Yes! We're #1!

On top of the above list are the politicians who sent them.

Dead politicians hanging by ropes from street lamps might be a moving visual display, but in any tyrannical action against citizens of America it's good to know those same politicians are subject to exploding skulls at any time by sniper fire.

Bottom line: it's a good motivator to keep the above from happening. We know it and so did the founders.

Most importantly the politicians know it.

While I'm not 100 percent sure - I suspect that scores of millions who lay dead in graves who didn't have the option of owning guns and who were victims of such oppression might also agree..

Oh...like the First Amendment.

Gunner

(I wrote, but Tony has his own ideas about not quoting in a normal way:)

Evasion of point noted.

Staggering ignorance noted. This is exactly the same deterrance factor that the shotgun which may or may not be in the bedroom closet has to to protect my family against intruders. The knowledge that the good people are allowed to be armed keeps all sorts of criminals from doing all sorts of crimes...as individuals, _or_ as a government. Oddly enough, the guys 200+ years ago understood this, and people haven't changed.

Weapons are currently easily obtained illegally by criminals (it's the only way they can get them, you see) also. What's your point?

I don't understand the analogy, can you elaborate?

">

Ed,

I always appreciate your posts and comments :^)

I know I'm taking a contrarian view here, but I've come to realize that the more guns one owns, the more useless one comes to realize they are. (outside of hunting or self defense)

It really is a very interesting question, Tony. It's one that's interested me since before I was a teenager, so I have thought about it, and dabbled at researching bits of it, for a very long time. I don't draw my conclusions lightly.

Not that I'm sure I'm right about it. I'm not a social psychologist, nor would being one help very much. It just appears to me to have had a significant, if mostly subliminal, influence on our society and our politics.

As a poli-sci student at the Univ. of Lausanne in Switzerland some decades ago, I got to witness and think about their system, too. It's very different and it's foolish to draw too many parallels with the US. But there is some parallel of influence, too, in the sense of control the Swiss feel they have over their government. They're not as cynical about their system as most Europeans are.

Regarding the practical uses of all those guns we have, most of them are never fired for years at a time. But that isn't the issue, IMO.

-- Ed Huntress

Speaks the serf

Gunner

Midway sells privi partizan ammo that is boxer primed.

Wes

aller dont tous chier ma gang de cave

f*ck you by your father everybody

"Tony" a écrit dans le message de news: eN1Ci.83$ snipped-for-privacy@newsfe12.lga...

In article , "Ed Huntress" wrote:

I'll agree with the theory behind that, but in practice, it's not likely to matter a whole lot. Look at Iraq under Saddam as one example. Individuals did have guns or access to guns, but the government was still oppressive. Saddam more or less broadcasted the message, "Fuck with me and die slow; f*ck with my people and die slow." And within Iraq he had the bigger guns and was quicker to use them so it worked for him. Then you have the odd aspect of the second-amendment crowd. For all of their talk about having guns to resist government oppression, they're usually on-board with whatever political group is being most oppressive at the time. Until recently it was undisputed love for the current administration, now it's not so undisputed, but they're certainly not holding anybody's feet to the fire. Their excuse? "Oh, but Hillary!" Then there's the hot-air problem with many gun owners having/using guns simply to compensate for short willies. After all, has the NRA actually ever done anything against any "oppressive" legislation aside from a lot of bitching and crying? No. Will they? Don't know, because they won't draw a line in the sand. But they sure can print pretty fliers. Then there's the cowardly reaction of the population on the whole. Remember the duct tape and plastic wrap fiasco? All populations do that to some degree, and military and government forces all know how to leverage it. That's why Stukas had sirens. For all of the guns saturating the US, nobody will think to use them until it's too late. Then a few hash examples will deter most. Even if it does come to the point that the population chooses to fight back, more often than not an oppressive government shows up in the form of an entire political party with popular support--not just a bunch of legislators passing a mess of laws and turning government employees on the greater population. So the guns owned by the resistance will most likely be cancelled out by the guns owned by the supporters. And both sides will just as fervently believe that they're defending the nation. And how many of those 90 guns per 100 people are backed up by a significant supply of ammo? I'm not saying any of this nullifies the value of an armed population, but I don't see it being a whole lot more valuable in stopping tyranny than the hippies were.

You're focusing on the physical scenarios that have evolved in other places, or that might evolve here. My point is that the physical fact of the guns is a minor issue. What the 2nd Amendment has done -- and the really meaningful "practical" result of it -- is to establish an attitude and a relationship between citizens and their government that is unique.

That is, in the US. The results could, and probably would, be much different elsewhere. The effects in the US are closely tied to our history.

-- Ed Huntress

That must be why your gugm'nt is rounding up your bb guns....

There are custom houses that make what you need. Not a killer price, but real parts it is nice.

I'm getting my 6.5mm TC/U wildcat that is made from .223 normally by expanding the neck. I just expanded 100 new ones and now have enough to start loading a set and backups for a match. Hope to get into the swing of things - someday soon.

Mart> Gunner wrote:

You are reading as a sheeple this is why you do not understand what I am getting at ..

Im comparing the aussie govt , a farmer who makes no show of giving freedom and rights to its sheeple , it just does what it wants and the sheeple do as told .. to the US govt , a farmer who has to go thru all kinds of antics to placate its sheeple ...

IMHO , the one making the least effort for max return is the better farmer .

You appear to be reading some writing on the inside of your head. Unless you've lived here for a long while, there's no possibility that you have any idea of what you're talking about.

-- Ed Huntress

LOL

I LOVE americans

they have to be best , even if its being the best at being sheeple ....

I met enough of em here to not want to go there thanks .

What about the relationship between our citizens and our government is unique in your opinion?

That would take a book-length reply. Like Samuel Johnson, I only write that much, for money.

-- Ed Huntress

That's what I thought. You have no idea what you're talking about. From thousands of miles away, you're just cooking up judgments in your imagination.

You should spend more time traveling and less watching TV.

-- Ed Huntress