Index Home About Blog
From: John De Armond
Newsgroups: misc.rural
Subject: Re: Just out of curiosity,
Date: Thu, 02 Feb 2006 14:55:39 -0500
Message-ID: <>

On Wed, 01 Feb 2006 16:30:19 -0500, Sheldon Harper
<> wrote:

>John, you're one of the brighter bulbs in these parts so I know you'll
>understand my argument and on an intellectual level perhaps even agree
>with it.
>When the constitution was written a few hundred men with muskets, rifles,
>what have you, could possibly overthrow the government or at least bring
>it to its knees for a while.
>Obviously firearms don't have that much potential impact any longer.

Sure they do.  There are plenty of examples in recent history of armed
citizens either overthrowing the government or bringing it back in
line.  Unfortunately for the 60k or so young men sacrificed, the most
recent example is Vietnam.  The Cong kicked us out and the French
before them with little more than infantry weapons.

Going back a little farther, look at the Battle of Athens, TN that
occurred just after WWII.  There the GIs came home, most from the
pacific theater to find that the local government had been taken over
by a very corrupt political machine headed by Birch Biggs.  An
election was cooked with more dead than alive people voting.

The GIs, led by a very good friend of mine, Bill White, were not going
to put up with that after battling the Japs so they raided the NG
armory, set up a perimeter around town and held another election under
their supervision.  Probably the first ever honest election in that
town.  They supervised the election, then packed in their weapons and
faded back into the community.  I knew nothing about it until one day
Bill told me that he had a story to tell now that the statute of
limitations had run out.  He pulled out a box containing newspaper
clippings from the period.  One photo showed him standing on a podium
holding an M1 Garand over his head, Charleston Heston style, while
organizing the group.  There was a book written about Bill called "On
the Wings of Eagles".  Look it up.

On a more up to date basis, many conversations with politicians and
"community leaders" has let me know that the existence of an armed
populace has curtailed the worst behavior.  It is in the back of every
politician's mind that he is just one head shot away from the ground
and all he has to do is sufficiently motivate someone.  That is a
powerful restraining mechanism.  As my college polysci prof was fond
of saying, "Assassination is a perfectly valid form of political

>> Specifically referencing guns, no, I would not ever register my
>> weapons.  I will not allow any sort of paper record to exist
>> concerning them.  No, I don't buy from gun dealers and I don't ship
>> them.   That's (one of) my line in the sand.
>I understand and appreciate the sentiment. And so long as it doesn't
>conflict with practicalities all is well and good.
>In Roman days they regularly patrolled streams and rivers in occupied
>nations, looking for signs of a bronze foundry. That was the source of
>weapons of the day. Firearms have, IMO, achieved practically the same
>level of distinction as far as usefullness against government troops
>is concerned.
>The joke used to be "you brought a knife to a gunfight?"
>Today it is, "You brought a shoulder fired weapon against my F-18?"
>Or perhaps a C-130 gunship.

More correctly, you brought a gunship to my guerilla war?  How quaint?
Vietnam proved how well that worked.

Beyond that, when the time comes for a general revolt against the
government, many of those same weapons will be used on the rebel side.
You don't REALLY think that all the good ole boys are going to obey
the government to fire on their friends and family do you?  Some will,
but others will realize what is important and bring those weapons to
the good guys.

Remember that the oath that every military officer takes pledges
loyalty to the Constitution and not to the government, and to defend
the Constitution against all enemies, foreign AND DOMESTIC.  As best I
can tell, the military still teaches the difference between the two.

>I don't argue for or against private ownership of firearms, for or
>against registration. In my lifetime the world has grown, IMO, into
>private firearm ownership becoming relatively impotent. I think
>if we have a major episode in the US that previously was settled
>by use of firearms it will in the future depend more on cleverness
>than anything.

As it was during our first revolution.  The level of technology and
intensity has increased since then but the fundamentals remain the
same.  The side with the best tactics, materiel and endurance will
win.  Remember too, that all it takes to decapitate the head of a
corrupt government is a few well-placed sniper shots. Easy to
accomplish when you look, act and speak just like your enemy.


Index Home About Blog