[Woods]
Does that mean you give up? I don't know what your trying to say.
[Arlo]
I'm saying that if a foreign army invaded the US, and our own army
was not able to stop them, then a gaggle of hunters with deer rifles
and handguns ain't doing gonna do a damn thing. And if our own army
turned on the citizens of this country, our only hope is the help of
a foreign army, as that same gaggle ain't stopping our army.
In either event, wielding a handgun or a .30-06 will only sure your
rapid and speedy demise, something which will cost the invading army
about 3 cents for the ammo it took to gun you down. As such, we'd
need to find other means of resistance.
But my point was simply that its lunacy to suggest that the "right to
bear arms" is based on our belief that an organized cadre of hunters
will protect our liberties from threats, domestic or foreign. Maybe
at the time of the constitution was written such a belief was
well-founded. Today, our right to bear arms enables hunting
(sustinence), sport (target shoots, e.g.) and as a first-wave of
defense against criminals who attack us or our family. That's good
enough for me. (By the way, Ian, I know you did not suggest this, you
referred to its lunacy as well, but this argument continues to be vocalized).
As for Blackwater, I oppose the idea of privatized military
organizations. If something is worth doing militarily, its worth
funding our legitimate army to do so. If they need more money, then
raise taxes to pay for it. Private organizations with this sort of
power are too open to corruption and abuse. The US Army ultimately
answers to the American people, and that is how it should be.
Moq_Discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
Archives:
http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
