A Question For The Attendees, Supporters, and Minions Of The UN Programme of Action on Small Arms & Light Weapons
A question from Restore The Constitution for all international and domestic friends, allies, and apparatchiks of this UN meeting being held in NYC this week:
#1 “If you try and take my guns, I will shoot you” (we’ve all heard variations on this one)
and
#2 “If you try and take my guns, maybe you’ll get them and maybe you wont. I won’t risk my life then and there to stop you. But if you do manage to get any of my guns, I promise you that I will track you down afterwards and I WILL throw Sulphuric acid in your face.”
Which statement is more likely to give a would-be gun grabber pause?
Read the rest .
The transnational socialists, both here and abroad, have their Programme of Action and related materials.
So do the free people of the world.
posted by Concerned American | 2:21 PM
10 Comments:
Sometime within the next few weeks we all expect Israel to bomb Iran. The media will portray it as an offensive action even though Iran is openly supplying Israel's neighboring enemies with offensive weapons. Israel will claim (and rightly so too) that their attack is merely a proactive defensive strike.
Israel has learned over the years that reactive defense is counterproductive in that it requires them to sustain damage and losses before they take action. So at this point, while they haven't suffered a nuclear attack from Iran, they know it is coming unless they damage Iran's nuclear capability first and prove they can do so again if needed.
Here in this country we have our own version of tyrant, not neccesarily Islamic but still violent and determined to render us helpless and dependent upon them for our very lives which they can then terminate with impunity if they so desire. In the unlikely event they are called to account for their actions the investigation is handled by their brothers-in-arms and the details are withheld from public scrutiny.
Within the past few months we've seen accounts of police officers being killed by citizens who felt they had been mistreated by the police. The media immediately ran stories about the families of those officers followed by lurid accounts of the habitual lawlessness of the shooter. Photos of the shooter are taken from police files and show an angry face while the picture of the dead officer is that of a smiling, happy, family man.
All in all, the bombing of Iran will be publicized in much the same way. The "innocent" Iranian scientists will be portrayed as victims while the Israeli "shooters" will be the aggressors. Yet anyone who has watched the middle east for the past fifty years will know that Israel is just being proactive in their own defense.
Perhaps we here at home should consider those who shoot police officers in the same light as we see the Israelis. Perhaps they are just being proactively defensive. Unfortunately, we never hear their side since they never seem to make it to trial. Perhaps their story might mitigate the horror and anger the general public is conditioned to feel. Can't have that, now can we?
I have said for years that we will see a sharp rise in police fatalities from ambushes and drive-by shootings. Try as they might to assign blame elsewhere, they are bringing it on themselves.
I certainly would not recommend a career in law enforcement for anyone I love.
here is an alternative statement:
When the blue helmets arrive on U.S. soil they will be easy targets and the gloves come off at that point because they are an invading foreign army.
KPN3%
First off, I'd be prone to choose Choice #1. I can shoot you from a great distance, but I have to be pretty close to heave acid on you. Secondly, IMHO, I think sulfuric acid is a poor choice for assault purposes. I would prefer nitric acid.
I'm afraid us bombing and shooting each other will NOT be the worst of our worries:
http://freedomguide.blogspot.com/2010/06/evacuate-gulf-coast-now.html
TPaine,
Here's where #1 does not work:
the vehicular stop.
You're stopped by the police, and they confiscate your weapons from your vehicle. What do you do, go "cold dead hands" right there on the side of the road with at least one gun, a bright light, and a video camera already on you??
Option #2, however, still has plenty of flexibility to counter the vehicular stop gun grab. Remember - deterrence through second strike capability.
It's usually not practical to resist by force when the adversary is already in control and has the initiative, and most people don't have the cojones or ability to stand a chance in such a situation. It's great to stand and fight, but sometimes a sucker punch at a later date is the most practical strategy. let's face it; we're not all real-life Rambo's here.
When you come for my neighbor's guns, you might get them but I WILL GET YOU BACK. You might not know my name but I sure know yours and the names and addresses of your family members too. It doesn't take a lot of time but by using the internet I have built up what we refer to as the Christmas Card List which even has your Mother-in-Law's hair appointment schedule so if YOU are too well protected maybe your family members will scream loud enough when Gramma gets knifed or some other silent-but-deadly method. Too much arrogance on the side of the self-important Gubmint officials and too much info floating around on your wife's sisters & other family members.
Yes you might get some guns from American Citizens but the operative word is "payback is a bitch" and it can and will happen (unless your relatives wish to relocate to Gitmo for protective custody) The angry American Citizen is not one to be messed with especially since it was the U.S military who trained us.
Oldfart:
I suspect you are old enough to suffer dementia. Hence your very confused and convoluted ramblings.
It would take far too long to try to work through your machinations and it would only prove to be a waste of time.
Suffice to say, preemptive war is wrong. It is part of what got the U.S. into the mess we are now in and it won't help Israel nor would it be virtuous of one who would kill a cop prior to any act of aggression.
Option #1 is problematic from a tactical sense, but I think that option #2 will be problematic from the PR/moral high ground sense. I think these kinds (acid!) of retributive attacks, as justified as they might be, would turn the general public against those fighting to hold on to our freedoms. Ironically, because in most cases, the victim survives to look horrible on TV and elicit people’s pity. Believe me; this would lead the news every night.
However right we are, we will be crushed without the general public’s indifference – active support is too much for me to hope for…
Regarding option #2, I think it is the cruelty, and unusual nature of the method of attack that would cause folks to turn away, not its retributive nature.
Acid attack? It’s un-American!
I don’t think there is anything wrong with saying “If you try and take my guns, maybe you’ll get them and maybe you won’t. I won’t risk my life then and there to stop you. But if you do manage to get any of my guns, I promise you that someone will track you down afterwards SHOOT YOU AND YOUR BOSSES DOWN in front of your families.”
Here's the thug in the State Department that's coordinating this.
Name : Ms. Stephanie Pico
Title : Policy Advisor (SA/LW) Bureau of Political-Military Affairs, Office of Weapons Removal and Abatement
Organization :
Address : PM/WRA, SA-3 Room 6100 2121 Virginia Ave, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20520
Email : PicoSL@state.gov
Phone 1 : +202 663 01
Trey,
You said:
"I don’t think there is anything wrong with saying “If you try and take my guns, maybe you’ll get them and maybe you won’t. I won’t risk my life then and there to stop you. But if you do manage to get any of my guns, I promise you that someone will track you down afterwards SHOOT YOU AND YOUR BOSSES DOWN in front of your families."
The threat is more difficult to carry out, and thus less believable and less effective because to carry it out would require obtaining a firearm (following gun confiscation). Also, choosing this threat over the acid threat shows a degree of compassion and concern for public image, while the acid threat shows more visciousness and hatred.
Now, as a would-be gun grabber bad guy, who am I going to fear more, someone with an ounce of compassion and mercy, or a visciuos, compassionless person who shows little regard for public opinion? I'll tell you the gun grabber is going to fear the cold-hearted SOB more. Also, which action is he going to fear more, getting shot or acid in the face?
My point is that all weapons and combat tactics are brutal and horrific, BUT, once the decision has been made that someone is deserving of attack, you may as well not hold back out of compassion, mercy, or the desire to take the high road.
-Dan
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home