this post was submitted on 15 Nov 2023
49 points (96.2% liked)

Colorado

1211 readers
9 users here now

All things Colorado

Let’s go Nuggets! 2023 NATIONAL CHAMPIONS

Go Avs Go! 2022 STANLEY CUP CHAMPIONS

Rules

  1. No bigotry - including racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, or xenophobia. Code of Conduct.
  2. Be respectful. Everyone should feel welcome here.
  3. No NSFW
  4. No Ads / Spamming.
  5. All hail Blucifer

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] saltesc 7 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

“the plain text of the Second Amendment covers the possession (‘keep’) and carrying (‘bear’) of arms. A waiting period affects neither right.”

Also the kind of regulation needed for a well regulated Militia. Can't have people in a militia be armed criminals, psychos, or pure hobbyists... Well, maybe if things are getting really final hour desperate. But I can't see them fairing well when something just took down the US military and militias and now it's their turn to stop it.

[–] assembly 3 points 1 year ago (4 children)

I mean if someone gets to the US mainland through the US Navy, past the US Coast Guard, through the shield of the US Air Force, onto solid ground past the US Marine Corps, through the layered defenses of the US Army backed by the US National Guard, and then takes out the many layers of US law enforcement like police, sheriffs and US Marshals….then I have to imagine Billy Bob with a rifle ain’t doing shit.

[–] nBodyProblem 5 points 1 year ago

Yeah, it’s not like people have been driving off first world occupations with rusty AK-47s since Vietnam or anything like that…

[–] saltesc 5 points 1 year ago

Especially not with Billy Bob's current state of cardiovascular health and general fitness and mobility over a ~~mile~~ quarter mile.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago

I'd put more faith in Billy Bob than I would in the police. The police don't like fights where they don't have a massive advantage, and they definitely don't like losing odds. Look at the Uvald shootings as an example. They still had overwhelming numbers there, but didn't like the odds.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Yeah, it was really intended before we had those things, and still had to worry about the British. And also the natives. Neither presents much of a threat these days, so we should probably circle back on that whole militia thing and see if it’s still needed. I think it’s just a cost center at this point that frankly we could do without and pick up our performance on life expectancy and crime rates.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It wasn't just to protect the United States against the British and the natives, it was also to protect the people against their own government should it become oppressive. There's a strong argument that the government has become way too powerful for armed citizens to represent any type of check or balance, but that's irrelevant for the original intent.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago

It really wasn’t, as shown by the Whiskey Rebellion. That’s the popular talking point, but it was bullshit then and it’s orders of magnitude more bullshit now.

Even the vaunted successes of the Black Panthers arming up ended up in the destruction of the Panthers via intimidation, arrest, and assassination. Then you have the Davidians and Ruby Ridge.

They want you to have guns, because it makes you feel like you don’t have to do anything. If anything, it makes you more anti-government and paranoid against both the government they’re trying to dismantle and the neighbors they want you to not trust.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 1 year ago

Gun nuts are all talk until that "well regulated" part comes up.... then they change tactics and still just claim they have a blanket right to bear arms.