Eisboch wrote:
"Boater" wrote in message
...
Eisboch wrote:
"Boater" wrote in message
...

The concept of individual citizens armed with small arms holding off a
huge invading army is an NRA wet dream. Americans aren't as tough as
Afghanis.

Based on what? Your left wing, elitist opinion that you present as a
"fact"?

History proves you wrong.

Eisboch
Based upon the fact that this isn't the 18th or 19th century, and that any
huge invading army is going to be equipped and organized as a huge
invading army. It's going to be up to our military to protect the
homeland.

Hell, as far as I can tell, there are only a couple of "regulars" in this
newsgroup who regularly practice with firearms.


Just like WWll, it's how many we have, not how good we are with them.

Eisboch



What an interesting comment.

jim wrote:
Boater wrote:
Eisboch wrote:
"Boater" wrote in message
...

The concept of individual citizens armed with small arms holding off
a huge invading army is an NRA wet dream. Americans aren't as tough
as Afghanis.


Based on what? Your left wing, elitist opinion that you present as a
"fact"?

History proves you wrong.

Eisboch


Based upon the fact that this isn't the 18th or 19th century, and that
any huge invading army is going to be equipped and organized as a huge
invading army. It's going to be up to our military to protect the
homeland.

Hell, as far as I can tell, there are only a couple of "regulars" in
this newsgroup who regularly practice with firearms.
Back in the day when you were needed in "our military" you didn't want
any part in it. Now you figure it's up to "our military" to watch out
for your sorry ass. WAFA
You are so far out in La La land it isn't funny.


We have an all-volunteer military. Its members signed up to defend the
homeland. It's their job. I help pay for it. Got it?

"Boater" wrote in message
...


Just like WWll, it's how many we have, not how good we are with them.

Eisboch

What an interesting comment.


Why, thank you.

Eisboch

"Boater" wrote in message
...
jim wrote:
Boater wrote:
Eisboch wrote:
"Boater" wrote in message
...

The concept of individual citizens armed with small arms holding off a
huge invading army is an NRA wet dream. Americans aren't as tough as
Afghanis.


Based on what? Your left wing, elitist opinion that you present as a
"fact"?

History proves you wrong.

Eisboch


Based upon the fact that this isn't the 18th or 19th century, and that
any huge invading army is going to be equipped and organized as a huge
invading army. It's going to be up to our military to protect the
homeland.

Hell, as far as I can tell, there are only a couple of "regulars" in
this newsgroup who regularly practice with firearms.
Back in the day when you were needed in "our military" you didn't want
any part in it. Now you figure it's up to "our military" to watch out for
your sorry ass. WAFA
You are so far out in La La land it isn't funny.


We have an all-volunteer military. Its members signed up to defend the
homeland. It's their job. I help pay for it. Got it?


Why do you pay for something you so much despise?

Eisboch

Boater wrote:
jim wrote:
Boater wrote:
Eisboch wrote:
"Boater" wrote in message
...

The concept of individual citizens armed with small arms holding
off a huge invading army is an NRA wet dream. Americans aren't as
tough as Afghanis.


Based on what? Your left wing, elitist opinion that you present as
a "fact"?

History proves you wrong.

Eisboch


Based upon the fact that this isn't the 18th or 19th century, and
that any huge invading army is going to be equipped and organized as
a huge invading army. It's going to be up to our military to protect
the homeland.

Hell, as far as I can tell, there are only a couple of "regulars" in
this newsgroup who regularly practice with firearms.
Back in the day when you were needed in "our military" you didn't want
any part in it. Now you figure it's up to "our military" to watch out
for your sorry ass. WAFA
You are so far out in La La land it isn't funny.


We have an all-volunteer military. Its members signed up to defend the
homeland. It's their job. I help pay for it. Got it?

I don't think I like your attitude. WAFA

Eisboch wrote:
"Boater" wrote in message
...
jim wrote:
Boater wrote:
Eisboch wrote:
"Boater" wrote in message
...

The concept of individual citizens armed with small arms holding off a
huge invading army is an NRA wet dream. Americans aren't as tough as
Afghanis.

Based on what? Your left wing, elitist opinion that you present as a
"fact"?

History proves you wrong.

Eisboch

Based upon the fact that this isn't the 18th or 19th century, and that
any huge invading army is going to be equipped and organized as a huge
invading army. It's going to be up to our military to protect the
homeland.

