More Second Amendment Discussion and Questions

Some time back, we started with some questions about the Second Amendment, and it’s value to the republic. From time to time there have been various replies. One recently came in that deserves some exploration and comment. Here’s the reply to an older post,followed by some of my thoughts. If you feel the need, please jump in and get into it. There is much to discuss here.

I take issue with the comments asserting that “thousands” of Americans bearing arms would be “no match for the US Military.” Obviously you haven’t followed closely the insurgencies around the world (e.g. Iraq, Afghanistan, etc.). What about the Viet Cong in Vietnam (they defeated the US Military with the assistance of the liberals in Congress)? You forget that a large majority of the US Military are strong backers of the 2nd Amendment and are under no obligation to obey “unlawful” orders to attack their fellow countrymen. I would venture to say that thousands upon thousands of these American citizens would join the resistance against those who would circumvent the constitution and violate their oath to “protect and defend the Constitution from ALL ENEMIES, foreign and DOMESTIC.” Additionally, you fail to account for the possibility that “thousands of americans” could use those personally owned firearms to acquire more advanced equipment and use it against the illegitimate federal forces. Also, you may want to change “thousands” to “millions.” Before the significant upswing in gun and ammo purchases which began shortly prior to Chairman Obama’s election by the ignorant and uninformed, there were an estimated 80-90 MILLION gunowner’s in the U.S. That has increased in number substantially over the last few months PLUS many more Americans own military look-a-like semi-automatic weapons now than before. A huge percentage of those citizens have been superbly trained by our military to conduct just the type operations which would be required in such an insurrection. Maybe you should think things through a bit more.

To be honest, I’m not totally clear on exactly what the disagreement is. Do you feel that the Second Amendment is NOT necessary to protect us? Do you think that those who will oppose liberty are not attacking andattempting to restrict Second Amendment rights? Perhaps he’s making the case that in the event there is a social and/or institutional breakdown that US military will not fire on Americans? There is much to think about here. For many years now there has been a careful and considered effort to determine just exactly where the loyalty of American Forces is, and how far it can be pushed. After the first Gulf War, exiting marines were given numerous debriefings and among them was a questionnaire. The Combat Arms Survey .Contained therein were several stunning questions. Marines were asked to evaluate and comment on many statements and scenarios. Among the most  disturbing is this:

The U.S. government declares a ban on the possession, sale transportation, and transfer of all non-sporting firearms. A thirty (30) day amnesty period is permitted for these firearms to be turned over to the local authorities. At the end of this period, a number of citizen groups refuse to turn over their firearms. Consider the following statement: I would fire upon U.S. citizens who refuse or resist confiscation of firearms banned by the U.S. government.

Others looked to determine the attitude of US personnel to swearing an oath of allegiance to the United Nations.   I am NOT making the argument that the US military is now totally compromised, merely looking at and commenting on some of the tactics the enemies of liberty are exploring. I encourage you to research it yourself, there is a link above.

The Second Amendment is a critical support for the liberty of all Americans. This is something that must be constantly discussed, and protected. As the federal government moves more and faster toward acquiring and maintaining control over ever expanding areas of individual lives, we have to look at where we stand, and where we may end up. Paladin looks to Viet Nam, Iraq and Afghanistan as examples. In the case of Viet Nam he hits upon a critical point. Militarily the US never really lost. The democrats and liberals in congress and the US media pursued surrender in negotiations after victory on the battle fields. The constant trope of the communist victory in the Tet offensive is a myth, as close study of the action shows virtually no permanent gains for the NVA or VietCong. Does anyone think that the same politicians and media organizations, given the opportunity, will not attack domestic supporters of the Second Amendment should they see an opening to defeat it? Remember while he was still campaining, the Great and Powerful Obama decried the ‘bitter Americans who cling to their guns and religion’ and discussed the need to defeat them. We who cherish the dreams and principles of the Founders of this nation will be facing an onslaught of vicious and careful attacks when the time comes. Anyone owning firearms, or defending the right to do so will be demonized as evil, hate filled, and needing imprisonment or psychological counselling.

I really don’t think Paladin is all that far from my views, but perhaps has a different emphasis. Perhaps I am less willing to depend on someone else to protect my rights. I surely do believe the American Fighting forces are the best in the history. I also believe them to be extraordinary partiots. My fear is them being misused by those bent on changing the course of this republic in any way possible.