Fill your hands, you Roosky S.O.B’s!
Ukraine’s legislature gave its citizens the right to bear arms. No, not in 1776 or even 2014, when Russia seized Crimea. Ukrainians were given, granted, bequeathed the right to self defense just this week Tuesday 02-22-22. With Russian military forces raining fire down on them. Better late …?
Ukraine’s 41 million people can now queue up at their local Gander Mountain for their AR-15s. Bass Pro Shops can unlock their display cases of Remington 700s. As if! Ammo? Hope the Ukrainians have more luck with supply chain issues than the local Farm & Fleet here in Madison WI.
Is this a teachable moment? Class, what does that tell us?
Gun control goo goos are more silent today than Clarice Starling’s lambs. Enemies of the right to bear arms contend that America’s Founders intended the Second Amendment’s “well regulated militia” to mean only the government would dole out firearms at times and places of its choosing from well stocked armories stacked to the rafters with rifles. As if!
We know the Founders had none to dole out. Hellz bellz, the Continental Congress could barely feed and clothe George Washington’s soldiers, much less provide them with weapons. The patriots pulled their own down from the fireplace mantle. Which is why the Constitution encouraged private gun ownership — so that when it needed a militia, as to put down Shay’s Rebellion — it could do so. (So confirms the American Revolution Institute.)
We’re still seeing gun busters quote the discredited Michael Bellesiles, who claimed few American colonists owned firearms and couldn’t shoot the few they owned. The guy only had to give back his literary award and was forced out of his college professorship for his legerdemain. Research published in the William & Mary (University) Law Review states: “Everywhere and in every time period from 1636 through 1810, we found high percentages of gun ownership in [civilian] probate inventories. Approximately 50-79% of itemized male inventories contained guns” in contrast to Bellesiles’ 14.7%.
Charles C.W. Cooke speculates how much better off Ukraine would be if it had a right to bear arms. Stephen Gutowski points out at The Reload: “The history of warfare is rife with examples of smaller, weaker, and less organized forces besting even the greatest militaries in the world — from the American Revolution to Vietnam, Iraq, and multiple wars in Afghanistan.”
Blaska’s Bottom Line: Russia will defeat Ukraine’s military if it wants. But they could not control the ground if its citizens were well armed.
Yes, an Eagle Scout. I’m prepared.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Wishful thinking. Our collection of little handguns and rifles are meaningless in a situation akin to Ukraine. Sure, you might be able to take out 1 or 2 invading soldiers using guerrilla tactics, but then you, your children, and your entire neighborhood will be leveled in retaliation. The ethics and humanity of the US military prevented that from occurring in Afghanistan but don’t count on the same deference for civilian casualties if the US is ever invaded. Innocent people will pay dearly for your Rambo fantasies. Your neighbors will quickly turn you in to save their own lives. That’s reality, and you appear to be thinking about the movies and the edited conception of historical wars that have little relation to modern technology.
Sure, I’m cool with the live on your knees or die on your feet idea and I might be right there with you. But not under the naïve impression that my trinket weapons are any match for a modern military.
The 2nd amendment reflects a historical period and has not sufficiently evolved to be useful in a contemporary context. It’s a political tactic for leaders when they try to get us to believe that our trinket personal weapons will prevent tyranny. It literally makes no logical sense in the contemporary context. We would need much more advanced weapons. It’s irresponsible to spread this sort of propaganda at a time when these things are real life matters. We should be real with each other and not spread irrational and false hopes.
Even CNN’s hand-picked experts are saying Russia doesn’t have enough boots on the ground to control all of Ukraine — just the major cities and ports. The French Resistance picked off top Wehrmacht and SS operatives. Just think what they could have done had the citizenry been as well armed as America is today. The resistance would not be fought in Orchard Ridge or Nakoma but on the Capitol Square, for example.
LikeLiked by 3 people
“just the major cities and ports.” What? Are they spread to thin to take over grannies garden space?
“Just think what they could have done had the citizenry been as well armed as America is today.”
You’re in a fantasy. I never said guerrilla tactics won’t be able to kill a few individuals. But you’re acting like a significant difference in the ground conditions (a much more heavily armed French population) would generate no change in enemy tactics. Be real and think things through. Naïve 2nd amendment propagandizing is politics, not real life.
