Once again your facts are wrong.. It seems to me that it is your custom to manufacture facts as it suites you. I am not "unarmed", nor am I defenseless. I have no idea (except maybe your imagination) where you got that information. You are a bit over confident if you think being armed necessarily means that you will survive. Of course you neglected to say what it was you were going to survive.. You can still lose armed with a gun in a knife fight.
Lee On 2/3/2013 9:53 AM, Ron Ristad wrote:
JS, I agree that those who are prepared to defend themselves will survive and prosper but history shows that the people who are murdered are the ones who are defenseless. So while you and I will probably survive, Stan, RG, Richard and Lee who are unarmed and defenseless are not going to fare as well. They'll likely be the first in line at the FEMA camp to get their free government assistance and "protection", LOL. -RR -----Original Message-----From: "schalestock@xxxxxxxx" <schalestock@xxxxxxxx> Sent: Feb 3, 2013 11:10 AM To: sparkscoffee@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Subject: [sparkscoffee] Re: Marxism: Enemy of monogamy and the nuclear fami ly RR I agree with you on the reason so many senior military officers are being dismissed. But I think you missed my point on combat experience. I think of it more as an existential experience that transcends training or even discipline. Facing someone who is trying to kill you is as about as real as life gets. It changes the way you think about everything, not the least of which is blind obedience. That was the point I was trying to make. JS"Any man who thinks he can be happy and prosperous by letting the government take care of him, better take a closer look at the American Indian." - Henry Ford
