People who raise the “civilian gunowners vs. U.S. military” forget that nearly everyone in the U.S. military has a hometown with family and friends. And many members of the military believe what they said when they took the oath: They are, first and foremost, bound to uphold the Constitution. Ask them to start dropping bombs in Salt Lake City or Paducah, and they’ll be seriously evaluating who is giving such an order and why it is being given. Except in the most egregious circumstances, many will either refuse, go AWOL, or worse for the government, actually point their weapons toward the political leadership giving the orders.
That would not be some unique history lesson. The dimensions of civil wars are rarely clear and unambiguous. That guy with a S&W .38 leading a popular revolt might actually have air support.
rbstern
July 27, 2012
Post to The “I need a personal arsenal to protect myself from the State” Argument
[A very good point backed up by many conversations I have had with active and veteran U.S. military personal.—Joe]
Thanks for putting this out there for people to read. “A very good point backed up..” is an understatement…Trust me on this.
Even more ridiculous is when they say you don’t need guns because the government has nukes (I’m not making this up, I’ve actually seen them argue this). Yeah, the government is going to go ahead and nuke their own cities and landscape. Right.
Not to mention the fact that there is a difference between blowing away an enemy’s infrastructure, and destroying your own. You don’t blow up your own roads, bridges, and power plants; you will need them yourself.
Yes, our military men and women do indeed have integrity. The government’s answer to the integrity of military personnel is the militarization of local police. Reason.com has a nice synopsis of this phenomenom if you are unfamiliar. Those SWAT cowboys are so gungho it is not likely they will turn on their superiors. They find it perfectly acceptable to use military tactics during search warrants for drug possession, often killing innocent people. Al with institutional support of givernment. Many already have automatic weapons, soon they will have weaponized drones. That is the chilling danger that quells likelihood of revolution. Hell, their activities have become a verb, SWATting. Nothing becomes a new verb unless it is real big. Think Xerox or Google big.
I hope I am wrong, but I doubt it.
Same point can be made for the anti’s end-game of door-too-door gun confiscation.
Unless the first door they knock on is a Waco-like compound, likely the cops will have more guns and more men than you. It will be the unfortunate “Blaze of Glory” end that I think less people actually have any interest in than may claim to on internet forums and such.
Still police have families and kids, and friends. They also carry guns on a daily basis and know that a gun doesn’t MAKE you anything. Would they be willing to knock on that NEXT door to enforce such a foolish law?
The reasons the antis are losing is not because of money or numbers, but because we had the debate, and we won.