4 ms·
> Can you mention some insurrection where armed protestants won over a well-equipped state Vietnam. Korea. Haiti. > this reasoning for the 2nd amendment comes
by ropeadopepope 9y ago
> Can you mention some insurrection where armed protestants won over a well-equipped state
Vietnam. Korea. Haiti.
> this reasoning for the 2nd amendment comes out only as a power fantasy
That's the reason the 2nd amendment was written the way it was: 'the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.' It was legal for most of American history to own military grade hardware. Explosives. Cannons. Naval Armadas. Food for thought: it's still legal for companies to own all of these things but not individuals.
- greedo 9y agoVietnam? When North Vietnam invaded South Vietnam, they used more tanks than the largest WW2 battle. North Vietnam had fighter jets, SAMs, a powerful benefactor in the USSR etc etc etc. The Vietcong were indigenous, though funded and armed by the NVA. They were thoroughly defeated during Tet.
- ropeadopepope 9y agoPlay all the sophistry games you want: over a 20 year period, a poorly armed force beat not one, but two forces that had superior firepower and numbers.
- greedo 9y agoHow were they poorly armed? Their infantry weapons were first class, far better than deployed by the French or Americans. They had arguably better trained soldiers for jungle combat. They had a powerful patron in the USSR that was willing to provide top of the line SAMs that were manned by Russian technicians. Yet they still lost almost every battle against the Americans (sorry France, Dien Bien Phu...). After Tet, the VietCong ceased to exist as a fighting force. S. Vietnam would have held against the NVA if Congress hadn't cut off funding to their army. When North Vietnam attempted to invade the South in 1972, they had 67% casualties. In 1975, when Congress refused to provide air support, the South fell. You can call it sophistry, but the facts stand as true.