data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/21972/2197203e4c2ec9c8f29c40562edde013809a2900" alt="Quote"
Originally Posted by
rbrooks715
to control a population only requires that you disarm and silence that population.
you do not have the right to bear arms nor do you have right to use those arms in defense. before any raging debate starts over that statement, you might want to look up all of the restrictions on who can own a gun and what kind of gun they may own. then look up all of the folks who have been incarcerated for using a weapon in defense.
some of you are going to be very surprised when you find out which presidents and which party have passed the most gun restrictions.
disarming the american population started several decades ago. it is at a point that total control can be easily accomplished. restricting ammunition and all of it's components is all it takes. the biggest problem any guerrilla force faces is supply's. ammunition, medical and communication.
sun tzu, mien kampf, hitlers rise to power, & a variety of religious mythology's show the ways to oppress and control a domestic population. genghis khan proved the only successful tactic to invade and occupy a foreign country.
there are several factions in this country that would willingly take up arms against their fellow americans for misguided beliefs of patriotism, freedom, morality and democracy. all of the emotional issues that have divided this country. any of them could be used to incite the systematic removal of one side over the other. all it would require is the guise of authoritative permission.
Well, I'm not going to discuss a hypothetical Martial Law situation anymore because there are just too many variables in that scenario, but I will agree that there would be collaborators.
As for guns and self-defense- I think that varies a lot with locale and with the situation. My neighbor in the city was a convicted felon and sold pot. He carried a gun in his pants gangsta style and one night suceeded in shooting off one of his testicles. Despite being in violation of a number of laws (some that I thought had mandatory sentancing), he didn't get sent to jail - because the judge actually felt sorry for him! It wasn't a self defense situation - but he could have done time because he was not legally allowed to have a gun due to his legal status as a felon.
There was a young widow recently who blew away some guy that busting down the door of her trailer - i forget where she lived- she didn't get charged. The guy and his buddy were high. Another woman in northern Ky shot and killed some student who was strung out and kept advancing toward her in her own home. He was tripping, I think. I heard many similar stories, so I don't believe that people automatically go to jail for defending themselves, far from it.
Bookmarks