Ron Paul: Liberty is More Important Than the Illusion of Safety

And our Army is doing what exactly to stop either of those things?

No one is calling on America to disarm.

 

As well armed as our citizens are, foreign armies have tanks, planes, drones, bombs, satellites, etc. You could give every citizen old enough to carry a weapon, the most advanced rifle in the world, and they still would not be able to hold back an advancing army with modern technology. We would be effective as a guerrilla force fighting against the occupiers in an already occupied country, but nothing more!!

 

And no way to get them to America. There is no nation that can launch an invasion of the US.

 

If we had no government, and therefore no navy or air-force, landing an invading force would be incredibly easy!!

 

There is no such thing called real safety only an illusion of it.

We are being locked into an open air prison for our "safety" but prisons aren't even safe.

 

No it wouldn't. Even contested by infantry only, a landing on a hostile beach is almost impossible for every other nation out there.

And who exactly is calling for us to have no navy or air force?

BTW, if there was no government then there would also be no rules against private ownership of SAMs or anti-tank missiles.

 

own no property, transact no business, make no "reportable" income - and you too can be Thoreau.

saw a documentary about a man who has paid no taxes in 15 years. the subject of the documentary is not his taxes, but his flock of wild parrots.

"The Wild Parrots of Telegraph Hill"

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0424565/

 

Did you miss "Fast and Furious" and the obama adminsitration giving guns to mexican gangs, so the administration could blame our second amendment rights. And those guns have killed Americans, The Obama administration is guilty of murder, but not much has been said about that.

 

Problem is our government has beein training the military to be used against us. Thats why they are worried about our weapons. Can't have armed slaves.

 

Correct. There would be no laws against owning those things, what there is, is practical considerations keeping people from owning those things. Advanced weaponry costs a lot of money, and people cannot afford the costs.

As far as who is calling for no air force or navy, that would be hotymonger, who is the person my post was addressed to. If you see how foolish and naive his position is, then your posts are not relevant to mine.


As far as hostile beaches go, what makes a beach hostile? A few people with guns? A few people with no air cover, no naval support? They would get torn apart quite easily. I am not advocating for a very large military, I am only advocating for a military. If you agree, then you have no objection to my statement!!

 

Costa Rica has no military, yet they aren't being invaded. And they have some great beachfront property.
Paranoia generated by the state, it's media and it's compulsory indoctrination facilities have made people believe there is a threat to the citizenry in order to keep the military/industrial complex running. The "Cold War", the "War on Terror" and other bogeymen help to justify the need for government in the eyes of the citizenry. Government and a military aren't necessary.
It's great that the military is supposed to be for defending the country, yet it doesn't, as is evident at the southern border of the US.