"Will "simple ordinary firearms" defend the citizen from swat teams with flash-bangs and full auto weapons?"
The answer to that question is not a pretty one for either side.
Posted on 03/20/2008 5:35:21 AM PDT by cbkaty
D.C. firearms ban can't negate constitutional right
Does the Constitution grant individuals the right to bear arms, or is that right reserved exclusively for members of a "well-regulated militia"? After 69 years of silence on the Second Amendment, the U.S. Supreme Court took up that question Monday in the historic case of District of Columbia v. Heller, a challenge to the District of Columbia's ban on all functional firearms.
"The Supreme Court heard arguments about whether or not the Second Amendment actually means anything," said Alan Gura, my co-counsel in the case ... Does it protect a collective right of militias, Gura asked, "or does it do what most Americans understand it does? Guarantee an individual right of American citizens to defend themselves and their families, in their own homes, with simple, ordinary firearms, including handguns."
I helped bring this case to court on behalf of six Washington, D.C., residents who want to keep functional firearms in their homes to defend themselves and their families should the need arise. But Washington, D.C.'s law bans all handguns not registered before 1976 and requires that lawfully owned shotguns and rifles in the home be kept unloaded and either disassembled or bound by a trigger lock at all times. There is no exception for self-defense. D.C., often known as the "murder capital of the nation," cannot defend its citizens and will not allow them to defend themselves.
This case requires, at a minimum, two findings from the Supreme Court: First, the Second Amendment secures an individual right to keep and bear arms — not a right limited to persons engaged in state militia service. Second, the District's ban on all functional firearms violates that individual right and is, therefore, unconstitutional.
An outpouring of modern scholarship — much of it coming from liberal constitutional scholars like Laurence Tribe at Harvard and Akhil Amar at Yale — supports the view that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right. After all, the Second Amendment is in the Bill of Rights, the part of the Constitution explicitly designed to secure individual rights. And the text of the amendment refers to the "right of the people" — the same people mentioned in the First, Fourth, Ninth and Tenth amendments. It is inconceivable that the Framers — seeking to provide Americans with a means to resist tyrannical government — would fashion a right that can be exercised only in the context of a militia that is under government control.
But can D.C.'s ban on all functional firearms coexist with a Second Amendment that secures an individual right? That question hinges on how rigorously the court reviews the constitutionality of Second Amendment restrictions. If the court believes the Second Amendment meaningfully constrains government, D.C.'s ban is impermissible.
Even if the court believes that a ban on an entire class of protected weapons can sometimes be justified, it must conclude that regulations like those in D.C. are subject to strict judicial scrutiny: Government, if challenged, would have to demonstrate that restrictions serve a compelling state interest, will be effective at attaining the desired goal and do not unnecessarily compromise Second Amendment rights.
That three-part standard has considerable teeth, but will not foreclose legitimate gun regulations, such as sensible registration requirements, proficiency testing, instant background checks, bans on massively destructive weapons and prohibitions on gun ownership by children, mental incompetents and violent felons.
The court rigorously scrutinizes all regulations that infringe on personal "fundamental" rights — defined as those rights "implicit in the concept of ordered liberty" or "deeply rooted in the nation's history and traditions." Express provisions in the Bill of Rights are certainly fundamental, and the right to keep and bear arms — occasionally a matter of life-and-death significance — is no exception.
If the District's outright ban on all handguns, in all homes, at all times, for all purposes, is determined by the court to pass muster, it would mean that the Supreme Court intends to rubber-stamp just about any regulation that a legislature can dream up — no matter whether the government has offered any justification whatsoever, much less a justification that would survive strict scrutiny.
That would, in effect, excise the Second Amendment from the Constitution. A right that cannot be enforced is no right at all.
At root, the Heller case is simple. It's about self-defense: individuals living in a dangerous community who want to protect themselves in their own homes when necessary. The Second Amendment to the Constitution was intended to safeguard that right. Banning handguns outright is quite plainly unconstitutional.
Levy is co-counsel to Gura and senior fellow in constitutional studies at the Cato Institute, in Washington, D.C.
Of the multitude of threats to the American citizen, one our founders addressed was the possibilty of "government gone wild"
Will "simple ordinary firearms" defend the citizen from swat teams with flash-bangs and full auto weapons?
here in Houston the recently ousted (by scandal, not ballots) Republican DA Chuck Rosenthal disagreed with the right to bear arms. He challenged the citizens to do as the state legislature voted...
He said that he would prosecute any citizen carrying a gun in his car without a concealed carry permit as a felon. I don’t know if he ever GOT his case he wanted to challenge the state law but it was a horrible abuse of power to make someone have to defend himself on felony charges when the state legislators did not find it to be a felony and even worse to have to be forced to APPEAL the decision to the state level.
Good riddence, RINO.
I have an office mate who keeps wanting to drag me into this debate. He is, of course, in favor of total elimination of guns in the hands of private citizens. I think next time he mentions it, I’ll ask what part of the right to privacy which the liberal justices found in Roe v. Wade, what part of that concept allows the DC government to control whether you have trigger locks on the legally registered guns in your home?
