Quote:
|
Originally Posted by dksuddeth
Pan, I have to disagree with you. The founding documents of our nation all point to one very specific thing....that is that 'the people', meaning you and I, are the soveriegn rulers of our nation. The government was created to protect our rights and liberties, but that the government was not to be trusted completely with that responsibility, therefore it was up to the people to ensure that they would ALWAYS be in control. More people willing to fight and be better armed than any governments standing army. The founders didn't care what technology would have wrought, just so that the people would always be stronger than any standing army.
|
I didn't mean anything by that DK, other than I don't think our forefathers who wrote and passed this amendment expected Uzis, automatic rifles, guns capable of going through brick walls, bullets that explode on impact, etc.
While I have come to be pro-gun, I am not sure how far I want to go with it. I realize that if you want an illegal gun or illegal bullets they are easy to come by, but I'm not sure legalizing them is in our best interest either.
I feel if the government did rise and some fought back even with Glocks, rifles and so on, that it would create enough noise to stop the government's move.
However, Waco and especially Ruby Ridge shows what the government can be capable of. In those events the government had far more fire power. And I believe always will. You pull out a glock they have an MK... you pull out an MK they pull out a bazooka... and so on... the government will always win firepowerwise.
That being the case, how much firepower do you need to protect your home and what is too much? That is the big question.
As for stockpiling for a Martial Law type government takeover.... I feel that would be best done in an underground militia type banding of like minded people. Rather than have just 1 person be over armed with "illegal" weapons.
I think that part of the 2nd amendment makes this acceptable. It clearly states:
Quote:
|
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
|
Thus, a "private" militia built of citizens that has structure and is solely for the purpose to protect the people from government abuse, should be allowed as it is our Constitutional right and perhaps these days we should have them prominently in every state. The governor could even name the head of the militia based on a list of nominees given by the militia. Those would be the places for the extreme armaments.
The government claims states do have "militias" but they somehow seem to be called "the (insert state here) National Guard" and are not independent but rather a "part-time" division of a Federal armed force (Army, Air Force, etc). I do not believe this is what the founding fathers deemed a "militia" necessary to the security of a free state. This became a way for the Federal government to control them and basically destroy the idea of independent state and citizen controlled militias. I believe we need these back if for no other reason than to put fear into government that it is truly being watched by the people and needs to be truly honest with the people.
Do I see this being allowed? Unfortunately, no. The government is too paranoid to allow it and there is that group of citizens that go giddy when rights get taken away that would demand government do something to stop these militias.
The question then is, why is government so paranoid that they would never allow these militias to be formed?