babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics


Post New Topic  Post A Reply
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » right brain babble   » culture   » 'Invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity'

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: 'Invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity'
Snuckles
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2764

posted 26 September 2004 05:56 AM      Profile for Snuckles   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
'Invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity'

James Meek attends the world's first right-wing film festival

Friday September 24, 2004
The Guardian

If you are travelling to an event that bills itself as the world's first conservative film festival, it is prudent to do a little research in advance. The premise of the American Film Renaissance, held in Dallas recently, was that Hollywood is in the grip of a clique of anti-religious, gay-loving, gun-hating, foreigner-appeasing, left-wing degenerates who wilfully and foolishly fail to represent mainstream American opinion.
Cruising over the Atlantic on an American Airlines Boeing 777, en route to Dallas, seemed a good opportunity to test the theory, particularly since I had been seated squarely over the right wing of the aircraft. Films don't come any more Hollywood mainstream than the ones they put 20 inches in front of your face on big US airlines.


Read it here.


From: Hell | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
aRoused
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1962

posted 26 September 2004 07:04 AM      Profile for aRoused     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Ugh. And I'm only partway through the article. But I hit this, and had to come back here:

quote:
And could I name any films in which the Viet Cong were portrayed as villains? Well, there was The Deer Hunter, which won the Best Picture Oscar in 1978; in it, sweating, screaming, vicious North Vietnamese soldiers are shown dragging their US prisoners from rat-infested cages and forcing them to play Russian roulette. Hubbard hadn't seen it.

Didn't. Watch. Deerhunter. (sigh)


From: The King's Royal Burgh of Eoforwich | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 26 September 2004 08:26 AM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
I watched Innocents Betrayed, a collage of archive footage devoted to the proposition that laws restricting private gun ownership were responsible for the most notorious genocides and civilian massacres of the 20th century, including Turkey's massacre of the Armenians, Cambodia, Rwanda and the Nazi slaughter. Hitler's gun control laws came in for particular attention. "All over Europe, people resist the Nazis, except in Germany," the narrator intoned. The message of the film was so all-encompassing that I was surprised it didn't go for broke and argue that if Jesus had only owned a gun, he might still be alive today.


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Agent 204
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4668

posted 26 September 2004 10:33 AM      Profile for Agent 204   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
And did anyone catch this Ann Coulter quote?
quote:

"Suppose, for the sake of argument, this was a war just for oil," she told them. "We need oil. Why not go to war for oil?"


From: home of the Guess Who | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged
aRoused
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1962

posted 26 September 2004 10:43 AM      Profile for aRoused     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Yup. Although on a certain level, if that was the stated reason for the war, I'd support it more*. Why? Because at least the articulated reason for the war would be an honest one.

*'more' here in terms of 'twice small potatoes is still small potatoes'


From: The King's Royal Burgh of Eoforwich | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged
nonsuch
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1402

posted 26 September 2004 11:08 AM      Profile for nonsuch     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Hollywood hates guns?
From: coming and going | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
arborman
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4372

posted 26 September 2004 12:28 PM      Profile for arborman     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I've always thought that Hollywood's biggest weakness was its inability to grasp poverty. Poor single moms in $2K/mo apartments and SUVs. Starving artists in gorgeous lofts eating in restaurants. Students in supercool houses. Even homeless people dress well and have good taste (just no money).

The article was interesting. The festival sounds disturbing, and depressing. Let's not encourage them.


From: I'm a solipsist - isn't everyone? | Registered: Aug 2003  |  IP: Logged
Hinterland
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4014

posted 26 September 2004 12:55 PM      Profile for Hinterland        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
It's interesting to note that when you watch shows like America's Funniest Videos, you see people in considerably less confortable circumstances (...tacky sofas, porches with empty paint cans under them, etc....ie, real people) than Hollywood typically portrays. That kind of disconnect is a huge weakness in any kind of art, because it is disingenous.

Get a load of Michael Medved in that article. I have to say I've been witnessing that dweeb's unravelling from its inception.