The people who talk about the second amendment applying to only “simple firearms” never have anything to say to the fact that privateering is legal.
In order to stop the use of such tactics in the long run, the citizen doesn't have to win; he just has to make it too risky to be worth attempting.
The answer is "C" None of the above.
The constitution prohibits the government from violating a basic, pre-existing, inalienable human right.
But thanks for playing.
Amendment IXWhat the 2nd does is to (1) mandate that the States provide militia training at arms to all people, and (2) further vouchsafe the common law right to hold and bear arms from both federal and state infringements upon it.The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
In other words, to be part of this Union of States, a State must provide to the people the very means and training of fighting off the State and Federal forces when such forces become unbearably tyrannical.
In the human body this is the equivalent of the white blood cells the disbursed through the body cancer killing systems.
Thus the people must be able to have and use fearsome weapons.
Without the 2nd ammendment there would be no 1st ammendment!
And taking the question a step further, why would a state militia need permission to bare arms ? That interpretation is absurd on its face.
What is sensible about registration? Why are people on our side making arguments like this? If you have to pass a test to do something, then it isn't a right, it's a privilege, like driving on public roads. I don't need to register my car or have a driver's license to legally drive on my own property, why should I require a permit or pass a proficiency test to own a gun in my house?
And what is "massively destructive" about a shart-barrel rifle, or a silencer? Wouldn't a quiet gun be safer than a loud gun, from a hearing safety point of view?
That exact point was made in some of the amicus briefs, filed on our side. If the main text of the Constitution already provisioned for states equipping their militia, then what exactly could the Second Amendment have possibly been talking about?
Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution defines the cases in which the Congress may call on the state militias to act under the President’s powers as commander in chief. To wit... “To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions.” Since militias are “necessary” by the plain text of the 2nd Amendment, arms needed to perform law enforcement and military service, are the ones specifically protected from infringement of individuals rights to own and transport.
The historical English right to keep and bear arms was significantly restricted by religion and income. Our right has no such limits - and this difference is deliberate. Further, our Constitution specifically forbids titles of nobility, which under the English system helped define which types of arms you could possess.
One thing you can say with certainty, was that the Founders NEVER intended the government to have a monopoly on the possession and transportation of arms. Richard Lee was a signer of the Declaration of Independence, militia colonel, and Senator. He said “The mind that aims at a select militia, must be influenced by a truly anti-republican principle.” What we have now is a select militia (National Guard), and true to Lee’s prescient statement, the minds behind this situation are truly acting against our Republic.
We have for far too long, allowed ourselves to manipulated by the press, and by political elites into giving up our birthright in the name of “security.” We are in actual fact, less secure, because government itself, being composed of humans, who are flawed and tempted to power, now has far more military might than the citizens do. We have some, yes, and it would be difficult for the government to impose its will by force, say as is now done in Tibet. Unfortunately, the more power the government gains, the more tempted it will be to use it. Of course all the reasons will be “proper,” but the loss of our fundamental freedom will be the same. When the government demonstrates it is unworthy of our trust, it will be too late for us to redress the balance.
The answer to that question is not a pretty one for either side.
Re: Registration
A state may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the federal constitution... The power to impose a license tax on the exercise of these freedoms is indeed as potent as the power of censorship which this Court has repeatedly struck down... a person cannot be compelled ‘to purchase, through a license fee or a license tax, the privilege freely granted by the constitution.’
— MURDOCK V. PENNSYLVANIA 319 US 105 (1942)
“Will ‘simple ordinary firearms’ defend the citizen from swat teams with flash-bangs and full auto weapons?”
In a word: Yes. A determined people can accomplish anything. History is full of lightly-armed people defeating a more powerfully-armed, but smaller group. How to get some “flash bangs” and full auto weapons for themselves? The people just need to take them away from those that have them, either by stealing them or incapacitating those who have them, and then taking them. Where there’s a will, there’s a way.
I haven't received my training. The state owes me!
Exactamundo! I cringe every time I hear someone, especially on our side, say constitutional right to bear arms or free speech or assembly. We really have to re-educate the entire country on what the Bill of Rights actually is and why we have it and how it was intended.
That’s not a good ruling. The Constitution does not grant rights. Our rights are from G-d. The Constitution says what the Federal government is chartered to do (enumerated powers), what its structure is, and especially calls out some rights for special protection or for guarantee from BOTH federal and state impositions upon them. Note that by joining the Union that the STATES where required to respect those named rights.
Where in the constitution does it say that simple police forces have the right to bear military weapons?
If a situtation requires military firepower, it requires National Guard intervention. They do not exist stateside merely to secure flood barriers and escort school children into segregated schools.
The rights of the citizen are protected from government.
The government does not have powers over the citizens.
This train has got to get back on the tracks.
I'm gonna go out on a limb and guess that our forefathers didn't limit this right to "in the home" only. It seems to me that if we have a RKBA, it probably exists outside the home also. Another Freeper astutely pointed out that the 1st amendment wasn't restricted to the home either.
