The Cellar - View Single Post

Undertoad · 07-31-2002, 10:45 AM

A couple of things:

Jag, the militias would not have been addressed by the gov't. They tried to address armed religious nuts in Waco. It didn't really work too well, and that wasn't even a militia. (The OKC "blowback" did come via a militia though, if there is any truth to the common notions about what really happened.)

The notion that one cannot manage an entire revolution with peashooters because the feds have bigger weaponry is true. But arms in the hands of the common citizen has prevented the NEED for revolution! There is a big limit to how oppressive the government can act, and Waco is evidence of that point, and a sobering reminder to everyone involved.

My 89-year-old grandfather used to get letters from the IRS that he would just set aside and ignore. Why: well he was 89, he didn't think he had long for the world, and I suspect he just got fed up with the nonsense. Why did they send LETTERS when it would be much more effective to send AGENTS? Because if you send agents to many parts of the country, including the "deep north" of New Hampshire where my grandfather lived, they will get their asses blown off with a load of buckshot. This is an effective control on power, in this case a control on the agency most likely to deny citizen's rights.

Defining "arms" is simple; by their original definition or the current one, they are carryable weapons, an extension of the arm. Tanks don't count if they include big guns, and nukes are Right Out.

Arms in the hands of citizens has the effect of distributing real power to the lowest levels. This does lead to a certain noise level of tragedy as some people are incapable of handling their responsibilities. I'm convinced that it prevents a larger level of tragedy in crime and, eventually, in government overstepping its limitations.

07-31-2002, 10:45 AM	#42
Undertoad Radical Centrist Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Cottage of Prussia Posts: 31,423	A couple of things: Jag, the militias would not have been addressed by the gov't. They tried to address armed religious nuts in Waco. It didn't really work too well, and that wasn't even a militia. (The OKC "blowback" did come via a militia though, if there is any truth to the common notions about what really happened.) The notion that one cannot manage an entire revolution with peashooters because the feds have bigger weaponry is true. But arms in the hands of the common citizen has prevented the NEED for revolution! There is a big limit to how oppressive the government can act, and Waco is evidence of that point, and a sobering reminder to everyone involved. My 89-year-old grandfather used to get letters from the IRS that he would just set aside and ignore. Why: well he was 89, he didn't think he had long for the world, and I suspect he just got fed up with the nonsense. Why did they send LETTERS when it would be much more effective to send AGENTS? Because if you send agents to many parts of the country, including the "deep north" of New Hampshire where my grandfather lived, they will get their asses blown off with a load of buckshot. This is an effective control on power, in this case a control on the agency most likely to deny citizen's rights. Defining "arms" is simple; by their original definition or the current one, they are carryable weapons, an extension of the arm. Tanks don't count if they include big guns, and nukes are Right Out. Arms in the hands of citizens has the effect of distributing real power to the lowest levels. This does lead to a certain noise level of tragedy as some people are incapable of handling their responsibilities. I'm convinced that it prevents a larger level of tragedy in crime and, eventually, in government overstepping its limitations.