Sent: Mon, Dec 27, 2010 11:28 am
Subject: Historical and military illiteracy (or is it amnesia?) is no excuse for unconstitutional proposals that can spark another civil war.
After reaction to your recent column advocating, among other unconstitutional things, government permission to purchase ammunition by way of an ID requirement, you made this ridiculous statement:
"I'm not pushing to have guns banned, but at the same time, you've got to admit, there's a pretty big difference between a right to bear arms when both sides have muskets and cannons and a right to bear arms when you've got a handgun and the government has heat-seeking missiles. You're not scaring away the big, bad government with your .38. If Uncle Sam wants to come in and take your stuff, there's not much you can do about it."
Try it and find out. There is in fact no difference at all. Were you not so apparently historically and militarily illiterate you would know that. For a modern example, ask the Taliban. Or, better yet, consult the Founders who faced down the greatest empire in the world in their time in a ridiculously lop-sided David vs. Goliath contest. David won, though you apparently have not internalized that fact.
In actuality, what you are saying here (beyond some Borg-quisling mewling of "resistance is futile") is that if the federal government comes to take YOUR stuff there's not much YOU will do about it. Having established your own cowardice, you extrapolate that to your fellow citizens. Big mistake. Other people, "bitter clingers" to use Obama's phrase, will die for a deeply held principle even if you would not. They will also, by extension, kill for it. And thinking that the natural, inalienable and God-given rights which are merely described in the Second Amendment can be negated without consequence by the back-door means of restricting the ammunition supply is dangerous, even deadly, hallucination. Trying to prevent random street killings by sparking a civil war is, well, not only ironic but vastly stupid.
Insofar as the illiterate estimation of the balance of forces of your proposed American civil war is concerned, let me explain. Hypothetically, to use your construct, a heat-seeking missile may be defeated by a man with a .38 by the following time-tested means:
a. Not being there when the heat-seeking missile lands.
b. Killing the skilled operator of the heat-seeking missile while he's sitting in an off-base bar knocking back beers.
c. Shooting the driver of the truck carrying the missile to its launcher, stealing the enemy's missile and using their own weapon on them.
d. Best of all, putting the .38 up beside the head of the politician who ordered the missile fired and pulling the trigger, evacuating his brains all over the wall of the elevator as an example to the next tyrannical moke who wants his job.
Twelve years ago or so I wrote an essay entitled, What Good Can a Handgun Do Against an Army? In it I explored the theory and practice of the Liberator pistol, a cheap, inaccurate .45 single shot pistol that we parachuted to resistance groups behind enemy lines in World War II. You would do well to study that, as well as the general concepts of Fourth Generation Warfare, Last but not least in terms of your personal interest as an opinion purveyor, consider Bill Clinton's 1999 rules of engagement (ROE) versus the Serbians. You may recall that he changed American military ROE to include the politicians, media and the opinion purveyors who laid the intellectual underpinnings of the enemy's war effort and, having done so, expressed his enthusiasm for the new policy by dropping precision guided munitions -- your "heat seeking missiles" -- into the windows of the homes of politicians as well as Serbian radio and television.
Extrapolating Clinton's ROE through the lens of the unrepealable and iron-clad Law of Unintended Consequences, I would lastly urge you to consider the Chinese admonition: "Be careful what you wish for, for you may get it."
The alleged leader of a merry band of Three Percenters.
PO Box 926
Pinson, AL 35126