Search results

  1. Lark

    Stun Guns: Dangerous and Unusual?

    As I’ve said, I don’t want to take away all your guns.  I want to limit the ability of a wacko to stream bullets into a crowd.  Failure to compromise may mean no guns.   Can you imagine a scenario where seven or eight countries team up to overwhelm the US military, but run away from my local...
  2. Lark

    Stun Guns: Dangerous and Unusual?

    I was considering a failure of the “Democratic experiment” and replacement with a true banana Repbublic, or Stalinist revolution.   When it comes to civil unrest, I am paranoid of too much success.   The labor strikes of the last century worked partially because the elite was scared of the...
  3. Lark

    Stun Guns: Dangerous and Unusual?

    The US military could take on Russia, China, Saudi Arabia and France simultaneously.    Nothing would help a fringe group hiding in the hills survive the wrath of the federal government.   It really doesn't matter if the navy cannot dodge a tanker, unless your militia has an squadron of...
  4. Lark

    Stun Guns: Dangerous and Unusual?

    If you are going to move my thoughts to this thread.    Here’s one.    You can’t have it both ways Tom.   Either we need a militia capable of stopping a military incursion, or we can revert to what the framers knew about (muzzle loaders).   The second makes no sense as implemented and needs to...
  5. Lark

    Stun Guns: Dangerous and Unusual?

    How can you have a well regulated militia if denied basic defensive weapons against a hostile military?    I suppose the citizen militias are allowed no defense against enemy tanks with reactive armor either?    
Top