Further celebrated in their kiddies art contest for "What my daddy does at work". Here's a "Winning Entry" from "Dixon - Age 6"
Posted on 05/03/2007 9:28:22 AM PDT by kiriath_jearim
What good can a handgun do against an Army? Thread II
RIP harpseal...
You said — “The government only wins when the rules of engagement are essentially a no holds barred, all out attack.”
—
Oh, as a side note here — figure that the liberals will *certainly* engage in a “no-holds barred”, all-out attack here against its own citizens — for sure. But, they definitely do not want to do that with those poor Islamic terrorists, for fear they would alienate them even more..., those “poor souls”...
Yeah, right!
It is 100% correct. You are wrong, sir.
And the reason it is wrong is this: The government has and will always have more firepower than you, you and your neighbors, you and your like-minded friends or you and anybody you can conscript to your way of thinking. You simply can't arm yourself adequately against a government that is rotten and needs to be overturned.
Cowardice abounds in America today... but then again, plenty of colonists said we would never be able to defeat the British Crown, the greatest military power on earth (at the time).
Notes to foolish author:
1. You are assuming that only one person would take on a tyrannical government.
2. You are forgetting that the admitted reason that the Japanese did not invade US soil was that "there would be a rifle behind every blade of grass". We don't need F-22 Raptors to defeat a tyrant. Twenty-seven million scoped rifles against whatever fraction of the two million military personnel might support the tyrant... that leaves the odds heavily in our favor, even before you factor in the military multipliers of morale, a lack of massed troops (raising the problems of "a missile for a camel tent" we currently experience in Iraq and Afghanistan), the moral high ground, and the weapons/equipment/training of those current and former military who would oppose such a tyrant.
But you apparently seem to think that those 27 million scoped rifles cannot be trusted, since no individual could oppose the government by himself.
And where do we find the most illegal voting? Yep! In Marxist ( oops! “Democrat”) districts.
Regardless of where they may or may not be voting, considering how close many elections are, the potential to change the direction of this country is very real. In addition, to believe they are only voting in democratic districts is naive at best.
No, but the North Vietnamese were better armed than the South Vietnamese that they actually defeated. The Soviet Union and China kept on supplying the north. We didn't keep on supplying the south.
While the author is indeed foolish to discount guerilla tactics, citing the VC as proof is weak. The VC were destroyed by the end of 1968.
A better example would be the IRA.
And he brings no gum gum
LOL! Funny movie.
If this were true, we would be winning in Iraq.
Did you at least punch him in the mouth when he said it?
All military members swear that Oath, not just officers.
The author's approach is to concede defeat and permit the battle to be even more one-sided by further infringing our Second Amendment rights.
The author's grasp of history seems to exclude the fact that the cannon used to expel the Royal Navy from occupied Boston were taken by force from the government at Fort Ticonderoga.
The Second Amendment is supposed to eliminate the need to make stealing weapons the first priority of securing a free state. Without the infringements imposed already, the battle would not be nearly so one-sided.
I would have smiled knowingly and told him, "Sir, I will be right behind you when the fighting starts."
I didn't invent the term "fragging", but I know what it means.
Further celebrated in their kiddies art contest for "What my daddy does at work". Here's a "Winning Entry" from "Dixon - Age 6"
It was *cannon*, along with other stores and supplies that the "Government" forces were out to confiscate that fateful day. For the most part, they didn't get them, except the musket balls they got, the hard way.
I knew a LT in a major metro area Sherrif's department who said he, nor any of his men that he knew of, would not.
Actually April 19, 1775 is a more analogous situation. That was English Colonists resisting the English Government. By July of '76 they no longer considered themselves Englishmen, but rather Americans.
“And the reason it is wrong is this: The government has and will always have more firepower than you, you and your neighbors, you and your like-minded friends or you and anybody you can conscript to your way of thinking. “
Demonstrably false. It requires the total belief there can’t be a ‘general uprising’ of ‘we the people’.
The fact is our Constitution is constructed too allow for that very eventuality if the situation warranted it.
That the author would even suggest this is exactly why we have the second amendment, in case people with his mindset ever gain political power.
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.