On Fri, 17 Jun 2016 13:38:00 -0500, Califbill
wrote:

Keyser Söze wrote:


The 2nd Amendment is no protection against "despot leaders."


Why?

Harry thinks the Air Force would nuke us I guess. It is clear that
they are not that effective against a civilian insurgency.
When have we ever won one of those?
Even in the last war we won (WWII) we defeated the standing armies but
we had to make concessions to the civilian population to chill them
out. (we let the japanese keep the emperor, engaging him to end any
insurgency and we let the germans keep all the property they stole
from the jews ... and more, chilling out the nazi supporters.)

wrote:
On Fri, 17 Jun 2016 13:38:00 -0500, Califbill
wrote:

Keyser Söze wrote:


The 2nd Amendment is no protection against "despot leaders."


Why?

Harry thinks the Air Force would nuke us I guess. It is clear that
they are not that effective against a civilian insurgency.
When have we ever won one of those?
Even in the last war we won (WWII) we defeated the standing armies but
we had to make concessions to the civilian population to chill them
out. (we let the japanese keep the emperor, engaging him to end any
insurgency and we let the germans keep all the property they stole
from the jews ... and more, chilling out the nazi supporters.)


Look at one gun precipitated. Sareavo (sp) last thing to kick off ww1.
Sirhan Sirhan, single biggest change in US politics. Killing Bobby, gave
us Carter and his giving us Islamoterrorists, and Reagan, etc. how many US
soldiers are going to follow an unconstitutional leadership?

On Fri, 17 Jun 2016 15:13:27 -0500, Califbill
wrote:

Sirhan Sirhan, single biggest change in US politics. Killing Bobby, gave
us Carter and his giving us Islamoterrorists, and Reagan, etc. how many US
soldiers are going to follow an unconstitutional leadership?

I am not sure how you got to Carter from RFK.
Nixon was still going to beat Bobby, if he could have taken the
nomination away from Humphrey in the first place.
The scourge of the Kennedys was still with us for another 4 decades
with his drunken, murdering brother.

wrote:
On Fri, 17 Jun 2016 15:13:27 -0500, Califbill
wrote:

Sirhan Sirhan, single biggest change in US politics. Killing Bobby, gave
us Carter and his giving us Islamoterrorists, and Reagan, etc. how many US
soldiers are going to follow an unconstitutional leadership?

I am not sure how you got to Carter from RFK.
Nixon was still going to beat Bobby, if he could have taken the
nomination away from Humphrey in the first place.
The scourge of the Kennedys was still with us for another 4 decades
with his drunken, murdering brother.


Rfk was leading more than Hillary.

On Fri, 17 Jun 2016 16:54:35 -0500, Califbill
wrote:

us Carter and his giving us Islamoterrorists, and Reagan, etc. how many US
soldiers are going to follow an unconstitutional leadership?

I am not sure how you got to Carter from RFK.
Nixon was still going to beat Bobby, if he could have taken the
nomination away from Humphrey in the first place.
The scourge of the Kennedys was still with us for another 4 decades
with his drunken, murdering brother.


Rfk was leading more than Hillary.

In a race where the democrats won 14 states.

On 6/17/16 4:02 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 17 Jun 2016 13:38:00 -0500, Califbill
wrote:

Keyser Söze wrote:


The 2nd Amendment is no protection against "despot leaders."


Why?

Harry thinks the Air Force would nuke us I guess. It is clear that
they are not that effective against a civilian insurgency.
When have we ever won one of those?
Even in the last war we won (WWII) we defeated the standing armies but
we had to make concessions to the civilian population to chill them
out. (we let the japanese keep the emperor, engaging him to end any
insurgency and we let the germans keep all the property they stole
from the jews ... and more, chilling out the nazi supporters.)



You and the fellow over-the-top 2nd Amenders here couldn't defeat a Cub
Scout pack armed with Daisy BB guns.

On Fri, 17 Jun 2016 16:21:11 -0400, Keyser Söze
wrote:

On 6/17/16 4:02 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 17 Jun 2016 13:38:00 -0500, Califbill
wrote:

Keyser Söze wrote:


The 2nd Amendment is no protection against "despot leaders."


Why?

Harry thinks the Air Force would nuke us I guess. It is clear that
they are not that effective against a civilian insurgency.
When have we ever won one of those?
Even in the last war we won (WWII) we defeated the standing armies but
we had to make concessions to the civilian population to chill them
out. (we let the japanese keep the emperor, engaging him to end any
insurgency and we let the germans keep all the property they stole
from the jews ... and more, chilling out the nazi supporters.)



You and the fellow over-the-top 2nd Amenders here couldn't defeat a Cub
Scout pack armed with Daisy BB guns.

Yeah, that is what King George said