From: Québec/Ontario | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
Vansterdam Kid
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5474

posted 26 September 2004 10:28 PM      Profile for Vansterdam Kid   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Well it would sure be intresting to see what sort of a movie Anne Coulter would make. I mean intresting in the car wreck sort of way, you don't want to watch -- but you can't look away. On second thought mabye it's best not to encourage them.
From: bleh.... | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
al-Qa'bong
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3807

posted 27 September 2004 01:44 AM      Profile for al-Qa'bong   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
And could I name any films in which the Viet Cong were portrayed as villains? Well, there was The Deer Hunter, which won the Best Picture Oscar in 1978; in it, sweating, screaming, vicious North Vietnamese soldiers are shown...

He still hasn't seen a film in which the Viet Cong are portrayed as villains. The NVA and Viet Cong are different organizations.


From: Saskatchistan | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
arborman
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4372

posted 27 September 2004 02:48 AM      Profile for arborman     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
[quibble]The Deerhunter didn't really draw much of a distinction...[/quibble]
From: I'm a solipsist - isn't everyone? | Registered: Aug 2003  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 27 September 2004 02:56 AM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
How about John Wayne in The Green Berets ?. Ho Chi Minh invited the Duke to film with an authentic back-drop. Wayne was furious.

And according to Hollywood, the VC/NVA's wore black pygama's and other militaristic uniforms. Of course they didn't and is partly why the average 19 year old American soldier couldn't ID the unseen enemy. So they were ordered to torch whole villages and slaughter women and children.
And like Iraq today, the American people were told that it wasn't Vietnamese nationals who were the insurgents against U.S. military presence.

They lied then, and they're lying now.


From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
voice of the damned
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6943

posted 27 September 2004 09:53 AM      Profile for voice of the damned     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I watched Innocents Betrayed, a collage of archive footage devoted to the proposition that laws restricting private gun ownership were responsible for the most notorious genocides and civilian massacres of the 20th century, including Turkey's massacre of the Armenians, Cambodia, Rwanda and the Nazi slaughter. Hitler's gun control laws came in for particular attention. "All over Europe, people resist the Nazis, except in Germany," the narrator intoned. The message of the film was so all-encompassing that I was surprised it didn't go for broke and argue that if Jesus had only owned a gun, he might still be alive today.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Well, a heavily armed populace is giving the US invaders a bit of a run for their money in Iraq right now. And I for one think that's a good thing.

I'm not quite ready to sign up for the NRA yet, but I do think that the "guns=freedom" formula is not quite as ludicrous as pacifistic leftists make it out to be.


From: Asia | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
aRoused
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1962

posted 27 September 2004 10:33 AM      Profile for aRoused     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Fair enough, but is the NRA's unofficial line not more in the direction of 'we need these guns to protect ourselves against government tyranny'? Second Amendment and all that, rather than as an additional bulwark against invasion..
From: The King's Royal Burgh of Eoforwich | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged
HalfAnHourLater
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4641

posted 27 September 2004 01:37 PM      Profile for HalfAnHourLater     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I watched Innocents Betrayed, a collage of archive footage devoted to the proposition that laws restricting private gun ownership were responsible for the most notorious genocides and civilian massacres of the 20th century, including Turkey's massacre of the Armenians, Cambodia, Rwanda and the Nazi slaughter. Hitler's gun control laws came in for particular attention. "All over Europe, people resist the Nazis, except in Germany," the narrator intoned. The message of the film was so all-encompassing that I was surprised it didn't go for broke and argue that if Jesus had only owned a gun, he might still be alive today.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

except of coursefor the 600 or so thousand who lost their lives defying the NAZi's; wihtout guns. Although they did try it with bombs in brief cases, etc.


From: So-so-so-solidarité! | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged
arborman
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4372

posted 27 September 2004 08:47 PM      Profile for arborman     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Fidel:
How about John Wayne in The Green Berets ?. Ho Chi Minh invited the Duke to film with an authentic back-drop. Wayne was furious.

