You are not signed on; if you are a visitor please register for a free account!
|The Market Ticker Single Post Display (Show in context)||
User: Not logged on
|User Info||All Gun-Banners MUST Be Forced To Answer This; entered at 2018-04-09 19:53:12|
With regard to a targeted population, whether fingered via open declaration or facing but a hypothetical threat of same, can there exist ANY better form of insurance against that population's falling victim to state-sponsored genocide other than widely dispersed and diffuse ownership of weapons (or even access to weaponry) within that population? Is it necessary to add that this form of insurance has a proven--spectacular even--track record of effectiveness, e.g. of paying off on claims, even in advance of actual filings therefor? How many examples does history provide us in which weapons in the hands of ideologically-stigmatized outcasts has failed to prevent an intentional mass liquidation? Whats wrong with bringing this curiosity to the attention of leftist emotionaloids (and in precisely these terms)?