yes, 14daroad, you identified post 25 as not being literally serious.
however, the underlying point that bowlsit and his $500 gun arsenal might not be quite the match against the government and its hundreds of billions of dollars in annual military budget and defense spending.
0
yes, 14daroad, you identified post 25 as not being literally serious.
however, the underlying point that bowlsit and his $500 gun arsenal might not be quite the match against the government and its hundreds of billions of dollars in annual military budget and defense spending.
yes, 14daroad, you identified post 25 as not being literally serious.
however, the underlying point that bowlsit and his $500 gun arsenal might not be quite the match against the government and its hundreds of billions of dollars in annual military budget and defense spending.
I didn't know individual police departments have been allocated fleets of drones.
You think of the government as it can only be a large brigade. Many military personnel would step out of the fight. The mindless noodles will follow any order given.
We've already seen that our military can't handle a decent insurgency campaign.
0
Quote Originally Posted by ClubDirt:
yes, 14daroad, you identified post 25 as not being literally serious.
however, the underlying point that bowlsit and his $500 gun arsenal might not be quite the match against the government and its hundreds of billions of dollars in annual military budget and defense spending.
I didn't know individual police departments have been allocated fleets of drones.
You think of the government as it can only be a large brigade. Many military personnel would step out of the fight. The mindless noodles will follow any order given.
We've already seen that our military can't handle a decent insurgency campaign.
however, the underlying point that bowlsit and his $500 gun arsenal might not be quite the match against the government and its hundreds of billions of dollars in annual military budget and defense spending.
This is a straw-man.
0
Quote Originally Posted by ClubDirt:
y
however, the underlying point that bowlsit and his $500 gun arsenal might not be quite the match against the government and its hundreds of billions of dollars in annual military budget and defense spending.
This case is a relative rarity. Shooting a home intruder happens far less often than shooting family or friend. Criminals seek vulnerable targets. Chance of home invasion may be reduced by better security of doors and windows.
0
This case is a relative rarity. Shooting a home intruder happens far less often than shooting family or friend. Criminals seek vulnerable targets. Chance of home invasion may be reduced by better security of doors and windows.
that is extremely absurd among the many absurd things that are said. your little arsenal of whatever guns you have will do a lot against a government that spends hundreds of billions on defense every year. makes about as much sense as most rightwing positions.
Maybe you missed what happened in Boston the other week.
Two youngsters with rifles and a $90 bomb shut down an entire city.
The hundreds of billions used in defense are useless in guerrilla warfare. Almost the same concept as when farmers repelled the largest military in the world in 1776.
If you don't believe that example, how about the goat herders and malnutritioned illiterate dirt farmers that have stymied the US military in Afghanistan.
History is filled with examples of large ruling empires being brought down by extremely motivated minorities through unconventional warfare.
0
Quote Originally Posted by ClubDirt:
that is extremely absurd among the many absurd things that are said. your little arsenal of whatever guns you have will do a lot against a government that spends hundreds of billions on defense every year. makes about as much sense as most rightwing positions.
Maybe you missed what happened in Boston the other week.
Two youngsters with rifles and a $90 bomb shut down an entire city.
The hundreds of billions used in defense are useless in guerrilla warfare. Almost the same concept as when farmers repelled the largest military in the world in 1776.
If you don't believe that example, how about the goat herders and malnutritioned illiterate dirt farmers that have stymied the US military in Afghanistan.
History is filled with examples of large ruling empires being brought down by extremely motivated minorities through unconventional warfare.
does sarcasm completely evade the foxnews crowd? i suppose so. i'll try to tone it down or only use it with the nonfoxnews crowd. but the point remains the same. to suggest that bowlslit's gun arsenal has any hope against the federal government and it's hundreds of billions of dollars in military spending is absurd.
i did see the boston situation. if that is the outcome bowlslit and similar people are looking for with their obsolete rationalization for the second amendment, then more power to him.