Pine trees in Vietnam, now that was an exercise in realism.


From: I'm a solipsist - isn't everyone? | Registered: Aug 2003  |  IP: Logged
'lance
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1064

posted 27 September 2004 09:44 PM      Profile for 'lance     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
He still hasn't seen a film in which the Viet Cong are portrayed as villains. The NVA and Viet Cong are different organizations.

[quibble]

There was actually no such organization as the Viet Cong -- no such self-named organization, that is. "Viet Cong," meaning Vietnamese Communist, was just a scornful name applied in South Vietnam.

The military wing of the "Viet Cong" was the National Liberation Front, while the political wing was the People's Liberation Armed Forces.

[/quibble]


From: that enchanted place on the top of the Forest | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
voice of the damned
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6943

posted 28 September 2004 02:35 AM      Profile for voice of the damned     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Fair enough, but is the NRA's unofficial line not more in the direction of 'we need these guns to protect ourselves against government tyranny'? Second Amendment and all that, rather than as an additional bulwark against invasion..

That's probably an apt description of their position, yeah. But I think you could also apply the same logic to resisting an unprovoked foreign invasion(unprovoked foreign invasions, in my view, counting as a form of tyranny).

And I'm not some militia freak holed up in my bunker, either. In fact, I've fired a gun only once in my life, and am in no hurry to do so again. I just find it a bit curious that leftists bewail the presence of guns in their own societies, while at the same time championing overseas resistance groups whose effectiveness hinges on an armed populace.


From: Asia | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
voice of the damned
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6943

posted 28 September 2004 02:36 AM      Profile for voice of the damned     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by voice of the damned:
Fair enough, but is the NRA's unofficial line not more in the direction of 'we need these guns to protect ourselves against government tyranny'? Second Amendment and all that, rather than as an additional bulwark against invasion..

That's probably an apt description of their position, yeah. But I think you could also apply the same logic to resisting an unprovoked foreign invasion(unprovoked foreign invasions, in my view, counting as a form of tyranny).

And I'm not some militia freak holed up in my bunker, either. In fact, I've fired a gun only once in my life, and am in no hurry to do so again. I just find it a bit curious that leftists bewail the presence of guns in their own societies, while at the same time championing overseas resistance groups whose effectiveness hinges on an armed populace.



From: Asia | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
voice of the damned
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6943

posted 28 September 2004 02:38 AM      Profile for voice of the damned     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Sorry about that double post. I tried to make the first part of that post a quote, with no success obviously.
From: Asia | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
aRoused
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1962

posted 28 September 2004 06:19 AM      Profile for aRoused     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
I just find it a bit curious that leftists bewail the presence of guns in their own societies, while at the same time championing overseas resistance groups whose effectiveness hinges on an armed populace.

a) you're generalizing to a nigh-incredible extent.
b) those RPG's probably weren't licensed..

Look, if someone invades Canada and the cops and the CF, facing imminent defeat, throw open the armouries and say 'take what you want', and after that an effective citizen resistance movement starts up, great. (ponders for a minute how 'great' it would be if Canada got invaded--not very.)

At the moment, however, there simply isn't much use or need for an AK-47, or indeed a .38 Special, in downtown Toronto.

This is not the same as saying a farmer can't have a .30-03 in the house or that you can't go hunt deer or partridge.

Get that straight before you start in on the 'all leftists think thus and so'.


From: The King's Royal Burgh of Eoforwich | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged
voice of the damned
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6943

posted 28 September 2004 09:39 AM      Profile for voice of the damned     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Aroused:

First of all, I consider myself a leftist, so I'm sorry for omitting the word "some" in front of "leftists" when describing what some leftists believe. Now, on to your point.

Yes, a resistance movement could spring up if the police opened the armouries or what have you. But how successful would such a resistance be, do you think, if the citizenry wasn't already accustomed to owning and handling weaponry? My understanding(and someone can correct me it I'm wrong) is that many if not most Iraqis owned weapons prior to the US invasion.


