Sunday, January 3, 2010

Your cap gun v. a tank

As uncomfortable as it may make some, the founding fathers intended for the second amendment to be a last resort safeguard against tyranny where the people could throw off the shackles of a tyrannical government and rise up if all other checks and balances failed. It wasn't created to protect your hunting rights or your hobby of collecting firearms. (Nothing wrong with either)

In the days it was written there was an even match on the battlefield, the soldiers had the same weapons as the farmer/citizen (minus field cannons), a simple flint musket.
Today it is no longer an even match up; the government has tanks, planes, armored vehicles, machine guns, rockets and a host of other mass destruction weapons. But we as citizens are limited to small arms weapons that would in essence be useless in a revolution. Of course the founding fathers could not have envisioned such machinery as exists today. So in the spirit of the 2nd amendment, should there be laws restricting the possession of RPG's, heavy machine guns and other hardware that would again put the citizenry on a level playing field with their government as was the intent of the founding fathers?

You might be thinking the Vietnamese did a hell of a number on us during the war. That they did, with Russia and China supplying them with heavy arms. We have shotguns, deer rifles and the occasional "assault rifle". Those against an Abrams tank? Well, I would rather be in the tank.

So clearly a revolution would be mass suicide. But, don't get me wrong, I am not saying raise your hands now and surrender, just that we need to think this through.

What is the answer?

Do we work diligently and make sure our own soldiers will never turn on us and obey any illegal or unconstitutional order?

Or should we prohibit local law enforcement from owning/using $250,000 armored personnel vehicles, Kevlar helmets, stun grenades, and bullet proof shields to use against the civilian population?

Better yet should we have our own state ran and funded militia, answerable only to the state house of representatives and the governor of each respective state? This has already been in place for 234+ years, and found in many state constitutions. Perhaps this would be an effective counter to any tyrannical oppression by the Federal government.

Always the best choice is to have a non-violent and orderly revolution where we restore the constitution, but throughout history governments have turned on their citizens and committed horrendous acts against men, women and children. I am not advocating the over throw of the government but merely the preparation for defense.

Around the world hundreds of millions died as a direct result of their own governments actions in the last century. To name a few of the butchers, Stalin, Pol Pot, Ho chi Mien, Hitler, Mussolini and many, many others who indiscriminately killed their own people. To think such acts could never happen here is extraordinarily naive. Once the government is allowed to disobey the constitution then the slippery slope towards tyranny has began.

1 comment:

  1. We would capture their heavy weapons if we had to. True we would be out numbered but winning might still be possible. Besides choosing living under tyranny or dying free is a no brainer. Tyranny-NEVER