0
does sarcasm completely evade the foxnews crowd? i suppose so. i'll try to tone it down or only use it with the nonfoxnews crowd. but the point remains the same. to suggest that bowlslit's gun arsenal has any hope against the federal government and it's hundreds of billions of dollars in military spending is absurd.
i did see the boston situation. if that is the outcome bowlslit and similar people are looking for with their obsolete rationalization for the second amendment, then more power to him.
Maybe you missed what happened in Boston the other week.
Two youngsters with rifles and a $90 bomb shut down an entire city.
The hundreds of billions used in defense are useless in guerrilla warfare. Almost the same concept as when farmers repelled the largest military in the world in 1776.
If you don't believe that example, how about the goat herders and malnutritioned illiterate dirt farmers that have stymied the US military in Afghanistan.
History is filled with examples of large ruling empires being brought down by extremely motivated minorities through unconventional warfare.
the hundreds of billions of dollars the government spends on the military are useless against some dude in america with his few guns? is that what you are telling me?
can you give me any examples of citizens in this country with their second amendment gun collection who have had any lasting impact fighting the us government and those hundreds of billions of dollars and winning who are still alive and running free? will bowlslit be the first?
however, if bowlslit was to move the the mountains of afghanistan and set up with a bin laden type and take pot shots at our soldiers out there, he might last a little while but i think then we are beyond the second amendment issues and have moved more into what this country likes to call terrorism and treason.
0
Quote Originally Posted by rick3117:
Maybe you missed what happened in Boston the other week.
Two youngsters with rifles and a $90 bomb shut down an entire city.
The hundreds of billions used in defense are useless in guerrilla warfare. Almost the same concept as when farmers repelled the largest military in the world in 1776.
If you don't believe that example, how about the goat herders and malnutritioned illiterate dirt farmers that have stymied the US military in Afghanistan.
History is filled with examples of large ruling empires being brought down by extremely motivated minorities through unconventional warfare.
the hundreds of billions of dollars the government spends on the military are useless against some dude in america with his few guns? is that what you are telling me?
can you give me any examples of citizens in this country with their second amendment gun collection who have had any lasting impact fighting the us government and those hundreds of billions of dollars and winning who are still alive and running free? will bowlslit be the first?
however, if bowlslit was to move the the mountains of afghanistan and set up with a bin laden type and take pot shots at our soldiers out there, he might last a little while but i think then we are beyond the second amendment issues and have moved more into what this country likes to call terrorism and treason.
does sarcasm completely evade the foxnews crowd? i suppose so. i'll try to tone it down or only use it with the nonfoxnews crowd. but the point remains the same. to suggest that bowlslit's gun arsenal has any hope against the federal government and it's hundreds of billions of dollars in military spending is absurd.
The only person who is suggesting that a single person would be a guard against the federal government is you.
Why you continue to argue against a position nobody is taking isn't really clear.
Or is that "sarcasm" too?
0
Quote Originally Posted by ClubDirt:
does sarcasm completely evade the foxnews crowd? i suppose so. i'll try to tone it down or only use it with the nonfoxnews crowd. but the point remains the same. to suggest that bowlslit's gun arsenal has any hope against the federal government and it's hundreds of billions of dollars in military spending is absurd.
The only person who is suggesting that a single person would be a guard against the federal government is you.
Why you continue to argue against a position nobody is taking isn't really clear.
The only person who is suggesting that a single person would be a guard against the federal government is you.
Why you continue to argue against a position nobody is taking isn't really clear.
Or is that "sarcasm" too?
it's not sarcasm as much as it is basic reading comprehension, from a school, not homeschool. post 24 is the one i responded to with the drone comment. if you read it, or try to, you'll see bowlslit using words like "i" and "me" and "every man for himself". those are siungular words, meaning only one. that is why i'm referring to bowlslit individually.
now, if bowlsit has a posse with their favorite second amendment gun collections, he can tell us about it and we can evaluate how it will do against the various armed local, state and federal government entities.
0
Quote Originally Posted by 14daroad:
The only person who is suggesting that a single person would be a guard against the federal government is you.
Why you continue to argue against a position nobody is taking isn't really clear.
