The Role of the Gun in Society

[Colonel Dan, SASS #24025]

It never fails…after each highly publicized shooting the anti-gunners come out of the proverbial woodwork in droves. Arguments abound on every side of the issue but mine is a very simple and straight forward one and is as I wrote in my column this month...

 

The right to keep and bear arms is one of the primary guarantors of our unalienable rights to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. Without such guarantors, the ability to exercise our unalienable rights is placed in jeopardy of extinction at the hand of the unscrupulous…street thug or tyrannical governments. Consequently you can never separate the sanctity of the unalienable right from the guarantor of that right without incurring the certain loss of both.

 

Just the view from my old fashioned and politically incorrect saddle...

[Gunner Gatlin, SASS 10274L]

Amen.

 

GG

[Dirt Merchant # 61422]

as always Col. spot on. Good luck Saturday

[Boulder Canyon Bob# 32052L]

"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government".

Thomas Jefferson

[Badlands Beady]

Consequently you can never separate the sanctity of the unalienable right from the guarantor of that right without incurring the certain loss of both.

 

Just the view from my old fashioned and politically incorrect saddle...

 

So, you're saying that Ghandi, King and Jesus got it wrong?

 

Just asking.

[Gunner Gatlin, SASS 10274L]

So, you're saying that Ghandi, King and Jesus got it wrong?

 

Just asking.

 

No I reckon he he's saying that our Founding Fathers got it right.

 

GG

[Captain Bill Burt]

No I reckon he he's saying that our Founding Fathers got it right.

 

GG

+1

[Captain Bill Burt]

Gandhi:

“I have been repeating over and over again that he who cannot protect himself or his nearest and dearest or their honor by non-violently facing death may and ought to do so by violently dealing with the oppressor. He who can do neither of the two is a burden. He has no business to be the head of a family. He must either hide himself, or must rest content to live forever in helplessness and be prepared to crawl like a worm at the bidding of a bully.”

 

“Though violence is not lawful, when it is offered in self-defense or for the defense of the defenseless, it is an act of bravery far better than cowardly submission. The latter befits neither man nor woman. Under violence, there are many stages and varieties of bravery. Every man must judge this for himself. No other person can or has the right.”

 

Jesus:

Luke 22:36: “Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.”

[Texas Jim Henry, SASS #20616]

Colonel Dan -

 

I'm always impressed when someone is better able to express my sentiments than I am! Thank you, sir.

 

Regards, TJH

[Buckshot Frank]

Gandhi:

“I have been repeating over and over again that he who cannot protect himself or his nearest and dearest or their honor by non-violently facing death may and ought to do so by violently dealing with the oppressor. He who can do neither of the two is a burden. He has no business to be the head of a family. He must either hide himself, or must rest content to live forever in helplessness and be prepared to crawl like a worm at the bidding of a bully.”

 

“Though violence is not lawful, when it is offered in self-defense or for the defense of the defenseless, it is an act of bravery far better than cowardly submission. The latter befits neither man nor woman. Under violence, there are many stages and varieties of bravery. Every man must judge this for himself. No other person can or has the right.”

 

Jesus:

Luke 22:36: “Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.”

 

Well played. You sir, win the internet for the day!

[Manatee]

As Clint Smith often said:

 

If you carry a gun, people will call you paranoid. That's ridiculous. If I have a gun, what in the hell do I have to be paranoid for?

[Dang It Dan 13202]

Gandhi:

“I have been repeating over and over again that he who cannot protect himself or his nearest and dearest or their honor by non-violently facing death may and ought to do so by violently dealing with the oppressor. He who can do neither of the two is a burden. He has no business to be the head of a family. He must either hide himself, or must rest content to live forever in helplessness and be prepared to crawl like a worm at the bidding of a bully.”

 

“Though violence is not lawful, when it is offered in self-defense or for the defense of the defenseless, it is an act of bravery far better than cowardly submission. The latter befits neither man nor woman. Under violence, there are many stages and varieties of bravery. Every man must judge this for himself. No other person can or has the right.”

 

Jesus:

Luke 22:36: “Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.”

 

Game. Set. Match.

[Badlands Beady]

Well played. :)/>

[Krazy Kajun]

Gandhi:

"I have been repeating over and over again that he who cannot protect himself or his nearest and dearest or their honor by non-violently facing death may and ought to do so by violently dealing with the oppressor. He who can do neither of the two is a burden. He has no business to be the head of a family. He must either hide himself, or must rest content to live forever in helplessness and be prepared to crawl like a worm at the bidding of a bully."

