tenboorses
110340
2199
192
Nov 21, 2018 10:31 PM
tenboorses
110340
2199
192
Bongedagain
NEALSMO
context of that quote- https://www.npr.org/2015/03/02/390245038/ben-franklins-famous-liberty-safety-quote-lost-its-context-in-21st-century
user31337
This is why context is important Franklin said this about taxes not personal liberties it is stupid to apply it to every situation
FreddyBarnsniffer
It’s not like any of us voted for the patriot act or any other injustice. All we get to do is pick who is going to screw us
Boopadasnoot
This perspective is why some people don't vote. Good or bad, it makes sense to me
IUpvoteLOTRMemes
It's not who casts the votes, It's who counts them.
starlord56
Voted by both Democrats and republicans in a massive bi-partisan movement. Same with the Iraq and Afgan wars both Bi-partisan movements
allahkirby
imgur hates historical facts.
starlord56
I know, especially if it is different than what they believe.
hardytardigrade
That quote is horribly abused. Franklin was talking about the "liberty" of the government to tax. It has nothing to do with personal freedom
hardytardigrade
https://www.npr.org/2015/03/02/390245038/ben-franklins-famous-liberty-safety-quote-lost-its-context-in-21st-century
hardytardigrade
And if you think about it, there's no way to add security without sacrificing liberty. Even laws against murder limit your liberty to kill.
DrFolk
Murder or death! Murder or Death!
PapaPapaBear
Also, that's not the quote. That version is fuckng ridiculous. Society, by definition is a sacrifice of liberty for safety. I give up.../
PapaPapaBear
... the liberty to kill people and in return I get the protection of society. The actual quote is "Those who would sacrifice essential.../
PapaPapaBear
... liberty for temporary safety, deserve neither".
Achaian
Thank you for bothering to put the correct thing out there.
txtmylife
Oh you and your facts and accuracy and truth and stuff and things.
PapaPapaBear
I KNOW, I'm the fucking worst!
live2thrill
Giving up liberty for security is like the entire point of being in a tribe. Instead of doing your own thing you follow the tribes rules 1/?
Imafishwithlegs
where does it stop? when does the price of security become too high, how long until we trade all of our liberty for complete security
live2thrill
For your own protection from other tribes that might harm you. Obviously there's a line somewhere but its not really clear where 2/2
BDF1838
Did you miss the word 'false' in the OP's pic?
dbjpresto
In America it's pretty clear. Individual rights outweigh commune perceptions and concepts of rights. Murica.
CigaretteMan
Hence why the quote specifies 'essential' liberty and 'a little temporary safety', but the anarchists like to drop those parts
caustickiwii
Anarchists and libertarians both.
Stagracker
Yes but we live in a society not a hive mind tribe where individualism is supposed to come before all else. That is liberty before security
Stagracker
Giving up liberty for security is how communism functions; where everyone has a working role in the system but not a free choice about it
TheFinalCountdown09
None of you asshats know anything about giving up liberty.
live2thrill
That would make more sense. Thank you
SirBrendan
Yo, anarchist here to promise you that we don't quote Benjamin Franklin let alone misquote him.
HappyAnarchist
Yeah, it's not the anarchists - it's the GOP and Libertarians.
BenSnow97
You don't run my life
CigaretteMan
Good to know that you speak for all the varieties of anarchists out there
SirBrendan
That's hardly fair. Maoists don't quote Reagan. Liberalism and anarchism are opposing ideas, so to quote a founder would be strange
ghsdkgb
Well they sound like a group that has very strict rules they all follow
LuckyMan9
That's the deal. It's what civilization is founded on. Comfort has a high price when dealing with the Devil, Jack.
snowglobejobe
I wonder how many people realize that the concept goes for economic freedom as well.
snowglobejobe
Economic freedom
TorrentialUpPour
Personal economic freedom? Yes. Corporate economic freedom? No.
getotterhere
Hail Hydra!!
HahWat
I wanted to see memes not get an existential crisis...
MadMupp
OopsImAPumpkin
Fuck off with this fearmongering. Security and Liberty is a balancing act. One is not infinitely better than the other.
Mayokopp
Oh well good thing this isn't vague at all
TheFriendliestGiant
Did you have a specific instance in mind, here?
