Red Dawn Part two the Mt Rushmore Idea

 

 

I have to say I am kind of intrigued with this spin on Gun rights as being we need a Citizen Army to protect us from the Government . Here is my take on it . First of all it does seem a wee bit paranoid . But putting that aside lets take a look at how it might function . First of all I must assume there would be a clear and decisive reason why such a Army would be needed . I'm sure there might be any number of reasons the entire citizen population of the USA would decide to uniformly take up arms against the Government . For the sake of working this all out lets say that once again the Government decided to go dry and beer was off the Shelves . This in my opinion would certainly constitute a national emergency of epic proportions:

So now we have our emergency , what happens next ? I suppose there must be some sort of Comand Center . Some place where the Citizen Army can use to get the Neccesary intelligence and subsequent orders  to fight back .

 I would propose Mt Rushmore to be honest . Its accessible and yet remote , in case of a counter attack by the Government forces the Civilian army could hole up under Jefferson's nose or hold it hostage .  No matter clearly there would be some need of command and control ..not only a well organized campaign , but one that can easily communicate with each other quickly ( facebook comes to mind ) .

 

So assuming that the proponents of a civilian deterrent to Government abuse , have such a infrastructure in place what next ? What Targets would this Ad Hoc Group of Civilians want to assault ? would the attacks be coordinated and have a singular objective ? Or would they be indiscriminate ? Who would be the leaders of this group ? what sort of discipline would they require from the group . Would they have to pay at Krogers for supplies ? Or would they " borrow" what they needed ? Some Creative militia groups in the USA have actually turned to bank robbery and Armored Car Heists . Anyway a Civilian army would have to find some way to pay for its costs  .

As I said I don't think this has been very well thought out . The reality is we would have spontaneous groups running around in different Geographical areas each claiming they were patriots angry with some slight or procedure or law they decided did not suit their needs . In short Anarchy ....The Red Dawn Myth . each group of malcontented men and women would have their own individual targets which may or not be similar to the Individual rights of the Militia Next Door .

I can imagine a Scenario of the Northern Idaho Militia filled with disgruntled Steelhead Fishermen , attacking the Western Columbia Militia largely based on the Commercial fisherman of the Oregon Coast . Some Militias would be attacking black targets , some Muslim targets . There would probably be a group who targeted The post office and even a misguided group who confused UPS with a Government group and waged war against UPS . And imagining travelling Cross country ...every Militia Jurisdiction would have a stop point , armed guards interrogating you . One thing is certain if you are driving across Country in this kind of environment ..drive a Ford .

 Without a Command and control and discipline combatants it would be no better than Gang violence . And who would be the ones who suffer the most in this ? Innocent men , women and children .

"Militia are hopelessly inadequate as a means of defending a free country. While "people's war" militia-based strategies have been employed to wear down invading armies in numerous countries over the past century, not one of those countries (Vietnam, Afghanistan, Somalia, Iraq, southern Lebanon, etc) is "free". This is not an accident of history. Freedom is the product of orderly democratic governance and the rule of law. Popular militias are overwhelming likely to foster not democracy or the rule of law, but warlordism, tribalism and civil war. In Lebanon, Pakistan, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Mali, Colombia, the Palestinian Territories and elsewhere, we see that militias of armed private citizens rip apart weak democratic states in order to prey upon local populations in authoritarian sub-states or fiefdoms. Free states are defended by standing armies, not militias, because free states enjoy the consent of the governed, which allows them to maintain effective standing armies. Like every other free country apart from Costa Rica, the United States has a standing army in times of peace, and has since 1791, when the founding fathers realised a standing army would be necessary to fight the irregular popular militias of the continent's Native American peoples. (Guess who won?) "

 

Lets be quite honest about this ..we have the best Military in the world not only because they have the best in weaponry , but because of Discipline and training . So what happens in the Civilian Army when the Civilians decide they are not being represented in the Command Structure ?

Seriously using this " we need Civilians " to protect us from the Government falls into the really silly category , how about having citizens simply exercise their right to vote for the candidate of their choice ? How about having Citizens who study the facts instead of make them up .

