I know this is a long comment, but please bear with me guys. This is my next post on my blog at
www.gatewaychaplaintom.wordpress.com. I’m posting it here first. Please point out any shortcomings in the thoughts I have expressed below. I respect and trust your opinions.
IMO, the 2nd amendment was and still is, intended as a DETERRENT against the government FROM becoming a “tyrannical dictatorship”, as well as being our constitutionally stated “God given” right to self defense. Once tyranny has become government, the fight is already over. Armed revolution would be our ONLY recourse if prevention failed, but we would probably already be disarmed. We would not have the weaponry to defeat such a government. The idea that WE should be able to own nuclear weapons to defend ourselves from our own government is so impractical I can’t believe it’s even being discussed on this forum. We (the free countries of the world) are trying to prevent most third world countries from EVER obtaining nuclear weapons because we know they would NOT be used to defend their countries. But instead, would be used to try to oppress other nations who don’t have such weapons, and therefore could not defend themselves from oppressive nations who do. As for the possession of nuclear weapons for personal defense, well that’s just so far out of the bounds of reason that I won’t even talk about it here. I don’t think I saw any posts advocating nuclear weapons for such use either, so on with my post.
As far as the type of weaponry free men have the right to “keep and bear”… We have according to the 2nd amendment, the right to keep and bear arms with which to deter our government from even trying to become a “tyrannical dictatorship” in the first place. However, I believe we have a God given right to personal defense and therefore any weapon appropriate to perform that task. This right supersedes any right men might claim to give us. If it ever got to the point where the citizenry needed nuclear weapons to prevent a “tyrannical” takeover, once again, the fight is already over and we lost. There are “mad men” everywhere, even in our nation, and who really knows, maybe even on this forum. A nuclear weapon in the hands of a “mad man” would NOT be used to prevent the government from becoming a “tyrannical” government. Personal ownership of weapons of mass destruction, would only be used by mad men for their own heinous intentions. Even if law-abiding citizens could own nuclear weapons with the intent of using them as the FF intended when they wrote the 2nd amendment, they couldn’t hope to provide the security needed to prevent those weapons from falling into the hands of third world nations, or terrorists bent on destroying the world as we know it. Even if one or more of us COULD protect such weapons from falling into the hands of the “enemy”, using them would destroy what we are trying to protect in the first place. So the idea of the common man owning weapons of that scale is absolutely ludicrous to say the least, and IMO, insanity.
A “militia” armed with fully automatic weapons, conventional explosives, and MAYBE even rocket launchers armed with conventional warheads, would be enough of a deterrent to PREVENT a democratically elected government from even trying to force the citizens of this country into a dictator state of government. Someone said either here on this site or another pro-gun forum, (I’m not sure which) that the armed militia couldn’t stand up to an organized well trained army, let alone an army with aircraft, tanks, or any of the other advanced weapons our military could bring to bear. Well, I call your attention to Switzerland as Hitler’s army was wreaking havoc across Europe. Although Hitler’s army didn’t have nuclear weapons, they did have all the other “latest and greatest” military weaponry, and the defiant Swiss nation of armed militia men, under directions from the country’s highest general not to surrender under ANY circumstances, was able to remain neutral for the entire war. Why? Because each and every man and boy big enough to carry a rifle, was ready and willing to fight to the death to prevent Hitler from imposing his will on their tiny nation. Virtually all of the other European nations who were defeated by Hitler’s army either gave up without a fight, or put up such a paltry defense before surrendering that it was just a walk in the park for the attacking army. As was stated earlier in this thread, Japan did not invade our west coast because of virtually the same reason. Japan feared our “militia”. Whenever a nation of armed men, willing to fight to the last man, refuse to surrender their liberty to a tyrant, the tyrant WILL ALWAYS BE DEFEATED. It didn’t matter that the men in Switzerland were WAY out gunned. What mattered was they were WILLING to use the weapons they had, and they were WILLING to resist to the end. Here’s a link to a pretty good read I found on a site called Free Republic. I don’t know much about the site, but this is a pretty good read IMO.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1141333/posts
In a nutshell…It simply isn’t worth it to the would be tyrant to engage such a defiant militia no matter how “out gunned” the militia is. I think our FF knew this when they wrote the 2nd amendment to the constitution of the United States. The biggest problem we face in IMO, is that we live in a nation full of complacent wussies who wouldn’t defend themselves if they could. I do think there are enough of us who WILL fight tyranny that WE could make up for their lack of balls. One more thing in our favor…The men and women who would comprise the “well organized and well trained military” we would be fighting against if defending ourselves from a tyrannical government, would be OUR sons and daughters, OUR brothers and sisters. I doubt they would be as WILLING to fight FOR the tyrants, as WE are WILLING to fight AGAINST them.
Thanks for listening.
Chaplain Tom
