No, it's the Progressive-Democratic Party. It's why there's no Constitutional restriction on what arms honest Americans keep and bear, and no restriction on our purpose in the keeping and bearing.
Swalwell is representative [sic] of the overbearing and overweening government against which the 2nd Amendment was written.
It's what we all need to keep firmly in mind in 2020, not just nationally, but especially in CA15.
AVI, why do you think a Party that disdains our Constitution would care a fig about just war theory? Especially when they have all the nukes and so consider themselves beyond responding sanction?
The first rule of Just War Theory is that only a sovereign may, in justice, declare war. He does not realize it, but he is declaring war on the Sovereign.
But sometimes you have to take arms against a sea of trouble and by opposing, end it. What could be more just than taking arms against arms? It's the true revolutionary spirit.
Somewhat related question. Quite a while back, I read a piece (probably blog post) in which someone explained how one guy with a gun would go about fighting back against a tyrannical government. It went something like: One guy with gun kills sentry with rifle. One guy gives rifle to second guy and the two of them take out another couple of sentries. Now have 4 guns, 4 guys, take out a squad. Now have many guys with many guns, take out an armored personnel carrier. Etc. Anyone know the piece I'm talking about? Thanks.
I don't know the piece, but anyone who was in Iraq or Afghanistan knows how you would take on an army with irregulars. And that was in places where the army was readily distinguishable from the irregulars, and in which there was no danger that the army would have more loyalty to members of the irregulars than to the leadership of the US government.
Frankly I don't know that the US military could win a war with its own population, let alone that it would be a quick and easy victory. Especially not a war against red America, which can't readily be cordoned off and cleared like the urban parts can. Afghanistan's not that big compared to red America. And we are right up against all the sensitive parts of blue America, full of things and people they'd have to protect because they are things that the blues would miss.
I suppose you could nuke the countryside, but then where would the cities get their food?
Couple things about that. When I was with a Test Squadron at Tyndall those years ago, a couple of our pilots were Guard types. They talked about the possibility of the balloon going up and many of the Guard pilots being fully prepared to refuse to use the nuclear weapons their aircraft carried because they didn't believe in the use of nukes, but also because they didn't want the collateral damage they'd cause on the ground--American and Canadian ground. The Guard wouldn't necessarily be reliable to the government in a civil war--just as many of the military academy grads weren't reliable to the Federal government in that earlier civil war.
On the other hand, a war against red America, which can't readily be cordoned off and cleared like the urban parts can: the Left doesn't care about such distinctions. If you're not with them, you're racist or sexist or too stupid to worry about or some combination of the three. Abrams', Gillum's, and Nelson's behavior have made that clear in the recently concluded elections; Kamala Harris made that clear with her equation of ICE with the KKK; Swalwell made that clear with his willingness to nuke those unwilling to give up their weapons to him; Booker, Feinstein, Gillibrand, et al., made that clear with their attempted lynching of Kavanaugh; Clinton made that clear with her millions of deplorables, which include lots of urban folks; Obama made that clear with his disdain of flyover country, which includes such blue bastions as Chicago and Austin; and on and on.
Don't count on the Left's inability to distinguish friend from foe to stay their hand; they don't care--collateral damage is just an unfortunate side effect of their march.
Nuking the countryside and then being unable to feed their cities? If the Left were interested in thinking that far ahead, they wouldn't be acting the way they are now, making the disparagements and overt threats they are now.
14 comments:
Forget it, Jake. It's California.
No, it's the Progressive-Democratic Party. It's why there's no Constitutional restriction on what arms honest Americans keep and bear, and no restriction on our purpose in the keeping and bearing.
Swalwell is representative [sic] of the overbearing and overweening government against which the 2nd Amendment was written.
It's what we all need to keep firmly in mind in 2020, not just nationally, but especially in CA15.
Eric Hines
He might want to check up on "just war" theory, since he's declaring war.
AVI, why do you think a Party that disdains our Constitution would care a fig about just war theory? Especially when they have all the nukes and so consider themselves beyond responding sanction?
Eric Hines
The first rule of Just War Theory is that only a sovereign may, in justice, declare war. He does not realize it, but he is declaring war on the Sovereign.
Grim- how easily they forget who the sovereign is in America. Great point.
But sometimes you have to take arms against a sea of trouble and by opposing, end it. What could be more just than taking arms against arms? It's the true revolutionary spirit.
So, we go after those nuclear weapons and turn them over to a well regulated Militia.
Eric Hines
Somewhat related question. Quite a while back, I read a piece (probably blog post) in which someone explained how one guy with a gun would go about fighting back against a tyrannical government. It went something like: One guy with gun kills sentry with rifle. One guy gives rifle to second guy and the two of them take out another couple of sentries. Now have 4 guns, 4 guys, take out a squad. Now have many guys with many guns, take out an armored personnel carrier. Etc. Anyone know the piece I'm talking about? Thanks.
Oh, and I'm sure Rep. Swallwell is only talking about nuking some red States.
I don't know the piece, but anyone who was in Iraq or Afghanistan knows how you would take on an army with irregulars. And that was in places where the army was readily distinguishable from the irregulars, and in which there was no danger that the army would have more loyalty to members of the irregulars than to the leadership of the US government.
Frankly I don't know that the US military could win a war with its own population, let alone that it would be a quick and easy victory. Especially not a war against red America, which can't readily be cordoned off and cleared like the urban parts can. Afghanistan's not that big compared to red America. And we are right up against all the sensitive parts of blue America, full of things and people they'd have to protect because they are things that the blues would miss.
I suppose you could nuke the countryside, but then where would the cities get their food?
Couple things about that. When I was with a Test Squadron at Tyndall those years ago, a couple of our pilots were Guard types. They talked about the possibility of the balloon going up and many of the Guard pilots being fully prepared to refuse to use the nuclear weapons their aircraft carried because they didn't believe in the use of nukes, but also because they didn't want the collateral damage they'd cause on the ground--American and Canadian ground. The Guard wouldn't necessarily be reliable to the government in a civil war--just as many of the military academy grads weren't reliable to the Federal government in that earlier civil war.
On the other hand, a war against red America, which can't readily be cordoned off and cleared like the urban parts can: the Left doesn't care about such distinctions. If you're not with them, you're racist or sexist or too stupid to worry about or some combination of the three. Abrams', Gillum's, and Nelson's behavior have made that clear in the recently concluded elections; Kamala Harris made that clear with her equation of ICE with the KKK; Swalwell made that clear with his willingness to nuke those unwilling to give up their weapons to him; Booker, Feinstein, Gillibrand, et al., made that clear with their attempted lynching of Kavanaugh; Clinton made that clear with her millions of deplorables, which include lots of urban folks; Obama made that clear with his disdain of flyover country, which includes such blue bastions as Chicago and Austin; and on and on.
Don't count on the Left's inability to distinguish friend from foe to stay their hand; they don't care--collateral damage is just an unfortunate side effect of their march.
Nuking the countryside and then being unable to feed their cities? If the Left were interested in thinking that far ahead, they wouldn't be acting the way they are now, making the disparagements and overt threats they are now.
Eric Hines
Grand Moff Wilhuff Tarkin would approve.
“You would prefer to suggest another target? A military target?”
Post a Comment