Stefan Viljoen wrote:
> In the United States, this base is that there are millions and millions of
> guns in private hands that can conceivably be used against an unjust or
> oppressive state or federal government in an insurrection or secession.

My brother is a career cop, and he laughs at that idea, given the firepower 
cops have let alone soldiers.

The other real difference is that soldiers swear to uphold the Constitution, 
not some random leader. Someone did a survey that asked several hundred 
enlisted soldiers (i.e., not officers) if they'd obey an order to go out 
into civilian areas and confiscate the firearms, and something like 60%-70% 
said they wouldn't.

We do have a constitution that's written down and fairly clear and succinct. 
You can argue over the details, but it's pretty easy to see that there's no 
provision for (say) the president to stay in office past his term just 
because there's an emergency. Indeed, I'm pretty impressed we even had 
general presidential elections during our civil war.

> Armed citizens give a government (or an invader) pause. Or a corrupt police
> force. 

Unfortunately, corrupt police in the USA really don't expect to get shot 
back at, and if a copy breaks in, fails to identify himself, shoots your 
dog, shoots a hole in your door, and has a warrant illegally obtained for a 
house on a different street, and you shoot him, chances are you're going 
down for murder. If the cops got in trouble more often for doing things 
wrong, we'd much safer from our own corrupt police here.

> True. But the mere presence of weapons can often times defuse a situation to
> such a degree that actually firing a shot is not needed. 

The FBI reports here show that the presence of a gun without firing stops 
more violent crimes than the presence of a gun that does get fired.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   I ordered stamps from Zazzle that read "Place Stamp Here".

Post a reply to this message