SimplyTrey
89257
2017
589
Feb 13, 2017 12:39 AM
SimplyTrey
89257
2017
589
DoomedToDie
2A! Freedom!
Slorpthegillman
Police stop&frisk the African American community. . Now defend your position on "race riots". Just sayin'
sitmeherenexttobritneyspears
GuyMcgoo
jamesx
If by some freak event US Army turned against any civilian organization it will be a very 1 sided fight.
Rangerbobby
It helps if they a bunch of javelina hogs coming at you
KarlderMarder
Who ever said you don't need 30 rounds to hunt has never been out on wild boars
DrivebyViktum
I got this once: " Our forefathers only had single shots and they did a revolution: Me: If they had AR's They'd have done it 30 times faster
Innoculo
OP is not wrong
coombez1978
Or children, neighbours, siblings, parents, strangers, ex partners, or passers by but you just keep shooting them anyway
IsaacZehPanda
"You"
Dremulf
I support my right to bear arms. Take it away and there is no one to protect their right to speak freely.
HanShotFirst39
For everyone that thinks citizens couldn't stand up to the government: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Athens_(1946)
coaltrain1
That was a local government made up of like 200 police with one sub machine gun. A little different than a military with tanks and aircraft.
TrilobiteSushi
It still achieved the purpose of keeping a small part of the USA free from tyranny.
richardson1701
Ask the Iraqis and the people of Afganistan how well their rifles and machine guns worked. I can wait, I was there. It didn't end well.
Attaroo
Yep, it was IEDs that did the most damage. Chemists, hackers and scientists would have to lead a US revolt. No one else can.
Radioflash89
Except, we were keeping the gloves on there. How ferocious do you think the offensives would be if the powers-that-be were threatened?
ShrugItOff
I'm sure you'll be on the front lines with your over modded AR15 and chew when the gubbamint comes for us.
HayesJoh9000
That's perfect lmfao
Repomon
But if the deer do turn against us we will be ready.
therealsalvi
i like you +1
coombez1978
You don't need to worry about the government you'll all have shot each other before then anyway
shadowbannedforsomereason
Objection, your honor. The second ammendment was written in the case of an attack of giant spiders. This court is out of order!
wegonfight
Though there are some great farside comics based on that concept.
ferdturguson
"Cornered by the street ducks, Harold was at a loss for what to do until he remembered his shotgun."
bloatedplutocrat
Personally I prefer the Calvin & Hobbes take
but I understand appreciation of the Farside version.
Fawndler
Thank you for this gem!
Eman4evr
For all the Calvin and Hobbes I've read, I thought I had seen it all.
twinkieninja
I have a near full collection of Mr Wattersons books and have never seen this comic strip before
DontusetheMword
https://media.giphy.com/media/3nfau5E7xXfAQ/giphy.gif
LukeKitchen
I forget how much this comic got away with.
landisfloatingrock
Wasn't the 2nd amendment written due to the need to have a citizen army in case of invasion from England?
PsychopompGecko
Yes. The United States was originally meant to have a small standing military and make up for it with well-regulated state militias.
icounttopotato
The core concept is to guard against tyranny, in any form that it may take. Our own government or a foreign one.
acarlmac15772
It was intended to empower its citizens.
catas
It actually was a sort of kill switch in case the US ever turned into a country like Britain.
houndfriedchicken
Like a functioning democracy? Damn, that would suck!
catas
Britain was not a functioning democracy in 1775.
houndfriedchicken
You seem to be under the illusion that the King actually had any real power. He didn't. The country was run by Parliament.
catas
You seem to forget the entire point of the Boston Tea Party was for taxation without representation.
mickeyluv
Could be worse
Cheesecakecrush
Look, we all agree. Guns are weapons. None of us want them in criminal or mentally ill hands. However, after this is where most of us have
Cheesecakecrush
trouble seeing eye to eye. To me, the biggest issue is enforcement. There are countless laws on the books, and more words aren't going to
Cheesecakecrush
give more teeth to law enforcement to stop people who shouldn't have guns from getting them. The only thing that new laws will do is stop
Cheesecakecrush
law abiding citizens from purchasing guns or accessories or ammunition. We should be focusing on enforcing current law, not complicating
Cheesecakecrush
things with contradictory new legislation. Just my two cents, hate me if you like.
acarlmac15772
Gun laws are made by clueless burecrats.
bigertron
If only you had a federal agency mandated to over see such things...
