained persons side with you against the state. But don't delude yourself into a false sense of security that if the state wanted you gone, an AR15 or other military grade weapon isn't going to help you.
I don't mean to sound disrespectful with that last statement. But truly if you're fighting your own tyrannical govt. You're in over your head, find a way out, engaging isn't going to be a good or survivable option.
Hopefully, some states, like Texas, would form a coalition with nuclear armed states like North Dakota. That I'm afraid will be the only deterrent from a tyrannical "United States"
reply
I truly don't believe they would. Their military isn't beholden to the state it's beholden to the govt. North Dakota isn't a nuclear armed state. The US is a nuclear state. Those aren't north Dakota's nukes they're the US Govts ain't no way they're letting some coalition of militia get anywhere close to having control over those nukes.
reply
Ukraine had nukes after USSR collapse. Then Obama took them, then what happened?
reply
Victoria Nuland
reply