Guns Aren’t A Bulwark Against Tyranny: The Rule Of Law Is
BY Herschel Smith
7 years ago
So says Michael Shermer of Skeptic magazine:
Gun-rights advocates also make the grandiose claim that gun ownership is a deterrent against tyrannical governments. Indeed, the wording of the Second Amendment makes this point explicitly: “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” That may have made sense in the 1770s, when breech-loading flintlock muskets were the primary weapons tyrants used to conquer other peoples and subdue their own citizens who could, in turn, equalize the power equation by arming themselves with equivalent firepower. But that is no longer true.
If you think stock piling firearms from the local Guns and Guitars store, where the Las Vegas shooter purchased some of his many weapons, and dressing up in camouflage and body armor is going to protect you from an American military capable of delivering tanks and armored vehicles full Navy SEALs to your door, you’re delusional. The tragic incidents at Ruby Ridge, in Idaho, and Waco, Tex., in the 1990s, in which citizens armed to the teeth collided with government agencies and lost badly, is a case study for what would happen were the citizenry to rise up in violence against the state today.
On December 11, 2017 at 6:23 am, Wilbur said:
“………an American military capable of delivering tanks and armored vehicles full Navy SEALs to your door, you’re delusional”
I’ll agree that, even in a world with 80-100 million gun owners who have approximately 600 million guns and 6 trillion rounds of ammunition, the American military can not just win, but dominate, the first 36 hours of an internal civil conflict, perhaps even the first 72-96.
Beyond that, however, the best they can hope for is a very bloody, very disasterous, extremely unpleasant tie. Tanks don’t do well in built-up urban environments, and require a lot of infantry support there to survive. That said, when a government starts using canister and HE rounds against its own citizens, it signals that there are no rules.
For either side.
“Unpleasant” is a woefully inadequate description for what happens next.
Regardless of the difficulties involved, a bartered agreement of co-existence is infinitely more desirable than direct conflict.
On December 11, 2017 at 8:46 am, Pat Hines said:
Lots of people think of government soldiers as the only Freefor targets.
They’re not.
The US Postal Service, Wildlife Service, Park Service, and on and on will be targets.
Their families will have to move on to Army bases which will become like Green Zones, or they will become targets.
Bridges and overpasses will be targeted.
People who think like (((Shermer))) simply don’t think deeply about the subject.
There’s an older version of (((Shermer’s))) position, one I first saw in the early 1990s: http://potowmack.org
The owner of the above is crazy as a March hare.
On December 11, 2017 at 8:52 am, Frank Clarke said:
For this, Mike Vanderboegh’s “What Good Is A Handgun Against An Army?” is still a worthwhile read. Any rational person who reads that will immediately be disabused of the notion that the next civil war will be any more civil than the last.
And trying to disarm an already heavily armed American populace is one of the better ways to trigger that civil war: http://tinyurl.com/TipgPt2
On December 11, 2017 at 8:58 am, Pat Hines said:
I went to (((Shermer’s))) essay and saw he used Ruby Ridge as one of his illustrations about the futility of going up against government.
That’s wildly inaccurate. Over 450 government personnel were arrayed against Randy Weaver and his family. The US Air Force flew photo recon missions over the Weaver estate, meaning the US government spent millions on that siege, millions that wouldn’t be available to handle thousands of Randy Weavers spread across the US. The USAF has far fewer aircraft available than it did when Bush the First authorized the siege on the Weaver estate and family. They’d have to task all of their satellite assets to surveil Freefor, too.
Can’t be done.
On December 11, 2017 at 9:08 am, Duke Norfolk said:
Yawn. Old tired B.S. from disingenuous, nay, mendacious, assholes like Shermer. But his ilk isn’t interested in honest debate, and they’re shameless in their sophistry.
On December 11, 2017 at 9:38 am, Houston said:
“States reduce violence (independence) by asserting a monopoly on the legitimate (tyrannical) use of force,”
There fixed it for him.
On December 12, 2017 at 10:15 am, Ned said:
“Skeptic” is newspeak for atheist. So pretzel logic, parallel arguments and flawed analogies are to be expected.
On December 12, 2017 at 10:28 am, Herschel Smith said:
@Ned,
Well then, there you have it. Some atheist. He’s declared his god to be the state.
On December 13, 2017 at 5:42 pm, Gryphon said:
Liberals and commies can’t do Math. .Gov success in Urban/Suburban Fighting is predicated on 50:1 Odds “SWAT Raids”. I asked a local piggie what would happen if while doing a Raid, they started Taking Fire from their Rear. He was Silent. Then I said “We Know where You Live, Too.”
As for Tanks, Artillery, and Helicopter Gunships, bring it. .Gov will be able to Play that Game for 24 Hours, Max, before either Mutiny occurs, or the Bases are Cut Off from Resupply.
And the Writer above who said ALL .Gov ’employees’ become Targeted, Spot-On.