The founders of our country and the framers of our constitution envisioned a militia made up of every able-bodied male, able to bear arms in defense not only of the country in time of invasion or insurrection, but in defense of liberty if the source of insurrection were to become the legalized sort characterizing every despotic form of government the world has ever known. Knowing this, it’s important to realize that so-called “assault weapons” are the focus of fear among the anointed who may have other plans for our republic. It is for this reason that they seek to ban them, because this is the sole weapon classification in broad distribution among the American people that makes a meaningful resistance to arbitrary governmental actions possible.
It is for this reason that the gun-grabbing left wishes to deprive you of so-called “assault weapons,” knowing that they resemble in many respects their military cousins, minus the ability to operate in fully-automatic mode. In truth, a well-skilled group of veterans, or average citizens could hold off a similarly sized military force for some time unless heavier weapons were brought to bear against them. From the moment the ATF carried out its botched raid on the Branch Davidians at Mt. Carmel, TX, it was clear to all who watched that a superior force of government agents could be held at bay indefinitely until there was an application of larger, military class weaponry. So-called “assault weapons” have no application in defense against tanks. It was in response to this raid that the assault weapons ban of 1994 was crafted. It’s also worth noting that as much as the broad-based backlash against Hillary-care, the AWB of 1994, passed by Congress in September, was instrumental in fueling the “Republican revolution” in November that year.
What the events in Waco made plain to the elites is that armed resistance is possible, and while it would be relatively easy to contain small enclaves of resisters in compounds simply by the application of superior firepower and military equipment, putting down a wider resistance might prove difficult. On a broader scale, with a resistance across the entire population, perhaps even on the offensive rather than hunkered in bunkers awaiting the end of the world, such a resistance might well overturn a runaway government despite its advantage in heavy weapons and military equipment. This was a shock to the powers-that-were, and it posed to them a new danger that spoke to a future moment when they might face justice for treason rather than a few dozens or hundreds of isolated radicals being dealt with in swift and severe fashion.
The first paragraphs of the article were dedicated to convincing us that the so-called assault weapons are no more deadly or effective than "Grandpappy’s old-school Browning BAR." Then, inexplicably, he went into this lengthy nonsense about the government fearing them in the hands of the uprising citizenry.
Twice he mentioned "unless heavier weapons were brought to bear against them." I suppose in this guy's fevered mind, the revolution will take place under strict rules in which the government holds back on its superior weaponry. Of course, if they don't there's always the enjoyment of being martyrs for freedom like the Branch Davidians or the Waco Wackos.
What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.
What is just cause to take arms against the government?
ReplyDeleteHillary care, Obamacare?
What do they think will replace government? Their Branch Dividian leaders?
Just because they disagree with what government does, does not give them some divine right to attack the government.
That's Greg's thinking. he would take arms against the government just because they passed a magazine capacity law. Like he stated he would go after a drug dealer with his gun and not call the police. Anarchy.
Are we to believe that you've sworn your loyalty to Queen Elizabeth II? After all, if you see no reason to justify taking up arms against one's government, you must regard the United States of America as a illegal rebellion.
DeleteWhat tripe from a criminal, lying idiot. I have no doubt you are the type to start shooting because you disagree with some "Socialist" program Obama might get passed. Certainly if gun laws get stricter, you will take arms against the government.
DeleteSo Steve, if you had information on a crime, would you call the police, or sit on it?
DeleteI doubt very seriously if Greg would have the courage of his commitment to the point of shooting. These guys love to talk tough, but they're really weak, insecure men. Those who would actually act are about .003%.
DeleteGun control freaks are incapable of making an argument without decompensating into penis jokes and psychoanalyzing without a license. When your side is ready for rational debate, let me know.
DeleteTS,
DeleteThis from the guy who agrees with Greg's criminal acts and threats and once said threats are free speech and not a crime. There is no way to have a serious conversation with such criminal stupidity
No, I specifically said threats (and libel) are not protected by free speech. Considering you call me out for saying the exact opposite of what I actually said makes it difficult to have a serious conversation.
DeleteHaving a serious conversation with these gun control sock puppets and anonymous commenters is all but impossible. All they can do is twist words and lie.
DeleteGreg Camp, pro-gun person, the first to bring up the penis - again.
Delete"Gun control freaks are incapable of making an argument without decompensating into penis jokes "
Considering you guys promote criminality, I have no patience to discuss serious issues with criminals. All you can do is lie and name call.
DeleteGee, all I did was post your words, which of course, you call lies and twisting words. Laughable. If you would care to explain your words, I have been asking and waiting for you to do so, but cowards don't respond, they just lie.
Delete-In all seriousness, if two opposing forces employ similar weaponry, each side can cannibalize ammo, mags and spare parts off the dead. Obviously, this would benefit the average citizen militia rather than an army with an established supply line.
ReplyDeleteWhy carry ridiculous amounts of ammo when you can pick more up along the way?
"The first paragraphs of the article were dedicated to convincing us that the so-called assault weapons are no more deadly or effective than "Grandpappy’s old-school Browning BAR."
ReplyDeleteI always suffer from a bit of confusion when a Browning BAR is mentioned since I always think of the 1918 Browning Automatic Rifle, the standard US light machine gun prior to Viet Nam.
We've gone on quite a bit lately about the efficacy of pitting irregular forces against an organized military unit. I'm not going to on except to mention that there are places where armor moving without dismounted infantry can prove disastrous.
The American people as a whole believe very strongly in our system of government and its checks and balances. The vigorous exercise our first amendment rights doesn't suggest that there is any fear of violent revolution.
I agree, Mike, that you caught this author in an inconsistency.
ReplyDeleteBut what do you think about the second half of his story?
DeleteI don't believe that is the current (or past) motivation behind the gun control movement, but at the same time, armed citizenry is a deterrent to being attacked.
DeleteAlso, this inconsistency is something your side is guilty of: these are "weapons of war" but they'd be useless in actual war.
"But what do you think about the second half of his story?"
DeleteHe seems to ramble a bit. But then I've likely done that here on occasion also.
I can see where he's trying to go here. I would have done it differently.
Laci loves to go on about how keeping arms against the possibility of our government becoming tyrannical is pointless because of the numbers and hardware in our standing army.
I would suggest that, though I disagree, if Laci and you are correct, then there is little reason to fear these citizens from owning these weapons. Laci claims superior forces and you claim, using Greg as a proxy, owners of these weapons wouldn't have the guts to actually use them.
As for what I think? he could have made his argument much more clearly. I lost track of the plot several times. I also tend to try to stay away from the endless wargaming about potential conflicts between government forces and insurgents/freedom fighters. Mainly because its sort of a conflict of interest for me.
"Of course, if they don't there's always the enjoyment of being martyrs for freedom like the Branch Davidians or the Waco Wackos."
ReplyDeleteYou do realize that when they mention Mt Carmel and Waco, they mean the same thing, right?