The real issue when it comes to the Second Amendment!

The purpose was to protect against tyranny. So my point is where is my Apache?

If we are given the rights to do away with our government and able to bear arms to protect us from a tyrannical government why are we not allowed to purchase and own military equipment for ourselves?

Not saying everyone should have a tank in their backyard but seriously this is the argument people make, yet they are just satisfied with owning guns?

Why not form a citizen's militia that is allowed to own and operate such equipment?

I support the right to own guns and this thread is serious, why are we letting the government gain an upper hand on us?

I would like to hear others thoughts.

Because our rights are being violated.
Look at what that entire 2nd amendment line says:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Look at one definition of the word infringe:

infringe
verb break, violate, contravene, disobey, transgress
infringe on or upon something intrude on, compromise, undermine, limit, weaken, diminish, disrupt, curb, encroach on.

Does banning ownership of certain weapons infringe,limit,weaken,undermine, diminish our right to bear arms? It absolutely does.

reply to post by ashtonhz8907


Not only have they gained an upper hand, but WE paid for it, and continue to pay for it. They plunder our wealth by way of the IRS gun and then use that money to enslave us.

Exactly, this is what we should be fighting for not just our right to keep semi automatic rifles. In the end I see the argument of "defend ourselves from the government" thrown out the window because our weapons are laughable compared to theirs.

Yet instead of shooting our argument down they brought up a vital point in favor of better arms. It is ridiculous I don't see this issue being pushed by more people.

Originally posted by ashtonhz8907
The purpose was to protect against tyranny. So my point is where is my Apache?

I see you put a lot of thought in this. The American militias defeated the most powerful army/navy in the world. 100's of millions of gun owners can defeat any army, any number of jets, tanks, helicopters, and drones. You know why? Because the people driving those weapons of war have to eat and sleep and they have a heartbeat. They are human. Plus, 80% of them agree with us so they'll turn those weapons against the tyranny as well.

That won't be how they choose to proceed though. They won't declare war and send tanks. They are progressive remember? They'll tweak laws and put an end to small arms manufacturing, they'll use economics to kill the market and reduce new ownership. They'll starve people and offer food stamps for guns. They'll weaken the economies until people are force to sell their guns to survive.

They love you, they'll do that for you. They'll kill us all for your safety.

reply to post by ashtonhz8907


So you would rather see us completely disarmed for the reason that you think that our weapons aren't a match against the military's technology?

The first problem with thinking like this is that military conflict is based only on weapons.

When the British sent troops out to quell the revolution in the 1700's, the British were far better armed, better trained, better pretty much everything. The colonists were mostly farmers and your average civilian. They were poorly armed, poorly trained, and so on.

But they knew the lay of the land and had numbers to their advantage. There were many points in the war where both sides had barely enough food to survive and ammunition to even shoot at each other. The weather brought sickness and the colonists barely had enough clothing to survive at times.

But through luck, military strategy, numbers, and many other components they did eventually win.

Today the American Military is somewhere around 2 million strong, where if the people rebelled would be no match for that many people, and that's not taking into account any defectors.

The American 'Militia' officially became the Army National Guard by the way.
Though that is the 'Militia' that was initially established.

There are other Militias in the states, that's just the largest Federally recognized.

This still doesn't mean that the people should be without the same military advantage.

At the time the 2nd Amendment was introduced (as part of the Bill of Rights) anyone could get the same armament as the type of firearms and artillery was minuscule. But as military tech advanced, the military and government decided that their weapons were 'too powerful for the average civilian'. That also means that they are afraid that if we had the same tech that they would be equally matched or worse.
It's a way to prevent rebellion because of people like you who equate power only with the destructive force you have.

I still find it laughably hilarious however that our troops, men and women at or around the age of 18 can go out and die defending their country. Using such advanced military technology that could level cities, yet if they were civilians would have to wait until they were 21 just to be able to purchase a pistol.
And that's also a hoot because you can buy rifles, shotguns, and long guns at 18.
And most shootings are done with pistols, not these 'assault weapons', which is such a loosely defined broad term that anything used to 'assault' another person could be an 'assault weapon'.

reply to post by ashtonhz8907

Those Apaches are not cheap. You can buy a used MIG fighter so why not an Apache. However you will have to apply with the BATFE for permission to mount machine guns on it.

reply to post by ashtonhz8907


There's nothing stopping you from buying heavy armor like that.

Well, except the fact that you dont millions of dollars to burn.

Maybe if you started putting a gun to your neighbors head and a hand in their pocket the way the government does?