I know youâll probably just brush over this post and call me a redneck hick or something, but Iâm going to put the time to give an actual response to this because I think itâs very important that people understand why the Second Amendment is so important.
The use of this trite âdronesâ argument is to suggest that Americaâs military power is far too powerful for the people to defeat, thereby making gun ownership for defense against Government tyranny unnecessary. The idea that the one with the bigger stick always wins is a common mistake. People often forget how the country started with a bunch of traitors and revolutionaries who were able to defeat the immensity of the British military.
If this argument was taking place in the 60âs, people would be shouting ânapalmâ rather than âdronesâ, and yet napalm did very little in stopping the US from being defeated by a bunch of rice burning, pajama wearing, tunnel dwelling
Vietnamese. And speaking of pajama wearing, what about Afghanistan? You go find Al Qaeda and tell them about âdronesâ and they will be quick to remind you that they were able to drag the US into an eleven-year, Â unsustainable war, the cost which helped lead America to an incredible financial crisis. If a bunch of cave-dwellers struggling with the cocking handle of Soviet-era AK-47âs can keep a war going for eleven years, thinks of what well-educated, well-armed, partially experienced American citizens could accomplish.
The point is not that you can win pitched battles against a modern professional military with all its weaponry as a ragtag citizenâs militia with small arms. The point is that you can fight.
You can bleed them. When the US Army come patrolling through your neighborhood, you might be able to take a few of them with you. Hell, you might be able to run away and do it again and again- theoretically, you wouldnât be alone, and they couldnât possibly engage in endless manhunts for every single person who dared to resist them. And theyâd never feel safe, with the possibility of a sniper behind every window.
Of course the Army could call in artillery and air support to just level your neighborhood. What would this get them? Well, it would piss off a lot of people off when innocents die, and play into the hands of the rebels. It would make a lot of soldiers in the professional military seriously consider whether they were doing the right thing or not, whether they were on the good guysâ side. And finally, it would simply kill innocent people.
A drone strike might look effective when shooting at some desert hut, but that wouldnât translate well to domestic, civil war. Every citizen the Feds bomb is one less taxpayer, one less worker, one less consumer. Every building is one less factory, one less office building, one less residence. Every bomb the Feds would drop on its own soil and people is destroying their own precious resources. Hardly a sustainable way to wage war. Every bomb dropped also invites more and more revolutionaries. If you thought civilian deaths in the Middle East brought outrage here, think about what American civilian deaths would bring.Â
Letâs say that two-hundred people gathered outside the Pentagon, protesting and screaming for blood? What is the Government going to do, bomb their own military installation? How is that drone going to stop an unarmed protest,
or even effectively distinguish between an unarmed protest and an armed one? How will that drone confiscate weapons and apprehend major revolutionary figureheads? Its been said before and Iâll repeat it, police states need police. Grunts on the ground. And that grunt is in for a bad day when he is head to head with an equally armed American citizen behind every door. In a few seconds, a simple Google search can show you all the shortcomings of drones and how one could combat them.Â
Further, this argument ignores the human element. Killing rag-heads video game style is one thing, but how is that drone operator going to feel when he is forced to drop bombs on his own countrymen? His brothers and sisters and friends. How quickly are those politicians- who we are so quick to call slimy and self-interested- going to switch sides to save their own skin? Even without this almost certainly occurring variable, military and police amount to a few million while civilians equal hundreds of millions. The military and government could not possibly just kill everyone who resisted them. Nobody wants to rule over a nation of corpses.
The aim of a tyrant is to control, not to kill. What they want is to be able to have militarized police point guns at people and cow them into submission to whatever dictates they might want to impose. If those people are instead waiting behind their doors and ready to shoot first when the jackbooted thugs come around, theyâve already failed.
So the point is to fight. If you resist, youâre not being controlled, and youâre also undermining attempts to control others who canât or wonât fight; you might die, of course. Thatâs more or less why Patrick Henry famously said âGive me Liberty, or give me Death!â
As long as people can resist, they can be free, and tyrants can never succeed. But when youâre talking about people who have no firearms using swords and knives and clubs against modern military weapons it actually becomes pointless, because you canât bleed them at all- theyâll just gun you down.
Finally, even if the Federal government and military were infinitely more well-armed and the chances of victorious revolution against its tyranny was one in a million, so what? Should we just give up without even trying to fight and submit to the jackboot of tyranny? What ever happened to Live Free Or Die? Arenât our freedoms worth fighting for no matter the odds; are they not worth dying for?
The people who wrote the Second Amendment understood what Government oppression was. They knew what revolution entailed. And they understood that the American people may have to do something similar to what they did to ensure they remained free. So they made sure guns would be available for all citizens. But the main reason their ownership should continue is not to fight a war, but to prevent one. The Second Amendment protects the rest of our rights, and is a constant reminder to the Government that an act of unwarranted aggression against its people can be swiftly retaliated against. Ultimately, its not about guns. It is about liberty.
Thatâs why having guns is so important.
A fighter jet cannot do this:
A fighter jet cannot stand on street corners and enforce no-assembly edicts.
A fighter jet cannot kick down your door at 3:00 in the morning to search for contraband or anti-social propaganda.
A fighter jet is useless for maintaining a police state.Â
Police are needed to maintain a police state. And no matter how many police you have, they are always out-numbered by the people, which is why tyrants throughout history have considered it vital that police have automatic weapons, while their subjects have nothing but sticks.
But when every random pedestrian might have a Glock hidden in his waistband or by his bedside, kicking down those doors suddenly becomes a lot riskier, lest you catch a bullet on your way in.
snowghoul
ellievsbear
pixelskylines
jacobvanloon
izzy806
origamiaround
annaxmalina
dededos
baratheonpilled
