I am a former US ARMY soldier and if you come to take my guns i cannot be held accountable for my actions on you or the CLERGY they send to "calm" us.
You must understand that in order to have a truely free society the public must be able to defend itself againsed the government. If this right is taken away the government will be free to do whatever it wishes to the people... and that cannot be allowed.
2007-09-13 16:53:39 · 15 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Military
Dont get me wrong i just try to ask questions that get alot of people to answer.
2007-09-13 17:04:56 · update #1
AND BY THE WAY.... IN MARCH THERE GOING TO TRY TO REPEAL THE HAND GUN FROM CITIZENS
2007-09-13 17:06:21 · update #2
if your austrailian or british... shut the **** up
2007-09-13 18:56:41 · update #3
It would not be a good idea to even attempt to revoke the 2nd Amendment. But if it were tried look for a Democrat to do it.
2007-09-13 16:58:05 · answer #1 · answered by smsmith500 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
What better explaination is there...
"The Constitution shall never be construed ... to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms ..."
Alexander Hamilton
"...to disarm the people (is) the best and most effective way to enslave them..."
George Mason
"Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the act of depriving a whole nation of arms, as the blackest."
Mahatma Ghandi
"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined. The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able may have a gun."
Patrick Henry
"A government that does not trust it's law abiding citizens to keep and bear arms is itself unworthy of trust."
James Madison, Federalist Papers
Somehow, this type of mentality has been lost in our ranks of government.
2007-09-13 17:33:15 · answer #2 · answered by Robert S 6 · 5⤊ 0⤋
I'm an Australian soldier, and I love guns. But I don't own one and don't think anyone should - they're too much trouble. Nobody can own anything semi-automatic. Just look at your murder rates in comparison to ours - sure people still try to kill with blades, but it's easier to survive a stabbing than a gunshot.
If the government really did become a problem, the military could deal with it, if the police and other important services didn't go on strike already. I wouldn't trust armed militias to take down an autocratic government, certainly not after Rhodesia.
An armed population isn't what prevents a government from having its way with everyone - it's whether or not the population recognizes a government as legitimately in power.
If you want a truely free society, check out Mogadishu. Ever since rebel groups forced out the local dictator, there hasn't been any sort of real government. You'd have the freedom to do whatever you want!
The US constitution is hundreds of years old, written in a time when a new country was under threat by the United Kingdom and Colonialist neighbors. What were muskets for then? Self defence, or national defence?
2007-09-13 18:10:12 · answer #3 · answered by Gotta have more explosions! 7 · 0⤊ 6⤋
The Democrats will never accomplish taking away the guns. I heard a Muslim Cleric in England say that it will be easy for the Muslims to declare Sharia Law in England. Know why? Because the British government has taken the guns away from all the citizens. "They won't be able to resist" the cleric said.
2007-09-13 16:58:41 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 0⤋
Sorry dude... weapons are actually not the difficulty. the actual difficulty is psychological ailment and criminal habit. The greater you recover from excited on a part observe the less interest is paid to an exceedingly intense concern. regardless of if somebody waved a magic wand and all weapons interior the rustic disappeared they might nonetheless be murderers making use of knives, autos, poison, bombs, golf equipment, and their bare palms. and FYI the jap nixed any seen a land conflict based on the actuality that individuals are so nicely armed. reaction - actual sure, a guy with a knife is greater risky. you're 10 cases greater possibly to die if somebody comes at you with a knife in assessment to being shot at. no longer purely will a guy or woman with a gun thoroughly pass over hitting you 0.5 the time... yet even once you're hit your possibilities of residing by using it are greater advantageous. whilst it truly is a knife attack no longer purely will you be decrease... however the cuts would be deep and distinctive. additionally .. knives are inexpensive and person-friendly to get... no history assessments and person-friendly to apply. pass forward and take a examine out to get an AK-40 seven... yet I wager you have a knife with a blade longer than 6 inches you've gotten on your hand in much less that a minute. i'd desire to be in my kitchen in 10 seconds and assemble a minimum of 7-8 super knives. that's no longer even retaining the actuality that I actually have a variety of of swords and daggers putting on my wall that would desire to actual be sharpened. yet to pass even added... if I had a homicidal recommendations i'd desire to project into my storage the place I even have get entry to to a backyard mower, a chainsaw, a weed whip and different shape form of strategies. All of that may kill and none would reason every person to think of two times if i had to purchase them interior the shop... regardless of if I regarded definitely bat crap loopy. as a question of actuality it truly is is greater ideal for loopy human beings to apply weapons... we are greater ideal off in the event that they don't seem to be getting "ingenious".
2016-11-10 09:47:33 · answer #5 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
AS a soldier here is my point on this topic and from what I have seen the majority of the people in uniform:
I (Name) solemnly swear to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies foreign and domestic.
If any politician tries to revoke the 2nd Amendment , then that makes them an enemy of the Constitution and as soldier that makes them my enemy according to my enlistment oath.
2007-09-13 18:17:53 · answer #6 · answered by satcomgrunt 7 · 4⤊ 1⤋
Amendments don't get revoked. They get repealed. In the entire history of our republic only one Constitutional amendment was ever repealed. That was the Eighteenth Amendment.
I assume you are writing about the plan in New Orleans to confiscate personal firearms in case of another hurricane. Since their mayor sent most of his police force out of town in NORTA transit buses before the last big one and he shoved off to San Antonio, I don't know who would be around to try and take your weapons. LOL!
2007-09-13 17:03:27 · answer #7 · answered by desertviking_00 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
You've been in the military. Does joe public stand a chance against the modern American military? Your arguement was valid at one point in time, but not anymore. That being said, don't try to touch my weapons.
2007-09-13 17:01:39 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
Yeah, we might as well be called "Canada Jr." at that point.
Screw that, Venison jerky is worth being armed, let alone all the legal mumbo jumbo. Sheeeeit, I can't trust this government with packaged beef, you think I'm gonna trust them with anything else?
2007-09-13 16:58:27 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
You are very right Sir, and that is exactly what some politicians want to do. It want happen in this administration, but we have no guarantee what the next one will bring. I will not give up mine.
2007-09-13 17:06:00 · answer #10 · answered by lilly4 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