Quote:
Originally posted by shakran
That's absurd. The idea that the people could stop an oppressive government was fine when armies mainly had muskets and rifles that were pretty much identical to what the peasants had.
YOU, however can at best get an M16 or two, and that's very iffy. More likely you can only get hold of a shotgun/rifle/handgun/AK47 at best. The military on the other hand has tanks, missiles, and the stealth bomber.
|
There is a laundry list of populations who have resisted major armies using little more than small arms and homemade explosives. Our experiences in Vietnam and now Iraq should serve as evidence that a government can not simply rule a people through sheer brute force.
There is no compelling reason to maintain a right to bear arms at the present other than that there may be a need in the future. That is exactly why it was enumerated second only to free speech as a fundamental right of the citizen. It is ironic that the same people in this country who are presently so paranoid about government overeaching its authority are the same people who want to take away the last resort to oppose it.
"The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to posses arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by doing so." -Adolph Hitler 1938