posted on Sep, 29 2007 @ 03:28 PM
I was reading about subdural chips and was a bit amused when Mr. Marrs (someone whose opinion and work I greatly appreciate and respect) stated that
the reason we do not have martial law is the armed American citizenry.
As a retired master gunsmith and former Weapons Specialist, I can tell you that at this point the “right to keep and bear arms” is irrelevant in
the discussion. Being pro-gun or anti-gun is also irrelevant. Being a lifetime NRA member in good standing I guess puts me in the “pro-gun”
camp. Certainly, I am in the individual rights and liberty camp.
At the time the Second Amendment was penned the intent was to protect the American citizenry from a tyrannical federal government. At the time, this
was a realistic notion. The standard weapons system was the Second Pattern Brown Bess Musket. It was a .75 caliber smoothbore flintlock with an
effective range of 75 yards and was effective only when used in massed European style battle formations. As an individual weapon it was effective
only at ranges of 25 yards or so or as a bayonet mount.
But the colonists (us) had begun widespread use of rifled firearms (originally for hunting) and the use of modern cover and concealment tactics.
These were not a huge factor generally in the Northern and Eastern campaigns, but in the Southern and Western campaigns were devastating to the
King’s forces. The British debacle at King’s Mountain was the beginning of the end for Cornwallis. It forced him into a fight on two fronts or
flanks simultaneously. To his front (right flank) were the massed Continental formations, but of just as much concern (if not more) was the
“rabble” selectively targeting key personnel and supplies pressuring his left with their stealth, mobility, and further reaching weapons
threatening his retreat to the Virginia coast. All things considered he was lucky to have not fallen to a sniper’s ball. But this is not a history
thread, so I digress.
Let’s briefly examine a couple of parallels. In 1934 the National Firearms Act functionally began the trend of disarming the American citizen. In
response to law enforcement being outgunned at times during Prohibition (a failed policy) common citizens were technically and practically restrained
from owning some firearms, particularly automatic weapons. In 1968 in a knee jerk reaction to several high profile assassinations The Gun Control Act
was put in place. That really took a bite out of crime. The so-called “Assault Weapons Ban” of 1994 did nothing more but extend the reach of the
government’s tentacles, ostensibly as part of the “War on Drugs” (also a brilliant success).
For all practical purposes the weapons possessed by the citizenry are of little or no threat to the government. Technologically, we are way
I question the push for electronic lockout “safety” and ignition systems for civilian sporting and personal defense weapons, yet not for the
military. Have you ever heard of an Electromagnetic Pulse (EMP)? How handy to disarm your opponent without direct confrontation.
Were an unjust (any) state of martial law declared our only recourse would be guerilla tactics, and thus we become “terrorists”. This is a handy
propaganda label for any dissenter who takes action against tyranny.
Hold that thought and please read Part Two now immediately following.