On 3/17/2024 11:37 PM, Governor Swill wrote:
> On Sun, 17 Mar 2024 17:52:32 -0600, Just Wondering wrote:
>> On 3/17/2024 1:34 PM, X, formerly known as "!Jones" wrote:
>>> On Sun, 17 Mar 2024 Just Wondering <JW@jw.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> The purpose of 2A is to ensure that government does not disarm
>>>> the people. One reason the people are entitled to be armed is
>>>> explained quite well in the Declaration of Independence.
>>>
>>> No, it isn't. "People are entitled to be armed" is never even
>>> mentioned. Even if it were, the DOI isn't a foundational document.
>>> The Constitution never suggests that it's OK to overthrow *this*
>>> government.
>>>
>> Please strive for reading comprehension. The Declaration of
>> Independence recites a litany of grievances against the British
>> government personified in King George, and concludes that those
>> grievances entitled the people of British North American colonies
>> to throw off the yoke of British rule -- which those people did
>> by force of arms and couldn't have done without those arms.
>
> They also couldn't have done it without the French. Does that mean bearing arms is
> contingent on getting a license to carry from Paris?
>
>> The
>> authors of our new government understood perfectly well the
>> need and right of the people to rid themselves of a tyrannical
>> government, if necessary by armed combat. And that, kind sir,
>> is the purpose of 2A.
>
> What they didn't understand was what a few 21st century soldiers
> with encrypted comms calling in an F-35 strike would do to the barn.
>
So you think a "hot war", the federal government against the
citizens who constitute the actual United States of America,
would be fought by fighter jet strikes taking out hay barns?
No, it would be more like door-to-door urban fighting, infantry
against a civilian force embedded in in a noncombatant population
where the Air Force and Navy are completely useless. It would be
suburban guerilla warfare where tanks, land mines etc. would be
worse than useless.