Or is that "sarcasm" too?
it's not sarcasm as much as it is basic reading comprehension, from a school, not homeschool. post 24 is the one i responded to with the drone comment. if you read it, or try to, you'll see bowlslit using words like "i" and "me" and "every man for himself". those are siungular words, meaning only one. that is why i'm referring to bowlslit individually.
now, if bowlsit has a posse with their favorite second amendment gun collections, he can tell us about it and we can evaluate how it will do against the various armed local, state and federal government entities.
it's not sarcasm as much as it is basic reading comprehension, from a school, not homeschool. post 24 is the one i responded to with the drone comment. if you read it, or try to, you'll see bowlslit using words like "i" and "me" and "every man for himself". those are siungular words, meaning only one. that is why i'm referring to bowlslit individually.
now, if bowlsit has a posse with their favorite second amendment gun collections, he can tell us about it and we can evaluate how it will do against the various armed local, state and federal government entities.
I only used the singular words because I don't know which of my neighbors would become cowards if the situation ever presented itself. Talk is cheap as we all know.
Next time you have tea with your buddy Obama you should ask him why he has toned down his drone stance since Rand Paul exposed his position on them.
I also mentioned that many of the free thinking military members will abstain from such a fight leaving only the idiots that can't think for themselves and obey any order given.
Who says I have to live through such an ordeal anyway? All I care about is if the unlikely situation ever presents itself that I stand for whats right and not turn into a coward.
The main idea that I was trying to get out is that if the government is going to come after me with AR-15's then I need one too since that is the idea behind the second amendment.
0
Quote Originally Posted by ClubDirt:
it's not sarcasm as much as it is basic reading comprehension, from a school, not homeschool. post 24 is the one i responded to with the drone comment. if you read it, or try to, you'll see bowlslit using words like "i" and "me" and "every man for himself". those are siungular words, meaning only one. that is why i'm referring to bowlslit individually.
now, if bowlsit has a posse with their favorite second amendment gun collections, he can tell us about it and we can evaluate how it will do against the various armed local, state and federal government entities.
I only used the singular words because I don't know which of my neighbors would become cowards if the situation ever presented itself. Talk is cheap as we all know.
Next time you have tea with your buddy Obama you should ask him why he has toned down his drone stance since Rand Paul exposed his position on them.
I also mentioned that many of the free thinking military members will abstain from such a fight leaving only the idiots that can't think for themselves and obey any order given.
Who says I have to live through such an ordeal anyway? All I care about is if the unlikely situation ever presents itself that I stand for whats right and not turn into a coward.
The main idea that I was trying to get out is that if the government is going to come after me with AR-15's then I need one too since that is the idea behind the second amendment.
the hundreds of billions of dollars the government spends on the military are useless against some dude in america with his few guns? is that what you are telling me?
can you give me any examples of citizens in this country with their second amendment gun collection who have had any lasting impact fighting the us government and those hundreds of billions of dollars and winning who are still alive and running free? will bowlslit be the first?
however, if bowlslit was to move the the mountains of afghanistan and set up with a bin laden type and take pot shots at our soldiers out there, he might last a little while but i think then we are beyond the second amendment issues and have moved more into what this country likes to call terrorism and treason.
I am not saying anyone will be alive at the end.
I am saying that you are really discounting the effect that asymmetric warfare would have on this country. Examples of this are TimothyMcVeigh, Dorner and the 2 boston kids.
if there were as little as 50 people that acted in concert it would completely stymie police.
The billion dollar war machine you speak of is a little hamstrung by posse Comitatus.
The government is terrified by guys like Adam Kokesh that has organized thousands to march on DC with guns. There is a reason for that.
Any insurgency in this country would completely topple the government and our way of life. It would turn into North Korea pretty quick.