Extraonteside
The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing. Defend the 2nd Amendment.
Thesimpleman
Prohibition, Jap internment, red scare, patriot act, gun control, Muslim ban...It's never worked. Liberty is the lifeblood of man. Never >
Thesimpleman
Never give her up. It took mankind MILLENNIA to crawl it's way from the darkness and tyranny and embrace the virtues of individual liberty>
Thesimpleman
Justice, inalienable rights, freedom to speak freely, etc. But the dark shadow of tyranny and oppression still lurks in the hearts of men>
Thesimpleman
Those that seek to oppress, and those who would willingly give up freedom. Never take the enlightenment of our modern age for granted
Slasher2977
Accurate. This is why I will always support the second amendment.
AmazinglyCoolNameHere
What an american thing to say. Praise an inaccurate misquote for its accuracy then thump your gun love. Yee fucking haw, modern America.
hardytardigrade
Not accurate. Not what Franklin was saying, either. There's no way I can think of to increase security without sacrificing liberty. Can you?
Slasher2977
And oppose gun bans and extreme gun control.
thanatos777
Me, too; being terrified to go anywhere that doesn't have armed guards is definitely an essential liberty.
superlite27
Except, if you're armed, there's nowhere to go that won't have an armed guard.
Cheomesh
Plan on standing up for any of the others or are you one of the easily placated types?
PapaNurgleLovesYou
What does "reasonable" or non"extreme" gun control look like for you?
RandomActOfConfusion
People who are responsible, law abiding adults should be allowed to purchase a firearm without issue. The problem is that you see things...
RandomActOfConfusion
like assault weapons bans being proposed. The truth is handguns are used almost 10x more than all rifles combined, from bolt actions to ar15
RandomActOfConfusion
But things like the AR15 look scary so they make a good target for anti gun legislation. An M1 Garrand is much more lethal than an AR.
Slasher2977
California is ridiculous. Background checks I’ll agree to, and mentally ill individuals should not be allowed. But nothing beyond that.
TheFriendliestGiant
No issue with convicted felons owning firearms?
TheDuke0fHazzard
I like background checks, but I don't see how universal checks are enforceable without a firearm registry
Slasher2977
I will never support a registry. It makes it easy for the government doorkickers. History shows this. The nazis started a registry,
Slasher2977
So they knew who had what. A registry was used during Katrina, when doorkickers confiscated weapons. Fuck that.
CowboyScientist
*one very particular interpretation of the 2nd Amendment, which describes a well-regulated militia.
TorrentialUpPour
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller
benayises
People had privately owned warships back then dude
Slasher2977
Not just that, you can’t cherry pick what you what bud.
TheOnlySon
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, 1/2
TheOnlySon
2/2shall not be infringed." Cherry pick what now?
TorrentialUpPour
You're cherry picking the definition that the supreme court has actively ruled against. That cherry picking.
ThatJerkYouKnow
Unpopular Opinion Puffin: People like to talk shit about ‘giving up liberties,’ but there’s a reason why it’s illegal to shout fire in a—
ThatJerkYouKnow
public place. You go to jail for that, because you don’t have the unmitigated liberty to say exactly what you want, when you want.—
ThatJerkYouKnow
All of that for the sake of public safety. Be edgy all you want, but there are literally thousands of things that you are not ALLOWED to do-
ThatJerkYouKnow
because society decided to “take away your liberties” for safety reasons. /Changemymind
GuyDarras
(3) is regarded as worthless for adequately describing the limits of rights, as it can be used metaphorically against almost anything.
GuyDarras
(2) a man with espionage for distributing pamphlets opposing the draft during WWI. It's considered one of the worst SC rulings and the quote
GuyDarras
"Can't shout fire in a crowded theatre" is a quote that originated from a 1919 case in which the SCOTUS upheld the Government convicting (1)
ThatJerkYouKnow
I don’t know anything about theaters or what have you, I wasn’t trying to quote anybody. I’m stating that there are TONS of “liberties” that
Thesimpleman
Prohibition, Jap internment, the red scare, gun control, war on drugs, patriot act, Muslim ban...It's never worked. For the love of God ->
Thesimpleman
It took mankind MILLENNIA to crawl it's way from the darkness and tyranny and embrace the virtues of individual liberty, justice, freedom ->
lthead
B-but they told me there's a CARAVAN of bad MS-13 hombres coming!
Bsher
I, as a citizen, give up my liberty to drive on the wrong side of the road, in exchange for a sense that others won’t either.
VinerialBlumpkin11
It is just a good example of how we trust total strangers with our lives, but apply to any other inanimate object & people lose their minds.
thecolonels
That is true. It isn't a black and white statement, although im sure we can think of thousands of cases where it stands.
pizzapartyhard
The whole concept of a social contract is based upon giving up freedom for security.
pizzapartyhard
More and more, I see people complaining, wanting all the benefits if living in a governed society w/o making any of the sacrifices.
VinerialBlumpkin11
No, you see people who think we are too governed and have made too many sacrifices.
pizzapartyhard
I’m talking about people complaining about their taxes going to public schools because their kids don’t go there.
thistakestoolong
It is both. People want to blanket things because its easier, and people are inherently lazy. Context and situation are key. I could go on
thistakestoolong
Buuuuuuuuuut 140 character max.
Positivityx10k
Following the "rules of the road" is much different than creating laws to decide where, when, and who you are with when you are driving.
AmazinglyCoolNameHere
It's not.In reality many liberties are already surrendered for a functional society.The only good argument is for the line,not "muh liberty"
TheFinalCountdown09
What liberties have you surrendered?
TheDuke0fHazzard
In NJ, I had to give up my 15 round magazines, violating the 2nd and 5th Amendments. And don't get me started on government surveillance.
inboxmefoxes
You are constitutionally entitled to a front-loading musket for the purposes of participating in a well-regulated militia.
SirHarryBlackstoneCopperfieldDresdenKnightoftheWinterCourt
4 J. Tiffany, A Treatise on Government and Constitutional Law §585, p. 394 (1867)
snakebill
And your entitled to free speech that doesn’t include the internet
SirHarryBlackstoneCopperfieldDresdenKnightoftheWinterCourt
2 but rather announces a purpose. The Amendment could be rephrased, “Because a well regulated Militia is necessary to the security
SirHarryBlackstoneCopperfieldDresdenKnightoftheWinterCourt
2nd amendment is divided into two parts: its prefatory clause and its operative clause. The former doesn’t limit the latter grammatically 1
Cheomesh
It just says "arms".
TheDuke0fHazzard
And the 1st Amendment only applies to parchment and quill pens, right? That's a fundamental misunderstanding of the 2nd Amendment
inboxmefoxes
And believing that having your ammunition regulated somehow violates due process is a fundamental misunderstanding of the 5th. Big whoop.
TheDuke0fHazzard
"No person shall... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." I have been deprived of my property.
SirHarryBlackstoneCopperfieldDresdenKnightoftheWinterCourt
3 of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.
DrFolk
No the right to bare arms shall not be infringed. That means limited. The point of the 2nd amendment was to keep a state free from
DrFolk
Government overreach. How are we supposed to keep a government in check if we have a single round bolt rifle vs fully automatic weapons?
TheFriendliestGiant
Given that armed Americans have never voluntarily kept oppressive and abusive governments in check, it hardly seems worth worrying about.
inboxmefoxes
The very idea of keeping a modern first world government in check via private citizens with guns is absurd to the nth degree.
TheFinalCountdown09
Oh god! 15 round magazine! The humanity. How do you live so oppressed?
Arnoxthe1
You really think the next school shooter's just gonna stop because "Oh whoops, they banned 15+ round mags. Guess I can't shoot anyone now!"
Arnoxthe1
"Bamboozled again!"
TheFinalCountdown09
What would stop the next school shooter?
snakebill
Not the point. Pretty sure you have to be registered in NJ. And they make exemptions for cops.
TheFinalCountdown09
What is the point then?
snakebill
If you’re legally registered and following the law, why make those restrictions, and then make exception for other citizens?
TheDuke0fHazzard
No firearm registration per se, but we need licenses. And the "over 15 round" cop exemption was terminated with the new mag capacity law.
Arnoxthe1
Having 15+ round mags may not be an essential liberty, but this law is fucking stupid and just brings that much closer to total gun control.
