Unless the government allows you to own anti tank weapons and stinger missiles, we both know thats a lie. Once the government owns tanks and aircraft, it can do whatever it likes within its own borders for all intents and purposes.
The commonwealth still exists, and is more of an informal grouping of nations that France nearly joined as at the time it still had tariff preference.
And there's nothing wrong with being a third rate power, as we're not French. We are still light years ahead of the French, and thats all that matters.
AM - i suppose using a Barrett .50 at point blank range would be adequate kickback. perhaps excessive kick back. Once you'd picked yourself up off the floor you'd know...
The basics of warfare being that you can take ground with a tank, you can deny ground with aircraft, but you hold ground with infantry.
But the simple fact is that the army and police have a level of training that means you'd need a heck of a lot of disgruntled squaddies to take the side of the underground before a rebellion stood any chance of success. Of course, it would do wonders for population control.
And this goes back to my original point - if you're going to have the right to free speech, the neccessary balance is the right to violently rebuke someone when they chat utter bollocks and don't seem to get the hint when they're called a fucking moron. A barret .50's recoil going straight into the shoulder is sufficient deterrent to ensure people dont go around beating people up/shooting them for no good reason ;)
How come the founding fathers didn't see fit to protect that rather than guns...
Reply
Reply
And a guns recoil is not adequate.
Reply
Reply
Reply
The commonwealth still exists, and is more of an informal grouping of nations that France nearly joined as at the time it still had tariff preference.
And there's nothing wrong with being a third rate power, as we're not French. We are still light years ahead of the French, and thats all that matters.
AM - i suppose using a Barrett .50 at point blank range would be adequate kickback. perhaps excessive kick back. Once you'd picked yourself up off the floor you'd know...
Reply
Reply
But the simple fact is that the army and police have a level of training that means you'd need a heck of a lot of disgruntled squaddies to take the side of the underground before a rebellion stood any chance of success. Of course, it would do wonders for population control.
And this goes back to my original point - if you're going to have the right to free speech, the neccessary balance is the right to violently rebuke someone when they chat utter bollocks and don't seem to get the hint when they're called a fucking moron. A barret .50's recoil going straight into the shoulder is sufficient deterrent to ensure people dont go around beating people up/shooting them for no good reason ;)
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment