Posted on 05/03/2007 9:28:22 AM PDT by kiriath_jearim
When events like the Virginia Tech massacre occur, The Times and other newspapers quickly become forums for people who favor stronger gun-control laws and those who oppose such measures, or who think that we have already gone too far in the direction.
The division is so wide that the only common ground you can find is probably in the O.K. Corral. Different folks have incredibly strong opinions both ways.
I don't expect this issue to be resolved in my lifetime. Nothing I can contribute to the general discussion will change anyone's mind one way or the other. I hereby - well, at least for the moment - remove myself from the overall debate.
Except for one side matter.
That's one that occasionally creeps into the letters of some who fervently interpret the Second Amendment as an absolute, unbridled guarantee that you can own all the firearms you want and any kind that's manufactured.
This argument says that keeping firearms is necessary to ensure that the public can resist government oppression should such arise. In other words, unless you can shoot back at the feds, you can't be free.
That's a nice, John Wayne-type view of the world. But it's wrong. It's not just debatably wrong. It's factually wrong.
And the reason it is wrong is this: The government has and will always have more firepower than you, you and your neighbors, you and your like-minded friends or you and anybody you can conscript to your way of thinking.
You simply can't arm yourself adequately against a government that is rotten and needs to be overturned. Your best defense is the ballot box, not a pillbox.
That is why it is so scary to see events occur like the one in Collinsville last week. In case you missed it, six folks were charged with caching an alarming amount of weapons. These included scores of grenades, thousands of rounds of ammunition, 70 improvised explosive devices, two silencers and a submachine gun. Oh, and 100 marijuana plants. Go figure.
These people have been arrested, not convicted, so let's allow the courts to decide whether they are guilty.
But it strikes me that you have these kinds of weapons for one of two reasons:
You plan to use them to harm people.
You plan to use them to defend yourself.
Undoubtedly, you can harm a great many people with this kind of firepower. And if your aim is to use it against the government, well, that in itself is against the law.
What you can't do with these weapons is defend yourself successfully, in the long run, against the government. It has tanks. It has bombs (see Philadelphia on May 14, 1985, when the city bombed an entire block occupied by a group that didn't like the government). It has airplanes. It has nuclear weapons, for goodness sake.
You can't beat 'em.
You'd be foolish to try.
So let's take that argument off the table. I don't presume to say that by doing so we will be able to reach a consensus or a compromise or whatever about how we should or shouldn't control firearms in modern society.
I'm just saying that shooting it out with the government is like the exhibition team versus the Harlem Globetrotters as far as who is going to win.
Only a lot more bloody.
But the government, riven with dissent, not knowing where its enemies are, trying to send soldiers who don’t agree with it into harm’s way, has a harder time.
Excellent point!!
One may not be able to defend themselves against a government. But they can defend themselves against a mindset.
If government wants to act upon a group, they will. Regardless of Constitution or due process. They know the resources of the “resistance” will always be smaller than what the government has available to prosecute, illegally if necessary, those they deem as threats to whatever ego stands in the way.
But if government is unable to act as in Katrina or other wide spread disasters, it may take persuasive firepower to defend, life, property, food, water or other items necessary to survival. One thing that is not guaranteed by government is that they will protect the well prepared from the unprepared. Except in the case of the government officials themselves. They can take resources now, and pass accountability off to a later date.
Government confiscated firearms from Katrina holdouts. Now they have been ordered to return those weapons, but only if a bill of sale can be provided. It don’t matter if the firearm has a federal registration assigned to the owner.
The result is that a mass confiscation of firearms has occurred because of a bureaucracy finding loopholes.
The ability to deem an individual, or a group of gun owners a threat by unelected government bureaucracy is a very treacherous loophole. A fight for the right to have firearms is very close to a life or death battle. Early Americans fought and died for the right to have individual rights and guarantees of liberty and justice. It is no wonder there is a mindset of opposition to government.