Tests have shown that a practiced (or “well regulated”) marksman with a sighted-in semi-auto rifle can be more effective than one with a full auto weapon given the problems a full auto presents in the areas of ammo resupply and target reaquisition after the shot.
And if the balloon DOES go up, my guess is that there will be a hell of a lot MORE “citizens” firing than SWAT guys.
Join me in praying that we can bring this nation back to its original founding principles with PEACEFUL methods.
Right now, it’s a coin toss.
IF the Court upholds the lower court ruling, does this mean that citizens will be able to carry guns legally without some type of permitting and/or licensing requirement? I just completed the Arkansas concealed carry course but haven’t sent off my paperwork. I think I’ll hold off until the ruling is made.
Not familiar with the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising, are you?
It didn't ultimately work out well for the defenders, but it didn't work out very well for the attackers either.
The laws in place now for filling out the 4473, are a form of registration, even though it is dealer related, it still tracks a weapon from the dealer to the purchaser and subject to inspection by the ATF.
What Gura did here was basically disarm(pun intended) the justices who are in the 'collective' camp. By saying, 'We are not dismissing the notion of registration for this purpose.', but the inherent right of self-defense cannot be denied, the justices who would vote against us, may now say, the lower court ruling should be affirmed and the DC ban re-adjusted.
It was a smart move, because it would put the pressure on the DC city council to come up with a law that would pass muster. They couldn't 'limit' who can register, and the floodgates would overwhelm the system. It would also give the people the voice necessary to influence the City Council to change that resolution.
Even if the City Council refuses or drags their feet on changing the ban, it becomes null and void with a favorable ruling by the Supremes.
There are other ramifications of a favorable ruling, Morton Grove could be revisted, the FOID card, the states who have a 'may-issue' CCW, would have to change to a 'shall issue' state.
There are many, many unintended consequences that will come from a favorable ruling.
That ruling is just fine, even if the author is a tad confused.
Enough armed citizens and it will never get to a Waco or a Warsaw - more like what happened with Switzerland. No invasions for hundreds of years in spite of Napoleon, the Kaiser, Joe Stalin or the Nazis.
Heh... there were no civilian police at the time the Constitution was ratified, if I remember my history correctly. "The coppers" were a somewhat later innovation.
What Good Can A Handgun Do Against An Army.....?
By Mike Vanderboegh, Dec 5,1998
A friend of mine recently forwarded me a question a friend of his had posed:
"If/when our Federal Government comes to pilfer, pillage, plunder our property and destroy our lives, what good can a handgun do against an army with advanced weaponry, tanks, missiles, planes, or whatever else they might have at their disposal to achieve their nefarious goals? (I'm not being facetious: I accept the possibility that what happened in Germany, or similar, could happen here; I'm just not sure that the potential good from an armed citizenry in such a situation outweighs the day-to-day problems caused by masses of idiots who own guns.)"
If I may, I'd like to try to answer that question. I certainly do not think the writer facetious for asking it. The subject is a serious one that I have given much research and considerable thought to. I believe that upon the answer to this question depends the future of our Constitutional republic, our liberty and perhaps our lives. My friend Aaron Zelman, one of the founders of Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership, once told me:
"If every Jewish and anti-nazi family in Germany had owned a Mauser rifle and twenty rounds of ammunition AND THE WILL TO USE IT (emphasis supplied, MV), Adolf Hitler would be a little-known footnote to the history of the Weimar Republic."
Note well that phrase: "and the will to use it," for the simply-stated question, "What good can a handgun do against an army?", is in fact a complex one and must be answered at length and carefully. It is a military question. It is also a political question. But above all it is a moral question which strikes to the heart of what makes men free, and what makes them slaves.
First, let's answer the military question.
Most military questions have both a strategic and a tactical component. Let's consider the tactical.
A friend of mine owns an instructive piece of history. It is a small, crude pistol, made out of sheet-metal stampings by the U.S. during World War II. While it fits in the palm of your hand and is a slowly-operated, single-shot arm, it's powerful.45 caliber projectile will kill a man with brutal efficiency. With a short, smooth-bore barrel it can reliably kill only at point blank ranges, so its use requires the will (brave or foolhardy) to get in close before firing. It is less a soldier's weapon than an assassin's tool. The U.S. manufactured them by the million during the war, not for our own forces but rather to be air-dropped behind German lines to resistance units in occupied Europe. Crude and slow (the fired case had to be knocked out of the breech by means of a little wooden dowel, a fresh round procured from the storage area in the grip and then manually reloaded and cocked) and so wildly inaccurate it couldn't hit the broad side of a French barn at 50 meters, to the Resistance man or woman who had no firearm it still looked pretty darn good.
The theory and practice of it was this: First, you approach a German sentry with your little pistol hidden in your coat pocket and, with Academy-award sincerity, ask him for a light for your cigarette (or the time the train leaves for Paris, or if he wants to buy some non-army-issue food or a perhaps half-hour with your "sister"). When he smiles and casts a nervous glance down the street to see where his Sergeant is at, you blow his brains out with your first and only shot, then take his rifle and ammunition. Your next few minutes are occupied with "getting out of Dodge," for such critters generally go around in packs. After that (assuming you evade your late benefactor's friends) you keep the rifle and hand your little pistol to a fellow Resistance fighter so they can go get their own rifle.
