Quote:
Originally Posted by DieselAddict
You really have low reading comprehension. If you comprehended the posts that I referred you to, you'd see that aklim helped me make the point to which I was referring to in the post that you're complaining about.
OK, in the plainest of plain English, here's my point again: Your guns won't do squat against your government or a foreign invading force. Recent insurgencies in other countries only prove that. In Iraq by far the most effective insurgent weapon has been bombs (IED's and suicide bombings), not guns.
As far as fighting back, I never made any comment on whether one should or shouldn't. That's a personal decision and it shouldn't be a mindless one. For me it would depend on the odds of success and the alternative.
|
I don't think we would have invaded in the first place if every able bodied individual in Iraq had at least one weapon as effective as our military men have.
We might have bombed and such, but to invade and hold there must be boots on the ground. Even during the firestorm bombing of WWII, there were enough surviving civilians that were they armed and motivated, they could have resisted long enough prevail.
I'm convinced that to lay down and surrender our rights and freedoms in the face of "overwhelming odds" is worse than death.
11-12-2008, 07:21 PM
Threaded Mode
