I understood that all America had the right:
The Supreme Court announced Tuesday that it would decide whether the Constitution grants individuals the right to keep guns in their homes for private use, plunging the justices headlong into a divisive and long-running debate over how to interpret the Second Amendment’s guarantee of the “right of the people to keep and bear arms.”Been thinking on this since Bob G's post here and now he quotes Jefferson:
"No man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."Yep, I've been thinking hard which is better to go for - the Mark XIX Desert Eagle point five oh or the good old M1911 point four five?
The thing is, when somone comes at you with a banana, you have to feel SURE!
OK, let's look at this.
ReplyDelete"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."
The Barrett 50 cal is accurate out to 1500m. The US Army is starting to deploy non-lethal weapons that can stop people approaching an installation or vehicle. The US armed forces could, with conventional weapons alone, reduce much of America to so much rubble.
How, if the defence is a few concerned citizens with handguns, the occasional hunting rifle and so on, is a tyrannical government going to be prevented?
Don't bring logic into it, Dave. This is a gun debate.
ReplyDeleteGives me the shudders. You've been a very prolific blogger today, your Randiness.
ReplyDeleteI prefer the 1911, myself.
ReplyDeleteThe armed forces could technically beat the civilian populace in an all-out war, but they wouldn't. For one thing, a lot of soldiers would refuse to do so; soldiers in the armed forces swear loyalty to the Constitution, not the people running the government. Asking them to break their oath and attack friends, relatives, and countrymen would alienate many, and cause rebellion in the ranks in places. Also the military would be causing a lot of problems by using large scale weapons; by destroying infrastructure, they would be damaging their own supply sources. My biggest worry would be from sources outside the country weaseling in during the chaos of a civil war.
Just my opinion.
You may also find this interesting.
Also, from WWII:
"You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind each blade of grass."
--Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto
Go with the Desert Eagle.
ReplyDeleteWith enough stopping power and easily loaded clips, your accuracy won't have to be pin point :)
But Lord Nazh, stopping power is not necessarily terminating power. Sometimes, as you know, the slower, softer round is quicker to terminate.
ReplyDeleteBobg - no American exceptionalism, thankyou. It is unlikely, but not impossible. Other democracies have fallen to tyranny and the US has had one insurrection that came close to destroying it.
ReplyDeleteAs I understand it, the Desert Eagle is a rifle mounted in a pistol. The stopping power would be useful for, say, blowing the block out of a truck.
The cartridge used by the Desert Eagle is nowhere near a rifle cartridge; it is just a large pistol cartridge, and will not blow out a truck engine. And shot placement is more important than power.
ReplyDeleteI don't remember preaching exceptionalism; any country can succumb to tyranny if it allows it to happen. It is a question of whether people will let it get to the point of no return. Once a nation is disarmed and programmed to always obey, there is no hope left.
>soldiers in the armed forces swear loyalty to the Constitution, not the people running the government.
ReplyDeleteI think you overestimate the resilience. It can be subverted.
We have already seen the very technical letter of the law used to try and prevent that law being applied in Camp X-Ray (Gitmo).
>Asking them to break their oath and attack friends, relatives, and countrymen would alienate many, and cause rebellion in the ranks in places.
I don't that that would make a difference. You are assuming perfect communications.
We have seen that soldiers will obey orders bordering on the illegal orders when pushed to do so. And that commanders will then attempt to sweep things under the carpet, and blame it on the little guys.
>Also the military would be causing a lot of problems by using large scale weapons; by destroying infrastructure, they would be damaging their own supply sources.
I don't see that making much difference in a war either.
>My biggest worry would be from sources outside the country weaseling in during the chaos of a civil war.
As ever. vbg.
The USA is wrong to discriminate between "American Citizens" and the great unwashed. For safety, and bearing your huge criminal population in mind, perhaps visas should be for people coming *out* - not going in.
>Just my opinion.
Ditto.
I'm running another post on this. I confess I did it half ironically but some things made me sit up and think.
ReplyDelete