“What is the minimum level of arms that a population needs in order to allow it to resist a future government gone bad, and at what point do we decide the cost of having that capability is too high? This is the decisive question that underpins the whole issue of guns in America. Without answering it, we will never truly solve this issue.
“Most of us do not have the specialized knowledge or skillset to answer this question with any degree of accuracy — but the people who do are already among us. This is the realm of historians, statisticians and military logisticians, and they can be found on the campuses of universities and war colleges across the country. These are the people who can draw on historical examples to tell what percentage of a population usually takes up arms in a successful revolution. They can tell us what combat effectiveness we can expect out of an army that is fighting on its own soil against its own people. They can tell us what resources it would take for each side to sustain itself during a conflict and how long each side is likely to be able to do so.” – Lawrence Corbett for Times Union, What’s Missing in the Debate Over Gun Control
Home Quote of the Day Corbett: Gun Owners Need Only the Minimum Arms Under the Second Amendment
“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
Smells like infringement to me.
The first new gun I bought was a Daewoo DP-51.
I named it “Mr. Woo”.
When “Mr. Woo” spoke, it was in short, angry ‘barks’…
“…at what point do we decide the cost of having that capability is too high?”
At the exact point that you, or especially the government, decides that they have the ability to decide this question for me, the cost of NOT having that capability is too high.
You are right. It is not the cost of having too much. It is the cost of not having enough. Always err on the side of dead Liberals/Socialist/Progressives/Globalists/One World Orderists.
Speaking of not having enough, there is a critical deficiency in publicly owned AR-15’s. Last count there were only 15 million rifles in the hands of 350 million people. Eric Swalwell (military genius and American hero that he is) said the government would use nuclear weapons on us, and said we needed to compromise to keep our families safe from the government instigated nuclear war. At the very least we should arm the other 335 million people with AR-15’s and a few nuclear weapons for good measure…. these government people are insane.
That number is estimated to be somewhere around 70-100 million semi-auto rifles altogether, out of the 400+ million guns in the hands of at least 100-150 million gun owners.
Do you think the author will agree there is too much media today and agree to drastically limit the number of newspapers, tv news stations and reporters?
Funny they only want to limit other industries and other rights but not their own.
Or two many people availing themselves of the fourth and fifth amendments
I’m getting pretty sick of these folks throwing around the “N” word.
Mhmm. The 2A writers knew of repeating arms, explosives, gattling guns, cannons, ships of war, .50 and .60 caliber muskets, etc and yet made no mention of limitations in second amendment. Maybe they knew big government would try and expand those “limitations” until the people were reduced to pitchforks, and only of a non-assault pitchfork length.
double extra plus. with an additional smidgen.
And the right type, I see nothing regarding automatic weapons.
Well, as per a congresscritter of recent notoriety, let’s start with tactical nukes plus delivery systems, and work our way up from there.
given that constraint, i will have a few DAVY-CROCKETS for my choice of weapons. all single shot, non-automatic, single use ,and guaranteed to do the job..
The Infantry museum at Ft. Benning has two of them, non-working of course.
The max range is an issue for me lol, don’t want to glow.
The Davy Crockett, the next thing better than a nuclear hand grenade.
King of the nuclear frontier.
You’re supposed to dig a hole and get in it before shooting it off.
Reports that the hole is for the convenience of the 92Ms is inaccurate.
I would love an M28/M29 of my own…
I love logic bombs. The discussion goes like this:
Me: “Rep Swalwell said it’s pointless to resist unless the citizenry has nukes too, right? That, and free training on how to use them; that must be the minimum.”
Leftist: “You’re nuts. You can’t possibly mean that. You can’t trust just anyone with nukes.”
Me: “So…. You prefer that Donald Trump has all the nukes, then? He’s the one you trust?”
Nukes for individuals would be limited to a hand full of globalist billionaires because they can afford the materials and facilities to properly store them and prevent the radiation from affecting their neighbors. That said, state militias should absolutely have their own nukes. States having their own nuclear arsenal as opposed to every John Doe, is a compromise I could accept.
John Doe shouldn’t be barred from owning tactical nukes, and a tankto fire them with, something he can reasonable store.
“That said, state militias should absolutely have their own nukes.”
I could get behind Wyoming, with their missile fields, wiping Taos, New Mexico, and all their Leftists right off the map…
Once the Pyongyang Nukes-R-Us opens for business, probably next year, lots of rogue nations and organizations will be arming up. The North Koreans will probably lease them out for a cut of the extortion proceeds. If the Mexican cartels smuggled a nuke into Dallas, the State of Texas would probably have to transfer their $10 billion “rainy day fund” to El Chapo’s or El Guapo’s bank account. Cartel and Kim could split the free money.
“Need” has nothing to do with it.
Yes- it should then also be suggested that Americans need only the most minimum vehicle to drive around in, say, a Yugo with no doors. As for food to eat, perhaps only some sort of grain or tofu. A few years back, Jessie Jackson and his hucksters were pushing the suggestion that none of us need the retirement programs we’ve set up, often at a real sacrifice of things now as a plan for the future. Have the government take it all, throw it in a big pot (can you say “Social Security?”) and then dole it back out according to the need. It’s all a cornerstone of communist doctrine and the “reasoning” that someone else determines what I/Americans “need”- pretty standard around the majority of the world today as it has always been, is an attempt to repress the unwashed, unindoctrinated masses and elevate the elite to their rightful status. I suppose it can be argued that an old Moisin-Nagant would be fine insurance against our government but I’ll stick with what I have, thank you.
