The second amendment whats it mean to you

Sorry. You admitted you have no idea what you're talking about.
Thus, I could say "sticky bomb' or "MCP" and you'd have no clue.

 

Just going by what - you - said.
You don't understand the US legislative system, so you might want to refrain from making comments regarding same.

 

No answer my question otherwise I'm going to assume then probably correctly that you can't.

 

I suggest you make an effort and reread my posts and stop trying to throw sand in my face.
I understand the American legislative system as well as any person who spent all her education up through her third year in university there.
My fourth and fifth were spent at a top university in the UK.
Which makes it quite likely that I understand it far better than you do.
Thank you and good night.

 

How does this have anything to do with whether or not you can stop a tank with one of your guns?

 

Which post?

There wasn't an answer in the threat you are simply lying.

If you did you could answer a simple question but it's okay you can continue deflecting and running away it's rather funny to watch.

 

So somebody that's going to rob you has a tank?

 

Well he said he went to college you know and you can't possibly lie about that so...

He's asking about tanks like people just have tanks

 

Since you won't post to the subject of this thread and have made some assumptive conclusions which, when I as you to go back and read my posts, you won't, that tells me you have lost your part of the thread and are struggling for something to hang onto.
An old method of clinging to the liferaft.
When you can convince anyone that you can both take down a tank with a gun
And
That states don't influence /pass or fail federal legislation then get back to me.
Until then, you are merely gnawing at your own bones.

 

Don't be obtuse

We were discussing the ridiculous suggestion that those with guns can prevent a takeover of the country.
Keep up there at the back.

 

Unikely.

 

you're the one talking about tanks.

they can. Mechanized Calvary is not the primary force in the military it's infantry if tanks were a magical thing that could wipe out all of infantry they wouldn't train infantry anymore.

The only thing you need to defeat a tank is backhoe.

 

Strawman.
No one made this claim, and as you are unaware of the means to disable armored vehicles in a urban setting, there's no sense in furthering this part of the discussion.

State governments have no say whatsoever as to what passes into federal law.
None. Not the legislature, not the governor, not the courts.
Zero.
As educated as you say you are, how do you know understand this?

 

Strawman.
No one made this claim, and as you are unaware of the means to disable armored vehicles in a urban setting, there's no sense in furthering this part of the discussion.

 

Be very careful.
I don't like it suggested that I am a liar.

Now perhaps you can tell us all how tanks can be taken out with guns.

 

Please read the thread and stop wasting my time.
We aren't talking about an urban setting.
It was specifically discussed in a rural setting.

 

And the only person who said anything about taking tanks out with a rifle is you.
Straw, man.

 

State governments have no say whatsoever as to what passes into federal law.
None. Not the legislature, not the governor, not the courts.
Zero.
As educated as you say you are, how do you know understand this?[/QUOTE]
I am certainly not as naive as you are.
I have answered this.

 

It's "unlikely" that you understand our system of government better than I do.
Extraordinarily. Exceptionally. Impossibly.

The only person who said anything about taking tanks out with a rifle is you.
Straw, man

 

And your answer is incorrect. Wrong. False.
If you knew as much about our system of government as you think you do, you'd know this.

 

Read the thread.
It is all there.
We even had one who thought it was effective to take his 4x4 and his stash of guns across town and mount an opposition to the tanks in his street when I pointed out that by the time he got there the tank would have taken out his entire street.
I am done until you read the thread and stop posting desperate personal garbage.
You aren't posting about the thread.
You are posting a personal fight with me.
You might like to think about that.

 

Can we put the issue of tanks being "taken out with guns" to rest, please? No where in this thread have I seen anyone but you make a comment about taking out tanks with guns. You say it can't be done and I believe the rest of us commenting here would agree with that basic premise. Not every weapon was designed to stop a tank. Read the history of the FP-45 Liberator.

Please lets put it to rest and move on to your argument that you don't think people living half way around the world in another country should be allowed to own firearms for personal protection and national security.

 

OK let's sort this one out.
Federal laws are voted on by senators and congressmen.
They are voted for by the people of each state of the USA.
Any number of them can veto federal bills.
Therefore states can pass or veto federal law.

And if you want to continue about the validity of gun owners who would act in defence of the USA in a situation of invasion, lets look at the proposition of China wanting to invade you.
They would use nuclear submarines around your coast.
And drop three nukes on your country.
Your guns would be used to find something alive to eat.
So much for your national security via gun ownership.
The point of this thread is the purpose of owning guns.
When push comes to shove, they are at best deterrents against burglary.ay worst they facilitate death.
At best, fashion statement.
Any belief that they defend your country is a fairytale.
And no amount of side tracking or diving down rabbit holes will change that.
And finally I know you are picking a fight with me because this thread is naked until I come on. I tested it today. Not a peep from you for hours until I opened it.
So I am ending it here.
Thank you for your participation in an interesting entertainment

 

That's most likely because everyone agrees with some form of arms ownership being infringed upon. Even though that is against 2A.

So when people complain about the right to arms ownership is a basic right, they really don't agree with it. Just certain types of arms they claim is a right. But it's no more a right than owning a claymore mine.

 

And owning Claymore mines should be legal according to the Second Amendment.