Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
Latest activity
Classifieds
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Log in
Register
What's New?
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More Options
Advertise with us
Contact Us
Close Menu
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
The Water Cooler
General Discussion
Obama announces restrictions on distribution of military-style equipment to police
Search titles only
By:
Reply to Thread
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Shadowrider" data-source="post: 2749030" data-attributes="member: 3099"><p>If I'm wrong I apologize but this sounds like you think certain weapons should be restricted. That flies in the face of the intent of the 2A. Our founders wanted us to have every weapon available for military purposes. Why? Because back then we were WERE the military. The founders were against a standing army and now we have one, I get that, but the logic in the founder's thinking is just as relevant today as then. Weapons are our last hope against a tyrannical government when all other avenues have been exhausted. That's why they gave us the 2A. If we are restricted to cap & ball revolvers as being deemed a "reasonable restriction" it's not exactly a level field is it? The thread is about the militarization of the local police which are us. They will in large part likely be standing at our sides if we ever come to that last avenue. So do we want them to only have cap & ball revolvers too?</p><p></p><p>I know I'm in a miniscule minority on this, but I think that's because they stopped teaching history a long time ago.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Shadowrider, post: 2749030, member: 3099"] If I'm wrong I apologize but this sounds like you think certain weapons should be restricted. That flies in the face of the intent of the 2A. Our founders wanted us to have every weapon available for military purposes. Why? Because back then we were WERE the military. The founders were against a standing army and now we have one, I get that, but the logic in the founder's thinking is just as relevant today as then. Weapons are our last hope against a tyrannical government when all other avenues have been exhausted. That's why they gave us the 2A. If we are restricted to cap & ball revolvers as being deemed a "reasonable restriction" it's not exactly a level field is it? The thread is about the militarization of the local police which are us. They will in large part likely be standing at our sides if we ever come to that last avenue. So do we want them to only have cap & ball revolvers too? I know I'm in a miniscule minority on this, but I think that's because they stopped teaching history a long time ago. [/QUOTE]
Insert Quotes…
Verification
Post Reply
Forums
The Water Cooler
General Discussion
Obama announces restrictions on distribution of military-style equipment to police
Search titles only
By:
Top
Bottom