SOYLENT GREEN IT’S MADE OF PEOPLE!!!!!…I do get where you are coming from. I’ve used this type of debate when confronted by Anti Gun people. They hate it and usually try to change the subject or get more aggressive in an attempt to bully their point. One must always remember liberals are ruled by their emotions. Facts generally confuse them because they get in the way of their belief system. The Liberal leadership learned this decades ago during the Flower Child/Free Love years. They have been using this knowledge to control their acolytes ever since. Remember you can explain the facts to anyone…You can’t make them understand them. Keep Your Powder Dry…
“… liberals are ruled by their emotions… Shoot, I always though they ruled by facts… The fact that they are waaaaaaaay smarter than you or I and we just better learn to accept it. Isn’t that the mantra of that little Cortez chick out in NY? 🙂
This was actually a proposal under Franklin Roosevelt (Roosevelt the Lesser). All paychecks would go into a ‘government savings account’ and only an ‘allowance’ would be remitted to the worker. Who decides how much the allowance would be? Why, government experts, of course!
He also wanted to continue wartime rationing, price and wage controls, et cetera indefinitely after the war was over.
Yep, and always oroposed by someone with Soros- or Bloomberg-type wealth…
“If one accepts the premise outlined above, the issue becomes: What is the minimum level of arms that a population needs in order to allow it to resist a future government gone bad, and at what point do we decide the cost of having that capability is too high?” No, that’s not the issue. The issue is “shall not be infringed”.
Well, it IS the defining issue if you have predetermined that we have too many guns, and that guns are the cause of all of the violence in our country today. (It is the unstated premise that undermines the argument.)
The decisive question is what the author means by ‘we’: each of us or a collective. Assuming the first: (1) I feel like the minimum for me is full auto. (2) the cost of full auto is too high, time to remove all restrictions to let the prices fall.
I’d say full auto, MPADS, medium mortars, and Javelins. Then we’ll be at just about the right place.
While fun to own the cost of the ammunition would be very steep.
But Steve Paddock proved what someone of modest wealth was capable of.
Yes, because every war and conflict followed the guidelines of every war and conflict before it. Here’s the minimum we need to win a conflict, everything they have + 1.
I’m looking forward to the historians saying I can own fully auto guns without a registry of tax stamp.
Minimum level? Don’t know, don’t care. Maybe nukes, after all we have already been threatened by a representative of the Government with nukes and according to him they’re legit.
“What is the minimum level of arms….”
All the arms and ammo I can afford.
The modern democrat party are THE domestic enemies our Founders warned us about. It’s not the government that’s “bad”. In fact, in principle, it’s the best ever formed on planet earth. I’ve never met any gun owner who said they wanted to overthrow the govt. (yes, there are a few nutjobs out there who would do that, and there are millions more on the left that want to “fundamentally transform” our Constitutional Republic). The existential threat America faces today are the millions of Liberal Terrorists™️ that have infected our nation. If Americans ever take up arms to fight, it won’t be against our govt, but rather, to DEFEND ourselves against the “War of Leftist Aggression”. For me, a “winner take all, once and for all” Restorative War, can’t come soon enough.
I think the final straw for the next civil war will be the corruption of the election process to favor liberal candidates in stealing every seat they can, and us finally having enough of it.
Sure doesn’t seem like the GOP cares enough to aggressively go after them, now, does it?
The “Experts” are rarely correct in their estimations of what ordinary people are truly capable of doing and when they might do it. Present day civilization is like a modern automobile, all that mass complication can be brought to a screeching halt by the most insignificant little part and likely to be at the worst possible time.
The argument seems to be that historians and scientists, if allowed to work freely on this “problem” (not that anyone is stopping them), will be able to come up with the most optimal approach for restricting rights yet devised by man.
First, I wouldn’t trust these “special” people or their expertise on this matter. I AM a scientist. I know of what I speak.
Second, there is no empirical “answer” to the question of gun (or any other) rights. Either you believe something is a right, or you don’t. If you believe, then there isn’t even a question to be “answered.” If you don’t, the scientific method is going to be just ONE of the weapons you’ll feel comfortable using to force your will upon others.
The same erosion, by the way, is now happening with the first amendment as well. Some of us still believe that we have the right to speak as we wish. Others now want to “scientifically” or emotionally decide what speech to allow. Dark days coming, I fear…
Arms are like bridges. They take whatever the bare minimum needed to support the weight the bridge is intended for and then they triple it, just to be on the safe side. So whatever arms are ‘needed’ we should stock up triple that number. Just to be safe.
“What is the minimum level of arms that a population needs in order to allow it to resist a future government gone bad, and at what point do we decide the cost of having that capability is too high?”
