Which brings this around to a news story I saw in which an anti-gun control billboard was put up that some in the Native American community found offensive, though I think it makes my point instead:
Doomed.
Thursday, May 2, 2013
Insensitive, or Making MY Point?
After the Sandy Hook massacre I noted that the original idea of no gun control made sense, because the Nation was young, nothing was fully set, there were a lot of people probably still itching for a fight, but more importantly, the scale and scope of government weapons was the same as that of the populace. I believe that has changed immesurably, and if the government really wanted to "round up" the populace, a few ak-47s against the government's firepower and technology would be like guns against arrows.
Which brings this around to a news story I saw in which an anti-gun control billboard was put up that some in the Native American community found offensive, though I think it makes my point instead:
When the firepower you have is equal, giving it up is dangerous. At this point? If the Government went bad?
Doomed.
Which brings this around to a news story I saw in which an anti-gun control billboard was put up that some in the Native American community found offensive, though I think it makes my point instead:
Doomed.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
You are correct that the original purpose of the amendment was to protect the populace and states against the federal government. However, keep in mind that the National Guard is a militia, run by the states and citizenry, whose equipment could match the US's for at least some time.
There are still other purposes to allow the citizenry to own firearms. Did you know that there are two theaters in Aurora, Colorado: One that allows guns and one that is gun-free? Which do you think the killer went to?
The National Guard is under the purview of the Department of Defense, i.e., the Federal Government, and is run , NOT FULLY FUNDED OR ARMED, by the individual governors. The National Guard can, and has been federalized by the Federal Government. So yes, there may be a cache of weapons available from the National Guard should something go horribly wrong, but gun control measures will not affect that. So that bolsters the argument. Private citizens and States will have access to military equipment should the need arise to rise up against the federal government. As I said, the AK-47 or Bushmaster isn't going to do much in that situation. If the citizens could get the National Guard weapons, then yes, it would potentially be a fairer fight, but those weapons, or at least the kind I am referring to are not what is being discussed.
There is no way to know why the gunman chose the theater he chose, and further, if we are using anecdotal evidence, at least one victim of Jared Loughner (The guy who shot Gabby Giffords in AZ)was armed.
Further, I did not say ban guns. I said, twice, that the knee jerk reaction that anything relating to LIMITING guns is banning guns is wrong.
That's why it's called CONTROL. Gun CONTROL, not gun banning.
You misunderstand my first point. It was basically intended to reassure you that all would not be lost would the government decide to go tyrannical on us.
Nevertheless, not every case of defense of liberty necessarily involves bringing down the entire Armed Forces. Imagine, for example, that a unit was dispatched to a newspaper's headquarters in Texas to shut it down for saying disparaging things about the government. You can be sure that a contingent of enraged Texans would arrive, prepared to defend liberty at home. Would that hypothetical case involve bringing down the army? And would that impromptu militia be as effective without AK-47s?
I did not misunderstand your first point, I disagreed with it in relation to my argument. Your contention that the National Guard will save us, has nothing to do with the argument I made, because they are in fact a government body, if the argument is to allow anyone to possess any gun to protect against the government, well that's what the National Guard is, so all may indeed be lost.
As far as your second scenario, I find it humorous that you think a rag tag bunch with a few guns will be enough to stop the military if they did not want to be stopped. You are contradicting your own argument:
If the Aurora shooter chose that theater because they had policy against guns, then it follows that if the Government went to shut down a newspaper in Texas you can be sure they would come with the necessary fire power and equipment to deal with a well armed populace. Unless you think you know about their guns, and the Government does not.
If I understand correctly, you are referring to members of National Guard fighting in Afghanistan and the like. This is provided for in the Constitution, Article I, Section 8:
"The Congress shall have the power...to provide for calling forth the militia..."
The National Guard is not a federal body, if that's what you meant by government body; and if you were referencing state governments as well, then that is exactly what is provided for in the second amendment. So you can rest assured that at least the Guard has got our back.
Nevertheless, the right of the citizens to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Because after all, what if the Guard doesn't care? The Constitution does not guarantee victory against a tyrannical government, just a fighting chance. That fighting chance is more provided for by automatic weapons than by pistols. If you want to make the argument that the American citizenry should not be banned from owning nukes and Abrams tanks to give them a real chance against an all-out onslaught, that's a different discussion entirely. But again, not necessarily would every skirmish involve firebombing and gas attacks, and the citizenry ought to be armed as reasonably as possible for a battle without those elements.
Post a Comment