The author makes several key points about the reaction by conservative gun owners to gun confiscation. This group could not be considered insurrectionists, as the govt has moved against the people in violation of the Constitution, a grounds to defend the Republic from a domestic enemy. But, I digress. The gun owners would not take this fight to the local police. The people would selectively "remove" those responsible for gun confiscation. A deck of cards of bad actors promoting this tyranny. Of the millions of owners, thousands are snipers, who would drain the swamp in a day. The military would take back the Republic and begin tribunals for those that were not drained by snipers. But, I would rather split the Country, rather than go through this process.
I wouldn't expect to read anything but grounded common sense, reasoned argument, and persuasive prose from you on this subject and you did not disappoint.
Jun 2, 2022·edited Jun 2, 2022Liked by John Hawkins
Sadly, I do believe it is inevitable, given how the political discourse looks these days. (Didn't Robert Reich advocate "reeducation camps?) And you are quite right, it would be horrific, as in "shades of Vietnam" horrific. (Atrocities, massacres, corruption, violence, former neighbors and friends becoming tribalistic barbarians.
Also, some extra food for thought when people ask, "do you really 'need' that kind of weapon?"
1. It isn't called the Bill of Needs. I may own whatever firearms I please. (I usually don't "need" to peaceably assemble, but when I must, it is my right to do so, as well. Why do we "need" protection from unreasonable search and seizure, if we have nothing to hide?)
2. Does the government "need" all of the things the left so vehemently hate for private citizens to have? I have never had so much as a speeding ticket, meanwhile, the alphabet boys have run black ops in our own country (MKULTRA and the Tuskeegee Experiments), spied on the public (Hoover's FBI all the way to the NSA), and shot women in the face while they held babies, or just barbecued children... They get carte blanche to have the latest "military style" equipment.
3. If the founding fathers never would've dreamed about modern weapons, why does the Press get to use instant, round the clock broadcasting and the like? Surely the media should be happy with manual printing presses and lead type? (Or perhaps a waiting period for publishing stories to make sure no-one gets hurt? Richard Jewel would've appreciated that, as well as the Duke Lacrosse team.)
And for anyone who says that people don't need to worry about tyrannical government, look up the Battle of Athens in 1946. A corrupt local sheriff in Tennessee was trying to rig an election after World War II, and the veterans rose up to clean house, as it were. They used the latest military equipment, including Garand Rifles, M1 Thompson Submachine Guns, 1917 Enfields, shotguns, and service pistols. (and Molotovs)
The late John Ross's book "Unintended Consequences is also an interesting read.
Thanks for writing this, John. In the wake of mass shootings, there is always this simple minded rush to do something about guns, esp. those now called "weapons of war." Royce White had an interesting observation about the 2d amendment- he said that the FF were thinking ahead, to a day when the USA would be "invasion proof" because almost everyone owned a gun. Such a nation would be a "guerilla war quagmire" and make any invasion fruitless. My whole point is, if we have legal opinions saying "the police have no duty to come to your defense when called," that self defense is absolutely up to the individual, not the state, and a weaker, perhaps older person needs a gun to be a force equalizer.
My thoughts exactly, well, a lot of them for sure. I have thought about the dividing of the country for some time, I just can't figure out how that might take place. For instance, do conservatives in California, the state I happen to be stuck in, have to leave the state, or do we just divide it by red and blue counties with different laws? That means I would still have to move because I am in a blue county. Would either side be allowed to cross borders? I think someone needs to start working out the details of an amicable split or the bad stuff you described will actually occur in the not that distant future.
The author makes several key points about the reaction by conservative gun owners to gun confiscation. This group could not be considered insurrectionists, as the govt has moved against the people in violation of the Constitution, a grounds to defend the Republic from a domestic enemy. But, I digress. The gun owners would not take this fight to the local police. The people would selectively "remove" those responsible for gun confiscation. A deck of cards of bad actors promoting this tyranny. Of the millions of owners, thousands are snipers, who would drain the swamp in a day. The military would take back the Republic and begin tribunals for those that were not drained by snipers. But, I would rather split the Country, rather than go through this process.
I wouldn't expect to read anything but grounded common sense, reasoned argument, and persuasive prose from you on this subject and you did not disappoint.
Excellent, realistic points made. I couldn’t agree more.
Sadly, I do believe it is inevitable, given how the political discourse looks these days. (Didn't Robert Reich advocate "reeducation camps?) And you are quite right, it would be horrific, as in "shades of Vietnam" horrific. (Atrocities, massacres, corruption, violence, former neighbors and friends becoming tribalistic barbarians.
Also, some extra food for thought when people ask, "do you really 'need' that kind of weapon?"
1. It isn't called the Bill of Needs. I may own whatever firearms I please. (I usually don't "need" to peaceably assemble, but when I must, it is my right to do so, as well. Why do we "need" protection from unreasonable search and seizure, if we have nothing to hide?)
2. Does the government "need" all of the things the left so vehemently hate for private citizens to have? I have never had so much as a speeding ticket, meanwhile, the alphabet boys have run black ops in our own country (MKULTRA and the Tuskeegee Experiments), spied on the public (Hoover's FBI all the way to the NSA), and shot women in the face while they held babies, or just barbecued children... They get carte blanche to have the latest "military style" equipment.
3. If the founding fathers never would've dreamed about modern weapons, why does the Press get to use instant, round the clock broadcasting and the like? Surely the media should be happy with manual printing presses and lead type? (Or perhaps a waiting period for publishing stories to make sure no-one gets hurt? Richard Jewel would've appreciated that, as well as the Duke Lacrosse team.)
And for anyone who says that people don't need to worry about tyrannical government, look up the Battle of Athens in 1946. A corrupt local sheriff in Tennessee was trying to rig an election after World War II, and the veterans rose up to clean house, as it were. They used the latest military equipment, including Garand Rifles, M1 Thompson Submachine Guns, 1917 Enfields, shotguns, and service pistols. (and Molotovs)
The late John Ross's book "Unintended Consequences is also an interesting read.
Thanks for writing this, John. In the wake of mass shootings, there is always this simple minded rush to do something about guns, esp. those now called "weapons of war." Royce White had an interesting observation about the 2d amendment- he said that the FF were thinking ahead, to a day when the USA would be "invasion proof" because almost everyone owned a gun. Such a nation would be a "guerilla war quagmire" and make any invasion fruitless. My whole point is, if we have legal opinions saying "the police have no duty to come to your defense when called," that self defense is absolutely up to the individual, not the state, and a weaker, perhaps older person needs a gun to be a force equalizer.
My thoughts exactly, well, a lot of them for sure. I have thought about the dividing of the country for some time, I just can't figure out how that might take place. For instance, do conservatives in California, the state I happen to be stuck in, have to leave the state, or do we just divide it by red and blue counties with different laws? That means I would still have to move because I am in a blue county. Would either side be allowed to cross borders? I think someone needs to start working out the details of an amicable split or the bad stuff you described will actually occur in the not that distant future.