 

"Though violence is not lawful, when it is offered in self-defense or for the defense of the defenseless, it is an act of bravery far better than cowardly submission. The latter befits neither man nor woman. Under violence, there are many stages and varieties of bravery. Every man must judge this for himself. No other person can or has the right."

 

Jesus:

Luke 22:36: "Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one."

Ah Master, the Googlefu is strong with this one

 

Kajun

[Badlands Beady]

I mentioned this exchange to a friend a few minutes ago, and he said the major fallacy in the OP is the assumption that the "oppressed" are able to take on their oppressors on somewhat equal terms. I don't know the details of what's going on in Syria, but the way I remember it the rebels were getting stomped until their arsenal started to get beefed up with heavier weapons. Even now, they're doing an awful lot of bleeding. I don't know too many private citizens with access to RPGs, drones and such. There was a time when the civilian population matched the military in weapons type and quality, but those days are long past. I do wonder how well a non-unified, unsupplied and untrained civilian populace would fare against what is supposed to be the best and best-armed military force in the world.

[Cpt Dan Blodgett, SASS #75655]

When wolves and sheep gather to chose the lunch menu you can reassured mutton will be served

[Colonel Dan, SASS #24025]

The assumption was never stated or implied that guns put the oppressed on a “somewhat equal footing” with the oppressor.

 

Colonial America is a prime case in point. Our Founding Fathers and the Continental Army certainly weren’t anywhere close to being on a “somewhat equal footing” with the most powerful military force of the day yet guns provided them the wherewithal to persevere and ultimately prevail. Without guns, the United States simply wouldn’t be.

[Cpt Dan Blodgett, SASS #75655]

If one reads federalist 46, one discovers the populace was intended to out it gun the standing army

[Badlands Beady]

The assumption was never stated or implied that guns put the oppressed on a "somewhat equal footing" with the oppressor.

 

Colonial America is a prime case in point. Our Founding Fathers and the Continental Army certainly weren't anywhere close to being on a "somewhat equal footing" with the most powerful military force of the day yet guns provided them the wherewithal to persevere and ultimately prevail. Without guns, the United States simply wouldn't be.

 

There's a school of thought that says that it was more British political infighting that won the Revolution for the Americans, than it was American force of arms. And what if the French hadn't put an army ashore? And what if the Armed Neutrality hadn't existed? As for armed civilians confronting a standing army, Lexington and Concord is less typical than is Bladensburg. I also don't recall that Shay's and the Whiskey rebellions were or are considered resounding successes, although I'm a little fuzzy on those incidents.

[Knot Hardly Dunn, SASS 43113]

Seems to me that the possession off arms does not guarantee freedom. However that ability to be armed assures me that I will be able to die on my feet rather than in chains.

[Captain Bill Burt]

I mentioned this exchange to a friend a few minutes ago, and he said the major fallacy in the OP is the assumption that the "oppressed" are able to take on their oppressors on somewhat equal terms. I don't know the details of what's going on in Syria, but the way I remember it the rebels were getting stomped until their arsenal started to get beefed up with heavier weapons. Even now, they're doing an awful lot of bleeding. I don't know too many private citizens with access to RPGs, drones and such. There was a time when the civilian population matched the military in weapons type and quality, but those days are long past. I do wonder how well a non-unified, unsupplied and untrained civilian populace would fare against what is supposed to be the best and best-armed military force in the world.

So your argument leads to one of two conclusions. Civilians should be allowed to keep and bear military level arms to place them on 'somewhat equal terms', or since the arms they currently carry don't put them on 'somewhat equal terms' their ability to keep and bear should be further degraded (I assume with 'common sense' gun laws) placing them at an even greater disadvantage with respect to potentially tyrannical government .

[Captain Bill Burt]

Seems to me that the possession off arms does not guarantee freedom. However that ability to be armed assures me that I will be able to die on my feet rather than in chains.

+infinity

[Gunner Gatlin, SASS 10274L]

+infinity

 

plus some :D/>

 

 

 

GG ~ :FlagAm:/>

[Badlands Beady]

Seems to me that the possession off arms does not guarantee freedom. However that ability to be armed assures me that I will be able to die on my feet rather than in chains.

 

And after you've died on your feet, who will take care of your family in the face of a probably-vindictive winner?

 

So your argument leads to one of two conclusions. Civilians should be allowed to keep and bear military level arms :)/> to place them on 'somewhat equal terms', or since the arms they currently carry don't put them on 'somewhat equal terms' their ability to keep and bear should be further degraded (I assume with 'common sense' gun laws) placing them at an even greater disadvantage with respect to potentially tyrannical government :blink:/>.

 

I don't see how your second proposition follows.

