tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4146148016062694502.post7419603878068553211..comments2024-01-05T12:03:52.460-05:00Comments on No Lawyers - Only Guns and Money: It's Not All Violence They OpposeJohn Richardsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03151468462458613615noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4146148016062694502.post-40360801622488491162012-10-28T10:40:59.511-04:002012-10-28T10:40:59.511-04:00Why do they feel threatened by ideas? Ideas are bu...Why do they feel threatened by ideas? Ideas are bulletproof.Sam Cnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4146148016062694502.post-27759695948524819822012-10-27T15:51:05.924-04:002012-10-27T15:51:05.924-04:00But...but... That is 'acceptable' violence...But...but... That is 'acceptable' violence, since THEY are the proponents!Old NFOhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16404197287935017147noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4146148016062694502.post-25861758472220001922012-10-27T15:49:43.346-04:002012-10-27T15:49:43.346-04:00That's implied but not explicit, right? Not t...That's implied but not explicit, right? Not that last century's experience convinces me of anything but that you're generally correct.<br /><br />One note: before you get too upset about the recent government purchases of ammo, please note these are <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IDIQ" rel="nofollow">Indefinite delivery/indefinite quantity</a> contracts. The big numbers specify the maximum number of rounds that can be bought, frequently over a 5 year period (DHS if I remember correctly), not that they're committing to anywhere near that number (the contracts also include minimums, but they tend to be very small, say enough to cover a company's overhead of a single transaction).<br /><br />I only looked at the Fish Police's procurement in detail and it was entirely reasonable. DHS's was mostly handgun ammo as I recall; if that memory is correct, it's not a sign of preparing for a civil war.ThatWouldBeTellinghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16910231314995266781noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4146148016062694502.post-50780104728416996172012-10-27T14:39:29.559-04:002012-10-27T14:39:29.559-04:00Another one out of the park, John. Kinda along th...Another one out of the park, John. Kinda along the same lines, I recently caught them acknowledging that when they demand a "government monopoly on violence," <a href="http://www.examiner.com/article/csgv-backs-government-right-to-political-violence-against-citizens" rel="nofollow">they're talking exclusively about <i>political</i> violence</a>. In other words, they back a government "right" to violence against citizens for espousing the "wrong" politics.Kurt '45superman' Hofmannhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14091930034162667742noreply@blogger.com