TexasCHLforum.com

dukalmighty wrote:I don't have anything that can "kill" a tank or a bradley

I'll bet you do.

jimlongley wrote:

dukalmighty wrote:I don't have anything that can "kill" a tank or a bradley

I'll bet you do.

Yep. Most everyone does. A "tactical kill" or "mobility kill" is just as effective as a big fireball and a molten puddle of aluminum.

tarkus wrote:

stevie_d_64 wrote:Not in the protection of our rights...Technically...

That's a civil viewpoint. The rules are different in war. For example, USAF bombers often use deadly force against people or property that's not an immediate threat to them or other Americans. Same with cruise missiles.

Don't we call that collateral damage???

Our nations military engagements in a conventional sense have become more and more surgical in the implementation of large conventional weaponry, (i.e. iron bombs and other sundry large destructive explosive devices), in the past, a target requiring large formations of bombers flying directly over the target and dropping ordinance (over a large area), we can now standoff of most targets and put a missle through an upstairs window, fly it down the hallway, knock on the door and go boom...And catch the replay on tape...

As individuals we are about in the same boat, yet our intent is personally protective in nature, and not requiring much more than our knowledge of the law in the use of deadly force, and not indiscriminately pray and spray (for lack of a better analogy)...Thats why we see and hear that it is preferred that we "reasonably determine" that force or deadly force is necessary to stop, and defend against, the imminent threat or the continuation of a deadly "criminal" attack on ourselves, or in some cases someone else...This, in my opinion is not a right given to us by government, it is a moral stance, and a serious judgement call, and it is a position that is sometimes only reluctantly recognized by certain parts of our government, and that is backed up with some wise words on a piece of valuable paper that they should be paying a little closer attention to...

That is why I believe that an unalienable right is an authority higher than any government, and that that government is obligated to recognize, and not infringe upon that right in anyway, shape or form...And that when that government decides to take the stance that the original poster of this thread brought up...I hope we never get to that point...

Thats when I disagreed with Stephan on the boundaries of where we should draw our line in the sand...It is my opinion that it is not the right we are defending, it is already there, and should not be regulated by some law of man...But should be recognized and championed by an elected body to a point that it should almost go unsaid that you have the moral right to defend yourself with any means necessary...

Our responsibility is to not allow it to get to that point, and do our part on election day...

There's a simple equation out there.

To defeat unconventional warriors (ie guerillas) you need at least 10 times as many conventional troops.

In South Africa, the British needed 500,000 men to wage war against the Boers who numbered about a tenth of that.

That means that if 4 million armed patriots made a stand, an oppressor would need 40 million troops to win. I don't know of any army with 40 million troops.

For a fictional account of how this might be possible:

http://www.amazon.com/Patriots-Survivin ... 156384155X

I don't know of any army with 40 million troops.

There are none. Iran has the largest with just over 12 million troops.

CHL/LEO wrote:

I don't know of any army with 40 million troops.

There are none. Iran has the largest with just over 12 million troops.

You are using the word "troops" loosely?

Anygunanywhere

You are using the word "troops" loosely?

They count them the same way it's just that the quality varies quite a bit from country to country.

Click here for more info.