Or maybe you then use your rifle to get a submachine gun from the Sergeant when he comes running. Perhaps you get very lucky and pickup a light machine gun, two boxes of ammunition and a haversack of hand grenades. With two of the grenades and the expenditure of a half-a-box of ammunition at a hasty roadblock the next night, you and your friends get a truck full of arms and ammunition. (Some of the cargo is sticky with "Boche" blood, but you don't mind terribly.)
Pretty soon you've got the best armed little maquis unit in your part of France, all from that cheap little pistol and the guts to use it. (One wonders if the current political elite's opposition to so-called "Saturday Night Specials" doesn't come from some adopted racial memory of previous failed tyrants. Even cheap little pistols are a threat to oppressive regimes.) They called the pistol the "Liberator." Not a bad name, all in all.
Now let's consider the strategic aspect of the question, "What good can a handgun do against an army....?" We have seen that even a poor pistol can make a great deal of difference to the military career and postwar plans of one enemy soldier. That's tactical. But consider what a million pistols, or a hundred million pistols (which may approach the actual number of handguns in the U.S. today), can mean to the military planner who seeks to carry out operations against a populace so armed.
Mention "Afghanistan" or "Chechnya" to a member of the current Russian military hierarchy and watch them shudder at the bloody memories. Then you begin to get the idea that modern munitions, air superiority and overwhelming, precision-guided violence still are not enough to make victory certain when the targets are not sitting Christmas-present fashion out in the middle of the desert.
I forget the name of the Senator who observed, "You know, a million here and a million there, and pretty soon you're talking about serious money." Consider that there are at least as many firearms-- handguns, rifles and shotguns-- as there are citizens of the United States. Consider that last year there were more than 14 million Americans who bought licenses to hunt deer in the country. 14 million-- that's a number greater than the largest five professional armies in the world combined. Consider also that those deer hunters are not only armed, but they own items of military utility-- everything from camouflage clothing to infrared "game finders", Global Positioning System devices and night vision scopes.
Consider also that quite a few of these hunters are military veterans. Just as moving around in the woods and stalking game are second nature, military operations are no mystery to them, especially those who were on the receiving end of guerrilla war in Southeast Asia. Indeed, such men, aging though they may be, may be more psychologically prepared for the exigencies of civil war (for this is what we are talking about) than their younger active-duty brother-soldiers whose only military experience involved neatly defined enemies and fronts in the Grand Campaign against Saddam. Not since 1861-1865 has the American military attempted to wage a war athwart its own logistical tail (nor indeed has it ever had to use modern conventional munitions on the Main Streets of its own hometowns and through its' relatives backyards, nor has it tested the obedience of soldiers who took a very different oath with orders to kill their "rebellious" neighbors, but that touches on the political aspect of the question).
But forget the psychological and political for a moment, and consider just the numbers. To paraphrase the Senator, "A million pistols here, a million rifles there, pretty soon you're talking serious firepower." No one, repeat, no one, will conquer America, from within or without, until its citizenry are disarmed. We remain, as a British officer had reason to complain at the start of our Revolution, "a people numerous and armed."
The Second Amendment is a political issue today only because of the military reality that underlies it. Politicians who fear the people seek to disarm them. People who fear their government's intentions refuse to be disarmed. The Founders understood this. So, too, does every tyrant who ever lived. Liberty-loving Americans forget it at their peril. Until they do, American gun owners in the aggregate represent a strategic military fact and an impediment to foreign tyranny. They also represent the greatest political challenge to home-grown would-be tyrants. If the people cannot be forcibly disarmed against their will, then they must be persuaded to give up their arms voluntarily. This is the siren song of "gun control," which is to say "government control of all guns," although few self-respecting gun-grabbers such as Charles Schumer would be quite so bold as to phrase it so honestly.
Joseph Stalin, when informed after World War II that the Pope disapproved of Russian troops occupying Trieste, turned to his advisor's and asked, "The Pope? The Pope? How many divisions does he have?" Dictators are unmoved by moral suasion. Fortunately, our Founders saw the wisdom of backing the First Amendment up with the Second. The "divisions" of the army of American constitutional liberty get into their cars and drive to work in this country every day to jobs that are hardly military in nature. Most of them are unmindful of the service they provide. Their arms depots may be found in innumerable closets, gunracks and gunsafes. They have no appointed officers, nor will they need any until they are mobilized by events. Such guardians of our liberty perform this service merely by existing. And although they may be an ever-diminishing minority within their own country, as gun ownership is demonized and discouraged by the ruling elites, still they are as yet more than enough to perform their vital task. And if they are unaware of the impediment they present to their would-be rulers, their would-be rulers are painfully aware of these "divisions of liberty", as evidenced by their incessant calls for individual disarmament. They understand moral versus military force just as clearly as Stalin, but they would not be so indelicate as to quote him.