If a citizenry is generally unarmed these armed guerrillas are more effective because it’s historically unsavory to indiscriminately kill civilians, and with so few armed it’s hard to know which to kill. Suppose the vast majority of the French did hold more personal weapons. Now the vast majority of those people are no longer civilians but combatants. Now the stronger military is much more inclined to kill wantonly using their more advanced technology, and people will be holding their rifle helplessly while a bomb drops on their head.
This also assumes some level of respect for civilian casualties, which I believe we can not take for granted anymore. Times have changed. Nuclear weapons exist and insane leaders will use them. Shoot at that bomb with your rifle.
Also remember that those who you expect to use their weapons must be ready to die. Owning an AK and playing pretend at the shooting range is way different than knowing that you are going to die while trying to kill a few more of them than they kill of us. Not to mention nowadays you’ll probably be trying to shoot at a dozen high speed attack drones and not humans (maybe the 2nd amendment should let us have a few of those?). I can only imagine how terrifying that would be and, speaking for myself, my trinket gun would be little solace.
I repeat: if the 2nd amendment is supposed to help us fend of an invasion force we need to be allowed to keep POWERFUL MODERN weapons on par with the enemy. What we’re allowed is a joke in this scenario. If that’s NOT the point of the 2nd amendment, then we’re on a whole different topic for a different day because the previous premise was what this blog post was postulating.
It’s irresponsible to put false hope into gun owners heads that they will be some sort of hero in a real war scenario. This makes ignorant people less afraid of war if they believe their puny guns will keep them safe. We should all have a healthy fear of war based on truth and reason or else it makes all of us less safe.
You are confused. An AR-15 is not a trinket. Control cannot be accomplished from drones.
Learn history and you will soon find that battles are won by killing a “few individuals at a time”. In your mind nations with standing armies are invincible. However, civilian uprisings happen frequently and are often successful.
Indeed, the USSR attempted the strong-arm tactics you are afraid of, against the Mujahideen in Afghanistan and lost.
You must realize war is more than who has the most brute strength. Morale and will are more important. Often it is the side which believes the most in its cause which will be victorious.
Your understanding of what makes a war hero is evidence you’ve never been to a war yourself. You believe what you see in the movies, like Rambo. True war heroes are known for SAVING men, not killing them. Read almost any citation awarded with the Medal of Honor and you will quickly learn what acts are considered most heroic.
It is you who sound ignorant and afraid. The enemy loves your lack of courage and willingness to surrender with our resistance.
You say that “they could not control the ground if its citizens were well armed.” Not true.
The insurgents in the Second Battle of Fallujah were well armed. It took a few weeks, but the Marines killed them all.
The Viet Cong were well supplied in the Battle of Hue. Once again, the Marines killed them all.
Why is it that those who never wore a uniform feel compelled to send others on a suicide mission?
David Gerard, You must assimilate history like coffee -A coupla good gulps, instant yet temporary awareness, and then it’s all flushed away. The examples you supplied, if fact, are anomalies. Please practice good bladder control -I fear yer passin’ brain matter, too.
Marines do not assimilate history.
“The examples you supplied, if fact, are anomalies.” Your assertion is false, and you are being fed misinformation. Marines are trained in counterinsurgency and do it very well. Russian troops are also well trained. The tactics have changed considerably since 1943.
“Please practice good bladder control.” When engaging in street conflict, Marines do not practice bladder control, something you know nothing about.
While you were gorging on turkey and vodka on Thanksgiving Day 2004, occupation forces turned Fallujah into a trap, encircling the city. The urban fighting was fierce. Some 110 coalition forces were killed and some 600 wounded in the battle; some 3,000 insurgents were killed or captured. An unknown number of civilians, estimated to be in the thousands, were also killed.
The Russians will do the same.
–Consider/review my comment and then tell me why it is false? Facts, please. Further, when you speak of Fullujah, consider the date, please. Things change a LOT in EIGHTEEN years. Fer instance the size and depth of the Russki military….
Jes’ sayin’, and… don’t fergit to flush.
