Guns and Nazi Teabaggers

I only wear those when I go to Wal-Mart. I like to blend in.

 

I don't own any pjs. Boxers ok?

 

I'll perhaps answer this in greater detail later. I have to go check myself into emerg shortly, but short answer is no, I don't have a problem with gun ownership at all. Indeed up until I got kind of bored with it last year I belonged to a gun club and went to the shooting range once a week. I'm actually not too bad and on a good day I can hit the bulls-eye 7 times out of 10 with a pump action .22. The latter question requires a more detailed answer I'm just not up for at the moment. Perhaps later.

 

The harm that government is imposing on us is spending us into bankruptcy.

 

Please explain...

 

It was pretty direct, wasn't it? He said the Government's harming us by spending too much! Many Americans, including me, feel that the government spends too much, and thusly taxes too much!!

 

Interesting Discussion of weapons and confiscation in the book:
Journey to The Western Islands of Scotland by Samuel Johnson

Written about 1774. The narrative describes the disarming of the gaelic Scottish Highlanders by the British Government after the rebellion of Bonnie Prince Charlie and the Battle of Culolden. approx. 1745.

Dr. Johnsons writing is beautiful, poetic and he covers the reasoning of both sides of the debate evenly. He exhibits little or no Anglo triumphalism.

It sounds like nothing is new since the good doctor wrote it, even though other portions of the tome seem dated the weapons debate is spot on with little of the rancor of current debates today.

Lest one think this is some old fashioned trivia; went to a fashion exhibit by the late Andrew McQueen & Co. Titled: reflection of Culolden the designer pieces were a macabre combo of tartans and gothick-haloween themes.

The events aparently still resonate with modern people.

 

Piney

So your argument is that the US government is an imperialist suppressor and that the American public are a subject people that have been defeated in war?

To me a more interesting historical event to be looked at is the US Whiskey Rebellion of 1791

 

That's the whole argument for having assault weapons, to defend themselves from that evil imperialist government. Kinda stupid to think you can fight off a government with an M-16, when they have tanks, drones, missiles and nukes.

One moron claimed that the troops wouldn't attack their fellow citizens. Probably too ignorant to know about Kent State. And those four citizens weren't even armed.

 

What makes you think all those tanks, drones, missiles, etc.... would side with said government? Again, you're being naive.

 

Calling me naive is really stupid when you ask that question, son.

 

Really? Have you been in our military recently? Do you know how our soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines think?

Again, do you want another stab at posting something relevant and informed? You're only hurting your position by posting shit like this.

 

Sig

Thing is, are you categorically saying that disciplined troops would not shoot on what they had been told and/or saw as criminals, armed terrorists or revolutionaries?

To repeat - If anyone looked at the history of the US they’d see clearly that gun ownership has never been a tried and tested method of escaping the actions of the government. From the suppression of the Whiskey Rebellion to Ruby Ridge and Waco, in fact the use of weapons against authority has been seen as justification by many or most Americans for tough action (repression as a means of problem solving).

But have the armed citizens of America been a bulwark against injustice or have they more often than not helped perpetrate it? If people actually thought about the classic cases of injustice in US history they would see a pattern. More often than not guns in the hands of ‘decent people’ have been used as a means of suppression. From the subjugation of the ‘savage Indians’, the repression of ‘bestial negroes’ to the defence against ‘insidious pinkos’ the use or threat of force has been obvious and the gun the symbol of that power.

 

Yeah right, just pull some Butch Cassidy & The Sundance Kid number when the federal government comes screaming down your suburbia street! Death before dishonor!

Get fuckin' real people. In the face of an overwhelming enemy you retreat and regroup. It's called guerilla warfare.

Y'all want to go down in flames, go ahead. More space for me on this planet.

 

My cousin was in the Army, and he said that most of the troops agree they are fighting for the "people" not "the government."

Check out Oathkeepers.org ; I hope that is how most troops feel, but even just some, is good enough for me. These cops/military vets and, other public servants who took an oath to the Constitution, agree not to follow ANY unconstitutional order (including disarming law abiding citizens.)

Only people like Rjhangover, love Obama that much to blindly follow orders..

 

And what are you going to use to carry out this guerilla warfare? Your bong?

Some of you people have no fucking principles, you're a bunch of pussies. Furthermore, I never said anything about a standoff in suburbia. What is it with you people? Are your only arguments generated from twisting the words of others?

 

You're right .... you didn't say suburbia

As I said before: good luck with going down in flames.

 

25

This from Oathkeepers.org-

“defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic”

Thing is, can you categorically saying that disciplined troops would not shoot on what they had been told and/or saw as criminals, armed terrorists or revolutionaries? (in other words domestic enemies)

To repeat - If anyone looked at the history of the US they’d see clearly that gun ownership has never been a tried and tested method of escaping the actions of the government. From the suppression of the Whiskey Rebellion to Ruby Ridge and Waco, in fact the use of weapons against authority has been seen as justification by many or most Americans for tough action (repression as a means of problem solving).