[Rhodes22-list]Guns and Politics

[Robert Skinner]

Roger - I have read your messages, and of your considerable 
accomplishments, with admiration.  Please do not consider 
me an opponent -- but rather someone possessed of/by a 
somewhat (but not entirely) different view of the situation.

After all, "Betsy" lives in my bedroom as insurance against
adverse outcomes of unwanted meetings in the night.  I think
we have a lot more points of agreement than might appear at 
the outset.

Roger Pihlaja wrote:
> ... Despite the lethality and sophistication of modern
> military weapons, the US military would have a very
> difficult time putting down a widespread insurrection in
> this country.

The confrontation would not likely be face-to-face.  It is
far more likely to be a gradual redefinition of freedom 
and the erosion of the freedoms of subgroups - a cross
between Orwell's "1984" prophesy and Hitler's scapegoating.
Perhaps something like an extension of the Patriot Act.

You will undoubtedly remember Hermann Goering's words as 
related in MJM's recent (and rather pithy) "jokes".

"Voice or no voice, the people can always be 
brought to the bidding of the leaders, that 
is easy. All you have to do is tell them they 
are being attacked, and denounce the 
peacemakers for lack of patriotism and 
exposing the country to danger. It works the 
same in every country."
-- Hermann Goering (Nazi planner)

-------------------------------------------------------

Perhaps you have heard of the sales technique known
as "Frog Boiling."

If you put a frog in hot water, it will just jump out.

If you put your frog in cool water, then heat it up 
slowly, the frog will go to sleep, and ultimately be 
boiled.

The salesman comes in with a low bid, then adds 
expenses after the deal is closed.

A government institutes apparently justified but
intrusive legislation, then expands its provisions
at the expense of individual liberty.

-----------------------------------------------------

> You need to reread the 2nd amendment and try to
> understand the historical context & intent of the
> authors.  Providing the ultimate check and balance
> against an oppressive regime is exactly what the 2nd
> amendment is about & it's as valid today as it was in
> the 18th century.

You will note that I said:

"The 2nd amendment was written in before machine guns
were invented, or bazookas, for that matter.  The
unavailability of these weapons to the general populace
nullifies their ability to resist tyranny, rendering the
2nd amendment moot in that regard."

I was referring to the effectiveness of "legal" weapons 
in the hands of the populace in the case of a pitched 
battle.  The use of currently permitted weapons would
certainly be an irritant, but I maintain that the 
technologically advanced surveillance equipment available
to our government confers a large advantage.

But perhaps Yankee ingenuity would rise to the occasion.
I imagine that we could do better than stones and 
bottles, should it come to that.

We can hope that this theory is never tested.

V/R

/Robert Skinner