dakota.potts
Member
- Joined
- Jan 19, 2014
- Messages
- 16
Don't get me wrong, I fully support the second amendment and interpret it as meaning all the way up to machine guns and anti-personnel crew served weapons. I also acknowledge that its purpose includes protecting the American people from any army that would oppress them.
However, when you are the National Guard training to protect the state, what do you do? The powers that be threaten to start a firearms registry (naturally leading to confiscation) and the pro-gun people start threatening to shoot people if they take away 30 round magazines in response.
No matter where you stand on the second amendment, now imagine that you are the head of the National Guard in your area, or at least the training exercises. You have a political climate where gun control is, if not likely, always an enormous threat, and where people on the gun-rights side are constantly and consistently threatening violence on the people who would enforce it.
As a miliita force duty bound to both uphold the law and protect the people, do you
A: Prepare for the stereotypical left-winger who will give up their single shot shotgun and happily let Mother Government take care of all of their needs
or
B: Prepare for the stereotypical right-winger who has threatened in no uncertain times violence for gun control and might conceivably take up arms because they're tired of their rights being trampled?
Given, the actual exercise (mustard gas on children?) is absurd, but I have certainly heard some more extreme things from self-proclaimed right-wingers discussing their revolution plans.
Again, I'm not against any of the philosophies of people who believe their right to bear arms is exactly a right and nothing less, and that some are willing to die to defend it. I am saying when we have people like James Yeager (who I actually don't mind listening to on less radical subjects) threatening to start shooting people if the assault weapons ban/UBCs are implemented AND you're in a political climate where that looks possible (remember last January, when this happened?), it might make some sense to train for such a scenario because it's possible that it's going to happen and when you lose control of the situation to a bunch of "gun-toting rednecks" (public perception) the public is going to look to you wanting to know why you weren't prepared.
However, when you are the National Guard training to protect the state, what do you do? The powers that be threaten to start a firearms registry (naturally leading to confiscation) and the pro-gun people start threatening to shoot people if they take away 30 round magazines in response.
No matter where you stand on the second amendment, now imagine that you are the head of the National Guard in your area, or at least the training exercises. You have a political climate where gun control is, if not likely, always an enormous threat, and where people on the gun-rights side are constantly and consistently threatening violence on the people who would enforce it.
As a miliita force duty bound to both uphold the law and protect the people, do you
A: Prepare for the stereotypical left-winger who will give up their single shot shotgun and happily let Mother Government take care of all of their needs
or
B: Prepare for the stereotypical right-winger who has threatened in no uncertain times violence for gun control and might conceivably take up arms because they're tired of their rights being trampled?
Given, the actual exercise (mustard gas on children?) is absurd, but I have certainly heard some more extreme things from self-proclaimed right-wingers discussing their revolution plans.
Again, I'm not against any of the philosophies of people who believe their right to bear arms is exactly a right and nothing less, and that some are willing to die to defend it. I am saying when we have people like James Yeager (who I actually don't mind listening to on less radical subjects) threatening to start shooting people if the assault weapons ban/UBCs are implemented AND you're in a political climate where that looks possible (remember last January, when this happened?), it might make some sense to train for such a scenario because it's possible that it's going to happen and when you lose control of the situation to a bunch of "gun-toting rednecks" (public perception) the public is going to look to you wanting to know why you weren't prepared.