A well armed militia

This crap was published in the SMH Radar site today:

"But while the Second Amendment exists, and can be used to strike down laws such as Washington's (which were ruled unconstitutional by a DC court last month), it's unlikely we'll see any change in the gun control regime. It's an anachronistic law, dating from a time when well-armed militias were useful in warfare – whereas in an era of high-tech weaponry and nuclear missiles, the national self-defence argument seems to hold no water. Rednecks often argue that their guns are a means of warding off government tyranny – but again, it's hard to imagine what hicks with pop-shooters could do against tanks."

Some other commenter beat me to the punch, but it seems pretty clear to me that a well armed militia in Iraq is giving us the run around. A well armed population is a bastard to control. The Soviets tried using bombing, mining and brutal reprisals in Afghanistan, and they gave up after a decade. The Yanks and Poms are using a much more sophisticated approach, but even they are not finding it easy in both Iraq and Afghanistan.

I find it interesting that the same mob that want us out of Iraq also want gun control, and they use arguments that don't add up to support their desires.

In Iraq for instance, they claim we are losing and should pull out. If we are losing, who are we losing against? A well armed militia. In other words, a well armed population can be a check on "tyranny", if being occupied by a benign mob like the US is your idea of tyranny.

When it comes to gun control, they argue that militias are a thing of the past and should be abolished, and that guns are no check on tyranny.

Well, you can't have it both fucking ways!

Personally, I don't like the idea of my neighbours being armed to the teeth, and I don't see a need for a rifle or pistol in the house in our quiet suburban streets. But if things did start to turn to crap, I'd like to have the option of getting some without too much drama.