Colt .45 vs. F-16

What's with all the 2nd amendment frenzy lately?  Let's face two facts here:

1) The 2nd amendment is already pretty damned nebulous in our era.  Do you have the right to possess fully automatic machineguns?  Nope, you don't (unless you're working for the government).  Do you have the right to possess shoulder-fired stinger missiles?  Grenade Launchers?  Heavy explosives?  Didn't think so.  Aren't your rights being infringed upon until you have access to WMDs?

2) Small arms (pistols, rifles, assault rifles) are not going to prevent a tyrannical government from systematically bringing you and everyone you love under its iron fist.

Can anyone make a convincing case that, given the option to pry the rifle from your cold, dead hands, a government such as ours in the US would have any trouble whatsoever of accomplishing that if it had the volition?  An F-16 trumps a Colt .45 any day of the week.

Since the primary reasoning given for the 2nd amendments existence is to be a deterrant against a tyranny, it seems obvious that people should have the right to own any weapon which is used by the modern day infantry man.  So yes, that would include full auto weapons and possibly shoulder missiles and grenade launchers.

You must remember that if a civilian militia does end up fighting against the government, it's not going to be a full scale war.  It will be minor guerilla fighting like the insurgents in Iraq.  The fighting will take place amongst the cities, where the ordinary people caught in between will be.  The government can't just indiscriminately send their F-16s around bombing traitors because they risk killing people that are not against them.  The outrage of killing innocents would simply add more to the revolutionaries cause.  They would be just as restricted, if not more, in using the full force of their military might here as in Iraq.

Of course civilians fighting against the government aren't likely going to have the odds in their favor.  Especially if the government has the support of most of the military, but that's no reason to give up.

How will the f16 know where the colt .45 is?

Americans are worthless, gunloving bitches.  And there's not a thing you can do about it.

>>4
Correct, worthless to tyrants. The only way you can profit from america is via peaceful trade or by nuking it and waiting 50 years for the radiation to die down so you can settle there.

Occupation or tyranny isn't profitable against an armed population obsessed with the notion of liberty or death.

>>5
Seconded. 

>>5

yeah, because guns aren't just for small dicked boys who want to feel like real men... they're for KEEPIN' THE KING OF ENGLAND OUTTA YOUR FACE!! am i rite??

>>7
You hate guns? Move to Washington D.C., they have a gun ban there. http://www.nraila.org/issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?ID=72

If you don't get murdered during your stay due to the ridiculous crime rate, then you might want to then consider moving back in with the rest of the sensible crowd - pro gun USA, and give up the socialistic rhetoric on the gun issue.

>>8
No thanks. I prefer having thick cocks forced into my rectum!

>>8

dude, guns aren't supposed to reduce crime, they're supposed to KEEP THE KING OF ENGLIND OUT OF MY FACE, BIOTCH

guns make my cock feel bigger, and anyone who wants to take away my constitutional right to feel like I have a big cock is a socialist

Concealable weapons are the big problem here.  Automatic pistols are used in so many crimes because of their ease of use and portability.  Take away those guns, take away a good portion of the crime.  Unfortunately, I have absolutely zero hope that the government could ever a) get rid of all handguns currently in the country and b) stop handguns from getting smuggled in.  So basically, since you're never going to root out concealable weapons, you might as well allow everyone to have them.

>>1
You're retarded.  You assume that people with firearms would use them to fight the military and that's just absurd.
If the people of a nation, like the U.S., became disatisfied with their government they would use their guns to kill elected officials and other members of the government, especially at local and state levels where protection is minimal.

Also, >>11
I would never claim that having a gun makes your cock seem bigger.  However, being a hippy pussy liberal faggot sure as hell makes it a lot smaller.

So its all about bigger cocks.

>>14
Yes, it's always been about cocks. If men weren't obsessed wtih dick size they'd never forge metal objects, construct bridges, drain swamps, tame wild beasts etc to prove they have a bigger cock.

>>13

fuck yeah

liberty or death baby

LIBERTY OR DEATH!!!

IF THE US GOVERNMENT EVER DOES ANYTHING UNCONSTITUTIONAL (YEAH, LIKE THAT'LL EVER HAPPEN!!!!) I'M GONNA RAM MY COCK/GUN DOWN THE THROAT OF THE FIRST POLITICIAN I SEE!!!!!!! FUCKING. LIBERTY. OR. FUCKING. DEATH. BAY. BEE.

P.S., I CAME IN MY PANTS WHILE TYPING THAT

>>16
I find it unusual that you were sexually aroused by that, but even though I disagree I will not impede your liberty to do so since that would be unjust. Just make sure you don't hurt anyone.

People just fucking love guns. Like a fetish or something.

>>18
Yes but we need them so we can start shooting politicians the moment they start disobeying the constitution.

>>19
Which was about 217 years ago.

>>20 And the thread suddenly ended with a light, forlorn gasp. Okay, seriously, fuck the democrats about the guns. But if we can give the christianists the finger in '08 and the progressives/socialists/whatever an approving pat on the back by voting Dean, I think we should.

>>20
Which is redundant.

>>21
As long as I don't find anything too* objectionable with the candidate the dems put forth in 08, I might consider voting for them, if they will promote and protect civil liberties, including and especially* gun rights.

Just vote libertarians people. If they get enough votes we get to keep our gun and other rights. Why choose between two evils(republicans & democrats)?

>>23
Because the majority of Americans are comfortable with the status quo.

>>24
That's just cause libertarians aren't well known enough. Neither are evils of democrat and republican party. Need more advertising campaigns.

and you can register as a libertarian.  for some reason I think this will help, even if you don't vote libertarian.. at least then someone will know that there is some support for these ideas out there.

I think that we should just take guns away from blacks and mexicans and everything will be cool. 

I think there should be no laws regarding murder down in the south of the USA, it would help rid the planet of alot of worthless leeches

>>22
Do you have a slight mental retardation that causes you to type random asterisks?

>>29
Do you have a slight mental retardation that redners you unable to  grasp that >>22 uses asterisks to denote italics?

>>30
what lol?

Asterisks are makeshift footnotes and multiplication signs.  While they *can* be used for italics, >>22 did it wrong.  Very wrong.

>>20
Right on! And we haven't stopped shooting since!

>>21
>>22
Vote libertarian and if you really have to vote democrat at least make it clear to them what you disagree with.

>>23
>>26
Truth told.

>>24
Then just go right out and say "stop voting for reps or dems to preserve your status quo, the libertarian party is the better candidate".

>>25
The libertarian party are known, it's just that all the hot debates are between reps and dems and that's all most people think about.

>>27
How will they protect their civil rights?

>>28
There isn't much that can be said to persuade you to recognise human rights, but don't expect people to give up their liberty without a fight.

>>29
Is your argument so weak you must resort to petty nonsense to discredit your opponents?

>>30
>>31
You should have said what I said.

Win

we need the libertarians to get a spot in the broadcasted presidential debates... that would help quite a lot I think

>>34 agreed