Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: neverdem
The solution to this one is simple. There has to be SOME limit i.e. you and I should not have nuclear weapons or weaponized anthrax. The test should be this:

If the mere fact of Al Quaeda HAVING something is sufficient to move the Pentagon to action, then you or I should not have it. For example, Al Quaeda just having nuclear weapons or anthrax or shoulder-fired AA weapons will move Uncle Sam to act. On the other hand, AQ could have as many machineguns, as many silenced weapons, as many switchblade knives or street-sweepers as it wants and Uncle Sam wouldn't really give a rat's ass. Why should he give a rat's ass over one of us owning any such? Are we less trustworthy than AQ??

44 posted on 01/17/2013 9:37:43 PM PST by varmintman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: All

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TGCFmSFvIZw


45 posted on 01/17/2013 9:42:20 PM PST by varmintman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies ]

To: varmintman

Actually at this time in history- I have less to fear from AQ, than I do from the manchild in the big hut.

Therefore whatever his govt minions possess I should be able to acquire to be on even footing.


56 posted on 01/17/2013 10:17:12 PM PST by Nailbiter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies ]

To: varmintman

There is tons of interesting things we can get from military surplus websites including an old british destroyer.

About the nuclear weapons and chemical weapons, much of the government owns patents on, therefore I highly doubt we would be able to simply buy develop on our own. However, owning a howitzers, tanks, attack helos, air bombers with the bombs should not really be banned. It does get to a point to where of economics about what is most effective for a citizen to maintain. As far as being able to train on these, that is another dilema in itself. You would have to have a 200,000 acre ranch in Wyoming or something.

One thing people need to remind themselves though, what was the British army marching to Concord for? So when they ask stupid questions like “What do you need these guns for?”. They should think about this.


62 posted on 01/18/2013 3:04:20 AM PST by castlegreyskull
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies ]

To: varmintman

There is tons of interesting things we can get from military surplus websites including an old british destroyer.

About the nuclear weapons and chemical weapons, much of the government owns patents on, therefore I highly doubt we would be able to simply buy develop on our own. However, owning a howitzers, tanks, attack helos, air bombers with the bombs should not really be banned. It does get to a point to where of economics about what is most effective for a citizen to maintain. As far as being able to train on these, that is another dilema in itself. You would have to have a 200,000 acre ranch in Wyoming or something.

One thing people need to remind themselves though, what was the British army marching to Concord for? So when they ask stupid questions like “What do you need these guns for?”. They should think about this.


63 posted on 01/18/2013 3:08:21 AM PST by castlegreyskull
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies ]

To: varmintman
Are we less trustworthy than AQ??

I liked your point up until the end. I do not give a rat's ass what government trusts me with. They are not my momma. If government trust is the test, then we are all subject to the whims and supposed fears of Nancy Pelosi and Sheila Jackson Lee. Noooo thanks!

64 posted on 01/18/2013 3:15:05 AM PST by Teacher317 ('Tis time to fear when tyrants seem to kiss.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson