I made the point to some of my second-amendment friends that, as a deterrent to federal tyranny, a group of local boys with assault rifles would be no use at all against the invincible technical superiority of American military and law enforcement power. A reader replied, “If that were true, there would be no need for infantry soldiers in the modern Army.”
Perhaps he is correct. Saddam’s modern army infantry — about 100,000 of them — lasted about eight days, and as Mr. Bush said, the military mission was accomplished. Eight years and $800 billion later, however, we have not defeated the local malcontents armed with hidden illegal rifles and homemade booby traps (when we made them, they were booby traps; now we are the boobs, they are the IEDs). Clearly, only what we call terrorism could possibly be effective against the U.S. government’s boots, badges and UAVs. The result of taking such action is not newfound Libertarian freedom but a brutal police state in which the job of our country’s heroes in uniform is kicking down the doors of civilians and sustaining collateral damage … that would be your family, right?
I’ve asked before, and, of course, neither the militia guys nor the hermits with the flintlocks can say, ‘OK, you have your rifle.’ Just whom do you expect to have to shoot first? A senator? A cop, Iraq vet and mother of three, come to take possession of your Pappy’s old M-1? (It’s easy to boast that you would, but really?) National Guard troops? IRS employee’s lounge? Do you start shooting first, or just wave your piece and yell rebellion until somebody shoots at you first? Are you going to make a grand show of suicidal standoff and go down for the cause as a martyr, or become a guerrilla insurgent, call yourself Al Kading and join the snipers shooting U.S. Marines?
Lets say there is a good-sized group of you, and you are well organized enough to actually take over the government and security of the state of New Mexico with your rifles. What are you going to do? First you stop all those socialist welfare parasite entitlement programs, cut off the benefit checks and fat-cat pensions and shut down the propaganda day camps called public schools, right? You’ll establish a flat tax, that is, whatever you flat demand, just like the IRS, because you know without the power to tax there is no state. You established defacto martial law to get in control with your infantry, so you start rounding up the Mexicans and checking their papers and fully arming yourself for the War on Gangs.
As most of you are vets to begin with, and the revolution was not without bloodshed, the hospitals’ first mission will be to support the troops, and then they can conduct free trade with the liberated citizens of your New Old America for access to their surplus medical services. You’ll show us the Spirit of ‘76 for sure, right? We’ll all be glad you restored our freedom and ready to vote for you in the next election you hold, right?
All that said, I personally believe we should be able to take the Constitutional word “arms” in its most complete and effective sense, that is, as any kind of equipment specifically intended for lethal combat with other human beings. To limit that definition to what arms meant in 1776 is ludicrous. To further limit that to “sports” rifles is a humiliating show of obeisance. The citizen should be able to possess the actual modern means to oppose potential tyranny, at least including any personal weapon being utilized in the armed services, and to pack them on their person anywhere in the land.
Armed. Really armed. For misusing that power the price should be very high, but the right to possess it in a land of the free should be absolute. Good luck with that, no?
James Nathan Post
Daily Lobo reader