Quote:
Originally Posted by ikalugin
To explain my point - if anyone invades mainland US in such a way that locals would require to use their private arms, then I seriously doubt that there would be any issues with using persistent chemical agents or other such means which would essentially negate the armed population.
|
When it comes to private gun ownership these days it's rarely about resisting foreign invasions. It's usually the government is coming to put me in a FEMA camp, so I need my guns. Or they are going to ban all guns, so I need more guns.
A smart man once said to try to plan your life independent of who is elected to office. At least run your life in spite of who is elected.
A friend of mine followed this example. When President Obama was re-elected he bought 2,000 shares of Ruger stock. The stock skyrocketed. He sold half last May. He did not believe for a moment that President Obama was going to succeed in taking away the guns, just that enough other knee-jerk types did.
I can't help but admire his thinking and bank account.
