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.
The range of Heavy Bombers during WWII was roughly 3,000 Miles. That means that any attempt by the Germans to have bombed a US city would have meant a one way trip.
ReplyDeleteThe Japanese bombed Pearl Harbour using light bombers from Aircraft Carriers. Likewise, Doolittle's raid on Tokyo was done from an Aircraft carrier.
Now, had Hitler held off on his war with the US until his rocket programme was far more successful and developed, he could have bombed US cities. Additionally, had he developed an atomic bomb, he could have devastated the US mainland.
But, the reality is that it takes a hell of a lot of logistical support to invade a country--especially one that is 3,000 miles from your homeland.
Look at all the effort that went into D-Day.
We were blessed with delusional enemies in that war. But perhaps you're unaware of the Messerschmitt Me-264?
DeleteMikeb, the fact that we have a populace of citizens, rather than subjects, is the point here. Citizens can be led, but they cannot be controlled. Gun ownership is a part of the freedom of a citizen. Gun ownership helps to preserve the belief in individual rights. As E.N. has so often illustrated here, an unarmed populace is much easier to control.
ReplyDeleteThat's a bunch of bullshit. Those are just words. You might as well say you're not a citizen if you can't earn $200,000 a year. It's your right, by god.
DeleteEverything anyone says is just words, but words are important. Why don't you tell us what your views of human rights and citizenship are? Make it an article. Let's debate basic principles here.
DeleteBasic human rights and citizenship requirements are not contingent upon being able to own a particular inanimate object, regardless of how much you like that object.
DeleteIn other words, you're unwilling to state your principles. Shocked, I am not. Here's mine: Citizens are able to make choices about their own lives. That includes what property they wish to own and how they wish to use that property. The only limit there would be in the requirement that my property can't harm other innocent people. More than ninety-nine percent of gun owners in this country abide by that requirement every day.
DeleteMy most fervent wish is that some day you will show up on my property in an attempt to disarm me.
ReplyDeleteNo one's coming to disarm you, you silly ass. Get over the adolescent fantasy. Stop watching Red Dawn.
DeleteIf no one is coming to disarm us, then how will you get guns out of society? We're not going to turn them in.
Delete