WTF is wrong with America?

[Minor Miner]

funny but not even close.    Citizens yes, but not an army.    The entire world does not have enough soldiers to mount a successful land based invasion of the USA.   Snipers are a real pain in the ass to an organized military.   105 Million heavily armed citizens would be a REAL pain in the butt.

[TheButterZone]

"China’s coastline covers approximately 14,500 km from the Bohai gulf on the north to the Gulf of Tonkin on the south."

What's the intel on the number of Chinese ships that could carry enough of their army over here without being sunk?

[Damnsammit]

Funny thing about small guns... they don't particularly work well against tanks and missiles...

[KingGoon]

The entire world does not have enough soldiers to mount a successful land based invasion of the USA. 

You must be joking LOL do you actualy believe that?

[Minor Miner]

Funny thing about small guns... they don't particularly work well against tanks and missiles...

I guess you learned that lesson from the poorly armed afgan taliban?   How many 50 cal are in private hands in the USA?    And "small" arms can be used to get into invader's depots and get better weapons.   And then people come help and give you more arms (just to eff with the invaders :  afganistan and russia, then USA)

[Damnsammit]

It would be very hard unless you could manage to stage a massive amount of troops in Canada and/or Mexico without the US knowing.

Being sandwiched between the Pacific and Atlantic oceans and having the largest naval and air power in the world has it's advantages.  Namely, a ground invasion would be pretty damn hard to accomplish...

[Damnsammit]

I guess you learned that lesson from the poorly armed afgan taliban?   How many 50 cal are in private hands in the USA?    And "small" arms can be used to get into invader's depots and get better weapons.   And then people come help and give you more arms (just to eff with the invaders :  afganistan and russia, then USA)

Ehhh... I think you are missing the point.  The right to bear arms was much more paramount to the publics protection from their government when the Bill of Rights was drafted.  You know, before the government had nuclear warheads and multi-billion dollar destruction machines.

Even if you get your hands on that 50 cal, the captain in the F-16 will just laugh as he shoots a 60 cal at you from the air.

If the tyranny gets to you and you want to revolt, you will need a lot more than what you can legally get your hands on.   Of course, the only way anything would be succesful is if you could form a coup with some inside help, IE a general or admiral would be of significant strategic advantage.

[Rassah]

OK, admit it, how many of you have your entire knowledge of armies, invasion, and defense based entirely on the 1980's version of Red Dawn?

[Damnsammit]

All of my knowledge comes from 6 years in the USAF, and numerous hours of Sid Meier's Civilization.  

[TheButterZone]

Funny thing about small guns... they don't particularly work well against tanks and missiles...

They work perfectly well; they're the weapon with which the tank rampager in San Diego, Shawn Nelson, was killed, and are capable of killing missile commanders too. Tanks and missiles don't operate themselves, and F-16 pilots have to land sometimes.

[Minor Miner]

I guess you learned that lesson from the poorly armed afgan taliban?   How many 50 cal are in private hands in the USA?    And "small" arms can be used to get into invader's depots and get better weapons.   And then people come help and give you more arms (just to eff with the invaders :  afganistan and russia, then USA)

Ehhh... I think you are missing the point.  The right to bear arms was much more paramount to the publics protection from their government when the Bill of Rights was drafted.  You know, before the government had nuclear warheads and multi-billion dollar destruction machines.
Even if you get your hands on that 50 cal, the captain in the F-16 will just laugh as he shoots a 60 cal at you from the air.
If the tyranny gets to you and you want to revolt, you will need a lot more than what you can legally get your hands on.   Of course, the only way anything would be succesful is if you could form a coup with some inside help, IE a general or admiral would be of significant strategic advantage.

What country was successfully invaded and taken over by an airforce?   none.
troops have to take and hold ground.   Not easy to do with 105 Million armed civilians.   You need to take all the 300 Million guns back first.  I do not think you understand this point.   One could argue that the 2nd is MORE about protecting the country from FOREIGN invaders than its own government.   Read it.   

[Minor Miner]

The entire world does not have enough soldiers to mount a successful land based invasion of the USA.  

You must be joking LOL do you actualy believe that?

No I am not.   Name the army and its size.   Sum them if you want.    How many troops do you think it would take to invade and hold the US?
Why has no one ever invaded the swiss?  There is not that many of them, the terrain is defensible AND they have a shitload of gold.   Now, why would no one invade them in one of the great wars?

