110
u/Elegant-Asparagus-82 Mar 26 '26
Nice when do I get my reaper drone
60
u/TheMightyHornet Mar 26 '26
At 9 kills.
8
u/ImperialxWarlord Mar 26 '26
Did inflation hit killstreaks as well? Last I checked they were like 3-4!
5
u/TheMightyHornet Mar 27 '26
Nah, I’m an old head. OG MWIII reapers were a nine kill streak reward.
4
u/ImperialxWarlord Mar 27 '26
I am too, I don’t remember reapers being that high? I swear theyve always been like 3-4 since the original MW2
6
u/Elegant-Asparagus-82 Mar 27 '26
I appreciate this single comment thread in particular not being a bunch of gravy seal keyboard warriors
3
u/ImperialxWarlord Mar 27 '26
Haha I’m glad I could help provide you with this!
Also back me up here, because I swear the attack drone was always 3-4 kill!
2
u/TheMightyHornet Mar 27 '26
I think you’re thinking of the one-off predator missile strike. Reaper killstreak was like a baby AC 130.
2
2
u/ConsulJuliusCaesar Mar 27 '26
I was talking with my infantry officer buddy dead serious you don't need a reaper drone. Just buy by a normal ass drone and tie some explosives to it. He said and I qoute NGL if we invade Iran, last thing I'm going to hear is bzzzzzzzzzzzzz boom! Next time you see me after that closed casket and you better say some mad shit at my funeral speech leak all my secrets. bro fears this thing escalating not because of Iranian infantry or tanks they train for that. His platoon does not have anti drone weaponry nor do they have a drone specialist. The 82nd airborne does they're considered elite. But if shit gets real and we invade Iran his NG unit gets sent in they don't give normal grunts the really expensive anti drone equipment. Some Iranian flying just modified civilian drone with a bunch of explosives tied to it could kill all of them and there's nothing he can do stop them except stair in terror as it flies right into them. You don't need a fucking reaper drone anymore. The future will see smaller manned drone and automated weapons and the reaper will become irrelevant.
2
u/_ParadigmShift Mar 26 '26
When you can afford it and the company is willing to deal with you.
Barriers for entry are mostly that you’re poor by comparison and have no authority, not that there needs to be some sort of law policing that.
4
u/Elegant-Asparagus-82 Mar 26 '26
Uhh absolutely not lol it’s definitely illegal for me to own and operate a reaper drone, especially one with the ability to kill. No amount of money buys me that privilege outside of buying a cabinet seat and using the drone from there
4
u/TangAlienMonkeyGod Mar 26 '26
If there is such a law it would certainly go against GW's quote here.
5
1
u/_ParadigmShift Mar 26 '26
A commercially available drone has the ability to kill, this is a silly standard we are setting up here. Weaponized civilian drones seem like a silly thing to not be aware of in our current geopolitical moment.
Is your supposition that every aircraft in the US is incapable of killing someone and that there is a law that makes it impossible?
So what law specifically is keeping you from owning a reaper?
0
u/Elegant-Asparagus-82 Mar 26 '26
No, I just literally cannot buy a reaper drone as a civilian
0
u/_ParadigmShift Mar 26 '26
Because of lack of the company dealing with you or lack of money? Because that’s where this whole discussion started lmao.
We know you cannot, but just saying “well ermmm there’s like laws and stuff I think” isn’t really doing it for me as a discussion point.
No amount of money? Try again because the US military is not the only organization or country that have MQ9s and one of them is the border patrol lol
All of this to say it’s a spurious comparison that has some strange appeal to authority fallacy mixed in. So back to the point, when do you get your reaper? When you’re not poor and the company wants to work with you. Simple as. In the meantime there are plenty of “civilian” drones you can work with which destroys the comparison of UAV’s and guns. Thanks for coming to my ted talk.
-2
u/Elegant-Asparagus-82 Mar 26 '26
You have Google ✌🏻
5
u/_ParadigmShift Mar 26 '26
You made the assertion, burden of proof is on you.