Cheesecakecrush
It sure would be nice if it actually wasn't used to traffic weapons to drug cartels in Mexico in a bid to try and get guns completly banned.
bigertron
Well, yes...That was kinda my point...
tekkblade
The problem is that most crime is punished via state or local law, not federal, which means Fed agencies have no jurisdiction.
boobcat
The only thing that matters is: Are peaceful civilians safer with more or fewer guns in circulation and Int Science has proven it is Fewer
tekkblade
That's funny b/c the CDC has found that guns prevent or stop more crimes than the cause. 1/
tekkblade
http://www.nap.edu/catalog/18319/priorities-for-research-to-reduce-the-threat-of-firearm-related-violence
TheRectifier
Can you reference these studies?
Hamburglar009
FBI crime stats. Start there. Australia post ban, try those stats while you're at it. NY and Chiraq are good bets too
Hamburglar009
Also does safer mean fewer gun related injuries? Cuz Australia didn't get safer. Disarm the good guys and the bad guys get more bold
PsychopompGecko
Australians disagree.
Hamburglar009
Really they do? Because I recall violent crime skyrocketing after their gun control. Home invasions, assault, rape, all increased.
Hamburglar009
Int science may have but when you look exclusively at US statistics more gun control = more crime and vice versa. It's pretty simple really
Attaroo
It's one thing that matters, and I agree with it. It isn't the only thing. Resistance to totalitarian rule matters too. Its just you...
Attaroo
need more than rifles for that. They help, and can help save your life personally, but a rogue govt has to be taken down by scientists.
Attaroo
They are the ones that gave them that power in the first place.
copingcabana
As a libertarian and a lawyer, so much this.
dredpirateseamus
As a person allergic to bullets, fuck you
copingcabana
I suspect you'd be just as allergic to a bullet fired by Homeland Security, the FBI, or any other government agency.
dredpirateseamus
That would be correct. Fuck them as well.
dredpirateseamus
That would be correct. Fuck them as well.
copingcabana
Not without the Second Amendment, you can't. ;)
dredpirateseamus
Seriously though what asshat thinks that AR-15s and shotguns from Walmart would ever be any kind of match for the most advanced military?
Radioflash89
Always found that argument to be tedious. Son, your rifle isn't going to win against a Predator drone.
leejaem1
two words,: guerrilla warfare
mainfrym
Tell that to ISIS and Al Queida
aleister94
I disagree with OP but to be fair your counter argument is also flawed
Adthay
I mean if there was a homefront rebellion, which I in know way support, they would be guerilla troops hiding among the regular citizens, 1/?
Adthay
if they're willing to drone strike a whole city then fine you're right but if you do that kind of rebellion warfare properly they won't 2/?
Adthay
know where to send the drones, and in fairness this country was founded by some rebellion troops against the world's best military at the 3/
Adthay
time, sure they had foreign aid but if we're talking about an America that will drone strike it's own people we could probably find some 4/4
HanShotFirst39
It's not always against the feds. Look up the Battle of Athens. Vet's took up arms against corrupt local government.
AncientSeraph
Yeah, and how do you think that'd play out in this day and age?
HanShotFirst39
The military and national guard had superior firepower and technology to civilians in 1946.
LinearAlgebro
What do you think they thought about colonies going against the British military in 1776?
coaltrain1
The colonies had the help of France and Britain was already pretty drained from the 7 years wars.
LizardEnterprises
Or a tank, or a nuke...
jtb1313
Not to mention that the second amendment was made by the south to make sure that all of the slaves would not rush to the north and to 1/2
jtb1313
Freedom. So the reason why you have the freedom to own guns was to restrict the freedom of others.
midd1eearth
I'm choosing to believe you're trolling.
TheRectifier
Uh, no - The right to bear arms existed before it was enumerated into the Constitution.
thereverseapachemaster
That's the dumbest shit I have heard today. So far. But it's only half over...
Thekingofbeans
We don't have enough predators to control a nation of over 300 million people.
Attaroo
We do have enough nukes.
Thekingofbeans
Oh yeah, the USA is going to nuke itself to stop insurgents. That makes sense.
Attaroo
Depends on the nature of the conflict. If it is an open totalitarian government, very little would be off the table.
Thekingofbeans
What? No. You know who gets hurt the most by nuking itself? The government! That's their GDP that tanks.
tekkblade
Except for the fact that nuking your own country is going to make a shit hole worse than North Korea to rule over.
