I thought Pratt did well, too. Retained his composure and shot back with facts and logic while Morgan fired insult after insult and tried to shout him down. Stood his ground, nicely. I wonder who would win that firefight? It's true, gun crime in the UK is lower, but apparently their violent crime rate is much higher. Either way, it's not about crime. It's about defense - against criminals and a tyrannical Government. The most violent places in the US are cities where handguns are banned. DC, Chicago etc.
According to the terms of the bet that you agreed to with your integrity and word as a man you are not supposed to be posting right now.
That is correct. You want something else in exchange for the 30 days? Or would you prefer to be able to throw this in my face for all eternity?
Criminals will find a way to get guns - can't deny the obvious. People have the right to legitimately protect themselves and arm themselves if necessary. The bit about opposing a "tyrannical gov't" is a stretch imo though. The power is so asymmetrical now that it is a reach to think that the gov't, on it's own ground with armored vehicles, hellfire-loaded drones, heat-rays (Active Denial Systems), etc would somehow lose against an armed rebellion. While I fully comprehend the sentiment, which harkens back to the birth of the nation from the British, this isn't a "my muskets vs. your muskets" era anymore....
I want RCG to to do the TST combine he agreed to. I want mrbill to stop pretending to be a centrist and coming back with a new alias every few months. I want all these recent sock puppets of former ET liberals to go away or admit who they are. I want those here not interested in trading to find another web site to pollute I want you to stop shilling for the democrats and Obama I want to make passionate love to Kate Upton
It would be funny if you got the alias "IQ Forty Seven" and used that for 30 days to beat AK over the head with it.
You'd be surprised. Guerrilla warfare is impossible to win. The "insurgents" were never beat in Afghanistan or Iraq, 10 years later. Even against all the high-tech gadgetry and smart bombs the US military brought to bare. Remember Vietnam? To quote that Bruce Willis movie, the military is a broad sword. It's effective at carpet bombing and reducing entire civilizations to rubble. It's not effective at going house-to-house and sussing out enemies that pop out of the woodwork, then blend back in. The only way for the US military to "win" a confrontation with the American people (and that's a long shot, as legions of Constitutionals still serve all along the chain of command), would be an all out assault. Carpet bombs etc. In that case, the entire nation would likely turn against the military. They can only go house to house to keep a lid on the rebellion. And even that, they'll lose. Doesn't mean a shitload of Americans won't get killed. As far as all this happening and the likelihood, Obama not only signed - but pressured Congress to write - a bill that allows the US military to round up and lock up citizens indefinitely, with no lawyer, trial, or due process. So you tell me again, this is all far fetched. The Founders put the 2nd Amendment in the Constitution because they were students of history. These motherfucking Caesars rise up every 50 years or so, and try to take over with force. They knew it could just as easily happen in America, as it had overseas, so we got the second amendment to stop these bitches in their tracks.