The Terrorists are Coming

[GW Staar]

Here's something everyone can do: email this picture to everyone who thinks gun control is the answer to terrorism. A good case for "a picture is worth a 1000 words."



Yes, the people at that web site are a little off the wall with some some things, but this picture is right on.

 

[230RN]

[STRIKE]Turn in your AR-15's what?

Just feelin' pedantic and peckish tonight. Normally I wouldn't care, 'cause it get's the message across all right. 'Cept most people, even educated one's, won't get the historical reference with the way the education system work's nowaday's.

<grump>

<growl>

Id better have a glas's of milk and go to bed. Its getting late.[/STRIKE]

Struck because I'm in a better mood this morning and long ago I promised myself I wouldn't correct other peoples' stuff unless asked. To.

Terry

 

[BigBore44]

I love it. Everyday when I wake up, I'm amazed that this is the reality of people voted into office by actual citizens.

 

[cowpoke]

GW Staar you hit the nail on the head

 

[Casefull]

Truth is so refreshing and scarce in our world.

 

[wahsben]

Sadly there are people that are foolish enough to believe that being defenseless makes you safer.

 

[Slotback]

^
There are a lot of people who believe that.

 

[jhb]

^thats cause they have been repeatedly told by their govt that the govt will protect them. Their flaw is believing the govt and not paying attention to supreme court decisions like that the police have no duty to protect anyone etc.

 

[Apachedriver]

^ It's because the larger the group they can create to hide within, the lower their chances of getting struck by lightning.

The problem is the electricity and burnt ozone in the air isn't from lightning, but instead from an electrified fence to corral and subjugate the whole group.

 

[jhb]

^fair points.

 

[C0untZer0]

It is sad that the knowledge of the Revolutionary War for the vast majority of school children in the U.S. is only a vague notion of taxes and something about throwing tea in the ocean.

I've never encountered anyone who knew that the Revolutionary War was touched off by British troops marching on the colonists to seize their arms and munitions.

 

[RetiredUSNChief]

It might interest people to know that quite a significant portion of the origional 13 colonies were, in fact, either pro-England or, at best, apathetic to the cause of the revolution.

Those who were actively pro-England were called "Loyalists", "Royalists", "King's Men", or "Tories".

How many?

Well, in 1775 there were about 2.4 to 2.5 million people in the 13 colonies. Nearly 500 thousand were Loyalists, or about 20% of the population.

Now, toss in the fact of human nature in which a rather large portion of any population doesn't really care about politics, per se, because they're just trying to eek out a living and raise their families. If it doesn't put food on the table or a roof over the head, it has a very low priority with these people.

All of which adds up to a picture that is shockingly very much like the parody in the OP.

Take a look at the political cartoonists and commentary of the day back then and you'll see this.

 

[bannockburn]

RetiredUSNChief

When I was in college one of my U.S. History professors estimated it was something like a three way split with a third of the population in support of the Revolution, a third loyal to King George III, and a third who mostly didn't care one way or the other; they just wanted to be left alone to go about their business.

 

[Kevin Rohrer]

RetiredUSNChief

When I was in college one of my U.S. History professors estimated it was something like a three way split with a third of the population in support of the Revolution, a third loyal to King George III, and a third who mostly didn't care one way or the other; they just wanted to be left alone to go about their business.

This is what American Revolution histories now tell us. It seems very likely to be true. After all, look at the current election. Many people didn't care enough to show-up to vote.

 

[RetiredUSNChief]

RetiredUSNChief

When I was in college one of my U.S. History professors estimated it was something like a three way split with a third of the population in support of the Revolution, a third loyal to King George III, and a third who mostly didn't care one way or the other; they just wanted to be left alone to go about their business.

Probably a pretty reasonable estimation.

 

[shafter]

Disarming the population isn't the way to fight terrorism, but on the flip side guns aren't the solution to it either. Concealed carry can do little to prevent suicide bombers, sniper attacks, ambush slashings, vehicles plowing into crowds, and chemical and biological attacks. Something to think about before waving an AR15 in the air and shouting "Bring it Isis!" like I've seen some folks do.

 

[200Apples]

wahsben

Sadly there are people that are foolish enough to believe that being defenseless makes you safer.

That's a good way of putting it. And, unfortunately, so goes the tide across the liberal metropolis...

