Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
How on Earth would you even ask a question like that? No one advocates shooting people for doing their job. Admittedly, there are many of us who would like to kick a few of them in the butt from time to time (politicians).
Aside from a few outlets, I've not seen too many people refer to the guys in Oregon as terrorists. Now, idiots, morons, dumbasses, etc., I've heard. Calling them terrorists seems more in line with promoting a narrative rather than explaining what is happening. What, exactly causes the Oregon crowd to be terrorists? I'll freely admit I didn't sit in front of the TV waiting on the latest breaking news from Oregon, so I may have missed a few things, but I still don't think they've acted as terrorists at all. I just read through a timeline and I didn't see any threats issued.
"He said that over the years, law enforcement has learned how to handle a situation like this; one that hasn't erupted in violence and in which a law may be broken, but there's no immediate threat to anyone's life." - CNN article here: Armed group takes over Oregon wildlife refuge building - CNN.com
terrorism
[ter-uh-riz-uh m]
Spell Syllables
Examples Word Origin
noun
1.
the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes.
2.
the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization.
3.
a terroristic method of governing or of resisting a government.
Added: That pronunciation immediately conjurs the voice of George Bush in my head. I can just hear him saying it, right along with "nuc-u-ler." lol
Yes they did use threats, and intimidation to try to coerce for a political purpose.
The threatened local officials, and federal employees. The tires of the sheriffs wifes car were slashed and she left town out of fear. They threatened to kill any authority that tried to remove them from the refuge, and called on supporters to come and help them and told them to kill any LEO that tried to stop them.
In this notion, maybe we should "allow" citizens to own battle tanks, guided missiles and attack helicopters then?
Secondly, I'd challenge you to think a case when government were able to kill off rebels in modern time. Maybe in Iraqi, Syrian, Afgan wars where the military superpowers were able to win?
What do you mean? Just look at Syria today. They kill tens of thousands even with a badly crippled army.
But my question still remains: Why the 2ed amendment covers only handguns and rifles if the goal is to prevent a government takeover? Aren't you severely limiting yourself? What is the reason a RPG type of weapon (that are cheap to produce and even a child could use to great effect) aren't included in the 2ed amendment? (I know that some probably own them, but they aren't legal and to the best of my knowledge nobody claimed they should be legalized).
What do you mean? Just look at Syria today. They kill tens of thousands even with a badly crippled army.
But my question still remains: Why the 2ed amendment covers only handguns and rifles if the goal is to prevent a government takeover? Aren't you severely limiting yourself? What is the reason a RPG type of weapon (that are cheap to produce and even a child could use to great effect) aren't included in the 2ed amendment? (I know that some probably own them, but they aren't legal and to the best of my knowledge nobody claimed they should be legalized).
Rockets red glare.... The bombs bursting in air.... all provided and created by the people and the people used them.
Ask British General Cornwallace, what he thought about Militia!!!
Rockets red glare.... The bombs bursting in air.... all provided and created by the people and the people used them.
Ask British General Cornwallace, what he thought about Militia!!!
Apparently time stood still for 240 years...
Anyway, my question is simple. The NRA and all guardians of the 2ed amendment are fighting desperately to keep firearms in hands of "the people". Why aren't those "bombs bursting in air" on the list of weapons the people should posses leagally?
Apparently time stood still for 240 years...
Anyway, my question is simple. The NRA and all guardians of the 2ed amendment are fighting desperately to keep firearms in hands of "the people". Why aren't those "bombs bursting in air" on the list of weapons the people should posses leagally?
Because government restricts the ability.
Shall not be infringed and all that hot air.
How many people feared the federal government 200 years ago(per capita)
Today, how many people fear the federal government? Come April 15th, the fear factor of the governments boot on their throat is real.
But my question still remains: Why the 2ed amendment covers only handguns and rifles if the goal is to prevent a government takeover? Aren't you severely limiting yourself? What is the reason a RPG type of weapon (that are cheap to produce and even a child could use to great effect) aren't included in the 2ed amendment? (I know that some probably own them, but they aren't legal and to the best of my knowledge nobody claimed they should be legalized).
There is a very simple line that can be drawn, if LE can justify having it so can the citizen.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
