To be fair, we have our share of gun control nuts too. But yes, quite a large number of us enjoy exercising our second amendment rights. A government can't forcibly subdue its populace if said populace is as well armed as the army. Its why totalitarian regimes make the first priority the disarmament of the populace.
You really think that Bubba Joe and his .22 are going to stop the US Army from imposing its will if it wanted to? The Iraqis are learning that even with every man carrying an AK, that doesn't work. It was true when everyone had breechloaders, and that was the height of military technology, but now, it's just causing carnage - among people who don't have health care, to get back on topic. :)
A lot of Bubba Joes I have talked to express it this way "They may get me, but it ain't gonna be easy and you can damn well bet that I'll take as many of them with me as I can."
Our military personnel have an obligation (by the United Code of Military Justice) not to obey immoral orders. I guarantee that more soldiers than not would regard firing on their fellow citizens as immoral. A fair portion of them would jump ship and join Bubba Joe in the farmhouse. This is aside from the fact that much of our military hates firing on civilians and will only do so when a) it can't be avoided because there is a paramount military objective (e.g., a military installation that has been forcefully surrounded with captive civilians) and b) the civilians are firing back (in which case they become combatants anyway). There were instances in the first Gulf War where our pilots pulled off and refused to drop any more bombs on Iraqi installations because it had become too lopsided anyway and continuation of bombing deeply offended their sense of fair-play.
In any event, I can't foresee a reason that the US military would be asked or ordered to engage in a large-scale assault on the citizenry (barring Civil War II, of course). But just in case, we're prepared.
No, you're not. That's my point. You're armed at a lower level, in the citizenry, than the Iraqis, and they're not having any luck imposing their will on the US Army either. As I say, in 1787, yes, you could have been prepared. Now, you're not, and can't be. All your Second Amendment does is make sure that more Americans die by gun violence in a year than the entire EU combined, and you can throw in Canada, Australia, New Zealand and Japan, too. It doesn't provide you, in the end, with any real protection, just a sort of fuzzy teddy-bear kind of protection that isn't any protection at all.
I agree that the U.S. military vs. the U.S. Citizens is a battle that wouldn't be worth calling it such. As I've said, I can't foresee where it would ever come to that. In the event it does, if they want a citizenry left to control, they first have to forcibly disarm door to door, and the cost in casualties on both sides would be massive and I think the military would, for the most part, lose heart. Again, it comes down to, "They can have my life or my gun, but not both at the same time, and I'll take as many of them with me as I can." In the end, the citizenry would be subdued, but at what cost? The United States would have to be some country other than the United States for it to happen. The Republican have been yelling about the Democrats coming for your guns for years now. I've never had a knock on my door.
Heston didn't invent the phrase "From my Cold, Dead hands!" and I think a lot of Silent America feels the same way.
Bill Whittle does a much better job than I of making this argument here: http://www.ejectejecteject.com/archives/000013.html. His essay on Power is also recommended reading. Be warned, his essays are gigantic and if you agree with him a little, you are likely to soon agree with him a lot and lose copious amounts of time reading the rest of Silent America...
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
regna![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2004-10-14 03:27 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2004-10-14 03:29 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2004-10-14 04:01 pm (UTC)Our military personnel have an obligation (by the United Code of Military Justice) not to obey immoral orders. I guarantee that more soldiers than not would regard firing on their fellow citizens as immoral. A fair portion of them would jump ship and join Bubba Joe in the farmhouse. This is aside from the fact that much of our military hates firing on civilians and will only do so when a) it can't be avoided because there is a paramount military objective (e.g., a military installation that has been forcefully surrounded with captive civilians) and b) the civilians are firing back (in which case they become combatants anyway). There were instances in the first Gulf War where our pilots pulled off and refused to drop any more bombs on Iraqi installations because it had become too lopsided anyway and continuation of bombing deeply offended their sense of fair-play.
In any event, I can't foresee a reason that the US military would be asked or ordered to engage in a large-scale assault on the citizenry (barring Civil War II, of course). But just in case, we're prepared.
(no subject)
Date: 2004-10-14 04:05 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2004-10-14 04:26 pm (UTC)Heston didn't invent the phrase "From my Cold, Dead hands!" and I think a lot of Silent America feels the same way.
Bill Whittle does a much better job than I of making this argument here: http://www.ejectejecteject.com/archives/000013.html. His essay on Power is also recommended reading. Be warned, his essays are gigantic and if you agree with him a little, you are likely to soon agree with him a lot and lose copious amounts of time reading the rest of Silent America...