I’m surprised your not yet quoting those Russian collaborators at fox news. Pucker Carlson is being replayed on russian tv with his claim of Putin being a victim. It’s all Hillary’s fault. Hannity was running his yap when the invasion news broke; he looked like he crapped his pants. Friggin’ lying traitors; one and all.
“Traitors!” “Russian collaborators!” Remember the indignant squeals from the American left when Joe McCarthy made those same (all-too-accurate) claims about Russian spies and fellow travelers infiltrating the federal government back in the 1950s? History repeats itself, first as tragedy then as farce.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Good try. There weren’t bullets and bombs flying while Joe was flapping his yap. We were not looking at war in Europe. trump called Putin a “genius”. To the gop Putin is Savvy, a genius, a great statesman. What “spie” did he find? They are “collaborators” and I stand by my words.
Richard, May-I-call-ya-Dick, Yer mixing up reality and yer time spent inna Greek army, (where ya separate the men from the boyz w/ a crowbar…). You said concerning the McCarthy era: ” We were not looking at war in Europe.” Ummm, seems to me that was the issue IMMEDIATELY at war’s end in 1945. What do ya think gave Joe’s idiocy traction? It’s great that ya can comment here, so please show respect and not post the dribbles and oozings from yer brain…
LikeLiked by 2 people
True, no bullets and bombs were flying then, but there was a war–the Cold War, a time when the threat of world-wide nuclear annihilation was very real. Compared to which the invasion of an obscure Eastern European country seems like small potatoes.
You better be careful or Gary L. Kriewald will correct your grammar.
You say “Yer mixing up reality and yer time spent inna Greek army, (where ya separate the men from the boyz w/ a crowbar…).” Be careful. There are a lot of Log Cabin Republicans on this site who separate the men from the boyz with a log.
And please, take your meds every day.
Thanks, David G. -It’s always nice to have support from people, and Richard appreciates that on a daily basis. Just don’t eat them donuts or you’ll be as crazy as an outhouse fly. Oops… it may be too late.
Amazing. The arbiters of public opinion in the U.S. *now* are all-in on self-defense, gun rights, AND border sanctity.
I wonder how long it will take for them to revert to their former “take it lying down”/outlawing all guns/open borders idiocy.
There is another angle to this discussion that has not been examined. The angle that if we the citizens had our government come and take our guns or severely limit our access to them, would result in only the thug class having guns. That would result in the thug class praying on the rest of us citizens with impunity.
Take a look at this article from Channel 3000. https://www.channel3000.com/mpd-swat-finds-multiple-firearms-drugs-from-search-warrant/
Do you think for even one second that the thugs who had these firearms would gladly give up those firearms when the rest of us average citizens were being forced to give ours up?
As they say: When you only have seconds, the police are minutes away.
LikeLiked by 1 person
This is a totally different premise than the blog post. Nobody can make a coherent argument that the 2nd amendment would help in a Ukraine like situation, so you’ve changed topics to crime. I don’t have time to address this idea now, but there are places in the world that have strict gun laws. Are their citizens getting mowed down by thugs every day?
Rollie, RE: “Mowed down…” The diff is fewer thugs, not fewer guns. One could expand on that RE: the 13%, and the unhelpful “catch-&-release” policy utilized in most local courts. But as you say, who’s got the time ? It’s not germane to this specific Blaska post.
On the right to bear arms in the U.S.:
A deterrent to an invading military? Debatable, but certainly creates problems for the belligerent.
A deterrent to occupy? Most definitely. Cherry-picked incidents do not overtake the multitudes of others in recent memory where armed resistance made occupation a fool’s errand. Which makes an invasion even less likely—a country with no intent to occupy is not going to bother with an invasion force.
A deterrent to domestic tyranny? A resounding yes. Hate guns and the Second Ammendment all you want—neither is going anywhere. All but the most progressive legislators understand that they will have a civil war on their hands if they try to abolish them.
Our geography and our military are already the main factors keeping us safe from occupation. Our personal weapons would be pretty far down the list.
