From:	Iridios iridios@*********.com
Subject:	Value and so on....
Date:	Fri, 16 Jul 1999 08:56:18 -0400

Robert Watkins wrote:
>
> 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),...

Then, how did we manage to win the Revolution? Americans were just
militia forces going up against an established military force. :)


> ... 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.

So who would watch, the watcher? Giving any one body that kind of
power is asking for trouble. That's the main reason for the three
separate bodies of the American government (each has some power to
cancel the others, and two can team up to stop the third if need be).

<snip>

> 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.


I definately disagree here. Sure twenty men armed with rifles and
pistols might not be able to take out an active tank or aircraft.
But, tanks are not always secure. Sometimes they are opened for fresh
air making them vulnerable to internal attacks (molotav's are easy to
make and use). Sometimes their crew are outside making them
vulnerable to sniping and drive-bys.

Plus a large enough group of people could easily overun some of the
smaller armories located just about everywhere. I know of two places
where a well planned B&E could net me some armored fighting vehicles
(Bradleys), about 2 or 3 dozen military rifles, grenades, grenade
launchers, and some military body armor.

And as for aircraft, if the American government decided to start
bombing American communitites for any reason, they (the gov't) would
lose a hell of a lot of support. Most likely the militia movement
would swell with new volunteers.

>
> 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?

The American Revolutinaries?

Later they had cannons and such, but for the most part they aquired
those from defeated British forces.

>
> > 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.

Less crushed than if there were no resistance. Militia/Partisan
attacks against an outside enemy would aid not the local citizenry,
but instead would aid the national defense. Why? Because partisan
attacks tie up enemy forces that would otherwise be used to push the
front forward.


>
> "Make hunting a sporting event. Arm the deer."

Hunting should not be classified as a sport, around here many people
still hunt for food (although probably not for their complete diet).

--
Iridios
"Accept what you cannot avoid,
Avoid what you cannot accept."