Congrats.....it's only Tuesday and I'm going to nominate your post as stupidest post of the week award. - - - Updated - - - California and New York I believe are the only hold out....unless you're famous actor or one of their body guards.
Congress doesn't have the votes to pass a new AWB, let alone universal background checks. you got nothing to worry about.
Hey Pardy, you can't truly believe this is a war I want. It is a war that will be handed to us from your leader. You don't honestly think that everyone that will be granted amnesty is here just to support their family? You do realize their are terrorist sells already here in the US. You do realize when all this takes place you will be scratching your head going, I didn't think they would do this. You realize your children/grandchildren will be a minority speaking English in a classroom. You realize that common core will be used to uneducate the US. You realize that disease will run rampant thru the US with the lack of immunization from the foreign countries. You do realize this war could be stopped, but it has to come from the top.
...Obama is a better gun sales representative than he is a insurance salesman........... - - - Updated - - - no sane person cries for war. But no sane person would ever say it cannot happen. Tyranny thrives when people cry for elimination of Rights........
Hirohito is credited with having said something to the effect: "It would be impossible to invade the US mainland because there is a rifle behind every blade of grass." (He probably didn't actually say that, but the content is true nevertheless.) An unarmed populous will fall with their government, whereas an armed populous must be defeated in addition. There will be no room for Pardy's ilk in my bunker. While the threat of invading armies seems to be lessening at the moment, the deterrent effect that is evidenced by Hirohito's perception, and continues today, that there are more guns than people here, plays to huge advantage for us.
Funny how that works, also funny how statest don't seems to understand it either.....but again it's what I've come to expect from them.
Not Hirohito, Yamamoto. I am amused when the pro-gun crowd speaks of fighting the military. That is flat out ridiculous. Not matter what the bore of your shotgun, no matter the caliber of your rifle, you will never stop a tank with it. Please don't trot out this particular argument; it truly is laughable. Nor are gun owners a viable defense against terror attacks. Do you truly think you can stop a suicide bomber with a bullet? How are you going to uncover the plot? Failing that, how are you going to recognize one? I don't have a problem with people owning guns. I have no problem with concealed carry. I have a problem with weak arguments.
Ah... should have googled it again. You're right. If our military wanted to overrun the country, it could absolutely do so. However, in the case of The People fighting a tyrannical government, it is equally laughable to assume that our military men and women will forsake THEIR sworn oaths to take up arms against The People, regardless of what their commanders tell them to do. They won't do it. In that case The People would have the military (or the vast majority of them, at least) on our side, and they will bring their tanks and rocket launchers with them. I come from a military family, and have worked along side our military as a civilian contractor for many years. Whenever I ask this question, I always get this same answer, regardless of rank or station. Ask a military man or woman this question yourself: "If there was an armed uprising of The People against a tyrannical, unconstitutional government, would you fight with them, or against them?" No soldier will side with tyranny, they will side with The People. In the case of another invading army (which is what MY post was about), it's the same answer. The entire country is armed (except for maybe you, and Pardy of course); enough guns for every man woman and child. It cannot be taken without killing them all first. 300,000,000 guns in the hands of 100,000,000 people is a force to be reckoned with. If you don't think that truth was in the mind of every commander that ever contemplated invading the US, you're delusional.
Just because I want the people to be able to be armed, doesn't mean that I want or expect to win a war with my government. I just want the same protection that the rich and politicians have. "A well regulated militia" also makes sense from an "invasion by a foreign power" perspective.
I wonder about this.....history has shown us that your claim isn't very accurate. One does not need to fight tanks to win a war, even though we have plenty of trained soldiers that have. Best look to the recent war in the Mideast. You don't have to go heavy anti-armor, you just have to make it hurt like hell. psssssssst, a tank cannot fight if it doesn't have fuel.
If you plan to face our gov't in battle, plan on facing armor and air power. Pssssssst, in order to deprive the military of it's supply lines, you'd better be prepared to hold ground. This is the type of set piece battle armor, artillery and air excel at.
So why does it make me crazy? Is it you don't think they will come after our guns or is it the part about being attacked on our own soil? You do realize they are trying to figure out a way daily to limit our weapons. They have already made it where they have made box stores put limits on ammo. I hope I am crazy like you say. I just have a bad feeling about things to come.
I can agree with this right up til we get to 'invasion by a foreign power'. At that point we run into the same problems as a revolt against the US gov't.
Actually, the question is pretty nuanced. If the gov't is clealy in the wrong, it is of course laughable to suppose the military would support it. Few questions are quite so black and white, however. If you suppose the military wouldn't raise its weapons against US citizens, look at Kent State. They will, given the right provocation. Nor is the US gov't hesitant to us regulars to enforce its will, Posse Comitatus Act be d***ed. Look at the 1992 LA riots, where the 7th and 40th infantry divisions and the 1st Marine division were deployed. That's not quite 9,000 troops. Ask a military man or woman this question yourself: "If there was an armed uprising of The People against a tyrannical, unconstitutional government, would you fight with them, or against them?" No soldier will side with tyranny, they will side with The People. In the case of another invading army (which is what MY post was about), it's the same answer. The entire country is armed (except for maybe you, and Pardy of course); enough guns for every man woman and child. It cannot be taken without killing them all first. 300,000,000 guns in the hands of 100,000,000 people is a force to be reckoned with. If you don't think that truth was in the mind of every commander that ever contemplated invading the US, you're delusional.[/QUOTE]
ahhhhhhh, the old defeatist attitude here. you are willing to surrender everything before giving it a second thought. Are you a student of history or a scholar of military tactics? Have you even handled a weapon? Fence sitters are always the first targets taken out..but, hey, you already knew that. My question is, which side are you willing to fight for? Those that would deprive you if Liberty or those who would enslave you....that's the question. I once saw a logo that said: Liberty or Death, the Choice is made.
Not willing to surrender everything. Just question that you have the right way to go about it. Armed rebellion would be a desperation move, almost surely doomed from the start. Most rebellions end up installing a regime worse than the one they replace: consider the Soviets and the Red Chinese. Things got a lot worse there before they got any better. BTW, after a revolt, successful or not, it is usually the leading rebels that are taken out. I have studied military science, game theory and history. Just answering your question. Lastly, as I've said before, I have no problem with gun ownership. I simply think that the idea of using civilian guns to mount a military defense by gun owners is ridiculous. Their average age, lack of discipline, lesser fitness, lack of defense against artillery, air power or armor, no tactical doctrine and lack of an overall strategy all count against them against a modern army. IMO gun ownership is about defense of one's self and property, not about defense from one's gov't or an invading force. This is the only realistic context in which it makes sense to me.