IUpvoteLOTRMemes
Its a slow process, but thats the goal. As for me, they can take them off my corpse after they kill me.
TheFinalCountdown09
You know if you guys would have any solution to the problem it would help your cause
Arnoxthe1
Ironically, letting people freely open carry everywhere would help massively.
TheDuke0fHazzard
So depriving me of my property without due process is not a constitutional violation?
TheFinalCountdown09
Well where in the constitution does it say you have a right to 15 round magazine's?
rob98000
The arms part, by that logic I have the right to own a nuke.
TheDuke0fHazzard
"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." 2nd Amendment
Cheomesh
Doesn't say I have a right to shoes, either.
TheDuke0fHazzard
"No person shall... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." 5th Amendment
IUpvoteLOTRMemes
I take it you've never read it?
NASAguy
Does anyone even research quotes before spouting off?! I mean it's not about what you think it's about. So read up folks!
hardytardigrade
Thank you, this quote REALLY needs to be understood. The popular interpretation doesn't even make any sense.
Pr0blemWrecker
It's true that most people don't know the context that this quote comes from. But that doesn't mean that the statement doesn't make sense.
hardytardigrade
You're right, the fact that it doesn't make sense is technically a separate issue. But it also doesn't make sense.
Pr0blemWrecker
Does that mean that the sentiment is any less correct?
hardytardigrade
Absolutely. The idea that you can increase security without affecting liberty doesn't hold up to even the most basic examination.
HappyAnarchist
Yes. The misquote is actually extremely critical. Sacrificing no liberty is tyranny of the strong. Some liberty is sacrificed in all
HappyAnarchist
societies for security, and must be. That is why the original quote is essential liberty for temporary security. Critical difference.
Pr0blemWrecker
I like the way you've put it. I think that it comes down to a question of degrees.( Ei There end up being diminishing returns)
Ullala
Yes, it does. People are incorrectly attaching the sentiment to a founding father to add credibility. And there are people who eat up...
NASAguy
Fantastic. Well said. Now. I have to say I like the sentiment that people feel. Surrendering personal freedom is never the answer.
ThomasMontgomeryHaverford
Damn right! Tyranny reigns until I am free to yell fire in a theater, discriminate against coloreds, and beat my wife. Freedom is absolute.
GriffinMann41
So there should be no laws. Got it.
Ullala
... anything if you attached names like Benjamin Franklin to it.
Pr0blemWrecker
Well he did say it... So it's not like it's misattributed. Its just that the larger context isn't what most people think it is.
Ullala
Well yeah, but its out of context. So, not misattributed, but misused
TheDevilBeatJohnny
Considering the sentiment is a childlike platitude that precludes any rational discussion with its zealous adherents, yes. Yes it does.
Pr0blemWrecker
No, you threw out an ad hominem. So is your problem with the idea or the people who have said it to you?
TheDevilBeatJohnny
I thought declaring it as a childlike platitude would answer that. Guess not.
97thstep
Childlike platitude? Simply put does not take away depth or significance. The golden rule is simple but meaningful.
TheFriendliestGiant
This quote has neither depth nor significance on its own. What is "essential liberty"? What is "temporary security"? Neither are defined.
97thstep
Would you dismiss any argument because you don't have all terms well defined (with context)? Bonus points for going to the language of 1/
TheDevilBeatJohnny
When it by its very nature precludes discussion of nuance within it, it is not simplistic. It is simple. 1/
TheDevilBeatJohnny
People don’t polarize over the Golden Rule. 2/2
97thstep
I would say the lively commentary demonstrates a discussion (if limited by format) of nuance. Where's the prohibition of discussion in it?
Slasher2977
The sentiment is still solid. Sod off knob
TheFriendliestGiant
Is it? Quick, define an "essential liberty"!
SuperDramaticFusion
Care to enlighten the rest of the class?
NASAguy
Yep. Search Ben Franklin, Liberty, security, quote, origin in your favorite search engine.
