![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
armed citizenry
2009-Aug-17, Monday 11:15 pmI dislike thinking about weapons, but they've been in the news and blogs lately, so think about them I have done. I don't intend this post to be persuasive, converting someone to my opinion. I do intend it to be informative, explaining my opinion so that a reader can understand my reasoning and could explain it to someone else if the occasion warranted. This post should probably be Friends-locked, but it's too important an issue to hide. It deserves more discussion, so I leave it open for search engines to find and catalog so maybe strangers can find their way here too.
I support the interpretation which claims that citizens have the right to carry weapons in case there comes a time when corruption has destroyed the legal processes of representative government to the point that they are no longer reliable, a time when the people need to rebel against their own government in order to reassert control.
In fact, I go farther. I insist that the citizenry should have access to every single Arm which is issued to any of its military personnel. Yes, I do mean assault rifles, grenades, portable missile launchers, and microwave beams. If the citizens are expected (as a last resort) to fight the military of their own making, then they need to be equipped with the same weaponry as their soldiers. Musket rifles and pistols will not suffice.
BUT...
( Read the long diatribe... )
For what it's worth, the most powerful weapon that I have owned was a bb gun as a teenager. I was a decent shot with it too. I would easily shoot locusts (cicadas, 1.5 inch body length) from the tops of elm trees (2+ stories up) for the cats to eat when the locusts fell to the ground. I'm not philosophically opposed to having and using guns, but I do not even trust myself (given family history) to be a peaceful owner of weaponry. I suspect I know more about emotional self-control than a lot of people, so hopefully my distrust will carry some philosophical weight.
"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." - 2nd Amendment to the United States Constitution
I support the interpretation which claims that citizens have the right to carry weapons in case there comes a time when corruption has destroyed the legal processes of representative government to the point that they are no longer reliable, a time when the people need to rebel against their own government in order to reassert control.
In fact, I go farther. I insist that the citizenry should have access to every single Arm which is issued to any of its military personnel. Yes, I do mean assault rifles, grenades, portable missile launchers, and microwave beams. If the citizens are expected (as a last resort) to fight the military of their own making, then they need to be equipped with the same weaponry as their soldiers. Musket rifles and pistols will not suffice.
BUT...
( Read the long diatribe... )
For what it's worth, the most powerful weapon that I have owned was a bb gun as a teenager. I was a decent shot with it too. I would easily shoot locusts (cicadas, 1.5 inch body length) from the tops of elm trees (2+ stories up) for the cats to eat when the locusts fell to the ground. I'm not philosophically opposed to having and using guns, but I do not even trust myself (given family history) to be a peaceful owner of weaponry. I suspect I know more about emotional self-control than a lot of people, so hopefully my distrust will carry some philosophical weight.