Originally posted by foodstamp

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul

Originally posted by TheAngryFarm
This article assumes the willingness of a large number of the military to turn their guns on American citizens, and in some cases their own relatives.

It would never happen.

threat of militias to inflict violence on others.

Really? Please elaborate. I've never heard of this..

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul

Originally posted by foodstamp

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul

Originally posted by TheAngryFarm
This article assumes the willingness of a large number of the military to turn their guns on American citizens, and in some cases their own relatives.

It would never happen.

threat of militias to inflict violence on others.

Really? Please elaborate. I've never heard of this..

Perhaps that is because you are just cherry picking the bits you like??

The full quite was the "IMPLIED threat of violence..."etc

Any group that is armed is armed for the purpose of using those arms if needs be - which is violence by definition.

Please try to:
1/ quote accurately, and
2/ deny ignorance rather than demonstrate it.

Originally posted by foodstamp

Ohh please! I wrote one damn line and somehow you manage you say I've misquoted you?

Being armed is an example of their implied violence? Lol. Why don't you take more than two minutes to elaborate on "Constant implied threat" then?

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul

Originally posted by foodstamp

Ohh please! I wrote one damn line and somehow you manage you say I've misquoted you?

Is there a rule saying a misquote has to be a certain minimum length??

Being armed is an example of their implied violence? Lol. Why don't you take more than two minutes to elaborate on "Constant implied threat" then?

Because 2 minutes is more than was required.

Sorry you don't understand how armed paramilitary groups carry an implication of violence.

edit on 18-11-2012 by Aloysius the Gaul because: (no reason given)