Have the antis thought about threat level Orange?


PDA






obiwan1
December 29, 2003, 02:54 PM
If we are attacked, It could be a number of ways. It could be "NBC" (nuke, bio, chem...not Tom Brokaw). The target probably wouldn't know it's coming until it hits. It could be the old fashioned way with bombs or guns. Either way, the government speaks of first responders. First responders are just that..RESPONDERS.

If the attack is the old fashioned kind (as currently in vogue in Israel and Iraq), there is a possibility that the target can fight back!

The bottom line: do the antis really want the potential target of a terrorist attack to be unarmed and defenseless until the responders do exactly that - respond?:confused:

If you enjoyed reading about "Have the antis thought about threat level Orange?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
geekWithA.45
December 29, 2003, 03:03 PM
The bottom line:

YES.

They want us to be defenseless, and they want to discourage individual initiative. They do in fact want us to be utterly dependent upon the sanctified authorities.

It's as simple as that.

Quartus
December 29, 2003, 03:06 PM
"Have the antis...... THOUGHT ...."


Obiwan, do you want to re-phrase that?


:D



Seriously, they really don't. Think, that is. They don't think things through from start to finish in a logical fashion. That's what makes them antis!

Except for a few who understand the ramifications of thier postion, yet hold it for religious or philisophical reasons, that is. Those kind are few and far between. The rest simply cannot or will not think things through.

Ask a few of them - you'll get completely nonsensical responses.


"Oh, that would never happen."
"Well, having a gun would just make them angry!"
"Oh, you're just hateful!"


You will NOT get a well reasoned, thoughtful, direct answer to your question from 99% of antis. They are not capable of doing so.

tn 1911
December 29, 2003, 03:41 PM
If attacked, they'd sit around singing, "give peace a chance" and talk about surrendering it all.... so they can feel safe in their little beds.:barf:

Michael

HankB
December 29, 2003, 04:01 PM
A terrorist attack is an act of violence.

Shooting the terrorist is ANOTHER act of violence.

Hence, having a gun, and worse, USING it, will COMPOUND the violence.

So you shouldn't have one.

I actually had a discussion many years ago in high school with, of all people, a TEACHER who used this very line of reasoning to explain her support for gun prohibition.

I assured her that if I ever saw her being assaulted, I'd be sure to NOT render assistance, as that would only "compound the violence."

SodaPop
December 29, 2003, 04:10 PM
The bottom line: do the antis really want the potential target of a terrorist attack to be unarmed and defenseless until the responders do exactly that - respond?


I'm teaching several Pro-Choice, liberal female, Clinton-lovers how to shoot shotguns and handguns next month.

All of them have said, "I want to learn how to shoot a gun, but I could never live in a house where somebody had one."


Atleast its a start.:uhoh:


The threat of terrorism is softening up several liberal girls i've been hanging around with for years.

Mark Tyson
December 29, 2003, 04:11 PM
Yes, they have.

They say that loose gun laws make it more likely for terrorists to get guns, so we should ban guns to fight terrorism.

When they say that, ask them if they want to register Muslims and mosques or establish checkpoints and roadblocks around Arab neighborhoods in the name of fighting terrorism. After all, it's only some silly, antiquated constitutional rights we're infringing.

dischord
December 29, 2003, 04:14 PM
Yes, they've thought about it -- at least in terms of scaring the public about .50 BMGs, "assault weapons" and other guns that terrorists (gasp) have easy access to because of our (swoon) lax gun laws.

Anyone remember VPC's anti-Barrett screed about a month after 9/11?

Quartus
December 29, 2003, 08:45 PM
Yes, they've thought about it


The leaders are not the same beast as the rank and file. We forget that to our own detriment.

7.62FullMetalJacket
December 29, 2003, 08:51 PM
The most basic instinct is survivial, buttressed by defense. The "progressives" are so civilized that they BELIEVE that everyone will play nice if only all those evil guns were gone. They BELIEVE it. :barf: Thay have apparently evolved beyond my level :evil:

Don Gwinn
December 29, 2003, 08:58 PM
Antis know two things with absolute certainty:

1. Violence will never, ever happen to anyone they know.

2. Even if it did, a gun would only make it worse!

Standing Wolf
December 29, 2003, 09:22 PM
The bottom line: do the antis really want the potential target of a terrorist attack to be unarmed and defenseless until the responders do exactly that - respond?

They're on the side of terrorism.

Missouri Mule
December 30, 2003, 01:17 PM
The antis don't think.


They still believe it is the responsibility of our LEOs and diminishing military to protect us.
Well, it is the militarys job............to protect the interests of our govenment.

Each and every one of us is responsible for our families and own personal safety.

mountainclmbr
December 30, 2003, 01:56 PM
It is the job of the city LEO to enforce the laws, and protect the power of the city government. It is the job of the state LEO to preserve the power of the state. It is the job of federal LEO to preserve the power of the US government over internal challenges. It is the job of the military to preserve the power of the US government against external challenges.

As far as I can tell, the only protection I get is from ME. The antis warship government solutions and don't want me or anyone else outside of government to have any level of self-determination. Educating an anti is a worthy challenge. I would opt for an easier challenge....like climbing Mt Everest!

dischord
December 30, 2003, 02:02 PM
The antis warship government solutions Is that like the Battlestar Galactica?

....sorry, I couldn't resist. I know that's not what you meant, but it was just too perfect.

Quartus
December 31, 2003, 08:49 AM
Nicely summed up, mountainclmbr. Methinks you hit the nail on the head.



Oh, and two points for the slam, dischord. :D

K-Romulus
January 1, 2004, 07:19 PM
The bottom line: do the antis really want the potential target of a terrorist attack to be unarmed and defenseless until the responders do exactly that - respond?

My understanding of the anti viewpoint is that "pouring fuel on that fire" (i.e., adding any firearms in non-governmental hands to the situation you describe) will only serve to "make things worse." That viewpoint holds that is "better" for a few to get sacrificed during that time that it takes the "responders" to show up. The alternative to that would be for "the wrong people or innocent bystanders to get shot in the wild-west-style crossfire.":rolleyes:

Hopefully, it won't be you or your family getting "sacrificed"- but if it is, well, that's just "terrible." Just remember that is was "better" that way.:uhoh:

Quartus
January 1, 2004, 08:09 PM
Yup.


And welcome to THR!

Jeff Thomas
January 1, 2004, 11:55 PM
Anti-self defense zealots honestly believe that only LEO's and the military can use firearms to defend the innocent. It isn't on their radar that you or I could have that ability, nor have that right. This belief on their part is as firm as their trust in gravity ...

They are classic True Believers ... no amount of factual evidence to the contrary will dissuade them.

Regards from TX

If you enjoyed reading about "Have the antis thought about threat level Orange?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!