Skip to comments.In a shoot-out, the feds always win
Posted on 05/03/2007 9:28:22 AM PDT by kiriath_jearim
click here to read article
Oh so true.
This is one of two things the 2nd Amendment is EXACTLY about.
If the author would do a little research on the founding father's writings, he might understand this.
I love it when anti-gunners use the O.K. Corral gun fight to prove that guns cause violence. Tombstone was a gun free zone and the gun fight happened when the Earp side tried to disarm the Clanton side. The reason this fight is so famous is because there were so few gun fights in the old west, not because there were so many. An armed society is a polite society.
The real question is what percentage of the military will obey the orders to shoot American Citizens who are defending Constitutional rights. Even more important what percentage of officers will obey those orders.
I welcome replies from long term military men and women on this question.
Well, I don’t know about that argument, if one can take it off the table. I see that Osama bin Ladin just used airplanes that seemed to “do a job” on the government. And then, I don’t see the Islamic terrorists using tanks and so on over in Iraq, but they have managed to create an awful lot of havoc. I would imagine that the same kind of havoc could be created here, by those who might want to — if it ever came to that.
And talk about “nukes”, well..., you might not want to eliminate those from the discussion either. I heard that Al Qaida is actively working to get one or two into this country and set them off.
So, I don’t quite think that this argument can be taken off the table...
One word: Baghdad
I wonder if the author believes we’re winning in Iraq? I believe we are, but I have a feeling this guy thinks we’re losing — and if that’s true, I’d like to see him explain how asymmetrically armed terrorists can give us so much trouble, but asymmetrically armed citizens here would have no chance.
I am not encouraging or condoning anything of the kind — but his argument fails on that point.
“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.”
The Author is discounting Guerrilla tactics. Look at the Viet Cong for proof.
It’s hard to believe that anyone could be this dumb. ...is it satire?
Does 1776 ring a bell with this chap?
Bingo...you posted before I had the chance. GMTA.
Part of Old Glory and the writing “Since ‘76” sounds like a nice tattoo idea.
Rotten governments don't have an honest ballot box. That right there undermines the rest of what he has to say.
If these folks were preparing to "shoot it out" with the government, how were they arrested without a fight?
This sounds like a typical liberal straw man argument - knocking down a point no one is arguing.
If it were that easy to defeat a guerilla force armed only with small arms and some minor explosive devices then why are we having such trouble in Iraq and with the Taliban, why did the USSR leave Afghanistan? We have nukes and planes and MOAB’s for goodness’ sake!
If the govt. is for, by and of the people then how can the people not have the guns? Unless the govt. is no longer for, of or by the people but an elite political class with an exclusive divine right to use force to ensure the people are kept in line. Dismiss it as paranoid hype all you want (and it may be at this point in time) but things could change in a very dark direction in a decade.
This is a dangerous, defeatist mentality that is sure to make life much easier for tyrants who want to rule the people with an iron fist and deny them basic liberties.
This one must have been written close to deadline.
The government, united, with good intelligence, with competent and willing troops, has more firepower than you. 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. It's terribly expensive to put down a popular insurrection, and many insurrections don't even stay where they're put.
Politicians and the people who work for them don't like to be shot at. The threat of unpredictably applied, lethal force changes the atmosphere, even if government forces would hypothetically win on an imaginary level playing field. This is why terrorism is such a problem: With miniaturized technology and quick travel on his side, even one guy can cause a lot of trouble.
The writer's calculations are about 225 years out of date.
I agree with him completely:
“Nothing I can contribute to the general discussion will change anyone’s mind one way or the other.”
I don't have to arm myself against the entire government, just those few in government that want to take away my right to own a gun.
BS sophistry. Theyre not going to be lugging machine guns and bazookas around your neighborhood and doing it without being seen. They might pack a pistol (as they do now), but if they want to be "occupiers", everyone is going to know about and reject it.
Typical, typical leftist misdirection. There could never be a Warsaw ghetto insurection with an unarmed populace, and the former is the last thing "tyrannical authorities" want. This writer is a nitwit.
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.