Muslims want to disarm us...

[calsdad]

Found this on the JPFO site:

Apparently now the Muslims think that Americans should be disarmed - as this will allegedly help to prevent attacks here in this country:


http://www.ispu.us/pages/articles/2914/articleDetailPB.html


JPFO is all over them about it:

http://www.jpfo.org/alert20070108.htm


Furthermore the problem of potential terrorist attacks here in this country has been thought about - the solution that has been suggested is a citizen militia - so each community can watch it's own:

http://www.d-n-i.net/lind/lind_8_02_05.htm

 

[Admin]

The question is "Does anybody care what the Muslims think we should do?"

 

[calsdad]

The question is "Does anybody care what the Muslims think we should do?"

No - but I do find the article interesting. If you read into what this guy wrote you get the feeling that he is actually scared of the amount of guns that are owned by Americans. He keeps referencing white supremacist groups and such - and makes some pretty amateurish comments about the 2nd amendment being outmoded. I actually see this article as a good validation of the fact that civilian ownership of guns in this country is keeping us safe. If for no other reason than it is apparently scaring the camel dung out of the Muslims.

 

[Admin]

It wasn't directed at you.

 

[dwarven1]

No - but I do find the article interesting. If you read into what this guy wrote you get the feeling that he is actually scared of the amount of guns that are owned by Americans. He keeps referencing white supremacist groups and such - and makes some pretty amateurish comments about the 2nd amendment being outmoded. I actually see this article as a good validation of the fact that civilian ownership of guns in this country is keeping us safe. If for no other reason than it is apparently scaring the camel dung out of the Muslims.

Excellent point, calsdad. I also noted that the main thrust of his argument was that since guns are used to kill people, NO ONE should be able to own one legally...

It is no longer safe for the public to carry guns.

So therefore, since a terrorist might get them, no one should have them. I agree with you: they're scared of armed Americans.

Seems to me that I heard that same reason being given for why Japan never seriously contemplated any kind of invasion on US soil... they were afraid of an armed US populace.

 

[hminsky]

Hmm, is there *any* Muslim public relations organization which isn't a thinly veiled front for an Islamic fascist takeover of the United States?

 

[EddieCoyle]

Hmm, is there *any* Muslim public relations organization which isn't a thinly veiled front for an Islamic fascist takeover of the United States?

No.

 

[SKS Ray]

Whole thread reminds me of what my sales rep told me about "30 of them sons o' bitches with AK47s are gonna be at a local mall and they're gonna be killing Americans".

 

[calsdad]

Whole thread reminds me of what my sales rep told me about "30 of them sons o' bitches with AK47s are gonna be at a local mall and they're gonna be killing Americans".

Yes - and apparently the thought that American civilians might be able to fight back in a situation like that is troubling them....

 

[Jose]

Quite frankly, the idea of the citizenry rising up against the U.S. government with their handguns and assault rifles, and facing the military with these personal arms is absurd.

Then he severely underestimates what a guerrilla army can achieve against a much more powerful invader.

Nonetheless, I agree that it is blatantly obvious that armed, patriotic Americans scare the shit out of islamofascists and their phony fronts such as this one.

Good.

BTW, I was doing my part this weekend to keep the moose-lims scared:

 

[felonsforguncontrol]

Then this org should avoid visiting Switzerland.....

 

[meth0d]

...
Seems to me that I heard that same reason being given for why Japan never seriously contemplated any kind of invasion on US soil... they were afraid of an armed US populace.

I had read a quote from a Japanese commander/leader/etc. once that was something to the effect of: "We cannot invade mainland America, because there would be a rifle behind every blade of grass."

 

[felonsforguncontrol]

I read an article about Switzerland. The same logic is used. Every citizen is a member of the military, and has lots of high powered weaponry. Hitler wasn't crazy enough to attack them, or so the story went.

 

[calsdad]

I read an article about Switzerland. The same logic is used. Every citizen is a member of the military, and has lots of high powered weaponry. Hitler wasn't crazy enough to attack them, or so the story went.

The story is true - I just finished reading two books about the Swiss experience during the WWII era. The story is this - Hitler wanted to attack the Swiss - Switzerland had vital railways between Italy and Germany - and not having access to those railways was a real hindrance to the Axis war effort. Switzerland had something like 500,000 men under arms during the war - out of a population of something like 3 million if I remember correctly. Swiss soldiers were ordered to fight to the death. They were even instructed to disobey orders from their own goverment to surrender. Many other goverments across Europe basically gave their countries over to the Nazis almost without a fight. The Swiss taunted and resisted the Nazis the whole time - but the German military was not willing to invade because of the defensive posture the Swiss took - and Swiss reputation of being tough fighters - the German army did not want to take the losses.


http://history-switzerland.geschichte-schweiz.ch/spiritual-defense-world-war-ii.html


The two books I read were:

http://www.amazon.com/Target-Switze...ef=sr_1_3/002-3554346-7386430?ie=UTF8&s=books

and:

http://www.amazon.com/SWISS-NAZIS-A...33424/ref=pd_bxgy_b_img_b/002-3554346-7386430

Both are definitely worth the read - especially because they have a lot of relevance in our fight against the gun takers.