0
Quote Originally Posted by ClubDirt:
the hundreds of billions of dollars the government spends on the military are useless against some dude in america with his few guns? is that what you are telling me?
can you give me any examples of citizens in this country with their second amendment gun collection who have had any lasting impact fighting the us government and those hundreds of billions of dollars and winning who are still alive and running free? will bowlslit be the first?
however, if bowlslit was to move the the mountains of afghanistan and set up with a bin laden type and take pot shots at our soldiers out there, he might last a little while but i think then we are beyond the second amendment issues and have moved more into what this country likes to call terrorism and treason.
I am not saying anyone will be alive at the end.
I am saying that you are really discounting the effect that asymmetric warfare would have on this country. Examples of this are TimothyMcVeigh, Dorner and the 2 boston kids.
if there were as little as 50 people that acted in concert it would completely stymie police.
The billion dollar war machine you speak of is a little hamstrung by posse Comitatus.
The government is terrified by guys like Adam Kokesh that has organized thousands to march on DC with guns. There is a reason for that.
Any insurgency in this country would completely topple the government and our way of life. It would turn into North Korea pretty quick.
Clubdirt's response kind of reminds me of an argument my brother and I had in the bed of his truck for 7 hours when we went camping at the lake and the wind was too strong to sleep in the tent.
He said we should just bring all or our troops home and stand them shoulder to shoulder along our East and West coast lines and borders with Mexico and Canada. Apparently, I'm the worst debater on the planet because I couldn't convince him how idiotic that strategy for defense is.
My argument was at least we made the battlefield on foreign land and far away from our mainland.
0
Clubdirt's response kind of reminds me of an argument my brother and I had in the bed of his truck for 7 hours when we went camping at the lake and the wind was too strong to sleep in the tent.
He said we should just bring all or our troops home and stand them shoulder to shoulder along our East and West coast lines and borders with Mexico and Canada. Apparently, I'm the worst debater on the planet because I couldn't convince him how idiotic that strategy for defense is.
My argument was at least we made the battlefield on foreign land and far away from our mainland.
i guess i don't understand the difference between a terrorist or treason and what you guys are talking about as a basis for the 2nd amendment. beyond that, i think you are giving examples of people who have killed citizens and then have been caught or killed by the government without putting a dent in the government or any of its agents. i don't see where the government needs to be concerned about that as a ruling entity.
0
i guess i don't understand the difference between a terrorist or treason and what you guys are talking about as a basis for the 2nd amendment. beyond that, i think you are giving examples of people who have killed citizens and then have been caught or killed by the government without putting a dent in the government or any of its agents. i don't see where the government needs to be concerned about that as a ruling entity.
now, if bowlsit has a posse with their favorite second amendment gun collections, he can tell us about it and we can evaluate how it will do against the various armed local, state and federal government entities.
A scenario where "every man is for himself" is not one where Bowslit is operating by himself against a drone.
Further, a lot of the local and state armed entitites are stocked full of gun nuts not exactly sympathetic to confiscating firearms or killing their neighbors.
There are a lot of faulty assumptions in your posts.
0
Quote Originally Posted by ClubDirt:
now, if bowlsit has a posse with their favorite second amendment gun collections, he can tell us about it and we can evaluate how it will do against the various armed local, state and federal government entities.
A scenario where "every man is for himself" is not one where Bowslit is operating by himself against a drone.
Further, a lot of the local and state armed entitites are stocked full of gun nuts not exactly sympathetic to confiscating firearms or killing their neighbors.
There are a lot of faulty assumptions in your posts.
i guess i don't understand the difference between a terrorist or treason and what you guys are talking about as a basis for the 2nd amendment. beyond that, i think you are giving examples of people who have killed citizens and then have been caught or killed by the government without putting a dent in the government or any of its agents. i don't see where the government needs to be concerned about that as a ruling entity.
The examples are only to show the efficacy of small actions by a "lone wolf" or small cells. I can understand how it is confusing, but you keep talking about how impotent gun owners would be in the event of an insurgency. To that point you are dead wrong. The united states has more quality long range rifleman than any nation in the world ( I would argue). I will use another example of a criminal to illustrate that. A two man sniper team terrorized the metro DC area for months and evaded apprehension, law enforcement was essentially impotent. Now image 20 teams working throughout the continental United States (catch my drift)
The basis of the 2nd amendment goes to the Declaration of independence. The right to revolt is enshrined in those words. The 2nd amendment is a negative right of the government, that says that they do not have the right to take away arms from the people.
