BoatBanter.com - View Single Post

Justan Olphart

On 2/2/2015 9:28 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 2/2/2015 9:24 AM, Mucho Loco wrote:
On Mon, 02 Feb 2015 09:16:10 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 2/2/2015 8:58 AM, Mucho Loco wrote:
On Mon, 02 Feb 2015 08:41:30 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 2/2/2015 7:43 AM, Mucho Loco wrote:
On Sun, 01 Feb 2015 23:22:03 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 2/1/2015 11:13 PM, Tim wrote:
On Sunday, February 1, 2015 at 7:53:26 PM UTC-8, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 2/1/2015 10:33 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 01 Feb 2015 19:15:13 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"

wrote:

Tim, that's a wonderful historical statement, true for it's
time. It's
more of a tradition now though. I don't care how many guns are
privately owned, there's no way they could be used to fend
off the US
military if our government somehow decided to become
"tyrannical".
Heck, they can't agree on how many sugars to put in a coffee.

Considering the number of conservative southerners and
westerners who
are actually the ones to join the military, why would you
think they
would fight the citizens if the government became tyrannical?
You would be more likely to have a military coup.

I agree a few thousand guys in a compound somewhere will not
stand
much of a chance but a million well armed guys could cause some
serious problems. Particularity if the military was less than
enthusiastic in quelling them.
Our military is yet to win a single "asymmetric" war even when
they
were motivated to do it..

I think your hypotheticals originate in la-la land. By it's
nature and
governmental structure it is impossible to even imagine a military
"coup" in the USA today and we aren't going to have another
Civil War.

Richard, a coup is one thing, disarmament of the free citizen is
another. an overthrow would be hard to pull off, and a
disarmament would be even harder. I dont' think it would be
that easy for US soldiers to willingly fire on US citizens.
especially on such a basis. Few kids are gonna fire on people
from their home town regardless of who wrote the orders.

Not really sure, but round where I live, If disarmament of the
public came push and shove, I'd say things might get pretty
bloody. On both sides.

Who's talking "disarmament"?

Personally (and no offense) I think the people shouting the most
about
gun ownership to protect themselves against their government in
the USA
have been drinking too much NRA juice.

Or listening to Bloomberg, et al.

I am talking about those who hang on the "necessary militia" stuff and
are fearful that the government will someday conspire and use the
military against it's citizens to justify *no* reasonable gun control
laws. Those concerns were true when written but not relevant today.
We have better ways to resolve differences and they've worked fine
so far. Most people can have any firearm they want (within reason)
for their sporting, competition or self defense reasons.

So Bloomberg, et al, are just ****in' in the wind?

What success has Bloomberg, et al, have to show for themselves? It
takes votes and they can't get any.

Look at the ridiculous laws in Maryland and your home state, for
example. You think
Bloomberg, et al, had nothing to do with those?

I have no problem with the gun control laws here or in Maryland (for
what I know about them). My only complaint here is the conflict between
the certification agency and the Attorney General. They need to be on
the same page.

I can understand why you feel the way you do. I've read the gun laws in
Virginia. Basically, there aren't any.

Do you think that conflict might be intentional?

Are home buyers out and about in your area this winter?

--

Respectfully submitted by Justan

Laugh of the day from Krause

"I'm not to blame anymore for the atmosphere in here.
I've been "born again" as a nice guy."