SuperDramaticFusion
sleeek
Comin from the guy with Never A Straight Answer in his name lul
rob98000
Oh god it's a flat earther
sleeek
Dont label me clown
cogitoro
Fun fact: Benjamin Franklin was telling off a group of people who didn't want their taxes increased in order to fund a state militia.
cogitoro
The original quote was "those who would give up essential Liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
cogitoro
In other words, "if you would give up the liberty afforded to you by national security just to have a little extra cash to buy guns, then"1/
cogitoro
"then you deserve neither the liberty of national security nor the temporary safety those guns would have bought you."
cogitoro
His quote was actually saying the opposite of how most people use it. He was saying you should value the liberty of national security.
humaneffigy
then he went on a trip to screw parisian whoores.
Thesimpleman
Not that I don't believe you, but that kind of seems like a goal that is opposite the message of the quote. Source please? (No disrespect)
tori910
Here is an NPR article that talks about it. https://www.npr.org/2015/03/02/390245038/ben-franklins-famous-liberty-safety-quote-lost-its-cont
Thesimpleman
Thanks
Thesimpleman
Very interesting, never knew that!
reykjavikparadise
Kinda defeats the purpose of this post
whodat54321
been that way since 9/11
glassweaver
Ooohhh, someone doesn't remember McCarthyism.
GotDamnLochnessMonster
December 31st 1913 Creation of the federal reserve. 1914, WWI which was 90% unfavored by citizens. 1929 The Fed crashes markets leading to..
nateglen350
Ding, ding, ding , we have a winner.
GotDamnLochnessMonster
The 1931 executive order demanding citizens turn gold bullion into federal reserve banks. The pearl harbor attacks were allowed to bring the
GotDamnLochnessMonster
United states into WWII. In 1963 JFK warned of a sinister plot by the military industrial complex and attempted to contain the fed.
GotDamnLochnessMonster
9/11 was likely a planned byproduct of this shadow government which maintains a constant state of war for profit. The U.S. Government fell
GotDamnLochnessMonster
In 1913, marked by the first federal income tax paid to a private bank. We were founded on 'No taxation without representation', now we pay
Exousa
The terrorists won. Just not the way they thought.
Thefirstargonaut
Things sure did change then.
91step
What is liberty though, the concept of it/freedom has been redefined Over and over with each generations govt role changing its place
[deleted]
[deleted]
CaldariBob
Очень хорошо, товарищ. Они ничего не подозревают.
MargeauxPotter
This means nothing to anybody.
CaldariBob
Вы ничего не можете доказать, товарищ.
Wor3q
Yeah, better spend that money bombing a foreign country...
MotherFukaJonez
Patriot Act
THRAWN18
So.......9/11
Maximilionaire
Alien and sedition acts of 1798
tanebou
It's called "The Patriot Act" for a reason. People hear "Patriot" and immediately ignore everything else.
antoonz
"Patriot Act, Patriot Act!" -Alec Baldwin
EvilDeadTed
covact
America! Fuck yeah!
VinerialBlumpkin11
Just like the affordable healthcare act made healthcare way more expensive & firearm owners protection act made classes of guns illegal.
DoktorWyvern
And also gave owners a number of protections, like allowing transport of federally legal guns through states which ban them. But fuck truth.
VinerialBlumpkin11
Which doesn't actually deter states from prosecuting people who do so in the least, but fuck truth.
ScrooblyDoobles
ACA didn’t make healthcare way more expensive. The cost of healthcare has been exploding since the 90s.
VinerialBlumpkin11
It did, yes healthcare was on rise, but aca capped profits at certain % of revenue which made insurers have to increase costs across the
VinerialBlumpkin11
The board to maintain dividend rates of the shareholders. Guess who is paying for those increases? Aca was a giant pile of garbage with a
VinerialBlumpkin11
Handful of good changes.
railgap
If it's patriotic, how can it be bad?
FailedCrate
As a german European, learn from history. Patriotism is the same tool as nationalism. Many will say it's different, in the end it's still...
FailedCrate
.."they against us". What we need to aim for is solidarity & equality.
MotherFukaJonez
reykjavikparadise
India did the same thing in 1962
iliveindiarrhea
Pretty good Netflix show though
DougDeNasty
Turn in your guns or we will nuke you.... how the DNC thinks they can be funny.
CaldariBob
Очень хорошо, товарищ. Сегодня вы сделали свою квоту.
DougDeNasty
Well, from the down votes.. we found the DNC folks. GOOGLE "Eric Swalwell The government has nukes. Too many of them. But they’re legit."
tanebou
I know the story, and he was an idiot for using the analogy, but it's not really pertinent to what we're talking about here.
