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.
I guess you dont know that we beat the biggest superpower of the time just like that to form our country. Iraq is doing it today.
.
Do you really think the British could not have put down the rebellion if there had been no ocean in between? Conversely, Washington's entire force would have been wiped out in a day if they had landed at Dover.
Almost all wars are won on their own turf, if there is an ocean in between, unless the visiting team has an enormously overwhelming firepower advantage. The logistics of fighting a war accross an ocean are just too costly. The Americans only contributed, but did not win and could not have won either of the two European World Wars by our selves.
Which is why our own defensive chutzpah is so absurd. It would take a military force five or ten times the size and firepower of our own for a nation across the ocean to subdue us That is unimaginable. The Japanese could never have successfully held a single square foot of land east of Hawaii.
Well then the typical "fear" of a tyrannical military coup is unfounded, I suppose. Do you really want the argument both ways?
If its unfounded its so because we have a mechanism built into our Constitution making it so.
There is no argument. Gun ownership is a right & an absolute necessity in a truly free country. That was once universally understood & those countries that withheld this right knew & their people knew, that they were not a free country.
Its a very recent phenomenon that people can be made to believe they are free when they obviously are not.
Do you really think the British could not have put down the rebellion if there had been no ocean in between? Conversely, Washington's entire force would have been wiped out in a day if they had landed at Dover.
No I dont. It would have taken longer perhaps but they were fighting people who wanted to win because their futures & lives depended on it.
Quote:
Almost all wars are won on their own turf, if there is an ocean in between, unless the visiting team has an enormously overwhelming firepower advantage. The logistics of fighting a war accross an ocean are just too costly. The Americans only contributed, but did not win and could not have won either of the two European World Wars by our selves.
Whats your point? I think you are wrong but this has nothing to do with the topic at hand. Personally I'v come to the conclusion that Europe mostly deserved & still deserves to be overrun. They are too quick to forget about liberty & its importance in preserving a free society & as such dont deserve one.
Quote:
Which is why our own defensive chutzpah is so absurd. It would take a military force five or ten times the size and firepower of our own for a nation across the ocean to subdue us That is unimaginable. The Japanese could never have successfully held a single square foot of land east of Hawaii.
Well the fact is they DID hold land east of Hawaii but thats irrelevant.
I do agree that our current fighting under the guise of national security is silly. There are many reasons for our hostilities but national security isn't one. IMO anyway.
If its unfounded its so because we have a mechanism built into our Constitution making it so.
There is no argument. Gun ownership is a right & an absolute necessity in a truly free country. That was once universally understood & those countries that withheld this right knew & their people knew, that they were not a free country.
Its a very recent phenomenon that people can be made to believe they are free when they obviously are not.
Most of the "truly free countries" on earth have civilian gun regulations that are more stringent than our own. And never mind trying to weasel out by saying American is the only "truly free country". And don't insult us by saying the definitin of "truly free" rests upon lack of gun regulation. If you believe that, your argument above collapses into a meaningless tautology, and lord knolws we have enough meaningless arguments going on on this forum.
Most of the "truly free countries" on earth have civilian gun regulations that are more stringent than our own. And never mind trying to weasel out by saying American is the only "truly free country". And don't insult us by saying the definitin of "truly free" rests upon lack of gun regulation. If you believe that, your argument above collapses into a meaningless tautology, and lord knolws we have enough meaningless arguments going on on this forum.
You insult yourself by saying not free is free.
Its not only gun regulation but gun regulation is a great litmus. It is the first thing to go as a nations freedoms are whittled away.
IMO America is no longer truly free, we are over regulated in many areas, but, it is definately the closest thing to a truly free country at this time.
Its not only gun regulation but gun regulation is a great litmus. It is the first thing to go as a nations freedoms are whittled away.
IMO America is no longer truly free, we are over regulated in many areas, but, it is definately the closest thing to a truly free country at this time.
Links, please. Preferably, internationally recognized rankings of countries according to the degree to which there is general freedom for the citizenry, lin which the United States ranks first.
Here's one:
The United Nations Human Freedom Index (0 = least freedom, 40 = most freedom.
Sweden 38
Denmark 38
Netherlands 37
Austria 36
Finland 36
France 35
Germany 35
Canada 34
Switzerland 34
Australia 33
United States 33
Japan 32
United Kingdom 32
Of course, this ranking is invalid, in your view, because A) It does not give sufficint weight to gun laws, and B) some foreigners had a hand in making the evaluations and C) Joe McCarthy said the UN was all commonest. Every fifth-grader knows that if the US doesn't rank first, its a faulty metric.
Just curious---that intruder in your home that you killed. Was it really necessary to shoot to kill, in order to deter him/her?
Yes - it was necessary to shoot to kill.
As for the "need" issue / argument: I can make the argument that I "need" a firearm for protection in that I live in a very rural area - rural enough that if I were to summon law enforcement, it would probably take between 20 and 30 minutes to reach me. I also have had to deal with dangerous wildlife such as javelina who came very near my family - and I was forced to shoot them (done so twice within the last few months)
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.
