Yes, wherever situations have the potential to become volatile.

And remember, soldiers await commands.

The date 9/11 should be a preparedness day.

Your comparison is ridiculous. It is you that started the "lecture" and did a really poor job of it. I won't try to lecture you about WWII because your comparisons are so warped, they represent a meaningless perspective. 100,000 "innocent" civilians? Every human on the island was working to defeat the Allies in WWII. Your use of the term is disgusting. Your hatred of America stands out.

You have a warped perspective of war. We were in total war with Japan when we firebombed Tokyo as retaliation for their sneak attack on Pearl Harbor. For years Japan had been killing thousands of Chinese and were mistreating and killing captured American soldiers from the Philippines. Japan refused to abide by the Geneva rules of war and treated everyone as sub-human. Their ally Germany, had V-2 bombed London extensively. The US attacks on Tokyo, Hiroshima, and Hiroshima ended World War II and it is estimated that it saved over a million lives over what would have happened if we would have invaded.

Maybe you should read a little history and you wouldn't make such invalid comparisons.

Richard Sawyer
Sott.net
Thu, 31 Jan 2013 05:51 CST

In absolute disregard for both the US Constitution and international law, US drones are currently killing civilians, including women and children1, in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, Uganda and the Philippines. Thousands have been killed, and tens of thousands more terrorized, by fleets of remote-controlled 'drone' aircraft.2

It is reported they have killed more non-combatant civilians than died in 9/11 (and that's just the 'official estimates').

i think spanking would do better...

Amnesty is just Barry's way of paying back to his voter base and supporting Corporate America.

Don't ya'll just love how Hussein and Corporations are so concerned about putting Americans to work?

One guess what party Illegals swing with?


Liberals. All liberals are supporting their agenda by supporting oBamby and Dems.
Ya'll asked for it. Now it's happening.
Like Barry told ya'll,

The sticking point of immigration reform is what to do with young adults who were small children when they accompanied their parents to the USA. Those children didn't have a choice when it came to moving with their parents.

A significantly large number of those young adults have become de facto naturalized citizens because they are fluent in English and are full participants in the culture of the USA. Plenty of them have no memory of the culture in which they were born.

Yep! Those of a veteran and patriot who values the constitution and loves his country, despises anyone who tries to harm her!

What list are you on?

It would be a deterrent, for an all out occupation (meaning it would be nearly impossible to actually take us over without an indefinite insurgent activity). The likelihood of said occupation would be very, very minuscule as a result of our nuclear weapons, so on that point we would agree completely.

In fact, the ownership of nukes would prevent nearly any full scale invasion for any country. Hostile take-overs today would be done by other means; either economic, or the takeover of political influence, etc. This brings us to an entirely different scenario.

#1. Economic takeover could leave a country broke, diminished welfare and social services leaving the public to fend for themselves for food, shelter, protection, etc. There public ownership of weapons would help to balance power.

#2. Political influence would obviously involve corruption of a system and manipulating policies toward the benefit of said nation. People can only be taken advantage of for so long before becoming angered. With a well armed populace you would have to keep things much more subtle as political powers could potentially be overthrown and even local police forces rendered useless when enough citizens revolt.

The above ties into the primary reason for not infringing on our second amendment. When a government becomes too corrupt, and i mean to the point of those speaking out suddenly disappearing and citizens on large scales being detained (in camps and such). In this case citizens can stop abductions (or at least have a chance to), and overthrow efforts to imprison towns/cities, etc.

Now, the government's weapons are much bigger, and more powerful, but the use of said weapons (for instance dropping a nuke on a revolting city), or large scale use of bombs/drones/etc. would be VERY tough to keep under wraps to other citizens, other countries, and even large amounts of our own military members would turn their backs on the powers that be saying "that's just F-ed up".

Again assault weapons would only aid such an effort on the above scale, but the government can be corrupted by any force, not just foreign military. Corporations, for example, banks have a HUGE influence on our government and its policies. Regardless of the force performing the takeover the result is ultimately the same... People will be taken advantage of progressively until it becomes enslavement. But people usually break, and get very angry before this occurs. The 2nd amendment ensures they have the power to direct that anger toward the enemy trying to enslave them.

That being said. The department of justice statistics and FBI records show that gun control has no impact on gun-related crime. This stands true for the Clinton era assault weapons bans, as well as on gun laws/revocation of said laws on major U.S. cities. This leads to me ask the very important question; "Why are they still trying to pass new restrictions?"

Apologies for the long-winded response.

Goodnight my bothers and sisters for now

The final signature has to be Hussein's.

Wouldn't attack the jackwad if he was about bettering our country.

You approve of killing babies? They are, by your own statement, basterd terrorists.