PDA

View Full Version : The Case for the Non-Revolutionary Ownership of Guns




Anti Federalist
03-10-2012, 05:49 PM
The Case for the Non-Revolutionary Ownership of Guns

http://teapartyeconomist.com/2012/03/09/the-case-for-the-non-revolutionary-ownership-of-guns/

By Gary North

There are two main extremes in the debate over guns. The gun control people are basically worshippers of the state. They grovel before the image of the state. They believe in the state. They see the state as redemptive: an agency of healing. This agency must be armed, they say, in order to collect the money necessary to fund the state’s messianic claims and programs.

A state that can heal must be a state that can kill. The gun control crowd worships a state that can heal. So, they call for the abolition of private gun ownership. This is consistent.

At the other extreme is the private militia crowd. They think that the ownership of weapons is basic to conducting a new American Revolution. They think that that their ownership of weapons will in some way slow down the state. Some day, the People will take up arms against the state.

I reject both positions.

Here is reality. The ownership of guns is mostly symbolic most of the time. The gun as a symbol says this: the state is not God. The state is not finally sovereign. Citizens are sovereign under God, and they possess the right to bear arms as a mark of this sovereignty.

The defenders of the messianic state go ballistic in the face of this claim. They do not accept popular sovereignty. They accept state sovereignty. They accept the fact that voters can elect masters, but they do not accept the fact that citizens have a right to exercise the mark of sovereignty: to defend themselves by force of arms. The statists want the state to possess a strict monopoly over life and death. They understand the meaning of the symbol of the gun. They want guns and badges linked judicially: no badge–no gun.

The weekend militia people are dangerous. Why? Because they have a romantic view of bloodshed. They think that the modern state can be successfully resisted by force of individual arms. This leads to a suicide mentality. The suicide mentality is the heart of the matter, not gun ownership.

The correct goal is to wait for the federal government to go bankrupt before it bankrupts us. It will go bankrupt. It is not God. It cannot afford to implement its programs of healing.

In the political vacuum that will appear in the aftermath of that national bankruptcy, armed citizens with economic assets and economic and political skills will be in a position to pick up the pieces. Local armed citizens will become the back-up of the local police, which local citizens will elect.

The main idea behind gun ownership is to maintain the right of every law-abiding resident to defend his life and property when the state cannot do it. We live in a time when the local agencies of law enforcement cannot secure the peace. This leaves citizens the task of defending their lawful zones of jurisdiction: in their cars, in their homes, and in their places of business.

The lone gunner who takes a stand against the authorities will wind up like David Koresh and his followers. It is better to live to fight politically. Suicide missions benefit the state.

As for armed students in public schools, there is a solution. Close the public schools. No one hears of bullied students who go on a shooting spree in private schools.

We should not worship the federal government. We should plan a revolution to overthrow the federal government. We should work toward the day when local governments replace 90% of the federal government.

Anti Federalist
03-10-2012, 05:53 PM
I have great deal of respect for Dr. North.

But, I disagree in the same manner I disagree with Dr. Paul over "free trade"

Comment win, that does an excellent job of explaining my position:



John G. · 1 day ago

"...The weekend militia people are dangerous. Why? Because they have a romantic view of bloodshed. They think that the modern state can be successfully resisted by force of individual arms..."

Wrong. Look at what happened in Afghanistan to the biggest, baddest Army, Air Force, and Marine Corps in the world.

The U.S. Army and Marines, along with aid from NATO, like the Soviets, failed to subdue Afghanistan. Per Lt. Col. Davis, we tried to subdue Afghanistan with 100K troops, when we needed to use 300K: http://www1.rollingstone.com/extras/RS_REPORT.pdf (p. 33)

The U.S. Army, including Reserves and National Guard, is 1.1M. Marine Corps, including Reserves, is 241K. Thus, total land-based U.S. armies are 1.3M, of which ~2/3 are combatants, ~900K.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S_Army http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Marine...

300K is a big chunk of our 900K combatants. And, Afghanistan is only 30M folks and 252K sq. miles. The U.S. is 313M folks and 3,794K sq. miles, 10X more populous and 15X larger.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afghanistan http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_states

Last week or so, I read that the number of hunters in Texas alone is larger than the combined strength of our Army and Marines. Per the linked report, below, 22M hunted within the past five years, which is 20X the number of combatants in our Army and Marines:
http://www.nssf.org/PDF/HuntingLicTrends-NatlRpt....

Per Lt. Col. Davis, p. 80: “…The United States, along with over 40 NATO and other allied nations, possess the most sophisticated, powerful, and technologically advanced military force that has ever hit the field of combat. We have the finest and most well trained Soldiers that exist anywhere; we have armored vehicles of every type, to include MIA2 Main Battle Tanks; artillery, mortars, advanced rockets, precision guided missiles, and hand-held rocket launchers; we have a wholly uncontested air force composed of NATO's most advanced ground attack fighter jets, bombers, AWACS controllers, spy planes, signals-interception aircraft, B 1 bombers, attack helicopters, and massive transport jets to ferry our troops and critical supplies where they are needed; we have thousands of unmanned aerial drones both for intelligence collection and missile-launching; we have a helicopter fleet for personnel transport and attack support; we have an enormous constellation of spy satellites; logistics that are as limitless as the combined weight of the industrial world; we have every technological device known to the profession of arms; we are able to intercept virtually every form of insurgent communication to include cell phones, walkie-talkies, satellite phones, email, and even some ability to eves-drop on otherwise private conversations; a remarkably capable cohort of intelligence analysts that are as educated, well trained and equipped to a degree that used to exist only in science fiction; and our various nations have the economic wherewithal to spend $10s of billions each month to fund it all.

And for almost 10 years we have pitted this unbelievable and unprecedented capability against: A bunch of dudes in bed sheets and flip-flops.

My conclusion – we do not need to be armed to a comparable level with the local police and our Army, Marines, and Air Force in order to successfully resist. We just need our hunters, and folks like me who are rifle target shooters, to take up arms at the appropriate time. It will be tough, but doable, to defeat any force that attempts to subdue us. No doubt, we civilians will take huge casualties when we resist. But, mechanized and air forces have lots of weak spots, like fuel supplies, logistical trains, and landing and takeoff approaches, which is where ‘bed sheets and flip-flop’ types wreak their damage. And, of course, many in the military will refuse to take up arms against civilians, and will help us civilians resist the remainder and the inevitable British, Dutch, German, French, and Israeli imports/mercenaries.

oyarde
03-10-2012, 06:09 PM
Well , at least he got that " state worship ' part right.