 

I'm not necessarily arguing anything. OTOH, I've always wondered about the argument that the 2nd Amendment enables the populace to keep the government in check. It raises the question: Given a modern military, what conditions have to be in place for an armed civil uprising to prevail? Near as I can tell, it's going to require either foreign intervention (military or diplomatic) or the widespread civil adoption of something other than small arms as the main weapon.

[Charlie Plasters, SASS#60943]

In the USA there is no way that the presence of guns can have any impact on the tyrannical government.

[Stump Water]

It raises the question: Given a modern military, what conditions have to be in place for an armed civil uprising to prevail? Near as I can tell, it's going to require either foreign intervention (military or diplomatic) or the widespread civil adoption of something other than small arms as the main weapon.

 

Get outside the box Beady. Sure, one man against an M-1 Abrams isn't going to prevail, but that's not a realistic scenario. I'm fairly confident that my countrymen and I are a bit more adept than middle eastern insurgents/rebels.

[Badlands Beady]

Get outside the box Beady. Sure, one man against an M-1 Abrams isn't going to prevail, but that's not a realistic scenario. I'm fairly confident that my countrymen and I are a bit more adept than middle eastern insurgents/rebels.

 

Upon what do you base that confidence? Among other things, the Syrians have more experience than we do.

 

And how many men will it take to prevail against an M-1 Abrams (presumably backed-up by a full Table of Organization)? That's the question: What *would* be a realistic scenario?

[Gunner Gatlin, SASS 10274L]

And after you've died on your feet, who will take care of your family in the face of a probably-vindictive winner?

 

 

 

 

 

 

Guess I am glad my family feels the same way as me.

 

GG ~ :FlagAm:/>

[Badlands Beady]

Guess I am glad my family feels the same way as me.

 

GG ~ :FlagAm:/>/>/>

 

How long will they feel that way when the other side has won, reprisals are under way, and you're no longer there? There's more to the question than just imagining yourself as the last man to fall defending the Alamo.

[Captain Bill Burt]

Get outside the box Beady. Sure, one man against an M-1 Abrams isn't going to prevail, but that's not a realistic scenario. I'm fairly confident that my countrymen and I are a bit more adept than middle eastern insurgents/rebels.

Our military is significantly different from theirs as well. I suspect that if ordered to attack citizens a significant number of our service men and women would change sides.

[Badlands Beady]

Our military is significantly different from theirs as well. I suspect that if ordered to attack citizens a significant number of our service men and women would change sides.

 

Like they did at Kent State?

 

Undoubtedly some will, but enough? In 1857, the Sepoys repeatedly attacked their own people and still remained loyal to their conquerers until that business with the cartridges. Even then, 2/3rds remained loyal, and the rebels ended up being blown from cannon muzzles.

 

Are you willing to bet your children on a wholesale mutiny of the US armed forces?

[Nichols Creek, SASS #77627]

Our military is significantly different from theirs as well. I suspect that if ordered to attack citizens a significant number of our service men and women would change sides.

+A BIG ONE.

 

Every time this argument comes up, there is the perception that the U.S. Military would follow what ever orders comes from whatever administraion is in charge. Please remember, a soldiers first duty is to the constitution and to protect said constitution from enemies, forieghn and domestic.

 

The soldiers of today, are very able to read and secide what is right and waht is wrong. I serve with many soldiers that would not turn arms against our fellow citizens.

 

We (the military) are not mindless robots. We can still think for ourselves.

 

N.C.

[Steel-eye Steve SASS #40674]

While we all like to think of Minute Men, Lexington and Concord, current events have shown that the IED will most likely be the weapon of choice for the insurgent/freedom fighter rather then Grandpa's hunting rifle.

[Gunner Gatlin, SASS 10274L]

How long will they feel that way when the other side has won, reprisals are under way, and you're no longer there? There's more to the question than just imagining yourself as the last man to fall defending the Alamo.

 

Who can answer that hypothetical??:lol:/> All I know is my family thinks the same way as I do - my dad, mom, sisters, brothers, their families - and my wife and kiddo.

 

You may cave to the 'vindictive' anti-gun potential winner - but we will do our best to resist.

 

GG ~ :FlagAm:/>

[Gunner Gatlin, SASS 10274L]

+A BIG ONE.

 

Every time this argument comes up, there is the perception that the U.S. Military would follow what ever orders comes from whatever administraion is in charge. Please remember, a soldiers first duty is to the constitution and to protect said constitution from enemies, forieghn and domestic.

 

The soldiers of today, are very able to read and secide what is right and waht is wrong. I serve with many soldiers that would not turn arms against our fellow citizens.

 

We (the military) are not mindless robots. We can still think for ourselves.

 

N.C.

 

:)/>

 

 

 

GG ~ :FlagAm:/>