||"dawnbreak in the west"|
Saturday, November 03, 2012
Why citizens should be armed
I have mentioned the Second Amendment before around here.
Mainly I didn't like it because it makes no sense; it is a long compound sentence, that does not state explicitly for individual citizens, the right to bear arms. It's the sort of incoherent babble one might expect of a failed blogger. *ahem*
But, that aside, here is an article at WSJ, predicting increased gun sales.
The reason private citizens should be armed isn't all about personal security, although I once thought that was the whole point. It isn't at all about being armed against The Government Jackboots and the Black Helicopters - despite the weirder rants out in Survival-land.
No. The reason to be armed is when the Government Jackboots don't tromp into your city and the Black Helicopters don't take off. The reason is when armed gangs understand that "9-1-1 is a joke", and the State's forces let them loose. This is what happened in the "MLK riots" of 1968 and, for different reasons, in Los Angeles in 1992.
1968 was an ethnic-cleansing operation; the most successful such operation in American urban history. (Take that, Tulsa!) 1992 was more about police-chief Darryl Gates having a snit against white liberals, and showing the suburbs that, yes, LA did have a crime problem.
It doesn't matter why the authorities decide to refuse keeping order at any given point. It doesn't matter what race you are; it happened in Tulsa to blacks and it happened in Detroit to whites. What matters is that the State has done this in the past and will certainly continue this tactic in future.
If you are armed, you can resist the mobs until they calm down (they always calm down). And when order is restored, only the living and the strong will have a say in the writing of accounts.
On this site
Property of author; All Rights Reserved