| From: | Lloyd Vance ljvance@*******.edu |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Value and so on.... |
| Date: | Thu, 15 Jul 1999 16:57:55 |
>Lloyd Vance writes:
>> "Those who would give up Freedom for Security deserve neither."
>> --Benjamin Franklin
>
>Benjamin Franklin lived in an era where a group of milita armed with rifles
>could do a fairly decent job of holding out against a military force. Even
>then, that wasn't true (the military force would just bring up the
>artillery), but it was certainly more true than today.
>
>The _correct_ way to preserve Freedom and Security is not to arm the
>individual. It is to create a non-political body to defend the society as a
>whole, both from internal and external threats, and arm that to the hilt.
>That is why armies and police forces should not be politicised in any way,
>shape, or form.
>
I'm not name-calling here, I actually am interested, but doesn't that sound
a lot like fascism? To have one force in charge of both fronts is just
asking for corruption.
Also, I don't believe that such a non-political body could be formed. And
even if it did, it wouldn't stay non-political for long. It is just too
important for those involved in politics not to weasel their way in there.
>> I cannot justify banning guns. I belong to the frame of mind
>> that whenever
>> someone has the opportunity to abuse power, they will. I don't think that
>> (in the US) we were given the right to bear arms for hunting. I
>> don't care
>> if Bambi lives or dies, but I do want to be armed for personal defense.
>> The most important of these is defending yourself against your own
>> government. I am not a member of one of these militia groups. I do not
>> think the government is going to come after me any time soon. But I would
>> like to have some kind of chance if they ever do. That is why we have the
>> right.
>
>If you preserve the right to bear arms so that a citizens milita has a
>decent chance of overthrowing an oppressive government (which is the sole
>point of that particular part of the US constitution), you are really
>pissing in the wind these days with the right to carry a gun. You should be
>out there arguing for the right to carry anti-tank and anti-aircraft
>weaponry, because that's what you're going to need.
That is a whole nother discussion, but yes. I do believe that as well.
But I also think that there are many ways that such weaponry is accessable
(not legally, of course), that if push came to shove, you would start out
with small, organized guerrilla attacks, and wait for the heavy stuff to
arrive (or capture it)
>
>The idea that you can overthrow an oppressive government with personal
>weaponry is just laughable. Utterly and totally laughable. Can anyone here
>name a successful insurgent group that only had access to rifles?
That is correct. But when you have people who are familiar with one type
of weapon, it easily defaults on the skill web when you want to train in
another weapon. :)
>
>> Besides. Who would invade a country where the general populace
>> could kill you? Makes things more secure for us that way, too.
>
>Lots of people would. What you do is you send the soldiers in, backed up
>with overwhelming force, round up the citizens everywhere you go, loot the
>houses for weapons and valuables, and deal with the various resistance
>groups by committing atrocities such as shooting random citizens in reprisal
>for resistance attacks. The militia groups with their rifles can't really do
>much more than annoy, and eventually the spirit of the people gets crushed.
>
Ouch. Remind me never to be around when you are looking for some breathing
room. Besides, didn't you watch Red Dawn? That stuff can work. :) (I
swear, I'm kidding. Just bringing a little of the 80's back into action)
But like I said before the rifles are holding the spot for later when you
need the bigger equipment. Use them at first and then upgrade.
I dunno. Maybe I'm just delusional, but to me it makes sense.
The Hamm
aka Lloyd Vance