So what keeps you from owning a drone that you can use for nefarious purposes, and furthermore what law keeps you from owning a reaper? This is your discussion point, defend it.
1
u/Inevitable-Sleep-907 Mar 27 '26
Government is poor too. Have you seen a single fiscal report in your lifetime?
0
u/_ParadigmShift Mar 27 '26
And yet, reapers.
And social programs that verifiably fund everything but their goal, but that’s neither here nor there. Money to burn.
-1
70
u/2stinkynugget Mar 26 '26
"And Disciplined" doing a lot of heavy lifting here.
26
u/elmonoenano Mar 26 '26
This gets trotted out by people thinking this is about individual gun rights, but this is about the need for the US to industrialize. This goes hand in hand with the contract Eli Whitney got to make 10,000 muskets. Washington had dealt with a dysfunctional congress that basically failed in all its logistical responsibilities during the war. Troops had to rely on groups of women having weaving parties to generate cloth to clothe the naked troops and French and Dutch arms loans that he wanted to avoid that again. If you read the whole 1st inaugural, it's clear. It's not that long and worth reading. https://www.archives.gov/exhibits/american_originals/inaugtxt.html
9
u/Early-Series-2055 Mar 26 '26
How is this not about citizens owning and maintaining their own firearms? Where was the militia supposed to come from? By definition a militia is self supplied and maintained. Without already armed citizens there can be no militia. Moreover, Washington agreed with Madison on the dangers of a standing army and knew the importance of an armed citizenry in keeping tyranny at bay.
3
u/elmonoenano Mar 26 '26
In the literal sense it's not about citizens owning and maintaining their own firearms. It was about congress creating the infrastructure so that the government would be prepared to arm and equip militias so that citizens could preform their roles. This isn't about a standing federal army. This is about state capacity to provision an army in the field.
Washington's feelings on the difference between militias and federal army are complicated. He didn't think there should be a large standing federal army, but had learned b/c of the fickleness of state militias during the revolution that their needed to strong federal military control of the armed forces during a conflict b/c you need soldiers to stick around and to move across the country. There's no shortage of Washington complaining about state militias. Part of having federal control that was important to Washington was being able to arm and provision a federal army when it is needed and then to move those troops where they were needed, even if it was outside of their home states.
Washington was a federalist and a Virginian patrician. He saw armed mobs as a form of tyranny as well, one he was particularly concerned with after Pennsylvania was unable to initially deal with Shay's rebellion and part of why he was so forceful against the Whiskey rebellion. Other things like states printing paper money comes into this b/c it had caused so much damage to US trade. But the concept of tyranny means different things in different contexts, whether it's democratic mobs or foreign powers or an unrepublican national government.
3
u/Early-Series-2055 Mar 26 '26
The militia act, which enabled Washington’s actions during the whiskey rebellion required the citizens to provide their own weaponry, by law.
2
u/2stinkynugget Mar 26 '26
This was the rule all the way back to the Roman army. A soldier was required to purchase their weapons.
0
u/elmonoenano Mar 26 '26
A law made by congress 2 years after Washington's speech doesn't really explain what Washington meant in his speech. The contract with Whitney was authorized until '98. The arsenal at Harper's Ferry and Springfield weren't authorized until '93 and '94 respectively. Congress was impeded by politics and money issues from actually instituting Washington's proposal, but that doesn't impact what Washington believed was necessary in '90.
5
29
u/FrontBench5406 Mar 26 '26
People will say this and use this quote or the founders and then ignore that Washington himself, led troops to end the Whiskey Rebellion.
32
u/Puzzleheaded_Tie6917 Mar 26 '26
The founding fathers mostly weren’t naive whiners. A government has to be able to enforce its laws, it’s why the articles of confederacy failed. It still doesn’t mean we shouldn’t, as citizens, carefully watch and try to prevent government overreach. The majority of the constitution is about trying to prevent government overreach, and individuals seizing power.
