Posted by
Dave in Nevada on Sunday, November 30, 2008 3:39:15 AM
I have heard the following argument on several
occasions in the past and again yesterday as to why the Second Amendment as a guarantee
that the people shall have the right to keep and bear arms is obsolete: “Armed
with only rifles and pistols, how could you possibly prevail against the Army?”
That question in and of itself should be a self-evident
answer as to why the Second Amendment is in place and why it is important that
we not allow it to be undermined.
All throughout history there have been many military
conflicts in which an outnumbered and out-gunned force was able to either hold
their own for a significant time and/or prevail in the conflict.
In many of these cases people fought a superior force that
had invaded their homeland. People fought fiercely and in many cases prevailed.
To do so they utilized every weapon they had available to them including
improvised weapons such as Molotov Cocktails.
They also had talented and dedicated people who were able
to design and manufacture weapons under extremely trying circumstances.
People who use this as an argument, I suspect, aren’t
fully informed about a number of things including the fact that there more armed
people in the United States than there are military personnel, the dedication
of those armed people to protect and defend freedom and liberty, that the
illegal use of the military against the civilian population would certainly be
met with intense resistance, probably in the form of guerilla warfare, and the
possibility that many members of the military may refuse to follow illegal
orders to attack the civilian population.
Further, people don’t realize that it wouldn’t take many
armed citizens to overpower some elements of the military and take control of
the more advanced weapons at hand.
Consider the use of the Liberator pistol provided to the
French resistance during WWII. These cheaply made, single shot pistols (I’m
told that it took longer to reload one than to manufacture one) was used to
eliminate a single enemy soldier and take his arms.
Although I am unable to locate the source of this bit of
info, I recall hearing that the Rhodesian military was ordered not to fire
their weapons on full-auto in order to conserve ammo when faced with a vastly
superior force that was constantly re-supplied by the Soviet Union. The Rhodesians were able to hold
their own for some time in the face of a larger force.
One must also consider how the Soviet Army was eventually
defeated by the people of Afghanistan.
However, I find the idea that a person could even consider
the possibility that the United States government would use the military
against the civilian population to be more than a little disturbing.
Seriously, how could anyone suggest such a possibility? Are
they suggesting that the United States federal government would deploy
tanks and aircraft against us?
No, I think it unlikely that the U.S. government would do that. Certainly the government is aware of two
things: one that to mobilize the military against civilians is illegal and
second they know what the response would be. They do know this, don't they?
Actually, I think a greater threat is the militarization
of the local police but I will leave that for another discussion.