The Declaration of Independence goes further in explaining the right and responsibility of the citizens of the United States to act as a final check against tyranny.
2nd amendment isn't for hunting
2nd amendment isn't for sport.
2nd amendment is grounded in the natural law of self defense. It is explicitly to enable citizens to arm themselves against a government that has over-stepped it's bounds.
0
Quote Originally Posted by ClubDirt:
i guess i don't understand the difference between a terrorist or treason and what you guys are talking about as a basis for the 2nd amendment. beyond that, i think you are giving examples of people who have killed citizens and then have been caught or killed by the government without putting a dent in the government or any of its agents. i don't see where the government needs to be concerned about that as a ruling entity.
The examples are only to show the efficacy of small actions by a "lone wolf" or small cells. I can understand how it is confusing, but you keep talking about how impotent gun owners would be in the event of an insurgency. To that point you are dead wrong. The united states has more quality long range rifleman than any nation in the world ( I would argue). I will use another example of a criminal to illustrate that. A two man sniper team terrorized the metro DC area for months and evaded apprehension, law enforcement was essentially impotent. Now image 20 teams working throughout the continental United States (catch my drift)
The basis of the 2nd amendment goes to the Declaration of independence. The right to revolt is enshrined in those words. The 2nd amendment is a negative right of the government, that says that they do not have the right to take away arms from the people.
The Declaration of Independence goes further in explaining the right and responsibility of the citizens of the United States to act as a final check against tyranny.
2nd amendment isn't for hunting
2nd amendment isn't for sport.
2nd amendment is grounded in the natural law of self defense. It is explicitly to enable citizens to arm themselves against a government that has over-stepped it's bounds.
The examples are only to show the efficacy of small actions by a "lone wolf" or small cells. I can understand how it is confusing, but you keep talking about how impotent gun owners would be in the event of an insurgency. To that point you are dead wrong. The united states has more quality long range rifleman than any nation in the world ( I would argue). I will use another example of a criminal to illustrate that. A two man sniper team terrorized the metro DC area for months and evaded apprehension, law enforcement was essentially impotent. Now image 20 teams working throughout the continental United States (catch my drift)
The basis of the 2nd amendment goes to the Declaration of independence. The right to revolt is enshrined in those words. The 2nd amendment is a negative right of the government, that says that they do not have the right to take away arms from the people.
The Declaration of Independence goes further in explaining the right and responsibility of the citizens of the United States to act as a final check against tyranny.
2nd amendment isn't for hunting
2nd amendment isn't for sport.
2nd amendment is grounded in the natural law of self defense. It is explicitly to enable citizens to arm themselves against a government that has over-stepped it's bounds.
i'm not following the argument. all these examples are of terrorists or the like killing citizens. and then the government comes in and arrests or kills them and they are dead or rotting in jail. i don't see where the government is worried about that.
so, if the second amendment is the basis for terrorists killing citizens, sure there are plenty of examples of people doing that successfully for some period of time but i'm not sure that's anything to brag about or what the second amendment intended. but in every case i can ever think of, the government comes in and either catches or kills the terrorist with little to no casualty to the government and the government is stronger than ever, usually moreso because we may get a patriot act or something out of it.
have any of these examples resulted in anything other than citizens getting killed, government fuckin up the terrorist and then government getting bigger and stronger with more laws?
0
Quote Originally Posted by rick3117:
The examples are only to show the efficacy of small actions by a "lone wolf" or small cells. I can understand how it is confusing, but you keep talking about how impotent gun owners would be in the event of an insurgency. To that point you are dead wrong. The united states has more quality long range rifleman than any nation in the world ( I would argue). I will use another example of a criminal to illustrate that. A two man sniper team terrorized the metro DC area for months and evaded apprehension, law enforcement was essentially impotent. Now image 20 teams working throughout the continental United States (catch my drift)
The basis of the 2nd amendment goes to the Declaration of independence. The right to revolt is enshrined in those words. The 2nd amendment is a negative right of the government, that says that they do not have the right to take away arms from the people.