FilthyHexer
For everyone making specific arguments against drones, the point was that there are technologies that would make a rifle useless 1/2
FilthyHexer
like armored vehicles for instance, or the ability to shut off power, water supplies, and roads.
midd1eearth
Or suppressed full auto. Or unlimited money. Or tanks. Or cute service dogs
PowwerOrb13
Yeah, it's like fighting the DM, you may have some nifty tools, but he has the small ones and loads more
PowwerOrb13
*same, not small
midd1eearth
Yeah, an exercise in futility, unfortunately
HurtYou
What about the drone's operators? Or the supply chain that keeps the drone in the air? Not saying I condone it, but one man with a rifle...
AncientSeraph
... doesn't stand a chance against the security detail of that operator, or supply chain, or tanks, or even an APC.
HurtYou
Like the USSS? Let me count the assassinated presidents. Again, not condoning it, but to think those people would be utterly safe...
HurtYou
Like the USSS? Let me count the assassinated presidents. Again, not condoning it, but to think those people would be utterly safe...
AncientSeraph
Seeuuww... which guy is it? What base is he on? Where does he live? Does he go off base during war?
HurtYou
That's easy, Facebook. Are you saying that all personnel would be confined to base during this? A civil war would not be geographically 1/x
HurtYou
rifles to obtain heavier arms from an understaffed local armory in said rural areas. 3/3
HurtYou
split like the last one (north v south). Rural vs urban would be a likelier split and all that entails. Not to mention using those 2/x
GeorgeHWBushsGhost
Middle Eastern and African terrorists and Vietnamese communists would like to have a word with you.
coaltrain1
The Vietnamese communist had the backing of the Soviets.
SadPaisley
There will always be people who want to help fund a war. Don't worry, I'm sure you can find a backer.
Cheomesh
Hard motherfuckers with no other real options. Here in America, we do have other options.
Cheomesh
Hard motherfuckers with no other real options. Here in America, we do have other options.
catas
For the sake of argument, the rifle could win against the pilot of the Predator drone. Either physically or psychologically.
AncientSeraph
For the sake of argument, you wouldn't even get close.
catas
Why's that? It's certainly much more plausible than a rifle taking down a drone. The pilot isn't always in his control room. He goes home.
AncientSeraph
And where would that home be? Can't be he's staying in a military base, ofc. Nobody in the army does that.
catas
You're right, but what I mean is that when his tour is over, or he goes on leave, he has to go home. He isn't forever on the base. 1/
catas
to the point they no longer want to be a drone pilot. Also the military gets their men from the general populace, that may not want to fight
catas
Whenever he is most vulnerable he can be attacked. The military cannot protect their own forever. These attacks can lower morale 3/
RWebb00000
All these arguments about "the gov has nukes and drones" assume the military will side with the Gov. not likely. in the officer oath, 1/2
YallNeedMises
We can hope, but don't count on it. The Natl Guard -i.e., soldiers from the community- went door-to-door confiscating guns during Katrina.
RWebb00000
"solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic"2
RWebb00000
and all military are citizens first. If the fight is remotely just. units will not follow orders against US citizens. plus laws againstit
AncientSeraph
In that case your pea shooters still wouldn't be nearly as helpful as (part of) the army helping you. You'd probably be in their way.
schlummi
You just need a good excuse. Declare someone as terrorist, for example. Fake proofs. And see how many people are already supporting torture.
Cheomesh
Yeah those are just words.No dumbfuck is going to turn against overwhelming firepower and logistics.
RWebb00000
hahaha have you seen the news since... forever?
JohnSmithIncognito
Yes they have. It's happen many times throughout history.
emkev
Then that defeats the reasoning behind this post.
WesleyASartin
"SHALL NOT be infringed..." Pretty specific language, don't you think?
PsychopompGecko
Well-regulated militia is pretty specific too, but they're all ignoring that part.
dhulqarnayn
That is actually up for reasoned debate regarding the meaning of those words.
WesleyASartin
That statement does not in any way limit, "the right of the people!" Read it again dude...
WesleyASartin
A pretty specific statement further empower states rights, but the entire country has ignored and forgotten that!
ThePartyLeader
I'm sure you'll win if the DoD flies a drone up to you with a nuclear device and goes" Crap he has an assault rifle we lose!"
LikeABonerInSweatpants
Cowardly quitter logic is cowardly and quitter.
ThePartyLeader
So next time you see a Bear, Gator, or shark. Go hand to hand or you're a hypocrite.
HanShotFirst39
Read about The Battle of Athens. WW2 vet's took up arms against a corrupt local government.
ThePartyLeader
Difference in technology. Not to mention army size.
HanShotFirst39
We're losing wars in the Middle East right now to people with no technology.
ThePartyLeader
Only losing because our goal is to stabilize the area and war doesn't do that.
