NavigationBanners
Active forum topicsRecent blog postsUser loginWho's new
Who's onlineThere are currently 0 users and 1287 guests online.
|
Add new commentFirst off, Pope John Paul is widely credited with facilitating the end of Soviet Communism. And he had no divisions, no army. Second, when you make the argument that a million people with a million guns might indeed be able to take on the army is actually a changing of the original argument. The original argument was what does one person with a gun do against an army. What you've done is essentially created a new army of the million pistol wielders. And this argument assumes that the other 999,999 pistol owners come to your aid and not the governments aid. And this doesn't even take into consideration Apache helicopters and tactical nuclear weapons. If right now, today, GW Bush declared himself President for life, and armed pistol wielding groups decided to take him on, you can be sure that a lot of pistol owners would come to the DEFENSE of Bush. I doubt there is a scenario that does not include substantial support for any such President in the general population. No, the only hope against tyranny in 21st century America is the notion that the American army would not come to such a Presidents aid. Of course, maybe that's why Blackwater has grown so much in the last 7 years. But I must say, your article is well written and does pull at one's patriotic heartstrings. But then again, patriotism can easily be misused. Personally, I believe in gun ownership and sane gun control laws that protect the rights of the innocent to own them. But needing them to prevent tyranny in the USA? Forget about that. Those days are long gone and all the tugging at patriotic heartstrings will not change that. "Regular" American's cannot even get close to it's leaders anymore what with secret service and personal bodyguards. The threat of small arms is just a joke to them now. Reply |
BlogrollFirearm NewsQuotesEvery man, woman, and responsible child has an unalienable individual, civil, Constitutional, and human right to obtain, own, and carry, openly or concealed, any weapon -- rifle, shotgun, handgun, machinegun, anything -- any time, any place, without asking anyone's permission. -- L. Neil Smith Reread that pesky first clause of the Second Amendment. It doesn't say what any of us thought it said. What it says is that infringing the right of the people to keep and bear arms is treason. What else do you call an act that endangers "the security of a free state"? And if it's treason, then it's punishable by death. I suggest due process, speedy trials, and public hangings. -- L. Neil Smith Based on 253 journal articles, 99 books, 43 government publications, and some of its own empirical work, the panel couldn't identify a single gun control regulation that reduced violent crime, suicide or accidents. -- John Lott, commenting on the National Academy of Sciences report (PDF) on gun control laws Zero Aggression Principle ("Zap") "A libertarian is a person who believes that no one has the right, under any circumstances, to initiate force against another human being, or to advocate or delegate its initiation. Those who act consistently with this principle are libertarians, whether they realize it or not. Those who fail to act consistently with it are not libertarians, regardless of what they may claim." -- L. Neil Smith Formerly called the "Non-Aggression Principle", or "NAP" Why Did It Have to be... Guns? Make no mistake: all politicians -- even those ostensibly on the side of guns and gun ownership -- hate the issue and anyone, like me, who insists on bringing it up. They hate it because it's an X-ray machine. It's a Vulcan mind-meld. It's the ultimate test to which any politician -- or political philosophy -- can be put. If a politician isn't perfectly comfortable with the idea of his average constituent, any man, woman, or responsible child, walking into a hardware store and paying cash -- for any rifle, shotgun, handgun, machinegun, anything -- without producing ID or signing one scrap of paper, he isn't your friend no matter what he tells you. If he isn't genuinely enthusiastic about his average constituent stuffing that weapon into a purse or pocket or tucking it under a coat and walking home without asking anybody's permission, he's a four-flusher, no matter what he claims. What his attitude -- toward your ownership and use of weapons -- conveys is his real attitude about you. And if he doesn't trust you, then why in the name of John Moses Browning should you trust him? -- L. Neil Smith The state can only survive as long as a majority is programmed to believe that theft isn't wrong if it's called taxation or asset forfeiture or eminent domain, that assault and kidnapping isn't wrong if it's called arrest, that mass murder isn't wrong if it's called war. -- Bill St. Clair Monthly ArchivesTTLB |
Recent comments
2 days 51 min ago
3 days 6 hours ago
3 days 7 hours ago
1 week 9 hours ago
1 week 4 days ago
1 week 4 days ago
1 week 5 days ago
1 week 5 days ago
2 weeks 6 days ago
3 weeks 4 days ago