The Declaration of Independence goes further in explaining the right and responsibility of the citizens of the United States to act as a final check against tyranny.
2nd amendment isn't for hunting
2nd amendment isn't for sport.
2nd amendment is grounded in the natural law of self defense. It is explicitly to enable citizens to arm themselves against a government that has over-stepped it's bounds.
i'm not following the argument. all these examples are of terrorists or the like killing citizens. and then the government comes in and arrests or kills them and they are dead or rotting in jail. i don't see where the government is worried about that.
so, if the second amendment is the basis for terrorists killing citizens, sure there are plenty of examples of people doing that successfully for some period of time but i'm not sure that's anything to brag about or what the second amendment intended. but in every case i can ever think of, the government comes in and either catches or kills the terrorist with little to no casualty to the government and the government is stronger than ever, usually moreso because we may get a patriot act or something out of it.
have any of these examples resulted in anything other than citizens getting killed, government fuckin up the terrorist and then government getting bigger and stronger with more laws?
I think the second amendment is the most abused and manipulated of the entire constitution.
It sickens me how we have taken a simple, basic concept and expanded it into this gigantic quagmire all under the hilarious guise of governmental oppression.
I guess it does fit well with extremists and helps a select set of people make a living off the crazy fear of others..but the way we have allowed gun manufacturers to exploit this fear and develop weapons obviously outside the scope of the original document is saddening and sickening.
0
I think the second amendment is the most abused and manipulated of the entire constitution.
It sickens me how we have taken a simple, basic concept and expanded it into this gigantic quagmire all under the hilarious guise of governmental oppression.
I guess it does fit well with extremists and helps a select set of people make a living off the crazy fear of others..but the way we have allowed gun manufacturers to exploit this fear and develop weapons obviously outside the scope of the original document is saddening and sickening.
The examples are only to show the efficacy of small actions by a "lone wolf" or small cells. I can understand how it is confusing, but you keep talking about how impotent gun owners would be in the event of an insurgency. To that point you are dead wrong. The united states has more quality long range rifleman than any nation in the world ( I would argue). I will use another example of a criminal to illustrate that. A two man sniper team terrorized the metro DC area for months and evaded apprehension, law enforcement was essentially impotent. Now image 20 teams working throughout the continental United States (catch my drift)
The basis of the 2nd amendment goes to the Declaration of independence. The right to revolt is enshrined in those words. The 2nd amendment is a negative right of the government, that says that they do not have the right to take away arms from the people.
The Declaration of Independence goes further in explaining the right and responsibility of the citizens of the United States to act as a final check against tyranny.
2nd amendment isn't for hunting
2nd amendment isn't for sport.
2nd amendment is grounded in the natural law of self defense. It is explicitly to enable citizens to arm themselves against a government that has over-stepped it's bounds.
Imo, this couldn't be more wrong. The natural law of self-defense was always there going back to the English laws & constitution & though the Heller decision codified it with the 2nd A, it actually had nothing to do with the 2nd amendment, 1 way or the other.
As far as the right to revolt being the reason for the 2nd A, again that is far off base though it is rooted in the Declaration of Independence. That's why we have a representative republic & elections. Otherwise, who's to say what & who is being tyrannical & to what degree and then what is justified or constitutional or not? The 2nd A needs to be understood in a historical context - maybe this will help.
The examples are only to show the efficacy of small actions by a "lone wolf" or small cells. I can understand how it is confusing, but you keep talking about how impotent gun owners would be in the event of an insurgency. To that point you are dead wrong. The united states has more quality long range rifleman than any nation in the world ( I would argue). I will use another example of a criminal to illustrate that. A two man sniper team terrorized the metro DC area for months and evaded apprehension, law enforcement was essentially impotent. Now image 20 teams working throughout the continental United States (catch my drift)
The basis of the 2nd amendment goes to the Declaration of independence. The right to revolt is enshrined in those words. The 2nd amendment is a negative right of the government, that says that they do not have the right to take away arms from the people.
