More Gun Politics...
I was reading a picture someone post on their Facebook timeline today that stated, "If the government won't trust me with my guns, I don't trust them with theirs!"
It once got me thinking about the whole ever-present issue of gun rights and control once again. I went and read about the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Serving in a well regulated militia aside, landmark decisions in 2008 and 2010 established that a gun-owner can use their registered weapons for purposes of self-defense. Alright, I can get behind self-defense of the home from everyday intruders like petty thieves and such.
Where things get weird is where some folks talk about the theoretical scenario about our own government becoming tyrannical and turning against its people. These folks want to be sufficiently armed for such a potentially revolutionary conflict. Here's the problem. Of the 300+ million people in this country, how many of them want to be armed well-enough for such a conflict? Sure, having several million adults armed with at least one gun may give its people a fighting chance, but also consider the military's arsenal. Aside from their obvious military-grade projectile guns there's also (and not limited to):
tanks, armored personnel carriers, rocket propelled grenades, artillery, surface-to-surface missiles, attack helicopters, stealth fighter jets and drones, EMP device, high-tech heat array, flying gun-ship mounted laser weapon, bio-weaponry, near-future ship-mounted rail gun and tactical nukes.
From the outset, if the military wanted to turn me inside out, individually it won't take much and my little gun won't get much accomplished before I'm reduced to Swiss cheese or a crater. If the people wanted any chance of taking on a tyrannical government, several scenarios would need to occur...
- A sufficiently armed populace organizes and takes on the government in concert.
- The armed populace would also need to learn military-style training along with guerrilla warfare tactics. I'm going to assume the everyday gun owner doesn't have that kind of training.
- Have (ex)military defectors to gain control of certain military-grade hardware to use in the conflict.
If you want to use more morally questionable tactics:
- Have your armed groups mixed in the civilian populace in the hopes the tyrannical government-controlled military doesn't wantonly kill civilians. To be crude: meat shields.
- Use of IEDs
- Basically employ many tactics used by groups against our military in the Middle East conflict areas...
So yeah. Defense of the home or person from an everyday intruder? Sure. It's a legit argument.
Taking on a potentially tyrannical government? One may want to place more thought into that before engaging.
Another question I would like to ask of folks is, "What is a sufficient number of guns needed to strictly defend one's home or person?" I can see one weapon for each adult and spouse, but beyond that is it still strictly self-defense against mere burglars? I'm going to exempt gun collectors since I would like to think they're in their own category with their own set of questions.
P.S. When I think back to this entry I posted a few weeks ago, a twisted scenario popped-up in my head. I see a lady giving birth to a child. A random person not related to the family is also in the delivery room pointing a gun at where the child is about to emerge. The person figures if the child seems a little too crazy after exiting the womb he'll just shoot it and save a lot of potential misery for everyone else. Is this a highly inaccurate portrayal of how many of us would like to treat each other?
It once got me thinking about the whole ever-present issue of gun rights and control once again. I went and read about the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Serving in a well regulated militia aside, landmark decisions in 2008 and 2010 established that a gun-owner can use their registered weapons for purposes of self-defense. Alright, I can get behind self-defense of the home from everyday intruders like petty thieves and such.
Where things get weird is where some folks talk about the theoretical scenario about our own government becoming tyrannical and turning against its people. These folks want to be sufficiently armed for such a potentially revolutionary conflict. Here's the problem. Of the 300+ million people in this country, how many of them want to be armed well-enough for such a conflict? Sure, having several million adults armed with at least one gun may give its people a fighting chance, but also consider the military's arsenal. Aside from their obvious military-grade projectile guns there's also (and not limited to):
tanks, armored personnel carriers, rocket propelled grenades, artillery, surface-to-surface missiles, attack helicopters, stealth fighter jets and drones, EMP device, high-tech heat array, flying gun-ship mounted laser weapon, bio-weaponry, near-future ship-mounted rail gun and tactical nukes.
From the outset, if the military wanted to turn me inside out, individually it won't take much and my little gun won't get much accomplished before I'm reduced to Swiss cheese or a crater. If the people wanted any chance of taking on a tyrannical government, several scenarios would need to occur...
- A sufficiently armed populace organizes and takes on the government in concert.
- The armed populace would also need to learn military-style training along with guerrilla warfare tactics. I'm going to assume the everyday gun owner doesn't have that kind of training.
- Have (ex)military defectors to gain control of certain military-grade hardware to use in the conflict.
If you want to use more morally questionable tactics:
- Have your armed groups mixed in the civilian populace in the hopes the tyrannical government-controlled military doesn't wantonly kill civilians. To be crude: meat shields.
- Use of IEDs
- Basically employ many tactics used by groups against our military in the Middle East conflict areas...
So yeah. Defense of the home or person from an everyday intruder? Sure. It's a legit argument.
Taking on a potentially tyrannical government? One may want to place more thought into that before engaging.
Another question I would like to ask of folks is, "What is a sufficient number of guns needed to strictly defend one's home or person?" I can see one weapon for each adult and spouse, but beyond that is it still strictly self-defense against mere burglars? I'm going to exempt gun collectors since I would like to think they're in their own category with their own set of questions.
P.S. When I think back to this entry I posted a few weeks ago, a twisted scenario popped-up in my head. I see a lady giving birth to a child. A random person not related to the family is also in the delivery room pointing a gun at where the child is about to emerge. The person figures if the child seems a little too crazy after exiting the womb he'll just shoot it and save a lot of potential misery for everyone else. Is this a highly inaccurate portrayal of how many of us would like to treat each other?