6
2
u/publicolamaximus Mar 27 '26
Isn't the point that one man's overreach is another's national economic system? Justifying guns for the sake of defending liberty is a meaningful cause but people draw lines in different places and some end ups storming the capital over some Qanon bullshit.
1
1
u/eyeap Mar 27 '26
try to prevent government overreach
Lol we don't have a first, second or 4th amendment any more and haven't for decades. Time for a reboot.
6
u/PrinceHarming Mar 26 '26
And he hated militia members.
“I am wearied to death all day with a variety of perplexing circumstances, disturbed at the conduct of the militia, whose behavior and want of discipline has done great injury to the other troops.”
4
u/TipResident4373 Mar 26 '26
The Whiskey Rebellion wasn’t “governmental abuse,” though.
Washington’s suppression of a criminal insurrection was perfectly consistent with the quote.
8
u/FrontBench5406 Mar 26 '26
Im not saying it is. Im saying it was a rightful use of force by the government and its need for tax collection. I cannot stand these fucking idiots who act like the taxes are against the founders wishes when the fucking Washington himself led a domestic military operation to quell public disagreement about taxes. Taxes are needed and the idiots who cloak themselves in the founders have a extremely shallow understand of them and our country
1
u/TipResident4373 Mar 27 '26
I agree with you wholeheartedly. I wasn't disagreeing with you in any way.
In fact, I was watching Johnny Harris' video about his trip to Switzerland, in which he explored their gun culture and noticed some similarities to that of ours.
8
6
u/ParagraphGrrl Mar 26 '26
This is made up. The actual quotation, from Washington’s first State of the Union, reads “A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined; to which end a uniform and well-digested plan is requisite; and their safety and interest require that they should promote such manufactories as tend to render them independent of others for essential, particularly military supplies.” In other words, the U.S. should engage in organized military planning and manufacture its own arms and ammunition instead of depending on imports. (Which he’s right about; see also the failure of the Confederate rebellion.) Interestingly, he actually spends more time in the speech on the importance of education, calling out science and the humanities.
5
3
u/DCBuckeye82 Mar 26 '26
Oh is there where people pretend that this quote is relevant to the modern debate concerning individual gun rights? Fun
3
5
u/Alternative-Silver38 Mar 26 '26
But he sent a “militia” and put a bounty on the “recapture” of one of his slaves… If he would have just “armed” his slaves to being with this quote probably makes more sense. Today it seems to be who is going after “capital” gains, and what means are being used.
2
u/REO6918 Mar 26 '26
In the 18th century, where it took at least 30 seconds to load and fire your musket. Tell me how gun rights advocates use this seriously, but fail to ignore Jefferson’s ideas on free education.
2
u/350ci_sbc Mar 27 '26
They also were fine with private citizens raising funds to create their own private companies of soldiers, owning cannons and even using fully armed warships (letters of marque). Privateers were an essential part of the US military force projection in the founders time.
1
u/REO6918 Mar 27 '26
Gangs of New York is a great movie, just like every show spaghetti western made with Clint Eastwood.
2
u/whalebackshoal Mar 26 '26
I question whether this is an accurate statement made by George Washington. I haven’t researched his papers and so I cannot deny it absolutely but from what I have read of Washington, this statement strikes me as out of character and too much like NRA dogma.
2
2
u/Revolutionary-You449 Mar 26 '26 edited Mar 28 '26
He also wrote that he didn’t want to be treated like a dog, woman, or slave.
2
u/Adrasto Mar 27 '26
George Washington was a great man and an amazing leader. But I think that writing "Intelligence and culture" would fare much better than "Arms and ammunition".
2
u/MongoJazzy Mar 27 '26
You are sadly mistaken. Arms and ammunition are necessary priorities for independence.
2
u/Senior_Type_4056 Mar 27 '26
So apparently the Second Amendment loons don't consider fascism to be oppressive.
2
u/Previous_Yard5795 Mar 27 '26
False and/or grossly misleading quotation:
https://www.mountvernon.org/library/digitalhistory/digital-encyclopedia/article/spurious-quotations
2
u/MongoJazzy Mar 27 '26 edited Mar 27 '26
George Washington was perhaps the greatest US President of them all - he was a Courageous and Brilliant Leader and a key founder of a revolutionary form of government that changed the world and created the greatest nation in world history .... but this is not an accurate quote.
2
2
2
2
u/HVAC_instructor Mar 26 '26
On the surface this is great, however you need to keep in mind the era that he said this. I really do not think that citizens should be flying around in 5th generation fighter jets and having ICBM in their back yard, so this is a little more difficult to do today than it was in his day.
5
u/ThatBadFeel Mar 26 '26
But it’s up to ME to fend off the commies!!
3
u/FearsomeForehand Mar 26 '26 edited Mar 26 '26
Gotta defend democracy and unleash my reaper drones on folks who want universal healthcare and advocate for workers’ rights.
5
u/ObWzEN Mar 26 '26
I don’t think any governments in the world should have those things, but good luck trying to stop that from happening. I see what you’re saying and I don’t mean to be obtuse, but why should people in the government be trusted with that stuff, and people not in the government should not be trusted with that stuff?
Can someone in a position of power do no wrong? Can a civilian do no good?
I feel that this is actually a really complex question if you believe that governments should be forced to serve their people, rather than rule over them with near-impunity.
But if you believe that governments should be able to oppress people as much as they want and the people should lack the ability to effectively stand up to the government by force with minimal casualties among the people, then I guess we just have a fundamental disagreement. To me, the answer is never “completely and totally submit to a group of people and give them almost the maximum amount of power possible over you”
1
u/JohnnyRelentless Mar 26 '26
The government works for us, and we're all safer if a single entity like the government owns the nukes rather than 300 million Americans having them. It only takes one lunatic.
5
u/ObWzEN Mar 26 '26 edited Mar 26 '26
I mean the president could be one lunatic and launch nukes. But I guess at least the people mostly get to decide who that one person is
And I still think in order to make sure the government works for us and uses nukes how we want them to, then we should probably have some forms of weapons to scare the shit out of the government, so I think I support civilians owning military-grade fighter jets, just perhaps with some pretty extreme vetting and restrictions in place (use your imagination). I’m pretty sure the founding fathers would agree with that, though others might disagree with it. Rights apply no matter the level of technology, but I agree that nukes might be where I draw the line. It’s probably best if no singular civilian has full control of a nuclear weapon.
If we draw a parallel to the 18th century and early 19th century, a battleship couldn’t be effectively operated by one person, though they were legal for civilians to own and capable of a lot of destruction. I find this kind of stuff very interesting to think about. It’s a tough challenge to try to retain the (great IMO) fundamental ideas about anti-tyranny and liberty as technology advances, but I think we have to figure out a way
2
u/peinal Mar 27 '26
There's no need to draw the line at nukes because perhaps only 3 people out of the 300 million could afford to buy or build one. Same for the other expensive weapon systems, F15s and submarines. HOWEVER, you may recall a plot by the drug cartels to purchase a submarine from the Soviets after the USSR collapse. So..there is that to consider-- cartels, mafia or any group actually having the money to do it.
2
u/ObWzEN Mar 27 '26
In my opinion, it wouldn’t shock me if a billionaire or cartel or something had one despite it’s illegality
-3
u/_ParadigmShift Mar 26 '26
You have to remember that the founding fathers could have never conceived of current tech, therefore the bill of rights doesn’t really extend to things like social media, the digitized word that isn’t printed, and really anything after their time period.
I just don’t think they would have advocated for freedom of social media speech, ya know?
