(urth) The Politics Of Gene Wolfe
jwilson at io.com
Tue Mar 17 17:44:04 PDT 2009
Craig Brewer wrote:
> One more non-Wolfe point. I agree with Dan'l about the correct reading of the 2nd Amendment and always have.
> But even if it were for us to defend ourselves from the government,
> it has always seemed odd to me to apply that argument in an age when
> the weapons available to a massive governmental body aren't available
> to private individuals. I mean, even if we all bonded together in a
> big militia with big automatic weapons, would we stand a chance
> against an air force, a navy with its increasingly sophisticated
> robotic drone technology, chemical/bio/nuclear weapons, etc.?
Probably not, but there's no danger of a united militia, and equally
little danger of the armed forces uniting behind a commander in chief
who would advocate nuking or anthraxing American soil. They might get
away with gassing under martial law, but there's no practical way to
defend all arms of the federal government from anyone who might take up
arms against them.
The combined armed forces can't prevent popular militias from doing away
with most of the federal marshals, BATF, DEA, FBI, and other offensive
federal assets in the field. There's also the question of how to pay to
keep the armed forces in supply and un-sabotaged during a civil war.
Jeff Wilson - jwilson at io.com
< http://www.io.com/~jwilson >
More information about the Urth