The Roman Republic failed because they could not successfully answer the question, "Who Shall Guard the Guards?" The Founders of this Republic answered that question with both the First and Second Amendments. Like Stalin, the Clintonistas could care less what common folk say about them, but the concept of the armed citizenry as guarantors of their own liberties sets their teeth on edge and disturbs their statist sleep.
Governments, some great men once avowed, derive their legitimacy from "the consent of the governed." In the country that these men founded, it should not be required to remind anyone that the people do not obtain their natural, God-given liberties by "the consent of the Government." Yet in this century, our once great constitutional republic has been so profaned in the pursuit of power and social engineering by corrupt leaders as to be unrecognizable to the Founders. And in large measure we have ourselves to blame because at each crucial step along the way the usurpers of our liberties have obtained the consent of a majority of the governed to do what they have done, often in the name of "democracy"-- a political system rejected by the Founders. Another good friend of mine gave the best description of pure democracy I have ever heard. "Democracy," he concluded, "is three wolves and a sheep sitting down to vote on what to have for dinner." The rights of the sheep in this system are by no means guaranteed.
Now it is true that our present wolf-like, would-be rulers do not as yet seek to eat that sheep and its peaceable wooly cousins (We, the people). They are, however, most desirous that the sheep be shorn of taxes, and if possible and when necessary, be reminded of their rightful place in society as "good citizen sheep" whose safety from the big bad wolves outside their barn doors is only guaranteed by the omnipresence in the barn of the "good wolves" of the government.
Indeed, they do not present themselves as wolves at all, but rather these lupines parade around in sheep's clothing, bleating insistently in falsetto about the welfare of the flock and the necessity to surrender liberty and property "for the children", er, ah, I mean "the lambs." In order to ensure future generations of compliant sheep, they are careful to educate the lambs in the way of "political correctness," tutoring them in the totalitarian faiths that "it takes a barnyard to raise a lamb" and "all animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others."
Every now and then, some tough old independent-minded ram refuses to be shorn and tries to remind the flock that they once decided affairs themselves according to the rule of law of their ancestors, and without the help of their "betters." When that happens, the fangs become apparent and the conspicuously unwilling are shunned, cowed, driven off or (occasionally) killed. But flashing teeth or not, the majority of the flock has learned over time not to resist the Lupine-Mandarin class which herds it. Their Founders, who were fiercely independent rams, would have long ago chased off such usurpers. Any present members of the flock who think like that are denounced as antediluvian or mentally deranged.
There are some of these dissidents the lupines would like to punish, but they dare not-- for their teeth are every bit as long as their "betters." Indeed, this is the reason the wolves haven't eaten any sheep in generations. To the wolves chagrin, this portion of the flock is armed and they outnumber the wolves by a considerable margin. For now the wolves are content are content to watch the numbers of these "armed sheep" diminish, as long teeth are no longer fashionable in polite society. (Indeed, they are considered by the literati to be an anachronism best forgotten and such sheep are dismissed by the Mandarins as "Tooth Nuts" or "Right Leg Fanatics".) When the numbers of armed sheep fall below below a level that the wolves can feel safe to do so, the eating will begin. The wolves are patient, and proceed by infinitesimal degrees like the slowly-boiling frog. It took them generations to lull the sheep into accepting them as rulers instead of elected representatives. If it takes another generation or two of sheep to complete the process, the wolves can wait. This is our "Animal Farm," without apology to George Orwell.
Even so, the truth is that one man with a pistol CAN defeat an army, given a righteous cause to fight for, enough determination to risk death for that cause, and enough brains, luck and friends to win the struggle. This is true in war but also in politics, and it is not necessary to be a Prussian militarist to see it.
The dirty little secret of today's ruling elite as represented by the Clintonistas and other Democrats is that they want people of conscience and principle to be divided in as many ways as possible ("wedge issues" the consultants call them) so that they may be more easily manipulated. No issue of race, religion, class or economics is left unexploited.
Lost in the din of jostling special interests are the few voices who point out that if we refuse to be divided from what truly unites us as a people, we cannot be defeated on the large issues of principle, faith, the constitutional republic and the rule of law. More importantly, woe and ridicule will be heaped upon anyone who points out that like the blustering Wizard of Oz, the federal tax and regulation machine is not as omniscient, omnipotent or fearsome as they would have us believe. Like the Wizard, they fan the scary flames higher and shout, "Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!"
For the truth is, they are frightened that we will find out how pitifully few they are compared to the mass of the citizenry they seek to frighten into compliance with their tax collections, property seizures and bureaucratic, unconstitutional power-shifting. I strongly recommend everyone see the new animated movie "A Bug's Life". Simple truths may often be found sheltering beneath unlikely overhangs, there protected from the pelting storm of lies that soak us everyday. "A Bug's Life", a children's' movie of all things, is just such a place.
The plot revolves around an ant hill on an unnamed island, where the ants placate predatory grasshoppers by offering them each year one-half of the food they gather (sounds a lot like the IRS, right?). Driven to desperation by the insatiable tax demands of the large, fearsome grasshoppers, one enterprising ant goes abroad seeking bug mercenaries who will return with him and defend the anthill when the grasshoppers return. (If this sounds a lot like an animated "Magnificent Seven", you're right.)
