Skip to comments.NRA sounds ready for a revolution
Posted on 05/09/2013 8:01:04 AM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
Link only due to copyright issues: http://www.mycentraljersey.com/article/20130509/NJOPINION0202/305090006/
The VERY FIRST line of the linked article. Please tell my why I should have a comment beyond that?
Also, when you try to back out of their damned site, they refresh you back to the same page. I HATE THAT!
Don’t you love that New Jersey state of mind, though?
It’s from New Jersey. Nothing good comes from New Jersey.
The guy repeatedly states that the call to fight tyranny is radically “insane”, yet in his closing statement he concludes that such a fight against tyranny in the U.S. would be futile because the government has tanks, drones, and a powerful military at its disposal against citizens.
See the irony here?
Also, notice he fails to quote the country’s founding fathers who warned us about tyranny and wrote about how to dispatch with it.
Bruno needs to read this:
What Good Can a Handgun Do Against An Army?
Source is a letter to the editor post.
It is by Bruno Ripp.
Web search only shows one “Bruno Ripp” in the US.
He is in Warren Township in NJ.
Here is a link that is a petition to the US Conference of Mayors, his name is on it.
That petition pertains to Free Speech and the Occupy movement.
He is a ComDem Crazy!
why didn’t we win in Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam, Korea and Somalia?
Answer: the UN,
a supposedly nonpartisan organization
They gave dirty Harry money for his last election.
Thanks for saving me some time and a little spleen.
I didn’t figure he was a Republican officeholder and Tea Party stalwart in Mississippi.
I’d bet if one were to dig even deeper they’d likely find that Bruno is also part of Media Matters or Organizing America.
Bruno? New Jersey?
The guy is probably named after the guy that kidnapped the Lindbergh baby.
Great link. Thanks. I hadn’t seen that.
“...that such a fight against tyranny in the U.S. would be futile because the government has tanks, drones, and a powerful military at its disposal against citizens.”
Indeed the power of the military is great.
However, the vast, vast majority of the military is populated by men and woman possessing much more knowledge of the constitution than do congress-critters.
And they have sworn to protect the constitution, not the critters.
Were we to get to the state of revolution, I fully expect all honorable military to point their weapons at the critters...and do what they feel best.
Yeah...big laughs...why do we even bother to listen to anything from there, or buy their products?
First off, the NRA was never about the Second Amendment, that has been a recent development. The NRA coined the phrase 100+ years ago, “Sporting Purposes of Firearms”. The NRA gave us every last federal, and many State, gun control bills for the past 100 years, including the 1934 NFA and the 1968 GCA.
Until the NRA starts undoing the damage they did in those bills they will never have my support.
It reads exactly like it smells when I step in dog sh!t.
You say you’ll change the constitution
Well, you know
We all want to change your head
You tell me it’s the institution
Well, you know
You better free you mind instead
But if you go carrying pictures of chairman Mao
You ain’t going to make it with anyone anyhow
Don’t you know it’s gonna be all right
In each of these campaigns we engaged in limited warfare. It was not total war as in the sense of our strategy in World War II.
World War II - Win
Desert Storm I - Win (if we confine the objective to kicking Iraq out of Kuwait)
Iraq - Too early to tell
Afghanistan - Currently engaged
Vietnam - Loss
Korea - Tie
Somalia - Loss
Desert Storm I is the anamoly in this group in that we didn’t engage in Total War, but we did employ a stronger strategy in kicking Iraq out of Kuwait.
As you can see, anything less than total war brings about sorry results.
open all links in a new tab. Then you can close whatever you want. I usually go through the new posts and just right click and open the ones I want to read, then close as I am finished. By the way, firefox will soon be blocking all cookies. LOVE that.
The commies figured in the 60’s they will have to murder 25 million Americans to kick off Utopia in the US.
The Muslim Lincoln wannabe in the white hut wants a reaction for an excuse to arrest his white Christian American enemies so badly. Gun confiscation would be the match to light the fuse. He knows it. He wants it.
Lefties love, poverty, oppression, blood and death. They hate America and Americans.
IF THE RUSSIAN MILITARY TURNED ITS GUNS ON THE POLITBURO... WHAT MAKES ANY FESTERING CARBUNCLE OF A DIM THINK THAT OUR MILITARY... WHO SEES THEMSELVES UNDER ATTACK BY THE DIM PARTY... WHAT MAKES THEM THINK THAT THE US MILITARY WILL KILL THEIR OWN FAMILIES AND NEIGHBORS WHEN THE ENEMY IS SITTING IN DC?
Sorry for the caps but I am pi$$ed.
Exactly - if those places proved too hard to crack, what do folks think would happen if it really became a war between the People and the government?
Doesn’t that just piss you off? The NRA, for no reason that is known, pushes State legislatures to ban firearms from county buildings. Why? Who possible motive could there be?
“They gave dirty Harry money for his last election.”
To be honest, the NRA did not back Dirty Harry in his last election but they did in the previous election. Harry Reid won that election and is still here thanks to the NRA.
Apparently if you are governor they feed you extremely well.
I disagree with your characterization of Vietnam as a loss.
I can understand due to the political hamstrings placed on the military in the war, but the fact remains North Vietnam won and “united” the country.
The side the U.S. backed lost....as did the U.S.
I’m not sure I understand your premise. North Vietnam attacked South Vietnam two years after we had signed a peace treaty and removed active troops. How do their actions after the war ended effect who won the war? If Iraq invaded Kuwait tomorrow would that change Gulf War 1 to a loss?
I think the general consensus is that we “lost” in Vietnam. This is due largely to the tactics the military were limited to by the politicians.
The point I was trying to make though was that we fought a limited war in Vietnam. We never “played to win”. That kind of strategy is usually not successful in war...or sports for that matter.
I understand your point that the North invaded the South after our withdrawal and it’s a valid one.
I’m just saying I don’t think history will view our efforts in South Vietnam as successful.
We never lost a major battle in Vietnam. The much vaunted "Tet Offensive" turned to a massive rout for northern forces. We crushed them in every conceivable way, we even invented brand spanking new ways to kill commies. This despite whiny college students and their idiotic stoner "peace" rallies, and the "peace" movement being coordinated and funded by the soviets.
Could we have crushed them in a more spectacular fashion? Sure I guess so but that still doesn't mean we lost in any realistic way.
Further we can see that the efforts were in every practical sense very successful. We went there to stop or slow the spread of communism, failing that, to at least bleed them and it worked.
Less than 20 years later the Soviet union collapsed.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.