From: Asia | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
No Yards
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4169

posted 28 September 2004 09:57 AM      Profile for No Yards   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
IF you live in a war zone, such as Iraq, Afghanistan, or the USA, then by all means, arm yourself . . . if on the other hand you are in a civilized country, an armed citizenry is not a priority.

The "right tool for the job", I don't rinse my dishes with a firehose, and I don't need a firearm to safely walk the streets of any Canadian city.


From: Defending traditional marriage since June 28, 2005 | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
voice of the damned
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6943

posted 28 September 2004 10:14 AM      Profile for voice of the damned     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
[/QUOTEThe "right tool for the job", I don't rinse my dishes with a firehose, and I don't need a firearm to safely walk the streets of any Canadian city. ][QUOTE]

But then, of course, how do you know when your peace-loving utopia is going to turn into a war zone?


From: Asia | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
Agent 204
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4668

posted 28 September 2004 10:51 AM      Profile for Agent 204   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
It is actually a pretty good question. My view, though, is that there are enough people in this country who are accustomed to owning guns to give Uncle Sam a run for his money if he ever comes after us. I don't think we need to encourage more city folk to carry guns.

That said, I've thought of going for my FAC myself- but it's not high on my priority list at the moment.


From: home of the Guess Who | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged
No Yards
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4169

posted 29 September 2004 10:55 AM      Profile for No Yards   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by voice of the damned:

But then, of course, how do you know when your peace-loving utopia is going to turn into a war zone?


When you are in a war zone I am told it is pretty obvious.

At that point you arm yourself . . . Oh, and I would worry about getting arms in a war zone. Seems there are more than enough fine enterprizing arms corporations that appreciate "democracy" enough to always make their services available whenever people decide that "violence" has become an "answer".


From: Defending traditional marriage since June 28, 2005 | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
voice of the damned
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6943

posted 29 September 2004 11:18 AM      Profile for voice of the damned     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by voice of the damned:

But then, of course, how do you know when your peace-loving utopia is going to turn into a war zone?


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

When you are in a war zone I am told it is pretty obvious.

At that point you arm yourself . . . Oh, and I would worry about getting arms in a war zone. Seems there are more than enough fine enterprizing arms corporations that appreciate "democracy" enough to always make their services available whenever people decide that "violence" has become an "answer".


Well, you've mis-stated my question slightly. I didn't ask how you know you are in a war zone, but how you know you're GOING TO be in one. Which does make a difference if we're discussing how good an idea it is to be armed during peace time.

As for your second paragraph:

Assuming you meant to say "wouldn't worry" in the second sentence: if this scenario we're discussing involved the US invading Canada, how likely is it that the Americans would allow international arms dealers(many of whom must be Americans) to waltz in and sell arms to the resisitance?


From: Asia | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
angrymonkey
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5769

posted 29 September 2004 01:57 PM      Profile for angrymonkey     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I don't think citizens with rifles etc is going to do much against the planes, helicopters and everything that goes with a modern army. Hmm Maybe we should all be training with rocket launchers. Or maybe seeing how our military isn't the strongest in the world we should plan to build a huge underground resistance movement until someone can save us. So we should be training people with espionage and terrorist techniques.
Anyone out there doing training with weapons because we might get invaded one day is a guy that I'd want someone else to have the key to his gun cabinet.

From: the cold | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged
Bacchus
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4722

posted 29 September 2004 05:33 PM      Profile for Bacchus     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Hmm Read "The Worlds most Dangerous Places 5th ed"
It tells you how to recognize if your paradise will be becoming a war zone

From: n/a | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
voice of the damned
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6943

posted 29 September 2004 11:57 PM      Profile for voice of the damned     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Anyone out there doing training with weapons because we might get invaded one day is a guy that I'd want someone else to have the key to his gun cabinet.

Sorry, mine's stashed away and NOBODY'S gettin' it off of me!!


From: Asia | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
A Nonny Moose
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7023

posted 04 October 2004 12:43 PM      Profile for A Nonny Moose   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Well, now that our friends to the south are armed with AK47's and other assault gear, maybe we should all consider an FAC here.