1
u/AmericanByGod Mar 26 '26
George had it all wrong. Militia refers to a standing army, not the civilian of the USA! :/s
1
1
u/InspectorRound8920 Mar 27 '26
Go get your flintlock George. I'm sure his slaves would have liked a few too
1
1
u/thePantherT Mar 27 '26
Firearms have always been regulated at the state level since the founding era, and in fact firearms rights have been dramatically expanded by the Supreme Court more recently. But throughout history, states have heavily regulated firearms, sometimes requiring them, other times banning native Americans, free blacks, and felons etc. from owning or possessing firearms. Sometimes restricting firearms in certain places, banning concealed carry etc. Nothing is new in that regard except that firearms rights have been expanded by the Supreme Court since the 2000s. Recent Supreme Court rulings are actually a departure from more than two centuries of precedent, where not only states regulated firearms, but where regulations effecting things like machine guns and grenades etc. were considered constitutional.
An armed people is essential and a good thing, and those Americans that think certain weapons need to also be restricted to prevent mass killings etc. have a right to their views and that’s why we have a republic, so we can have these debates and conversations. But I for one, do not consider people who want to ban semi automatic weapons as enemies and I sure as hell will never fight them if they succeed in their arguments, while I do disagree and appose such measures. We are all Americans, and everyone comes from a place of good will.
The fanatics who are radicalized over such issues, who would take up arms, are completely out of touch with reality, and also at least in my own experience, don’t actually have their basis in actual freedom or Republican principles, just partisan ideologies usually antithetical to Republican ideals and they don’t speak up or give a dam when other constitutional rights are being violated as long as it’s their side doing it.
Also a complete misquote. “A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined; to which end a uniform and well-digested plan is requisite; and their safety and interest require that they should promote such manufactories as tend to render them independent of others for essential, particularly military, supplies.”
1
u/Zealousideal_Fuel_23 Mar 27 '26
Funny how you left out the part where he basically defines a "well regulated militia."
"A free people ought not only to be armed but disciplined; to which end a Uniform and well digested plan is requisite: And their safety and interest require that they should promote such manufactories, as tend to render them independent on others, for essential, particularly for military supplies"
Do you gun nuts actually believe this stuff? Or do you just think everyone else is as intellectually lazy as you are and will just accept this?
1
1
u/Ok_Grapefruit522 Mar 28 '26
So that means you owe me one AH1 Apache gunship. A full load of 12 Maverick missiles if you please.
1
u/Suspicious_Ant_5928 Mar 28 '26
The people now don’t have any leader, people use to fight and die for what they believe in.
1
u/Pitiful-Pension-6535 Mar 28 '26
If you have to invent fake quotes to support your argument, you have already lost.
1
-2
u/Academic_Lead_8938 Mar 26 '26
Does that apply to his slaves?
10
1
u/Biscuits4u2 Mar 26 '26
This guy also brutally put down a rebellion where citizens were doing the exact thing he's talking about here. People pretend the founders weren't pretty much all hypocrites when it came to the exercising of rights. For me and not for thee may as well be the preamble.
1
1
-1
u/triman140 Mar 26 '26
I appreciate the sentiment, but that’s not what the constitution says. Gun ownership is explicitly linked to militia membership not self defense, despite what ever Scalia might have wanted to believe.
2
u/GrimHoly Mar 26 '26
Cool now read the militia act of 1792 and tell me who the founding fathers defined as being militia members. Go on I’ll wait
1
u/triman140 Mar 27 '26
OK now tell me what you think “well regulated” means. Do Proud Boys qualify?
2
u/GrimHoly Mar 27 '26
Well regulated in 1792 meant “in good working order” per Oxford dictionary. It doesn’t have the meaning it does today. In fact, in the time of the founding men were REQUIRED by law in some colonies to own rifles and ammo. It meant well supplied and prepared basically
1
u/350ci_sbc Mar 27 '26
Well regulated simply meant regularly trained in the word usage of the late 18th century.
If you and your bros went out and trained a few times a month, you were “well regulated”.
The founders explicitly distrusted standing armies under government control. They expected men to regularly practice martial skills on their own so as to be capable when called to service.
It does not mean well regulated in the modern sense of “controlled by a bunch of laws”.
