Posted on 11/18/2002 5:32:20 PM PST by 45Auto
The best way I know to win an argument is to start by being in the right. - Lord Hailshan
We are at war and every one of us has a responsibility and a right to defend each other and ourselves. This is not hyperbole. It is not fear mongering. It is FACT.
Item #1 in a list of ‘Rules for a gunfight’ is, "Bring a gun. Preferably, bring at least two guns. Bring all of your friends who have guns."
About three years ago a friend told me a story about a colleague of his, Jerry Molen, who was one of the executive producers of "Schindler's List".
In the wake of the film’s critical acclaim, Molen was speaking to some group. He noticed in the audience an old man who was staring intently at him during his speech. He said he felt odd by the intensity of the glare. After the speech he was basking in the glow of audience approval when the old man walked up to him. The old man pointed a craggy finger at Molen and with a voice filled with intensity and seriousness, he said "Don't you EVER let them take YOUR guns." Molen noticed that the right forearm of the old man had a series of faded blue numbers tattooed on his flesh.
In the 90s there was a media/federal jihad against militias. In the New Millennium militias may again save the republic.
Notwithstanding the marginalized stereotype of militias as being gap toothed, camouflaged, knuckle dragging wannabe Rambos…militias have been, are, and will/should be an integral part of protecting the country.
It was President John F. Kennedy who said, "Today, we need a nation of Minutemen, citizens who are not only prepared to take arms, but citizens who regard the preservation of freedom as the basic purpose of their daily life and who are willing to consciously work and sacrifice for that freedom."
Once upon a time (1676) long ago and far away my ancestor, Michael Metcalf returned to his home in Dedham Massachusetts to discover it burned by Native Americans. He joined a militia and with other militias fought in ‘The King Philips War’.
Today’s modern militias remain an eclectic collection of constitutionally conservative folks from all walks of life. Sure, some of them are extremists, racists, and criminals…but the same can be said for Democrats, Republicans, Christians, Jews and Muslims. To damn any group for the sins of the few is beyond myopic and disingenuous. Since 9/11 and the inevitability of planned organized terrorist attacks, the militia concept should be embraced and not vilified.
And it IS! The Arizona Daily Star wrote, "Cochise County's ‘official newspaper’ has issued a call to arms and is spearheading the formation of a local militia to combat illegal immigration." And the liberals went NUTS!
Sheriff Larry Dever said frustrations with the federal government’s inability to stem the flow of illegal immigration have attracted the attention of a number of groups on all sides of the issue. Hey, how about the federal government’s inability to post a platoon of combat troops in every neighborhood?
Militias SHOULD be local people. Militias should be neighborhood watch programs with guns as well as telephones.
Your right to own a gun is inalienable. You have a God-given right to protect and defend yourself, your family and your property. Any and all other legislative masturbation to the contrary, designed to erode, undermine or attrite that right is invalid, immoral and an invitation to massive non-compliance. The Second Amendment was not intended to guarantee my bird hunting, or for states to maintain militias. It was, and is, as even Harvard Law Professor Laurnce Tribe (liberal icon) acknowledges, an INDIVIDUAL RIGHT.
After the alleged end of the Cold War, several CIA types were informally meeting with a group of their KGB counterparts. Eventually, after a few vodkas, the question was asked, "So Ivan, did you guys actually have plans for invading CONUS (Continental United States)?"
Reportedly the KGB officer laughed, "Hell no!"
"Why not?" asked a CIA suit. "Your people have too many guns." Those "Minutemen" Kennedy longed for, and that the Russians recognize are the bone and sinew of a country's strength and Clintonite liberals would abolish, do exist.
Despite unbridled persistent efforts of Clintons, Gore, Janet Reno, Sarah Brady, Chuck Schumer, Barbara Boxer, et al, at least so far, there remain tens of millions of Americans who would rather die on their feet than live on their knees (or wait bleeding for 911 to send help).