[Minor Miner]

OK, admit it, how many of you have your entire knowledge of armies, invasion, and defense based entirely on the 1980's version of Red Dawn?

Yes, Russia and you should have learned a good lesson from that documentary.   Whose butt did we kick out of here...   LOL.
I think Risk has more educational value than West Point though.

[Damnsammit]

What country was successfully invaded and taken over by an airforce?   none.
troops have to take and hold ground.   Not easy to do with 105 Million armed civilians.   You need to take all the 300 Million guns back first.  I do not think you understand this point.   One could argue that the 2nd is MORE about protecting the country from FOREIGN invaders than its own government.   Read it.   

Invaded and taken over?  None.

I'd say that Japan could give you two reasons why an Air Force is quite helpful in winning a war without the need to invade.

As for the text, I think it's pretty clear that it was intended for securing a free state regardless of whether those infringing on those rights were foreign or domestic.  I agree to your points, and I kind of think we are saying the same thing, but thinking about different scenarios.  I don't think anyone could occupy the USA, except the US Military.  I don't believe that our country doesn't have enough people with the stones to actually overthrow the government.

[tvbcof]

@BitCoiner2012:  I was being silly.  I'm an evol furn'er myself.

The graphic was hilarious to me.

Unfortunately is is almost NOT a joke that the fact that Hispanic janitorial staff show no signs of terrorist activity is sort of proof of guilt.  If they were innocent then they would not be so careful to hide their evil activity with great success from our highly trained analysts with the most technically sophisticated systems that (my) money can buy.

[phelix]

no boobies on tv

This is actually the most important point and will lead to the downfall of the system.

National comparisons aside, I think it is a very important point simply because it is so insane.

I've not managed to get any coherent rationale as a response when asking about this "law". Many Americans feel outright panic when their children see a nipple, genitals, certain poses etc. Apparently they believe it conjures Satan or something. Their children can be exposed to excessive violence, scares, immoral context and a multitude of other uncivilized influences without much hindrance, while viewing the human body is forcefully prevented. Anyone opposing this is labeled as a "pervert" and implicitly linked to rapists and whatnot. Children's bodies are considered so vile that they get filtered from information flow on the internet. Note that this is not the case if they've been blown to pieces by a grenade or so -- unless of course the result exposes their genitals.

I find it hard to expect rational behavior from people who accept such nonsense without question. This is a symptom of a real issue -- susceptibility to brainwashing -- and most certainly is relevant for system stability.

+1 also the beeps... ridiculous & hypocritical

[BitCoiner2012]

@BitCoiner2012:  I was being silly.  I'm an evol furn'er myself.

I know you were, the awesome was for you, the rest was for the other fellow.

[luv2drnkbr]

I guess you learned that lesson from the poorly armed afgan taliban?   How many 50 cal are in private hands in the USA?    And "small" arms can be used to get into invader's depots and get better weapons.   And then people come help and give you more arms (just to eff with the invaders :  afganistan and russia, then USA)

Ehhh... I think you are missing the point.  The right to bear arms was much more paramount to the publics protection from their government when the Bill of Rights was drafted.  You know, before the government had nuclear warheads and multi-billion dollar destruction machines.

Even if you get your hands on that 50 cal, the captain in the F-16 will just laugh as he shoots a 60 cal at you from the air.

If the tyranny gets to you and you want to revolt, you will need a lot more than what you can legally get your hands on.   Of course, the only way anything would be succesful is if you could form a coup with some inside help, IE a general or admiral would be of significant strategic advantage.

BINGO!  I can't believe this is never part of the debate.  Guns are not at all a means of protection against an oppressive government in this day and age.  Nobody seems to want to point that out.  If you really care about the necessity of protecting yourself from oppressive governments, the argument you should be making is that everybody ought to be able to buy nukes, big bombs or at the very least anti-tank rocket launchers!  The whole argument about firearms simply is unrelated to the ability to protect one's self from oppression.  It honestly doesn't even matter whether or not that was the intention of the 2nd Amendment because very few people think everybody ought to have nukes or rocket launchers, so that point is moot to begin with.

[Nik1ab]

+1

[CasinoBit]

Americans are pretty horrible IMO, but then again, among all the countries America is like the alcoholic who took it upon himself to become the designated driver while all the other countries are alcoholics as well.

I point out the flaws in the U.S. not because I hate the U.S. but because I love the U.S.