Hell, as far as I can tell, there are only a couple of "regulars" in
this newsgroup who regularly practice with firearms.
Back in the day when you were needed in "our military" you didn't want
any part in it. Now you figure it's up to "our military" to watch out for
your sorry ass. WAFA
You are so far out in La La land it isn't funny.

We have an all-volunteer military. Its members signed up to defend the
homeland. It's their job. I help pay for it. Got it?


Why do you pay for something you so much despise?

Eisboch





I don't "despise" the concept of having a military capable of defending
the homeland from foreign invasion, nor have I ever suggested that the
military be disbanded. I have very little respect for the *institution*
of "the military," and for various reasons I find good.

jim wrote:
Boater wrote:
jim wrote:
Boater wrote:
Eisboch wrote:
"Boater" wrote in message
...

The concept of individual citizens armed with small arms holding
off a huge invading army is an NRA wet dream. Americans aren't as
tough as Afghanis.


Based on what? Your left wing, elitist opinion that you present as
a "fact"?

History proves you wrong.

Eisboch


Based upon the fact that this isn't the 18th or 19th century, and
that any huge invading army is going to be equipped and organized as
a huge invading army. It's going to be up to our military to protect
the homeland.

Hell, as far as I can tell, there are only a couple of "regulars" in
this newsgroup who regularly practice with firearms.
Back in the day when you were needed in "our military" you didn't
want any part in it. Now you figure it's up to "our military" to
watch out for your sorry ass. WAFA
You are so far out in La La land it isn't funny.


We have an all-volunteer military. Its members signed up to defend the
homeland. It's their job. I help pay for it. Got it?

I don't think I like your attitude. WAFA


And that should matter to me?

"Boater" wrote in message
...
D.Duck wrote:
"Boater" wrote in message
...
Eisboch wrote:
"Boater" wrote in message
...

The concept of individual citizens armed with small arms holding off a
huge invading army is an NRA wet dream. Americans aren't as tough as
Afghanis.

Based on what? Your left wing, elitist opinion that you present as a
"fact"?

History proves you wrong.

Eisboch
Based upon the fact that this isn't the 18th or 19th century, and that
any huge invading army is going to be equipped and organized as a huge
invading army. It's going to be up to our military to protect the
homeland.

Hell, as far as I can tell, there are only a couple of "regulars" in
this newsgroup who regularly practice with firearms.

Maybe a lot of us don't brag about it.


And maybe you are full of schitt.

Could be, but you'll never know.

"WaIIy" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 25 Oct 2008 18:25:45 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote:


"Boater" wrote in message
...


The concept of individual citizens armed with small arms holding off a
huge invading army is an NRA wet dream. Americans aren't as tough as
Afghanis.


Based on what? Your left wing, elitist opinion that you present as a
"fact"?

History proves you wrong.

Eisboch


Let's see them try and take W. Virginia.

Just dole out the *shine* and turn 'em lose. 80

Boater wrote:
jim wrote:
Canuck57 wrote:
"BAR" wrote in message
...
Boater wrote:
jim wrote:
Boater wrote:
jim wrote:
Illinois State Rifle Association
I think the NRA offers worthwhile firearms safety programs for
youngsters and on occasion has been a meaningful proponent of
measures to preserve some of nature's amenities. Beyond that, I
have no use for the NRA or its over-the-top political posturing.
No comment on the substance of the letter, eh? Damned if you do.
Damned if you don't
My comment on the NRA's politics is right there for you to see. Are
you not able to understand a sentence that says:

"Beyond that, I have no use for the NRA or its over-the-top
political posturing."
The NRA protects your right to shoot up stumpy. Shooting up stumpy
does nothing to feed your family or protect your home.

Not directly.

But if someone comes into you home with intent on raping your wife or
daughter you will feel comfortable in using it not on the stump, but
the intruder.

I don't actually own a firearm, difficult to do legally in Canada.
Criminals have them, police have them. But honest people don't.
While death of criminals by firearms is down, they refuse to
acknowledge death by knives, bats, even 4x4s is higher.

Your best national defence is it's honest citizens being trained and
possession firearms. If 20,000 Chinese invaded Canada from BC they
would find very little resistance in taking Canada.

2,000,000 Chinese were to land in Portland Oregon and would not
likely make it past the Rockies if they got that far.

A major step in controlling people is to disarm them.


If Krause was allowed to speak freely he would have to agree with you.


The concept of individual citizens armed with small arms holding off a
huge invading army is an NRA wet dream. Americans aren't as tough as
Afghanis.


You seem to forget that we've done it before.