The Declaration of Independence goes further in explaining the right and responsibility of the citizens of the United States to act as a final check against tyranny.
2nd amendment isn't for hunting
2nd amendment isn't for sport.
2nd amendment is grounded in the natural law of self defense. It is explicitly to enable citizens to arm themselves against a government that has over-stepped it's bounds.
Imo, this couldn't be more wrong. The natural law of self-defense was always there going back to the English laws & constitution & though the Heller decision codified it with the 2nd A, it actually had nothing to do with the 2nd amendment, 1 way or the other.
As far as the right to revolt being the reason for the 2nd A, again that is far off base though it is rooted in the Declaration of Independence. That's why we have a representative republic & elections. Otherwise, who's to say what & who is being tyrannical & to what degree and then what is justified or constitutional or not? The 2nd A needs to be understood in a historical context - maybe this will help.
I can't believe what you have just said, Clubdirt. I thought you were smarter than that. If one drone was to hit an American citizen, be it democrat or republican, in this country, there would be LA style riots on a mass scale, unlike anything the world has ever seen. An uprising would take the US government by surprise.
You think all US soldiers and law enforcement would side with the US government turning on it citizens. Hell NO! A large percentage of US soldiers and law enforcement would go AWOL. If you haven't realized it yet, but US citizens are crazy and violent. We don't like being told what to do. We take freedom very seriously.
The only thing that keeps the US from ending up like, communist or totalitarian regimes, is the fact that its citizens can rise up and take the country back. In every other country, the citizens fear it government, in this county, the government fears it citizens.
The only thing stopping the government from having totalitarian power over the people. Is the threat of the American people to think, arm itself, and fight back. Red Dawn would become a reality. I am willing to fight and die for America and American citizens. There are millions just like me.
I hate anti-gun, liberal, ignorant, hippies. Do you even study history. Taking guns away is like prohibition and the war on drugs. It won't work anyway.
0
I can't believe what you have just said, Clubdirt. I thought you were smarter than that. If one drone was to hit an American citizen, be it democrat or republican, in this country, there would be LA style riots on a mass scale, unlike anything the world has ever seen. An uprising would take the US government by surprise.
You think all US soldiers and law enforcement would side with the US government turning on it citizens. Hell NO! A large percentage of US soldiers and law enforcement would go AWOL. If you haven't realized it yet, but US citizens are crazy and violent. We don't like being told what to do. We take freedom very seriously.
The only thing that keeps the US from ending up like, communist or totalitarian regimes, is the fact that its citizens can rise up and take the country back. In every other country, the citizens fear it government, in this county, the government fears it citizens.
The only thing stopping the government from having totalitarian power over the people. Is the threat of the American people to think, arm itself, and fight back. Red Dawn would become a reality. I am willing to fight and die for America and American citizens. There are millions just like me.
I hate anti-gun, liberal, ignorant, hippies. Do you even study history. Taking guns away is like prohibition and the war on drugs. It won't work anyway.
cashin did though. i can't tell from rick and bowlslit's posts what the difference is between second amendment constitutional behavior on the one hand and terrorism and/or treason on the other. that's one issue.
0
cashin did though. i can't tell from rick and bowlslit's posts what the difference is between second amendment constitutional behavior on the one hand and terrorism and/or treason on the other. that's one issue.
If you choose to make use of any information on this website including online sports betting services from any websites that may be featured on
this website, we strongly recommend that you carefully check your local laws before doing so.It is your sole responsibility to understand your local laws and observe them strictly.Covers does not provide
any advice or guidance as to the legality of online sports betting or other online gambling activities within your jurisdiction and you are responsible for complying with laws that are applicable to you in
your relevant locality.Covers disclaims all liability associated with your use of this website and use of any information contained on it.As a condition of using this website, you agree to hold the owner
of this website harmless from any claims arising from your use of any services on any third party website that may be featured by Covers.
Hot Forum Topics
