Quote:
|
The haters of guns are the makers and facilitators of genocide -- or on the retail scale, murder and other savagery. The sacred principle of self-defense, which is inalienable, must in consequence of its sacredness never be messed with. Prohibiting it makes genocide possible -- and it's the most efficient way to make genocide possible.
|
Yeah man. It's the fucking pacifists who make the world dangerous. Bet that was the problem in Rwanda eh? People just didn't want to have weaponry. There just wasn't enough weaponry about to end the bloodshed. Mayube if they'd had a handful more machetes, just a sprinkling more of AK-47s, maybe then there'd have been a pleasanter outcome.
Generally speaking my country leaves its guns in the hands of the professionals. Occasionally that leads to an unnecessary and unjust death. It has never, and I don't believe it ever will, lead to a genocide at the hands of an armed state.
However much you guys arm, you will never and can never arm yourselves to the extent that your military can. Your guns may well protect you from armed robbers or intruders with ill intent. They may even cause any government who chose to commit genocide against any people within the USA some measure of concern and cost. But they wouldn't save you against the world's most advanced and well-funded military. An armed populace is no defence against genocide. It may, theoretically, be a defence against governmental oppression, inasmuch as it may make the cost of success rise too high to be paid. If the government wanted to conduct a war against its own people, and had military or vigilante support for that war, all the underground survival shelters and serried rows of tinned beans won't save them, and nor would hunting rifles, however loosely that term is applied.