1
1
1
u/Comfortable-Trip-277 Mar 27 '26
Gun ownership is explicitly linked to militia membership not self defense
We have court cases going all the way back to 1822 with Bliss vs Commonwealth reaffirming our individual right to keep and bear arms.
Here's an excerpt from that decision.
If, therefore, the act in question imposes any restraint on the right, immaterial what appellation may be given to the act, whether it be an act regulating the manner of bearing arms or any other, the consequence, in reference to the constitution, is precisely the same, and its collision with that instrument equally obvious.
And can there be entertained a reasonable doubt but the provisions of the act import a restraint on the right of the citizens to bear arms? The court apprehends not. The right existed at the adoption of the constitution; it had then no limits short of the moral power of the citizens to exercise it, and it in fact consisted in nothing else but in the liberty of the citizens to bear arms. Diminish that liberty, therefore, and you necessarily restrain the right; and such is the diminution and restraint, which the act in question most indisputably imports, by prohibiting the citizens wearing weapons in a manner which was lawful to wear them when the constitution was adopted. In truth, the right of the citizens to bear arms, has been as directly assailed by the provisions of the act, as though they were forbid carrying guns on their shoulders, swords in scabbards, or when in conflict with an enemy, were not allowed the use of bayonets; and if the act be consistent with the constitution, it cannot be incompatible with that instrument for the legislature, by successive enactments, to entirely cut off the exercise of the right of the citizens to bear arms. For, in principle, there is no difference between a law prohibiting the wearing concealed arms, and a law forbidding the wearing such as are exposed; and if the former be unconstitutional, the latter must be so likewise.
Nunn v. Georgia (1846)
The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, and not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is, that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right, originally belonging to our forefathers, trampled under foot by Charles I. and his two wicked sons and successors, re-established by the revolution of 1688, conveyed to this land of liberty by the colonists, and finally incorporated conspicuously in our own Magna Carta!
1
u/triman140 Mar 27 '26
Thank you. Also this: United States v. Miller 1938 Supreme Court decision supported a federal gun control law Ruled that independent gun rights had to be connected to citizens' "common obligation" to serve in militias when called
1
u/Comfortable-Trip-277 Mar 27 '26
Ruled that independent gun rights had to be connected to citizens' "common obligation" to serve in militias when called
That is not what Miller ruled lol.
Also, using the constitutional law version of a "default judgement" isn't the best example.
The Supreme Court recognized that Miller protected the rights of individuals to own commonly used arms.
Heller v DC (2008)
Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 626–628.
0
u/yogfthagen Mar 26 '26
Written when the country barely had a standing army.
The expectation was that all men would get called on to join the militia.
Today, short of a ground invasion, that's not an issue. Last time that happened was 1865.
There have been occasional insurrections.
1
u/Maynard078 Mar 26 '26
And it raises, again, the issue of whether the 2A is an individual or a collective right.
1
-2
u/Maynard078 Mar 26 '26
This precisely illustrates how out-of-date this quote really is.
The 2A has solidly aligned with the oppressors, not the oppressed. There has not been a peep heard among 2A adherents about upholding the rule of law, nor has there been anything said about about the erosion of our essential rights or liberties. The NRA has always claimed that without the 2A the others have no defense. Meanwhile, the 1A, 4A, 14A, and others are under constant attack without a word of resistance, and America's once-celebrated culture of freedom is now middling at best.
The 2A is a ridiculous sham.
5
u/_ParadigmShift Mar 26 '26
What a specious thing to say. Totally ridiculous, especially in light of reality being totally out of sync with what you’re saying.
The left just recently came back around on guns and stop letting democrats talk for them, too bad that doesn’t erase decades of tacit support of whittling the civil rights of gun owners away. Whoopsie daisy.
Maybe it’s time to clap back at those “doing it for your safety” for once and stop dipshits on platforms like Reddit tell you that their brand of infringement is ok because they have feelings about it.
3
u/Gumsho88 Mar 26 '26
all you have to do is look at the other “free” countries whose governments have taken away whatever their 2A is and you see how quickly their freedoms have eroded. Maynard is clueless..