As far as domestic tyranny: are the Australians ruled by despots? Go down the list of countries with varying gun laws, is there a correlation between tyranny and gun control? I haven’t found one. It is a fact that it’s possible to have democracy and strict gun control at the same time. To say our guns are what is keeping us “free” is factually wrong.
I’m not even against guns, I’m not trying to convince anyone that they should be outlawed, but I am against illogical reasoning. It’s ok to just say “I like guns and I want them to be legal”. Stop bothering with rationalizations that don’t hold water. Many people strive for flimsy reasoning instead of just being comfortable with having a plain old opinion that doesn’t require any reasoning at all. We are allowed to have opinions and we’re allowed to differ in those opinions. That’s the great thing about freedom and democracy.
That’s the basic reason why guns aren’t going anywhere: more people just plain like them and are willing to accept the downside of having them legal. Maybe that will change in 100 years, maybe not. Clearly the Supreme Court can interpret the 2nd amendment however they want – there isn’t only one reasonable interpretation. Heck, they even do unreasonable stuff when they want! Our country is not ruled by facts, we are ruled by opinions held by people who choose which facts they want to consider and which they don’t want to consider.
I wish our leaders (our citizens too) did objectively use reason and fact and were willing to change their opinion when new facts are presented. But they don’t, and since the majority of people are ok with that I have to live with it. Democracy, love it or leave it 🙂
“Our geography and our military are already the main factors keeping us safe from occupation.”
”Our personal weapons would be pretty far down the list.”
Enough to make occupation, for which there would be no reason for invasion otherwise, completely unpalatable except for those ignorant of recent history. Name me another recently occupied country where there was more than one gun for every citizen. There is no military in the world that could keep any country armed like that occupied for long, including us.
“As far as domestic tyranny: are the Australians ruled by despots? Go down the list of countries with varying gun laws, is there a correlation between tyranny and gun control? I haven’t found one. It is a fact that it’s possible to have democracy and strict gun control at the same time. To say our guns are what is keeping us “free” is factually wrong.”
Apples and oranges on comparing cultures with those countries and ours. The right to bear arms and subsequently having a means to quickly subdue someone threatening your life is a major element of freedom in the minds of many here, including my own. And rescinding it is a form of tyranny in the minds of many, including my own. If other countries can live with strict gun laws, let them. Guns are a too deeply entrenched element of society for the same to work here and now. And the recent crime spike is only adding to it. That alone makes the cost of easy access to guns acceptable to many.
The very fact that many civilians are gun owners deters our government from ever taking that right away. If our government decides that it wants to outlaw guns, it will also have to decide how many otherwise law-abiding citizens it is willing to prosecute, incarcerate, and kill to enforce such a measure. And deal with the ensuing PR nightmare that will only reinforce the specter of tyranny in the minds of those on the fence about the value of the Second Amendment. Good luck getting frontline military servicemen, the majority of who support the right to bear arms, to fire on their own countrymen on their own soil over a dispute on the Second Amendment. Not going to happen. At best, many would flip our legislators the finger and desert, and at worst, they would point military weapons at them instead amidst a complete breakdown in command structure.
“We are allowed to have opinions and we’re allowed to differ in those opinions. That’s the great thing about freedom and democracy.”
Agreed. That’s why I post here and not on Facebook.
“Clearly the Supreme Court can interpret the 2nd amendment however they want – there isn’t only one reasonable interpretation. Heck, they even do unreasonable stuff when they want! Our country is not ruled by facts, we are ruled by opinions held by people who choose which facts they want to consider and which they don’t want to consider.”
Agreed. But I prefer the interpretation held by the current majority.
“I wish our leaders (our citizens too) did objectively use reason and fact and were willing to change their opinion when new facts are presented. But they don’t, and since the majority of people are ok with that I have to live with it.”
So do I. But the reason I come here and a lot of the others I frequent is to uncover the facts that don’t make it to national or even local news because they don’t suit the popular narrative. As for not changing opinions to agree with facts and truths, this county has a bigger problem than most.
“Democracy, love it or leave it 🙂”
Love it, despite its flaws, pains, costs, and blunders.
Thanks so much for the dialog, I appreciate your perspective.
Pingback: The 2nd Amendment protects the First | Blaska Policy Werkes