Well, first you have to establish what this cost you are talking about is and show me your definition of “too high”. Without those definitions, there really isn’t a meaningful way to address your questions. In fact, even with those answers, it would be hard to believe you are searching for solutions in good faith since what you are looking for is a collective answer to an individual decision and I don’t think you’re going to like the response.
As for me, that minimum level is – At least one more.
I don’t wish to “resist” a government gone bad, I want to squash it. More weapons would help.
I would contextualize my response a bit differently:
No one knows what the future holds, but any historian should know that what we have is a wonderful experiment that, in order to succeed into the future, must perpetually overcome humanity’s darker political trend. This is the reason that the capability to resist has been preserved down through the generations in this country.
If one accepts the premise outlined above, the issue becomes: What is the minimum level of arms that a population needs in order to allow it to resist a future government gone bad, and at what point do we decide the cost of having that capability is too high? This is the decisive question that underpins the whole issue of guns in America. Without answering it, we will never truly solve this issue.
The author is suggesting a matter of competing priorities, while seemingly accepting the reality of human nature that makes the American experiment in liberty an historical aberration. He posits some “appropriate” level of civilian firearm ownership between the minimum necessary to maintain our liberty and the excessive amount that (he assumes) leads to an unacceptable “cost” (such as mass shootings).
There is too much to unpack in such an argument, and too little time to do so with this comment. So, I will merely point out the author’s most egregious, incorrect assumptions.
The author incorrectly conflates firearms possessed as a deterrent to tyranny (by and large, the rifle) with firearms used to commit essentially all but a handful of harmful/criminal acts (i.e. handguns), just as the author conflates the nature of the owners of said firearms (i.e. the hundred-million law-abiding gun owners versus the relatively small number of violent felons allowed to roam the streets instead of rotting behind bars).
The author incorrectly assumes that the number of firearms possessed correlates to and causes harmful/violent acts. In fact, lawful firearm possession and violent crime rates have proven over a multiple-decade trend to be inversely proportional: firearm ownership has increased greatly, while violent crime rates have plummeted.
Further, and as the headline here alludes, one could reasonably believe that the author is attempting to build a case that civilian possession of even the minimum number of firearms to resist tyranny comes at too great a societal cost. In such case, the author makes the most egregiously incorrect assumption of all: that the individual right to life and liberty can be subjected to a claim of common/societal welfare.
Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.
– Benjamin Franklin
This argument is the line drawn in the sand that we will not cross. Of course, the author has something to say about that, as well:
So, as you can see: the author isn’t truly interested in having a meaningful discussion. He’s merely couching his brand of tyranny in a facade of civility.
When did we lose the edit button? Failed blockquote. Second and third paragraphs of my comment were the original author’s words.
Good to hear from you Chip. Haven’t seen much from you lately (understandable given the post-Farago decline around here) but as always, a well thought out and articulate response.
Honestly, it has nothing to do to TTAG being post-Farago. I’ve just been working 60-70 hours per week since June, and have little time left to engage online.
Chip. You highlight the basic difference between us and the antifa types. Working long hours to reach your goals. You don’t have time for foolish causes. And we don’t have others paying to bus us in for protests and election theft.
Being honest, working adults puts us at a disadvantage.
I sent TTAG an email concerning the edit window this morning- still not working. I figured it was just aimed at me since I stand up and defend NRA around here…
The Minimum? I’d say at a minimum every law abiding person over the age of 16 should have at a minimum a Shotgun, a Rifle, a pistol. and about a thousand rounds for each.
The cost? All that can be had for about 2grand. Next question?
What is the minimum level of arms that a population needs in order to allow it to resist a future government gone bad
Well, historically and strategically speaking, you never want to go into a war with “the minimum level of arms.” To paraphrase a phrase commonly used regarding how much ammo people carry, “nobody ever came out of a war and said, ‘I wish I hadn’t had so many guns, bombs, artillery, choppers, tanks, planes, ships and nukes.'”
If the point of the second amendment is to resist a future government gone bad, then strategic prudence says civilians shouldhave overwhelming levels of force to bring to bear against the military. Anything else is going to war planning to lose.
“Well, historically and strategically speaking, you never want to go into a war with “the minimum level of arms.”
Ding Ding Ding.
If the author is genuinely concerned (hahaha- he’s not) that We The People have the ability to sufficiently resist and defeat a tyrannical “government”, then the answer is…..by having the same exact resources and weaponry the other side has. Not a single bullet less.
No. Overwhelming force. Much more than the U.S. military has.
i would split that up and say for every person in the military how much each has available to them in the military including things like tactical nukes, grenades etc etc, then i would say at a minimum every civilian should have at least that if not double that available to them
Government gone “bad?”
How bad? We talking Stalin bad, Pol Pot bad or Jimmy Carter bad?
You can’t know in advance, can you? So you prepare for the worst. Anyway, just quoting the original article and accepting its assumptions.
This is exactly what the government itself said about Vietnam when the military did a review after the end of the war. They even released the findings which are compiled in a book that’s publicly available titled American Strategy in Vietnam: A Critical Analysis by Col. Harry G. Summers. The most recent edition I know of is 2007.
One of the major conclusions was that “bean counters” were counterproductive. They would calculate the minimum requirements of a mission and then assign that number of men, planes, helicopters etc. to the fight.