 

[calsdad]

Then he severely underestimates what a guerrilla army can achieve against a much more powerful invader.

Nonetheless, I agree that it is blatantly obvious that armed, patriotic Americans scare the shit out of islamofascists and their phony fronts such as this one.

He apparently can't even read the newspaper on a daily basis. The US military in Iraq is not fighting a military supported by a goverment - they are fighting a guerilla army - or a few of them.

The fight in Lebanon between Hezbollah and Israel was another fight between a modern military -and what is essentially a guerrilla army - and Hezbollah kept Israel from achieving their goals and creating that buffer zone they wanted. For all intents and purposes they won.

 

[Bruce for NH State Rep]

Five words:

Come and get 'em, motherf***er.

 

[Pilgrim]

A little rag tag bunch of guerrilla's wiped the butt of England's finest in the 1770's.

If there was a general uprising of armed Americans today, our military wouldn't stand a chance.

 

[dwarven1]

A little rag tag bunch of guerrilla's wiped the butt of England's finest in the 1770's.

Only with the assistance of the French...

 

[calsdad]

Only with the assistance of the French...

The French did help - there were numerous volunteers who fought on the side of the Americans, and Benjamin Franklin negotiated aid from France. According to this timeline: http://www.socialstudiesforkids.com/articles/ushistory/revolutionarywartimeline.htm

But - the French did not show up to help us until 1778 - and from everything I can remember reading it is arguable as to whether or not the French tipped the scales to our side - or whether we were winning anyway.

 

[Lynne]

But - the French did not show up to help us until 1778 - and from everything I can remember reading it is arguable as to whether or not the French tipped the scales to our side - or whether we were winning anyway.

Correct. They were a big help in keeping the Brits from escaping to the sea and dealing with the fleet offshore, but we had already "cornered" them at Yorktown.

 

[depicts]

That article pissed me off so much I wrote the author a letter telling him I thought his whole premise was hogwash.

So now I'm on the "A" target list. That's ok, as long as there is one person with a rifle willing to fight from the rooftops, a larger force can be defeated by a guerrilla band.

If you're interested, here is what I wrote to him:

Dear Mr. Afeef,

your recent article is so full of factual errors and deliberate slanting of the facts that I won't even bother to correct them.

It's obvious you have an agenda against firearms that has little to do with the posession of such firearms by legal, law abiding citizens.

The only reason I respond at all, is to let you know there are people out here who are aware of the enemies of our freedom, and stay vigilant against them.

The following quote from the end of your article is EXACTLY why we DO need to keep the right to bear arms.

"So long as guns remain available to the general public, there will always be the threat of terrorists walking into a crowded restaurant, a busy coffee shop or a packed movie theater and opening fire upon unsuspecting civilians."
"The Second Amendment is not worth such risks."

The threat isn't from the general public. Legal gunowners are responsible for less than .0002% of any crime. If some terrorist, or hood or gangbanger or criminal starts to shoot in a coffee shop or packed movie theater, I want to make sure I am armed to protect myself, and possibly keep innocent people from being harmed.

Your whole premise is hogwash. But of course you knew that.

Bill DEspinosa

 

[Scrivener]

A little rag tag bunch of guerrilla's [sic] wiped the butt of England's finest in the 1770's.

If there was a general uprising of armed Americans today, our military wouldn't stand a chance.

Hardly. We fielded both militia (state forces) and the Continental Army (the national force). Each fought as a unit in open battle, wearing uniforms under specific colors. Consequently neither constitutes "guerrilla's."

The French gave us funds, arms, supplies, the Marquis de LaFayette and, later both land and naval units. The Comte deGrasse defeated the British fleet which was coming to aid Cornwallis and then blockaded his forces, forcing his surrender.

I don't have much use for the French, but fair is fair. Let us note that the debt was paid - TWICE.

Note that the gross disparity in technology between the combatants that exists today did not exist then. Both sides fielded basically the same long arm and artillery. Cruise missiles, "smart bombs," air superiority, night vision, armored vehicles and helo gunships would give the current military a significant advantage advantage over home-grown guerrillas.

As for that drivel about Yamamoto/Japanese naval officer at a joint conference/ex-IJN officer decrying an invasion of the US because an armed American would be "behind every blade of grass;" it's jingoistic nonsense devoid of any real documentation.

The primary reason is the utter impossibility of supplying an invasion force fortunate enough to establish a beachhead - after being decimated by our air and naval forces across the thousands of miles such an invasion force would have to traverse.

 

[dwarven1]

Note that the gross disparity in technology between the combatants that exists today did not exist then. Both sides fielded basically the same long arm and artillery. Cruise missiles, "smart bombs," air superiority, night vision, armored vehicles and helo gunships would give the current military a significant advantage advantage over home-grown guerrillas.

Which, of course, is why we were able to bring our troops home from Iraq only 6 months after they went over there.

