When asked whether such a threat was legitimate in 2012, he said, “We don’t have that threat now because we have an armed populace, and we don’t have to worry about that because of an armed populace.” . . .He went on to mention that he doesn't think the federal government is a threat, at least not right now. He was talking about invading armies like in Red Dawn.
My opinion is there's no more laughable position for the pro-gun guys to take than this one. According to their deluded megalomania, the reason we haven't been attacked in our own territory by invading armies is not because of the U.S. Marines or the Navy, it's not because of the Army, the National Guard or the Police forces both national and local, it's because of the ARMED CIVILIANS.
The record breaking defense spending OF the U.S., which in spite of the waste and corruption, provides us with the most sophisticated military defense systems on the planet is not the true deterrent, it's the INDIVIDUAL CIVILIAN GUN OWNERS.
And, it naturally follows, that we should have the loosest possible restrictions on gun ownership. Our survival depends upon it.
What's your opinion? What do you think about this embarrassing self-aggrandizing nonsense? Can we believe anything these people think, these people who live in the fantasy world of red-dawn type heroism.
What do you think? Please leave a comment.