🚀 go-pugleaf

On Tue, 28 Jul 1998 11:02:06 GMT, gworley@brokersys.com (George Worley) wrote:

>Do you know how long it would take for the Military to squash a
>citizen uprising?  Not very long.  DO YOU REMEMBER KENT STATE?

Sure do.....Garand rifles against unarmed college students....not a good
analogy.

>For his way of government he is correct.  The ideals of this nation
>prevent that.  99.9 percent of the citizens of this great nation feel
>that we have best way of government.

A recent Time poll indicates that 58% feel that the Federal government
is a "direct threat" to their freedoms. Now I certainly do feel the Constitution
is the best form of government, unfortunately the Federal government has
over-stepped it's bounds, and needs to be put back in it's constitutional cage.


>Even with the guns we have now, it is no match against the weapons
>that our military has.

Yea, tell that to the US military after VietNam.....or how about the Russians
after Afghanistan. The United States has 120 metropolitan areas with
populations of over a million. There is no possible way to spread the military
over a country this size and subdue 60 million gun-owners while leaving
the land intact.......and they won't use nukes. Believe me......if the people
of this country were pushed to fight for their lives and freedom.......the
military would lose.

>Again misguided.  If the elections were called off and uprising begin,
>the ones in control of the military would have the upperhand.

Assuming that those in the military will blindly follow the new dictator.
Which I can tell you they will not. 74% of the marines questioned in 
the 29 Palms survey said they "WOULD NOT" fire on Americans
who refused to give up their guns......if gun confiscation were ordered. 

>These illegal militias full of malcontents and criminals where set up
>to destroy our way life not defend it.

So you personally know some of these people? How can demanding
that my Constitutional rights not be infringed be "destroying your way
of life"? Obviously you let the evening news do your thinking for you.
I have met many militia members in the state of Texas, and I wouldn't
classify any of them as dangerous, paranoid, or criminal.

>First off there isn't a civilian militia that strong.  Our forefathers
>didn't put the Second Amendment in place for purpose of taken arms (in
>that era arms meant muskets)   against our own government.  This is
>treason.  And treason will be dealt with accordingly.

It's all part of the checks and balances of our government.
I like to think of the militia (armed populace) as part of the integral
defense of this country. As ex-military....I don't think  duty ends
when the uniform comes off.

The Second Amendment is a recognition of the danger of standing
armies. Its purpose is to recognize that every citizen has the right
to keep and bear the same type of basic arms as a soldier in a modern
military. A militia embodies all able-bodied men over the age of
sixteen. Therefore, a militia will always outnumber a standing army by
at least twenty to one. If this militia is armed with weapons similar
to those used by the individuals comprising the standing army, it will
be impossible for that standing army to inflict The will of a
tyrannical government upon the people. The Second  Amendment is the
guarantee behind all the other article in the Bill of Rights. It
is the ultimate guarantee that citizens in the United Stares will
remain free.
-
       "Liberty is the only thing you cannot have
        unless you are willing to give it to others."