I have serious doubts , it just may be too little too late , the entrenchment of these misfits have been ongoing for decades .
Once you start the exaggerated lie, it is hard to pay much attention to your arguments – which have some merit. The ‘Army Air Corp’ in 1940 was very tiny, not half of the Army. Plus, in 1940, our progressive government didn’t have our military involved in bases in Korea, Germany, Italy, Japan, Turkey, England, et cetera. You can make great arguments to leave many of these places, the only downside is it limits what response we can muster if there is a need. Like if you can’t do laser-guided munitions because you cannot get planes to where the problem is – well you can ignore the problem or contemplate how many megatons of yield you are willing to use. As you take away the tools, the options get much more blunt. I know we were starting with the Army, but if it is no longer able to be ‘boots on the ground’ then you have to go to other means – it is all interlocked. Thanks for the insight as to the awareness and competence of instructors at Grove City College.
Jamie: Actually, there is no requirement in the law of self-defense that the attacker “really” has a weapon. The only requirement is that the defender’s perception of a weapon be subjectively and objectively reasonable.
So long as the perception of a weapon is reasonable, the fact that the perception is mistaken is of no consequence.
Of course, it’s easier to convince the jury that such a perception was reasonable if an actual weapon is recovered, but that’s a matter of the weight and credibility of the evidence, not an element of self-defense.
Richard: A forceful blow to the head with a “heavy” item clearly constitutes an imminent threat of death or grave bodily harm, and would warrant a deadly force response.
Of course, the State can argue anything they like, but the defense has a very compelling narrative of innocence in that scenario (conditional on other facts, of course).
Glad to see someone is putting a leash on that “poodle”.