Steve Schacher Posted January 3, 2002 Report Share Posted January 3, 2002 quote:First off, the 2nd amendment of the constitution was for the people to have the SAME weaponry as the government, PERIOD. That is what it is there for. If the government has better and more powerful weaponry then the citizenry, then therefore the government can overpower the people and Tyranny results. Therefore, a citizen of the United States is allowed ANY weapon that the US military has. This includes Tanks, Jet Aircraft, ships, etc, ad nauseum. Hmmm...I'll have to ponder this one.I believe that there are two different purposes for two different arms. The government was supposed to field armies for the external projection of power. The people were supposed to provide some civil defense (militias) and to protect against tyranny. It was recognized that civilian militias would not have the training and regimen that standing armies would have, so it is reasonable to infer that they would not have access to all the weaponry that standing armies would have.What civilians do have in their favor is the public outcry that would erupt if the military were to overwhelm a sufficiently large armed civilian revolt in opposition to the government (one would hope). Waco was probably not large enough of a slaughter and the people involved were fringe, but if an everyman revolt in opposition to the government (a la Tiannenman Square) were put down (a la Tiannenman Square) with thousands dead or missing, how could the government continue to maintain legitimacy with the people?Therefore, to me, it's not the actual rebellion but the threat of delegitimacy that would result if a madman would do something like this to his own armed people, that is the strength behind the Second Amendment check on a tyrannical government. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now