Quote:
|
Originally Posted by distorted
Just making sure I have this right...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To summarize the argument of the defenders of the people's right (and some would say responsibility) to rebel: "I need cop-killer bullets on the off chance that I need to kill a cop to protect my basic civil liberties".
To summarize the counter-argument of the anti-gunners: "You don't need to worry about such things, officer friendly is at your service, ready to protect you from all enemies foreign and domestic"
This debate is less about guns, and more about the status of the individual as moral authority--do you decide what's right and wrong, or does it come from outside of you, perhaps from the electorate, a book, or some other source?
Interesting to see some of the attitudes expressed by posters here, especially given that throughout the world, 'special services' units of the military are typically the ones tasked with the egregious violation of civil liberties, first against the foreign enemy, then against his 'domestic supporters'...but I'm sure that could never happen here, the USG and most definitely not the fine upstanding men of the special services would never grab an innocent person in the middle of the night, beat the crap out of them, and drag them to a secret prison to be held incommunicado for an indeterminate amount of time.
Edit: for 'cop-killer bullets' I am using the operational definition of 'bullets capable of penetrating standard police-issue body armor'. Here is an article on the term and its origins: link The 5.7mm armor-piercing bullet favored by cartel assasins in Mexico probably qualifies under this term. The .308 'black tip' if indeed able to penetrate military armor would be a 'soldier-killer' bullet. Those advocating for the right to rebel and the disorganized militia would support the widespread proliferation of this bullet, to defend against the possibility of military occupation of the United States correct? Additionally, what about private ownership of SA-2s or Stingers, just in case the occupiers decide to turn the horror of air power against the American people?
|
distorted:
Your name defines your knowledge of firearms and ammunition.
This is the second post in the past 24 hours where you have showed your ignorance, and pretty much parrotted anti-gun and anti-2nd Amendment propoganda. Your insinuation that SOF might be involved is equally out of place.
I recommend that you read all of the 2nd Amendment arguments here and educate yourself before posting again on this topic.
The next post of this nature will relieve you of any further posting burdens on this board.
Move out and draw fire.
TR
__________________
"It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat." - President Theodore Roosevelt, 1910
De Oppresso Liber 01/20/2025
|