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.
Heck, I bet there’s a good number of cops and feds who’d styand for such blatant treason.
Oh Really?
Hmmm......
It's worked before.
Yea that whole thing against the British what a joke that turned out to be? Were the Vietnamese better armed than us?
well we can start by asking FBI and ATF agents if they'd burn small children alive and then bulldoze evidence that could show evidence of government wrong doing.
You'd be surprised on just what somebody wanting a paycheck and security for family would be willing to do. I'm sure the Gestapo and SS were originally patriotic Germans that saw a "threat" from Communists, Jews and lunatics/defectives that were bleeding Germany dry during the depression.
Once you start dehumanizing the threat as "right wing kooks" , "Christian kooks", "gun loving kooks", "white supremacist kooks"....well then it's easier to kill them. Cause they "deserve" what they get.
I think that society has to get to the point of hopelessness that an actual insurrection would occur.
If you doubt me, do this. Look in the mirror at home and ask yourself, "Am I willing to lose everything I own, everything I've saved and risk incarceration or death in order to 'fight the government'?"
One of my grandfathers fought in the Mexican revolution and told us that until a man is unable to feed his family he will bend to the will of the "patron" that pays him in order to feed his family.
My other grandfather made all 7 of his sons join the military in order to show loyalty to the United States of America, kinda like "blood in" in a gang. My point is that fighting a war or insurrection "sounds" noble and great, but I'd hate to live through a time like that in this country. It would take a catastrophic economic downturn in order to make people hungry enough to fight to the death.
Our citizen soldiers are a violent, stubborn and noble lot. That's why our civil war was so costly. I can't imagine fighting against brother Marines or soldiers from different parts of the country. God help us if it came down to that.
There would be no horror movie that would show the destruction and violence of such a civil uprising.
Can I n3wbi3 stand up to the army if they want to strip me of my liberty? Not a chance! Can a small percent of well armed citizens (say .5% or 150,000) using guerrilla tactics cause a tyrannical government a whole lot of pain? you bet.
And in such an even the nutbag who owns enough guns for 15 people will be real popular..
At Waco after killing so many children the ATF ran their flag up the pole in celebration of such a "victory" also.
Legitimate governments do not leave their sovereign borders wide open to millions who enter illegally, where the ballot box is left wide open to be compromised and undermined.
There were a few bedraggled farmers at Concord who disagreed with you. They don’t ALWAYS win.
Since the writer is from Alabama, he should have heard about a bunch of Rebels that came pretty darn close to defeating the US Government.
I agree 100%. A DD-214 and 32 years of civilian life have done nothing to relieve me from that oath.
One other thing...
The Second Amendment protects us from people who would subject us to their will in an unlawful/unconstitutional manner.
We are on the correct side of the law, unlike the drug dealers and terrorists he falsely uses as examples law abiding citizens bearing arms.
You said — “I think that society has to get to the point of hopelessness that an actual insurrection would occur.”
—
Well..., that *is* the presumption, once one starts talking about a civil war. I mean, the argument was not “if” we could easily get to that point — but rather — that “once it did” come to that point — the author of the article was saying that it would be ineffective.
And so, the article was not arguing how devastating it would be, how people think about such things, or how easy or difficult it would be to get to that position in the country — no, that wasn’t his argument.
His was simply — *no matter what* — the Feds win. And that’s a false statement and not based on reality.
More words: Waco, Ruby Ridge, Elian Gonzales at gunpoint, Terri Schiavo...
Make that “who would not”.
Legitimate governments do not leave their sovereign borders wide open to millions who enter illegally, where the ballot box is left wide open to be compromised and undermined.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
And where do we find the most illegal voting?
Yep! In Marxist ( oops! “Democrat”) districts.
Nobody ever said it was going to be easy.
If even 5% of the 80 million+ guns owners decide to rise up, that's over 4 million potential snipers/assassins that a tyrannical government and its minions would have to deal with.
I also doubt that such a government could count on the universal support of its police and military. Which means that eventually, some of that massive firepower the government has would fall out of their control.
No doubt about it. Should the 2nd Amendment ever have to be utilized for the purpose it was intended for, it would be a bloody mess. The founding fathers knew that. They also knew what the alternative would be.
The author apparently hasn’t been watching Iraq. Our military vs a bunch of muslims in dirty shirts. The muslims have state sponsors to keep them in arms. A guerrilla war can go on essentially forever. The government only wins when the rules of engagement are essentially a no holds barred, all out attack.
One more: Civil War -1861-1865
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.