I wish those down voters would explain their rationale. It isn’t that the Founders got it wrong about the 2A, but that their prodigy would be so completely led to live as subjects, rather than the virtuous people they hoped that we would be. Bottom line for me is that those arms are more akin to door stops and curio pieces than what the Founders provided… tools to punish tyrants; singularly or in the collective.

The Founders tried to shove through their constitution without a “Bill of Rights” in it. They were elitist assholes not so different than Biden.

Well, lots of ‘em definitely are fetish-Gollums with the prettiest gold rings. I see pics, time to time, color & texture coordinated works of firearms art, often with matching blades. Like they sit in Jay Leno’s garage, polished & waxed for photo-ops, but are never really driven. All kinda here-kitty-kitty porn for all kinda Walter & Wanda Mitty pacifiers … here, suck on this, calm yourself, be content. & those may as well fire Linus blankeys, right? Piggy say “I got the 7.62mm Conch!

But, the timing thing. Luck. Of. The Draw … partner.

That F15 drool? Here’s Quigley contrasting Selleck & Sharps in their prime times to other times. & The Gambler say you got to know when to hold/fold/run:

“… The military level is concerned with the organization of force, the political level with the organization of power, & the economic level with the organization of wealth. By the “organization of power” in a society we mean the ways in which obedience & consent (or acquiescence) are obtained. The close relationships between levels can be seen from the fact that there are three basic ways to win obedience: by force, by buying consent with wealth, & by persuasion. Each of these three leads us to another level (military, economic or intellectual) outside the political level. At the same time, the organization of power today (that is, the method for obtaining obedience in the society) is a development of the methods used to obtain obedience in the society in an earlier period….

On the military level in Western Civilization in the twentieth century the chief development has been a steady increase in the complexity & the cost of weapons. When weapons are cheap to get & so easy to use that almost anyone can use them after a short period of training, armies are generally made up of large masses of amateur soldiers. Such weapons we call “amateur weapons,” & such armies we might call mass-armies of citizen-soldiers.” The Age of Pericles in Classical Greece & the nineteenth century in Western Civilization were periods of amateur weapons & citizen-soldiers. But the nineteenth century was preceded (as was the Age of Pericles also) by a period in which weapons were expensive & required long training in their use. Such weapons we call “specialist weapons.” Periods of specialist weapons are generally periods of small armies of professional soldiers (usually mercenaries.) In a period of specialist weapons the minority who have such weapons can usually force the majority who lack them to obey; thus a period of specialist weapons tends to give rise to a period of minority rule & authoritarian government. But a period of amateur weapons is a period in which all men are roughly equal in military power, a majority can compel a minority to yield, & majority rule or even democratic government tends to rise. The medieval period in which the best weapon was usually a mounted knight on horseback (clearly a specialist weapon) was a period of minority rule & authoritarian government. Even when the medieval knight was made obsolete (along with his stone castle) by the invention of gunpowder & the appearance of firearms, these new weapons were so expensive & so difficult to use (until 1800) that minority rule & authoritarian government continued even though that government sought to enforce its rule by shifting from mounted knights to professional pikemen & musketeers. But after 1800, guns became cheaper to obtain & easier to use. By 1840 a Colt revolver sold for $27 & a Springfield musket for not much more, & these were about as good weapons as anyone could get at that time. Thus, mass armies of citizens, equipped with these cheap & easily used weapons, began to replace armies of professional soldiers, beginning about 1800 in Europe & even earlier in America. At the same time, democratic government began to replace authoritarian governments (but chiefly in those areas where the cheap new weapons were available & local standards of living were high enough to allow people to obtain them)….

In the twentieth century the military situation was drastically changed in two ways. On the one hand, communications & transportation were so improved by the invention of the radio & the internal-combustion engine that control & movement of troops & even of individual soldiers became very flexible; mobilization ceased to be equivalent to attack, & attack ceased to be equivalent to total war. On the other hand, beginning with the first use of tanks, gas, high-explosive shells, & tactical bombing from the air in 1915-1918, & continuing with all the innovations in weapons leading up to the first atomic bomb in 1945, specialist weapons became superior to amateur weapons. This has a double result which was still working itself out at mid-century: the drafted army of citizen-soldiers began to be replaced by a smaller army of professional specialist soldiers, & authoritarian government began to replace democratic government.