The grasshoppers (who roar about like some biker gang or perhaps the ATF in black helicopters, take your pick) are, at one point in the movie, lounging around in a "bug cantina" down in Mexico, living off the bounty of the land. The harvest seeds they eat are dispensed one at a time from an upturned bar bottle. Two grasshoppers suggest to their leader, a menacing fellow named "Hopper" (whose voice characterization by Kevin Spacey is suitably evil personified), that they should forget about the poor ants on the island. Here, they say, we can live off the fat of the land, why worry about some upstart ants? Hopper turns on them instantly. "Would you like a seed?" he quietly asks one. "Sure," answers the skeptical grasshopper thug. "Would you like one?" Hopper asks the other. "Yeah," says he. Hopper manipulates the spigot on the bar bottle twice, and distributes the seeds to them.
"So, you want to know why we have to go back to the island, do you?" Hopper asks menacingly as the thugs munch on their seeds. "I'll show you why!" he shouts, removing the cap from the bottle entirely with one quick blow. The seeds, no longer restrained by the cap, respond to gravity and rush out all at once, inundating the two grasshoppers and crushing them. Hopper turns to his remaining fellow grasshoppers and shrieks, "That's why!"
I'm paraphrasing from memory here, for I've only seen the movie once. But Hopper then explains, "Don't you remember the upstart ant on that island? They outnumber us a hundred to one. How long do you think we'll last if they ever figure that out?" "If the ants are not frightened of us," Hopper tells them, "our game is finished. We're finished." Of course it comes as no surprise that in the end the ants figure that out. Would that liberty-loving Americans were as smart as animated ants.
Courage to stand against tyranny, fortunately, is not only found on videotape. Courage flowers from the heart, from the twin roots of deeply-held principle and faith in God. There are American heroes living today who have not yet performed the deeds of principled courage that future history books will record. They have not yet had to stand in the gap, to plug it with their own fragile bodies and lives against the evil that portends. Not yet have they been required to pledge "their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor." Yet they will have to.
I believe with all my heart the lesson that history teaches: That each and every generation of Americans is given, along with the liberty and opportunity that is their heritage, the duty to defend America against the tyrannies of their day. Our father's father's fathers fought this same fight. Our mother's mother's mothers fought it as well. From the Revolution through the world wars, from the Cold War through to the Gulf, they fought to secure their liberty in conflicts great and small, within and without.
They stood faithful to the oath that our Founders gave us: To bear true faith and allegiance-- not to a man; not to the land; not to a political party, but to an idea. The idea is liberty, as codified in the Constitution of the United States. We swear, as did they, an oath to defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. And throughout the years they paid in blood and treasure the terrible price of that oath. That was their day. This is ours. The clouds we can see on the horizon may be a simple rain or a vast hurricane, but there is a storm coming. Make no mistake.
Lincoln said that this nation cannot long exist half slave and half free. I say, if I may humbly paraphrase, that this nation cannot long exist one-third slave, one-third uncommitted, and one-third free. The slavery today is of the mind and soul not the body, but it is slavery without a doubt that the Clintons and their toadies are pushing.
It is slavery to worship our nominally-elected representatives as our rulers instead of requiring their trustworthiness as our servants. It is slavery of the mind and soul that demands that God-given rights that our Forefathers secured with their blood and sacrifice be traded for the false security of a nanny-state which will tend to our "legitimate needs" as they are perceived by that government. It is slavery of a more traditional sort that extorts half of our incomes to pay, like slaves of old, for the privilege of serving and supporting our master's regime.
It is slavery to worship humanism as religion and slavery to deny life and liberty to unborn Americans. As people of faith in God, whatever our denomination, we are in bondage to a plantation system that steals our money; seizes our property; denies our ancient liberties; denies even our very history, supplanting it with sanitized and politicized "correctness"; denies our children a real public education; denies them even the mention of God in school; denies, in fact, the very existence of God.
So finally we are faced with, we must return to, the moral component of the question: "What good can a handgun do against an army?" The answer is "Nothing," or "Everything." The outcome depends upon the mind and heart and soul of the man or woman who holds it. One may also ask, "What good can a sling in the hands of a boy do against a marauding giant?" If your cause is just and righteous much can be done, but only if you are willing to risk the consequences of failure and to bear the burdens of eternal vigilance.
A new friend of mine gave me a plaque the other day. Upon it is written these words by Winston Churchill, a man who knew much about fighting tyranny: "Still, if you will not fight for the right when you can easily win without bloodshed; if you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance of survival. There may be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves."
The Spartans at Thermopylae knew this. The fighting Jews of Masada knew this, when every man, woman and child died rather than submit to Roman tyranny. The Texans who died at the Alamo knew this. The frozen patriots of Valley Forge knew this. The "expendable men" of Bataan and Corregidor knew this. If there is one lesson of Hitlerism and the Holocaust, it is that free men, if they wish to remain free, must resist would-be tyrants at the first opportunity and at every opportunity. Remember that whether they the come as conquerors or elected officials, the men who secretly wish to be your murderers must first convince you that you must accept them as your masters. Free men and women must not wait until they are "selected", divided and herded into Warsaw Ghettos, there to finally fight desperately, almost without weapons, and die outnumbered.
