The second amendment whats it mean to you

No.
Join a military group with a proper organisation under someone who knows what they are doing, who can coordinate individuals to the best advantage , who know the location and strength of the enemy and communicate using the codes and channels only they know and which have less chance of being intercepted.
Individuals running around using personal guns are just a menace.

 

If you want your argument to sound more convincing perhaps you should share your credentials with us?

What modern war have you been through? Do you have any military training have you ever fired a gun?

I'm just wondering what makes you such an authority on these hypothetical scenarios.

Of course you wouldn't stand out in the middle of the street like a dummy and shoot a gun at a tank.

Everybody knows you take a Molotov cocktail and throw it at the tank and then when the soldiers come out if they're not on fire then you pick them off one by one.

Little thing known as unconventional warfare or guerrilla warfare.

 

Then you wouldn't be very effective.
and you don't pick the targets...you become one. An easy one.

 

Based on my 30 plus years of military experience I am going to have to disagree with you.

BTW, "the rest of the homes and families" in my area also have firearms. In all my years of living in the rural western United States, I have only know one home to not have a firearm.

 

Individuals running around with personal firearms do join together in a military group. It's called the militia.

 

Again, my 30 plus years of military service would have to disagree with you.

 

I don't know what a "lower per capita population" is.

 

But you haven't ever explained to me how your guns will counter a serious invasion.
You just keep saying they will.
They might be OK for killing pesky animals but animals can't shoot back.
You are seriously living a fantasy . If you have been in the military you must realise that coordination and communication are vital to effective resistance.
Little groups of people running around shooting at tanks doesn't do it.
Tanks because that is what an army would use in a domestic setting. Before they moved in and used their air power. Definitely out of your league.

 

It means what you meant when you wrote:

Richard The Last said: ↑
Often times you only need motive and opportunity to have crime. Criminals are not born, they become criminals. It's a decision making process.

As I explained, crime is not just lower in rural areas, as in a small number, but also lower per capita.

We have criminals in rural areas too, just not as many per capita.

 

You do realize that we have enough firearms, in private hands, in the US that we could supply every person in Western Europe with a weapon and still have enough for every able-bodied person in the US between 17 and 45 years of age. I have enough firearms at my home to supply a platoon of soldiers with a weapon each.

How is that you don't understand there would be coordination and communication? Why is it you keep suggesting people will be running around shooting at tanks.

I find it odd that you feel you have the ability to determine what my "league" would be.

 

I understood what it meant when I used it in my post. I didn't understand it in the context in which you used it.

 

She does not even seem to consider that almost everyone knows someone that operates a ham radio.

And tanks don't work very well when they're on fire or stuck in terrain they can't navigate.

 

I don't doubt the accuracy of Pixie's post, but I do question whether the U.S army would ever really fight against its own citizens.
Most likely you would find you acquired a few tanks and drones of your own.

 

Look.
It doesn't matter how many guns you have.
You could get every person in Western Europe standing around a group of tanks firing their guns at it and when the soldiers inside got tired of laughing, would radio for the air force to come to the rescue.

You are living some sort of Dream of the Hero.
And no there wouldn't be coordination and communication between your little resistance groups. You need radios, (the internet would of course be down) and your proper military would have commandeered and/or jammed all the frequencies.

You were in the military and don't understand this?

All you can see is your Dream fed to you by gun merchants and the NRA. You aren't seeing the real reality involved in using the guns for anything more than frightening a burglar.

Now I am done here. You aren't replying to my posts fully, selecting out what you can't counter.

But I am damned glad I don't rely on you for protection in a real war. My money is on a proper professional military response.

 

I never changed the context. Your context works just fine in my reply.

 

They did in the Civil War...
and nearly did in the Capitol riots.

 

If such a thing was to ever occur it would not be anything like a conventional battle as we know it.

It would be guerrilla warfare in urban areas, for the most part.

And we can see how extended gorilla warfare has grinded down and defeated some of the best conventional armies in the world. In fact there's a very recent example.... I speak of Afghanistan of course.

 

And what would the addition of guns have done on Jan 6th?

 

And you WANT that? Tell me what would buying groceries be like? Dear Gods! Can you imagine it? How would you know who to shoot?

 

I blame Rambo and Dirty Harry

 

It would be a huge mess. No one would know who to target or possibly even why

Karl Rittenhouse on steroids by tens of thousands

{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{shudder}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}

 

Yes but as I said who will co-ordinate that? I can certainly see the “Proud Boys” possibly fighting with the “Boogaloo Boys” over who gets to be in charge then Vets would be claiming it should be them…..

Can you see where we are heading with this. Certainly this is what has happened in other countries.

 

Nothing. Because no one was trying to take over nothing.

 

I must have missed where I posted that part can you point it out to me?