And one more thing . I am a Christian and I believe there is a Bibical approach to this that is being ignored. Im not sure how we can Use the Bible to support our anti Abortion sentiments and then use the Constitution to support our so called Gun rights . but that's just me . Oh yes , I do find it very disturbing that the Right side of the Aisle has now started using the Genocide of the Native American Indians as a Argument for Gun Rights .... Ironic and Shameful .

The Red Dawn Myth part 1

 

 

 

Recently I have been seeing a disturbing pattern of using the Genocide of the Native American Indians as a reason for Law abiding Citizens to Have guns . On the surface this seems a lot like Using the Atomic Bomb on Hiroshima as a Public Relations campaign to gain the Nobel Peace prize .

After the responsible adult person in me stops laughing at the cynical and yet strangely humorous argument , another part of the responsible adult in me is seething . How can such a short argument complete with visual ...be so wrong on so many different levels that it almost overwhelms the intelligent person into believing it ? This whole campaign of using the Genocide of the American Indian as a pretext for arguing against responsible gun control is cynical and reprehensible . The only glimmer of good that can come from it would be perhaps the tacit confession that our Native American Policy was flawed in the first place .

I Guess the basic reason why this is popular is because some people want to believe it and they also failed American History .

Lets take a look at the whole Idea here :

First of all the implication is if the Indians had of been able to keep their weapons they would not have been destroyed by the American Government . Is this even close to being Historically accurate . In a word no. The Native Americans were defeated because they were not aligned as a homogeneous group . Essentially the Native Americans operated as independent Militia groups dispersed through out the USA . Often even fighting amount themselves for competing interests and objectives ,You might say reminiscent of the Civil War . ( remember that we will come back to it )

The other implication is the US Government is trying to take weapons away from Citizens and well they are not . Responsible lawmakers and Citizens Are urging for some control over the purchase and ownership of Guns , and are also questioning the use of Automatic Weapons .

The whole argument becomes a Straw man Argument ....It begins with " If the Government takes away our guns we cannot have a citizen army to defeat the government " IT falls apart when you realize that in none of the recommendations to curb Gun violence is the Government planning to take Guns away .

At stake are the lives of thousands of American Citizens opposing potentially Millions of dollars in Profit for the Gun and Ammunition Companies .

So now the Gun Lobby is suggesting the real purpose of the 2nd Amendment was to provide for a Citizen Army to rally to the defence of the country if the Government went bad . This is a real Air Ball ...Does the constitution make any provision for such a citizen revolt ? what conditions does it set forth for such a decision ?

The Gun Lobby would have us belive that American citizens have the right to engage in violence against the United States' armed forces and state or municipal police forces, whenever they decide that governments are usurping their powers. By Pushing this agenda the Gun Lobby is suggesting that Americans have a right a right to insurrection. There is no such right in the American constitutional order. It is illegal for American citizens to decide on their own to attack law-enforcement agents or soldiers, regardless of whether they believe them to be acting on behalf of the "arbitrary power of rulers". Here is the deal In America, the government is chosen at the ballot box, and our representatives make the laws and execute them. For the Gun Lobby to imply that instead of this Choice we have as an option insurrection is ..well how do you sugar coat treason ?

So lets recap up to this point :

1: The Government of the USA is not taking away your guns .

2: The Native Americans were not defeated because we took away their weapons . They were defeated because we devalued them , and picked them off tribe by tribe .

3. The Purpose of the 2nd Amendment was not to create a Citizen Army to protect citizens from its own Government .

4. Our Government is changed the same way it has been for over 200 years by well informed people voting for representatives of the people who make laws and execute them

TO be fair I really don't want to be in this argument ..I am a Christian and as a Christian I believe the bible suggests an entirely different world view than the one promoted by the world when it it comes to guns , wars and self defence . But the issue for me is the Christians who are weighing in on the gun discussion don't want to include the Bible as a foundation for their arguments ..and instead have opted for the Constitution of the USA for their foundation . When it comes to guns apparently the Constitution Trumps the Bible .

Next : The Red Dawn Myth