Friday, December 05, 2008

The 2A & Citizenship: No Mumbai Here

Another interesting take on the Mumbai troubles, and why it might have been different if tried in the USA.

...There's a reason the United States has never been invaded since it emerged from its infancy: Americans have a culture that still, despite all of the modernization (especially since the Television Age), prizes the individual citizen, enough to not just allow, but insist that Joe and Jane Citizen are actively responsible for both their own safety and the safety of the society at large. The preamble to the Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights, so often misconstrued into nonsensical statist gibberish by intellectual leftists, clearly states that the purpose of the basic human right enumerated there is "the security of a free state".

Americans, on the whole, actually believe that, and believe that a free citizen is, as a part of his or her citizenship, charged with a certain amount of responsibility as a citizen to act towards the security of that free state. Indeed, one can imagine a pack of AK-wielding terrorists landing in boat upon the shore of Lake Michigan and wreaking some sort of death and destruction. But not for long, and should they have the temerity to go beyond the urban limits, they would be meeting their fates with shocking speed.

Yah--we suburbanites would let the terrorists have Milwaukee (after all, what would John Chisholm's office do about them?) and we'd stop them cold at the Waukesha County Line.

That's not to say that ALL Americans think that way, of course. Some MU Law students cluck, dither, and fuss about all that 'right to keep and bear arms' stuff.

Come to think of it, that's another good reason to ignore the Muzzies until they get to Waukesha County.

HT: Arms and the Law

2 comments:

Scott said...

I, who fully support the second amendment including concealed carry, think you're nuts.

The right to bear arms is in the constitution. It's firmly entrenched in the American culture. I don't really believe that private gun ownership contributes much to violence in the way that some gun control advocates say. But let's get real. Gun ownership isn't going to save our country from terrorists, nor is it going to enable us to repel our own government should it turn against us. While this may have been a meaningful idea back in 1800, it's now beyond quaint. It's ludicrous to say that private gun ownership is militarily relevant in the United States.

Dad29 said...

How many non-sequiturs and irrelevancies can you post in one 'graf?

Gun ownership isn't going to save our country from terrorists

"Save our country"? What, exactly, does THAT mean? It is a given, Scott, that the aggressor gets the first hit. That's why they are called "aggressors."

Doh.

But 'first hit' does not mean 'last hit.'

nor is it going to enable us to repel our own government should it turn against us

Really?

You make a lot of assumptions, beginning with the assumption that the Armed Forces will comply with orders. That's a VERY big assumption, Scott.

Another one: that the Armed Forces will prevail over well-armed guerillas, just because the AF has bigger toys. Save nukes, that 'big toys' argument has not been proven anywhere--and in case you forgot, there are examples (in Africa, e.g.) where the Gummint's 'big toys' are at best, in standoff-mode with the rebels.

ANY military theorist worth a damn will tell you that only "boots on the ground" wins wars. You really think that the AF can put that many "boots on the ground"? Nobody in the Pentagon does.

Your thesis is not unusual, however. It's a conjuration shared by a lot of folks who (like many investment bankers and lawyers) never collided with reality in their lives.

IOW, it's a dream.