nevermind...

Less lethal means? You know they developed the 1911 colt 45 because MacArthur was not having much luck knocking down the natives in the Philipines that got high and charged the troops, like a suicide attack. Someone comes at you with a base ball bat and is amped on meth, you let me know how you feel about less lethal means. That's why the cops that are carrying tazers are still carrying guns. You can't get the tazers they carry.

In those days they drank beer because it was safer to drink than water. If your ship was out of water you'd be stopping somewhere too. The point is invalid.

This whole thread is nothing but an exercise in taking things out of context. A supposed "serious constitutional discussion" and I only recall seeing ONE reference to a Supreme Court decision.

:helpme

yeah. i deleted my post because my position is complicated. part of me says that society is advanced enough that in some places, guns are not necessary & the harm to the public outweighs their benefit. But this is too simple, as history shows life is mostly conflict & survival, not prosperity. One must not be complacent & assume the benefits of first world living will go on indefinitely. all it takes is a multi-week power outage to create a state of anarchy.

The point with the beer was that history is based on what is told to us, not the truth. We were having a serious discussion, I posted a bunch of quotes from the guys that wrote it to further the plain truth what a militia is


LA Riots happen, government sieges at Waco Texas happen, I want to be the guy that survives it