Patrick Henry once said, "... a well regulated militia, composed of gentlemen and freemen, is the natural strength and only security of a free government." Reading this quote in Sheriff Richard I. Mack's book "From My Cold Dead Fingers" the idea occurs to me about a possible alternative way history could have gone: Where would we be today if the U.S. never formed a regular Army but instead continued to support and "maintain a well regulated militia" of gentlemen and freemen as the sole form of security for the country. How would that work? Would the development of weaponry from the historic musket and percussion cap rifle to today's military arsenal have happened? I tend to think the answer would be mostly yes. The reason: The same forces that drive the continual evolution of weapons from rocks to muskets would still be in play. I say mostly because perhaps some things may not have been developed in the area of first strike weapons (daisy cutters, and thermo-nuclear devices but then again, I suppose that's a bit naive to think. But consider this: If the today in the U.S. our de-facto defensive force was composed of the average citizen, wouldn't it be normal that those citizens would be able to freely possess any type of weapon necessary to maintain balance in the arms race that exists between the US and "foreign invaders". That would include things like tanks, tomahawk missiles, and perhaps even daisy cutters. Of course the costs of such armaments is well beyond the financial, storage, and transport abilities of most "average citizens". It would be conceivable for a government (city, state, federal) to organize to provide the means necessary to facilitate such things. Isn't that kind of what the National Guard is all about?

Now think about this: Could the U.S. organize such a "citizen army" to carry out such campaigns as Korea, Vietnam, the Iraq wars, Afghanistan, and hundreds of others? The recent Libyan events along with the news and opinions surrounding it make me wonder: Does our government see the army as a tool of policy more than a tool for self defense? Consider a country in the same way as we consider individuals when it comes to gun ownership and the right to defend one's self. I can't help but compare the the actions of an administration or congress versus the actions of an individual.

As a nation, we accept it as justifiable to come to the aid of other nations that are under attack using deadly force to end the attack: Much like what was done in Kuwait leading to the first Gulf War. As an individual it is accepted by most states that you can come to the defense of another and justifiably use deadly force to end the attack. Of course as an individual, you are expected to stand down once the attack ends, not to continue to "hunt down" the leader of the gang who's member's you just stopped to "prevent further aggression".

What would be the individual example to compare enforcement of a no-fly zone be? Would the U.N. equivalent be a group of your neighbors getting together and deciding that house on the corner of Elm and Palm is just getting out of hand with the parties, we need to step in and enforce a "no party zone".

As an individual with a right to keep and bear arms, there are restrictions on how those arms may be used in order to remain protected by those laws. Every concealed weapons permit holder knows the limits of the law and most abide by them seriously because the consequences of not doing so are severe. Those who don't, usually end up losing the right in short order.

Yet as a nation, the rules appear to be different (and more flexible): A national military could be considered "one big gun" that our elected leaders carry with them. We as citizens, through the wisdom of the founding fathers, have given them a "permit" to carry that gun to use in our defense in the form of one of the powers enumerated in the Constitution (Article 1, Section 8) But it seems there are times our leaders pull that gun to gain leverage in a conflict, intimidate other nations to stop bad behavior, or to preemptively attack "threats" abroad. Any individual gun owner who would do such things would be quickly and severely punished under current law.

So are our laws regarding an individual's defensive rights to narrow and restrictive or are our laws regarding a government's defensive rights to broad and liberal?




- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad