Veterans against the 2nd amendment. Check this out

[Lunyfringe]

He may not have had an English teacher help him write a speach, but it sounds pretty damn good to me.

from an idjit coffeeholic

I was with him until he talked about turning anything in... I guess CIP, CIP (conduct in private, comply in public... a phrase coined in Colorado after the universal BGC passed)

Best I'd comply is to turn in some stripped AR lowers (that's the firearm serial#'d part, so that's all they get)... and keep the rest as my property.

 

[TheMailMan]

Yeah, he's wrong about the part where some of us would meekly head to the police department to turn over our firearms.

 

[phoenix]

Couple things. First I bet most were liberals even before this issue. I would not be surprised if they are total lefties. A couple of them seem the type that joined not to serve, but could not do anything else and figured "free college". Notice they dont allow comments on the ad? Tammy duckworth is a veteran. I thank her for her service, but i would not call her a patriot.

 

[majormadmax]

He was speaking from the heart, and metaphorically about turning in his guns.

 

[TheDan]

Yeah, he's wrong about the part where some of us would meekly head to the police department to turn over our firearms.

Well "we" wouldn't, but a crap load of people would.

 

[phoenix]

Well "we" wouldn't, but a crap load of people would.

dont know how true this is but i think less than 12% of americans whipped the greatest army of the time in the british. I am sure many would but many more ( especially in Dixie) would not

 

[Lunyfringe]

dont know how true this is but i think less than 12% of americans whipped the greatest army of the time in the british. I am sure many would but many more ( especially in Dixie) would not

it was only 3% that actively took up arms... after that, IIRC, roughly 1/3 of the population supported them, 1/3 of the population were aligned with the Brits, and would report patriots to them, and 1/3 were uninvolved (wouldn't get involved with either side).

You will see groups that refer to this the III%, that is what they are referring to.

 

[343Gatter]

it was only 3% that actively took up arms... after that, IIRC, roughly 1/3 of the population supported them, 1/3 of the population were aligned with the Brits, and would report patriots to them, and 1/3 were uninvolved (wouldn't get involved with either side).

You will see groups that refer to this the III%, that is what they are referring to.

Most historians agree that the British gave up the war in the US because it wasn't economically viable anymore and preferred to focus on the eastern trade theatres instead.

Since the whole precursor to the war of independence was the fact that the Brits had protected the colonies from French expansion, then achieved this plus winning of vast amounts of French territories which was given to the colonies at the cost of the tax to repay the war the British had waged against the French expansion into British colonial territory (later US) in the first place. So the British decided the whole episode is a waste of money and if they even did pour the manpower and materials into the colonies to win against the colonials (Americans) it wasn't going to be profitable in the future anyway.

And the French, ruled by a King, were not exactly supplying and fighting for US independence because of some love of individual liberty, on account of France being an absolute monarchy, it was a proxy war not unlike the ones waged today, where the French benefited drastically and won back trade rights to the land they had lost from the British in the first place.

Unfortunately, like most wars in history and present, it was just another economic war under the veil of something more noble.



Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk

 

[Lunyfringe]

All of th

Most historians agree that the British gave up the war in the US because it wasn't economically viable anymore and preferred to focus on the eastern trade theatres instead.

Since the whole precursor to the war of independence was the fact that the Brits had protected the colonies from French expansion, then achieved this plus winning of vast amounts of French territories which was given to the colonies at the cost of the tax to repay the war the British had waged against the French expansion into British colonial territory (later US) in the first place. So the British decided the whole episode is a waste of money and if they even did pour the manpower and materials into the colonies to win against the colonials (Americans) it wasn't going to be profitable in the future anyway.

And the French, ruled by a King, were not exactly supplying and fighting for US independence because of some love of individual liberty, on account of France being an absolute monarchy, it was a proxy war not unlike the ones waged today, where the French benefited drastically and won back trade rights to the land they had lost from the British in the first place.

Unfortunately, like most wars in history and present, it was just another economic war under the veil of something more noble.



Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk

All of that Op-ed aside, 3% of the colonists took up arms and made it too much of a pain for the nation of Britian to tax them without representation and opress them as they have done to so many other "colonies" throughout the world.

 

[phoenix]

my point is that a small group can make a difference and after seing places like chicago, detroit and the state of california i would think more than 3% would be involved the next time.