The result was, at best, significantly higher casualties on both sides because conducting an operation with the minimum resources required for success leaves the enemy with hope that they can prevail, so they fight on where they might otherwise have surrendered much more rapidly, reducing causalities on both sides, or been overrun reducing causalities on our side.
On top of that, if anything went wrong or was overlooked you rapidly went from having “just enough” to not having enough meaning that reinforcements or resupply had to be sent. This diverted resources from other operations that were also running on the bare minimum and dragged out the first operation, again raising the casualty numbers on both sides as the fighting went on longer.
What’s the minimum to take on a world super power. It depends on if the super power wants to play namby pamby like it does on foreign soil, or If that super power unleashes it’s full might. If the latter it would definitely take more then small arms. These are not the Armies of old, they can fight without the use of ordnance. Shut down the electric grid, the water, grocery stores, agent Orange the crops, no fuel guards at hospitals,and most people would just die if they didn’t have Fakeboo. Then there’s the nuclear option. If the power elite started loosing their power I’d hope they at least say ” May God have mercy on their souls” when they push the button. And I’m sure besides the conventional arms “they” have sound wave weapons, weapons that blind, weapons that fry. The technology has advanced to the point that eluding “them” would be quite futile. It’s nice to have a sense of power over a tyrannical government, but I think those days are long gone as are the heroes of old that could make self sacrifice and endure the hardships associated with a civil war. I don’t believe there’s many people in this country capable or willing to do that. When I get the ” We know where their families are” or something of that nature, you’ve got to remember they know where yours are at too, probably more so. I just don’t think a civil war would play out to well.
“The technology has advanced to the point that eluding “them” would be quite futile.”
Long-running conflicts with goat-loving 8th century primitives have proven that this is (still) not quite the case. The problem with tech, is tech.
Agreed there will never again be great armies on fields of battle, fighting from foxholes. The opponents to the US Mil would certainly lose. The asymmetrical part of the equation comes to the fore rather quickly though. It’s been gamed that a well-organized group of around a dozen could pretty much cripple the country, and unless they were very careless, they’d be in the wind for quite a while.
One AIP sub readily takes out most of a carrier group in war games, including the carrier itself. Then sneaks off undetected.
Stealth, planning, and the basic knowledge required to cripple the tech – from tanks to APCs. Soft spots and weaknesses which can be readily exploited with field expedients.
“One AIP sub readily takes out most of a carrier group in war games, including the carrier itself. Then sneaks off undetected.”
We’ve been leasing a Scandinavian Air-Independent boat that is *scary* quiet for the past few years. Why we aren’t reducing the new fast-attack fleet by one lousy boat and getting 3 ultra-quiet ones to replace it is beyond me. We have *got* to get a few of these if we expect to operate in the South China Sea and expect to survive…
Why Electric Boat is so far behind the state-of-the-shelf is beyond me as well, but we both know “why” – too much money in nuclear boomers.
Until they figure a way to raise the price tag of copying the Swedes…
As to the South China Sea, we can only hope the PLAN uses Lions from the same supplier as the Galaxy 9.
I guess the bare minimum would be whatever it takes to kill an armed Government agent and take his/her weapon for your own use. Personally, I’d rather have more choices than that.
If I remember right I believe its
The firstest with the mostest almost always wins.
If you listen to enough Dan Carlin you’ll find this to be true.
To add to that.
When entering an existing war, usually the one who enters last and is adequately armed wins.
Well, in modern combat, a minimum of anti air assets are a necessity. So, shoulder fired AA weapons should be made available to the public to begin with. Next we can talk about SAMs, then private ownership of combat aircraft as well.
I want to know what’s up with the USMC lately, this is the third article in the last month written by or about a marine taking the anti side, “Lawrence Corbett, of Averill Park, is a former U.S. Marine Corps marksmanship instructor who currently works in the field of military logistics.”
hmmm something to ponder indeed
Since there is no way to respond directly to MR. Corbett, I’ll just leave this here:
“If ye love wealth better than liberty,
the tranquility of servitude
better than the animating contest of freedom,
go home from us in peace.
We ask not your counsels or your arms.
Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you.
May your chains set lightly upon you,
and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen.”
What’s really disturbing (especially to me) is that the author of this nonsense once took an oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the US. Apparently he has abandoned that oath, and with it any honor he may have once claimed to have.
Lol. The last paragraph of the original article:
“However it may turn out, the point is that there are two valid concerns in this argument and we don’t have the information to reconcile them. Getting that information should be the prime objective of all who are involved in the gun control debate. Until we do, any suggestion of solution is premature, a veritable shot in the dark.”
A debate? All you need to know how genuine their desire for a free and open exchange of I deas are….there’s no comment section and no link to contact the author. Shame on this retired Marine.
There is no information that he retired, only that he claims to be a former Marine. I would argue that he may have worn the uniform, but was never a Marine.
Ok, let’s apply the authors ‘minimum necessay’ concept to a few other areas:
Minimum necessary transport should be bus or train. To allow for freedom to transport ones self at approved times/dates each household should be allowed (1) vehicle weighing not more than 2500lbs and making no more than 85hp (enough for any speed limit in the country). The ‘cost’ of anything greater, in both human life and environmental factors, is simply too great.