When government displays the tendencys of total disrespect for Constitutional law and due process, people have a right to be nervous. And when people are nervous about their government, that government is also nervous and looking for methods to further entrench their exertion of power over the people. Taking away their only means of self defense and preservation is a key to dependency that enslaves people to a government filled with corruption and total lack of respect for the people.
I knew a 2LT USANG MP who said he would.
You have, I hoped, noticed the remarkable reluctance of the insurgents to engage in gun battles with our troops, as opposed to the use of IEDs and suicide bombing.
Since suicide bombing is unlikely to become popular here as a defense against an oppressive government, that leaves us with IEDs as a lesson learned in Iraq.
Since it is generally agreed that weapons and ammo that can be easily converted to IEDs are not protected by the 1st Amendment, your argument falls apart. While one could doubtless develop IED-type weapons, whether you have a rifle or 27 in the basement is more or less irrelevant.
It's very simple. If you, or you and your neighbors, or you and your state, attempt to resist the government violently, you will lose, as the author says. If all gun-owning Americans resist in unison, a pretty unlikely scenario in itself, then there is some ground for optimism. But primarily because of troops or officers refusing to follow orders rather than because of the combat potential of the civilians.
If other troops remain loyal to the orders of the government in power, we are then likely faced with a civil war with the people and part of the troops on one side versus the government and the rest of the troops on the other. Such a scenario is unlikely to leave much of America standing.
I'm sure someone has already calculated this, but in 1775 the difference in combat potential between 1000 experienced British troops armed with state of the art military weapons and 1000 Minutemen armed with their personal weapons was perhaps 4:1. (?)
The difference between 1000 US Marines today and 1000 civilians armed with their personal weapons is 100:1(?), 1000:1 (?).
I have no idea what the number is, but I know the difference is at least several orders of magnitude.
Please don't take this to imply that I'm not a fan of the Second. I'm just trying to point out that due to technological changes it is not as effective at giving the people power against their government as the Founders had intended.
Lame ass argument on the part of the author.
He’s such a deep thinker.
And the reason it is wrong is this: The government has and will always have more firepower than you, you and your neighbors, you and your like-minded friends or you and anybody you can conscript to your way of thinking.But...as Al Queda has shown us, we can bring our government to it's knees with IEDs and patience. So, if the government needs to change, we will still be able to do it. IEDs are an already proven method.
If the government were to start grabbing guns, I suspect you would see military refusals.
I just wrote an e-mail off to this guy — to give him a “does of reality” ...
Ha!
If that were so, we would have dispensed with the Islamic terrorists in Iraq and Afghanistan by now.
You’ve got a fallacy in your argument.
You said — “And the reason it is wrong is this: The government has and will always have more firepower than you, you and your neighbors, you and your like-minded friends or you and anybody you can conscript to your way of thinking.
You simply can’t arm yourself adequately against a government that is rotten and needs to be overturned. Your best defense is the ballot box, not a pillbox.”
Well, that argument has been *thoroughly trashed* by now, just by observing what’s going on in Iraq and Afghanistan. And, in addition, what you’re thinking of, in terms of “resistance” is simply what people see *today* as criminal elements, and nothing more. You haven’t seen a “popular resistance” — yet, except the last Civil War. Now, that would be a more appropriate example. Except that today, we have better examples of how to do this (against the government — by the assymetric warfare of the Islamic terrorists). And you don’t think that would be used?
Man, where have you been??!!
Nope, the war could be waged and it could be waged here in this country, if it had to be. That’s the bottom line. No one has taken it to that level, because, up to this point in time, it hasn’t required it, except for the last time we had a war — the Civil War. And if it comes again, it will be a war that will have a lot more knowledge of how to fight it, because of what the Islamic terrorists have added to the “knowledge” of how to do it.
And as a last point, you’ll note that Osama bin Ladin managed to very much attack the U.S. and the government, and even the Pentagon (and almost the Congress, too), with merely few planes.
Oh..., and mentioining “nukes” — well, I understand that he’s also trying to get them into this country, too. And you don’t think that there would be ways to get nukes into the hands of people who decided it was time to fight the government.
