(11-11-2020, 08:27 PM)mikesez Wrote:

(11-11-2020, 08:03 PM)Jags Wrote: You understand, our constitution was set up to give us arms in case the government turned on us right?  And in taking our arms, that counts as turning on us.  So whatever bloodshed happens in that case is directly the fault of the government

Wrong.
The second amendment is copied and pasted out of the 13 original state constitutions but without its full context.
Read them yourself.  The phrase a few of them use is "for defense of self and of the State."
There weren't regular police.  Raids from natives, slave revolts, European pirates or European navies were all likely back then. Any raid like that could eliminate State authority, at least for a little while. 
Of course we no longer need guns to help the State maintain its authority. But we still need them for self defense.  
So I don't want to take any guns from you.
But I do hope you harbor no illusions about how effective they would be against a determined federal government.
The Bundy ranch standoff was over a herd of cattle. If it was over an armory or a refinery or a seaport or an airport, those hobbyists with AR-15s would get cleared out with a single sweep from an A-10.  Believe it.  I don't want you or anyone else who listens to that specious line of reasoning to be on the losing end of something like that.

I was always taught never to start a fight, but if someone bigger than you started one, you never back down. You may lose, but you make them know they've been in a fight.

---

(11-11-2020, 08:28 PM)lastonealive Wrote:

(11-11-2020, 08:22 PM)StroudCrowd1 Wrote: Your hypothetical marks the end of the country.  Who makes that call? Joe Biden?

Never going to happen is it because it requires the people in the military to turn on their own people for no reason.

Your gun wielding neighbour more likely to shoot you by many multiples.

People in other countries have said that and it has happened. You never know.

---

(11-11-2020, 08:59 PM)mikesez Wrote:

(11-11-2020, 08:36 PM)copycat Wrote: What is it with liberals that you must view everything through a race, gender or sexual orientation lens?  Kamalia Harris could be Carl Harris, white and 58 and if “he” had the same political leanings conservatives would be against him.  Perhaps you should look at your own underlying issues?

Just because you don't care about KH's race or gender, doesn't mean no one does.  Some people view it as a positive, some as a negative.  It sucks, but that's reality.

I view her as a politician and as far as I'm concerned, they're all dishonest.

---