Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
Latest activity
Classifieds
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Log in
Register
What's New?
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More Options
Advertise with us
Contact Us
Close Menu
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
The Range
Law & Order
Why The Prefatory Clause In The 2A?
Search titles only
By:
Reply to Thread
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="henschman" data-source="post: 1095033" data-attributes="member: 4235"><p>This is right.</p><p></p><p></p><p>I think you underestimate the power of the Rifleman... or the power of a Nation of Riflemen, if we were to become one again. Just one man who can control an entire quarter mile radius around him is pretty powerful, but a group of men who can do this are exponentially so. If we had even the 3% of the population that the founders had who could do this, there is no military force on the planet that would be capable of subduing us.</p><p></p><p>I think Col. Jeff Cooper says it better than me:</p><p></p><p>"It is interesting to hear certain kinds of people insist that the citizen cannot fight the government. This would have been news to the men of Lexington and Concord, as well as the Mujahedeen in Afghanistan. The citizen most certainly can fight the government, and usually wins when he tries. Organized national armies are useful primarily for fighting against other organized national armies. When they try to fight against the people, they find themselves at a very serious disadvantage. If you will just look around at the state of the world today, you will see that the guerillero has the upper hand. Irregulars usually defeat regulars, providing they have the will. Such fighting is horrible to contemplate, but will continue to dominate brute strength."</p><p></p><p>Another good Cooper quote: "The rifle is a weapon. Let there be no mistake about that. It is a tool of power, and thus dependent completely upon the moral stature of its user. It is equally useful in securing meat for the table, destroying group enemies on the battlefield, and resisting tyranny. In fact, it is the only means of resisting tyranny, since a citizenry armed with rifles simply cannot be tyrannized."</p><p></p><p>Of course the whole point in being a Nation of Riflemen is that no government in its right mind would ever even begin to think of doing anything too oppressive against them in the first place. Its a check and a balance against an overpowerful government, put in place with the hope that it never has to be used for its intended purpose. It is also a check and balance that is basically non-existent in our current society, in which even the vast majority of rifle owners are not what you could call Riflemen. The fact that this check and balance is so weak should scare anybody who knows anything about the history of the 20th Century.</p><p></p><p>What's the answer, you ask? Easy! <a href="http://www.appleseedinfo.org" target="_blank">The Appleseed Project!</a></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="henschman, post: 1095033, member: 4235"] This is right. I think you underestimate the power of the Rifleman... or the power of a Nation of Riflemen, if we were to become one again. Just one man who can control an entire quarter mile radius around him is pretty powerful, but a group of men who can do this are exponentially so. If we had even the 3% of the population that the founders had who could do this, there is no military force on the planet that would be capable of subduing us. I think Col. Jeff Cooper says it better than me: "It is interesting to hear certain kinds of people insist that the citizen cannot fight the government. This would have been news to the men of Lexington and Concord, as well as the Mujahedeen in Afghanistan. The citizen most certainly can fight the government, and usually wins when he tries. Organized national armies are useful primarily for fighting against other organized national armies. When they try to fight against the people, they find themselves at a very serious disadvantage. If you will just look around at the state of the world today, you will see that the guerillero has the upper hand. Irregulars usually defeat regulars, providing they have the will. Such fighting is horrible to contemplate, but will continue to dominate brute strength." Another good Cooper quote: "The rifle is a weapon. Let there be no mistake about that. It is a tool of power, and thus dependent completely upon the moral stature of its user. It is equally useful in securing meat for the table, destroying group enemies on the battlefield, and resisting tyranny. In fact, it is the only means of resisting tyranny, since a citizenry armed with rifles simply cannot be tyrannized." Of course the whole point in being a Nation of Riflemen is that no government in its right mind would ever even begin to think of doing anything too oppressive against them in the first place. Its a check and a balance against an overpowerful government, put in place with the hope that it never has to be used for its intended purpose. It is also a check and balance that is basically non-existent in our current society, in which even the vast majority of rifle owners are not what you could call Riflemen. The fact that this check and balance is so weak should scare anybody who knows anything about the history of the 20th Century. What's the answer, you ask? Easy! [URL="www.appleseedinfo.org"]The Appleseed Project![/URL] [/QUOTE]
Insert Quotes…
Verification
Post Reply
Forums
The Range
Law & Order
Why The Prefatory Clause In The 2A?
Search titles only
By:
Top
Bottom