Weapon of war

**captainbly** · 02-24-2013, 01:36 PM

A good article from a leo. His site has a lot of really good post's. I did a search and didn't come up with anything so if this has been posted I apologize.
Weapons of war | chrishernandezauthor
"If someone angrily tells one of my pro-2nd Amendment friends that an AR is a “weapon of war”, I’d ask them to proudly respond, “You’re damn right it is.” When law-abiding, sensible citizens buy and shoot ARs and AKs, they’re not presenting a threat to the public or to the government. They’re exercising their rights exactly as Noah Webster and Tenche Cox hoped they would.

That’s not something we should be ashamed of."

**Bob P** · 02-24-2013, 01:53 PM

Thank you for finding that. It's excellent.

**calsdad** · 02-24-2013, 02:18 PM

Great article.

I'm very glad to see him saying the following:

Anti-gun people typically say at this point, “You think you can fight the government? Well then you’d have to own tanks, airplanes, machine guns and nuclear bombs. If you just had rifles, you wouldn’t have a chance.”

No we don’t need to own tanks, fighter planes and nuclear weapons, and yes we would have a chance. Insurgents who are often armed only with AKs have been giving us a pretty good fight for more than ten years. Even with our overwhelming air and indirect fire assets, we haven’t rolled over the Taliban. They operate among the population, travel light, strike quickly and melt away, just like rebels in America would. Air strikes and artillery don’t do much good if you can’t figure out where to put them.

Those who insist Americans armed only with rifles would be helpless against a professional military consistently ignore the lengths our military goes to in order to avoid civilian casualties. Whenever someone in the anti-gun camp insists our military would respond to a single rifle shot with a brutal onslaught of weaponry, I remind them we don’t even do that overseas. I’ve been in a couple of firefights where the Taliban were shooting from houses, and we couldn’t use supporting arms to hit those houses. In Afghanistan, and here, killing civilians only strengthens resistance against us. We tried to avoid killing civilians from another culture in another country, so why does anyone think our military wouldn’t care about civilian casualties in America?

Besides that, rebels or insurgents in any conflict don’t always have to win. Sometimes they just have to delay or inhibit government forces. Sometimes they only have to make a point.

Because I've gotten sick to death of hearing that argument coming out of people's pie-holes.

Most of the time I hear that argument being made though - it's right here on the pages of NES.

Which makes you wonder - is NES anti-gun?

**SpaceCritter** · 02-24-2013, 02:48 PM

The trick, though, would be getting the insurgents to kill without hesitation.

"Paging Dave Grossman... Paging Lt. Col. Dave Grossman..."

**vipprimo** · 02-24-2013, 02:49 PM

The problem with the above statement is the following: Insurgents are on the attack. They are pushing out an invading force. If a similar incident happened here it wouldn't be about pushing out an invading force it would be a defense. If you were worried about your weapons being taken away then you certainly wouldn't be attacking civilians or military targets. You would be finding ways to just be left alone.

The great reference here is Waco TX and Ruby Ridge and we all know how that ended.

Weapon of war

Thread Tools

Display

Weapon of war

Posting Permissions