The acceptable level of income for a household should be no more than enough to supply basic needs, as determined by ‘experts’ and ‘scientists’, plus $25/person/wk ‘freedom’ cash to do with as they please. The risk inherent in excess is simply too great…
No person or household should have a savings of more than (1)yr worth of an average salary (roughly $50k). The risk of corruption or undue influence is simply to high with excessively high net worth.
The author is a complete idiot. RIGHTS don’t have ‘minimums’ or ‘maximums’ and any percieved ‘cost’ is simply the price paid to live in a free society. If that price is too high for you there are a number of countries out there that have calculated the costs and determined what the best balance is for their subjects.
How about the maximum amount of words an idiot should be allowed to type when expressing a desire to undermine our US Constitution? His type of rhetoric is causing more harm to this country than any of my firearms ever has.
The need? As many as 1 can afford I’d say.
Every able adult should have at the least a 22 cal pistol and rifle. 1000 rounds. After that whatever one wants and can afford.
It would appear as if Lawrence Corbett for Times Union.has a bare minimum understanding of U S civics,yet he is free to avail himself of his first amendment rights with out restriction.
If those war college experts knew the answer to that question then maybe we wouldn’t be fighting the current war we have been for the last 17 years. Then again, maybe they do and that was the plan all along.
There’s money to be made with those wars, lots of money. End one you’d have to start up another one somewhere. Playing the game since 1953
Since 1914, at least.
“Contrary to what many seem to believe, however, rarely in life are the people on one side of an issue completely and absolutely right while those on the other are completely and utterly wrong.”
He just wants us to ‘compromise’ with him.
He wants half of what’s left of our gun right’s pie.
You know, the pie that we only have a small slice of the original whole pie?
The ‘compromise’ I want from him is the return of the majority of the pie he’s already stolen from us…
He’s right, the costs are too high. NFA has put too many hurdles in the way of working American being able to buy arms useful for militia purposes and needs to be repealed. Why should I have to pay $200 to register a suppressor? What kind of elitist crap is that?
Any legally permitted firearm is ALREADY the minimum means of defending one’s self or one’s family.
The most fundamental human right is the right to exist, and by extension, defend your own existence. When someone works this hard to deny you the minimum means of ensuring your own existence, the reason can’t be good.
absolute minimum would be one for everyone as its hard to carry much when you are an old guy and that would be the Majority. all the young would be pressed into service and become part of the green Machine.
Almost all the Millennial’s are so brain washed by the Democrat Party they do not believe in anything about the oneness of this country! so cant count on them for Shit!
one can never rely on a millennial for ANYTHING. they are worthless,totally and completely worthless…
What is the minimum NEED for First Amendment? But we all know probably doesn’t cover smart phones and computers. Because they didn’t exist during the time the Constitution was written and the founders would never conceive the technology we have nowadays. So papyrus, ground up berries, piece of wood to draw cave animals? Or maybe paper, quill and ink… how about for profit corporate news media organizations. They didn’t exist during the time the Constitution was being written. I believe the First Amendment only applies to the We the People , or the individual… so then this would only apply to people who printing presses in their own home….
I guess he just missed the part where it says “shall not be infringed”.
So let the smart liberals on campus make the decisions while the Great Unwashed does what we tell them.
This guy forgets one very important point. When we go to war, do we just take the bare minimum to achieve victory? Obviously we don’t take everything, but you always want a really healthy margin when life and death is on the line. In other words, you can never have too much Overkill. Thus, the question for American gun owners should not be “how little can I get away with”, but rather, “do I have enough, where are my shortcomings (probably training and logistics), and what percentage of my personal GDP can I dedicate to my participation in the national defense?”
I do not see anything good resulting from setting civilian firearms ownership at a level where it is almost conceivable that a would-be despot would prevail.
Tyranny exists at federal ,state & local levels – all of them telling us ‘what we need’! We need more amendments!
If there’s a minimum, will be issuing them to the people?
I could get behind that. I it would be like Oprah. “WlAnd you get a gun. And you get a gun. And you get a gun…”
Citizens’ arms aren’t doing too well holding back the govt lately.
Looks like the right number is more.
All I need is one. A Red button with a light that flashes Red when pushed.
On my moon base.
There is a minimum number of comments that are need for free speech by dim witted people. Any more than that, it’s all noise. Therefore, each person is limited to 2 stupid comments per day.
Using this metric, Lawrence Corbett is done for the next 12 month.
We do not subject fundamental human rights to a risk-benefit analysis.
Well unlimited access to semi automatic firearms and full capacity magazines is the actual ‘minimal arms’.
“They can tell us what combat effectiveness we can expect out of an army that is fighting on its own soil against its own people. ”
All that has to be done is to get the army to believe they are fighting against people that are not their own. It has been done over and over, state against state, Europeans and their ex-slaves against the native populations. Whites against the children of slaves, the rounding up and prisoning of people from nations that we declared war against.
In other countries, it is culture against culture(true believers of religion don’t behave in that way), tribes against tribes – any differences you have with another group define you.
