Posted on 03/14/2003 5:35:36 PM PST by Pitchfork
In the March 11 New York Times, Neil MacFarquhar notes in passing, "Most Iraqi households own at least one gun." This comes as a shock to those of us who've been hearing for years from the gun lobby that widespread firearms ownership is necessary to prevent the United States from becoming a police state. Here, via the National Rifle Association's Web site, is Bill Pryor, attorney general of Alabama, decrying the "war on guns": "In a republic that promotes a free society, as opposed to a police state, one of the basic organizing principles is that individuals have a right of self-defense and a right to acquire the means for that defense." The basic Jeffersonian idea is that you never know when you'll need to organize a militia against your government. In director John Milius' camp Cold War classic Red Dawn, Russians and Nicaraguan commies take over the United States in part by throwing gun owners in jail. In one memorable scene, the camera pans from a bumper sticker that says "You'll Take My Gun Away When You Pry It From My Cold, Dead Fingers" to a Russian soldier prying a gun from the car owner's … you get the idea.
The obvious question raised by MacFarquhar's piece is how Iraq got to be, and remains, one of the world's most repressive police states when just about everyone is packing heat. Chatterbox invites gun advocates (and Iraq experts) to e-mail (to chatterbox@slate.com) plausible reasons. The best of these will be examined in a follow-up item.
I think your ideas and mine converge as to the answer to THAT question. LOL.
LOL, that they do amigo, that they do.
Modern armies require several things in addition to all of the hight tech wizardry which todays politicians and a few of their appointed generals put so much stock in ... far too much stock I might add.
They require people to operate the high tech gadgetry and they require other people, a lot of them to maintain, feed, provision, load, et. both the gadgetry and the people operating them. Its a thing called logistics.
Simply put, logistics are hell when there are no front lines. Gadgetry that rubs out of juice ... stops working.
Gadgetry runs out of juice quickly when every truck driver, every mechanic, every maintianer, every trainer, etc. is subject to the Rule of 308 and Proposition 223 at anytime and anywhere from 200 to 600 yards.
Gadgetry also stops working when the people operating it, who are educated and themselves free, discover it is being used to kill thier unles, cousins, and fellow citizens.
There are eighty million armed Americans distributed all over this nation. It is estimated that they own something on the order of 500,000,000+ firearms with several billion rounds of ammunition. Those numbers would swallow a modern army up.
Several of the people on this board trying to explain this to you have a LOT of experience in the modern armies you speak of ... perhaps you should listen to them.
Finally, as to the so-called doctrine of original intent and it being highly subject to interpretation. That is true if the people who originally wrote it are not clear in their language regarding it. Some parts of the constitution may be vague (I do not believe the 2nd amendment to be on of them), but the founders were rather verbose in their explanations.
I have not yet heard you answer Travis McGee (and BTW, he is one of those with the experience of whom I speak) and the clear language he posted from the founders regarding what they wrote in the constitution. Where are your quotes from those same founders that would lead to us having to interpret their meaning?
Of course, as an instructor of American Government, I trust that you are including in your teachings the clear language of the men who wrote the basis for that government. If you are not ... then you'd best re-examine your title as a teacher and perhaps consider changing that title to propogandist or deciever or somethiong more fitting to what you are actually doing ... of course, this is presuming you are not sharing with your students that clear language.
By the way, where did you pick up that manner of speaking? Was it from the shop floor?
(He was a world-class concert pianist from Hungary who recently passed away.)
I got it form you highbrow folks here at FR.
Was it from the shop floor?
No way, if I talk that way to my pals in work boots and blue collars, they give me weird looks.
Amazing, just like in friggin' Iraq! red China, N. Korea, Britain, France, Germany...and you want the US to be the same. Why is that I wonder. Well it's, because you're all about control. Every GD thing has be be controlled by a committee of self appointed experts, right down to the smallest detail. Regardless of the fact gunowners don't cause problems they pose a direct threat to your imposition of expert, authoritarian rule.
Slavery is dead. This isn't your friggin' spread and we're not your property, regardless of any vote that might be taken. Aggressive enforcement? You've got to be kidding. You must feel lucky!
Taking the sheer numbers of armed people in the US - most of whom are better planners and are able to organize better than Malvo and friend, and far more likley to have popular support in that they would not be random murderers as were the "snipers" - instead they would be fighting not merely on the physical front but also in the ideological front with the many resources available for communication including friends in high places and in the police forces and military, I would say that a corrupt government wouldn't stand a chance against angry citizens who were not only actively fighting but no longer formally working and producing income to tax. The government could be quickly exhausted, its resources curtailed, and its forces demoralized, yet would still have to watch its back lest another government intervene or take advantage.
The Dalai Lama said acts of violence should be remembered, and then forgiveness should be extended to the perpetrators. But if someone has a gun and is trying to kill you, he said, it would be reasonable to shoot back with your own gun.
May 15, 2001 Seattle Times
and Gandhi had several good ones:
The worst thing that the British ever did to [India] was to take away our guns.
I have been repeating over and over again that he who cannot protect himself or his nearest and dearest or their honour by non-violently facing death may and ought to do so by violently dealing with the oppressor. He who can do neither of the two is a burden. He has no business to be the head of a family. He must either hide himself, or must rest content to live for ever in helplessness and be prepared to crawl like a worm at the bidding of a bully.
You seem amazed that a global empire had to fight many battles at once to maintain its empire. That didn't exactly slow the Brits down. (In fact, they were very adept at using local forces to patrol colonies, freeing up their regulars to conquer dissent elsewhere.)
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.