Moron

I said if the National Guard cannot maintain order, then an individual with a weapon won't be able to do much.

I said nothing about oppossing an occupying force.

That said, no guerrilla movement has been successful without a "traditional" army and material aid from outside sources. Guerrilla forces distract, delay, and demoralize the occupying force. By themselves they cannot defeat it.

Because the BEF (read almost the entire British Army) left almost all of its weapons in France.

 

Huh? That makes no sense, but whatever. Like I said, again, the citizenry had no weapons because the government made sure that their people were disarmed, just like today, nothings changed...

 

Quebec is a gimme gimme province.

 

Funny thing with war on drugs... criminals still have, get and sell drugs... you can ban or limit guns all you want, and it will be the criminal that will always find a way to get one. Yes we make a balance, don’t sell guns to kids, run background checks for known physical assault violators. But we definitely don’t go sneaking past law process like in Canada to decrease selection and increase the difficulty of gun ownership. The Virginia governor did this too during coronavirus, fast tracked new gun laws into place while the people were instructed to stay home, put masks on, and wait for more updates from the cult!!!!

remember, the founders of this country wrote gun ownership into the constitution for the citizens to be able to protect themselves against a tyrannical government. They JUST experienced that in England and never wanted that to happen here. But just like in Nazi Germany, they stripped the books, the guns, and defended their abuse with the mentality that “it’s for your safety” until... BOOM. To late

 

Can you point me to a source saying Churchill wanted to arm the citizenry? He did create the Aux units, but those were organized military units in civilian cloths.

Churchill did ask for small arms and ammunition following the fall of France. Britain needed them to re-equip the forces evacuated from Dunkirk.


The mujahadeen (sp?) were supported by the United States, Pakistan, Eygpt, and China. They supplied miliatry grade weapons including mortars, SAM and SSM. Absent this support the Red Army would have crushed the rebels - assuming the USSR wasn't falling apart from the inside. A generation later the USSR would have faced another revolt, and another, and another until the cost of holding the country was more than it was worth.

In Vietnam the Vietminh were supported by the USSR and North Vietnam. While using mainly guerilla tactucs they also fought regimental sized battles. It was these large battles that ultimately led to the withdrawal of US troops. The final collapse of the S. Vietnam Army was done by conventional forces.

On the other hand you have the Basque separatists - no outside support, no formal miliatry force. Do they have their own country?

 

Not even worth the debate hahaha.

 

This was told to me years ago by my father, along with a good friend, both who lived it, served in the U.S. Army, and are both now deceased.

Without researching it further, right now, I cannot point to a source that verifies that Churchill requested small arms from the U.S. specifically for it's citizenry to defend themselves with against an imminent Nazi invasion; however, it stands to reason that it is strongly doubtful that Churchill intended for the arms to be only used by a depleted military. That makes no sense. I mean come on now, think about it, your country is about to be overrun by an overwhelming enemy force. What do think would happen, do we try to supply arms to every man & woman to defend themselves, or do we simply tell them to hide in the basement and wait to surrender.

Personally, I don't own an AR or an AK. Why, because at this time I don't have a need for one. Maybe some day though I will. A gun to me is no different than any other tool I own. Each has a purpose. Our 2nd A guarantees my right, and yours, to have small arms to defend my family, myself, and my country. This right has been deemed a personal right, not a collective one, as evidenced by multiple SCOTUS decisions in recent years and rightfully so.

Personally, I have no problems with a background check. Most can agree that no one wants criminals and mental defects from easily obtaining firearms; however, common sense dictates that they will still get them somehow.

I'll leave you with these two questions though. Why is it that the same people who demand that criminals and mental defects be coddled and not locked up are the same people who demand that law abiding citizenry be disarmed and thus unable to defend themselves against the criminals & mental defects? Why is it that the same politicians & celebrity's that want to disarm law abiding folks have themselves surrounded by a security force armed with full auto weaponry?

Laws for thee, but not for me, what hypocrisy...

 

You and I think alike. Prison should not be a free ride. You wanna eat tonight? Get out there and dig ditches in the hot sun for 8 hours a day.

 

I did a cursory search regarding you asking me to point you to a source that corroborates what I was saying regarding the U.S. sending private arms to England to arm their citizenry during WW 2. Well, here you go....

https://www.quora.com/Why-did-England-have-to-borrow-firearms-from-US-citizens-during-WWII