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.
Two words:
King George.
L
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...
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.