Mission statement:

Armed and Safe is a gun rights advocacy blog, with the mission of debunking the "logic" of the enemies of the Constitutionally guaranteed, fundamental human right of the individual to keep and bear arms.

I can be reached at 45superman@gmail.com.You can follow me on Twitter at http://twitter.com/45superman.

Friday, October 23, 2009

A quick observation . . .

After my post earlier today, correspondent Tangalor left this comment (excerpt):

Ha! I love that f-16 and nuke comment. Hysterical.
That was in response to a passage I had quoted from Atlanta Journal-Constitution (Ha!) columnist Cynthia Tucker's "They've been watching Red Dawn again":
Hey, people believe what they want. That’s what makes this a great country. But, really, folk, the government has nuclear weapons and F-16s. If by some convoluted Manchurian takeover, the feds wanted a dictatorship, would your hunting rifles stop them?
The train of thought set in motion by Tangalor's comment led me to the realization that whenever it suits the collectivists' agenda to strike fear of gun owners in the hearts of their audience, they talk breathlessly about the "lethality" and "power" of our "weapons of war" ("weapons of war" is the term they use when "assault weapons"--itself an invented term, contrived to frighten the public--isn't scary enough). But when, as was the case this time, the idea is to disparage our ability to resist tyranny, suddenly our "weapons of war" turn back into "hunting rifles."

Funny how that works.

8 comments:

Tangalor said...

Funny. That's why I found that statement so hysterical, in fact.

"You wish to go against the great Homeland? Feel the wrath!"

But, erm.. see, that won't work.. I don't see them using nukes and f-16's in residential neighborhoods in, say, Illinois or Arkansas, or any other state.

If War ever actually broke out, it'd be worse than Iraq, because, in order to keep the people on their side, they would not be able to do the sorts of things they do there.

The fact that collectivists continue to try and strike that kind of fear in people, even though anyone with a head knows they couldn't pull it off without serious uprisings, never ceases to amaze me.

45superman said...

Exactly--the classic dilemma of counterinsurgency: measures harsh enough to truly hurt the insurgents are going to be harsh enough, and cause enough "collateral damage," to be the insurgency's best recruiting tool.

Doc_Savage said...

Let's face it. IF the Military backs up the Copperheads we die in great job lots. The Army does know how to conduct counter-insurgency operations, and has just graduated from a multi-year practical course in the same.

But seriously, what are the chances of that? In a very real way, the Military is us, and the Copperheads know it. Which explains the panic over the Oath Keepers.

Most likely scenario has the Military split red and blue, just like the many states. And just like the map of counties...

45superman said...

Point taken, Doc, but you, yourself, address that point admirably. Killing fellow American patriots in "job lots" will be a far from easy choice for even a good many service members who have not officially become Oath Keepers.

In one way, I think Matthews and his "furrowed leg" got something right: the Oath Keeper movement is about fostering a mindset. Making troops and cops think about whether or not the orders they're receiving pass Constitutional--and moral--muster.

If the tiniest seed of doubt in the orders to oppress their fellow Americans is planted in the minds of the troops and cops, I have enough faith in them to believe that that seed will grow and thrive--and we'll have a whole 'nuther ballgame.

Tangalor said...

Indeed.

It's easier to go to a sandy hole and smite brown people, it is much harder to go to your hometown, or your best friends' hometown, and smite his or your neighbors.

The thought processes are there to do the deed, to be sure, but the moral mindset behind such an endeavor would be hard to come by.. thereby, with little to no nudging on the parts that would rather not do this (Say, us..), the supposed conflict would draw to a stalemate in a damn hurry.

Unless: A) The escalation of said conflict is such that the UN is called in (they would have no problem shooting you, btw.. we're all evil Americans, remember?)

or B) They really DO use a WMD, in which case we're all fukt, including them.

strandediniowa said...

This is an exercise that people use to try to make liberty-minded citizens look "nuts."

"You're paranoid." "It would be suicide to stand against the armed forces." etc, ad nauseum. Therefore, you are labeled psychotic and need to be locked away.

In New Orleans after Katrina, they brought in law enforcement from Texas and California to help keep the peace. The same scenario would probably be used in the beginning. New York National Guard units being deployed to Iowa, for example, in an attempt to diminish the "community factor."

Will our armed forces fire upon citizens, yes. Look up the Bonus Marchers and find that it launched a couple of general's careers. But what was missing is that the marchers didn't fire back to an extent. The "righteous indignation" scenario has not been fully played out. I believe that public opinion would definately had been on the marcher's side. (If the Confederacy had disassociated itself with slavery, Britain and France would have come in on their side.)

One thing we lack is a strong foreign nation to back us up. Because, let's face it, the USA is it.

strandediniowa said...

I must add that I'm not advocating insurrection.

But if Merkel of Germany, Sarkozy of France or Brown of England had stood up and recognized the march in Washington on 9/12, that would have brought a lot of political capital into the discussion.

Anonymous said...

read the "Battle of Jakes" and open your eyes!