On the political level equally profound changes took place in the twentieth century. These changes were associated with the basis on which an appeal for allegiance could be placed, & especially with the need to find a basis of allegiance which could win loyalty over larger & larger areas from more numerous groups of people. In the early Middle Ages when there had been no state & no public authority, political organization had been the feudal system which was held together by obligations of personal fealty among a small number of people. With the reappearance of the state & of public authority, new patterns of political behavior were organized in what is called the “feudal monarchy.” This allowed the state to reappear for the first time since the collapse of Charlemagne’s Empire in the ninth century, but with restricted allegiance to a relatively small number of persons over a relatively small area. The development of weapons & the steady improvement in transportation & communications made it possible to compel obedience over wider & wider areas, & made it necessary to base allegiance on something wider than personal fealty to a feudal monarch. Accordingly, the feudal monarchy was replaced by the dynastic monarchy. In this system subjects owed allegiance to a royal family (dynasty), although the real basis of the dynasty rested on the loyalty of a professional army of pikemen & musketeers.

The shift from the professional army of mercenaries to the mass army of citizen-soldiers, along with other factors acting on other levels of culture, made it necessary to broaden the basis of allegiance once again after 1800. The new basis was nationalism, & gave rise to the national state as the typical political unit of the nineteenth century. This shift was not possible for the larger dynastic states which ruled over many different language & national groups. By the year 1900 three old dynastic monarchies were being threatened with disintegration by the rising tide of nationalistic agitation. These three, the Austro-Hungarian Empire, the Ottoman Empire, & the Russian Empire of the Romanovs, did disintegrate as a consequence of the defeats of the First World War. But the smaller territorial units which replaced them, states like Poland, Czechoslovakia, or Lithuania, organized largely on the basis of language groups, may have reflected adequately enough the nationalistic sentiments of the nineteenth century, but they reflected very inadequately the developments in weapons, in communications, in transportation, & in economics of the twentieth century. By the middle of this latter century these developments were reaching a point where states which could produce the latest instruments of coercion were in a position to compel obedience over areas much larger than those occupied by peoples speaking the same language or otherwise regarding themselves as sharing a common nationality. Even as early as 1940 it began to appear that some new basis more continental in scope than existing nationality groups must be found for the new superstates which were beginning to be born. It became clear that the basis of allegiance for these new superstates of continental scope must be ideological rather than national. Thus the nineteenth century’s national state began to be replaced by the twentieth century’s ideological bloc. At the same time the shift from amateur to specialist weapons made it likely that the new form of organization would be authoritarian rather than democratic as the earlier national state had been. However, the prestige of Britain’s power & influence in the nineteenth century was so great in the first third of the twentieth century that the British parliamentary system continued to be copied everywhere that people were called upon to set up a new form of government. This happened in Russia in 1917, in Turkey in 1908, in Czechoslovakia & Poland in 1918-19, & in most of the states of Asia (such as China in 1911).” ~ Tragedy & Hope

See Dick & Jane run to externalities spinnin’ on Pat & Vanna’s wheel. But see especially just how consistently obedience-seeking Dick & Jane really, actually, are – amateur or specialist weapons, it don’t matter. Then maybe put away childish things like hoping, tragically, that Dick & Jane can ever outgrow their domesticated DNA. Ain’t gonna’ happen.

And for all intent purposes.. You’re still a cunt….

So you want the blood to flow? How do you envision this? Do you think you will get to watch it all on foxnews from the comfort of your arm chair? I’m not ready to bash heads either. Truly the last option for me, because it is the final option. Taking a mans life steals a little bit of your soul every time you have to do it, that is if you have any humanity left in you. Like Rambo said in the movie, I will not draw first blood. Unlike the movie, I’m not under any delusion that I am a one man army ready to take on the US military or even a division of SWAT combat agents..