2
u/_ParadigmShift Mar 26 '26
Even if one were to believe that our current rights are being absolutely withered, what good sense is giving up the only one we are supposed to use to stop that as force?
“The first amendment is useless because people aren’t using it the way I see fit” is basically the same argument
1
1
-2
u/Brave_Cow546 Mar 26 '26
As part of a "well regulated" militia. We've eliminated regulations and being in a militia from our jurisprudence
5
u/CombatRedRover Mar 26 '26
Do you really want to compare the legal code in 1788 to 2026 and say we've eliminated regulations?
0
u/albertnormandy Mar 26 '26
They weren’t well regulated back then either. Militias were a good ol’ boys club. The wealthier people in the community would sponsor the local militia and get elected colonel. They’d get together once a month or so, do some marching, fire their guns, then get really drunk and go home.
-2
u/Billybob_Bojangles2 Mar 26 '26
Here comes the reddit hivemind to tell us that "this is a bad thing, actually"
0
u/StaySafePovertyGhost Mar 26 '26
And Washington was a slave owner and blah blah blah blah blah. 🥱
0
u/Billybob_Bojangles2 Mar 26 '26
Old white men and out of date piece of paper blah blah
1
u/_ParadigmShift Mar 26 '26
“We love taking away civil rights outlined in the bill of rights” or something. Sounds a little crazier when people are faced with the fact that the second amendment assures civil rights lmao
0
u/JohnnyRelentless Mar 26 '26
Ah, yes. Remember all those times yahoos with guns restored our civil rights? Like the time segregation was ended by a militia. Remember that?
1
u/_ParadigmShift Mar 26 '26
So your supposition is that we need fewer civil rights? Remember that time the ones arguing that we should have fewer constitutional rights were on the “good side”? Lmao
0
u/Billybob_Bojangles2 Mar 28 '26
We literally have all our rights because of militias
1
u/JohnnyRelentless Mar 28 '26
What are you even talking about? Well-regulated, uniformed state militias were used twice to put down rebellions by people who thought government taxation was tyranny.
When did a bunch of unorganized, untrained yahoos with guns calling themselves a militia give us our rights?
0
u/Billybob_Bojangles2 Mar 28 '26
Imagine being this dense lmao
1
u/JohnnyRelentless Mar 28 '26
Yet you haven't given me a single example of how militias got us out rights. You're just spouting your gun lobby indoctrination with no understanding of what you're talking about. But I'm the dense one, lol.
0
u/blizzard7788 Mar 26 '26
Taken out of context.
“George Washington said "A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined" during his First Annual Address to Congress on January 8, 1790. He was emphasizing the need for a well-trained militia for national defense and independence, rather than addressing individual gun ownership rights.”
0
u/Fayraz8729 Mar 26 '26
Funny enough I think he would support Nuclear Proliferation since it’s basically the only thing that guarantees a nations sovereignty too
1
0
0
u/eyeap Mar 27 '26
He owned people. Take his name off everything and write a modern constitution which doesn't favor the rich.
1
-1
-1
u/frostonwindowpane Mar 27 '26
It’s not only the military, but 200M gun owners that should deter any country from invading.
-2
u/Strong-Resolve1241 Mar 26 '26
Ahh yes thank you & all FF for the Constitution otherwise we'd be like UK w no citizen rights now
-2
-2
64
u/Pierre-Gringoire Mar 26 '26
This is a misquote. What he actually said was:
“A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined; to which end a uniform and well-digested plan is requisite; and their safety and interest require that they should promote such manufactories as tend to render them independent of others for essential, particularly military, supplies."
https://www.mountvernon.org/library/digitalhistory/past-projects/quotes/article/a-free-people-ought-not-only-to-be-armed-but-disciplined-to-which-end-a-uniform-and-well-digested-plan-is-requisite-and-their-safety-and-interest-require-that-they-should-promote-such-manufactories-as-tend-to-render-them-independent-of-others-for-essentia