Wake up. The people in power in the government and corporations want us divided and keep stoking the fires. Most people want a way to support their families and some time off in which to enjoy them. They actually want jobs that will give them this – sadly, these jobs have been exported to other countries and we have a huge population of poorly trained transient work force, many who are illegal immigrants..
I don’t think the guy makes a distinction between the government and the Consitution. Neither now nor when he took the oath. I’m sure he totally expects the government to tell him who the domestic enemy is.
To Quote: “This is the realm of historians, statisticians and military logisticians, and they can be found on the campuses of universities and war colleges across the country.” End Quote
By referring this task to Universities across the country he reveals either his ignorance or his true agenda. Most “universities across the country” have been taken over by the far left and can be depended on to do their best to erode the Bill of Rights, most of all the Second Amendment.
Anyone taking that position is no Marine that I ever served with “and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen.”
Thank you for defining our needs.
Would you now care to take a look at our Rights?
For our Rights are not limited to our needs.
So,schumck, we can reduce the use of amendments 4 through 8? Criminals don’t deserve all those rights.
“Lawrence Corbett, of Averill Park, is a former U.S. Marine Corps marksmanship instructor who currently works in the field of military logistics.”
Just what we need. Experts in the government telling us just how much firepower we need to defeat the people who are writing their paychecks. No thanks, you keep your bootlicker thin blue line nationalism BS and I’ll keep my guns and anti-government patriotism.
We are NOW AT the VERY minimum level of arms to resist, semi-auto AR and AKM pattern rifles.
I believe we SHOULD have automatic and. 3 round burst fire capable rifles.
Once semi-autos are gone the threshold falls below the capability to fight even modest resistance.
The minimum number of civilian arms necessary to preclude tyranny is that number at which gun grabbers give up and stop trying to grab guns… Obviously, we need more, because they haven’t given up! Curiously, if the gun grabbers stopped trying to grab, the number of new gun purchases would probably slow. Conversely, expect 2019 and grabby Democratic House efforts to create new records for purchases…
A “future government gone bad?” Hell, the present government is bad enough right now, and it will only get worse.
If I actually had the minimum arms that I would need to resist, I’d be shopping for a huge safe to hold my MANPADs. And I’d probably need something lead-lined too.
Yeah, let’s have the exact same “experts” we need to protect ourselves from tell us what we’ll be allowed to have if we’re going to stop them. That’ll go well…
Dafook is a “Corbett” and why is all that brown muck spewing out of his mouth? And who is this “we” he mentions, does the asshole have a mouse in his pocket?
It’s time to start playing their game, and calling them out as violent control freaks. Gun control needs to be painted as the violent ideology that it is.
Imagine a peaceful gun owner, going about her day, when suddenly a squad car rounds the corner, sirens blaring. Out step two cops, who point rifles at her and her arrest her. “What am I under arrest for?!” she pleads. “You are a gun owner,” comes the reply, “and you have not surrendered your property to the government as the law requires. Come with us now!” She refuses, saying that she hasn’t hurt or threatened anyone. The cops move in to try to grab her and put her I restraints, but she runs and draws her concealed weapon to defend herself against her attackers. The cops unleash a hail of rifle fire at her, perforating her thoracic region and blasting her brains out the back of her skull. Now her children have no mother. And the only crime she committed as her exercise of the right to keep and bear arms.
This is what the grabbers are advocating when they call for bans and restrictions. They’re advocating for cops to murder peaceful people. The proper response to calls for restrictions of RKBA is the accusation that the grabber wants this kind of thing to happen.
Whatever the government has, we need that, and more. The masters — in theory, we the people — must be better armed than our servants — in theory, the politicians.
“..What is the minimum level of arms that a population needs”
Followed by a bunch of words that can all be summed up at the author wants to be the authoritarian that gets to decide what is an acceptable level of need in others. From each according to his abilities and this guy wants to decide who gets what after that.
It’s like they don’t even try to hide their communist ideas anymore. Not even slightly.
I only have the minimum…2 handguns,an AR15 and a shotgun. A veritable arsenal to this dipshite😩
Rights are not subject to cost/benefit analysis.
I’m pretty sure that the answer to this question is: Exactly the same level of arms as the current military. The Founders thought thusly and so worded the Second Amendment precisely. The cost of letting the government decide the answer is Liberty.
Well… we’ve already seen that some Democrats are very content to use nuclear weapons against citizens in order to force compliance with unconstitutional laws.
Apply the same logic to the 1st amendment and the national socialist democratic party would be screaming!
“What is the minimum level of free speech that a population needs, and at what point do we decide the cost of having that freedom is too high?”
Gun control of any kind is infringement- – -period.
Limiting arms held by citizens and naturalized citizens is infringement.
We the People must be able to possess arms sufficient and capable of withstanding attempted tyranny at the hands of those acting as government for us, not of us.
What is our domestic enemy comprised of? We have an unconstitutional standing army in the time of peace. The Constitution forbids an active, actual army being ready to, and capable of immediate attack of American citizens. Why, because this is the tool destined for use against American citizens in order to put down “civil unrest”.
