Dumb/Sometimes LOL Political Pictures

  • You are viewing Orangepower as a Guest. To start new threads, reply to posts, or participate in polls or contests - you must register. Registration is free and easy. Click Here to register.

sc5mu93

WeaselMonkey
A/V Subscriber
Oct 18, 2006
9,947
7,966
1,743
Spring, TX
I can tell you from personal experience ('70-71) and 58,420 (last I looked) dead Americans I'm convinced the citizen army is effective. The armed Americans number hundreds of thousands of ex-military patriots and more armed citizens than the 10 largest standing armies combined.
I may be ignorant, but I was under the impression that the Viet-Cong was a guerilla arm of the PAVN which was funded by and armed the Chinese Commies. I don't think the comparison to armed civilians in the US is the same.

Also with the loss of life of US servicemen, I think the meme is a little bit in bad taste.

Don't get me wrong, I am a strong supporter of the 2nd amendment, but I don't think using the enemy guerillas as examples in support, is the way to go.
 

llcoolw

Territorial Marshal
Feb 7, 2005
6,664
3,460
1,743
Sammamish, Washington.Dallas, Texas.Maui, Hawaii
I may be ignorant, but I was under the impression that the Viet-Cong was a guerilla arm of the PAVN which was funded by and armed the Chinese Commies. I don't think the comparison to armed civilians in the US is the same.

Also with the loss of life of US servicemen, I think the meme is a little bit in bad taste.

Don't get me wrong, I am a strong supporter of the 2nd amendment, but I don't think using the enemy guerillas as examples in support, is the way to go.
Because the farmer looks weak and happy and should be an easy pushover. That’s what makes the meme funny. Take the second post as you want but the first is a good point.
 

steross

Bookface/Instagran legend
A/V Subscriber
Mar 31, 2004
28,754
33,211
1,743
oklahoma city
Don't get me wrong, I am a strong supporter of the 2nd amendment, but I don't think using the enemy guerillas as examples in support, is the way to go.
I disagree. I am a very weak supporter of the 2nd amendment. First of all, it is an amendment. People act like it is a commandment but the simple fact is the constitution was designed so that items like that can be changed if it suits the needs of the country at a later time.
And, from the standpoint of public safety, when you look at death rates, especially suicide, it does not make a lot of sense to have guns as freely and readily available as they are in this country. All of the "I've got to protect myself" and "I want 15 guns for hunting" and "It's my right" argument just do not cut the mustard for me at all.

But, this one does. Because, if you look at tyrannical governments and think "that would never happen here" just look around. I am sure in Syria, Venezuela, Hong Kong etc etc people in the past were not thinking that they would have to deal with it.

In my mind, this is the only real reason for the second amendment. It is an insurance policy. A very expensive insurance policy. And, maybe we don't like that example and it isn't a perfect fit for our situation, but it does show the power of an armed populace against "overwhelming" enemies.

And to those that say it would never happen here, how can you be so sure about the future?
 

sc5mu93

WeaselMonkey
A/V Subscriber
Oct 18, 2006
9,947
7,966
1,743
Spring, TX
I disagree. I am a very weak supporter of the 2nd amendment. First of all, it is an amendment. People act like it is a commandment but the simple fact is the constitution was designed so that items like that can be changed if it suits the needs of the country at a later time.
And, from the standpoint of public safety, when you look at death rates, especially suicide, it does not make a lot of sense to have guns as freely and readily available as they are in this country. All of the "I've got to protect myself" and "I want 15 guns for hunting" and "It's my right" argument just do not cut the mustard for me at all.

But, this one does. Because, if you look at tyrannical governments and think "that would never happen here" just look around. I am sure in Syria, Venezuela, Hong Kong etc etc people in the past were not thinking that they would have to deal with it.

In my mind, this is the only real reason for the second amendment. It is an insurance policy. A very expensive insurance policy. And, maybe we don't like that example and it isn't a perfect fit for our situation, but it does show the power of an armed populace against "overwhelming" enemies.

And to those that say it would never happen here, how can you be so sure about the future?
I don't think i made my position on the meme clear. I don't disagree with the "insurance policy" utilizing the use of arms through the 2nd amendment to be a check on governmental tyranny. I am saying the use of the example of Viet-Cong guerrillas is not exactly an accurate analogy to the purpose of the 2nd amendment as a check to govt tyranny.

Based on my understanding, the Viet-Cong guerrilla was not a militiaman utilizing a similar right under Vietnamese law. They were financed, trained and armed by the North Vietnamese Army (by Communist China) to fight a guerrilla campaign in the south.

A more apt analogy would be Mexican trained funded, trained, and armed Texans fighting a guerrilla campaign in Virginia to impose a more Mexican friendly govt.

I feel like we are debating something stupid, but I just had mixed feelings about the meme.
 

RxCowboy

Has no Rx for his orange obsession.
A/V Subscriber
Nov 8, 2004
74,709
52,255
1,743
Wishing I was in Stillwater
Don't get me wrong, I am a strong supporter of the 2nd amendment, but I don't think using the enemy guerillas as examples in support, is the way to go.
I disagree. I am a very weak supporter of the 2nd amendment. First of all, it is an amendment. People act like it is a commandment but the simple fact is the constitution was designed so that items like that can be changed if it suits the needs of the country at a later time.
And, from the standpoint of public safety, when you look at death rates, especially suicide, it does not make a lot of sense to have guns as freely and readily available as they are in this country. All of the "I've got to protect myself" and "I want 15 guns for hunting" and "It's my right" argument just do not cut the mustard for me at all.

But, this one does. Because, if you look at tyrannical governments and think "that would never happen here" just look around. I am sure in Syria, Venezuela, Hong Kong etc etc people in the past were not thinking that they would have to deal with it.

In my mind, this is the only real reason for the second amendment. It is an insurance policy. A very expensive insurance policy. And, maybe we don't like that example and it isn't a perfect fit for our situation, but it does show the power of an armed populace against "overwhelming" enemies.

And to those that say it would never happen here, how can you be so sure about the future?
"Suiting the needs of the country at the time" is NOT what amendments are supposed to be for. Amendments should secure the rights of the people against the government. The 2A is absolutely essential to that. Suiting needs at the time is what the legislative process is for. Laws are, or at least should be much easier to repeal and replace.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk
 
Aug 16, 2012
2,396
1,199
743
57
"Suiting the needs of the country at the time" is NOT what amendments are supposed to be for. Amendments should secure the rights of the people against the government. The 2A is absolutely essential to that. Suiting needs at the time is what the legislative process is for. Laws are, or at least should be much easier to repeal and replace.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk
https://media.giphy.com/media/J5jmQF8IwNS6Y/giphy.gif

Picked this one just for you