The bottom line is you’re not thinking like how a person (and an entire population) would think, in *actually* fighting a war. If you want an example of how a population would think, just look to Iraq. Or look to Afghanistan. That will give you an idea of how it would be over here, and how a segment of the population would be.
At that point (that such a war would break out), it would not be “criminals” doing it, in which the government would round them up. No, it would be widespread and a popular revolt (some on one side and others on the other). In the end, the “criminals” would be whoever lost (and that could be either side...).
Boy, you’ve got some more thinking to do, I would say. You sure don’t have *reality* in mind, that’s for sure...
And that’s the way it is....
Regards,
Star Traveler
An excellent point. Military officers swore an oath “to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic, and to obey the orders of officers appoibnted over them.” It will be up to each individual officer and NCO to determine if those orders are “lawful”. See Lt Calley of Me Lei fame. See the numerous officers who resigned commissions in the Union Army in 1861-62 to join either their State’s militias or the Army of the Confederacy. Should there be something on the order of a national registration or confiscation scheme in violation of the 2d Amendment, a SCOTUS ruling affirming the “collective”, ie, National Guard only, right to keep and bear arms versus the individual right, or a total overturning of the amendment, I firmly believe there will be a third American Revolution. It is conservetivly believed that there are 28 million armed citizens. I believe they would eventually persevere.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I am reminded of the para military folks who kidnapped Elian Gonzolas. Did they give any thought to the Constitution or rule of law?
After the kidnapping they had celebration party.
Personally, If I ran the military, I would demand that the soldier stand in formation every morning and recite a portion of the Constitution and Declaration of Independence. They would go though each document thoroughly, in order, repeatedly, EVERY day!
If I had control of our government schools I would demand all government students do the same.
We are losing in Iraq precisely because of the availability of small arms (nothing fancy like tanks and nuclear bombs) and because of community support. Those two ingredients could easily be available here in the US to fight against some Hitlery crackdown on our rights. That’s why this guy is wrong. Basic arms and community support can beat back an imposing enemy.
You said — “I knew a 2LT USANG MP who said he would.”
—
He’s thinking in terms of criminal elements and a riot or something like that. Those are American citizens, too. But, it’s different when you come down to a “Civil War” like we did in the 1860s. However, even then, people decided to shoot at other citizens. Of course, maybe the “loophole” in that one was that they were no longer “citizens” since they “left”. And perhaps this the loophole, too — if it happens again, like “Well, they are not American citizens if they do that!!”
And so it goes...
I forgot to add that it’s because we (and the Iraqi insurgents) are not attacking the big force— because, yes, they’d be slaughtered that way. They are merely resisting occupation.
Which is why the insurgency was so easily defeated in Iraq and Afghanistan.....
What difference does that make? If you are going to resist an occupation by the government that wants to impose its unconstitutional will on you, you're not going to be concerned about whether the weapons you can get a hold of or create are legal.
It’s the principle of the thing.
Besides, the righteous have God on their side. And more lopsided triumphs have happened.
The ballot box and the soap box are nice but delicate concepts that cannot exist in reality without the threat of the ammo box as a last resort.
Our Founding Fathers were revolutionaries in the truest sense of the word. The Second Ammendment exists as it does for just that reason.
You said — “Please don’t take this to imply that I’m not a fan of the Second. I’m just trying to point out that due to technological changes it is not as effective at giving the people power against their government as the Founders had intended.”
—
Oh, I don’t know about that. And I am talking about a serious revolt in the U.S. and not merely some criminal elements or a riot or a “compound” where people are holed up. It’s something widespread and has some “staying power” (like in the last Civil War).
In that case, I would think that these Marines and/or other soldiers would find it quite disconcerting and demoralizing to find fellow citizens shooting and killing them and calling them traitors for operating under government orders. In time, this would cause a certain amount of falling away of this segment, and these people who did fall away, would become an insurgent group against that same government they did work with. They would also grab supplies from that same government, probably heavy hardware, if not capture entire bases and maybe even nukes. So, it’s not simply citizens against a military, but it’s citizens against citizens and military against military...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.