Comments on: The right to bear arms is the only true bulwark against government tyranny and mass murder

By: Ymarsakar

Ymarsakar — Mon, 24 Dec 2012 20:27:13 +0000

Surprisingly, I was phrasing things a bit close to what the ancients said. Whether the Chinese knight errants or the American Colonialists.

War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself. — John Stuart Mill

One person with a belief is equal to a force of 99 who have only interests. — John Stuart Mill, activism It is perhaps not a coincidence that much of my belief mirrors theirs, without any intent whatsoever to copy their steps. I instead, perhaps, sought what they have always sought themselves. This has nothing to do with politics. Whether you be Democrat, Republican, or "Bi", your cultural grit is either strong or it isn't. And if it isn't, the strong will take it over one way or another.

By: Ymarsakar

Ymarsakar — Mon, 24 Dec 2012 00:03:00 +0000

“Even an army of a million people, loosely organized, probably wouldn’t put up THAT much of a fight.”

It’s times like this that it becomes even more apparent how the decadent West underestimates those with true beliefs. The Westerner, with such decayed personas, aren’t willing to die or kill for anything, so they think everybody else is like them.

Well, they aren’t like you. They’re just not at the mall during war.

By: Ymarsakar

Ymarsakar — Mon, 24 Dec 2012 00:00:10 +0000

One wonders why people think the people of Iraq and Vietnam can give the US military a Fing quagmire, yet think 300 million American citizens and naturalized or unnaturalized peeps, can’t do something a whole lot worse… it’s like they pick up little propaganda phrases from a unified Leftist sound track.

By: Charles Martel

Charles Martel — Sat, 22 Dec 2012 19:16:05 +0000

Danny, it is strange to ponder how high education so often leads to weeniehood.

By: Danny Lemieux

Danny Lemieux — Sat, 22 Dec 2012 18:37:33 +0000

Whoops! A typ-o. My Euro relatives are HIGHLY educated. Just for the record.

By: Charles Martel

Charles Martel — Sat, 22 Dec 2012 18:00:51 +0000

The Second Amendment is not explicit about what kinds of arms the people may keep and bear. Obviously few citizens would be able to afford a tank or anti-aircraft battery, let alone maintain it or be in a plausible position to use it.

But “arms” in the 21st century can include more than just firearms and standard military ordnance. For example, the Chinese are relentlessly pursuing ways to disable our military via electronic means. They look upon cyber warfare as a weapon. A canny U.S. dictatorship would, besides attempting to strip citizens of their guns, also disarm people’s means of electronic access and communication—all the better to avoid the hacking, spying, and disruption that could impede imposing the will of the few upon the many.

Danny, you make a good point about low-level and low-tech warfare. Assuming an all-out attack by the feds on Americans, the government would face several problems:

—A heavily armed citizenry in possession of millions of guns that are unregistered and hidden. Said citizenry would also know its turf far better than any occupiers.

—A vast pool of former military who know the tactics soldiers would be likely to use.

—Sabotage, which would not have to involve bombs or explosions. “Accidental” clerical errors in transmitting data or orders, Stuxnet-type hacking, jamming, work slowdowns, pirate radio, and other tactics would impose heavy costs on running a dictatorship. (The natural leftist response would be to create concentration camps and carry out public executions of “traitors.” This might work in places like Europe or Mexico where people have bred courage and independence out of themselves, but probably wouldn’t go over too well in the South or Midwest.)

—An essentially bankrupt country, which we soon will be, will not be able to afford high-tech replacement weapons or maintain the ones it has. There would be plenty of attrition that might be temporarily remedied by printing more play money or threatening manufacturers with torture or death. However, see “sabotage” above.

—As Danny pointed out, the likelihood of American military people fighting on behalf of a dictator is not very high. A government demand for obedience would lead to mutinies and assassinations. The government would have to rely instead on more easily controlled minions, such as TSA morons, corrupt cops (Chicago PD comes to mind), and federalized thugs (unions and Black Panthers). As they attempt to suppress, they will be whittled down in numbers through engagement with superior, better-prepared fighters, and their own ineptitude when it comes to tactics, weapons maintenance, or courage in the face of organized resistance.

