Ah, yes, the "mind numbingly ignorant" hoplophobe. What would we do without periodic reminders of his existence to spur our own efforts against the citizen disarmament advocates such as he? For this, at least, we have Mark Neish to thank.
As far as the exclusive "collective right" interpretation of the Second Amendment that Neish tries to float, I would suggest that his argument is with the Supreme Court, for he seems to be mind numbingly ignorant of the Heller decision, which upholds the individual right to keep and bear arms.
And then we have this:
"For those, who think that their ownership of guns protects them from their own government, it would be best to pull your head out of your rear. If you are paranoid enough to believe that there will be a military coup in this country, do you really believe that you and several other fools armed with shotguns, handguns and rifles will be able to take on the United States military with their aircraft, drones and armored vehicles?"
Neish seems mind-numbingly ignorant of the long military history demonstrating the efficacy of guerrillas facing totalitarian governments. Also, for a high school principal, his historical amnesia shockingly extends to the Twentieth Century, for it does not take a military coup to achieve dictatorship. Hitler, for one, came to power using the "democratic" rules of the Weimar Republic, then promptly used the gun registration laws of that system to locate and confiscate weapons from the hands of the Jews and other regime opponents. Democracy, absent constitutional republican limitations -- which is what the Bill of Rights is and why the Founders put it there -- can turn to tyranny overnight. My rights, God-given, natural and inalienable, are not subject to the whim of any collectivist majority. I apparently need to remind Neish of the certainty that when democracy turns to tyranny, the armed citizen still gets to vote. Don't believe me? Try it and watch what happens.
One last comment on the paragraph cited above: who do you suppose, Mr. Neish, make up the tip of the spear elements of the United States military? Why it is the sons and daughters of those you seek to disarm. Most elitists don't raise their kids to military service to their country. Good old boys do. When the tyrannical orders are issued, Mr. Neish, which way do you suppose those very expensive, technologically brilliant and very deadly weapons will be pointed? Toward their family members? Or the stupid, rapacious tyrants who issued the orders? And of what utility are such weapons when you are fighting a civil war with motivated insurgents who are using Fourth Generation Warfare (look it up, Neish) in your own country, astride your own corridors of logistics and communications? Even if you control the media, the EXERCISE of all that destruction would be politically unsustainable. Which brings me to this mind numbingly ignorant statement:
"I would suggest that our government ban the sale and ownership of semi-automatic assault weapons. These weapons serve no practical purpose for the common citizenry."
Ah, but they do, Herr Neish. They certainly do. And therein lies the central problem of your advocated thesis.
I was once asked by a citizen disarmament advocate who belonged to Handgun Control (now known as the Brady Campaign) what my position was on another, complete ban on semi-automatic rifles of military utility. As I began to explain, he irritatedly cut me off, saying, "Give me the short answer." I thought for a moment.
"Okay, if you try to take our firearms we will kill you." This was about as short and sweet as I could think of. He recoiled in shock and his eyes glazed over. He, as you, considered me "paranoid." But, as I once said to another citizen disarmament activist who made the same claim, let's say you're right. Let's say I AM paranoid. Indeed, let's say I'm crazy, as you no doubt by now believe me to be. Considering that there at least three million folks just like me -- three percent of American gun owners -- armed and trained to the use of those arms, that just complicates your problem doesn't it?
How do you propose to get our property away from us -- we of the three million? Do you seriously think, extrapolating from your own cowardice, that we will simply hand them over if the penalty for not doing so is imprisonment or even death? Talk about mind numbingly ignorant. Mr. Neish, a man who is willing to die for his principles is most often willing to kill in defense of them and his life and the lives of all of his family as well. Everyone except citizen disarmament advocates understands this -- that the banning of "the sale and ownership of semi-automatic assault weapons" would be a declaration of war on a small but significant portion of the American people. You may kill us, sir, with your proposed tyranny, but you cannot convince us. And we will not go gently into your tyrannical good night, by a ratio of considerably more than 1 to 1.
Thus, now that you are not so "mind numbingly ignorant," do you still consider the stacking up of millions of bodies in a ghastly civil war worth the price of your proposal?
The alleged leader of a merry band of Three Percenters
PO Box 926
Pinson AL 35126