The Gipper on Arms

[diuretic]

Sure. Reagan was a poor leader? The man is responsible for securing the freedoms of at least 100 million.

Where?

[diuretic]

Right. It was all scripted by the trilateral Commision. That and the Black Helicopters.

Face it man, he was the greatest leader of the 20th century. If he had been a Democrat y'all would name your sons and streets after him.

Do you really believe that of Reagan?

[glockmail]

Where?

Eastern Europe.

[glockmail]

Do you really believe that of Reagan?

Yup.

[diuretic]

"Lord Acton said power corrupts. Surely then, if this is true, the more power we give the government the more corrupt it will become. And if we give it the power to confiscate our arms we also give up the ultimate means to combat that corrupt power."

Reagan is claiming the Constitution contains a right of revolution. That's ridiculous.

Just an appeal to the likes of G. Gordon Liddy, remember, the radio bloke who said that his listeners should aim for the heads of federal agents as they wear ballistic vests.

[diuretic]

President Reagan is in good company. Because the founders who established the Constitution previously wrote this declaration. They would be in complete agreement.

Best of luck if you give it a try, pretty big military you have there, controlled by the president.

[glockmail]

Best of luck if you give it a try, pretty big military you have there, controlled by the president.

A large number would defect to join the 40 million of so regular militia. GovCo doesn't stand a chance.

[glockmail]

Just an appeal to the likes of G. Gordon Liddy, remember, the radio bloke who said that his listeners should aim for the heads of federal agents as they wear ballistic vests.

Sounds like the best war to defeat the vest.

[diuretic]

Eastern Europe.

How?

[diuretic]

Yup.

Why?

[diuretic]

A large number would defect to join the 40 million of so regular militia. GovCo doesn't stand a chance.

That's interesting. That of course pre-supposes that a significant number of military personnel would desert their posts. But definitely some would. Perhaps the same number as those who would get the "Resistance" label in the thread with the test regarding Nazism. But the brass would stay in their positions I think. It also pre-supposes that a significant number of Americans would actually want to overthrow the government. Based on what I read in forums and in the media I don't think there is a significant number who would do so, certainly not sufficient to take on the military power of the government.

[diuretic]

Sounds like the best war to defeat the vest.

Of course it is, technically it's sound advice, but what about the moral context?

[glockmail]

How?

Knocking off the USSR.

[glockmail]

Why?

Facts. Logic.

[glockmail]

That's interesting. That of course pre-supposes that a significant number of military personnel would desert their posts. But definitely some would. Perhaps the same number as those who would get the "Resistance" label in the thread with the test regarding Nazism. But the brass would stay in their positions I think. It also pre-supposes that a significant number of Americans would actually want to overthrow the government. Based on what I read in forums and in the media I don't think there is a significant number who would do so, certainly not sufficient to take on the military power of the government.

Depends on what the issues is. If the guv'mint attempts a direct attack on The Constitution, as in trying to take away our guns, many would fight. As a conventional attack on the military would be out of the question, guerilla tactics would prevail. Even on a one to one ratio the results would be very bad for the military and guv’mint, and they would sustain much more damage than the pacifist public would be able to take. Look at the pressure the pacifists are putting on Bush for 3500 dead soldiers in Iraq. In reality the number of civilian guns would far outweigh the number of military and police.