The tyrant must be met at the door when he appears. At your door, or mine, wherever he shows his bloody appetite. He must be met by the pistol which can defeat an army. He must be met at every door, for in truth we outnumber him and his henchmen. It matters not whether they call themselves Communists or Nazis or something else. It matters not what flag they fly, nor what uniform they wear. It matters not what excuses they give for stealing your liberty, your property or your life. "By their works ye shall know them."
The time is late. Those who once has trouble reading the hour on their watches have no trouble seeing by the glare of the fire at Waco. Few of us realized at the time that the Constitution was burning right along with the Davidians. Now we know better.
We have had the advantage of that horrible illumination for more than five years now-- five years in which the rule of law and the battered old parchment of our beloved Constitution have been smashed, shredded and besmirched by the Clintonistas. In this process they have been aided and abetted by the cowardly incompetence of the "opposition" Republican leadership, a fact made crystal clear by the Waco hearings. They have forgotten Daniel Webster's warning: "Miracles do not cluster. Hold on to the Constitution of the United States of America and the Republic for which it stands-- what has happened once in six thousand years may never happen again. Hold on to your Constitution, for if the American Constitution shall fail there will be anarchy throughout the world."
Yet being able to see what has happened has not helped us reverse, or even slow, the process. The sad fact is that we may have to resign ourselves to the prospect of having to maintain our principles and our liberty in the face of becoming a disenfranchised minority within our own country.
The middle third of the populace, it seems, will continue to waffle in favor of the enemies of the Constitution until their comfort level with the economy is endangered. They've got theirs, Jack. The Republicans, who we thought could represent our interests and protect the Constitution and the rule of law, have been demonstrated to be political eunuchs. Alan Keyes was dead right when he characterized the last election as one between "the lawless Democrats and the gutless Republicans." The spectacular political failures of our current leaders are unrivaled in our history unless you recall the unprincipled jockeying for position and tragi-comedy of misunderstanding and miscommunication which lead to our first Civil War.
And make no mistake, it is civil war which may be the most horrible corollary of the Law of Unintended Consequences as it applies to the Clintonistas and their destruction of the rule of law. Because such people have no cause for which they are willing to die (all morality being relativistic to them, and all principles compromisable), they cannot fathom the motives or behavior of people who believe that there are some principles worth fighting and dying for. Out of such failures of understanding come wars. Particularly because although such elitists would not risk their own necks in a fight, they have no compunction about ordering others in their pay to fight for them. It is not the deaths of others, but their own deaths, that they fear. As a Christian, I cannot fear my own death, but rather I am commanded by my God to live in such a way as to make my death a homecoming. That this makes me incomprehensible and threatening to those who wish to be my masters is something I can do little about. I would suggest to them that they not poke their godless, tyrannical noses down my alley. As the coiled rattlesnake flag of the Revolution bluntly stated: "Don't Tread on Me!" Or, as our state motto here in Alabama says: "We Dare Defend Our Rights."
But can a handgun defeat an army? Yes. It remains to be seen whether the struggle of our generation against the tyrants of our day in the first decade of the 21st Century will bring a restoration of liberty and the rule of law or a dark and bloody descent into chaos and slavery. If it is to be the former, I will meet you at the new Yorktown. If it is to be the latter, I will meet you at Masada. But I will not be a slave. And I know that whether we succeed or fail, if we should fall along the way, our graves will one day be visited by other free Americans, thanking us that we did not forget that, with help of Almighty ________________________________________
FAIR USE NOTICE: This website contains some copyrighted material, which is reproduced under the Fair Use Provision of Title 17, U.S.C. Section 107, and is posted for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, or research. This material is posted without profit for the benefit of those who, by accessing this site, are expressing a prior interest in this information for research and educational purposes.
Only if you read it the way I do. If I could carry or use it while on active duty in the military, I can carry and use it while a citizen of this country going about my lawful business. That would include high-capacity magazines, full-auto or select-fire weapons, and crew-served weapons, up to and including my very own B-52, with a full load out. From the text of the arguments before the court from the other day, it looks as if several of the justices, and even Dellinger, feel so. (Granted, I'm extending their arguments a bit...)
==> “I just completed the Arkansas concealed carry course but haven’t sent off my paperwork. I think I’ll hold off until the ruling is made.” <==
Don’t wait too long - your eligibility expires, probably in 60 days - and you have to take the course again!
Will “simple ordinary firearms” defend the citizen from swat teams with flash-bangs and full auto weapons?
““Will ‘simple ordinary firearms’ defend the citizen from swat teams with flash-bangs and full auto weapons?”
In a word: Yes. A determined people can accomplish anything. History is full of lightly-armed people defeating a more powerfully-armed, but smaller group. How to get some “flash bangs” and full auto weapons for themselves? The people just need to take them away from those that have them, either by stealing them or incapacitating those who have them, and then taking them.”
