Presumably, They Pay This Guy

If we needed to point out the failures of today's educational system, we don't need to look much further than historically ignorant reporter Josh Krahshaar:

Florida Senate candidate Marco Rubio is the latest to make his own curious comparison drawn from the Iranian demonstrations — that the protesters would have more success if they had a constitutional right to bear arms.
"I have a feeling the situation in Iran would be a little different if they had a 2nd amendment like ours," Rubio tweeted on Sunday.
Not sure if Rubio was advocating an armed uprising from the otherwise peaceful protesters, but his follow-up tweet was a bit more dovish: "Hoping police and military in Iran will refuse to attack unarmed civilians if ordered to do so."

God forbid! Citizens should never use arms to revolt against a tyrannical government that is trying to suppress their natural rights.

Why, its unAmerican.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 10:39 AM

Comments

1 Well, it made perfect sense to me when I read his tweet, and I re-tweeted (re-twote?) it.

Posted by: Stoutcat at June 23, 2009 11:00 AM (kKdtK)

2 I've heard these arguments before, but I don't really buy them. our average Joe with a 20 gauge or a 30-30 does not stand much of a chance against well-armed and combat-trained soldiers. Even hardened veteran insurgents find it tough going. Sure it's better than being unarmed, but at best you take a couple down with you.

Posted by: Brian at June 23, 2009 08:17 PM (znAs1)

3 Obviously Brian, you don't understand the argument.

It isn't one or two average Joes against squads of soldiers, it's legion of armed civilians capable of guerilla warfare--including tens of millions of military veterans--that makes the Second Amendment so vital in opposing tyranny.

Armed civilians dwarf the standing U.S. Army (especially the tiny fraction that are actually combat-experienced infantry, and not support forces) by tens-of-thousands-to-one. That makes the US civilian population fighting on their own soil on their own terms a nearly insurmountable adversary.

Sure the professional military has tanks and bombs with which civilians cannot compete, but no one ever suggested a slugfest. It would be a war of attrition that military forces could not hope to win. There simply aren't members of the military to control a country this size or maintain their own supply lines (which originate in civilian hands).

Further, anecdotes suggesting that much of the current military would either refuse to engage against American civilians or would actually chose to engage on their side against tyrannical forces.

There have been others, however, that have in the past shared your view that civilian rabble cannot beat the most advanced and powerful military in the world.

I think they were called Loyalists.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at June 23, 2009 08:35 PM (WjpSC)

4 Brian I am sure glad you were not around in the late 1700's consulting with George W. With that "positive" attitude we would all be eating "fish & chips"(yuk) and speaking with a wierd accent. Sometimes a man has to do what he has to do - the desire to be free is all consuming and as they say: "FREEDOM ISN'T FREE."
You would be very surprised what an under armed group of protestors can do against your "well trained military." Lets all hope and pray that the population in Iran is successful. If not this time, maby the next, or the next, or.....

Posted by: mixitup at June 23, 2009 08:39 PM (Z21cb)

5 CY - you beat me by 4 minutes - yet we are on the same plane - Thanks - Sadly,I think Brian represents so many people in America today.

Posted by: mixitup at June 23, 2009 08:47 PM (Z21cb)

6 Sorry guys, it's not Red Dawn and none of you are Chuck Norris. Bubba's with deer rifles are just not going to overthrow a professional force. if you believe the myth that the American Revolution was won by hardy frontiersmen and milita in buckskin you are sadly misinformed. The American militia was essentially useless in battle and prone to pissing off home every 3 months. The continental army won the war after a hard winter of drilling with von steuben, where they learned to fight like professional European armies. You're also assuming that most people armed or not would be willing to fight in the first place. Given the passive reactions to the bailouts and the economic crisis in general, I think not.

Posted by: Brian at June 23, 2009 09:21 PM (znAs1)

7 Just an aside, no reason to malign the Loyalists, there were many fine Loyalist units during the Revolution, including Butler's Rangers, Tarleton's Legion and the Queen's Rangers. They fought bravely to the end of the war. Sure they lost, but so did the confederates... oh and no offense meant with the Bubba comment, I'm a proud Bubba myself.

Posted by: Brian at June 23, 2009 09:33 PM (znAs1)

8 Brain, nobody but you made any sort of Red Dawn nor Chuck Norris references. We just understand simple things, like math and logistics.

The active duty U.S. military is just under 1.5 million strong. 700,000 of them are Air Force, Navy and Coast Guard. There are about 550,00 soldiers and just over 200,000 Marines. Nor more than a small fraction of those forces are combat units like armor or infantry, maybe 10-20 percent. Factor in that roughly half will refuse to take up arms against their countrymen, or will defect.

Even if Guard and Reserve forces join in in like numbers, you're talking about about tens of thousands trying to control 300 million, without external support. You seem to forget that an army marches on its stomach, and those that remain loyal to the regime can simply be negated by refusing to supply them. Soldiers don't make their own bullets; civilians do that. Soldiers don't make their uniforms or grow their own food or refine their own fuel, either.

Civilians can largely negate a despotic regime by starving it. If necessary, however, they can pick off Loyalists, force them to use their reserves, and eventually break them with what is essentially low-level but pervasive siege warfare where getting so much as clean drinking water consistently is a battle.

You don't seem to grasp the simple facts. It's about supply and numbers, not what you understand of cheap action movie theatrics.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at June 23, 2009 10:03 PM (WjpSC)

9 Brian, you are being deliberately obtuse.

Unless you're merely stupid.

The real point is, brutal government action against a free and armed populace is a much more difficult proposition than against a gaggle of sheeplike morons such as yourself. Nobody's arguing that citizens "overthrow" the US Army, they're suggesting that the unorganized militia (the one referenced in the Second Amendment) is an obstacle to totalitarnianism.

Now before you get huffy at my tone, I'm not really addressing you, cowardly waste of sperm that you are. I am writing for the benefit of others reading who might actually want to think about the implications of the right to keep and bear arms. Apparently you can't be bothered to think about anything but your own contempt for your fellow citizens.

Posted by: Steve Skubinna at June 24, 2009 02:27 PM (Vcyz0)

10 It's not just the potential for a full-blown violent revolution that's at stake with the issue of civilian firearm ownership. As others have stated, an armed revolution is unlikely. Once started, legal access to firearms would end anyway and you'd have to rely on illicit trade to supply your revolution.

It's also about the restraint civilian firearm ownership places on the government (unless your AG is Janet Reno), or, at least it gives civilians the psychological comfort that they are physically protected from intrusion by the government (unless your AG is Janet Reno).

Posted by: DoorHold at June 28, 2009 02:33 PM (M7V2r)

Processing 0.01, elapsed 0.0077 seconds.
18 queries taking 0.0052 seconds, 18 records returned.
Page size 11 kb.
Powered by Minx 0.8 beta.