Guns and Guerrillas
Guns and Guerrillas
The founding fathers had guns, as did the citizens of colonial America. Contrary to popular myth, people living in the past weren't armed with muskets alone, but had a range of weapons, including guns that could fire multiple rounds at once, dating as far back as the 16th century. Although, admittedly, they were rare. However, had they been offered an Ak47 to use against the greatest colonial and military power of the age, I have little doubt they would've seized the opportunity. When you're fighting an empire, you can't be picky, and that's what colonial Americans were up against, a protracted ground war with a very powerful occupying army. That is how they fought and won the revolution. Take away their guns, leaving only the government with guns, and Americans would still be British citizens singing "Rule, Britannia." In other words, the notion that the founders were saying that guns were primarily for a well-regulated militia, and not, an unalienable right, endowed by their creator, is historically illiterate. Notice that it is "God and Natural Law," which are the source of our rights, not politicians, according to the constitution, thereby placing our rights outside the boundaries of a ruling political aristocracy.
But this, apparently, no longer makes sense because our military has nuclear weapons, as do many Western and non-Western powers. Meaning, get out of line, and the H bombs will fall on Connecticut and Missippi, anywhere that rebels are prone to rebel. At least, that's the theory. Not a very good one, mind you, but a theory, nonetheless.
The American and European experience in Vietnam is a good example of why we don't just drop H bombs on our enemies. Guerrilla wars can be very costly in terms of blood and money, for both the colonized and the colonizer. They also place limits on the use of military warfare in the face of worldwide scrutiny. Had the U.S. wanted to, we could have reigned nuclear death down on Vietnam, N. Korea, China, including virtually all of the Middle East. But we don't.
Regardless of what anyone thinks of the Vietcong, ISIS, Alqueda, or a plethora of other foreign militias, guerilla-warfare can be very effective against a superpower, especially once that superpower understands that any benefit of colonization pales next to the cost of continual war. And that would be true whether you're Geroge Washington or Ho Chi Mihn.
So much for the argument that "The government has big-ass bombs so, surrender your weapons, America, or face nuclear annihilation."
Here is the more complex truth, in the 20th century, governments were 4 x as likely to kill their own citizens, than a foreign power. That's why the 2nd amendment still matters.
Coda - Before people make the case that you can but an Ak 47 easier than a tube of toothpaste, do your homework. Like so many things in political life, myth and reality are seldom the same.
Mark Magula
The founding fathers had guns, as did the citizens of colonial America. Contrary to popular myth, people living in the past weren't armed with muskets alone, but had a range of weapons, including guns that could fire multiple rounds at once, dating as far back as the 16th century. Although, admittedly, they were rare. However, had they been offered an Ak47 to use against the greatest colonial and military power of the age, I have little doubt they would've seized the opportunity. When you're fighting an empire, you can't be picky, and that's what colonial Americans were up against, a protracted ground war with a very powerful occupying army. That is how they fought and won the revolution. Take away their guns, leaving only the government with guns, and Americans would still be British citizens singing "Rule, Britannia." In other words, the notion that the founders were saying that guns were primarily for a well-regulated militia, and not, an unalienable right, endowed by their creator, is historically illiterate. Notice that it is "God and Natural Law," which are the source of our rights, not politicians, according to the constitution, thereby placing our rights outside the boundaries of a ruling political aristocracy.
But this, apparently, no longer makes sense because our military has nuclear weapons, as do many Western and non-Western powers. Meaning, get out of line, and the H bombs will fall on Connecticut and Missippi, anywhere that rebels are prone to rebel. At least, that's the theory. Not a very good one, mind you, but a theory, nonetheless.
The American and European experience in Vietnam is a good example of why we don't just drop H bombs on our enemies. Guerrilla wars can be very costly in terms of blood and money, for both the colonized and the colonizer. They also place limits on the use of military warfare in the face of worldwide scrutiny. Had the U.S. wanted to, we could have reigned nuclear death down on Vietnam, N. Korea, China, including virtually all of the Middle East. But we don't.
Regardless of what anyone thinks of the Vietcong, ISIS, Alqueda, or a plethora of other foreign militias, guerilla-warfare can be very effective against a superpower, especially once that superpower understands that any benefit of colonization pales next to the cost of continual war. And that would be true whether you're Geroge Washington or Ho Chi Mihn.
So much for the argument that "The government has big-ass bombs so, surrender your weapons, America, or face nuclear annihilation."
Here is the more complex truth, in the 20th century, governments were 4 x as likely to kill their own citizens, than a foreign power. That's why the 2nd amendment still matters.
Coda - Before people make the case that you can but an Ak 47 easier than a tube of toothpaste, do your homework. Like so many things in political life, myth and reality are seldom the same.
Mark Magula