[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Sign-in] [Mail] [Setup] [Help]
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
|
Editorial See other Editorial Articles Title: American guns - what are they good for? Saturday, April 19, 2008 American guns - what are they good for? Here in Australia very few people have guns. People in the country who have problems with feral pigs, rabbits and foxes etc can register and possess long arms. Otherwise hand-guns, semi-automatic and automatic weapons are mythical things we see only in movies. And on the hips of cops, sure. I understand the appeal of guns. I learned guns under my father, a thirty year military man. I've fired all sorts of long arms from pop-gun 22's through to a genuine Rhodesian elephant rifle. It weighed a ton and kicked like a motherfucker. That insane elephant rifle aside, guns are cool. In spite of this, I have to be honest and say I like living in a country where the probability of being shot with a handgun is as close to zero as is statistically possible. The fear I sense in the US is absent here. The only fear here is of the standard sock-in-jaw variety from drunks in bars. I say all this so you might understand this foreigner who wishes to discuss American guns. I've followed the American arguments concerning guns and gun control. The arguments from the pro-gun lobby seemed to me to run primarily on the twin strands of rights as granted in the second amendment and the fear of crime. These are American arguments. Here in Australia neither make any sense. But we're not discussing Australia. Even in the American context I wondered at these twin points. They seemed at odds with each other. The second amendment is about something, but it ain't crime. Here is the second amendment - 'Amendment [II] 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'. Is it just me or does this seem to be about the security of a free state by way of a well-regulated militia? I understood a pro-gun argument based on fear of crime. How far would the gun lobby have gotten with an argument based on the security of a free state? When have Americans not been secure and free? One could argue that under the Fed they never were, but at least until recently the facade was in place. An argument pivoting on crime was the only one that made sense. But that was then, this is now. Citizens of the United States of America - here's the question - how do you now feel about the security of your 'free' state? The very Bill of Rights we're discussing is just a goddamn piece of paper apparently. Who threatens the security of the free state? It ain't Muslims. The second amendment doesn't say who the guns were to be used against, but the framers of the constitution had just fought a war against their tyrannical rulers. Might this have contributed to them so clearly stating the value of a well regulated militia? All of those bearers of arms, schooled in the modern mindset of 'home defence', a tyrannical government does not fear you. Singletons waiting at home to defend their property will be comfortably picked off one by one. Tyrannical rulers will only fear you if you are in a well regulated militia. If you sit at home with a gun in your hand, you're doomed. Says this writer, (and I merely echo your own founding fathers), for your guns to be of any value you will need to form militias. You must abandon defence. You will never win a stand-up fight against the government's greater force, Blackwater included. If your home being violated is the price, so be it. Don't let the tyrants choose the battleground. Seize the initiative. Attack will be your only option - hit and run. You will need structure and you will need strategies. Military training will be of value but only by way of tactics. Current US military strategy will be a weakness - a weakness of the government. The golden rule of the militias must be - hit 'em where they ain't. It will be guerilla warfare or nothing. And if you're wondering who to hit, may I make a humble suggestion? The first and most important target is the media. If you leave them alone they will ensure you have no support from the populace. Ho Chi Minh was right - without the people's support you will never succeed. Blow up the towers, cut the cables, win the support of your community. Your government must fear you. And you must not fear them. ---------- -A side-note to nutbar racists. Your founding fathers weren't fighting coloured people. Their enemies were other white men. The new tyranny will likewise be white men. Know that even in the absence of racial disharmony the government via the media will attempt to cause it. White people will be provoked, as will everyone else. You can bank on it. Don't be as stupid as the government thinks you are. Strive to find harmony with those who, like you, suffer under tyranny. Racial division will be the death of freedom and must not be tolerated. Posted by nobody at 9:05 PM 3 comments
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 9.
#5. To: robin (#0)
(Edited)
...which are easily infiltrated and can be destroyed at will. The last real man of Australia, Rodney Ansell (the man that inspired Crocodile Dundee) died in a shootout because he wouldn't give them up. Now all they have are wusses like this "man". They lost their freedom to own arms, and he presumes to tell US how to remain free. Go figure. The only good thing to come out of Australia is AC/DC.
...which are easily infiltrated and can be destroyed at will. True. Just look at the US militia movement in the 1990s. I think there were more FED undercover agents than militia members. That's why the "cell" tactic was developed. 6 to 10 close people operating on their own with little information on other cells. If it gets taken out, the other cells don't have to worry about being ratted out. I also disagree about those being alone not being able to stand up to FEDGOV. Solzhenitsyn wrote about if people rise up at the sight of injustice that "the entire cursed machine would come screeching to a halt!" He invisioned people acting upon the spur of the moment by slashing tires on the paddy wagons or splitting the skull of any "blue cap" they came across during an arrest. Hence why the pistol is an important weapon to an insurgent. Why fight a toe to toe battle if you can just dress as a civilian and blow the enemy's head off as they walk by? Iraq seems to be the case study of how not to fight the US military. IED trigger men and Snipers seem to survive to fight another day. Moving about in large formations just invites an air strike.
There are no replies to Comment # 9. End Trace Mode for Comment # 9.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest |
||
|
[Home]
[Headlines]
[Latest Articles]
[Latest Comments]
[Post]
[Sign-in]
[Mail]
[Setup]
[Help]
|
||