DougDeNasty
+1 vote for you you stating your opinion. However the short texts of this forum mean context is subjective. o7
JustSomeGuyNamedScott
Ignoring things like the fact that it hasn't been in effe t for years?
JustSomeGuyNamedScott
Effect
TheDuke0fHazzard
Parts of it have been kept and extended, and it's had a lasting effect on the disintegration of Constitutional rights
Jarjarthejedi
It never stopped being in effect. It was just re-branded the USA Freedom Act to ditch the bad name and is still active.
hamburgerhelp3r
Whats The La Li Lu Le Lo Act?
Poopoopeepeevagina
It’s one of those “if you don’t like it then you must want the terrorists to win” kind of thing.
Cheomesh
And that is exactly the feedback I got then.
Klingon00
Don’t you know that secret courts are patriotic in the land of the free?
dennydorko
Full name: "Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001"
Goldmarble
No. Read "Patriot", then discard it and read the rest. "The Act"
BenSnow97
Sounds like the NFL
icculus760
It's called "The Patriot" what? I stopped reading
RoncoSnackWeasel3001
Cheomesh
Freedom Fries
MandaloreIncognito
Wrong Mel Gibson movie.
RoncoSnackWeasel3001
You got it!
Cheomesh
Exactly.
dangerousDoc
Now the left cries out for safe spaces until they themselves are censored
TheMostSolidSnake
I thought we all agreed to call safe spaces "mar a lago" now. Right?
dangerousDoc
No you decided to try and name all of the public as safe spaces. Ironically threatening people who don't abide by the rules
TheMostSolidSnake
Have a source on that? Or can you go farther then a bumper sticker worth of info?
dangerousDoc
This is imgur 140 characters everything here are bumper stickers. Plus you don't have to look far at all to see the left championing >
dangerousDoc
Censorship. Look at twitter a new York times editor was bitching that a fox news article was trending on Facebook and told zuck to "fix it"
EMTMarv
When someone tells me my rifle cant stop the US Army and drones....
Xitaris
Yup, They tear through millions of dollars worth of armor with homemade bombs that cost a couple hundred bucks.
ThailandExpress
Slasher2977
Upvote for accuracy. Honestly, if you don’t own a gun you shouldn’t be allowed to have an opinion on gun related laws.
TheDuke0fHazzard
I'm super pro-gun, my dude, but no, that's not how it works. It's like saying if you can't get pregnant, you can't have opinions on abortion
Slasher2977
Wow your downvotes speak volumes to how right I am.
PaintedSlate
How so, exactly?
Xitaris
I'm pro-gun / 2nd ammendment and I'm still tempted to downvote you. Just the precedent would be catastrophic on society.
Cheomesh
Same, and you should, because it is bad thinking.
TheFriendliestGiant
So what else does that apply to? If you don't do drugs, should you not be allowed an opinion on drug laws?
Slasher2977
No where in the constitution does it say “the right to use drugs shall not be infringed upon”
TheFriendliestGiant
Except the argument presented wasn't constitutional, but experiential.
Cheomesh
Such as with wombs and abortion laws, yeah?
TheFinalCountdown09
Are you saying if you dont own a gun, gun laws dont affect you?
Slasher2977
For the most part it does not, given criminals don’t use guns legally obtained. That’s a fact that you can take to the bank.
TheFinalCountdown09
All the mass shootings we have had were committed by people with criminal records? All of them?
Slasher2977
The majority of mass shootings (which are statistically super rare given we are a nation of 300+ million, a fact that those who wish to
TheFinalCountdown09
Pssst all them guys is dead homie
EMTMarv
And yet we still haven't controlled them huh?
Cheomesh
Some freedom they've got.
TheFinalCountdown09
Have we not? I haven't seen any at the best buy recently
TheDuke0fHazzard
The Taliban's numbers have quadrupled since 2001
TheFinalCountdown09
I'm guess you have first hand experience?
TheDuke0fHazzard
I don't need first hand experience to look at numbers and see that the US military hasn't been able to eradicate guerillas with rifles
DubyaSux89
Might just be me, but if I grew up in a country with foreign invaders it may be convincing to join those guerillas. Feel like this war