Really good questions re: 2nd Amendment
[From a mailing list of friends that I’m on. Point three has occured to me numerous times… really, given the unsurpassed lethality of modern professional infantry, what chance would your average citizen gun-owner have of organizing and participating in an effective armed resistance? If you look at Iraq and other areas, actual gunbattles appear to be of minimal significance - and usually very lethal to the non-professional participants. Did you hear that the American military killed over 4,000 Iraqi insurgents (at least, alleged insurgents) in April alone? The ratio of insurgent to “coalition” fatalities has got to be sky high. Being a guerilla bomber is much safer… even if you do get “caught”, you wind up getting arrested, not shot (at least if you don’t do anything stupid, like attempt to resist). -Thomas]
> —–Original Message—–
> From: [deleted]
>
> > What good would having a firearm do to a citizen when
> > all of his other rights are being trampled upon?
>
> That’s exactly *WHEN* You need a firearm.
I have often heard this argument from people in defense gun-ownership and
clearly do not properly understand the merits of this point of view. I do
however think this particular liberal is open-minded enough to hear, with
respect, the opinions of others on this forum who see the issue differently.
To that effect, I have some questions:
1) It is my perception that the great movements against oppression in
American history, and recent World history, have not really involved
firearms. The main weapons to my knowledge have been civil disobedience,
propaganda, rocks, improvised bombs, and above all teamwork. Are there any
examples of individuals using firearms to defend themselves from tyranny in
some meaningful way?
2) On a more personal note, I have often felt, in some very small way, my
rights being trampled by various levels of government. I think I should be
able to marry a man if I want to. I think my father should have been able
to marry a white woman 40 years ago. I think I should be able to buy books
and send email without covert federal oversight into what I read or write.
I think the police should not be able to stop me simply for driving a
beat-up car in Bel Air.
I have a gun and know reasonably well how to use it. What should I
do with it to defend myself?
3) In 1789, a person in possession of a rifle or musket was as well-armed as
any soldier on Earth and could realistically think about defending him or
herself from a tyrannical government. To-day, the Government can oppress me
with armored fighting vehicles, supported by artillery and aircraft.
My little M-1A is not going to do much against the Bradleys they
used at Waco, or even Kiowa scout helicopters.
If the 2nd Amendment was really meant for an _individual_ to be able
to defend him or herself from the Government, should it be expanded in its
interpretation to include modern weaponry which the government can use
against us?
3a) Is there a rational limit to the level of weaponry that should
be allowed and on what basis is that distinction drawn?
Should we be allowed fully-automatic rifles?
Machine-guns?
Light anti-tank weapons?
Mines?
Man-portable SAMs?
3b) Is a nation where citizens are allowed to own M-16s, Bren Guns,
RPGs, and Stingers workable?
-[deleted]