 

[codenamepaul]

Note that the gross disparity in technology between the combatants that exists today did not exist then. Both sides fielded basically the same long arm and artillery. Cruise missiles, "smart bombs," air superiority, night vision, armored vehicles and helo gunships would give the current military a significant advantage advantage over home-grown guerrillas.

Just like the advantage they weild over a bunch of untrained, rag tag, non shootin' Iraqi's?
Or maybe like the bunch of rag-tag, zipperhead, rice farmers that cleaned our clocks 40 years ago?
Or perhaps like the rag-tag, untrained bunch of raghead Palestinians that managed to stalemate the most combat experienced armed force on Earth with a bunch of homemade bottle rockets?
Or the distict technological advantage weilded over a bunch of uneducated, starving, Somali's that ate the lunch of some of our most elite Army SF guys?

I hardly think so.

Only a moron could possibly believe that an organized force the size of our US military could stand a chance against an American homegrown bunch of guerillas. The US military realizes this-you know this don't you? It has been stated by the military-unequivocally-that the US military stands no chance of putting down a popular insurrection of any significant size.

 

[depicts]

codenamepaul,

"Or maybe like the bunch of rag-tag, zipperhead, rice farmers that cleaned our clocks 40 years ago?


They didn't clean our clocks. Our political leaders quit. There were only one or two times the US came out on the short end of a battle. Attrition of enemy soldiers was far greater than American losses.

Also, they were not a "rag-tag" bunch of farmers. The NVA regulars who supported the VC were as good as any experienced army in the world. They had 30+ continious years of battle experience, maybe more.

The Viet-Cong may have "Looked" rag-tag...but they never gave up and they forced our politicians to quit.


But I agree with your point, guerrillas CAN stand up to an Army. There are almost 300 million people in this country, 41% of their homes have firearms. How many servicemembers are there?

The question is not "COULD" we win, the question is "would we have the will to win?"

 

[Lynne]

I don't have much use for the French, but fair is fair. Let us note that the debt was paid - TWICE.

Was that all? Huh.

 

[Scrivener]

Just like the advantage they weild [sic] over a bunch of untrained, rag tag, non shootin' Iraqi's?

Spare us such tendentious nonsense. There is NOTHING "untrained" or "non shootin'" about your Iraqis (note correct pluralization). Indeed, many are not Iraqi at all, as the country is now both a magnet and training ground for every restless Muslim militant on the continent.

Or maybe like the bunch of rag-tag, zipperhead, rice farmers that cleaned our clocks 40 years ago?

Patent mendacity. The NVA was a fully-equipped military, featuring tanks, an air force and THE most dense anti-aircraft defenses then extant. The Viet Cong had DECADES of experience fighting the French, the Japanese and then the French again; all LONG before we intervened. Try again.

Or perhaps like the rag-tag, untrained bunch of raghead Palestinians that managed to stalemate the most combat experienced armed force on Earth with a bunch of homemade bottle rockets?

Yet more nonsense. As Israel has only existed a mere 60 years, calling it "the most combat experienced armed force on Earth" strains credulity. So does calling the Palestinians "rag heads" armed with "homemade bottle rockets." Such claims insult our intelligence.

Or the distict technological advantage weilded [sic] over a bunch of uneducated, starving, Somali's [sic] that ate the lunch of some of our most elite Army SF guys?

Translation: A mob of VERY heavily armed, drugged up citizes defending their city against an ill-conceived, poorly-prepared and unfortunate "snatch" gone bad, caught in the maze of an urban street battle? Engaging people who have been fighting each other for years and now have a common enemy to focus their quat-fueled hostility against? THAT battle?

Only a moron could possibly believe that an organized force the size of our US military could stand a chance against an American homegrown bunch of guerillas. The US military realizes this-you know this don't you? It has been stated by the military-unequivocally-that the US military stands no chance of putting down a popular insurrection of any significant size.

Given the absurdity of your other assertions, only a moron would accept your last, utterly unsubstantiated claim as worthy of serious consideration.

 

[KMaurer]

TLegal gunowners are responsible for less than .0002% of any crime.

Do you really mean less than 2 out of 1,000,000?

Ken

 

[RKG]

Or maybe like the bunch of rag-tag, zipperhead, rice farmers that cleaned our clocks 40 years ago?

Not so. If you treat Khe Sanh and Tet as the culmination of the Viet Nam war, the United States military won both decisively. The enemy of the United States who defeated us was Walter Cronkite.

 

[fubar]

Walter Kronkite had us quitting after 55 thousand dead. Katie Couric has us about to quit after 4000 dead. CNN had us quitting after 21 dead ( and I believe the score was 21 to 1100, some defeat , huh ? )

How far would the spectators let things go if they saw gunships strafing the North End , or Marines assaulting homes in Swampscott & Duxbury ?

American war is now fought by both soldiers and television. A popular uprising here could be won with crowds of brick throwers if we/they were serious.

If 2000 legal gun owners , of Massachusetts alone, were to show up at the State House carrying scoped deer guns and AR15's I suspect our brave legislators would take note PDQ.

If it happened in every state within the span of a few days , nancy P , would become very concerned.

& all I really want is to be able to buy ammo in the mail , and maybe a new Kimber.