—A federal system that implicitly recognizes the ability of the states to resist federal encroachment. It would be interesting to see how the feds would deal with a Texas or Utah that decided to physically resist a dictatorship. Both states have a heavily armed citizenry, and Texas has an extensive number of nuclear weapons on its soil. As the Spartans said at Thermopylae when the Persians demanded they lay down their arms, “Come and get ‘em!”

By: Danny Lemieux

Danny Lemieux — Sat, 22 Dec 2012 16:56:23 +0000

The U.S. military allegiance is the the Constitution, so I am not as worried about our military as I am about other government agencies overstepping their authority (e.g., Clinton’s BATF and FBI at Waco). Why, for example, did the Dept. of Homeland Security track down this child pornographer – she should have been arrested, but isn’t Homeland Security supposed to protect us from terrorist threats?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2251793/Corine-Danielle-Motley-FBI-bust-Jane-Doe-child-sex-abuser-just-24-hours-nationwide-appeal.html

I think the examples of Afghanistan, Iraq and Vietnam pretty well underscore that having advanced weaponry isn’t the entire game in a war situation. Also, consider the sheer numbers of armed Americans – I read somewhere that the state of Michigan alone could field 700,000 armed citizens. That is considerably more than the active and reserve military personnel of the U.K.

So, could an armed citizenry protect against an armed government with bad intentions? Maybe or maybe not. But it certainly would make such a government think twice.

There was an elderly member of our church, a Federal prosecutor during the 1940s (now deceased), who recounted to me how his team had prosecuted a group of communist anarchists that had plotted attacks against the Gary, Indiana steel mills. In the course of their investigation, it was disclosed that this group of anarchists/communists had traveled to the Soviet Union and been asked by Stalin if they could organize an armed underground. The response to Stalin was that it would never work, because there were too many armed Americans. I suspect that we may soon see a similar replay of this story, except that instead of armed communists, the threat will come from a jihadi Muslim and Leftwing revolutionary underground. The Europeans face the same threat.

The problem with the Euros, however, is that they long ago accepted their status as subjects of the State. My Euro relatives, otherwise very successful and highly uneducated, are unable comprehend the concept that they personally should be responsible for their own defense. To them, it is a responsibility to be delegated only to the military and the police. The Swiss, on the other hand, take a very different view, whereby every individual has a responsibility to contribute to their defense. This is but one reason why Switzerland was not invaded in WWII.

By: JL

JL — Sat, 22 Dec 2012 02:59:11 +0000

I agree with your premise, that is, that the 2nd amendment was crafted in a way to ensure the people had a means to check government aggression.

But this day and age, what with tear gas, tanks, and missile strikes, a man with a rifle or a shotgun doesn’t pose much of a threat to a government bent on eliminating him. Certainly more than an unarmed individual, but not enough to really defend himself. Even an army of a million people, loosely organized, probably wouldn’t put up THAT much of a fight.

If that’s the case, and maybe you think differently, then wouldn’t a logical extension of the 2nd amendment into the 21st century dictate that civilians should have the right to own more heavy armaments, such as anti-aircraft missile systems, armored vehicles, and heavy machine guns?

By: Ymarsakar

Ymarsakar — Fri, 21 Dec 2012 22:06:00 +0000

Charles M: Back when Obama was being nominated for Prez and during his Senate reign, one black kid got smacked in the head with a 4 by 4 hard wood, and killed right there and then. One of the “wannabe white” class, A grade achieving students, as the Left would call them behind our backs. In his home town of Chicago. The Left didn’t talk about banning civil liberties then. They kind of ignored it.

They weren’t doing a damn thing to decrease the casualty rates when it didn’t involve guns. They won’t be doing a damn thing except increase the casualty rate when guns come in. Eric Holder has many more ideas than the ATF and Mexico combined.

By: Ymarsakar

Ymarsakar — Fri, 21 Dec 2012 21:59:07 +0000

Guns are not a policy or political issue with the LEft. People are under a slight misunderstanding here. Guns are equivalent to an evil religious dogma, one that the Left fervently believes in. Thus they are advancing a religious doctrine and imposing it on us, the people actually living in America, as if it was something designed to serve the public body’s interests.