HanShotFirst39
Our superior technology is still losing to guys with AKs and homemade bombs.
shotgunz
Unmanned vehicles are prohibited from carrying nuclear weapons
ThePartyLeader
So we are fighting against our government but they are still abiding by the rules? Plus even if it's not nuclear, missile still beating AR
TinyRocktopus
How'd that work out in Vietnam and Afghanistan×2?
HaircutsOfNicholasCage
Oh good. Nobody ever breaks the rules, so that's reassuring to know.
CtrlAndW
At the moment. Remember, No Russian.
antsonrice
If somebody is bigger and stronger than you does that mean you don't fight back?
ThePartyLeader
Means you should fight back in a more intelligent way than brute force.
Postoolio711
How do you fight back against such brute force though? I agree that you are right in some cases but I see no other way in that one IMO
ThePartyLeader
Hiding Jews in Nazi Germany, underground railroad in US. Depends on situation.
ThePickle
Force yes, but not quantity. And not homogeneous either. Our military isn't large enough to engage even half the US
Zachakx
It's like we're setting ourselves up for a bloody civil war...again.
DuncanMyOreos
if we are gonna do it we better do it right, I'm talking none of that modern technology I want the full experience here. Diaherra and all
dhulqarnayn
I promise you that if there is such a conflict and services are disrupted, there will be much disease, starvation, etc
aleister94
and this one would probably be much worse
Attaroo
Yeah, we had one of those, with a rural gun culture vs an urbanized technological area. How did that work out again?
RWebb00000
The founders questioned if their USA would even be around in 200 years. they expected it to happen. (revolutions, not civil wars.)
RWebb00000
I love i get downvoted for facts... love you too imgur...
EzraFell
Yeah, that's why they made the Constitution a living document, capable of adapting and correcting with Ammendments. /s
RWebb00000
no, with that. back in the debates of 1787. they kinda assumed we would revolt from time to time.
RWebb00000
remember, back then everyone was doing it.
gtmiller
Not close, almost everyone is disgusted with government as a whole. Few would rally behind any party.
dhulqarnayn
So far, I still think this is the case as I have for a while, but that could always change.
ExtraaUpvote
I'll fight for my rights to marry an Apache Attack Helicopter.
AmorphousPorpous
By that logic, we should be allowed to have any weapon. Including tanks, explosives, chemical weapons, etc
tekkblade
That was the actual intent of the Right when it was written.
DasMutt
If you feel that way, then please get rid of your household ammonia and bleach. Separately, please.
Hamburglar009
Yes. We should if we can afford them.
Seppyno
That sounds like a terrible idea.
Hamburglar009
Could be. So what? You can't assume I'll do something terrible if I buy a loaded apache. Innocent until proven guilty right?
Seppyno
We don't live in a perfect world, and not everyone in it is an ethical actor. By making it public property and usable by public servants /1
Seppyno
, society mitigates the risks of individual rights abuse to acceptable levels, while still retaining the protection of the weapon systems./2
catas
In practicality I agree with you. But ethically, why not?
Seppyno
nuclear holocaust if they felt like watching the world burn is a terrifying prospect. /2
Seppyno
Because the world isn't filled with only ethical actors. Living in a society where someone has the ability to start a - /1
catas
Except the point I was trying to make is ethically we shouldn't be able to bar ownership from one party when another has it. 1/
catas
What is stopping a corrupt government from doing the same thing you worry about? Some believe Trump might go that direction. 2/
Seppyno
Institutional checks and law stop a corrupt government from doing the same, for example, California in the 1890's they tried to make it /1
Seppyno
Is it a perfect system? No. But no human construct is. I think it’s an good compromise for having a world that’s actually livable in. /8
Seppyno
It stands to reason that in the interest of the public good, people shouldn't be able to brew VX nerve agent or mustard gas in a basement./7
Seppyno
empowered by members of that society, and it's mission is to serve them, protect their rights, and serve the public good. /6
Seppyno
the 14th Amendment. http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/118/356.html // A more contemporary example would /3
Seppyno
be the ongoing legal battle over Trump's immigration executive order. In a manner of speaking, the weapons already belong to all /4
Seppyno
members of that society, individuals within it just don’t have a monopoly on their use. The government is in theory a social construct /5
Seppyno
impossible for Chinese immigrants to acquire business licenses for laundromats, and the SCOTUS forced them to stop invoking /2
kanemano
if you ignore all the other amendments with the exception of the 2nd, when the time comes the 2nd wont be able to help you. fight for all 27
Slorpthegillman
Thhhhhiiiiiiisssss
harambesghost18
At which point... Heh... Who am I kidding... Id rather die in a pile of hot brass than seccum to tyranny.
palmo
*Succumb.
nafun
How do we defend the 18th and the 21st?
kanemano
stop drinking then start again
dmax12
Too late. Alcohol ban. There is a precedence.
jandrem
But the other amendments don't help to compensate for small penises quite like the 2nd does...