Anyway, the best defense against the Americans is to give them our politicians, then pull the rest of the population north of 60. If the black flies don't get 'em, the skeeters will.


From: Wasaga Beach, Ontario, Canada | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
Puetski Murder
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3790

posted 05 October 2004 09:15 AM      Profile for Puetski Murder     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
What is this hypothetical sudden war? The only hard and fast rule of international relations is that democracies don't fight each other. This rules out a huge portion of the combat-capable globe. Terrorists don't just shore up on our land and begin military-like attack maneuvres, they function with the element of surprise. Furthermore, the likelihood of civil war in advanced industrial nations is nil, so what do you need a gun for... ever?

quote:
George Bush: I have faith.

Laura Bush: We both do.

GB: I love you.

LB: And I love you.

GB: Amen.


omg. This is the funniest thing ever. Who says "Amen" when told "I love you"?


From: Toronto | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Crippled_Newsie
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7024

posted 05 October 2004 10:26 AM      Profile for Crippled_Newsie     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by arborman:

Pine trees in Vietnam, now that was an exercise in realism.


{QUIBBLE/] There are pines in the Central Highland s area of Vietnam, most notably on the hillsides near Dalat.

I don't remember if the Special Forces guys depicted in the Green Berets film were training Montagnards (one of their key missions at the time), but if so there could well have been pines, since they are hill tribe folks in the Central Highlands.[/QUIBBLE]


From: It's all about the thumpa thumpa. | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
arborman
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4372

posted 05 October 2004 09:33 PM      Profile for arborman     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Doh.

I've always been torn between the total lack of a good reason to own a gun at present, and the slight possibility that it would be a good idea in the event of a military coup or US invasion (face it, nobody else is going to invade us).

The Democratic peace theory works (so far), as long as everyone stays a democracy. If the US goes off the rails (appears to be a real possibility these days) all bets are off.

On the other hand, as others have noted, arms dealers seem to find ways to get guns into global hot spots. Canada is REALLY BIG. The US army can't seem to keep the borders of Iraq closed, ours would be impossible.

So how many dead teenagers in the streets are an appropriate sacrifice to ensure our safety in the event of a US invasion or military coup? Given the minimal likelihood of either, I'd say not many kids at all.


From: I'm a solipsist - isn't everyone? | Registered: Aug 2003  |  IP: Logged
No Yards
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4169

posted 05 October 2004 09:53 PM      Profile for No Yards   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by voice of the damned:

Well, you've mis-stated my question slightly. I didn't ask how you know you are in a war zone, but how you know you're GOING TO be in one. Which does make a difference if we're discussing how good an idea it is to be armed during peace time.


What's the issue? If you know you are going to be in a war zone then arm yourself beforehand . . . if you suddenly find yourself in a war zone, arm immediatly, or as soon as you can. The point still stands that you don't need arms in a "peace zone".

quote:

As for your second paragraph:

Assuming you meant to say "wouldn't worry" in the second sentence: if this scenario we're discussing involved the US invading Canada, how likely is it that the Americans would allow international arms dealers(many of whom must be Americans) to waltz in and sell arms to the resisitance?


It would be as unlikely that "the Americans" would allow international arms as it is that they allow such arms in any dispute they happen to be involved in . . . Do you have any examples where a country America goes to war against finds problems with getting their hands on arms? No? Didn't think so.


From: Defending traditional marriage since June 28, 2005 | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
voice of the damned
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6943

posted 08 October 2004 06:56 AM      Profile for voice of the damned     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Do you have any examples where a country America goes to war against finds problems with getting their hands on arms? No? Didn't think so.

No, but the question then becomes where did the resistance groups get their hands on weapons?

And considering that the first intifada in Israel was fought largely by Palestinians throwing rocks and bottles at heavily armed Israeli soldiers, it's probably not too far-fetched to imagine some resistance groups in some places having trouble acquiring or using guns in the abscence of an already armed or trained populace.


From: Asia | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca