gg

[vqc]

(1)It's like they don't understand that todays military would beat any american based insurgence against our government in ways they couldn't imagine.


(2)What people very often miss though, is that the intent of the constitution is pretty clear that we should only own guns in a well ordained militia.

(1) could u explain to me how the army would pwn the peoples? How would the populace have to form an insurgency in order to actually put up a good fight?

(2)how does this jive with Heller?

1) Do you actually need an explanation as to why a well trained group of killing machines would WTF pwn a bunch of country bumpkins with semi-automatic rifles?

Seriously, if semi-trained, low morale troops with a mix of weapons and no clue whatsoever concerning military tactics had even a shot against our military, the Republican Guard would have snapped us off the moment we invaded Iraq, both times.

An insurgency is about the only way the american populace would stand a chance. 10 men fighting against the government is easily quashable, 1 million men, not so much.

2) I need a bit of an explanation concerning Heller.

1) there will never be the chance of an insurgency if guns were not allowed.

furthermore, fighting the gov't isn't limited to literally overthrowing the gov't. what about fighting back against the LAPD? the 14th incorporated much of the bill of rights against the states in a way that was meant to prevent the states from infringing on the rights of the people. Although it has yet to be done, can we re-evaluate the 2nd amendment in light of the 14th (the same way we have re-evaluated many of the other amendments)?

2)maybe I don't understand the Heller decision as well as you do, but doesn't the Heller decision essentially refute the idea that the right to bare arms is limited to those who are part of a well ordained militia? Or are you arguing that the court was incorrect in making its decision?