I suggest, it will not be the camo-clad weekend paintballers and wannabe stereotyped militia Rambos who will refuse to comply with confiscation. Resistance will come from the remaining former military that still believe in the sacred oath of their youth. It will be the blue-hair grandmothers who protect their family and their heritage that would rather die martyrs than live as slaves.
Someday someone may kill you with your own gun, but they should have to beat you to death with it because it is empty.
About the Author Federal Observer contributor Geoff Metcalf is a veteran media performer. He has had an eclectic professional background covering a wide spectrum of radio, television, magazine, and newspapers. A former Green Beret and retired Army officer he is in great demand as a speaker. Metcalf has hosted his radio talk show on the ABC/Disney owned and operated KSFO and in worldwide syndication. Visit Geoff's Web Site.
"Only tyrants, criminals and demonRATS fear the armed citizen."
He spoke, interestingly, at KENNESAW COLLEGE (and we all know what Kennesaw is famous for!).
His talk dealt with the clear intent of the leadership of the old Soviet Union to somehow take America. He mentioned their ICBMs and the nuclear blackmail threat THEY posed.
Then he broke from his prepared remarks and offered this:
"The leaders of my country are as AFRAID OF YOUR 200 MILLION PRIVATE FIREARMS as they are of your ICBMs. NEVER GIVE UP YOUR GUNS."
Frankly -- and, while he had to be careful as he was under FBI protection at the time, Shevchenko alluded to this in his remarks -- I'm as concerned about some domestic tyrant (say, Hillary or Chuck Schumer) as I am about some foreign enemy.
Absolutely. Sorry, I love my country and the Army way too much to go along with some bogus orders to shoot some American protestors. I'd be much more inclined to shoot the people giving the order.
I must repectfully disagree. True, in a convetional war,( with armor, aircraft, and battle-lines)the fire-power of the U.S. Army would likely roll over anything in its' way (see: Persian Gulf War.)
However, the might of a standing army may be counteracted through the use of unconvetional warfare. (see: Vietnam War.) God Forbid anything of this sort becomes nessicary, we wouldn't need eqivalent firepower; just enough to resist.
Using force multipiers (high ground, suprise, entrenched positions) it is possible to conduct a sucessful gurilla war. Small groups of infantry, using hit-and-run tactics, would make air-strikes and the like virtually impotent.
A few years ago, 5,000 Chechen rebels armed with rifles were able to hold the city of Grozny from 20,000 Russins, who were armed with T-80's, BMPS's, and Hinds. They used hiding and manuver to make the superior fire-power of the Russians worthless.
FReegards;
MrJingles
It's tough to argue against that kind of arsenal. Still 80,000,000 guns might make a pretty good dent. That, plus even a tyrant has to sleep now and then. Someone's bound to get lucky.
When the Redcoats fled from one of the earliest battles, the description one of the troops recorded was "A gun from behind every tree and bush". I imagine an event that would stir yet another such reaction would yield very similar results.
The idea is to spread force over an area, both geographic and demographic, too wide for any centrally-controlled force to dominate by focusing a superior but smaller force toward. There are actually, IMHO, reasons to be optimistic in regards to the dispersion in the United States of a number of factors necessary to constitute armed and unarmed resistance, certainly in comparison to many other areas of the world. One of these is the permeation of firearms and ammunition, and of knowledge of their means of employment. Another is the highly decentralized and redundant means of communication. A third is a national tradition of skepticism toward, and resistance to, authority. A fourth is the wide dissemination of technical expertise necessary to circumvent technically-based means of control.
There are disadvantages as well - a civilized reluctance to resort to force, especially as it regards the taking of life, in order to resolve political problems. It is an unfortunate lesson of the 20th century just how easily overcome this reluctance is; no tyrant would be wise to depend upon it. But it is there.
I think, frankly, that the likelihood of the necessity of widespread armed resistance to any central authority in the United States in my lifetime at least, is vanishingly small. As vanishingly small, say, as the odds of World War I happening. But happen it did. We would be fools to act as if the odds were nonexistent.
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.