:-|

 

[old lady new shooter]

Disarming the population isn't the way to fight terrorism, but on the flip side guns aren't the solution to it either. Concealed carry can do little to prevent suicide bombers, sniper attacks, ambush slashings, vehicles plowing into crowds, and chemical and biological attacks. Something to think about before waving an AR15 in the air and shouting "Bring it Isis!" like I've seen some folks do.

All true, but a gun can still something good in a mass shooting event like San Bernardino.

 

[shafter]

That's true, and it's why I support an armed populace. The common man should possess the means to protect himself from thugs and tyranny. My point was simply in response to a lot of false bravado going around these days concerning terrorism.

 

[RetiredUSNChief]

That's true, and it's why I support an armed populace. The common man should possess the means to protect himself from thugs and tyranny. My point was simply in response to a lot of false bravado going around these days concerning terrorism.

At issue here are two major thought processes by those who oppose this idea:

1. The belief that if all weapons were removed that violence would no longer happen and people would be safe.

2. The belief that it is the responsibility of the (nominally benign) government to provide for the personal protection of its citizens.

The first is a misplaced faith that goes counter to human nature as a whole. We, as a species, did not evolve into THE apex predator on this planet because of firearms. We evolved into this role because of our brains, which are the single, most dangerous weapon on the planet. Within our brains lies both the intelligence on how to most effectively wield violence by ANY means and the will to do so for whatever purpose we, as a species, deem fit.

Removing guns does not change that fact and people who believe this, especially in light of the evidence against it, are living in a world of rainbows and unicorn farts.

The second is a misplaced faith which ignores the fact that any and all governments are mechanisms deliberately empowered to exercise authority and power over its citizens...and that the people who do so are representatives of a species powered by that self-same, single, most dangerous weapon on the planet. In fact, the processes by which government representatives are selected (democratic or otherwise) ensures a selection process which places the most capable and dangerous of these apex predators in positions of power over citizens.

The means of "checks and balances" in our own system is a way of pitting one apex predator against another in the hopes that their mutual combat will distract them from their normal prey (the citizens), but is ultimately meaningless unless the citizens likewise possess the power and the will to bare its teeth and remind them that we, also, are apex predators not to be triffled with.

Again...people who refuse to understand this are living in a world of rainbows and unicorn farts.

 

[Speedo66]

The saddest people to me are many urban dwellers who realize they may not be safe, but under no circumstances would they do anything to defend themselves. They would rather be a victim than participate in what they would consider violence. Rather be shot than touch a gun.

Knew many with that mindset when I lived in NYC.

 

[Resist Evil]

Liberals will reap what they sow. If they wish for themselves the fruits of their deadly damnable fantasies, then let them revel in their own destruction and leave us well out of it. Our temptation to schadenfreude will be our only burden as we watch them harvest their doom. The truly sad part of it is that they work so industriously to force free citizens to convert to their death cult or else be shunned in society for our non-conformity. I don't care if they disarm themselves. I wish they could be made to leave we sapient beings alone. A pipe dream.

 

[old lady new shooter]

The saddest people to me are many urban dwellers who realize they may not be safe, but under no circumstances would they do anything to defend themselves. They would rather be a victim than participate in what they would consider violence. Rather be shot than touch a gun.

Knew many with that mindset when I lived in NYC.

I know a guy who actually says it's not his job to decide his life is more valuable than the life of someone attacking him.

 

[JohnKSa]

I know a guy who actually says it's not his job to decide his life is more valuable than the life of someone attacking him.

Had a friend like that. He said he could never use a gun in self-defense because of the moral issues. I told him that if he really believed that then he shouldn't call the police if ever attacked or if his house were broken into. If shooting someone in self-defense is immoral then it must be just as bad, perhaps even worse, to summon someone else to do the dirty work you won't do yourself.

I don't know if he really changed his mind, but it did make him think.

 

[old lady new shooter]

Had a friend like that. He said he could never use a gun in self-defense because of the moral issues. I told him that if he really believed that then he shouldn't call the police if ever attacked or if his house were broken into. If shooting someone in self-defense is immoral then it must be just as bad, perhaps even worse, to summon someone else to do the dirty work you won't do yourself.

I don't know if he really changed his mind, but it did make him think.

That is a really good answer. If I ever have the conversation with him again I'll try using it.