Second Amendment rights exercised in Orlando

FWIW, the U.S. military's track record over the past 50 years against supposedly under-armed, underfunded, ragtag bands of amateur soldiers is nothing to brag about.

 

Why don't we apply that logic to all of our Constitutional rights, then?
That due process line is archaic. Let's get rid of it.
Free speech? Who cares? Everybody texts now anyway [/millenialjoke]
And that president talking about how we should get rid of guns sure does seem to have our best interests at heart, doesn't he? Let's just make the presidency a lifetime position while we're at it.
It's not just gun rights we're fighting for. Once you start taking chunks out of the Constitution -- not just nibbling at the edges, but seriously considering repealing one of the bedrock principles of our country -- the whole damn thing becomes fair game.

 

If by track record you mean how things like Ruby Ridge and Waco played out, then yes, at least from a public relations standpoint. From the standpoint of who won (and decidedly), the government's record is pretty stellar. You can amass all the weapons you want, you're not gonna win when the man comes around.

 

I'm talking more about Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq.
Ruby Ridge and Waco are singular cases. I'm talking about the doomsday scenario, shit-has-hit-the-fan, no turning back, all-out open rebellion with an organized and armed resistance movement. Civil War II, basically. If that ever happens there will be just as many trained servicemen fighting against the government as for it, just like there were 150 years ago.
And for the record, I hope to God that never comes to pass, because nobody's coming out the better for it on any level.

 

Did I mention I am scoffed at when this subject comes up? Paranoid? Not even close.
1. We have a right to defend ourselves, whether from robberies/home invasions/foreign invaders/our own government/etc. Full stop. Do I expect any of this to happen? No. Am I fully confident it won't? No. Am I paranoid? Nope.
2. I think there are limits to the weapons the average citizen should have access to.
3. We clearly have a problem that needs to be addressed somehow.
All pretty simple in my feeble mind.

 

Paranoia is a bitch, ain't it?

 

What "absolutes" are you referring to?

 

It's fair game now. The process is outlined in Article V.

 

Take your pick. But in this specific case, the idea that we will NEVER need to defend ourselves from our government or a foreign invasion. Ever.

 

We HAVE a defense for a foreign invasion. One that we spend hundreds of billions of dollars on, every single year. We even train them and everything.

And, back to my initial point, if our own government could turn against us and armed resistance is the only option, then we are NOT the beacon of freedom we think we are.

No one is arguing "absolutes" anywhere but in your head.

 

Actually, the more likely scenario is a big band of idiot malcontents who somehow convince themselves that their 2nd amendment rights are being trampled. They would get crushed, especially without Ammon Bundy and his kids to lead them.

 

Again with the absolutes. Can you guarantee that if there is an (unlikely) invasion that this trillion-dollar military will be in my neighborhood before I am executed? You win. I'm out.