What good is it for citizens to have guns when the Government has tanks?

I KNOW NOTHING ABOUT MILITARY STRATEGY.. THIS ARTICLE SEEMED VERY LOGICAL TO ME... WHAT DO YOU THINK?

This is a fairly common question, that deserves an answer.

How does a gun help against a rocket fired miles away, a drone or airplane flying overhead, or a massive tank driving through your house?...

The simple answer to the question is “assymetric warfare.” Smart fighters don’t put their troops in front of the enemy’s best weapons. They use their best troops against their enemy’s week points, and exploit those weak points mercilessly.

In the hypothetical event that the federal government attempted to impose tyranny upon the citizenry of the United States, it would likely trigger the largest insurgency that the modern world has ever known.

Despite all of our awesome technology, we stink at fighting insurgencies.

We lost in Vietnam. We won the conventional war against the Iraqi military easily, but we didn’t defeat the insurgency. We’re losing Afghanistan, and our leadership has no intention of fighting to win.

All of these insurgencies have been overseas, where the supply lines were long, but relatively well-protected. The producers and supply chain itself were never threatened.

In the event of an American insurgency, it wouldn’t be a straight-up fight of partisans with rifles fighting against regime tanks, helicopters, and drones.

It would be a war where “killing” a fighter jet occurs by assassinating aircraft mechanics, or burning the homes of employees of the companies that make crucial replacement parts. It would be a war where every elected official, government employee, and skilled worker in the supply chain would be a target, every day of their lives.

In short, it would be a nasty, brutish conflict full of atrocities with no battle lines, no rear areas, no retreat, and little chance for government forces to survive over the long term.

As long as the American public outguns the military—and they do by more than 90 million firearms—no sane government would dare turn on the American people. That is the reason it is so important for the citizenry to jealously guard their Second Amendment rights.

The consequences of free speech

On the heels of the joyous news that CNN is canning the Brit (Piers Morgan) another juicy tidbit comes out of Alex Baldwin.  He has had it.  Good-bye public life.  After the endless drivel that has come out of his mouth from public humiliation of his daughter that was recorded to the gay slurs he made in public just as his MSLSD show got underway, he is reaping a whole heap of consequences that most liberals pile onto Conservatives.

While he proclaims he was misunderstood about his gay bashing remarks he is trying to show the world at the same time he say's he is leaving it that he actually sympathizes with that lifestyle.  In an article in Vulture he explains the following:

"I flew to Hawaii recently to shoot a film, fresh on the heels of being labeled a homophobic bigot by Andrew Sullivan, Anderson Cooper, and others in the Gay Department of Justice. I wanted to speak with a gay-rights group that I had researched and admired, so I called its local Honolulu branch.
The office number turned out to be some guy’s cell phone. I left him a message—I said, “I’m from out of town, I’m visiting Hawaii on business, I’d like to  get some information on your group.” After two or three more calls, he answered the phone. I said, “Yeah, I’m the guy that called about your organization.” And he said, somewhat impatiently, “Okay, well, what did you want?” I said, “Well, let me put it to you this way, Nick. Your name is Nick? Nick, let me begin by asking you a question. Who would you say, by your estimation, is the most homophobic member of the entertainment industry currently in the media?” And he paused for a long count of four and said, “Um … Alec Baldwin?”

And I said, “Ding, ding, ding, ding! Bingo, Nick, bingo! That’s who you’re talking to.”

He said, “C’mon!”

I said, “Nick, I want to come in and talk.”

I met with Nick and others from two LGBT organizations. We talked for a while about the torment of the LGBT life many of them have lived while growing up in traditional Hawaiian families. Macho fathers. Religious mothers. We talked a lot about words and their power, especially in the lives of young people."

I thought that the last paragraph was indicative of the gay rights movements plan to shove their lifestyle down everyone's throats, including Alex's.

When the LGBT people talked about the torment of growing up in "tradition families" with "Macho Fathers" and "Religious Mothers" it laid open the truth.  Traditional families are under attack as "out of the mainstream".  Next is the effeminate males that liberals are hell bent on transforming through sensitivity indoctrination as well as drugging normal boys into submissive and plyant subjects utilizing Ritalin.  Finally, it wouldn't be a hat trick unless Religion was also the target.  It seems that the LGBT group thinks it is predominately women (mothers) to blame.  Talk about liberal "war on women".   
 

CNN announces Pier's Morgan cancellation

It appears that CNN has found some reasoned decision making and decided to pull the plug on the Brit rabble rouser Piers Morgan. 

According to Politico -- CNN President Jeff Zucker has decided to bring an end to Piers Morgan’s low-rated primetime show, network sources told POLITICO on Sunday. “Piers Morgan Live” could end as early as next month, though Morgan may stay with the network in another role.

Morgan, a former British tabloid editor, replaced Larry King in the 9 p.m. hour three years ago, prior to Zucker’s tenure as president. His show earned consistently low ratings, registering as few as 50,000 viewers in the 25-to-54 year-old demographic earlier this week.

“CNN confirms that Piers Morgan Live is ending,” Allison Gollust, head of CNN communications, told POLITICO on Sunday after an earlier version of this post was published. “The date of the final program is still to be determined."

It only took 3 years of low ratings to come to this decision.  Though CNN reports that his show earned consistently low ratings I think it should have been reported as "few as 50,000 viewers in the barely able to breath demographic".  The key here is that he "earned" his low ratings which is another fine example of the low bar set by Obama in the job performance arena.

According to the NY Times article, Morgan admits -- "It’s been a painful period and lately we have taken a bath in the ratings,” he said, adding that although there had been times when the show connected in terms of audience, slow news days were problematic."

Slow news days?  This is part and parcel of his earning.  In the 3 years he has opened his mouth all things liberal and carried Democrat water, the big news stories were always there and continue to be there.  CNN, MSMBC, NBC, CBS just refuse to report the actual news.  They create slow news days.