Paladin308
Funny, I see a lot more obsession over the size of one's wedding tackle coming from those opposed to firearms than I do from those in favour
footfoe
Fuck yeah you can't Quarter troops in our home during peace time! Hell yeah *runs around empty guest bedroom*
RWebb00000
this is in there for a good reason. fucking british! :P
VeinyFleshtTrumpet
God damn it I love this comment.
Tops54
The 'hell yeah' got me
ThePickle
Even #18?
NostrilMonster
well yeah but if you're fighting for all 27 you're also fighting for the 21st which overrides the 18th.
ThePickle
I'm just going to save some trouble and fight for 26. Nicer number anyway
InJenius
Freedom of speech gets defended regularly
LizardEnterprises
Not by this administration. Also, hows that protection from unreasonable search and seizure going, Mr NSA man who's reading this?
itsthevoiceman
And poorly, too. You have the freedom of speech, but NOT consequence. Also, it's governmental censorship, not private. Plus other shit.
kanemano
Freedom of speech gets misinterpreted regularly, it's the government that can't stop your speech, anyone else is allowed to, within reason
InJenius
Incorrect. You are able to freely speak provided it does not infringe on others' rights. However, that means reactions are free speech too
toyobaru
Free reactions, get 'em while they're hot!
TraitorousTrump3
That's not the first amendment. At all.
pleaseconsiderthatImightbejoking
I'd like to congratulating you for coming up with something dumber then anything Donald Trump has done so far. A real accomplishment.
TraitorousTrump3
Then why does the president deride it almost daily?
Natertoots
Agreed. The 2nd is the only amendment I ever hear defended.
Dreigiau
They all get defended, but the 2nd does the most obviously
ThePickle
You need to get out more then. The 1st and 14th, the 4th is huge, 5th and 6th, all get constant press.
PotooGeatAndWise
If the first falls, and it's under attack, the rest go without a sound.
Paladin308
Hence the second. If the first fails it will be restored with the sound of gunfire.
PotooGeatAndWise
It's the very people who support Trump that we trusted to bear that burden. We. Be. Fucked.
CommentsAreDumb
It's the one politicians most try to subvert.
Tassyr
*looks at all the recent executive gag orders* Oh, yeah?
pleaseconsiderthatImightbejoking
You mean the orders in which the government restricted what public employees could post on the governments official social media pages?
keyserv
Hehe, what a load of horseshit this comment is.
TheRectifier
Plenty of other times the other amendments are defended. Read a little more case law, it's fascinating.
LiquidPoo
How big is that rock you live under?
DrMcDreamy
Never heard on Cops "I plead the fifth" or ever hear of someone exercising their first amendment right to free speech?
redzombie
the second amendment is what keeps the government from taking the rest of them away.
jesusfuckingchristwhatnameisnttaken4
Depends who has the guns; The second amendment people elected Trump, arguably the most corrupt president.
redzombie
doesnt matter who is in office, an armed populace is one that its hard to subjugate.
BigBadBillyBoy
When it was written a soldier and a farmer had basically the same weapons. I'm afraid it's a little lopsided now.
Paladin308
The American war of secession was fought largely with privately owned cannons and muskets.
ZetaRayBill
"well regulated"
Paladin308
Well regulated, in the parlance of the era implied effective function, rather than govt control. A well regulated watch keeps accurate time.
smashedfinger
Effective function of a group of people (militia) could very well involve state or federal government control however, yes?
Paladin308
From what I've seen, state control often produces precisely the opposite effect. Notwithstanding my personal feelings on that matter 1/
Paladin308
It nonetheless remains that the term "well regulated" at the time referred to the property of effective function, and was only later 2/
smashedfinger
The part that so many seem to forget. Thanks.
mickandproudofit
In regards to the militia. Which we have gotten away from due to overreliance on a standing military and the national guard. 1/2
mickandproudofit
2/2 right to arms is separate and can't be infringed.
smashedfinger
The state national guards (not natl.) ARE militias. And the "right to arms" is not a separate idea, it was written solely to allow 4 militia
Paladin308
The right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. How is it that the people, which refers to, you know, the people 1/
mickandproudofit
Militias were made up of all able bodied males of military age, until the outbreak of war, when they became more formal.