The one thing he and his fellow travelers never will is what their personal line in the sand for resisting tyranny would be. That's because they want an unchallengeable monopoly of violence, and can't conceive that when an idiot's usefulness has expired, he will too.
Actually, the one thing that caught my eye more than Stanley's steaming was this comment:
The one thing I don't understand though, is where in this country, and under what circumstances, he'd use those five-inch shells? Since it's not exactly like a "We are everywhere" resistance would obligingly line up on the green in Wellington-style squares...
And some of them are combat vets.
6 comments:
Not to mention that, if I'm not mistaken, these days what is referred to as a "5 inch gun" is typically found on a Navy destroyer. Not sure what good a destroyer will do against anything that is more than a couple of miles inland. These days actual US artillery (Army and Marines) comes in one of two flavors: 105mm and the far more prevalent 155mm. Some are towed and some are self propelled, but all suffer from the same weakness which is to say, the crews can all be shot dead by rifles firing little ol' 5.56mm poodle shooter bullets.
Exactly, Chuck. Incidentally, the standard 155mm howitzer shell carries a TNT payload of around 20 lbs. And the 155 is a shade over 6" in diameter.
And artillery "bullets" are called "shells."
Looks a heck of a lot like "Combat Vet" is a "veteran" of armchair computer games replete with nonexistent technology.
Artillery batteries are typically defended by troops carrying, among other things, those little AR15s.
My guess is, the only "action" Combat Vet saw was in his Rambo movie collection.
And lest we forget, those combat vets who are going to be using their military might on their fellow citizens have family easily within reach of the folks they plan to target.
GaryM: I debated with myself about allowing your comment past moderation. I finally decided to allow it as it reflects that once things heat up they can quickly get personal, with retaliation and revenge factoring into motivations more than principles. I believe some would be tempted to do that and I pray their consciences guide them against it.
Stanley gets it wrong right from the get go. What is wrong with the concept expressed by Stanley's last sentence of his second paragraph?
"I mean those who read the Second Amendment as proclaiming the right of citizens to resist the tyranny of their own government, that is, of the government that issued and ratified the Constitution in the first place."
Yeah, 5 inch guns...is that the best he can bring? WWII battleships had 16-inchers, now that's firepower! Seriously, some nitwits have suggested the use of nuclear weapons against us and our poodle-shooters. I guess they didn't get the Hiroshima memo about all the collateral damage such devices cause. Nor do such folks realize that every such atrocity will turn the hearts and minds of the people against the side that perpetrated it.
Post a Comment