How can that be? America is a sovereign country and as such we are not supposed to meddle in the affairs of other governments. We are not permitted to allow other governments any sort of control over what America and Americans can and cannot do. Government in the United States is forbidden participation in any sort of alliance that may tend to permit other governments/entities some sort of control over how our country functions and operates within our borders.
The current situation in the United States is such that those who belong to political parties are fighting to see which one will have total control of America and Americans. They do not obey constitutional laws that dictate how our country is to operate, without exception.
Those in government are about to give some control of how America operates to the United Nations despite the fact that the Constitution forbids such alliances.
America is to work with and do business with its neighboring countries without sacrificing any portion of its sovereignty, ever!
Why is America being taken down by those we choose to govern us? Money and power.
There are too many riches in the hands of too few entities in our country. When entities outside of those we have elected participate in the construction of bills intended to become laws which effect everyone, are actually for the benefit of the special interests who participated in their creation while piling huge sums of money into the coffers of elected government public servants.
Is this not profiting from positions of public trust, using the power of public office to personally enrich oneself at the expense of the taxpayer? This is what they are trying to hang President Trump with concerning a proposed hotel construction in Russia that never took place. President Trump is a real estate tycoon of some renown. His business before becoming President which is being carried on by his children, I assume.
No-one is supposed to profit from anything while holding public office. Their only income is to be from the salary paid them by the American people for performing the duties assigned them by the Constitution and nothing more. Check the wealth of everyone in office today. Each of them is worth far more than they were when they first took office.
The big problem in America today is complacency and political correctness by us, the very people that are supposed to hold the people we elect responsible for their promises made while campaigning, being totally transparent at all times, working for only those who elected them, and most important, keeping to their Oaths-of-Office always.
What should we do if those we elected do not perform as above? We have the powers of selection and rejection over those we choose to serve us. Elections are the only hands on control over government that we the people have. We must use that power to evict those who do not perform as required and expected, from the offices of trust they hold. We can do that every second year during the next election cycle.
Nothing says that anyone is to be reelected ever. We can elect an entirely new House of Representatives each second year. None of them should be reelected if they, as a group are out of control and running amok of the Constitution. Vote them out of office at the end of two years. Let someone else take a shot at doing the job correctly.
Each second year one-third of Senators are up for election. Why in heck do any Americans reelect people that have served more than the one term specified in Article II, Section 3. of the Constitution that says “Senators shall serve six years”. Nothing mentions reelection. Reelections have been usurped by political parties for the purpose of gaining and holding power over America and Americans. This is what the Framers/Founders did not intend to happen. The People control the United States, not a power group with ulterior motives.
Political parties are not provided for in the Constitution, thus, are not permitted on the national level. Kindly refer to the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution.
The Tenth Amendment says: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” The Constitution does not address or mention political parties. Thus, political parties are unconstitutional nationally. States on the other hand, can allow political parties should their citizens desire to have them.
The Supreme Court and other courts do not seem to be able to read. No interpretation of the words in the Tenth Amendment are necessary or proper and no-one has the responsibility for interpreting the original wording of the Constitution. The Supreme Court appears to believe it has the duty for interpretation. It does not. It is not given such a duty in the Constitution and does not have the power to give itself powers unintended. Interpretations are based on opinions of others, hearsay. Hearsay is not permitted in a court of law and cannot be used in matters of law. The Constitution is Law, the foundation for all other laws. It cannot be weakened by interpretations or other avenues of misunderstanding.
The Second Amendment is one of the ten amendments that comprise the Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights gives no-one rights, it enumerates them and tells those in government to keep their hands off of them. The Preamble to the Bill of Rights explains that as well as incorporates the Bill of Rights into the body of the Constitution as if it had been there from the beginning. Because of its incorporation into the main body of the Constitution the amendments contained in the Bill of Rights can only be amended in accordance with Article V. of the Constitution.
The Preamble to the Bill of Rights:
“The First 10 Amendments to the
Constitution as Ratified by the States
December 15, 1791
Congress OF THE United States
begun and held at the City of New York, on Wednesday
the Fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.
THE Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution
RESOLVED by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following Articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, all or any of which Articles, when ratified by three fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution; viz.:
ARTICLES in addition to, and Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the fifth Article of the original Constitution.”
The minimum number of [arms/ammo] that every citizen should have on hand is:
one 9mm service pistol with spare parts plus 10,000 rounds on hand
one 5.56 NATO service rifle (or carbine) with spare parts plus 10,000 rounds on hand
one 12 gauge combat shotgun with spare parts plus 10,000 rounds on hand
If you have the means to keep a larger stash then you should.
Let’s see. An assortment of handguns. Check. 1 shotgun. Check. 1 bolt-action rifle. Check. 10,000+ rounds of ammunition for all firearms. Check. No AR-15 style carbine. Uh-oh.
22 Short beats harsh language.
Sure it does. Especially if you have problem with your vegetables being eaten by those damn squirrels.
How can we know how many and what kind of weapons are enough for the citizens to overthrow those in power? I know! Lets ask the experts employed by those in power!
You can overthrow a totalitarian government with no weapons at all,
…its just a lot harder to do so.
Minimum level is a very idiotic way to describe it.