I believe that was the “design point” of the WWII Liberator Pistol — a resistance fighter approaches a lone German soldier, sticks that Liberator in his gut and pulls the trigger —and now that resistance fighter had a Mauser (maybe even an MP 40), and a couple of stick grenades. Wash, rinse, repeat.
I presume he will say something stupid like of course not but he won't interfere with the Courts. That's when you tell him that you don't agree with Roe v. Wade which is nothing more than government approved executions nor do you sanction armed criminals determining which member of your family they will rape and kill while plundering your neighborhood. Furthermore you want the means to prevent such actions so ........
I don’t carry a gun…
… to kill people. I carry a gun to keep from being killed.
I don’t carry a gun to scare people. I carry a gun
because sometimes this world can be a scary place.
I don’t carry a gun because I’m paranoid. I carry a gun
because there are real threats in the world.
I don’t carry a gun because I’m evil. I carry a gun
because I have lived long enough to see the evil in the world.
I don’t carry a gun because I hate the government. I carry a gun
because I understand the limitations of government.
I don’t carry a gun because I’m angry. I carry a gun so that I don’t have to
spend the rest of my life hating myself for failing to be prepared.
I don’t carry a gun because I want to shoot someone. I carry a gun because I want to
die at a ripe old age in my bed, and not on a sidewalk somewhere tomorrow afternoon.
I don’t carry a gun because I’m a cowboy. I carry a gun
because, when I die and go to heaven, I want to be a cowboy.
I don’t carry a gun to make me feel like a man. I carry a gun
because men know how to take care of themselves and the ones they love.
I don’t carry a gun because I feel inadequate. I carry a gun
because unarmed and facing three armed thugs, I am inadequate.
I don’t carry a gun because I love it. I carry a gun
because I love life and the people who make it meaningful to me.
“Police Protection” is an oxymoron. Free citizens must protect themselves.
Police do not protect you from crime, they usually just investigate
the crime after it happens and then call someone in to clean up the mess.
Personally, I carry a gun because I’m too young to die and too old to take an ass kickin’.
I believe that COP stands for Constable On Patrol.
Sharp sticks and baseball bats in the hands of properly motivated and well pissed off citizens can get them select fire weapons. All the survivors have to do is wipe off the blood.
Michael Frazier
The derivation I heard is that "cop" is short for "copper", which is what the original police badges were made of.
It prevents the Federal Government from prohibiting the State Militias from having weapons. Seems like a logical restriction on the Federal Government to me.
I watched the killing channel (Outdoor TV) last night as G&A and other great shooting shows come on that channel on Wednesday’s. They gave Zumbo back his TV show in the dark of night I might add with sponsors from Swarovski and Remington so I have purchased my last from them ever.
The gist of my post is this.
The main theme of the Guns & Ammo Show and a few others drove home the AR series of “””eeeeeeevil black rifles””” as sporting arms derived from a great line of military arms. The lever actions of the mid to late 1800’s were designed for troops late in the civil war and issued in the form of the Henry’s etc ...
The bolt action Mauser’s designed as the best military arm of the time is the tried and true hunting arm of this day as well. The designs of the BAR is there in the Browning and Remington’s semi auto hunting rifles. The Garand is a rifle that I have used the 5 round enbloc to hunt with as well. Heavy , yet as a teen it was a cheap accurate rifle I could afford from DCM (now CMP).
The show continued to show every form of the AR for varmint, elk, mulies, white tails etc as well as target, 3 gun matches etc ........
Key point the show at Guns and Ammo is what is needed to take such as the M1A, the Mini 14, the multiple AR platforms etc off the BS Brady lists.
This Episode had FACTS. Not any BS bling or wannabe warrior BS. They relayed what most of us know already . The AR is as or more so a viable platform plat form for hunting, varmint control and self defense as is the venerable and versatile pump shotgun.
Try and catch the repeat of that episode tonight or later in this week if ya have time ! Let me know if your perception of the show was as mine..........excellent !
Sounds like another Spitzer. I have no use for DA’s like them.
Note that was written nearly ten years ago.
Some worry about jack boots with webbed gear breaking down doors and wreaking havoc
Others view it as door to door delivery of new arms and webbed gear.
“Some worry about jack boots with webbed gear breaking down doors and wreaking havoc. Others view it as door to door delivery of new arms and webbed gear.”
No one is saying that fighting tyranny is going to be easy.
“I believe that was the ‘design point’ of the WWII Liberator Pistol.”
Precisely. The Liberator pistol was a mass-produced, very cheap, one-shot .45 caliber weapon. It’s sole purpose was as you described.
The bottom line, paraphrased, (IIRC)is are they as ready to die for their cause as you are for yours?
Your office mate is an idiot. A simple question for him: “When bad people do bad things, who’s going to stop them? You?”
Some of the weapons I own are designated as “the rifle you use to get a better rifle.” Like the good old Lee-Enfield No 1 MkIII in .308, courtesy of Rifle Factory Ishapore.
You want freedom? Are you willing to die for it?
Everything else is secondary.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.