In a truly free society, the civilians need to be armed adequately to overthrow a totalitarian regime with reasonable effort.
In short, the civilians need to have a “fighting chance”.
Id say, at this point, we are inadequately armed to the task.
Russia, China, Germany, Cambodia, Vietnam…. numerous examples just in the last century that demonstrate that the cost of having the ability to protect oneself from the government is never too high.
Actually, it’s a REALLY easy question to answer. The amendment specifically mentions a militia, which is an infantry unit, and specifies that the people who staff such militias will not be denied the ability to purchase relevant arms. Well, alright, to defeat a professional infantry unit, what would a militia need access to? The same arms and equipment the professionals use.
That means encrypted communications, man-portable launching systems, automatic weapons, small explosives – that’s what our professionals use.
That’s a silly premise. Why limit yourself when guns are such cool toys! 🙂
If college university professors are the ones to define this, then their
AGENDAconceptualization of what is proper will be that which most protects their God, the government. The nanny state. The one they turn to for answers. The one they put their faith in. The one they pray will fix their problems in their demand to “do something.”
Historians, statisticians and military logisticians is of no consequence to an individuals perceived needs.
We are a free society with certain rights. Historians, statisticians and military logisticians do not determine or dictate our religions or speech as we feel necessary to practice and they shall not dictate what firearms I deem necessary or appropriate. That is an individual freedom we as Americans enjoy. An individual may be satisfied in life to be disarmed where another person level of satisfaction is to have many firearms. That is our individual freedom and NOBODY shall ever dictate what amount we shall own.
postmodernists on a college campus would be unwilling to leave you with a butter knife. The minimum standard IMO should be an M4 and perhaps some grenades. Basically a comparable weapon that’s in common use to the military at the time. That said, he really doesn’t want to get into the idea that the founding fathers were about people having artillery at the time too.
Every other country in the world has decided that freedom of speech at the level we have in this country is too dangerous.
This is what happens when you apply cost/benefit analyses to rights.
The correct number of arms that a citizen should own……Simple answer, any amount a citizen wishes to own. No ones damned business.
“What is the minimum level of arms that a population needs in order to allow it to resist a future government gone bad,”
More then what that government has.
“What is the minimum level of arms that a population needs in order to allow it to resist a future government gone bad,”
At the beginning of the Revolution, the colonists were armed with weapons comparable to the British government. They were further equipped with privately purchased cannon.
That seems to be a good standard.
some of the colonists were better armed being that they had the kentucky long rifle while the british troops only had the brown bess musket
Minimum? Equivalent to fully armed and stocked aircraft carrier in my back yard.
Hello All, sorry I’m late to the party.
I wish I had noticed this thread when it was fresh but, as a new father, I haven’t got the time to keep up with things as much as I used to.
That being said, I had a good time reading the comments. I especially enjoyed those by Chip Bennett as he offered the most well-reasoned counterpoints to my article. Chip, if you’re reading this, I’d like to answer your criticisms but I have one point of a more general nature to make first.
When faced with attempts to curtail gun ownership I find that many of us simply point out that we have a right and that the 2A says it shall not be infringed. Well friends, you’ve missed the boat because it’s already infringed. Rights have to be actively defended and doing so means learning your opponent’s argument, adapting to it and countering it in ways that they cannot defend against. These days continuing to obstinately proclaim your right has little more practical effect than sticking your head in the sand. In order to move forward a new, more effective argument is needed. I feel that I put forth a proposal that could lead to an objectively verifiable argument and I welcome any critical review of that proposal in the hopes of refining and improving it.
That brings us right back around to Chip’s critique. You are absolutely correct in that I lumped together all types of weapons into the rubric of “firearms”. This was due to the word limitations the newspaper put on submissions. Depending on how detailed one is looking to get I’ll admit that it could be useful to look at the separate roles of long arms, handguns, machine guns, AOWs, etc. Doing so was just out of the scope of a short article.
As to your second point, I don’t feel that I made the correlation you described but I do acknowledge that it is a common sentiment in mainstream society. As such, it must be answered if it is to be dispelled. You did a decent job of doing so in your post but I’m seeking to go further with my proposal. I’d like to have some objective evidence that demonstrates the greater good of civilian gun ownership over the perceived negative effects.
As to the “minimum number” issue, I never argued that we should limit civilian gun ownership at a minimum level. The person who reposted part of my article on this site made up their own title that said that. My intent was to suggest the concept as a line in the sand. No matter how the gun control issue goes in this country it cannot be allowed to cross that line. Because of that, I think defining that line would be pretty useful. How else can we contrast it to the perceived “societal cost”?
Got me on the last one! I am not a fan of the ILA. (I said “NRA” because nobody who reads my local paper knows the difference.) While I’ll admit they have a great deal of useful lobbying power, I think the ILA is underserving the political interests of American gun owners. In reference to my paragraph above “of a more general nature”, they are the prime offenders. I’ve been waiting years for them to catch up to the current nature of the gun debate but all I get is glossy flyers with the same tired old rhetoric. Time for a leadership change as far as I’m concerned.
I know this thread is pretty stale but if anybody happens to read this, I appreciate your time and welcome your constructive comments.